UPDATE: In what is apparently a new policy, WotC is now giving refunds for your full subscription due to their failure to meet the advertised page number. This means if you subscribed for a year last January, you will recieve the full price of that subscription by requesting it.
Request a refund from Customer Service, inform them that you complaint is that WotC did not meet it's advertised page total of 120 pages in January. When they initially deny your request (and they will) demand to escalate the ticket.
WotC advertised 120 pages of content per month, and did not deliver. They know they must refund your money, or they will be vulnerable to a class-action lawsuit.
If you escalate your ticket and still are refused a refund seek legal councel and inform them you are doing so. Maybe Hasbro will rethink firing all those people when they still have promises to keep.
You do NOT need to cancel your account to recieve this refund, as noted here.
Request a refund from Customer Service, inform them that you complaint is that WotC did not meet it's advertised page total of 120 pages in January. When they initially deny your request (and they will) demand to escalate the ticket.
WotC advertised 120 pages of content per month, and did not deliver. They know they must refund your money, or they will be vulnerable to a class-action lawsuit.
If you escalate your ticket and still are refused a refund seek legal councel and inform them you are doing so. Maybe Hasbro will rethink firing all those people when they still have promises to keep.
Yay! Free money! And 120 pages of crap to look forward to from now on! Way to go Damon! You've saved DDI.
And while you're at it don't forget to cancel your account and get a full refund.
Unless they intend to continue to offer less than their advertised product, this shouldn't be necessary.
This was after my Insider access had already expired (interesting that the icon is still showing up here on the forums, even though I've been unable to access the content for close to a week now).
I got a refund for January a few days back, before the last of the January content was posted in early Feb. No trouble or denials or anything, they just asked me to verify the name etc. on the account and sent it on up the ladder for processing.
This was after my Insider access had already expired (interesting that the icon is still showing up here on the forums, even though I've been unable to access the content for close to a week now).
contrary to this, I appealed for a refund for January and a cancellation for the rest of the sub at a similar time and they would only refund to feb... I plan on appealing this when i mail them back tomorrow.
I got a refund for January a few days back, before the last of the January content was posted in early Feb. No trouble or denials or anything, they just asked me to verify the name etc. on the account and sent it on up the ladder for processing.
This was after my Insider access had already expired (interesting that the icon is still showing up here on the forums, even though I've been unable to access the content for close to a week now).
contrary to this, I appealed for a refund for January and a cancellation for the rest of the sub at a similar time and they would only refund to feb... I plan on appealing this when i mail them back tomorrow.
Let us know what happens.
If that halving of size is enough to make you think that the sub isn't worth it anymore, and cancel (as it's not the service you signed up for) is it fair to ask for the refund to include the month they short changed you without informing you too? I think so.
But if you have a sub to a magazine, and an issue arrives half the size it normally does, and after you receive that issue they then say this is the new size going forward, in fact slightly larger than you can expect from a normal month?
If that halving of size is enough to make you think that the sub isn't worth it anymore, and cancel (as it's not the service you signed up for) is it fair to ask for the refund to include the month they short changed you without informing you too? I think so.
It isn't just the mags, its the crappy OCB, the broken CMB, the communications and lying (even if by omission or stupidity)...Its a lot of little things that add up to a big thing, and that is a huge loss of value...
But if you have a sub to a magazine, and an issue arrives half the size it normally does, and after you receive that issue they then say this is the new size going forward, in fact slightly larger than you can expect from a normal month?
If that halving of size is enough to make you think that the sub isn't worth it anymore, and cancel (as it's not the service you signed up for) is it fair to ask for the refund to include the month they short changed you without informing you too? I think so.
Fair? I don't know about fair, I'm not Tyr.
But I wouldn't expect playboy to reimburse me for that month.
Unless page count is in the contract, I don't feel like it's owed to me.
Note: I also don't believe that the customer (whether I'm the salesperson or the customer) is owed anything beyond the service for which they are paying when a customer comes into a store. The clerk (or whatever they are at a given place) doesn't owe you a smile, or friendlyness or going out of their way for you. You give them money in exchange for an item or service. That's it. Everything else you get is merely an incentive to get you to return to that store as opposed to another store.
Unless page count is in the contract, I don't feel like it's owed to me.
The page count was advertized at 120 pages per month. So yes, it is owed to you. Hasbro knows that, hence the refunds.
For what it's worth, they've agreed to refund me January with the rest of my remaining sub after a second, stubborn but polite email.
