Jump to content
tavichh

They meant september of next year!

Recommended Posts

Just now, sfhand said:

Keep digging, keep resorting to ad hominem.

I will reiterate my well-dug hole of knowledge, until you read it, and maybe another time, so you comprehend it:

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

Well I had to ask, and it looks like I was correct eh?

What amuses me about this that the guy who can't find the promised release date for pre-ordered software in BF's Sales Policy is implying the one who could read and understand it is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sfhand said:

What amuses me about this that the guy who can't find the promised release date for pre-ordered software in BF's Sales Policy is implying the one who could read and understand it is stupid.

Now this - this is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, and may explain why you're so confused although everything apparently makes sense to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me - what part of this are you having difficulty with, and we can work through it together:

"Section 435.3(b) of the final Rule continues to provide that the Commission does not intend to preempt action by state or local governments or supersede any provisions of any state or local laws, except to the extent that they conflict with the Rule. A law does not conflict with the Rule if it affords buyers equal or greater protection."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snake726 said:

I will reiterate my well-dug hole of knowledge, until you read it, and maybe another time, so you comprehend it:

 

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

Do you have enough awareness, of both self and the world around you, to understand that your subjective judgments are NOT universal truths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sfhand said:

Do you have enough awareness, of both self and the world around you, to understand that your subjective judgments are NOT universal truths?

How confident are you in your ability to win a technical argument about epistemology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snake726 said:

How confident are you in your ability to win a technical argument about epistemology?

Quit diverting from the promised release date, the one thing your entire deranged argument rests upon. You know, from the Sales Policy you haven't quite been able to understand up to this point. Maybe we should start there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sfhand said:

Quit diverting from the promised release date, the one thing your entire deranged argument rests upon. You know, from the Sales Policy you haven't quite been able to understand up to this point. Maybe we should start there...

So the answer to your confidence in a debate about knowledge is off the table then eh.

I am not diverting, I have no idea what you are on about.

This is the BF sale policy: https://www.battlefront.com/sales-policy

In it there are, of course, no claims about shipment dates for individual products, but there is a clear no return policy - this is the third time I'll quote it: 

NO REFUND POLICY
Battlefront.com does not offer refunds for products purchased. 


I hereby speculate that BF does not offer refunds.

Now you seem to think that this clause, in the federal law:

"Section 435.3(b) of the final Rule continues to provide that the Commission does not intend to preempt action by state or local governments or supersede any provisions of any state or local laws, except to the extent that they conflict with the Rule. A law does not conflict with the Rule if it affords buyers equal or greater protection."

Means the opposite of what it states? You are claiming that the law allows state law to supersede federal law, but this clause explicitly states the opposite. Unless the state law also allows for a refund after a date has been missed, then the federal law is applicable.

The release date is stipulated on the front page, but in a fashion that lawyers fantasize about: "
The obvious question out there is "when will CMSF2 ship?" We're aiming for no later than the end of September."

The actual purchase page only stipulates:

"Combat Mission Shock Force 2 is in the final stages of development, however it is not yet ready for release"

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Hopefully you're not Steve's lawyer!

Edited by Snake726

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Snake726 said:

Well I had to ask, and it looks like I was correct eh?

This whole discussion is a bit over the top, pages of you two arguing over something apparently no one else is concerned about, but hey if the two of you want to do that yeah - WhatsApp!

one note that comments like above can get you a timeout from BF. It isn’t accepted.  We all can get frustrated and short especially in an argument that just bounces back and forth like this, but both sides need to keep it civil.  

For me I don’t need someone arguing the return policy and I disagree, BFs product is stellar. Of course that is just personal opinion but there simply is nothing else to combare to it. No other game does 3D tactical combat particularly with infantry like combat mission. And I have never had cause to even consider a refund. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sburke said:

This whole discussion is a bit over the top, pages of you two arguing over something apparently no one else is concerned about, but hey if the two of you want to do that yeah - WhatsApp!

Indeed - the ignore user feature is there for a reason. I haven't read a snake... post for a while now which means I am not motivated to comment on any recent posts. I really helps guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sburke said:

...

one note that comments like above can get you a timeout from BF. It isn’t accepted.  We all can get frustrated and short especially in an argument that just bounces back and forth like this, but both sides need to keep it civil.  

...

I have not engaged in any personal attacks. Of course you'd have to actually read everything I wrote to know that :) For the record, as a huge fan of irony, I have absolutely loved every one of Snake's personal attacks. Every. Single. One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Snake726 said:

So the answer to your confidence in a debate about knowledge is off the table then eh.

I am not diverting, I have no idea what you are on about.

Yeah right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Snake726 said:

This is the BF sale policy: https://www.battlefront.com/sales-policy

In it there are, of course, no claims about shipment dates for individual products...

I NEVER said there were claims about shipment dates for individual products in the sales policy. There are shipment dates for categories of orders, such as pre-ordered items:

SHIPPING AND DELIVERY TIMES

  • In stock items are usually shipped within 1-2 BUSINESS days after receipt.
  • Backordered and Pre-Order items are shipped out when they become available.

ORDERS WITH OUT OF STOCK OR PRE-ORDER ITEMS

If your order contains any out of stock, backordered or Pre-order items your order will NOT ship until all ordered items are back in stock. We do not ship out partial orders.

Our online ordering system is setup to bill you at the time of purchase not the time of shipment. That means that as soon as you click the "Submit Order" button your credit card will be billed.

If your order contains backordered or out of stock items you will be billed the full amount before the order ships. If you do not wish to be billed in that way, then please do not place an order with any out of stock or backordered items.

Let's be clear, if CMSF2 were in stock it would be shipping. Pre-ordered items are out of stock items. Additionally, BF begged you not to order if you had a problem with their clearly stated policies. Any adjudicating body will take this into consideration.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caveat emptor

Additionally, the purchase page of the product in question includes this at the top of the page, which is in line with their stated Sales Policy:

PREORDER INFORMATION

Combat Mission Shock Force 2 is in the final stages of development, however it is not yet ready for release. At this point in time we are inviting people to preorder one of several CMSF2 options at $5 off normal prices. With the purchase you will receive a license key and download link that will be activated when the game is ready...

You have said the above is marketing, it is clearly not. I can't imagine any adjudicating body ruling otherwise. You are, of course, free to think what you will, but then that goes back to the question of holding one's subjective realty as universal truth...

All of the above goes to the question of the promised shipping date: when it is in stock. BF was clear that the item you pre-ordered is still in development.  Again, I can't imagine any adjudicating body siding with you in this instance.

You also bring up the no refund policy. The law you cite applies to orders that haven't met their promised shipping dates as I tried to show you earlier by highlighting the appropriate text in the blurb you posted. Other refunds fall under the jurisdiction of state law as there are no federal laws governing refund policies in general.

Have a wonderful day!

 

edit: As I have said before, "we are aiming for" is quite clearly not a promise. Such a claim would not withstand the scrutiny of an impartial adjudicator.

Edited by sfhand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×