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)
Mariokoli Mianana Gallente Cloak and Daggers	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:02:00 - [31] How much is a battleship now? Some 40-50 mil? IMHO, Too bad, so sad. Go get yourself another one, and learn from the experience. Only fly a ship you can afford to lose regardless of the insurance. I have to agree with Angel DeMorphis. When you "trade" the ship to the other person, they could run off with it to the great sunset on the horizon. It is their ship, and they only thing that obligates them to return it to you is your faith in them. Since it is no longer your ship, the contract is immediately void as it instantly violates the "in your possession" portion of the insurance contract. When you breach the terms of a contract, it becomes immediately void, not conditionally void so long as you promise to return to compliance before the term is up.
Ethen Bejorn Pestilent Industries Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:03:00 - [32] Originally by: Marius Deterium Edited by: Marius Deterium on 08/02/2008 19:00:47 It's nice to see this is inconsistently enforced. About a month ago I had an alt move a drake across empire for me. The drake was insured. When the drake was back in my possession, and it got popped. I got paid the full insurance amount. The insurance system is definatly borked. I get emails about insurance expiring for ships I've sold months ago. Insurance fails. Typical.
Mr Vodka	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:08:00 - [33] " In your possession " hmmmmmmmm If you trade a ship, and then get it back......... is it not in your possession anymore? I wonder if you store a ship in a ship maint array at a pos or on a MS in space if your insurance is voided too. It's funny to see a GM get all riled up and like Prisim did, evidently he might be the one who wrote the FAILING insurance message. This is a case that I think everyone agree's brings to light that the message needs to be ammended to reflect the intended game mechanics. As it stands it is very vauge and reads misleading.
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:15:00 - [34] Edited by: Annapolis on 08/02/2008 19:15:26 Originally by: Mariokoli Mianana How much is a battleship now? Some 40-50 mil? IMHO, Too bad, so sad. Go get yourself another one, and learn from the experience. Only fly a ship you can afford to lose regardless of the insurance. I have to agree with Angel DeMorphis. When you "trade" the ship to the other person, they could run off with it to the great sunset on the horizon. It is their ship, and they only thing that obligates them to return it to you is your faith in them. Since it is no longer your ship, the contract is immediately void as it instantly violates the "in your possession" portion of the insurance contract. When you breach the terms of a contract, it becomes immediately void, not conditionally void so long as you promise to return to compliance before the term is up. LOL Have I OMGWTFPWNED you before in game?
Jacob Castillo Caldari Copperhead Inc. Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:15:00 - [35] Originally by: Mariokoli Mianana Only fly a ship you can afford to lose regardless of the insurance. That's no fun though.
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:17:00 - [36] Originally by: Mr Vodka As it stands it is very vauge and reads misleading. And this isn't standard operation(err reading) procedure for all legal terms and items? There were other possible ways to move the battleship. It might have fit in your carrier repackaged, or could have been courier contracted. If insurance is such a big deal, check it more often then.
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:21:00 - [37] Edited by: Turin on 08/02/2008 19:20:59 Originally by: CCP Wrangler 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. Hey wrangler. Your policy fracking sucks. Big time. As long as a ship is NOT FLOWN by another person. NOT REPACKAGED by another person. and traded IN TACT, from one person to another, and then back. ( for example, you buy a ship, trade it to me to carrier jump somewhere, and I trade it back to you ) shouldnt void insureance. And your policy that regulates that is re-tarded. I wonder who wrote it? The short bus group? _________________________________
Sandeep Raptus Regaliter Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:21:00 - [38] It actually allows direct trading ships since I've been around, as long as no repackaging is done. Whether intended or not, many people have used this feature. In fact, insurance is still valid after direct-trading ships back and forth, right now. The insurance tab was still in ship info, and when I blew the ship up, I received the 100% payout. The other causes of losing the insurance, which I could not test, could be 1) operator error 2) ship loaded into carrier ship bay 3) someone you are not supposed to trade ship to 4) glitch or new featureÖ -----
mrspiggy	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:22:00 - [39] Edited by: mrspiggy on 08/02/2008 19:25:45 Originally by: Annapolis "The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. 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. Do you accept the above terms and still want to insure the selected item?" I think the OP does have a point. Lets look at the time-line. And reflect it against said contract quoted above.... OP insures his lovely BS under the terms of the agreement above. OP trades BS to another person.(Aparently at this point according to Wrangler and Prism X the contract becomes void) Now let's refer back to the original contract and look at the terms that will void the contract. Quote: The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else. This quote here directly refers to the voidance of the contract, and in accordance with the OP's actions, does NOT constitute a void contract at this point. The ship has NOT been destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else, so is therefore not void. Quote: The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Now according to Wrangler and Prism X, this is the line that points to the voidance of the contract, but at no point in this quote does it say that IF the ship leaves his possession the contract will be void. This line simply states that "insurance is valid if YOU own the ship and withing the period agreed." Nothing more, nothing less. Any sensible person can see that the 2nd quote would NOT be enforced given that there is more relevant direction of intent for voidance of the contract in the 1st quote. So I would have to come to the conclusion that the OP's insurance is STILL valid. OP trades back his BS to himself. Nothing in the contact references this action, and therefor can NOT void the contract. OP then gets his BS blown up whilst still in the insurance period and whilst still in his possession. As all terms in insurance contact have been met, OP is entitled to his payout. I ask anyone in CCP to counter argue this case as I have presented it and with the facts that other people have posted above me? I think in this case, Wrangler and Prism X have got it wrong.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:26:00 - [40] Doesn't matter what the game gives the impression of. Maybe it does give the impression that a ship will keep its insurance after a trade but that's not binding in any way considering it's up to CCP to decide wether to reimburse or not. Eg the game gives one the impression that senty guns only will fire when you have a visual criminal flagging. However the criminal flag updates each time you enter/exit a station or gatejump. I and alot of others have lost countless ships due to this and CCP will not reimburse it. If they say that they won't reimburse it then that's the way it is. You're not the first to fall victim to one of CCP's undocumented "features".
