@Erillion Got to ask, because it keeps on occurring to me when I read your posts.
Are you a paid employee or contractor of Roberts Space Industries, or it's related entities?
If he is, don't you think he's contractually obligated to say he isn't?
If CIG is paying him, he is doing a terrible job at it.
Just in this thread alone, look at his posts. a. 'Half of the USA population is incompetent' b. Accusing someone for saying something bad and then not backing it up with evidence. c. 'And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.'
According to Erillion, Government Agencies will tell people when they are investigating someone. Like the IRS! The police! The DOJ! Which obviously isn't how it actually works.
Add a) the moderators of this site have made clear that political discussions (especially related to the upcoming US elections) are not welcome here, so i will gladyl continue this topic in private messages.
Add b) you claim that i said something. I did not. I asked a question. You interpreted this question as a statement, filtered through your personal selective perception filter.
Add c) Again ... we are not talking about government agencies investigating big drug cartels, multi-billion dollar tax fraud, cross-national organized gang violence or international arms dealers. Those investigations are kept secret for obvious reasons.
HERE we are talking about consumer complaints about a computer game. e.g.
@Erillion Got to ask, because it keeps on occurring to me when I read your posts.
Are you a paid employee or contractor of Roberts Space Industries, or it's related entities?
If he is, don't you think he's contractually obligated to say he isn't?
If CIG is paying him, he is doing a terrible job at it.
Just in this thread alone, look at his posts. a. 'Half of the USA population is incompetent' b. Accusing someone for saying something bad and then not backing it up with evidence. c. 'And no, CIG is no drug cartel or international arms dealer ring .... government organizations WOULD freely tell about ongoing investigations.'
According to Erillion, Government Agencies will tell people when they are investigating someone. Like the IRS! The police! The DOJ! Which obviously isn't how it actually works.
Add a) the moderators of this site have made clear that political discussions (especially related to the upcoming US elections) are not welcome here, so i will gladyl continue this topic in private messages.
Add b) you claim that i said something. I did not. I asked a question. You interpreted this question as a statement, filtered through your personal selective perception filter.
Add c) Again ... we are not talking about government agencies investigating big drug cartels, multi-billion dollar tax fraud, cross-national organized gang violence or international arms dealers. Those investigations are kept secret for obvious reasons.
HERE we are talking about consumer complaints about a computer game. e.g.
As you can see here: https://imgur.com/IIwd8sZ the DoJ Public Inquiry Unit has no problems contacting CIG openly.
It seems to me you lost something important ... perspective.
Have fun
Now we get into the funny but sad state.
a. How is the statement 'Half of the USA population is incompetent' political? There's nothing to discuss since you wrote it and it is evidence that you are terrible at the 'CIG PR' job, if you had such a job.
b. 'That is what YOU claim. Have fun' is literally your post. Unless you want to go and delete/edit your post, anyone can see what you posted and I don't see a question there.
c. Yes, of course DOJ would contact the TWO parties involved in the transactions. The context of this is of course a 3rd party that isn't involved in said transactions obtaining information about that transaction. Which doesn't happen, even if it is just 'a computer game'.
c. Yes, of course DOJ would contact the TWO parties involved in the transactions. The context of this is of course a 3rd party that isn't involved in said transactions obtaining information about that transaction. Which doesn't happen, even if it is just 'a computer game'.
O.o this circular discussions of attacks are a toxic wasteland!
Ya guys need to relax ~~
Sandworm jpegs for sale in the cash shop. Only 400$ each and you will get a bonus CIG badge when the game launches. For an additional 350$ you can unlock "I'm a sucker" tattoo for your main character. *tattoo only works on the forehead as of patch 2.13*
4 years and how much money 'donated' for CS and nothing comes out but, 'Buy this ship!!'. It is like letting an addict buy heroin. People need to step back and see what they have promised vs what they have actually delivered (not much for all the coin they got).
For the amount of money, this game has received, they should have 2-300 hundred people working on it. If not there is an issue.
What happened to your reasoning of If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
Its okay, people say things they know nothing about but claim they do, just like you.
Since you just said you aren't a lawyer and you just proved that you don't really know how a government agency in the US operate, your 'I don't believe you have any right to a refund' is also suspect (and wrong).
The irony is that since both sides are a. not lawyers b. disagree on consumer rights, the proper way would be to ask government agencies (DCBA, Attorney General) for assistance by filing with them. Just like the $3000 refund guy.