Good to hear.
Unless page count is in the contract, I don't feel like it's owed to me.
The page count was advertized at 120 pages per month. So yes, it is owed to you. Hasbro knows that, hence the refunds.
Did you sign a contract wherein you were promised to always get exactly what they advertized, as they advertized it?
I rather think not.
Did you sign a contract wherein you were promised to always get exactly what they advertized, as they advertized it?
I rather think not.
Thankfully, this is not the way contract law works.
By "you" I mean people in general, of course.
WoTC failed to meet an advertized goal. That is as common in business as elbow drops in WWE wrestling.
Perhaps not. However, the point is simply that you are generally owed very little beyond what a contractual agreement entitles you to.
... That may be true, but apparently they're getting a refund for not meeting the requirements. Whether or not they technically "owe" the customer is irrelevant, the result appears to be the same.
WoTC failed to meet an advertized goal. That is as common in business as elbow drops in WWE wrestling.
Common or not, false advertising is subject to lawful penalty. Can you suggest any reason a subscriber would not be entitled to a refund for January under the current circumstances?
WoTC failed to meet an advertized goal. That is as common in business as elbow drops in WWE wrestling.
Common or not, false advertising is subject to lawful penalty. Can you suggest any reason a subscriber would not be entitled to a refund for January under the current circumstances?
I would only really agree that a subscriber is entitled to a refund if what is delivered is completely different, or if it amounts to a scam, etc. Most of the time, what's advertised for future release is a goal, not a guarantee.
All that being said, it is generally accepted as a good business practice to give refunds to dissatisfied customers, regardless of the reason for their discontent. It's not an obligation, but it's good practice.
Unless page count is in the contract, I don't feel like it's owed to me.
The page count was advertized at 120 pages per month. So yes, it is owed to you. Hasbro knows that, hence the refunds.
Did you sign a contract wherein you were promised to always get exactly what they advertized, as they advertized it?
I rather think not.
The law is actually pretty clear on this matter.
I would only really agree that a subscriber is entitled to a refund if what is delivered is completely different, or if it amounts to a scam, etc. Most of the time, what's advertised for future release is a goal, not a guarantee.
What you agree with isn't relevant, unless you're a judge. (I'm guessing you aren't)
All that being said, it is generally accepted as a good business practice to give refunds to dissatisfied customers, regardless of the reason for their discontent. It's not an obligation, but it's good practice.
State laws vary, but since WotC offers DDI subscriptions in all 50 states, they need to obey all of them, and Feferal Law as well. While many states (and the Federal Statutes) do refer to whether or not the defendant "knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the statements were untrue or misleading." ie, the "we thought we could give them 120 pages each month" defense, many states do not, and many of the ones that say it in the preamble do not include any provision in the body of law itself, effectively imposing liability without intent.
In other words, yes, it is an obligation. They must provide a refund because once they have done so there is no injury, and without injury there is no crime. If they don't give a refund a judge will force them to give a refund in addition to paying the legal fees of the plaintiffs.
I would only really agree that a subscriber is entitled to a refund if what is delivered is completely different, or if it amounts to a scam, etc. Most of the time, what's advertised for future release is a goal, not a guarantee.
All that being said, it is generally accepted as a good business practice to give refunds to dissatisfied customers, regardless of the reason for their discontent. It's not an obligation, but it's good practice.
IANAL, but my laymans understanding is that if you advertise that a subscriber will receive 120 pages (which Wotc did until recently) and you fail to do so, even if you deliver 119 pages that constitutes false advertising. Your advertisement essentially equates to a binding contract upon purchase.
Now, depending on the nature of the advertising a court case may be not be viable, but that's not the question here. WotC is obligated to provide a discount for any customer that requests one for January, simply because they stated the total of Dragon and Dungeon would be 120 or more published pages and they failed to meet that minimum. The 120 pages of publication was never stated in the original advertisement to be a goal, if it had been clearly labeled as a goal then no refunds would be necessary.
Just to be clear, I'm not concerned whether you personally are interested in a refund. I just don't want another subscriber to read you comments and be confused about whether they are eligible for a January refund.
So, an interesting turn of events with my refund. A couple of days after I got a reply saying they'd process the refund (January, per my request), I got another e-mail. This one said that per their policy, they were going to refund my subscription. The full year. I'm not complaining, naturally, but I'm a little surprised that they changed their mind about refunding me ~$5 and instead refunded me $65.
