EVE Search - CCP Failing to Reimburse

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP Failing to Reimburse

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Alowishus mUfFiN fAcToRy Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:16:00 - [271] Insurance? People buy that? Regardless of whether the GMs were right in this specific incident it doesn't change the fact that insurance in Eve sucks. I just pretend it doesn't exist and go about my business. /makes fart noise
Scrutt5 Snuff inc	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:17:00 - [272] OK let me throw this into the mix. How come you dont get an invalidation of insurance mail when you have transfered a ship that was insured whilst in your possetion ? I know these mails are only distributed when the insurance tab is opened however after transfering a ship and receiving it back it still shows as being insured by you.
Squirrrel Gallente Squirrrel Industries	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:19:00 - [273] Edited by: Squirrrel on 13/02/2008 22:19:40 Originally by: Alowishus Insurance? People buy that? Regardless of whether the GMs were right in this specific incident it doesn't change the fact that insurance in Eve sucks. I just pretend it doesn't exist and go about my business. Which is what I'll do regarding you from now on after reading your completely useless post.
Alowishus mUfFiN fAcToRy Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:25:00 - [274] Originally by: Squirrrel Edited by: Squirrrel on 13/02/2008 22:19:40 Originally by: Alowishus Insurance? People buy that? Regardless of whether the GMs were right in this specific incident it doesn't change the fact that insurance in Eve sucks. I just pretend it doesn't exist and go about my business. Which is what I'll do regarding you from now on after reading your completely useless post. Why is my post useless? Because you don't agree with it? Look, insurance in Eve could really use a revamp. Since I've been playing we've seen missiles revamped, drones revamped (more than once), T1 frigates/other ships revamped, turrets revamped, damn near everything. Why is it so impossible to think that insurance could be looked into? I mean it doesn't even work on T2 ships. I'm not sure what exactly your problem is but it seems your the uppity angry type and could really use a girlfriend. /makes fart noise
Rufus MacMaranth Shadow Front Lost Children of Eve	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:29:00 - [275] Wow 10 pages, 3 (at least) CCP posts pointing out the way it is, and still the whining goes on. Amazing. Ruf.
Neslo Gallente DarkStar 1	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:30:00 - [276] Edited by: Neslo on 13/02/2008 22:30:37 Originally by: Scrutt5 OK let me throw this into the mix. How come you dont get an invalidation of insurance mail when you have transfered a ship that was insured whilst in your possetion ? I know these mails are only distributed when the insurance tab is opened however after transfering a ship and receiving it back it still shows as being insured by you. Uhm cuz Prism is wrong. Seriously the veterans in this game have looked at the responses in this thread and gone... wtf is he smoking. There was obviously a couple of scenarios with the original post: A) The person who transferred his stuff repackaged it (and remade it eating the cost of the rigs) B) He repackaged it while drunk C) The server had an issue and the GMs and Prism got it wrong. I personally would say given the way this thread has gone with resposnes from "official" CCP members... that this deserves escalation to the audit team. If it were me and this is how the thread went... that would be the route I'd go. If anyone can show me fraps of insuring a shuttle (hell i'd take a tech 1 frigate as proof)... transfering it to a carrier alt.... getting it back... and going an self destructing without getting ISK... please evemail me and I would like to see it. I'll reimburse you any costs if it fails, if not (and it won't fail) you will get your isk back for the shuttle. It's impossible to fail to get your insurance back. From Ashes to Ashes... From Dust to Dust....
Squirrrel Gallente Squirrrel Industries	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:38:00 - [277] Originally by: Alowishus Why is my post useless? Because you don't agree with it? No, laregly because it didn't really state much beyond insurance sucks. It doesn't say why or give any further information, so it's largely useless. I see you've corrected that though in this post by actually giving some information which makes it much more useful. Originally by: Alowishus Look, insurance in Eve could really use a revamp. Since I've been playing we've seen missiles revamped, drones revamped (more than once), T1 frigates/other ships revamped, turrets revamped, damn near everything. Why is it so impossible to think that insurance could be looked into? I mean it doesn't even work on T2 ships. I agree with all but the last bit. Do you know how insurance costs work and how T2 items sell value v T2 item insurance works? Look at the components required or use a calculator for the value of a T2 item and you'll see the insurance is actually pretty much spot on. The only difference you see as a buyer is the mark up T2 items have always had. With invention those costs have come down a fair bit anyway. Quote: I'm not sure what exactly your problem is but it seems your the uppity angry type and could really use a girlfriend. Got one thanks, and usually she's what makes me uppity and angry. ;)
Zanpt	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:54:00 - [278] Wrangler and Prism X and the people who wrote the insurance blurb all get failing grades in reading comprehension. Prism X also gets a failing grade in attitude. It's my money. Unless I like you at least reasonably well there's no way in hell you can get your hands on it. That's the law.
Alowishus mUfFiN fAcToRy Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:54:00 - [279] Originally by: Squirrrel I agree with all but the last bit. Do you know how insurance costs work and how T2 items sell value v T2 item insurance works? Look at the components required or use a calculator for the value of a T2 item and you'll see the insurance is actually pretty much spot on. The only difference you see as a buyer is the mark up T2 items have always had. With invention those costs have come down a fair bit anyway. I understand how T2 insurance payouts are calculated, it doesn't change the fact that nobody insures T2 ships. If I were working for CCP I'd see that as an issue that needs fixing rather than ignoring it. Nobody used Damage Controls or Invulnerability Fields for a long time, CCP totally changed both and made them two of the most used modules in the game. Do I have a viable solution? Nah. But CCP has some smart people working for them and they tend to fix/change things that initially seemed like a good idea but in practice, over time, were shunned by the player base. Insurance on T2 ships is shunned by the player base, it stands to reason that they'd get to work on it. But like I said, I don't use insurance. Last time I bought insurance on any ship was three years ago and it expired before the ship was destroyed. /makes fart noise
Phoeb3 Minmatar NO DISCRIMINATION	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:57:00 - [280] Insurance is the fail. CCP has a fudiciary responsibility which includes good faith and fair dealing with it's policy holders. Which means "ANY" ambiguity in the insurance contract "MUST" always be condstrude to favor the client. Now the insurance contract makes no provision for this incident which is as follows, nor does it "EXPLICITLY" say the following senario is not a covered peril or loss. Ship is insured by player A. Ship is traded "unpackaged" to player B during the duration of the insurance contract. Ship is traded back to player A "unpackaged" during the duration of the insurance contract. Ship blows up while player A is flying it and it's still within the insurance contract duration. Sorry CCP you are the loose on this and "MUST" act in good faith towards your client. Despite those who have remarked here that the contract clearly outlines the terms, it does not by the mere fact that some people have inturperated it differantly. What CCP has done here is make a blanket insurance contract and applies thier own inturperatation that benefits them the out being "intended game mechanics", you make us agree to an EULA you should agree to act in good faith towards your clients at "ALL" times and not when it's convienant for you. CCP please public a comprehensive list of "Intended game mechanics" so your client base doesn't waste there time anymore. Really your paying clients deserve better treatment then this.
Alowishus mUfFiN fAcToRy Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:07:00 - [281] Originally by: Phoeb3 Edited by: Phoeb3 on 13/02/2008 23:00:02 Insurance is the fail. CCP has a fudiciary responsibility which includes good faith and fair dealing with it's policy holders. Which means "ANY" ambiguity in the insurance contract "MUST" always be condstrude to favor the client. Now the insurance contract makes no provision for this incident which is as follows, nor does it "EXPLICITLY" say the following senario is not a covered peril or loss. Ship is insured by player A. Ship is traded "unpackaged" to player B during the duration of the insurance contract. Ship is traded back to player A "unpackaged" during the duration of the insurance contract. Ship blows up while player A is flying it and it's still within the insurance contract duration. Sorry CCP you are the loose on this and "MUST" act in good faith towards your client. Despite those who have remarked here that the contract clearly outlines the terms, it does not by the mere fact that some people have inturperated it differantly. What CCP has done here is make a blanket insurance contract and applies thier own inturperatation that benefits them, the out being "intended game mechanics". You make us agree to an EULA you should agree to act in good faith towards your clients at "ALL" times and not when it's convienant for you. CCP please publish a comprehensive list of "Intended game mechanics" so your client base doesn't waste there time anymore. Really your paying clients deserve better treatment then this. You just won teh forums. /makes fart noise
Squirrrel Gallente Squirrrel Industries	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:08:00 - [282] Originally by: Phoeb3 CCP please publish a comprehensive list of "Intended game mechanics" so your client base doesn't waste there time anymore. Really your paying clients deserve better treatment then this. I don't see this happening to be honest, and I've started/posted in about 3 threads in the past few months where this has been asked for. None of them garnered a reply, even the one that contained CCP postings. (iMune) I am getting more and more concerned as a paying customer that a lot of what is being done by GM's is done of the fly, and this issue where CCP Wrangler posts a lot of extra text that is supposed to be the "official" way to view insurance does little to reassure me. Sorry CCP, this whole thread stinks, precedent or not. Too many of the so-called rules and mechanics of the game are not documented or are in old knowledgebase articles and it's hard to seperate myth from fact. Dress it up how you like, I'm losing faith, and it sounds like for this and a few other issues, there are plenty of people in agreement.
