| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Gorefacer
Caldari
Resurrection
   |
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:26:00 -
[121]
Sorry man, sounds like the people with shuttles are just getting ISK they officially aren't supposed to. It's not fair, but it looks like that's just the way it is. We all know for the future that while trading may not actually invalidate insurance, technically it should and may.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:26:00 -
[122]
 Originally by: Annapolis
Paraphrasing the GM:
Your insurance will be lost if you Repackage your ship, Trade your ship with another player, Put your ship into a corporation hangar, Sell your ship on the market
Now, From the GM's own mouth...apparently Trading a ship voids insurance they say. I got Screwed on a BS but people have tested this with shuttles and got thier isk. So, proven by players with shuttles I feel like I should get the difference I am owed.
Did you tell the GM whether your alt had actually boarded it or not? There may be a difference.
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:30:00 -
[123]
Originally by: DrAtomic
"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?"
Note the underlined bolted italic bit; it says While in your possesion, trading it makes it leave your possesion so sadly yes trading it will void insurance.
Repacking voids it. No mention of trading it actually voiding it.
So you can easily argue that if you trade it on week 2 of a 4 week insurance contract, and then get it back and blown up in week 3, it's in your possesion and still within the duration of the contract.
Kinda been there on this wording for about 4 pages now though...
|
Annapolis
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:34:00 -
[124]
Edited by: Annapolis on 08/02/2008 23:35:16
If we can't post GM's response's I apologize as I didn't know. Sorry. However I think why can't the insurance message just be worded or be as simple as the response the GM gave me in game. Simple, Plain, easy to understand. The corp hanger thing..wonder if It applies to ship maint arrays on pos's, carriers and motherships?
|
Jeregh
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:36:00 -
[125]
yeah you really need to go back and edit that out
qouting gm responses verbatim is a no no
|
Jeregh
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:37:00 -
[126]
but i do have a question, does putting your ship into a ship maintanance array void your insurance contract as well?, really doesnt matter to me much at this point in time, but might in the future.
|
Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:43:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Annapolis
Edited by: Annapolis on 08/02/2008 23:35:16
If we can't post GM's response's I apologize as I didn't know. Sorry. However I think why can't the insurance message just be worded or be as simple as the response the GM gave me in game. Simple, Plain, easy to understand. The corp hanger thing..wonder if It applies to ship maint arrays on pos's, carriers and motherships?
My understanding of how CCP are applying this is that anything you do that releases the ship to be made available to someone else invalidates the insurance.
You could be the only person in a corp and putting it into a corp hangar invalidates (unless they are referring to the owner being changed from [name] to [corp name] therefore changing the content of the policy.
To be honest, I'd ask the GM what he meant by his statement that I highlighted above.
Using reimbursement in the context he did makes no sense at all.
|
Moonliner
Around the moon and back
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:46:00 -
[128]
Your insurance will be lost if you do any of the following:
Trade your ship with another player
No.
Put your ship into a corporation hangar
No.
|
Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:54:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Moonliner
Edited by: Moonliner on 08/02/2008 23:50:21
Your insurance will be lost if you do any of the following:
Trade your ship with another player
No.
Put your ship into a corporation hangar
No.
This is why we need to be able to discuss stuff GM's say in public.
I don't think you can though, since precedent seems to be a big thing in their camp, if it's shown to not be followed on some issues where would we be then? ;)
Given the total lack of clarity on some rules and the seeming unwillingness to produce a clear set of rules, I can see why they do this to be honest.
Then again, I think many other MMO's do the same thing don't they?
|
Neslo
Gallente
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:56:00 -
[130]
Originally by: DrAtomic
Originally by: Annapolis
This is the insurance message from ingame when you insure a ship
"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?"
Note the underlined bolted italic bit; it says While in your possesion, trading it makes it leave your possesion so sadly yes trading it will void insurance.
I'm sorry I have to disagree with the anaylsis in this thread that says this is a transfer of ownership.
If I have Car A insured by Geico. I lend my car to my friend who drives to the store and buys me a coke. And then gives me the car back... and then I alone go to mc donalds and some bastard hits my car. I have not "voided" my insurance because my friend drove it.
However, if my friend had been driving the car to mc donalds on his own after getting me a coke and the same bastard hits the car... yes he is driving without insurance and I'm gonna have trouble with the insurance company giving me a payout to repay my bumper.
See the difference.
In example one... I insured the car, lent to the friend, got it back and got hit and no insurance was lost.
AND in example TWO... I insured the car, lent to the friend and he got hit and I'm out the money.
Tell me how that doesn't make sense. ALSO... In the 4 years of playing this game I've lost my fair share of ships and have had many alts transport my insured ships.... guess what when I gave them back and died in them with the person who insured the ship... I GOT MY ISK. This has never EVER come into question until this thread. Are you telling me that I've had GMs get it wrong 100% of the time?
