This is the part that I find the most interesting. If banning is the only result of violating the EULA then that leads me to believe that somewhere there is a lawyer that told ED, "You can put it in the EULA but it won't stand up in court."
There is another option. Maybe they just cared about not having it advertised on their boards. We'll most likely never know.
And that would change what? "Hey, here is content that isn't offensive or in any way controversial, doesn't break law etc.. we just don't like it here, BAN!" How would that make look ED better?
In the same way, I just can't understand people argumenting with EULA, as if that should make EDs move look better. Imagine a scenario in which ED has forbidden, by EULA, any derivative work/stream/etc.. and would run around DMCA mod creators, youtubers..etc, would "well, they clearly broke the EULA statement" make ED look good. No. Why? Because it's a stupid policy and that's what people are fed up with. Banning modders for accepting donations is stupid policy.
Donations are the standard in the industry how modders are able to recuperate some of their investment and a way for the mod users to show support for the mod creators. The regular mod user, who doesn't want to pay, isn't hurt in any way. NO other company has problem with donations, NO other company has problem with such content being advertised on their official forums. i.e. Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator has it's own section on the official RoF and IL2 BoS forums. And I don't understand why they should have problem. They usually make their niche game more enjoyable for more people, making the playerbase bigger.
ED can be lucky that no-one from the general public is interested in this, or they would have one hell of a PR storm on their hands.
