Why do I have to verify that I am human for viewing my own account??

I'm referring to what you wrote, if you didn't mean what you wrote, just don't write it next time, because you wrote that you call it your account, and then asked where you wrote it.
Also, Terms of Use made it clear in that paragraph, it answered your claim that GGG can't remove your account - because they can, and it doesn't contradict GDPR. It is in quotes on previous page, and your own posts in this topic.

I mean, you wrote it like two pages ago. Just reread if you need. You're the author, you should know what you wrote.

"

Nomancs wrote:

I'm referring to what you wrote, if you didn't mean what you wrote, just don't write it next time, because you wrote that you call it your account, and then asked where you wrote it.

Maybe I dont understand what you are trying to say here or what you are referring to. But yes I wrote that I call it my account. And no I didnt ask where I wrote that. Calling it "my account" isnt the same as saying "I own the account", maybe also read the example/s by ArtCrusade if you dont see it.

"

Nomancs wrote:

Also, Terms of Use made it clear in that paragraph, it answered your claim that GGG can't remove your account

Where did I claim that?

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

I'm referring to what you wrote, if you didn't mean what you wrote, just don't write it next time, because you wrote that you call it your account, and then asked where you wrote it.

Maybe I dont understand what you are trying to say here or what you are referring to. But yes I wrote that I call it my account. And no I didnt ask where I wrote that. Calling it "my account" isnt the same as saying "I own the account", maybe also read the example/s by ArtCrusade if you dont see it.

You asked me to quote you, so here:

"

xxanderr wrote:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

xxanderr wrote:

It's not your account. It's GGG's. If they ban it, your 'my account' will turn into an empty, meaningless push of the air.

Dont know if this is serious or not but if it is: The account contains some of my personal data. According to GDPR (and similar) this is my data and not GGGs (GGG has limited rights on what to do with it unlike me) so I think its fair to call it my account. (And there are other obvious reasons for calling it "my account".)

You implied that it is your account as there is your data, calling on GDPR.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

Also, Terms of Use made it clear in that paragraph, it answered your claim that GGG can't remove your account

Where did I claim that?

"

xxanderr wrote:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

xxanderr wrote:

It's not your account. It's GGG's. If they ban it, your 'my account' will turn into an empty, meaningless push of the air.

Dont know if this is serious or not but if it is: The account contains some of my personal data. According to GDPR (and similar) this is my data and not GGGs (GGG has limited rights on what to do with it unlike me) so I think its fair to call it my account. (And there are other obvious reasons for calling it "my account".)

You really need to read Terms of Use, paragraph 4 and 14. The 14th states: "For the avoidance of doubt, you acknowledge that you will have no ownership rights in your Member Account, including without limitation any Virtual Items connected with such Member Account."

your reply to it was:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

You really need to read (paraphrasing you) the GDPR. GDPR and similar laws trumps whatever is in ToS and similar. And they also apply to free accounts. Some of that legislation was even made specifically targeting "free" models. Companies do not "own" personal user data.

Edit: And GDPR also outlines specific rights of users regarding the data companies have of them. ToS cannot somehow remove the power of law.

Edit 2: private -> personal

Here, you implied that paragraph 4 and 14 are overruled by GDPR. They're not as they do not contradict each other.

Start reading your own posts, mate.

"

Nomancs wrote:

You implied that it is your account as there is your data, calling on GDPR.

I wrote its fair to call it "my account". Thats what I meant, not something else.

"

Nomancs wrote:

Here, you implied that paragraph 4 and 14 are overruled by GDPR. They're not as they do not contradict each other.

You are misinterpreting me. Already wrote that. An interpretation of my own text from me:
"You really need to read (paraphrasing you) the GDPR.": Whatever you write here isnt relevant for this tangential discussion. GDPR however is relevant for this tangential discussion.
"GDPR and similar laws trumps whatever is in ToS and similar.": If ToS contain anything in contradiction to GDPR (etc) then those ToS parts are irrelevant. Consequently simply quoting ToS proves nothing. Due to that I dont believe its helpful for such discussions to quote ToS.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

You implied that it is your account as there is your data, calling on GDPR.

I wrote its fair to call it "my account". Thats what I meant, not something else.

"

Nomancs wrote:

Here, you implied that paragraph 4 and 14 are overruled by GDPR. They're not as they do not contradict each other.

You are misinterpreting me. Already wrote that. An interpretation of my own text from me:
"You really need to read (paraphrasing you) the GDPR.": Whatever you write here isnt relevant for this tangential discussion. GDPR however is relevant for this tangential discussion.
"GDPR and similar laws trumps whatever is in ToS and similar.": If ToS contain anything in contradiction to GDPR (etc) then those ToS parts are irrelevant. Consequently simply quoting ToS proves nothing. Due to that I dont believe its helpful for such discussions to quote ToS.