Seriously I doubt it.
IF this has changed in a recent patch it's a huge nerf and the wording needs to be changed. Also someone has stated that insurance runs out on ships that you have "traded" ownership to but never got repackaged by the buyer (mainly because of rigs) all the time and the original "assemble this / insure this" person gets an email stating their insurance has run out. (usually when the other player gets destroyed or repackages it eventually)
Anyways my 2 isk
From Ashes to Ashes... From Dust to Dust.... |
Moonliner
Around the moon and back
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:57:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Moonliner on 08/02/2008 23:58:07
Originally by: Squirrrel
I don't think you can though, since precedent seems to be a big thing in their camp, if it's shown to not be followed on some issues where would we be then? ;)
Given the total lack of clarity on some rules and the seeming unwillingness to produce a clear set of rules, I can see why they do this to be honest.
Then again, I think many other MMO's do the same thing don't they?
I don't understand that GM's (referee as you would call them in sports) have no knowledge of game mechanics ("the rules" as you would call them in sports)
And this is far from a referee giving a bad call because he didn't "see" it happen.
|
Annapolis
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:58:00 -
[132]
I just tested the shuttle theory. I bought a shuttle, insured it. Traded to another character, that other character even boarded the shuttle and made it active. Then, traded it back to me. Guess what? the INSURANCE WAS STILL ACTIVE, IT WASN'T VOIDED
So I would like for Prism X or Wrangler to explain to why.
|
Reacz
Caldari
Empirius Enigmus Navy
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:58:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Reacz on 08/02/2008 23:59:31
No deal.
|
Sandeep
Raptus Regaliter
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:58:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Annapolis
Your insurance will be lost if you...
Ask for escalation. They all can't be wrong. Well, they could, but the chance is smaller.
The following actions does not void ship insurance, as we all tested:
Trading ship between players without using a contract.
Putting ship in corp hangar.
anyone know how to put a horizontal bar here?
|
DJ P
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:01:00 -
[135]
What I cannot understand is the whine for what? 40-50mil? Get over it.
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:04:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Annapolis
I just tested the shuttle theory. I bought a shuttle, insured it. Traded to another character, that other character even boarded the shuttle and made it active. Then, traded it back to me. Guess what? the INSURANCE WAS STILL ACTIVE, IT WASN'T VOIDED
So I would like for Prism X or Wrangler to explain to why.
Prism X is a database expert, why would he know? He was just commenting on the clarity of the insurance eve-mail text.
And no one answered my previous question - Did you board the ship before you gave it back, and do the GMs know that you did (or didn't)? That might change the outcome.
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
Moonliner
Around the moon and back
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:04:00 -
[137]
Originally by: DJ P
What I cannot understand is the whine for what? 40-50mil? Get over it.
Your not concerned when the people that answer your petition are basing their conclusion on false information?
|
Annapolis
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:07:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Tarminic
And no one answered my previous question - Did you board the ship before you gave it back, and do the GMs know that you did (or didn't)? That might change the outcome.[/quote
In the original case, no the alt didn't board the Battleship. However I just proved with a shuttle that if the alt had boarded the ship or not makes no difference as the shuttle was boarded by the alt and once traded back still contained the full coverage insurance, so yeah. Your question got answered
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:09:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Annapolis
In the original case, no the alt didn't board the Battleship. However I just proved with a shuttle that if the alt had boarded the ship or not makes no difference as the shuttle was boarded by the alt and once traded back still contained the full coverage insurance, so yeah. Your question got answered
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Make sure that the GMs know this.
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
Snipe Ranger
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:11:00 -
[140]
Originally by: DrAtomic
Originally by: Annapolis
This is the insurance message from ingame when you insure a ship
"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?"
Note the underlined bolted italic bit; it says While in your possesion, trading it makes it leave your possesion so sadly yes trading it will void insurance.
UHHHHHHHH.... what if he ejects from the ship in space.. is the Ship still in his possesion when he gets back in? Is the contract void if someone ejects from a ship in space?
WTF... stop with all the BS word play.
|
Annapolis
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:14:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Tarminic Okay, thanks for the clarification. Make sure that the GMs know this.[/quote
I actually stated it wasn't boarded by the alt in the Orinial Post 
|
Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:14:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Moonliner
I don't understand that GM's (referee as you would call them in sports) have no knowledge of game mechanics ("the rules" as you would call them in sports)
And this is far from a referee giving a bad call because he didn't "see" it happen.
Rules and mechanics are different.
I don't call them "sports" either, it's sport to me.
Nice try though.
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:15:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Annapolis
Originally by: Tarminic
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Make sure that the GMs know this.
I actually stated it wasn't boarded by the alt in the Orinial Post
In that case, feel free to ignore everything I've said.
I'd escalate the petition and be sure to note that you recreated the conditions in a different ship with a different result.