That actually meshes with my expectations about their policy. You're in or out with no middle ground.
However, they also seem to have removed your subscription, based on the absence of your DDI icon. That's not a refund, it's a cancellation.
Which would imply that they know they're not going to meet their goals.
However, they also seem to have removed your subscription, based on the absence of your DDI icon. That's not a refund, it's a cancellation.
My subscription expired January 31. I requested the refund around Feb. 2 or 3, and the refund came through yesterday. It wasn't a cancellation, it was a complete, retroactive refund.
That seems more like a misunderstanding than anything. But I wouldn't complain.
Unless page count is in the contract, I don't feel like it's owed to me.
The page count was advertized at 120 pages per month. So yes, it is owed to you. Hasbro knows that, hence the refunds.
Did you sign a contract wherein you were promised to always get exactly what they advertized, as they advertized it?
I rather think not.
The law is actually pretty clear on this matter.I would only really agree that a subscriber is entitled to a refund if what is delivered is completely different, or if it amounts to a scam, etc. Most of the time, what's advertised for future release is a goal, not a guarantee.
What you agree with isn't relevant, unless you're a judge. (I'm guessing you aren't)All that being said, it is generally accepted as a good business practice to give refunds to dissatisfied customers, regardless of the reason for their discontent. It's not an obligation, but it's good practice.
State laws vary, but since WotC offers DDI subscriptions in all 50 states, they need to obey all of them, and Feferal Law as well. While many states (and the Federal Statutes) do refer to whether or not the defendant "knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the statements were untrue or misleading." ie, the "we thought we could give them 120 pages each month" defense, many states do not, and many of the ones that say it in the preamble do not include any provision in the body of law itself, effectively imposing liability without intent.
In other words, yes, it is an obligation. They must provide a refund because once they have done so there is no injury, and without injury there is no crime. If they don't give a refund a judge will force them to give a refund in addition to paying the legal fees of the plaintiffs.
The truly delightful thing about your response here is that I never bothered to argue about what the legal specifics are, because I don't give a damn. I was discussing what is reasonable, not what is legal.
There are plenty of things in this country, and others, that are completely legal, and completely unreasonable.
The truly delightful thing about your response here is that I never bothered to argue about what the legal specifics are, because I don't give a damn. I was discussing what is reasonable, not what is legal.
There are plenty of things in this country, and others, that are completely legal, and completely unreasonable.
They advertised they would provide X content each month. In January, they provided less than X content. If their promise to provide X induced a customer to subscribe, you don't think that customer deserves a refund upon WotC's failure to deliver?
If you're buying a house or hiring someone to build you a fence, are you going to take the same attitude? You only get 75% of what you understood you'd get for your money... no problem, right? It would be unreasonable to expect a refund.
Which would imply that they know they're not going to meet their goals.
However, they also seem to have removed your subscription, based on the absence of your DDI icon. That's not a refund, it's a cancellation.
My subscription expired January 31. I requested the refund around Feb. 2 or 3, and the refund came through yesterday. It wasn't a cancellation, it was a complete, retroactive refund.
Yeah that seems like a glitch more than anything. Mine has been pro-ratad to my subscription including January.
Which would imply that they know they're not going to meet their goals.
However, they also seem to have removed your subscription, based on the absence of your DDI icon. That's not a refund, it's a cancellation.
My subscription expired January 31. I requested the refund around Feb. 2 or 3, and the refund came through yesterday. It wasn't a cancellation, it was a complete, retroactive refund.
Yeah that seems like a glitch more than anything. Mine has been pro-ratad to my subscription including January.
It might not be a glitch.
While any reasonable person would contend that if 11 months out of 12 meet the advertised page minimum, only the month that didn't would need to be refunded. The problem is, the law doesn't really make allowances for one part of a perchase being in violation while the rest isn't. If you buy a fruit basket that says "Has 2 banannas, 2 apples and 12 grapes" and you find out it has the expected amount of banannas and grapes but only 1 apple, the judge is still well within the bounds of the law to force the seller to reimburse you for your entire purchase price, even if you've already eaten all the fruit.
I think most judges would rule 1 month refund is enough, but some might not. This decision says to me Hasbro legal has been made aware of the situation. Corporate lawyers are by the book.
Interesting development!
The truly delightful thing about your response here is that I never bothered to argue about what the legal specifics are, because I don't give a damn. I was discussing what is reasonable, not what is legal.
There are plenty of things in this country, and others, that are completely legal, and completely unreasonable.
That's interesting, since I'd say you would probably have more room for argument if you were focusing on the legal aspects. I'd say most legal arguments in this matter aren't nearly as cut and dried as some people are making them out to be.
But if you are talking about what is reasonable... then I think you are completely off-base in what you seem to be saying. WotC provided a certain amount of content every month. They claimed a certain amount would be available. For one month, they failed to deliver, by a huge margin. The reasonable response for disappointing customers in such a fashion is to provide a refund for those who were upset by it. Which WotC seems to agree with, since that is what they are doing.
Look, it's perfectly fine if you, personally, aren't bothered by such a disappointment. But I think it is out of line to come into the thread and imply that other people are being unreasonable for not feeling the same way you do, especially in light of the circumstances.
It might not be a glitch.
While any reasonable person would contend that if 11 months out of 12 meet the advertised page minimum, only the month that didn't would need to be refunded. The problem is, the law doesn't really make allowances for one part of a perchase being in violation while the rest isn't. If you buy a fruit basket that says "Has 2 banannas, 2 apples and 12 grapes" and you find out it has the expected amount of banannas and grapes but only 1 apple, the judge is still well within the bounds of the law to force the seller to reimburse you for your entire purchase price, even if you've already eaten all the fruit.
I think most judges would rule 1 month refund is enough, but some might not. This decision says to me Hasbro legal has been made aware of the situation. Corporate lawyers are by the book.
No, I'm sorry, IANAL, but that is completely silly. A year-long subscription provides you with 12 months of service. One month of failed service does not mean you are entitled to reimbursement of the previous months. Especially when those months provided significantly more than the 120 pages of content, such that if you are trying to lump them together, WotC easily would have met its quota.
I don't think the yearly refund has anything to do with some decision from the corporate lawyers over what a judge might or might not proclaim. I think it was either a misunderstanding in what was going on, or an attempt to help avoid more ill-will falling out of this development. Especially since Llamas was in a situation that went a bit farther than most of our claims - not just having reduced content in January, but actually missing out on numerous articles from January that were published in February.
In the past, when similar things have happened, I believe WotC have extended subscriptions by a month in compensation - it sounds like, in this case, they decided to simply fully refund him instead.
In the past, when similar things have happened, I believe WotC have extended subscriptions by a month in compensation - it sounds like, in this case, they decided to simply fully refund him instead.
Nope. For whatever reason, Digital River is unable to simply extend a subscription by a month.
Before the full year refund came through, I got an additional e-mail from CS saying that pursuant to their policy, they were refunding the full amount.
Exactly. This does not seem to be an error at all, but a change in policy, a change which seems to be very recent, since those who applied before you did not get the same treatment. This is why I feel Hasbro legal is now involved.
Which is a wonderful, wonderful thing.
The truly delightful thing about your response here is that I never bothered to argue about what the legal specifics are, because I don't give a damn. I was discussing what is reasonable, not what is legal.
No?
Did you sign a contract wherein you were promised to always get exactly what they advertized, as they advertized it?
I rather think not.
Looks like a legal argument to me, granted a ham-fisted one.
All that being said, it is generally accepted as a good business practice to give refunds to dissatisfied customers, regardless of the reason for their discontent. It's not an obligation, but it's good practice.
This seems to be in direct contrast to "I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a 'reason' argument." In the above statement, you're saying "It is not unreasonable for WotC to give this refund, but it is not a legal necessity."
No, you realized you've lost an argument, and looked foolish in the process, and so now you're backpedaling, saying "Pfft, I was debating something totally different". The problem is, you weren't, and in fact your prvious statements flatly contradict the argument you are now claiming to have been engaged in.
The truly delightful thing about your response here is that I never bothered to argue about what the legal specifics are, because I don't give a damn. I was discussing what is reasonable, not what is legal.
There are plenty of things in this country, and others, that are completely legal, and completely unreasonable.
They advertised they would provide X content each month. In January, they provided less than X content. If their promise to provide X induced a customer to subscribe, you don't think that customer deserves a refund upon WotC's failure to deliver?
If you're buying a house or hiring someone to build you a fence, are you going to take the same attitude? You only get 75% of what you understood you'd get for your money... no problem, right? It would be unreasonable to expect a refund.
Better analogy:
The contractor working on my house tells me he'll get so much done a week. One week, he gets a small amount less done than that.
Do I expect a refund for a week's worth of payment? Hell no. At most, I might ask for a discount on that week. At most.