And yet I provided you links to sites with the laws for each individual state, many of which state that companies make their own refund policies, and you linked nothing. Instead you throw up a strawman argument and ignore the actual claims.... the ones that you made! Please link something relevant or don't bother responding. Oh! And I highly doubt you're a lawyer either, so let's not throw stones in glass houses, k?
This post is pretty sad as you can see it desperately trying to deal with the fact it got caught in a lie.
Just admit you don't know how a Government Agency operate in the US and you were wrong when you said 'If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.'
I assume English isn't your first language as I don't recall saying I was a lawyer. I distinctly remember saying 'Both sides are NOT Lawyers'.
If a customer wants a refund from a company and the company refuses, and the customer isn't sure of its rights, the customer should ask a consumer protection agency like the one DCBA has or the one the Attorney General has. This seems like fairly simple logic to me, so not sure why you are upset at people going and getting government assistance which is setup to provide such things.
Despite Erillion claiming the DCBA and the Attorney Generals are 'Incompetent', I doubt the two government agencies would advise an ordinary citizen to do anything illegal.
I'm not sure if English isn't YOUR first language, but I've said repeatedly, you claim that "It's the law!" to give a refund within 14 days. That's simply not the case and I provided you evidence to support that. Instead of actually responding with any sort of link to any sort of reliable source indicating that that IS in fact the law, you continually throw up strawman arguments like this one. If you are right, then your resource will be 1 Google search away, so just search it up and prove me wrong. Send me one link that shows that it's the law to give refunds within 14 days.
As far as the DCBA goes, they are there to mediate disputes. They are not saying that CIG has or is breaking the law at all!! If CIG wanted, they could just as well let the customers take them to court, but why would they ever do that. What I'm asserting is that they are operating completely within their legal obligation and they absolutely do not HAVE to issue a refund within 14 days. So here's an opportunity... .prove me wrong. I don't know how to put that in more plain English for you to understand.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
What happened to your reasoning of If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
Its okay, people say things they know nothing about but claim they do, just like you.
Since you just said you aren't a lawyer and you just proved that you don't really know how a government agency in the US operate, your 'I don't believe you have any right to a refund' is also suspect (and wrong).
The irony is that since both sides are a. not lawyers b. disagree on consumer rights, the proper way would be to ask government agencies (DCBA, Attorney General) for assistance by filing with them. Just like the $3000 refund guy.
And yet I provided you links to sites with the laws for each individual state, many of which state that companies make their own refund policies, and you linked nothing. Instead you throw up a strawman argument and ignore the actual claims.... the ones that you made! Please link something relevant or don't bother responding. Oh! And I highly doubt you're a lawyer either, so let's not throw stones in glass houses, k?
This post is pretty sad as you can see it desperately trying to deal with the fact it got caught in a lie.
Just admit you don't know how a Government Agency operate in the US and you were wrong when you said 'If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.'
I assume English isn't your first language as I don't recall saying I was a lawyer. I distinctly remember saying 'Both sides are NOT Lawyers'.
If a customer wants a refund from a company and the company refuses, and the customer isn't sure of its rights, the customer should ask a consumer protection agency like the one DCBA has or the one the Attorney General has. This seems like fairly simple logic to me, so not sure why you are upset at people going and getting government assistance which is setup to provide such things.
Despite Erillion claiming the DCBA and the Attorney Generals are 'Incompetent', I doubt the two government agencies would advise an ordinary citizen to do anything illegal.
I'm not sure if English isn't YOUR first language, but I've said repeatedly, you claim that "It's the law!" to give a refund within 14 days. That's simply not the case and I provided you evidence to support that. Instead of actually responding with any sort of link to any sort of reliable source indicating that that IS in fact the law, you continually throw up strawman arguments like this one. If you are right, then your resource will be 1 Google search away, so just search it up and prove me wrong. Send me one link that shows that it's the law to give refunds within 14 days.
As far as the DCBA goes, they are there to mediate disputes. They are not saying that CIG has or is breaking the law at all!! If CIG wanted, they could just as well let the customers take them to court, but why would they ever do that. What I'm asserting is that they are operating completely within their legal obligation and they absolutely do not HAVE to issue a refund within 14 days. So here's an opportunity... .prove me wrong. I don't know how to put that in more plain English for you to understand.
It's the european telecommunication law, in europe you may return everything that you didn't buy in a shop and could touch within 14days without any reasons. In Australia you can refund any pre-order before shipping the complete product by law.