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:22:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 09/02/2008 00:24:19
So if you get the insurance if you trade a shuttle and get the same shuttle back and it is destroyed, but you do NOT get the insurance when it is a battleship...
How expensive does the ship have to be when the game mechanic changes? Maybe the contract should state that in it too.
"Yeah we don't care what happens to this compact car, we will take care of you. Er, what do you mean about the Porshe?! That thing gets so much as a scrach on it, you can forget about it!!!"
|
DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes
Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:23:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Squirrrel
Originally by: DrAtomic
"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?"
Note the underlined bolted italic bit; it says While in your possesion, trading it makes it leave your possesion so sadly yes trading it will void insurance.
Repacking voids it. No mention of trading it actually voiding it.
I agree that the message could be clearer, however the first possesion thing clearly states whilst IN your possesion. When you are trading it, it leaves your possesion so you no longer are in possession of it but the character you traded it to is in possesion of it thus voiding the insurance. I wish I could agree with you that you should have been reimbursed but sadly the warning is in the message.
- - -
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
|
DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes
Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:30:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Mr Vodka
Originally by: DrAtomic[/quote
I agree that the message could be clearer, however the first possesion thing clearly states whilst IN your possesion. When you are trading it, it leaves your possesion so you no longer are in possession of it but the character you traded it to is in possesion of it thus voiding the insurance. I wish I could agree with you that you should have been reimbursed but sadly the warning is in the message.
So about 5 people on this thread have already proven it to be wrong with the shuttles. Can you taste your foot? Because it's in your mouth.
Please read the forum rules which clearly state no personal attackes!
- - -
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
|
Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:35:00 -
[147]
Originally by: DrAtomic
Please read the forum rules which clearly state no personal attackes!
I think he borrowed the wording from someone else, so it's not really his responsibility since he's not legally the owner of what he typed. ;)
|
Mean Jeebus
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:35:00 -
[148]
Under US law (I understand that the laws in the States have no bearing on the game, the developers, or many [most?] of you reading this, but...), a judge presiding over a dispute of this kind would side with the OP based on the ambiguity and precedents set in the "contract".
Since the word void is used in the "contract", it is the defining consequence and terminator. Within the same contract, a statement that does not use the term "void", such as "The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract.", does not assume to be met with the same firmly stated consequence of contract invalidation and termination.
That being the case, coverage becomes a state based effect. As long as the ship remains unpackaged and is not destroyed while in the possession of another, the contract is not terminated. However, the agreed upon compensation would only be awarded if the ship was destroyed while not in the possession of someone other than the owner during the length of the contract. Since the state of the possession can change, the coverage of the contract can likewise change with it unless actually ôvoidedö.
So as a state based effect, the insurance would be valid after lending the ship to another. However, the real problem here lies in the transference process. Within the game, "giving" a ship to another player is absolute. In order to be able to properly support the contract, there would need to be an ability to "lend" a ship to someone within the game - and currently there is no such mechanic - making all transferences absolute and ownership would always "legally" cease as soon as you hand it over. In real life this would end any such contract unless the contract included provisions for transference.
As I see it, and I'm sure this subject is like beating a dead horse by now, there are a couple ways to relieve this situation:
1. Amend the contract by adding the word "void" in a reference to transference of the ship. Or,
2. create a method of loaning a ship to another user thus failing to void the insurance unless the ship sis destroyed while on loan, or at any time repackage by anyone.
|
DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes
Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:38:00 -
[149]
Originally by: SquirrrelYou're taking a blinkered view of the wording imo.
If it's all about "whilst in your possesion" it doesn't matter if you trade it a million times, as soon as you get it back, board it, lose it, it was last "in your possesion."
Destroyed "whilst in your possesion."
Whilst you hold the ball in a group of people, you can speak without interuption.
You have the ball, talk and pass the ball on, when it comes back to you, the same rule applies.
Why? Because you hold the ball.
There is no mention that trading voids/invalidates the insurance at all.[/quote
Whilst you were answering my reply I realised whilst re-reading my repsonse and the message that a second interpretation would be possible which I editted in. See the edit for that one.
I've only been looking at the message context since the shuttle test could mean shuttles are bugged (I don't think they are but it could be explained in that way by CCP thus reversing the bug).
Also the message is build in this way:
1) state that it will be insured
2) state exceptions
3) ask yes or no
Which again favors your petition for reimbursement and implies a bug that needs fixing.
Do you remember which method of trade you used btw? Direct trade, contract, drop it in his personal hangar, through corp hangar? Could be interesting to redo the shuttle test with that method of trade (assuming the shuttle test has only been done with direct trade).
- - -
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 00:39:00 -
[150]
I hope everyone here has realized that they have spent the vast majority of 120 posts debating the LEGAL definition of a single sentence in an insurance eve-mail notification. When the actual problem is a poor GM judgment and a bug. Erm...isn't this a waste of time?
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |