Snake726

So, yes then. Ad hominem - in this case the "abusive" ad hominem - is only a valid informal fallacy should an attack on character have nothing to do with the argument. However, in this case, your understanding of the relationship between federal law and the concept of legal precedent is incorrect. Since you don't acknowledge that you are incorrect in believing that a legal battle be necessary to ascertain whether or not federal law applies here, I can only assume: a) You are incapable of understanding b) You are intentionally acting as if you misunderstand to create an argument If you are truly a) and not b), you can learn more about how you're more recently wrong by reading this book: http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Ad-Hominem-Arguments,933.aspx

Are you...stupid?

Perhaps what you are finding difficult to understand is the conflict between what Battlefront writes on its websites, and the laws of the United States of America. Do you understand that Battlefront's "no refund" policy conflicts with the FCC regulation quoted? Do you understand that federal law takes precedence over what Steve writes on his website? Do you understand that the FCC regulation stipulates that the sell inform the buyer of the status of the ordered product post-transaction? Your opinion about this doesn't matter, take it up with the FCC. Do you understand that, further, my showing you this does not mean that I intend to sue Steve? Is that easy enough for you now?

Excellent argument, thank you.

I like the games. I really do. Stellar is not correct. That's just a matter of money and development polish - that's nobody's fault. But out of the hundreds of game developers I know, only one of them had played the first Combat mission upon its initial release, and had forgotten the name. I've worked on Company of Heroes, and have evangelized Combat Mission to some of those developers - maybe they'll even take a chance and play it someday, adding to the perhaps hundreds of Combat Mission players in the world. Do you object to any of the standards suggested for Battlefront, the same communication standards that absolutely all of their competitors make an effort to effect? If your own standards are that low, you are welcome to it - why does it disturb you so that others have higher standards? Why is it further more confusing that one could challenge someone's business practices while enjoying their product and their work, while, at the same time, not being delusional about its success and status within the gaming market as a whole? Are you looking for me to agree with you, that Battlefront should not bother improving their communications, or is it that you want me to acknowledge that you are fine with this poor level of communication? What are you looking for?

That was a great point, thanks for the discussion!

And hey - you know what - it turned out that making a post to say "Hey, we're still working" didn't eat up Steve's whole week after all - maybe we can give it a rest now, he did the thing, the people wondering what the hell was going on have gotten some communication, and all that's left is people complaining that people are talking in the goddamn forums.

That's how Patton dealt with his problems after all - when the Germans fought back at Arrarcourt, he famously said "Hey, whatever, this is all ridiculous - let's go home!" Post another video to show me the high road, why don't ya?

That's right - unless you allow someone who is incorrect to presume they are correct, you are caught in a continuous loop of nonsense. The proper way to speak and think is not to, so as to not upset people who dislike talking.

And I have pointed out that the product page is marketing text and the terms of the sales policy are illegal. I have not claimed that I wish to get a refund, or sue Steve, but if you wish to insist that you are correct, I will continue to ask you to mail your Congressman if you disagree with the FCC ruling.

Show me where I claimed such a thing. Thanks. Perhaps you are confused, given that the FCC ruling is designed to prevent customers from being "fleeced", and you are conflating my statement of that fact with my making some kind of accusation that I am being scammed. I am merely pointing out that I would love to sell a product to the lovely people on this forum - I would make a lot of money, and receive few complaints- and if I'm lucky, some people would even give up some rights that they don't need to give up just to show how much they love me. P.S. I've been playing Combat Mission for about 5 years; please don't suppose because I am critical of bull**** that I am somehow criminalizing Battlefront.

I'm not supposing anything, I'm responding to people in this thread. I've already read Steve's note, and that's great - at this point I'm arguing with people who wish to continue arguing to defend what they imagine is being attacked by a reasonable request that was already met. I suppose the point got lost in the weeds - a couple guys said, in effect "Take a look at the text written on the site, you signed a contract", and I pointed out that they were wrong, and why - along the way there has been a bit of whining, a bit of complaining, and essentially several requests to "show me why I am wrong" - and so I will continue to oblige so long as they continue to ask.

