Interesting Sentence in the Terms of Service

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imborred

After Playing CoC for little over a year, i decided to give the term of service a look. I was surprised to find this;

"[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Whitney SSm A]SUPERCELL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE ANY ACCOUNT THAT HAS BEEN INACTIVE FOR 180 DAYS."


Now i'm not going to give my opinion on this-i have one, believe me! I'm also NOT encouraging anyone do the same because last time there was a discussion about the removal of (inactive) bases the thread was shut down.

Just thought this is a timbit of information not every will know ;p

---

Confused as to the point of this thread. Unless the "wink" was some kinda pointer to a conspiracy theory?

If a thread has been closed down for a specific reason a new one should not be opened up.

SC has always stated that they push inactive players to the back of the queue as they want people to attack people who are still playing.

How far back they push them and when they do so is a different issue and one that has not been revealed by SC

Threads dont get shut down on the basis of people pointing out the terms & conditions.

There was a message by supersteve i think that went something like ....people spreading rumours that we remove bases will have the threads closed. And i believe it went on to say people will be banned for it.

i believe that he also stated that supercell have not deleted any accounts and have no intention to do so in the future.

My memory is a bit dodgy and I am sure that you have seen this in the quote in the extensive research you did to note that threads had been closed down on this subject.

I think they said somewhere that it hasn't ever come to that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imborred

Damn! You got me :D

---

Timbits are wonderful!! Down with Dunkin' Donuts!!


So inactive bases, aka loot, are only here because supercell is a good guy..... Stop complaining about the loot, they reserve the right to make it a LOT worse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloopy14

Confused as to the point of this thread. Unless the "wink" was some kinda pointer to a conspiracy theory?

If a thread has been closed down for a specific reason a new one should not be opened up.

SC has always stated that they push inactive players to the back of the queue as they want people to attack people who are still playing.

How far back they push them and when they do so is a different issue and one that has not been revealed by SC

Threads dont get shut down on the basis of people pointing out the terms & conditions.

There was a message by supersteve i think that went something like ....people spreading rumours that we remove bases will have the threads closed. And i believe it went on to say people will be banned for it.

i believe that he also stated that supercell have not deleted any accounts and have no intention to do so in the future.

My memory is a bit dodgy and I am sure that you have seen this in the quote in the extensive research you did to note that threads had been closed down on this subject.

---

haha no conspiracy theory reason i thought i'd post this was because i was intrigued by the idea around S.C removing in actives- i don't really know the full extent of the convo that was going on (in the old loot thread- closed because of the hate going on)

didn't really do much looking beyond what i was easily available on general + reading through the TOS, etc ;p

Thanks for the comment!

Im pretty sure my mini was inactive for at least 180 days before i revived it, just thought I'd share that

They have the right to do it, but they won't, or else more peepz will QQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuesfutu

Haha, "timbit". You must be Canadian. Last I heard, it was tidbits.

---

I prefer titbits personally

This is quite standard clause in anything. I'm not arguing on pushing inactives to the back of the queue.
But more on clearing up old/unused stuff, disk space, indexing, server/db performance, etc.

Even in real life, our central bank have a law that any inactive accounts (with real money in it), will be put in inactive mode if no activity/transaction/claims in 2 years. After 7 years, the money goes to central bank/govt, and the account is closed and archived/deleted/removed.

Alright, seems like central bank is pushing some accounts to the back of the queue ... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuteBoboi

This is quite standard clause in anything. I'm not arguing on pushing inactives to the back of the queue.
But more on clearing up old/unused stuff, disk space, indexing, server/db performance, etc.

---

Beat me to it. This clause is just there to cover Supercell's butt if they decide to free up some server space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuteBoboi

This is quite standard clause in anything. I'm not arguing on pushing inactives to the back of the queue.
But more on clearing up old/unused stuff, disk space, indexing, server/db performance, etc.

Even in real life, our central bank have a law that any inactive accounts (with real money in it), will be put in inactive mode if no activity/transaction/claims in 2 years. After 7 years, the money goes to central bank/govt, and the account is closed and archived/deleted/removed.

Alright, seems like central bank is pushing some accounts to the back of the queue ... :rolleyes:

---

That seems logical to have that clause in place, it sparked my interest though ;p
Thanks for your comment!