SoulsSilhouette
Buddy Fan Club member
I wanted to throw a tantrum, however, since I'm old they would probably throw me in the looney bin citing mixed dementia with aggressive tendencies.
-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
Survey Questions?
- Thread starter SoggyShorts
- Start date
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
If you buy something you expect to own it for the rest of your life. You expect to have access to it's features for the rest of your life. If it came with the ability to do X, you expect it to do X for the rest of your life (or of it's life if it breaks down, of course). Unless it's specifically stated, or generally expected, that it will change it's functions, it is legally binding that it remain as purchased for the rest of the life of ownership (excepting general wear and tear). Some things can be changed when you transfer them to a different person, but changing something I purchased after I purchased it and without pre-purchase notice that you might actually do such a thing is a breach of contract. A contract without and expiration date is perpetual and the terms of that contract, without specific language stating they can be changed at the whim of this or that party, are perpetual. Like I said, it's about what's expected in the situation and, frankly, if I buy a building I expect it to do what I purchased it for "for the rest of my life."
However, it may be that my expectation is not the standard expectation of players. That's a grey area. If you start the game and understand that the devs might 'nerf" something you bought, then you purchased that building and gave them, in essence, the right to do so. The problem is that a significant number of players don't expect that and almost nobody expects it to happen often. How often and if you expect it are the determiners of if you feel you have been cheated or not. So, in some ways I agree. But generally speaking it's a grey area.
It's true that some restaurants have closing hours and special considerations about what you can eat, when, but the general principal is that "all you can eat" means exactly that. If I haven't eaten "all I can eat" and you attempt to stop me from doing so, I have a legal right to complain. And in fact, most restaurants post when they are closed and what the meal you entitled to eat is -- often even the hours of that meal. Your "exceptions" are exactly that and don't void the reasoning I presented at all.
As for standing outside and complaining loudly, they could, of course, just post on Yelp or some other review site. Isn't standing and complaining outside the restaurant exercising their free speech and issuing a review, of sorts? You might not like the review or the "media" it uses to reach those who might be interested, but you can ignore it just like you might ignore a Yelp review. The real "problem" is not the review but that the reviewers who would take the time to be there are probably skewed. It would be like Yelp filtering out almost all the good reviews. Not a good idea.
Free bread sticks is fine as long as they are offered. But if the store closes it is under no obligation to offer to tomorrow's customers, what they offered today. So I come in tomorrow and I had free bread sticks yesterday. They don't offer them today and while I might like them to do so, I can't make them do so. The thing is, the place closed, I left, I returned and the new "contract" doesn't offer "free bread sticks." If, on the other hand, they offered "free bread sticks for life" without any caveats, they would be obligated to serve me free bread sticks for life. Usually such offers require something else, like "with purchase of..." but one could conceive of such a thing as "free coffee for likfe" (if you purchase and receive said coffee in our flimsy cup). Telling everybody about the "free bread sticks" isn't the problem, it's the foolishness of not adding the caveat, "offer subject to change without notice" and making sure the customer understands that "subject to change" includes, "no free breadsticks for life when I decide to change my mind." Often when such radical changes are done, the customer's are offered some kind of buy out. At one point the airline industry had so many frequent flyer miles on the books they had to bring them down by offering all sorts of perks. They did so and eventually the problem at least resided. What they couldn't do is simply say to the customer, "sorry, no free miles on your account anymore, we took them away" or "we've reduced your free miles by 15% because you having so many is hurting our business."
If the contract does not have terms it's perpetual to the degree of expectation. "All you can eat" implies you are going to eat while the restaurant is open and serving the meal you purchased. "Free refills for life" says as long as you are alive and the cup lasts, you can refill it. In almost every contract the terms are implied and usually explicitly stated. If there are not the contract is perpetual. Some of the ways to end the perpetual nature of the contract are: in ability to perform the requirements due to some reason....a dead singer can't sing, a football running back with a broken leg can't run the play. A company out of business cannot fulfill it's contracts. A restaurant which promises "free breadsticks for life" but can't get bread sticks from their vendor, can't provide free bread sticks. All kinds of things end the perpetual nature of a contract, but if none of those things are present the contract stands. I once purchased a building. The purchase obligated the current owner to vacate the building. That was a perpetual vacate. I didn't expect to see him on the premises without my permission after the closing date. A perpetual obligation on his part in real life. So it's not just virtual that we expect a perpetual obligation. Frequent flyer mile are another example. Those cards that hold cash are expected to be worth the same in 20 years or tomorrow unless specifically stated otherwise. We pay a fee for them, we pocket them, and we expect their value to be perpetual. So no, it's not only in virtual settings that "people feel like they are justified in behaving like a one time payement bestows a perpetual obligatin."