That's interesting, since I'd say you would probably have more room for argument if you were focusing on the legal aspects. I'd say most legal arguments in this matter aren't nearly as cut and dried as some people are making them out to be.
But if you are talking about what is reasonable... then I think you are completely off-base in what you seem to be saying. WotC provided a certain amount of content every month. They claimed a certain amount would be available. For one month, they failed to deliver, by a huge margin. The reasonable response for disappointing customers in such a fashion is to provide a refund for those who were upset by it. Which WotC seems to agree with, since that is what they are doing.
Look, it's perfectly fine if you, personally, aren't bothered by such a disappointment. But I think it is out of line to come into the thread and imply that other people are being unreasonable for not feeling the same way you do, especially in light of the circumstances.
I simply don't think that it's reasonable to act like they robbed people and all that. It's one month of less than usual content. Is it normal for WoTC to fulfill requests for refunds for the month of January? Sure.
But then, they also seem to be willing to give bigger refunds to dissatisfied customers. And as I've already said, it's good business to give refunds to dissatisfied customers, regardless of the source/legitimacy of their dissatisfaction.
The truly delightful thing about your response here is that I never bothered to argue about what the legal specifics are, because I don't give a damn. I was discussing what is reasonable, not what is legal.
No?Did you sign a contract wherein you were promised to always get exactly what they advertized, as they advertized it?
I rather think not.
Looks like a legal argument to me, granted a ham-fisted one.All that being said, it is generally accepted as a good business practice to give refunds to dissatisfied customers, regardless of the reason for their discontent. It's not an obligation, but it's good practice.
This seems to be in direct contrast to "I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a 'reason' argument." In the above statement, you're saying "It is not unreasonable for WotC to give this refund, but it is not a legal necessity."
No, you realized you've lost an argument, and looked foolish in the process, and so now you're backpedaling, saying "Pfft, I was debating something totally different". The problem is, you weren't, and in fact your prvious statements flatly contradict the argument you are now claiming to have been engaged in.
Actually, what's happened here is that you refuse to re-evaluate your interpretation of my arguments for whatever reason. If you reread what you quoted, in light of what I've said since then, it would be relatively clear that I was speaking of a moral/ethical obligation, not a legal obligation.
As to the first quote; it is a pretty good representation of what I believe should be the law in this case, regardless of the current state of the law in this case.
Anyone who has been in a few argument threads with me can probably tell you that when I realize that I've been wrong, I readily admit it, and move on.
WotC can have my money once they start living up to their promises and stop laying people off.
Wait...so as a customer you're demanding to have control over the hiring/firing practices of the company you are going to do business with? Try walking into any business and see how they feel about that. You'll get laughed out of the place.
WotC can have my money once they start living up to their promises and stop laying people off.
Wait...so as a customer you're demanding to have control over the hiring/firing practices of the company you are going to do business with? Try walking into any business and see how they feel about that. You'll get laughed out of the place.
I don't see him demanding control over the hiring/firing practices. He is exhibiting control over his hard-earned dollar. It is very common for customer's to end their purchasing relationships with companies due to layoffs and firing. Various companies within the auto industry are a great example.
WotC can have my money once they start living up to their promises and stop laying people off.
Wait...so as a customer you're demanding to have control over the hiring/firing practices of the company you are going to do business with? Try walking into any business and see how they feel about that. You'll get laughed out of the place.
I don't see him demanding control over the hiring/firing practices. He is exhibiting control over his hard-earned dollar. It is very common for customer's to end their purchasing relationships with companies due to layoffs and firing. Various companies within the auto industry are a great example.
So you condone extortion?
I don't see him demanding control over the hiring/firing practices. He is exhibiting control over his hard-earned dollar. It is very common for customer's to end their purchasing relationships with companies due to layoffs and firing. Various companies within the auto industry are a great example.
So you condone extortion?
It has nothing to do with extortion, no matter how you try to extrapolate, exaggerate, or twist it.
Law. The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
Nope. None of that going on.
I don't see him demanding control over the hiring/firing practices. He is exhibiting control over his hard-earned dollar. It is very common for customer's to end their purchasing relationships with companies due to layoffs and firing. Various companies within the auto industry are a great example.
So you condone extortion?
It has nothing to do with extortion, no matter how you try to extrapolate, exaggerate, or twist it.
Law. The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
Nope. None of that going on.