Squidgey	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:11:00 - [283] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Rhaegor Stormborn I agree the wording does not indicate in anyway that trading the ship invalidates the insurance. Quote: The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. So it will be insured under the following two conditions. 1) It is in possession of whoever issued the contract. 2) The contract has not expired. By trading it you void the first condition and therefore the insurance. What's the problem...? Agreed 100%. It will remain insured UNTIL you break one of the above rules. You keep the insurance until one of the rules is broken, it doesn't magically apply again if you break a term of the agreement and then suddenly get back in line with the terms. Nothing is wrong here IMO and you should check to see that its still insured before you get your stuff blown up huh.
Alowishus mUfFiN fAcToRy Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:17:00 - [284] I don't care if CCP makes decisions on the fly when new situations come up, I just want the decisions to be documented, pass along to the players in a clear official manor (i.e. not a random and vague twenty word post with blue bars above and below it and without any further explanation or response to requests for clarification) and then applied consistently in the future. As a side note: I think it'd be nice if CCP made it corporate policy for their employees not to respond to threads unless that person chooses to own the thread and see it through to it's completion. This nonsense where we get an occasional cryptic response and no way to get further information has been a continual problem. Previously unknown policy should not be conveyed to us in that manor, ever. /makes fart noise
Squirrrel Gallente Squirrrel Industries	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:21:00 - [285] Originally by: Squidgey Agreed 100%. It will remain insured UNTIL you break one of the above rules. You keep the insurance until one of the rules is broken, it doesn't magically apply again if you break a term of the agreement and then suddenly get back in line with the terms. Where does it state until? Both conditions were met. 1) It was in the possession of the owner of the insurance. 2) It was during the duration of the contract. There is no mention of trading the ship voiding the contract at all. The only elements that seem to void it in the insurance text are: a) Another pilot losing the ship. b) Repackaging the ship. If you can find and explain the exact bit of wording in the insurance script in-game that supports trading or your "until" clause then please do so.
Squirrrel Gallente Squirrrel Industries	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:22:00 - [286] Originally by: Alowishus I don't care if CCP makes decisions on the fly when new situations come up, I just want the decisions to be documented, pass along to the players in a clear official manor (i.e. not a random and vague twenty word post with blue bars above and below it and without any further explanation or response to requests for clarification) and then applied consistently in the future. As a side note: I think it'd be nice if CCP made it corporate policy for their employees not to respond to threads unless that person chooses to own the thread and see it through to it's completion. This nonsense where we get an occasional cryptic response and no way to get further information has been a continual problem. Previously unknown policy should not be conveyed to us in that manor, ever. I stand corrected about you sir. I totally agree with this.
Neslo Gallente DarkStar 1	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:23:00 - [287] I have a question. Do you get insurance on your sihps if they are destroyed in your carrier (if the ship never leaves your possession?) Hey also... let me ask you if I insure my sihp and put it into a corporate hangar at a pos... it's technically out of my possession how is this not invalidating the insurance. Technically I'm not in possession of it anymore. From Ashes to Ashes... From Dust to Dust....
