Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2467
   |
Posted - 2013.04.14 07:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Mavado V Noriega wrote:lets say the law states u cant use ur cellphone and drive or u will get arrested but that law 2 weeks ago stated u could of used it and no penalty and they told ppl about the change but u ignored the change and used ur cellphone while driving and got arrested are u gonna look at the judge with a straight face and say that wasnt the original law so u should be excused?
Lets run with this example.
But to make it ACTUALLY RELEVANT TO THE SITUATION, it needs a few changes.
When you bought the cellphone, you were specifically advised as a selling point that you could drive while talking on the phone. There was, at the time, no law preventing this. It was clearly stated that this was part of the reason why someone would want a cellphone. There was even written documentation in the store that listed this ability as one of the features of the product.
Two weeks later, the law is changed. You return to the store, and they've just taken down the signs which display "talk while driving" as part of the cellphone.
Just because the sign is no longer there, doesn't mean that you're no longer entitled to what was on the sign when you bought it. In this scenario, unless "hands free" kits have also been banned, the store would be within their rights to give (NOT SELL) one to you, in order to honour the agreement they made.
As with the above (modified) example, what people are asking for was CLEARLY STATED AS PART OF THE MERC PACK. Getting our gear credited back was specifically meant to be happening for every reset "AND commercial release" - not "maybe commercial release" or "including commercial release". "And" means "and" - it's not unclear or ambiguous in any way.
Anyone who purchased the Merc Pack under the closed beta conditions is legally entitled to those conditions being honoured. We were told we would get our gear credited back. If there's anything in the pack that we no longer have, we should get that item/those items OR AN EQUIVALENT (as was also stipulated in the terms). In the case of boosters, it's reasonable to argue on multiple fronts that there's no requirement to refund those.
Boosters give SP. The final state of the booster when used is that of SP on your character. As long as you have the SP the booster gave you, it can be argued that you still have an equivalent to that booster, and are not entitled to it being credited back. It can also be argued that, as an implant on your character, the booster is retained within the body, so there's a lore-based rationalisation for the claim that you still have the booster even after it's "gone".
I still say we should be given OPTIONS. Any of the following can be considered valid and fair to everyone.
1. Full refund and skill reset. EVERYTHING gets reset, SP, Merc Pack gear, no exceptions. You're a fresh, un-skilled character with all your gear back.
2. Switch to new conditions. I can't see anyone who's used boosters taking this option, but it's basically what it says. You give up your right to any special treatment.
3. Credit back of everything EXCEPT boosters. If you bought BPOs with Aurum, you get refunds on those BPOs, and have to re-purchase them. If you bought any single-use Aurum items they get refunded EVEN IF YOU USED THEM. Any destroyed items that came with the Merc Pack are restored. Basically, you'd end up with the entire contents of the Merc Pack minus any boosters you're used, and minus any Aurum you've spent on boosters.
4. Refund everything, but remove any boosted SP - this can potentially be done by CCP having accurate records of when and how SP was earned, and done based on the specific SP earnings that were from boosters, or it might just be an approximation based on how much SP is EXPECTED to have been earned. Either way, this would result in the players having less SP, but getting their boosters (or all of their Aurum) back.
Options 3 and 4, while not strictly to the letter of what was offered, stays true to the spirit and intent of the terms both parties agreed to. As far as I'm concerned, that's fair enough. |