So what ToS contain that contradict GDPR? Please make it clear because you wrote it while quoting reference to paragraph 4 and 14. Because I can say Constitution overrules GDPR. Not that it would be relevant to discussion. Was your comment relevant to what you quote, or did you just put GDPR without any particular reason?

So tell us, what PoE ToS parts contradict GDPR that you had to bring it to this discussion.

"

Nomancs wrote:

So what ToS contain that contradict GDPR?

Where do I say ToS contradict GDPR?

"

Nomancs wrote:

Please make it clear because you wrote it while quoting reference to paragraph 4 and 14.

I was quoting the text because I was trying to point out that its not helpful to bring this (the quoted text) up.

"

Nomancs wrote:

Because I can say Constitution overrules GDPR.

Which Constitution?

"

Nomancs wrote:

Was your comment relevant to what you quote,

Indirectly, as I said I dont think the comment was helpful for the tangential discussion.

"

Nomancs wrote:

or did you just put GDPR without any particular reason?

I brought up GDPR right from the beginning because its useful to point out GGG limits regarding use (etc) of personal user data. See here: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3556620/page/2#p25431059

"

Nomancs wrote:

So tell us, what PoE ToS parts contradict GDPR that you had to bring it to this discussion.

You are looking at this the opposite way of what happened. I brought up GDPR. 'xxanderr' countered with ToS. ToS simply isnt relevant for this tangential discussion as GDPR is "higher up". I was trying to point this out: You cant counter GDPR with ToS.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

So what ToS contain that contradict GDPR?

Where do I say ToS contradict GDPR?

In this discussion.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

Please make it clear because you wrote it while quoting reference to paragraph 4 and 14.

I was quoting the text because I was trying to point out that its not helpful to bring this (the quoted text) up.

ToS was relevant only because you brought it to discussion, and it doesn't break GDPR.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

Because I can say Constitution overrules GDPR. Not that it would be relevant to discussion.

Which Constitution?

Legal one.

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

Was your comment relevant to what you quote,

Indirectly, as I said I dont think the comment was helpful for the tangential discussion.

So directly and indirectly no...

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

or did you just put GDPR without any particular reason?

I brought up GDPR right from the beginning because its useful to point out GGG limits regarding use (etc) of personal user data. See here: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3556620/page/2#p25431059

But it had no apply to this discussion in any way. You may read more https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3556620

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

So tell us, what PoE ToS parts contradict GDPR that you had to bring it to this discussion.

You are looking at this the opposite way of what happened. I brought up GDPR. 'xxanderr' countered with ToS. ToS simply isnt relevant for this tangential discussion as GDPR is "higher up". I was trying to point this out: You cant counter GDPR with ToS.

But you can't invalidate ToS with GDRP if it doesn't break GDRP.


Truth is, you wrote what you wrote, even if it was irrelevant to the discussion or had no application.

Would GGG even be subject to the GDPR?

It's harder to get further from Europe than New Zealand, after all...

"

Nomancs wrote:

In this discussion.

Quote? Real quote not some vague claims that I somehow "implied" it.

"

Nomancs wrote:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

Please make it clear because you wrote it while quoting reference to paragraph 4 and 14.

I was quoting the text because I was trying to point out that its not helpful to bring this (the quoted text) up.

ToS was relevant only because you brought it to discussion,

Huh? "Terms of Use" were brought up here which is not by me: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3556620/page/3#p25433851

"

Nomancs wrote:

and it doesn't break GDPR.

Edit: skip that its misleading: ToS cant break GDPR.

"

Nomancs wrote:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

Because I can say Constitution overrules GDPR. Not that it would be relevant to discussion.

Which Constitution?

Legal one.

Which "legal" one? Maybe you are US person and dont know much about EU...

"

Nomancs wrote:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

Was your comment relevant to what you quote,

Indirectly, as I said I dont think the comment was helpful for the tangential discussion.

So directly and indirectly no...

Have different understanding of that.

"

Nomancs wrote:

"

Zrevnur wrote:

"

Nomancs wrote:

or did you just put GDPR without any particular reason?

I brought up GDPR right from the beginning because its useful to point out GGG limits regarding use (etc) of personal user data. See here: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3556620/page/2#p25431059

But it had no apply to this discussion in any way. You may read more https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3556620

I have "my" <snip> "account" in the topic so I consider it "tangential" to the topic. Not sure what you mean with "it" though - I may be misinterpreting that.

"

Nomancs wrote:

But you can't invalidate ToS with GDRP if it doesn't break GDRP.

How is that relevant?

"

Nomancs wrote:

Truth is, you wrote what you wrote, even if it was irrelevant to the discussion or had no application.

Yes and this also applies to your posts here.

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

Would GGG even be subject to the GDPR?

Yes. They do business in EU hence are subject to EU legislation. Far as I know there are also some similar laws elsewhere, maybe even NZ ones.