What propaganda? I read over those terms and it said right there that they can and will sue for "damages," which usually means "monetary compensation". How is stating solid fact considered "propaganda"? ~ Doc Lithius (U)(T)(C) 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is compromised by weasel words. By using words like ‘legality’ and bold text while leaving out important facts in order to promote Blizzard’s view – that is propaganda. Currently, there is no international/national law that gives Blizzard powers to enforce the Eula. The only thing it can do is to sue the owner of public emulated servers for exploiting its software in some countries. You make it look like you’ll get charged and jailed by logging on to or making a server for yourself. Kos 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was using bold words for emphasis. Not to suck up to Blizzard or some nonsense like that. I have read over the EULA and particularly Section 12 time and time again. It reads to me exactly like I said it does. If it would satisfy you, however, I can send an e-mail to Blizzard's legal department and get their official jurisdiction on exactly what they mean by "appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this License Agreement". I don't generally speak "legalese", but I do know a lot of big words in English...and that particular string of words still says to me "Hey. We'll sue you if you do this. So please don't do it, okay?" ~ Doc Lithius (U)(T)(C) 08:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, did you see my additions? They will take legal action against you, if they aren't satisfied with just ending your account. --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How can they take 'legal' action against you when they have no laws backing them up? Perhaps in the USA, but this does not apply to all countries in the World. Kos 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The ToU says they can. People who set up emulated servers agree to play the game they purchased from Blizzard. It even says "under international law", unless I'm quite mistaken. --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it says it can under your national law. However, if there is no such law then it cannot. Besides, that is not how international law works. Kos 04:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 2 of the ToU states: "The Program and the Service are protected by United States and international laws. The Program and the Service may contain certain licensed materials, and Blizzard's licensors may enforce their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement. [italics for emphasis]". I'm fairly certain that emulated servers fall under the use of "The Program", correct? --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And, for your little edit, how does international law work? --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No, not correct. Emulated server is not Blizzard's program. It is somebody else's program that emulates same behavior. However, most important is that you're constantly miss a single thing: Blizzard can write anything in their EULA or ToS. They can write that by playing WoW you agree to give your firstborn to them. However, there's no law that would support that claim. Nor there's a law that allows Blizzard to forbid you from using somebody's else program. For example no matter how much Microsoft would like it to, they can't forbid anyone from using WINE. Same here. Blizzard can block you from their own services, but that's all they can do. Please, just remove those "punishable by law" words until some faithful zealots start citing wowwiki on that - they only make anybody at least somewhat familiar with actual laws laugh. --Rowaasr13 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. We're not talking about how the use of an emulated server is illegal. We're talking about how using Blizzard's WoW client to connect to emulated servers is illegal. There's also the possibility that these emulated servers use copies of the code in the actual servers, which is also illegal, but that's offtopic. Pzychotix 13:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Not illegal either. Either you name law that forbids that or ToS/EULA have just exactly same significance than any paper I can write in seconds, because where I connect (or how I reroute connection from my PC) simply doesn't fall under any law I know, no matter what software you use. --Rowaasr13 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? We're not talking about how or where you connect from. I said that you can't use their software in an unapproved manner. Not to mention that this is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, because this is a talk page about EMULATED SERVERS. Not the inproper use of their game client. Pzychotix 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