This game starts reminding me of scientology, both promise us blissful utopia if we just give them everything we have.
Did you make this video???
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
What happened to your reasoning of If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.
Its okay, people say things they know nothing about but claim they do, just like you.
Since you just said you aren't a lawyer and you just proved that you don't really know how a government agency in the US operate, your 'I don't believe you have any right to a refund' is also suspect (and wrong).
The irony is that since both sides are a. not lawyers b. disagree on consumer rights, the proper way would be to ask government agencies (DCBA, Attorney General) for assistance by filing with them. Just like the $3000 refund guy.
And yet I provided you links to sites with the laws for each individual state, many of which state that companies make their own refund policies, and you linked nothing. Instead you throw up a strawman argument and ignore the actual claims.... the ones that you made! Please link something relevant or don't bother responding. Oh! And I highly doubt you're a lawyer either, so let's not throw stones in glass houses, k?
This post is pretty sad as you can see it desperately trying to deal with the fact it got caught in a lie.
Just admit you don't know how a Government Agency operate in the US and you were wrong when you said 'If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent.'
I assume English isn't your first language as I don't recall saying I was a lawyer. I distinctly remember saying 'Both sides are NOT Lawyers'.
If a customer wants a refund from a company and the company refuses, and the customer isn't sure of its rights, the customer should ask a consumer protection agency like the one DCBA has or the one the Attorney General has. This seems like fairly simple logic to me, so not sure why you are upset at people going and getting government assistance which is setup to provide such things.
Despite Erillion claiming the DCBA and the Attorney Generals are 'Incompetent', I doubt the two government agencies would advise an ordinary citizen to do anything illegal.
I'm not sure if English isn't YOUR first language, but I've said repeatedly, you claim that "It's the law!" to give a refund within 14 days. That's simply not the case and I provided you evidence to support that. Instead of actually responding with any sort of link to any sort of reliable source indicating that that IS in fact the law, you continually throw up strawman arguments like this one. If you are right, then your resource will be 1 Google search away, so just search it up and prove me wrong. Send me one link that shows that it's the law to give refunds within 14 days.
As far as the DCBA goes, they are there to mediate disputes. They are not saying that CIG has or is breaking the law at all!! If CIG wanted, they could just as well let the customers take them to court, but why would they ever do that. What I'm asserting is that they are operating completely within their legal obligation and they absolutely do not HAVE to issue a refund within 14 days. So here's an opportunity... .prove me wrong. I don't know how to put that in more plain English for you to understand.
It's the european telecommunication law, in europe you may return everything that you didn't buy in a shop and could touch within 14days without any reasons. In Australia you can refund any pre-order before shipping the complete product by law.
WHOA!!! Someone who ACTUALLY posted some REAL legal stuff. Thanks Turrican. The context he was speaking with regard to was California. I do recognize that there are laws in place in many countries outside the US, but he is stating that California law states that you have 14 days. From what I found, that's simply not the case. He's just claiming to be some expert on refunds, so I figured he'd have a link that I didn't or something. My guess is that he's just spouting complete bullshit.
I'm not sure if English isn't YOUR first language, but I've said repeatedly, you claim that "It's the law!" to give a refund within 14 days. That's simply not the case and I provided you evidence to support that. Instead of actually responding with any sort of link to any sort of reliable source indicating that that IS in fact the law, you continually throw up strawman arguments like this one. If you are right, then your resource will be 1 Google search away, so just search it up and prove me wrong. Send me one link that shows that it's the law to give refunds within 14 days.
As far as the DCBA goes, they are there to mediate disputes. They are not saying that CIG has or is breaking the law at all!! If CIG wanted, they could just as well let the customers take them to court, but why would they ever do that. What I'm asserting is that they are operating completely within their legal obligation and they absolutely do not HAVE to issue a refund within 14 days. So here's an opportunity... .prove me wrong. I don't know how to put that in more plain English for you to understand.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent. The above is literally what you wrote. If you see a strawman in that, good for you on admitting that you created one. I continue to think you don't understand how a Government Agency work and it is because of statements like these 'DCBA are there to mediate disputes'. Consumer protection agencies (like the one within the DCBA) are there to protect consumer rights. I know, it is shocking that a government agency does exactly as its name says. (sarcasm)
c. Yes, of course DOJ would contact the TWO parties involved in the transactions. The context of this is of course a 3rd party that isn't involved in said transactions obtaining information about that transaction. Which doesn't happen, even if it is just 'a computer game'.
