| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Wrangler
   |
Posted - 2008.02.08 18:24:00 -
[1]
Well, if it has left your possession the insurance is void even if it then get's back in your possession. This is intended game mechanics and nothing we'd reimburse for.
Wrangler
Community Manager
CCP Games, EVE Online
Email / Netfang
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." |
|
|
CCP Prism X
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 18:38:00 -
[2]
I reckon any lawyer worth his salt can point out the first sentence states the item is only insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Violating either term makes the item un-insured. Hence were it to leave your possession for any amount of time before the duration expires the insurance is void.
I'll concede that the second sentence is very redundant. But so is warning that living things should not be dried in a microwave, or that a hot cup of coffee is hot. But we do it anyway, it's lawyer speak these days I guess.
~ Prism X
EvE Database Developer |
|
|
CCP Prism X
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 22:27:00 -
[3]
Any lawyer worth his salt would evoke precedent. Period (seeing as people decided to pick up on that theme).
Precedent doesn't work where you're from?
Well, the only just way to treat this case is in the same way as all others. You decided to engage in PvP trade, it voided the contract. The words are misleading? Honestly, this isn't international law. We aren't dealing with morals...
It's game mechanics. Insurance binds you to a location unless you take the time and risk to move. Any veteran player knows this and perhaps this is the root of the problem. I'll take care to mention to the NPE (New Player Experience) group that this is confusing to new players, but you're not getting a reimbursement. We've refused everyone else up to this point and just because you found the fine print vague enough... well it still aint international law, it's EVE. You have to abide to the same rules as the other players.
To summarize: I'll take care to mention the message could be clearer to content designers. It's the best I can give you as a DB Developer who took interest in this misunderstanding. On the flip side I'm also ready to promise you that you'll have to abide by the same rulse as everyone else regardless of how you understood the written word. It's EVE law.
~ Prism X
EvE Database Developer |
|
|
CCP Prism X
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 16:16:00 -
[4]
Edited by: CCP Prism X on 11/02/2008 16:17:07
Edited by: CCP Prism X on 11/02/2008 16:16:38
Brought this up with Hammerhead. The ambiguity and possible inconsistencies will be looked at.
I will not speak for the Customer Service Department. I don't work for them, I don't fully know all their procedures and protocols and I'm sure as Sally not going to promise anything on their behalf.
I still disagree with anyone who's going to say that there's no way to understand this as a twofold condition. This might be due to whatever reasons I can present. Hell I could even go about stating that there's no proof here that the ship wasn't repackaged knowing that this is something the OP could never proof or disproof. That is if I wanted to be an arse.
It doesn't matter.
I've admitted that the text is ambiguous and that it goes against our NPE initiative. I've brought it to the designers as well as the fact that there might be inconsistencies is reimbursement policy. I'm sorry if the OP feels cheated because of those inconsistencies but if the general rule is to not reimburse these cases then the general rule will remain so.. or that's what I would go with if I were a GM. However, I'm not so bringing about a revision is all I can give you.
Fly safe gents.
~ Prism X
EvE Database Developer |
|
| |
|