I agree. A business that is into shady (yet legal) activities is not one I'd willingly give my money to (cmon Microsoft Competitors)...
It has nothing to do with extortion, no matter how you try to extrapolate, exaggerate, or twist it.
Law. The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
Nope. None of that going on.
Ok...you're right. It's not extortion. Frankly I don't care what you call it or the word for it. In political circles it's called influence. If unions were involved I'd call it thuggery. Maybe it's called bribery...you know...I'll give you money IF.... Whatever it is it's flat out wrong.
It has nothing to do with extortion, no matter how you try to extrapolate, exaggerate, or twist it.
Law. The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
Nope. None of that going on.
Ok...you're right. It's not extortion. Frankly I don't care what you call it or the word for it. In political circles it's called influence. If unions were involved I'd call it thuggery. Maybe it's called bribery...you know...I'll give you money IF.... Whatever it is it's flat out wrong.
Um... I think you're misreading or going to extremes. I'm talking about the customer's choosing where to spend their money based upon whatever reasons they choose. That's the bottom line, isn't it? If I choose not to spend my money with a company because the color of their sign is appalling to me, it's not any different than if I choose not to spend it because the company just fired 15 employees. It's my choice.
I mean, what you seem to be suggesting is that customer's should not have that freedom of choice. And that is a far different matter altogether, and a far scarier landscape than your extreme scenario.
Ok...you're right. It's not extortion. Frankly I don't care what you call it or the word for it. In political circles it's called influence. If unions were involved I'd call it thuggery. Maybe it's called bribery...you know...I'll give you money IF.... Whatever it is it's flat out wrong.
You appear to have lapsed into self-parody now. And I'm saying that as someone who doesn't even remotely agree with the guy you're trying to paint as virtually a criminal merely for exercising his right to do what he likes with his own money.
The idea that it is "flat out wrong" for someone to choose not to give their custom to a company based on that company's behaviour is just... too ludicrous for words.
"Extortion"? "Union thuggery"? "Bribery"? Good grief...
Um... I think you're misreading or going to extremes. I'm talking about the customer's choosing where to spend their money based upon whatever reasons they choose. That's the bottom line, isn't it? If I choose not to spend my money with a company because the color of their sign is appalling to me, it's not any different than if I choose not to spend it because the company just fired 15 employees. It's my choice.
I mean, what you seem to be suggesting is that customer's should not have that freedom of choice. And that is a far different matter altogether, and a far scarier landscape than your extreme scenario.
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason. The poster suggested to WotC that if you "stop laying people off" (along with his other reason) then I'll give you my money. That amounts to an offer of a bribe because he's attempting to influence business decisions that have nothing to do with the product. Granted IANAL, but that just stinks to high holy heaven.
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason. The poster suggested to WotC that if you "stop laying people off" (along with his other reason) then I'll give you my money. That amounts to an offer of a bribe because he's attempting to influence business decisions that have nothing to do with the product. Granted IANAL, but that just stinks to high holy heaven.
There is nothing wrong with his reasoning, nor his sharing of his reasoning, other than you disagree. And there is nothing wrong with you disagreeing, either. But let's have a little perspective, shall we? Nothing that was stated has even remotely escalated into bribery, illegal activity, or unethical behavior.
FYI, when you buy a product, you buy more than just the product. You are buying a little piece of that company. When I walk out of the store with a D&D book, I am advertising D&D and WotC, as well as the fact that I purchase their products. A company's behavior and ethics are on display, just as much as anyone's. That behavior is indirectly placed on me by me buying that book by anyone who so wishes to employ that perception. No different than sitting in a drive thru line at Taco Bell.
Um... I think you're misreading or going to extremes. I'm talking about the customer's choosing where to spend their money based upon whatever reasons they choose. That's the bottom line, isn't it? If I choose not to spend my money with a company because the color of their sign is appalling to me, it's not any different than if I choose not to spend it because the company just fired 15 employees. It's my choice.
I mean, what you seem to be suggesting is that customer's should not have that freedom of choice. And that is a far different matter altogether, and a far scarier landscape than your extreme scenario.
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason. The poster suggested to WotC that if you "stop laying people off" (along with his other reason) then I'll give you my money. That amounts to an offer of a bribe because he's attempting to influence business decisions that have nothing to do with the product. Granted IANAL, but that just stinks to high holy heaven.