AJ
AJ
Last edited:
Lelanya
Scroll-Keeper, Keys to the Gems
Wow this has wandered way off topic and gotten a bit tedious. I came back here with a fresh remembrance of the 'survey questions' we were discussing, only to find my eyes glazing over.
Boo! I am sure there are 'complaint threads' that are advertised as such
Boo! I am sure there are 'complaint threads' that are advertised as such
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
No you don't. There is practically nothing we purchase that lasts forever, and there is nothing outside of virtual environments that we buy which continues to offer an extra every day at no perceivable cost to yourself. Even a free coffee for life requires traveling to another location to obtain it.
You've conflated the free bread sticks example with a completely different part of the argument. I didn't talk about it as an obligation that might be cancelled. I referenced angry players who publicly proclaim that we should keep using the free stuff the game gives away but not ever give them any money, as in encouraging everyone else to go to a restaurant and eat their free bread sticks but never buy any food from them.
Yep. But game purchases always have terms, and players regularly choose to ignore that in favour of treating them as though they are something different when it's convenient.
Yep. Again, nobody outside of games expects that their pants pockets will be full of a fresh supply of change every time they put them on and that the amount of change will stay the same forever.
They could, and some do. It's pretty rare for them do it over a change in restaurant policy vs a bad experience, and even rarer for them to call for a boycott of the restaurant over their bad experience. I'd bet there have been at least three or four calls for a boycott each year since I started playing elvenar, on their own U.S. forums.
If we could come down off the cliff for a bit, I didn't write that none of these things happen in other places. I wrote that it's an interesting trait among gamers, and that very few people act the same in other industries. Not none, very few. Not people in a perpetual buffet who go there to eat forever because the terms don't say they can't, but people who ate at a restaurant a bunch of times last year. No absolutes on either side. Chewing at occasional instances that might happen with a refillable coffee cup doesn't negate anything I said or any position I hold. If someone came to play Elvenar specifically because they wanted to buy buildings that would never change, then they match up with your Buffet-campers and coffee addicts. Most of us are here for other reasons. They'd also be careless, because the game does have terms, including #10 that the rules can change at any time.
Enevhar Aldarion
Oh Wise One
Really? So if Elvenar had gotten shut down on it's 5th anniversary, would you have sued Innogames for your money back because the game was not around to play until you died?
Iyapo1
Well-Known Member
I have never read TOS in a game without running into at least one "we can change whatever we want whenever we want clause".
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Yep, but it's interesting to note that the TOS are sometimes not enforceable if the terms are not within the bounds of what would be expected. In one case the signer of the agreement didn't read the agreement. Later it was determined the issuer of the TOS knew the vast majority of people wouldn't actually read it and thus, the terms were not enforceable! The US courts said that if you know the signers aren't going to read it, and you make no provision to insure that unusual terms aren't brought to the notice of the signer, those unusual provisions (read "unexpected" for "unusual{) aren't enforceable. The same thing occurs when they shove a contract in your face and expect you to read the whole thing while they stand there watching. The courts have made that sort of thing also subject to general expectations. It's one of the reasons that when you rent a car they make you initial certain items while the point out what those items mean. That's making what you might not expect to be in the contract explicit and getting your initials on that part makes it so yo can't argue that you didn't expect and agree to it.
Terms of Service have to abide by reasonable and expected standards and, according to American courts, be a reasonable trade between the parties. The courts can, and have, thrown out contracts that favored one party over the other even when both parties initially agreed to the terms. The question in the current discussion would be: to what degree do the players understand and accept the idea of what they are purchasing can be "nerfed?" I suspect the courts would side with Inno, but it really depends on the exact nature of the case.
AJ
Iyapo1
Well-Known Member
I will not read "unexpected" for "unusual".
Knight of Mystra
Member
Ashrem, have you ever conceded a point to someone on the forum? Even God was said to fallible.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
like post #42 with 1,072 words(5,927 characters)? Seriously @ajqtrz once in a while pretend like it's Twitter and try 280 characters or less.Wow this has wandered way off topic and gotten a bit tedious. I came back here with a fresh remembrance of the 'survey questions' we were discussing, only to find my eyes glazing over.