Phoeb3 Minmatar NO DISCRIMINATION	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:24:00 - [288] I don't understand how some people can read it but don't get it. The contract does not give exclusions therefore if the ship was in his posession at the time it blew up the insurance "MUST" pay! FFS! If trading the ship voids the insurance policy then the client should get a notice of cancelation in his mail. The fact that no notice is sent means that trading an unpackaged ship to some one else and trading it back unpackaged does "NOT" void the policy. I suspect the client's claim was denied becuase CCP is to lazy to just include exclusions in the insurance contract. This incident clearly sets presidence and should be clarified in the insurance policy. Again, CCP deal fairly and in good faith towards your clients.
Alowishus mUfFiN fAcToRy Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:31:00 - [289] Originally by: Squirrrel I stand corrected about you sir. I totally agree with this. You were basing your opinion of me on a post that was inspired by the posting style of our Dev Team: short and vague, requiring clarification. The difference is my clarification came because I can't stand being misunderstood. Oddly, the Devs don't seem to care if people understand them sometimes, or they're too busy to check back. What they must not realize is how exasperating vague information is compared to none at all. Sometimes I much prefer threads where people beg for a CCP response and never get one. /makes fart noise
Zanpt	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:52:00 - [290] Originally by: Alowishus As a side note: I think it'd be nice if CCP made it corporate policy for their employees not to respond to threads unless that person chooses to own the thread and see it through to it's completion. This nonsense where we get an occasional cryptic response and no way to get further information has been a continual problem. Previously unknown policy should not be conveyed to us in that manor, ever. Totally. It is nonsense and too often the CCP people who drop posts into threads like birds crapping on pedestrians display abominably bad attitude.
Phoeb3 Minmatar NO DISCRIMINATION	Posted - 2008.02.13 23:54:00 - [291] Edited by: Phoeb3 on 13/02/2008 23:55:58 More about insurance and why CCP's insurance policy needs a little work. The operative word for insuance contracts is "Indemnification". Which means to make whole again. An insurance contract includes, at a minimum, the following elements: the parties (the insurer, the insured, the beneficiaries), the premium, the period of coverage, the particular loss event covered, the amount of coverage (i.e., the amount to be paid to the insured or beneficiary in the event of a loss), and exclusions (events not covered). An insured is thus said to be "indemnified" against the loss events covered in the policy. So "EXLUSIONS" must be included in the insurance contract. There are only 2 exclusions named in the CCP ship insurance contract. As follows; (Repackaging the item will void the contract. The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else.) If CCP want's to say trading the ship to some one else voids the insurance contract then it should be a named exclusion within the insurance contract. It's not a named exclusion so the we have to refer to the policy to discover if the event is a covered loss or peril. The policy states; (The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract.) Therefore this clients loss is an INSURABLE loss and should be promptly paid. You can argue that becuase the ship left his posession it voided the contract but that is not a named exclusion nor is can this be used as an excuse to void the policy. The logic does not apply within the stated terms of the insurance policy.
Bozse Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.14 00:09:00 - [292] So as im way to lazy to read 10 pages can anyone do a fast recap of what's causing this, interested especialy if it's the carrier / mom ship bay that nullifies the insurance or not. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
Phoeb3 Minmatar NO DISCRIMINATION	Posted - 2008.02.14 00:43:00 - [293] Quote: So as im way to lazy to read 10 pages can anyone do a fast recap of what's causing this, interested especialy if it's the carrier / mom ship bay that nullifies the insurance or not. This thread is about the insurance contract and if a traded ship voids the insurance contract. Which I personally believe I have effectively argued that it does not void the contract.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.14 01:09:00 - [294] If someone else is flying the spaceship when it blows up, they get the itty bitty little uninsured payout and you dont get jack. This is how space insurance works... it's not Geico Originally by: Avaricia look a goon lol
Phoeb3 Minmatar NO DISCRIMINATION	Posted - 2008.02.14 01:16:00 - [295] Quote: If someone else is flying the spaceship when it blows up, they get the itty bitty little uninsured payout and you dont get jack. Thank you for helping to prove the point. The word possession within the insurance terms is to be interperated as "FLYING" or "PILOTING". Not sitting in a hanger or traded. Oh and by the way every legit insuance policy has definitions for certian words which clearly outline the meaning of the word withint the context of the contract, which might not be the everyday meaning that is applied to it. That's why if some one else is flying a ship I bought and traded to him and he blows it up, he gets the default insuance and not the orginal owner. Unless he insured it himself.