Mariokoli Mianana Gallente Cloak and Daggers	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:28:00 - [41] Originally by: Annapolis LOL Have I OMGWTFPWNED you before in game? New theory: Annapolis repackaged his ship at some point long ago and just "forgot" that he did it. If so many are saying that they have not had any problems trading and getting them back before now, something says to me that Annapolis probably "OMGWTFPWNED" himself.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:31:00 - [42] Originally by: Mariokoli Mianana Originally by: Annapolis LOL Have I OMGWTFPWNED you before in game? New theory: Annapolis repackaged his ship at some point long ago and just "forgot" that he did it. If so many are saying that they have not had any problems trading and getting them back before now, something says to me that Annapolis probably "OMGWTFPWNED" himself. I'm beginning to think this myself. I've never had any problems with trading insured ships to alts before without issue, and this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone having this problem, EVER. ---------------- Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:34:00 - [43] Originally by: Mariokoli Mianana Originally by: Annapolis LOL Have I OMGWTFPWNED you before in game? New theory: Annapolis repackaged his ship at some point long ago and just "forgot" that he did it. If so many are saying that they have not had any problems trading and getting them back before now, something says to me that Annapolis probably "OMGWTFPWNED" himself. If that was the case, then why the quick response of prismx and wrangler refuting that it is thier intended mechanics. yup i think i did kill ya
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:36:00 - [44] Edited by: Yargo Metash on 08/02/2008 19:36:57 Originally by: Tarminic I'm beginning to think this myself. I've never had any problems with trading insured ships to alts before without issue, and this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone having this problem, EVER. Seems like it. I've done it occasionally, and I've also repackaged ships that I've later lost (Like, way way way later when I didn't care about them anymore though were still in the contract) and wondered "Huh, why only base insurance? Oh well. More ISK!" Another theory would be that the person he traded it to repackaged it to move it probably. Heck, only a non-jump freighter wouldn't have to do that with a battleship.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:39:00 - [45] Edited by: DubanFP on 08/02/2008 19:42:20 You're worst part is you act like that's the only warning. When you put the ship into the contract a pop-up comes up and quite specifically states that contracting this item will remove any insurance covering it. I'm pretty sure it also states that it will be removed even if the contract isn't accepted. It's your own dumb ass fault for ignoring this warning. Even IF there wasn't a very clear warning that you obviously ignored I would still have laughed in your face anyways. ___________ Desolacer> Who the heck gives YOU the right to ruin it for others buy blowing them up. Zaqar> CCP
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:41:00 - [46] Was traded to my alt. So I kinda know it wasn't repackaged or made active cause that alt couldn't fly that race ship
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:43:00 - [47] Edited by: Annapolis on 08/02/2008 19:43:26 Originally by: DubanFP Edited by: DubanFP on 08/02/2008 19:40:26 You're worst part is you act like that's the only warning. When you put the ship into the contract a pop-up comes and quite specifically states that contracting this item will remove any insurance covering it. I'm pretty sure it also states that it will be removed even if the contract isn't accepted. It's your own dumb ass fault for ignoring this warning. Even IF it was that 1 thing you claim it is I would laugh in your face anyways. Wasn't contracted to my alt, was traded if you could read anything at all. And no warning comes up in trades about cancelling insurance. Do you have anymore brilliant statements to post here Duban?
Mariokoli Mianana Gallente Cloak and Daggers	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:47:00 - [48] Originally by: Yargo Metash Edited by: Yargo Metash on 08/02/2008 19:36:57 Seems like it. I've done it occasionally, and I've also repackaged ships that I've later lost (Like, way way way later when I didn't care about them anymore though were still in the contract) and wondered "Huh, why only base insurance? Oh well. More ISK!" Another theory would be that the person he traded it to repackaged it to move it probably. Heck, only a non-jump freighter wouldn't have to do that with a battleship. Close, but for many capitals with ship hangars, they can move them without repackaging the ships. It's still wholly possible that whomever Annapolis traded it to repackaged it accidentally. Regardless, whether he'd like to admit it or not, it's likely that he or the person he traded the ship to triggered the voiding of the contract.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:48:00 - [49] It's rather simple actually. Once you lost ownership of the ship the insurance contract became void because, you know, you're no longer owning this thing that is insured. Alt or no alt. You can't insure something that isn't yours. Instead of using a little reason you throw a tantrum about it.... -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Zorn Aldridge	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:51:00 - [50] Close, but for many capitals with ship hangars, they can move them without repackaging the ships. It's still wholly possible that whomever Annapolis traded it to repackaged it accidentally. Regardless, whether he'd like to admit it or not, it's likely that he or the person he traded the ship to triggered the voiding of the contract. Amazing how some people FAIL at reading. Annapolis has said that he traded it to his own alt. I think Annapolis must have omgwtfpwned you in the game somewhere and you just don't want to admit it
Mariokoli Mianana Gallente Cloak and Daggers	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:52:00 - [51] Originally by: Zorn Aldridge Close, but for many capitals with ship hangars, they can move them without repackaging the ships. It's still wholly possible that whomever Annapolis traded it to repackaged it accidentally. Regardless, whether he'd like to admit it or not, it's likely that he or the person he traded the ship to triggered the voiding of the contract. Amazing how some people FAIL at reading. Annapolis has said that he traded it to his own alt. I think Annapolis must have omgwtfpwned you in the game somewhere and you just don't want to admit it Relevance?
Zorn Aldridge	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:54:00 - [52] Edited by: Zorn Aldridge on 08/02/2008 19:55:25 No, i just suck at the quote thingy fucntion. Not a Forum Wizzard Forum features just pwned me but I was meaning to quote you
Neon Genesis Blue.	Posted - 2008.02.08 20:01:00 - [53] Edited by: Neon Genesis on 08/02/2008 20:03:20 You've already made up your mind really, despite devs telling you're wrong. The ship left the possession of the character Annapolis, and therefore the insurance was voided just like the description says. _
Lars Erlkonig Caldari Ars ex Discordia	Posted - 2008.02.08 20:06:00 - [54] Ownership wasn't lost as Eve has no titles to ships. If I lend my car to a friend and they get into an accident my car insurance will cover them (and my insurance company will then try to collect from their insurance company). Also if I cancel my insurance before the term expires, I get a partial refund. EVE does not equal real live however. Thankfully Eve doesn't have in-game lawyers either. Yes this is an intended game mechanic, but the notification could be a bit clearer. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest: File a bug report.
Mariokoli Mianana Gallente Cloak and Daggers	Posted - 2008.02.08 20:08:00 - [55] Originally by: Zorn Aldridge Edited by: Zorn Aldridge on 08/02/2008 19:56:34 Edited by: Zorn Aldridge on 08/02/2008 19:55:25 No, i just suck at the quote thingy fucntion. Not a Forum Wizzard Forum features just pwned me but I was meaning to quote you and the relevence is. You can't read very well, because he said it was his alt. Understood, I had read that originally, but I've been continuing in the thread and had forgotten his alt did the carrying. My guess is that the GMs were wrong in stating that the reason that the insurance was void was because of the trade, but I do think that it is still plausible that at some point in the 12-week duration of the insurance Annapolis did repackage his ship. No malice of intent, but I consider it to be the best guess. Hanlon's razor.
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 20:18:00 - [56] It wasn't repackaged at anytime because the riggs were still intact.
Fujiko MaXjolt Caldari Templar Republic R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.02.08 20:44:00 - [57] Originally by: Annapolis Stuffs... OK i'm gonna go ahead and guess at you being from the US. Such whining and lawyer-threatening only comes from there, lmao Dood, YOU GAVE AWAY YOUR SHIP - to whom or for how long is irrelevant - the ship left your possession and ended the contract, end of story. I WOULD like to know what happens if you make a loan-type contract and repeat what you did (put in carrier, jump, return)... This stuff, only in the US... tut tut
Mariokoli Mianana Gallente Cloak and Daggers	Posted - 2008.02.08 20:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Annapolis It wasn't repackaged at anytime because the riggs were still intact. I would think that the devs/GMs should be able to figure this out. As far as I understand it, when a ship is repackaged, it ceases to be a "ship" in the database and becomes just an item. If they have audit logs in the database on when ships are created and "destroyed"/repackaged, they should be able to determine this definitively.
Engineer Butters	Posted - 2008.02.08 21:06:00 - [59] Edited by: Engineer Butters on 08/02/2008 21:13:29 Edited by: Engineer Butters on 08/02/2008 21:08:00 Originally by: CCP Prism X 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. A lawyer worth his salt would tell you that he has a case for the wording of the first sentence. He is right - CCP is wrong. Bet the wording gets changed - if so - even more proof that OP is justified in getting his reimbursement. I would submit the logs in a petition and tell CCP according to the logs I am entitled to full reimbursement - in my possession and not repackaged with 4 weeks left :) So they can come back with the typical Our logs indicate... Shame on CCP
Ricardo Phallus	Posted - 2008.02.08 21:13:00 - [60] Originally by: Engineer Butters He is right - CCP is wrong. The wording may be poor. However this is CCP's game, so it's the pop up thats wrong, not CCP.

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.