[NEWS] - CIG want's Backer to pay them $500 because someone else did a charge-back a year ago.

MrSnuffles

DirtyDozen said:

MrSnuffles said:

DirtyDozen said:

MrSnuffles said:

snip

Up to you really, whatever you want to have faith in. I do not discuss political or religious topics since they are not allowed on this forum.

Have faith!

Yeah that's pretty strange if you don't discuss religion and you tell people to Have faith! in your closing don't you think?

I don't see why it is stranger than saying: "Best wishes". Does that mean i believe in Genies that grant wishes and how strange is it that i wish someone something: What exactly do i wish them? It's all so confusing now that you mentioned it. 

I need some time to reflect on that.

Have faith!

Yes, I think you should reflect, you do seem confused.  See my post above yours for some food for thought, it might help you discover your inner conflict.

Oh come on @DirtyDozen we both know why you are roasting me over the have faith thing. One might even think you are a little butt hurt. If you have a problem with it you can always ignore my posts.

Are we good now? Can we move on and get to the topic at hand?

Have faith!

Erinak1

DirtyDozen said:

Dahkoht said:

Zero chance they can get any money from this guy if he doesn't want to pay them.

Zero.

Close his account sure , which if any game company sent me that message saying I owed them for someone else doing a chargeback , I'd suggest to them in colorful language what they could do with my account to begin with.

So what will happen is the guy can never play the game again with a negative balance.  In effect they have banned him unless he pays the penalty.  I call it a penalty because I believe they are doing this to punish him for participating in laundering ships for LTI.

Just my guess.

But unless they can prove that he was in on it, they are punishing him for someone else's actions. That would be like me punching you because your friend punched me. Actually, it wouldn't because they aren't friends (as far as we know) so it would be like me punching you because some guy I saw you talking to this one time punched me.

Deathenger

Bahahahaha! What a ripoff! I would t pay them a dime and just let them ban me. The people hurt the most by that stuff are guys that invested more then the minimum.

On another note, I uninstalled Star Citizen last night and all it did was delete the shortcut from my desktop. All 30gigs of crap was still left on my hard drive. They can't even make a proper uninstaller!

Shodanas

Adjuvant1 said:

Shodanas said:

Adjuvant1 said:

CIG created the environment for this. It's CIG's responsibility to consider ship trades, melting and chargebacks in their formula. CIG cannot legally pursue the guy because "nothing of value was lost", you can't put a legal price on imaginary currency,

Are you telling us with a straight face that you can't distinguish the difference between virtual currency and virtual products / goods ?

This was discussed in the other thread. Of course the copyrighted name "Star Citizen" and everything under it is protected from use for profit by unlicensed third parties. UEC, however, is not regulated currency. It has 0 value the instant it "leaves the game". I can't buy a big mac with UEC, or a car, a house. No government will accept UEC as trade value, because it has zero legal value. The matter is entirely internal.

Ships inside a hangar are virtual products like any other piece of software and CiG can put a price tag on them.

The argument that no harm is done because the developers can make millions of copies of a certain virtual product is beyond hilarious.

If this is the case then software piracy isn't a big deal is it ? Since a software developer can copy the prototype millions upon millions of times. Correct ?

Erinak1

Shodanas said:

Adjuvant1 said:

Shodanas said:

Adjuvant1 said:

CIG created the environment for this. It's CIG's responsibility to consider ship trades, melting and chargebacks in their formula. CIG cannot legally pursue the guy because "nothing of value was lost", you can't put a legal price on imaginary currency,

Are you telling us with a straight face that you can't distinguish the difference between virtual currency and virtual products / goods ?

This was discussed in the other thread. Of course the copyrighted name "Star Citizen" and everything under it is protected from use for profit by unlicensed third parties. UEC, however, is not regulated currency. It has 0 value the instant it "leaves the game". I can't buy a big mac with UEC, or a car, a house. No government will accept UEC as trade value, because it has zero legal value. The matter is entirely internal.

Ships inside a hangar are virtual products like any other piece of software and CiG can put a price tag on them.

The argument that no harm is done because the developers can make millions of copies of a certain virtual product is beyond hilarious.

If this is the case then software piracy isn't a big deal is it ? Since a software developer can copy the prototype millions upon millions of times. Correct ?

You're right but you seem to be failing to connect the dots. Your argument is perfectly valid IF he had been the one to agree to pay the money in exchange for a virtual product. He didn't, he agreed whatever he agreed with someone else... Just because the company then got stung doesn't mean they can try to get the money from, what amounts to, someone completely random. You cannot sign a contract by association, that is insane.

Adjuvant1

Shodanas

Excession said:

Bit off topic, but I used to know a Shodanas that was a huntard in WoW.

Old TVC resident i presume ? Give me more.

MrSnuffles

Shodanas said:

Adjuvant1 said:

Shodanas said:

Adjuvant1 said:

CIG created the environment for this. It's CIG's responsibility to consider ship trades, melting and chargebacks in their formula. CIG cannot legally pursue the guy because "nothing of value was lost", you can't put a legal price on imaginary currency,

Are you telling us with a straight face that you can't distinguish the difference between virtual currency and virtual products / goods ?

This was discussed in the other thread. Of course the copyrighted name "Star Citizen" and everything under it is protected from use for profit by unlicensed third parties. UEC, however, is not regulated currency. It has 0 value the instant it "leaves the game". I can't buy a big mac with UEC, or a car, a house. No government will accept UEC as trade value, because it has zero legal value. The matter is entirely internal.

Ships inside a hangar are virtual products like any other piece of software and CiG can put a price tag on them.

The argument that no harm is done because the developers can make millions of copies of a certain virtual product is beyond hilarious.

If this is the case then software piracy isn't a big deal is it ? Since a software developer can copy the prototype millions upon millions of times. Correct ?

1. This is not a product because there is no game.
2. They can remove said product and ban the person that charged back.
3. No Harm done to anyone.

Have faith!

Adjuvant1

Shodanas said:

Adjuvant1 said:

Shodanas said:

Adjuvant1 said:

CIG created the environment for this. It's CIG's responsibility to consider ship trades, melting and chargebacks in their formula. CIG cannot legally pursue the guy because "nothing of value was lost", you can't put a legal price on imaginary currency,

Are you telling us with a straight face that you can't distinguish the difference between virtual currency and virtual products / goods ?

This was discussed in the other thread. Of course the copyrighted name "Star Citizen" and everything under it is protected from use for profit by unlicensed third parties. UEC, however, is not regulated currency. It has 0 value the instant it "leaves the game". I can't buy a big mac with UEC, or a car, a house. No government will accept UEC as trade value, because it has zero legal value. The matter is entirely internal.

Ships inside a hangar are virtual products like any other piece of software and CiG can put a price tag on them.

The argument that no harm is done because the developers can make millions of copies of a certain virtual product is beyond hilarious.

If this is the case then software piracy isn't a big deal is it ? Since a software developer can copy the prototype millions upon millions of times. Correct ?

You're arguing 2 different things and you don't realize it. You're simply mistaken.

GeezerGamer

Yep, that guy took a risk playing in this virtual market and got burned. While I think CIG is legally correct here, I still think they are biting the hand that feeds. 

I'm just sitting back and watching this thing slowly unravel as I now believe that it will. Mostly because of these business practices.

kitarad

God I love Faith and George Michael sorry carry on just had to say that.

MrSnuffles

DirtyDozen said:

MrSnuffles said:

DirtyDozen said:

snip

Oh come on @DirtyDozen we both know why you are roasting me over the have faith thing. One might even think you are a little butt hurt. If you have a problem with it you can always ignore my posts.

Are we good now? Can we move on and get to the topic at hand?

Have faith!

No I won't admit to knowing because you play it just like that too, play it all coy like "What ever do you mean?"  so please explain @MrSnuffles.

Dude, you already said what you think i mean, do i need to remind you?

DirtyDozen said:

Of course not, who would suggest such a thing?  That would be ridiculous.

I wonder if this is some kind of dig at people that back the game?  You know, like hey look at the crazy cultists!  LOL

And at the same time mocking another poster around here for always closing with "Have fun!"

Yeah, that would be childish, nobody would behave that way around here would they?

Have faith!

Erinak1

MrSnuffles said:

DirtyDozen said:

MrSnuffles said:

DirtyDozen said:

snip

Oh come on @DirtyDozen we both know why you are roasting me over the have faith thing. One might even think you are a little butt hurt. If you have a problem with it you can always ignore my posts.

Are we good now? Can we move on and get to the topic at hand?

Have faith!