3rd Parties - a (non-complete) selection:
RockPaperShotgun
GameInformer
Eurogamer
GameStar
etc.
Have fun
The 'terrible PR' continues. PR 101, never actually lie. But if you do, never ever get caught. Last I checked, the media never got an answer from the DOJ. It was the two parties in the actual '$3000 refund' transaction that decided to disclose the information.
Of course, I knew that long before you called 'half of USA populace are incompetent'
I'm not sure if English isn't YOUR first language, but I've said repeatedly, you claim that "It's the law!" to give a refund within 14 days. That's simply not the case and I provided you evidence to support that. Instead of actually responding with any sort of link to any sort of reliable source indicating that that IS in fact the law, you continually throw up strawman arguments like this one. If you are right, then your resource will be 1 Google search away, so just search it up and prove me wrong. Send me one link that shows that it's the law to give refunds within 14 days.
As far as the DCBA goes, they are there to mediate disputes. They are not saying that CIG has or is breaking the law at all!! If CIG wanted, they could just as well let the customers take them to court, but why would they ever do that. What I'm asserting is that they are operating completely within their legal obligation and they absolutely do not HAVE to issue a refund within 14 days. So here's an opportunity... .prove me wrong. I don't know how to put that in more plain English for you to understand.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent. The above is literally what you wrote. If you see a strawman in that, good for you on admitting that you created one. I continue to think you don't understand how a Government Agency work and it is because of statements like these 'DCBA are there to mediate disputes'. Consumer protection agencies (like the one within the DCBA) are there to protect consumer rights. I know, it is shocking that a government agency does exactly as its name says. (sarcasm)
*yawn* still no link..... Just say that it's not the law that someone must issue a refund within 14 days in California. That's the debate here, it has nothing to do with the DCBA. Maybe English isn't your first language. Either that or maybe you ARE a lawyer. Either way, just tell me about how it's the law in California that a retailer must issue a refund within 14 days.
I'm not sure if English isn't YOUR first language, but I've said repeatedly, you claim that "It's the law!" to give a refund within 14 days. That's simply not the case and I provided you evidence to support that. Instead of actually responding with any sort of link to any sort of reliable source indicating that that IS in fact the law, you continually throw up strawman arguments like this one. If you are right, then your resource will be 1 Google search away, so just search it up and prove me wrong. Send me one link that shows that it's the law to give refunds within 14 days.
As far as the DCBA goes, they are there to mediate disputes. They are not saying that CIG has or is breaking the law at all!! If CIG wanted, they could just as well let the customers take them to court, but why would they ever do that. What I'm asserting is that they are operating completely within their legal obligation and they absolutely do not HAVE to issue a refund within 14 days. So here's an opportunity... .prove me wrong. I don't know how to put that in more plain English for you to understand.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent. The above is literally what you wrote. If you see a strawman in that, good for you on admitting that you created one. I continue to think you don't understand how a Government Agency work and it is because of statements like these 'DCBA are there to mediate disputes'. Consumer protection agencies (like the one within the DCBA) are there to protect consumer rights. I know, it is shocking that a government agency does exactly as its name says. (sarcasm)
*yawn* still no link..... Just say that it's not the law that someone must issue a refund within 14 days in California. That's the debate here, it has nothing to do with the DCBA. Maybe English isn't your first language. Either that or maybe you ARE a lawyer. Either way, just tell me about how it's the law in California that a retailer must issue a refund within 14 days.
This is the third time I am going to write that I am NOT a lawyer. Not sure what to think other than either you don't really understand English or you have some sort of short term memory loss (in which case, I apologies for I didn't know you had a disability).
The 'Forget what I wrote in the past as it makes me look dumb. This current post is what's important' strategy is in effect I see. CIG does the exact same thing which I find hilarious. Anyone remember the infamous quote 'You already have Star Marine!' ?
I'm not sure if English isn't YOUR first language, but I've said repeatedly, you claim that "It's the law!" to give a refund within 14 days. That's simply not the case and I provided you evidence to support that. Instead of actually responding with any sort of link to any sort of reliable source indicating that that IS in fact the law, you continually throw up strawman arguments like this one. If you are right, then your resource will be 1 Google search away, so just search it up and prove me wrong. Send me one link that shows that it's the law to give refunds within 14 days.