I don't think you understand what the sales policy is at this point.

No. Steve should read this thread, and wonder "Is my approach working? Is this what a good communications strategy looks like?" I mean, you can just say "my fans are lunatics" and close the thread, but I suppose if you want to run a business you can't afford to be ignorant for the sake of ego.

Just imagine how ridiculous this is - I sell games to people for a living, and I have to lecture some people on protecting their rights as consumers. Your willingness to get fleeced so you don't upset the person selling to you is obscene; when the marketing team try to tell me how effective they are I usually don't take them so seriously, but hey, these people really exist eh. You learn something new every day.

You seem to have missed that you are incorrect - those "sales terms" are legally considered marketing text: I posted the sales terms, and pointed out how they do not agree with your interpretation that we just have to deal with it. Customers are legally capable of obtaining a refund and, likely, the FCC implemented this law to prevent situations where a company takes your money and says "It will be delivered whenever". If you are so whipped that this kind of customer protection upsets you, and makes you worried for the developer, then I suppose you can dispute that with your federal government. It seems that it is so difficult for some people here to register that others have a right to have a different opinion so long as it is justified, and so you continue to argue in order to silence people - unfortunately, you are arguing rather poorly.

Really - I have $155.00 Canadian dollars invested in this.

Don't act like you didn't go there first, and then complain that my insult cut deeper than yours.

Perhaps you're conflating understanding with doing - it is the case that this is the law, it is not the case that anyone is suing. Reading comprehension: it's great, try it out. Oh wow - threatened by no discount. Perhaps such a tiny company should be worried about customers purchasing their content, and their fragile customers should not be so worried about upsetting the big boss for fear of losing a discount. How did business become this sycophantic and servile?

You seem incapable of understanding that I didn't listen to you? It's not my concern that you don't care about proof, and I'm sure that you've studied up on American mercantile law. If you were as studious as you are obnoxious, you'd be ready to give me a real run for my money.

Thanks for the video!

Sure thing - perhaps you'd find it upsetting to be proven wrong, but I don't really care - actually, no, I might enjoy it! Here is Battlefront's "sales policy" which is their TOS; you'll notice there are no clauses pertaining to anything to do with pre-orders except for refunds. The text on their front page would be considered marketing material, not a legal disclaimer. Here is the FTC regulation pertaining to this, called "Prompt Delivery", a revision of the Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 435: By law, you must have a reasonable basis for stating that a product can be shipped within a certain time. If your advertising doesn't clearly and prominently state the shipment period, you must have a reasonable basis for believing that you can ship within 30 days. If you can't ship within the promised time (or within 30 days if you made no promise), you must notify the customer of the delay, provide a revised shipment date and explain his right to cancel and get a full and prompt refund. ... You must provide a delay option notice if you can’t ship within the originally promised time. The Rule lets you use a variety of ways to provide the notice, including e‑mail, fax, or phone. It’s a good idea to keep a record of what your notice states, when you provide it, and the customer’s response. Hanging shipment dates for pre-orders, with a TOS that states that refunds are not applicable, are not strictly legal - it's by the grace of non-litigious fans that BFC may operate in this fashion. In this situation, strictly speaking, BFC would be mandated to provide a reason for the delay on the purchased merchandise.

I've given multiple examples of teams run by between 2 and 5 people that do a great job at community updates and communication. If Battlefront is truly one person, then I apologize.

That's your opinion, but unfortunately it's not correct.

That's because it isn't a sales agreement. You could say "disclaimer: you will not receive a product after payment", but such a thing would not be a sales agreement. The fact is that you paid. The product is then supposed to be delivered by some date. Yes, indeed - that date can be whatever you desire: 10 years if you like. But if you start to moan about people saying "I paid X months ago, when is it coming out", then perhaps you are misunderstanding the point of contention: once you take payment for a product, you have agreed to deliver it: and CERTAINLY customers will now inquire at a MUCH higher rate than if they had not paid in advance.