No.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on these forums. And that's seriously saying something.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go file police reports against the group of locals who are boycotting a restaurant that doesn't do vegetarian rice. How dare they post online that they aren't going to eat there until they start serving vegetarian rice! That's like... attempted conspiracy to commit armed rapestortion with a deadly battery.
Is this forum seriously degrading this much?
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason. The poster suggested to WotC that if you "stop laying people off" (along with his other reason) then I'll give you my money. That amounts to an offer of a bribe because he's attempting to influence business decisions that have nothing to do with the product. Granted IANAL, but that just stinks to high holy heaven.
...wow.
Um... I think you're misreading or going to extremes. I'm talking about the customer's choosing where to spend their money based upon whatever reasons they choose. That's the bottom line, isn't it? If I choose not to spend my money with a company because the color of their sign is appalling to me, it's not any different than if I choose not to spend it because the company just fired 15 employees. It's my choice.
I mean, what you seem to be suggesting is that customer's should not have that freedom of choice. And that is a far different matter altogether, and a far scarier landscape than your extreme scenario.
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason. The poster suggested to WotC that if you "stop laying people off" (along with his other reason) then I'll give you my money. That amounts to an offer of a bribe because he's attempting to influence business decisions that have nothing to do with the product. Granted IANAL, but that just stinks to high holy heaven.
If you think that's wrong wait til you hear how the U.S. governement runs... you'll be screaming and pulling your hair out...
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason.
Congratulations, you are not only bumping this thread, you are now making your own argument look more foolish than I ever could. Remember a few weeks ago, when I said the debate only serves our ends, not yours? Do you see now what I meant?
Personally, I think that people can spend or not spend their dollar based on any criteria they please, that's part and parcel of capitalism. They can also advertise or not advertise their reasons if they so wish. That's free speech.
Ahem
The line.
Please don't cross it.
(Note that this is not directed at anyone in particular.)
I'd like to know if Kenjoon stated his position unclearly or based on misunderstanding.
Kenjoon the way your statement is phrased suggests that (example follows) if I make a decision that I will not purchase shoes from a local shoe store because they recently laid off several employees, I'm within my rights. However if I make the company aware of why I made that decision I'm being unethical because I'm trying to exert influence over the companies business practices? Or is it if I make a public statement that I won't buy from Crazy Sam's Shoes because they laid off staff that you're considering to be over the line?
If that's not what you're trying to say then please clarify. If that sums it up correctly, then I think you're way off base. I believe that as a consumer I have an ethical duty to support companies based on business practices and to make it known if a company I do support is engaging in business practices I don't approve of. I don't understand how expecting corporations to be socially responsible would be unethical.
Let's look at the adverse... if I was pleased with a product and a company's "behavior" and purchased their product proudly... "I bought Reebok shoes because they had a recent local hiring explosion and I want to support them." There is nothing even remotely ethically wrong with this. And if there is nothing wrong with this, then there can be nothing wrong with the opposite.
"Buy American" was and is a rallying cry in this country and there is nothing unethical about that exclamation, either, even though we are explicitly requesting that American products are purchased.
Celloshane, with all due respect, I don't see anything wrong with either scenario you presented. There is nothing wrong with voicing your displeasure in private or public.
Let's look at the adverse... if I was pleased with a product and a company's "behavior" and purchased their product proudly... "I bought Reebok shoes because they had a recent local hiring explosion and I want to support them." There is nothing even remotely ethically wrong with this. And if there is nothing wrong with this, then there can be nothing wrong with the opposite.
"Buy American" was and is a rallying cry in this country and there is nothing unethical about that exclamation, either, even though we are explicitly requesting that American products are purchased.
The problem is how can you know what is 'American'. The "made in America" label only indicates that a single component of the whole was made and/or assembled in America. The same applies here, we cannot know the inner workings of WotC, we can only guess and see from a partial view of the evidence...
The problem is how can you know what is 'American'. The "made in America" label only indicates that a single component of the whole was made and/or assembled in America. The same applies here, we cannot know the inner workings of WotC, we can only guess and see from a partial view of the evidence...
That doesn't really apply to this discussion, but okay.
The problem is how can you know what is 'American'. The "made in America" label only indicates that a single component of the whole was made and/or assembled in America. The same applies here, we cannot know the inner workings of WotC, we can only guess and see from a partial view of the evidence...
That doesn't really apply to this discussion, but okay.
Sorry, I'm going against my instincts of being snarky, it confuses me and makes me forget what I'm talking about...