No I won't admit to knowing because you play it just like that too, play it all coy like "What ever do you mean?"  so please explain @MrSnuffles.

Dude, you already said what you think i mean, do i need to remind you?

DirtyDozen said:

Of course not, who would suggest such a thing?  That would be ridiculous.

I wonder if this is some kind of dig at people that back the game?  You know, like hey look at the crazy cultists!  LOL

And at the same time mocking another poster around here for always closing with "Have fun!"

Yeah, that would be childish, nobody would behave that way around here would they?

Have faith!

Honestly dude, now you're just being a dick

MrSnuffles

Erinak1 said:

MrSnuffles said:

DirtyDozen said:

MrSnuffles said:

DirtyDozen said:

snip

Oh come on @DirtyDozen we both know why you are roasting me over the have faith thing. One might even think you are a little butt hurt. If you have a problem with it you can always ignore my posts.

Are we good now? Can we move on and get to the topic at hand?

Have faith!

No I won't admit to knowing because you play it just like that too, play it all coy like "What ever do you mean?"  so please explain @MrSnuffles.

Dude, you already said what you think i mean, do i need to remind you?

DirtyDozen said:

Of course not, who would suggest such a thing?  That would be ridiculous.

I wonder if this is some kind of dig at people that back the game?  You know, like hey look at the crazy cultists!  LOL

And at the same time mocking another poster around here for always closing with "Have fun!"

Yeah, that would be childish, nobody would behave that way around here would they?

Have faith!

Honestly dude, now you're just being a dick

How so?

Burntvet

In the US at least, it is settled law that you can not go after a third party for the legal conduct/actions of someone else. If some other person did an "illegitimate chargeback" they can go after him and his financial institution.

CIG can only go after the person that they believe did an illegitimate charge back, and not the guy in the email.

So long as the trading of virtual assets is allowed or condoned by CIG, and it is or else there would be no gift option, CIG cannot go after the original purchaser.

All they can do is send threatening emails. And hope you are stupid enough to not know your consumer rights. And then try to charge you.

Personally, I would also inform my CC company or Paypal to not accept any further charges from CIG.

MrSnuffles

Burntvet said:

In the US at least, it is settled law that you can not go after a third party for the legal conduct/actions of someone else. If some other person did an "illegitimate chargeback" they can go after him and his financial institution.

CIG can only go after the person that they believe did an illegitimate charge back, and not the guy in the email.

So long as the trading of virtual assets is allowed or condoned by CIG, and it is or else there would be no gift option, CIG cannot go after the original purchaser.

All they can do is send threatening emails. And hope you are stupid enough to not know your consumer rights.

Personally, I would also inform my CC company or Paypal to not accept any further charges from CIG.

They can still ban the poor guy because...well, they don't need a reason. They might have to give him back all his pledges though if he has any. But that might vary according to country.

Have faith!

Erinak1

Burntvet said:

In the US at least, it is settled law that you can not go after a third party for the legal conduct/actions of someone else. If some other person did an "illegitimate chargeback" they can go after him and his financial institution.

CIG can only go after the person that they believe did an illegitimate charge back, and not the guy in the email.

So long as the trading of virtual assets is allowed or condoned by CIG, and it is or else there would be no gift option, CIG cannot go after the original purchaser.

All they can do is send threatening emails. And hope you are stupid enough to not know your consumer rights.

Personally, I would also inform my CC company or Paypal to not accept any further charges from CIG.

You're right, they have no legal standing but they can leverage his account, so that adds in a factor. I mean in all the failed examples people have given, it doesn't factor that in. The car one for example "Well you can't buy from us in the future!" "So, who cares?" Maybe the guy does care.

Lokero

GeezerGamer said:

Yep, that guy took a risk playing in this virtual market and got burned. While I think CIG is legally correct here, I still think they are biting the hand that feeds. 

This is largely how I'm seeing it too.

Technically, there are 2 paths, and they seem to be following them:
1.  They ban/deal with the account/goods.
2.  The guy pays to keep them.

The truth, however, is that even approaching the guy and asking him to pay is tasteless and low class, at best, since it's not his fault.

If they have any quality and care about their future community, they will simply create an option 3 and cut the guy a break.

Vada_G

If they were coming after me as a third party. I would cease caring about my account upon getting that email as I would want nothing further to do with the company than to see it burn for what I would construe as 'Immoral' business practices.

