Quote Originally Posted by C.Difficile View Post
I don't think they want to, but lnet is inextricably linked with the game. What happens on it may affect the public perception of their product, so it is not irrational for them to attempt to exercise control over what happens on it. They have no real ability to do so other than pulling the plug on lnet; they know they can't without killing the product, so they are in a position where they have to accept the negatives of an unregulated product in exchange for the commercial benefit it brings.

Ultimately, if something bad happens on lnet, it will in some measure be attributable to Simu because they had the ability to end it. Instead of doing so, they implicitly encouraged and directly profited from it.
I don't think so. It's not a company's responsibility to monitor anything that happens outside of their product. Sure people could tie the two together even if they are wrong to do so, it's one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations.

But of the two situations to find themselves in it's better to take the stance of "We don't condone what happens on this third party site and we have no control over it" rather than "Yes we actively monitor and take reports seriously of what happens on third party sites."

The latter makes Simu seem like they are more involved in third party sites than the former.