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason. The poster suggested to WotC that if you "stop laying people off" (along with his other reason) then I'll give you my money. That amounts to an offer of a bribe because he's attempting to influence business decisions that have nothing to do with the product. Granted IANAL, but that just stinks to high holy heaven.
Even by the internets standards, this is an unbelievably laughable and absurd statement.
Um... I think you're misreading or going to extremes. I'm talking about the customer's choosing where to spend their money based upon whatever reasons they choose. That's the bottom line, isn't it? If I choose not to spend my money with a company because the color of their sign is appalling to me, it's not any different than if I choose not to spend it because the company just fired 15 employees. It's my choice.
I mean, what you seem to be suggesting is that customer's should not have that freedom of choice. And that is a far different matter altogether, and a far scarier landscape than your extreme scenario.
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason. The poster suggested to WotC that if you "stop laying people off" (along with his other reason) then I'll give you my money. That amounts to an offer of a bribe because he's attempting to influence business decisions that have nothing to do with the product. Granted IANAL, but that just stinks to high holy heaven.
Man I had no idea I was being unethical when I stop buying shoes made in 3rd world countries by child sweat shop labor and then being open about why I stopped buying said shoes. My bad.
Um... I think you're misreading or going to extremes. I'm talking about the customer's choosing where to spend their money based upon whatever reasons they choose. That's the bottom line, isn't it? If I choose not to spend my money with a company because the color of their sign is appalling to me, it's not any different than if I choose not to spend it because the company just fired 15 employees. It's my choice.
I mean, what you seem to be suggesting is that customer's should not have that freedom of choice. And that is a far different matter altogether, and a far scarier landscape than your extreme scenario.
You are free to decide how to spend your money based on any criteria you want to set. Once you start advertising that reason you've crossed the line into unethical/illegal depending on the reason. The poster suggested to WotC that if you "stop laying people off" (along with his other reason) then I'll give you my money. That amounts to an offer of a bribe because he's attempting to influence business decisions that have nothing to do with the product. Granted IANAL, but that just stinks to high holy heaven.
Man I had no idea I was being unethical when I stop buying shoes made in 3rd world countries by child sweat shop labor and then being open about why I stopped buying said shoes. My bad.
And knowing is half the battle!
And knowing is half the battle!
And the other half is VIOLENCE!
Any request for a refund from a company for any reason is morally reprehensible. It is, in fact, equal to armed robbery.
Also, every time you request a refund, a terrorist gets his or her wings.
lol
Wow. I navigated to this thread to apologize to the thread in general for the extremity of my posts here, and I see that crap about vocalizing purchasing motivations being akin to bribery. Awesome.
I don't feel quite so bad now. :P
As for "you hold more weight as a paying customer" - not so much. One person really holds no weight either way in a customer base the size of WotC's but when the finance guys start asking the creative teams where all the customers went and how are we going to pay the bills; then they'll start to read some of these forum posts that's when change will happen, if it's not too late.
then they'll start to read some of these forum posts that's when change will happen, if it's not too late.
LOL.
I'll equate your naivite to the quantity of forum posts. This discussion, at least the premise, has been going on in one form or another for some time now. Nothing has changed.
Coming from a former fan (believer) of DDI, I can only speculate nothing ever will. They used to blow so much smoke to fill up the entire building and hoped that some would get up your arse. Now, they gave up even doing that, it would seem.
then they'll start to read some of these forum posts that's when change will happen, if it's not too late.
LOL.
I'll equate your naivite to the quantity of forum posts. This discussion, at least the premise, has been going on in one form or another for some time now. Nothing has changed.
Coming from a former fan (believer) of DDI, I can only speculate nothing ever will. They used to blow so much smoke to fill up the entire building and hoped that some would get up your arse. Now, they gave up even doing that, it would seem.
that's a rather aggressive introduction friend. Can I suggest you get help with the big words (both understanding and writing them) before condescedingly forgiving someone elses (non-existent) naivety.
My limited number of posts is based on the fact that when I read the forums I see a lot of trolls making comments before sounding the big ones out. Not accusing all of the people here but enough that I haven't found it worth being part of the "community". I posted today because I finally got over WotC treatment of me as a customer and wanted to vent. I will be neither reading nor posting after this one. Thanks for reaffirming.
My point was in agreement with you in that the forums are ignored and will continue to be ignored until "the finance guys start asking the creative teams where all the customers went". That is if we all keep paying the subscription, buying another case of minis or the latest rulebreaking supplement, we have no voice.