As far as the DCBA goes, they are there to mediate disputes. They are not saying that CIG has or is breaking the law at all!! If CIG wanted, they could just as well let the customers take them to court, but why would they ever do that. What I'm asserting is that they are operating completely within their legal obligation and they absolutely do not HAVE to issue a refund within 14 days. So here's an opportunity... .prove me wrong. I don't know how to put that in more plain English for you to understand.
If an investigation finds that there's been an orchestrated attempt to discredit a company, they may dismiss the entire case as "tainted", because it becomes too difficult to determine whether there was genuine injury or just malicious intent. The above is literally what you wrote. If you see a strawman in that, good for you on admitting that you created one. I continue to think you don't understand how a Government Agency work and it is because of statements like these 'DCBA are there to mediate disputes'. Consumer protection agencies (like the one within the DCBA) are there to protect consumer rights. I know, it is shocking that a government agency does exactly as its name says. (sarcasm)
*yawn* still no link..... Just say that it's not the law that someone must issue a refund within 14 days in California. That's the debate here, it has nothing to do with the DCBA. Maybe English isn't your first language. Either that or maybe you ARE a lawyer. Either way, just tell me about how it's the law in California that a retailer must issue a refund within 14 days.
This is the third time I am going to write that I am NOT a lawyer. Not sure what to think other than either you don't really understand English or you have some sort of short term memory loss (in which case, I apologies for I didn't know you had a disability).
The 'Forget what I wrote in the past as it makes me look dumb. This current post is what's important' strategy is in effect I see. CIG does the exact same thing which I find hilarious. Anyone remember the infamous quote 'You already have Star Marine!' ?
Cool, so we're in agreement that it's not illegal in California to deny a refund within 14 days, per your previous assertions. That's all I was looking for. No need to respond, it's clear you are embarrassed or something since you refuse to just come out and say it. So I just did. No, it's not illegal to deny refunds within 14 days in California. You were wrong. That's ok. We all are sometimes. Just own it.
Consumers have come to expect stores or catalog companies to offer a
refund, credit or exchange when they return items. Sellers are not
required by law to accept returned items unless they are defective.
However, California law requires that retailers who have a policy of not
providing a cash refund, credit or exchange when an item is returned
with proof of purchase within 7 days of purchase must inform consumers
about their refund policies by conspicuously placing a written notice
about their policies, in language that consumers can understand, so that
it can be easily seen and read. Some companies may limit exchanges or
returns for credit or refunds on all, or some products. Some may not
allow exchanges or returns for credit or refunds at all. But whatever
the limitation, it must be conspicuously disclosed. Before making a
purchase, carefully check the store's policy.
The policy must be displayed either at each entrance to the store, at
each cash register and sales counter, on tags attached to each item, or
on the company's order forms, if any. A return policy printed only on a
receipt, for example, is not sufficient.
If a store violates this law (California Civil Code section 1723),
the purchaser can return an item for a full refund within 30 days of
purchase.
Whether this applies to the letter for digital goods is not clear.
Comments
Add a)
the moderators of this site have made clear that political discussions (especially related to the upcoming US elections) are not welcome here, so i will gladyl continue this topic in private messages.
Add b)
you claim that i said something. I did not. I asked a question. You interpreted this question as a statement, filtered through your personal selective perception filter.
Add c)
Again ... we are not talking about government agencies investigating big drug cartels, multi-billion dollar tax fraud, cross-national organized gang violence or international arms dealers. Those investigations are kept secret for obvious reasons.
HERE we are talking about consumer complaints about a computer game. e.g.
https://oag.ca.gov/consumers
https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/refunds
http://dcba.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/dca/
As you can see here:
https://imgur.com/IIwd8sZ
the DoJ Public Inquiry Unit has no problems contacting CIG openly.
It seems to me you lost something important ... perspective.
Have fun
A paid worker wouldn't defend SC as intensely as the bunny.
Ya guys need to relax ~~
a. How is the statement 'Half of the USA population is incompetent' political? There's nothing to discuss since you wrote it and it is evidence that you are terrible at the 'CIG PR' job, if you had such a job.
b. 'That is what YOU claim. Have fun' is literally your post. Unless you want to go and delete/edit your post, anyone can see what you posted and I don't see a question there.
c. Yes, of course DOJ would contact the TWO parties involved in the transactions. The context of this is of course a 3rd party that isn't involved in said transactions obtaining information about that transaction. Which doesn't happen, even if it is just 'a computer game'.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
RockPaperShotgun
GameInformer
Eurogamer
GameStar
etc.