Annapolis D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.14 02:44:00 - [296] Originally by: Nobues Mr. Annapolis, I got to the 5th page and stopped reading. All I see is some poor little noob trying to get free ISK. Its not hard to to make isk well for people who arn't noobs. Before we keep on, don't try to save face by saying "didn't I kill you before" because this is about pride and well you lost yours the second you posted this topic. The print is clear on the contracts and because you don't read that print doesn't mean the devs have to pay. You didn't get any warning message due to you have your warning messages turned off like any player who gets sick of them. So stop wining like a little 1 year old bit.. and just get over your self. I'm sure you can find some miners to kill or something, as thats the only thing you can kill you will never be a man enough to do a real fight with even odds. To sum it all up, Annapolis. Print was clear as day you just didn't read it and now your wining like there is no tomorrow. I'm sure you didn't read that mail they send you ether it says something like.. Inc is void... LOL. Apparently if you had read more... or if you had the ability to comprehend just what you were reading you would find it isn't as clear as you think and that perhaps you are the one who just lost face
Darcuese Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.14 08:01:00 - [297] The problem with this insuirance issue is not stricly this insuirance issue. The way I see it is: A) CCP love to play GOD defending some of their m8s faults, couse i was giving ships to someone in the past, got it back and got insuirance after loss. This was the first time i heard about this issue. So, CCP just CANT SAY "SORRY, WE WERE WRONG". B) If actualy they wanted for the insuirance to be this way...well...then they dont have skills to write the transparent rules or CANT understand simple logic which make the issue more problematic with every next patch. Couse, if they cant understand simple things, I doubt they have wisdom to invent and properly implement something more complex. Ergo, all the nerfings, moaning, etc,etc... me, myself and I ------>
techzer0 IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.02.14 08:15:00 - [298] Fly T2... I get 6 mil or so for a ship I paid 100 mil for, even less when I jump in a T2 BS. Woooooohooo Yeah, you read it wrong and they told you that much... (Since the Devs decide how game mechanics work, I'd say they're right). I'd compare it to loaning a car with full coverage to a friend and getting back to find that my insurance was voided by my friend moving my car one block... But it's not real life, it's CCP's game and they made up the rules, now all they gotta do is change the wording of the insurance thing. Bah... I sound like I'm supporting the Devs for once ------------ Originally by: Praxis1452 you win eve
Karlemgne Flying Under the Influence	Posted - 2008.02.14 08:46:00 - [299] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny If someone else is flying the spaceship when it blows up, they get the itty bitty little uninsured payout and you dont get jack. This is how space insurance works... it's not Geico And you aren't clever. -Karlemgne
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Do Or Die And Live Or Try The Kano Organisation	Posted - 2008.02.14 09:43:00 - [300] Originally by: Gorefacer Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes If you place your ship in a PoS hangar, you have not traded it to anyone. Still yours, still insured. If a corp mate takes it for a spin, it is no longer in your possession and the insurance is invalid. Same goes with a hangar in a carrier/mom. You dock it and it's still yours. Someone else takes it from that hangar, and insurance is void. Same goes if you place it at a safespot. The ships is still yours, even though you are not flying it. Until someone finds it and boards it. Then it has changed ownership and insurance is void. I really can't see how this can be confusing in anyway. Not sure what's more amusing, the fact that your wrong, or that your actually condescending and arrogant about it. Either you can see it as the GMs ALWAYS being right and trading the ship (not just someone else boarding it) should void the insurance or you go by in-game experience that tells us that trading and someone else flying your ship will not void the insurance. Either view point does not support your post. I would also contend the logic behind your statement declaring that trading your ship to someone else to do what they please with it is not "losing possession" of your ship, but someone else boarding your ship is. I've read my post several times again now, and I can't find any place where I state, that trade DOES NOT void insurance. Infact I didn't mention trade at any point. Please point me to where I say that trading a ship should not void a contract.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.