Boo! I am sure there are 'complaint threads' that are advertised as such
SoulsSilhouette
Buddy Fan Club member
Wow this has wandered way off topic and gotten a bit tedious. I came back here with a fresh remembrance of the 'survey questions' we were discussing, only to find my eyes glazing over.
Boo! I am sure there are 'complaint threads' that are advertised as such
This was basically a thread about the Survey that Soggy was denied. An outrage. It wandered into other areas that INNO has given more credence to than the overall feeling from EVERY participating player. If Soggy was willing to take the time and put forth the effort into a survey conducted by INNO, he should not have been denied the opportunity. The questions were absurdly NOT about this game, but psychological profiling.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
like post #42 with 1,072 words(5,927 characters)? Seriously @ajqtrz once in a while pretend like it's Twitter and try 280 characters or less.
Nothing of any importance can be said with 280 characters unless you wish to be totally miss-understood and/or are speaking of unimportant things. Memes and mantras are not the way of good discussions...they are just lobbing hand-grenades in an effort to "win." I hate twitter exactly for that.
AJ
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
Lots of times. I've also apologized several times for errors. People tend to ignore those when they want to passively insult me.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Surely there's a balance between 280 and 6,000 characters?If your audience is skimming and their eyes are glazing over are you accomplishing more than a tweet? Not everything requires a thesis defense.
*This is where I could (ironically) add 4-5 paragraphs of my theories on why shorter more succinct posts actually help make a point better than a long-winded dissertation. I could include studies from various sources that support this view(there's a study that supports any view) but I think I was able to make my point in the first 160 characters
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Surely there's a balance between 280 and 6,000 characters?If your audience is skimming and their eyes are glazing over are you accomplishing more than a tweet? Not everything requires a thesis defense.
*This is where I could (ironically) add 4-5 paragraphs of my theories on why shorter more succinct posts actually help make a point better than a long-winded dissertation. I could include studies from various sources that support this view(there's a study that supports any view) but I think I was able to make my point in the first 160 characters
The question is: Is what is written necessary to the argument being advanced and is it repetitive? If the first answer is yes, and the second no, then the post, however long it might be, is the proper length. I generally would answer that most of my posts do present arguments -- though I do sometimes repeat arguments from other posts under the assumption that not everybody has read all the posts and even if they have a different wording may have a different, more positive effect -- in general my posts are edited for repetition and I find little of that to be present.
Second, while it is true that a succinct argument will be received easier than a long one, a succinct argument is usually a summation of a point and thus open to easy rebuttal. Linking argument to argument is necessary to show how Y follows X and that sometimes means making the connection for the reader. Sadly there are a number of readers who tend to react without contemplation and that leads to all sorts of miss-understandings.
Worse than that though, are the readers who's "eyes glaze over" in viewing a "wall of text" because they, quite obviously, have never been trained to actually think critically -- which is, by definition more time-consuming than just reacting.
Finally, you made your point in the first 142.6 characters...LOL...but you didn't persuade with those characters -- which is why you lay out the idea that you could do so with "4-5 paragraphs" and "studies from various sources." Perhaps you just want to make a point in your posts while I'm trying to persuade? The irony is, of course, that people have come to expect to be persuaded by grenades of memes and mantra's rather than thoughtful (and sometimes long) argument. I too could quote a lot of studies on that (My Phd work was in textual analysis, btw) but I won't.
AJ
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Are you successful though? Do you find that your posts are persuading people specifically because they are so verbose? If not, and I don't see much evidence they are, perhaps a compromise like trimming it just a bit may help you.
Honestly, I've taken to the habit of skipping your posts and just reading @Ashrem's multi-quote point-by-point rebuttals since his 5-12 word snippets of your paragraphs are summing up your points well enough imo.
Pheryll
Set Designer
I disagree. There may be ways to shorten it without the loss of information. Suppose I wished to make points A, B, and C. If I could break B down into B1 and B2 and find D to express A and B1 and E to express B2 and C then D and E is shorter than A, B, and C without either of them being redundant. Mathematics has many instances where the necessary information can be made more succinct.
Kekune
Well-Known Member
I am employed as a technical writer. My task is often to convey a great deal of information as concisely as possible. I can assure you that the normal response of well-educated and intelligent, but busy, people is to respond exactly as Soggy suggests.
The first rule of writing is to know your audience. The problem isn't (usually) that people can't understand what you write. It's that you've chosen the wrong form of communication for your audience and your medium. When your words, style, length, etc. don't match your audience's needs, they won't read it. And as has already been said, surely that detracts from the points you want to make?
