My apologies, but it seems you don’t understand what burden of proof means. For those who don’t want to spend time on Wikipedia, I’ll provide a summary to the best of my ability.
Burden of proof has two different meanings, one in law, one in philosophy. In philosophy, it means that you have to provide proof for your position, rather than expect those who oppose it to provide the proof against it. In law, the meaning is derived from this, but more technical.
The point you’re missing is that Funcom is neither debating you, nor taking you to court. They are revoking your access to the service they let you use for free.
If Funcom posted a message in this discussion saying @CodeMage violated the TOS on server 1823, then the burden of proof would be on them to back their claim. If they don’t provide any proof for that claim, we are free to hold it false, but that’s as far as that will take you. It does not automatically make true the claim “Funcom is banning people unfairly”.
The absence of proof from Funcom does not constitute the proof of the opposite claim.
That’s why people like me say “I’ll believe you when I see some proof”. Not because I know Funcom is right, but because I don’t know you are. It’s on you to provide arguments for your claim.
Speaking of proof, I was trying to stay away from the nice, thought-provoking, and civil discussion that @DanQuixote and @Dogoegma were having, but now that I had to open my stupid mouth again, here’s one bit that really bothered me:
If all I had was nothing more than an anonymous message on the internet written by someone who claims to be an escapee from North Korea, then I would not be predisposed to believe them just because their tale sounded harrowing.
The key words there are “nothing more”. People who escape North Korea have proof “written” all over their bodies. It’s etched deeply into their psyche.
When a metaphor is too far from what it’s supposed to represent, it won’t stretch, it will break.
No, they don’t. They don’t have to and they don’t need to. The fact that you keep refusing to understand is that they have no obligation to do what you’re asking them to do.
The document called “Official Servers - Terms of conduct, guidelines and procedures” is informational, not legally binding. If it were legally binding, it would’ve looked more like their EULA, i.e. written in thick legalese.
It might be nicer if they provided proof, but “being nice” has its own pros and cons, and the cons might outweigh the pros.
No, it does not. A violation of the rules does not even require awareness of the rules in the first place. Even real-life laws work like that.