Distopia

Excession said:

Bit off topic, but I used to know a Shodanas that was a huntard in WoW.

Anyway, on topic, how anyone can think it is fine for CIG to try and make someone pay for a chargeback  they did not make, is beyond me.

Maybe I'm missing something but say I bought ESO off of G2A and the original purchaser charges back their purchase, to continue playing I must buy the game again, is this so different?

The companies in these scenarios don't typically care that one got scammed out of their money, they usually just want the money they missed out on.

Sucks for the person getting ripped off for sure, yet highlights why it's unwise to make purchases through those avenues. CIG should most certainly not support such practices or encourage them of course, because it leads to scenarios like this.

MrSnuffles

Lokero said:

GeezerGamer said:

Yep, that guy took a risk playing in this virtual market and got burned. While I think CIG is legally correct here, I still think they are biting the hand that feeds. 

This is largely how I'm seeing it too.

Technically, there are 2 paths, and they seem to be following them:
1.  They ban/deal with the account/goods.
2.  The guy pays to keep them.

The truth, however, is that even approaching the guy and asking him to pay is tasteless and low class, at best, since it's not his fault.

If they have any quality and care about their future community, they will simply create an option 3 and cut the guy a break.

I really fail to see other options that this one unless they are desperate for cash:

1. #1 Buys ship
2. #2 Melts it
3. #2 Buys another ship
4. #1 Charge back
5. CIG bans #1 and removes Ship #2
6. No one got hurt. No monetary loss.

How the fluff is that complicated?

Have faith!

Adjuvant1

Erinak1 said:

You're right, they have no legal standing but they can leverage his account, so that adds in a factor. I mean in all the failed examples people have given, it doesn't factor that in. The car one for example "Well you can't buy from us in the future!" "So, who cares?" Maybe the guy does care.

Right. It's CIG property and they have the right to refuse for whatever reason. 50% of the internet might agree what they do, in that event, is right. 45% might be kinda so-so on it. Some percentage will be really upset, taking the position that ship trades are allowed, melting is allowed, gifting back is allowed, all under company policy and it's not the guy's fault. By impugning this guy, they're making, who knows, a million ( ? ) game player observers particularly nonplussed.

Vada_G said:

If they were coming after me as a third party. I would cease caring about my account upon getting that email as I would want nothing further to do with the company than to see it burn for what I would construe as 'Immoral' business practices.

Yeh, see, people empathize with the guy over the company. In my whole-hearted opinion, it's better for CIG to reconsider, take it on the chin and let it go, going forward implementing policy it doesn't happen again.

freegames

Person #2 does not seem to be at fault at all since it was #1s chargeback
They even demanded more money from #2 for the item that was charged back
I would also check the credit card and paypal to chargeback the trade from #1

MrSnuffles

DirtyDozen said:

MrSnuffles said:

DirtyDozen said:

MrSnuffles said:

DirtyDozen said:

snip

Oh come on @DirtyDozen we both know why you are roasting me over the have faith thing. One might even think you are a little butt hurt. If you have a problem with it you can always ignore my posts.

Are we good now? Can we move on and get to the topic at hand?

Have faith!

No I won't admit to knowing because you play it just like that too, play it all coy like "What ever do you mean?"  so please explain @MrSnuffles.

Dude, you already said what you think i mean, do i need to remind you?

DirtyDozen said:

Of course not, who would suggest such a thing?  That would be ridiculous.

I wonder if this is some kind of dig at people that back the game?  You know, like hey look at the crazy cultists!  LOL

And at the same time mocking another poster around here for always closing with "Have fun!"

Yeah, that would be childish, nobody would behave that way around here would they?

Have faith!

You seem butt hurt, but was that an admission?

How do you come to the conclusion i am butt hurt when i am reminding you about a post you made? I am not the one that can't let this go.

How can i admit something that is a fiction in your head.

I already told you what it means, it is a closing.

Let's assume i would use: "Best wishes", will you then roast me about which wishes i mean? Will you ask me if i am a Genie and if you can rub my lamp?

Have faith!

EponyxDamor

It's a really unfortunate situation for everyone involved (CIG included), but CIG is the one who opened the loop hole of melting for LTI in the first place. Ultimately, it was up to them to plug the hole and mend fences. However, I don't think charging people money (large amounts, at that), is the proper solution.