Have fun
For the amount of money, this game has received, they should have 2-300 hundred people working on it. If not there is an issue.
I'm not sure if English isn't YOUR first language, but I've said repeatedly, you claim that "It's the law!" to give a refund within 14 days. That's simply not the case and I provided you evidence to support that. Instead of actually responding with any sort of link to any sort of reliable source indicating that that IS in fact the law, you continually throw up strawman arguments like this one. If you are right, then your resource will be 1 Google search away, so just search it up and prove me wrong. Send me one link that shows that it's the law to give refunds within 14 days.
As far as the DCBA goes, they are there to mediate disputes. They are not saying that CIG has or is breaking the law at all!! If CIG wanted, they could just as well let the customers take them to court, but why would they ever do that. What I'm asserting is that they are operating completely within their legal obligation and they absolutely do not HAVE to issue a refund within 14 days. So here's an opportunity... .prove me wrong. I don't know how to put that in more plain English for you to understand.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Have fun
In Australia you can refund any pre-order before shipping the complete product by law.
Oh and english isn't my native language
Edit: The european law says a minimum of 7 Days, here in germany it's 14 days.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31985L0577
on top of that Article 6 says:
The consumer may not waive the rights conferred on him by this Directive.
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
"Is this a sandworm or are you just happy to see me ?" ;-)
DING !
Seems like people like the Sandworm ;-)
Have fun
"everything we have" = 54 $ (which was as low as 20 bucks at a point in the past)
Everything else you can get in game with in game money. No need to spend more RL cash.
Have fun
WHOA!!! Someone who ACTUALLY posted some REAL legal stuff. Thanks Turrican. The context he was speaking with regard to was California. I do recognize that there are laws in place in many countries outside the US, but he is stating that California law states that you have 14 days. From what I found, that's simply not the case. He's just claiming to be some expert on refunds, so I figured he'd have a link that I didn't or something. My guess is that he's just spouting complete bullshit.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The above is literally what you wrote. If you see a strawman in that, good for you on admitting that you created one.
I continue to think you don't understand how a Government Agency work and it is because of statements like these 'DCBA are there to mediate disputes'.
Consumer protection agencies (like the one within the DCBA) are there to protect consumer rights. I know, it is shocking that a government agency does exactly as its name says. (sarcasm)
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
Last I checked, the media never got an answer from the DOJ. It was the two parties in the actual '$3000 refund' transaction that decided to disclose the information.
Of course, I knew that long before you called 'half of USA populace are incompetent'
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
*yawn* still no link..... Just say that it's not the law that someone must issue a refund within 14 days in California. That's the debate here, it has nothing to do with the DCBA. Maybe English isn't your first language. Either that or maybe you ARE a lawyer. Either way, just tell me about how it's the law in California that a retailer must issue a refund within 14 days.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The 'Forget what I wrote in the past as it makes me look dumb. This current post is what's important' strategy is in effect I see. CIG does the exact same thing which I find hilarious. Anyone remember the infamous quote 'You already have Star Marine!' ?
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
Cool, so we're in agreement that it's not illegal in California to deny a refund within 14 days, per your previous assertions. That's all I was looking for. No need to respond, it's clear you are embarrassed or something since you refuse to just come out and say it. So I just did. No, it's not illegal to deny refunds within 14 days in California. You were wrong. That's ok. We all are sometimes. Just own it.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/refunds says
Consumers have come to expect stores or catalog companies to offer a refund, credit or exchange when they return items. Sellers are not required by law to accept returned items unless they are defective. However, California law requires that retailers who have a policy of not providing a cash refund, credit or exchange when an item is returned with proof of purchase within 7 days of purchase must inform consumers about their refund policies by conspicuously placing a written notice about their policies, in language that consumers can understand, so that it can be easily seen and read. Some companies may limit exchanges or returns for credit or refunds on all, or some products. Some may not allow exchanges or returns for credit or refunds at all. But whatever the limitation, it must be conspicuously disclosed. Before making a purchase, carefully check the store's policy.The policy must be displayed either at each entrance to the store, at each cash register and sales counter, on tags attached to each item, or on the company's order forms, if any. A return policy printed only on a receipt, for example, is not sufficient.
If a store violates this law (California Civil Code section 1723), the purchaser can return an item for a full refund within 30 days of purchase.
Whether this applies to the letter for digital goods is not clear.