International law is based on treaties between different nations. Like the Geneva Convention. However, there is no 'Blizzard's Treaty '. Perhaps they mean 'and other laws in different countries'?Well, I have to go now. Cya ;) Kos 04:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps International_law#Conflict of laws? ;) --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Kos 10:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Have we reached consensus then? It is evident that neither Pzychotix nor Doc can find any evidence, law or treaty that supports Blizzard's claim. Hence, since the article is compromised by weasel words and certain claims cannot be verified, I suggest a complete rewriting of the Legality section and that we fine-tune the rest. Kos 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Err what? I haven't even talked about your points. Pzychotix 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that in many states, the EULA is enforceable. Sure, it may not be enforceable in your particular country. Fine. Nothing we can do about that. But it still means that Blizzard reserves the right to sue your butt the moment you do step into American territories (ignore the plausibility of such a thing happening). I would like to mention that this particular topic inside the page actually talks about the use of the Game Client to connect to servers other than Blizzard. This is not the same as running an emulated server.
However, in the past, such software has been ruled illegal. See Blizzard vs. bnetd. Certainly, the bold face font is a bit extraneous, and shouldn't be particularly emphasized. Pzychotix 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I revised the page. Feel free to comment. Kos 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Note about EULA - wikipedia has it as and so does Blizzard. Kirkburn talk contr 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
They also have Eula there too. We really should have a policy on this type of stuff. Pzychotix 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"“Eula” redirects here" is not the same as the page saying "Eula". Pretty much everywhere online, it is referred to as a EULA, not a Eula. [1]. I really don't see a need for a policy on this. We use whatever most people use. A simple Google gives the answer. :) Kirkburn talk contr 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Blizzard simply uses EULA in their documents because all of them were written in the USA. Wikipedia allows both European and American English. I don't have to teach myself a new language in order to edit Wowwiki, right? When you talk about 'the people', who are you talking about? If you search for Nato or artefact, you'd probably find them written as NATO and artifact on most pages, but this doesn’t mean that the others are incorrect or that most people use American English Kos 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an awfully biased comment. --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't finished yet. WHere's the prejudice? Kos 04:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"The people" was probably a bad choice of vocabulary by Kirkburn. The bias: "I don't have to teach myself a new language in order to edit Wowwiki, right?". This is a ridiculous statement. No, you don't. But we both speak English here. Systematically changing every word from American English to British English is silly; in fact, wikipedia even has policy against systematically attacking the words in an article due to the differences within the same language. --User:Sky2042/Sig 04:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm British and I spell it EULA! I cannot recall ever seeing it written as Eula in any UK document.
The wikipedia section on it:
"Proper names formed as proper acronyms are often rendered in title case by Commonwealth writers, but usually as upper case by Americans: for example, Nasa / NASA or Unicef / UNICEF. This does not apply to most initialisms, such as USA or HTML; though it is occasionally done for some, such as PC (Police Constable)" [2]
Is EULA really a "proper name"? Kirkburn talk contr 06:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You're citing the wrong section. ;P See WP:MOS#Disputes over style issues, as well as WP:MOS#National varieties of English. --User:Sky2042/Sig 06:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I cited the same section Kos cited when changing it to Eula :P Kirkburn talk contr 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"EULA" is an acronym for "End-User Licensing Agreement". "Laser" is a word somebody in decided to make up because a verb, "lase" was coined in 1962. Either this person or someone else entirely decided capitalizing the acronym for "light amplification by simulated emissions of radiation" didn't feel right after that. What's my point? My point is if you want to get downright technical, "EULA" is "correct" while "eula" is not, much like "laser" is not as "correct" as "LASER". ~ Doc Lithius (U)(T)(C) 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, use it as Blizzard does. This is hardly a topic worth arguing over. It should be noted that World of Warcraft is still an American game. No one's insinuating that British is inferior to American English, but if we're going to frivolously put both spellings into places that don't absolutely require it, this place could get a whole lot messier. Are we going to do "Terms On Use (TOU/Tou)" now? BWL/Bwl? DoT/Dot? Even DKP/Dkp? This is just ridiculous. We should find better things to do than argue over whether British spelling should be used. Everything on here is spelled in American English. It's an American game. Unless the article has some relation to a British topic (i.e. a UK Guild), just let it go. Pzychotix 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
/me coughs and points to WoWWiki:Policy/Writing - "The WoWWiki language is English (all styles)." In descriptions of things it is perfectly acceptable to use UK, US or any popular variety of English - however, when it come to the things themselves, we should use the "official" terminology. Essentially, this is just like the mage/magi discussion of a while back. Kirkburn talk contr 10:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but what I meant was that we shouldn't just include every possible variation on a word just because it doesn't accommodate someone's "style of writing". E.g. this page's "EULA/Eula". It's a little ridiculous IMO. Pzychotix 11:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries, twasn't really a direct response at you :) Kirkburn talk contr 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it was you (like in ‘you all’) who changed Eula to EULA, so you’re not completely innocent yourself. You say my comment was unfair, but when compared to what I can read here... I haven’t seen so much American triumphialism since War on Terror was declared. However, have it your way. It isn’t very important to me. Kos 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

May I point out I'm proudly British, and I changed it back to EULA. I have absolutely no wish to go live near the US :P Kirkburn talk contr 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we are 'continentals' and 'colonials' to you then :P However, after we’ve gashed Britain to pieces, we’ll own your insignificant island just like we control America today. Then, you will all willingly embrace EU world domination and the Americans shall feel the true meaning of Deutschland, Deutschland Über Alles! Just you wait, Wowwiki and McDonalds! Soon, you will all be sauerkraut. Muh-haha ha-haha *cough cough* Kos

Mmm, sauerkraut! If you bring Diddl, I'm happy =) Kirkburn talk contr 12:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Himmel! It's Lidel! Kos 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


The article should only explain what an Emulated server is. It should not contain information regarding how playing on an emulated server is achieved. --GRYPHONtc 20:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It dosn't... What are you talking about. --Punyhuman 13:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Consider the date on which the original comment was posted; the article has changed in the past three months. This was posted back in June, which had this article up and included comments that allowed people to infer how to accomplish this. I think Gryphon was referencing a change he made. -- Cynra (T·C) 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)