A Neurotic Jew posted:

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/337005/comm-link-schedule-july-18th-2016

MilesK posted:

So they've canceled 10ftc and from now on atv will be filmed once every 4 weeks?

A Neurotic Jew posted:

haha Lethality is disturbingly unintelligent.

MilesK posted:

So they've canceled 10ftc and from now on atv will be filmed once every 4 weeks?

Tijuana Bibliophile posted:

CitCon will be the awesomest thing, do we have someone on the inside?

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

Clearly the 104TC replacement that is totally a priority and not being binned for the forseeable future is right around the corner guys.

Tijuana Bibliophile posted:

Lol if he thinks SC will get more coverage at gamescon than at citcon

CitCon will be the awesomest thing, do we have someone on the inside?

Sappo569 posted:

I know everyone is in 'be nice to Ben' mode because he's sick ... but i bet a space hot tub they spin this into an easy out for any updates or news for the next 2-3 weeks

'Sorry guys we are all busy keeping vigil beside Ben so no updates until 1 week before gamescon ... and the new ship for sale'

A Neurotic Jew posted:

no its more like AtV will be rotated from one studio to the next every week. Next week LA, then UK, then Austin, then Germany. Repeat.

10ftc is gone, and this is also likely to be RtV's last week. Like all things Star Citizen, these features will be replaced by things that are even better, but we don't know when or what they are and CIG can't tell us.

ManofManyAliases posted:

Posting from the past (not completely caught up).

No. Romanticize my involvement anyway you want, but the ToS is still pretty tight. CIG wasn't compelled to offer a refund - they did so on their own accord. And contrary to what some of you believe, this is not a 'legal' precedent - nice try. I'm glad that Streetroller got his cash back. Buyer's remorse is a terrible feeling and perhaps streetroller might be more conscientious with his spending on goods/services that may or may not be tangible. However, I'm not going to nitpick on semantics or try to detract from any of your beliefs. I still hold that CIG has much more to show and are much better off than in the picture some of you are trying to paint.

Now back to the 50 pages I need to catch-up.

Sunswipe posted:

I'll be surprised if they don't do some sort of sale to help raise money for his medical bills (and maybe a little off the top for CIG, those coffee machines don't buy themselves).

Sunswipe posted:

Lethality knows how advertising works:

PST posted:

So when you say 'not compelled' you mean 'inside the US and not the EU and Australia where the TOS is unlawful, right?'

And when you say 'not compelled' you mean 'because they really, really didn't want any actual legal attention or holy gently caress a judge looking at that TOS and tearing it to shreds' right?

I'm just trying to be clear on your understanding, which historically has been that of someone who neither understands accounting, nor the law, in any jurisdiction.

Also, it's a poo poo tech demo that is going to amount to the biggest con in gaming, get your refund asap.

Streetroller posted:

What MoMa doesn't realize is that if they had an ironclad ToS, refusing the refund at the DA would not have costed them a loving dime.
HOWEVER, what MoMa doesn't want to face, is that I had a law firm that specifically deals with consumer fraud already on the take working for contingency, which doesn't cost me a loving dime.

So if they had refused, they would have been dragged into court for treble-damages, $3000 would suddenly turn into $9000 + damages on every count of consumer fraud.

See, he doesn't want to actually do any research because he might find out he's actually full of it.

Barn Folk posted:

So how much Sandi, Ben, and Chris are we getting now? Did they finally realize how much people detest those clowns?

Streetroller posted:

What MoMa doesn't realize is that if they had an ironclad ToS, refusing the refund at the DA would not have costed them a loving dime.
HOWEVER, what MoMa doesn't want to face, is that I had a law firm that specifically deals with consumer fraud already on the take working for contingency, which doesn't cost me a loving dime.

So if they had refused, they would have been dragged into court for treble-damages, $3000 would suddenly turn into $9000 + damages on every count of consumer fraud.

See, he doesn't want to actually do any research because he might find out he's actually full of it.

Tippis posted:

Sunswipe posted:

I'll be surprised if they don't do some sort of sale to help raise money for his medical bills (and maybe a little off the top for CIG, those coffee machines don't buy themselves).

Sappo569 posted:

The only possible thing cig could do right now to redeem themselves even a bit would be to announce they're covering all of his medical costs and hiring him a personal trainer and dietician

Hell take Crobberts' he obviously doesn't use them

Sappo569 posted:

why does Lando say 'lots of preparing for gamescon' when he just told everyone they wouldn't be doing anything aside from watching people stream

Tippis posted:

Sappo569 posted:

why does Lando say 'lots of preparing for gamescon' when he just told everyone they wouldn't be doing anything aside from watching people stream

ManofManyAliases posted:

Maybe it's a surprise.

ManofManyAliases posted:

Your "agreement" is continued use of their services. This is NOT a hard concept to understand Derek. Their TOS is enforced via a combination of fundamental clickwrap and browsewrap ideas. Did you make an account? Yes? Ok - you affirmatively agreed to be bound by the ToS with your continued use of the site, forums, launcher and/or game. Don't want to be bound by a new version of the ToS? Don't login, don't use the game and don't browse the forums (Of course, the public, non-walled version of the forums are for general use. But, there are areas that require an account to access). You do NOT need to continuously CLICK a BUTTON to agree to the ToS revisions.

But here's the deal Derek - if you're so keen on your understanding of US common law precedent, contract law, UCC, etc., then by all means, have your "source" or "sources" continue to use CIG's services and try and bring whatever legal action you plan. Or, if you are not planning legal action, please: try and initiate an investigation. After all, we know you're so well connected to State AGs, federal agencies and lawyers.

ManofManyAliases posted:

It's not a purchase - it is a pledge. If we're strictly speaking of US-based accounts, you're not entitled to a refund. At least, that's how I have interpreted it.

ManofManyAliases posted:

Smart - you are unequivocally wrong. Just because you post something doesn't make it so - let's get that straight. I don't care how many PhDs you claim to have, how many times you've used "legal" (TheTicketCenter doesn't count), or how many times you have sued others or were sued yourself: you're not an expert on law and you don't know what you're talking about.

When you go to https://robertsspaceindustries.com/enlist to create an account, you have to AFFIRMATIVELY click a checkbox indicating you have read and agree to the Terms of Service. In so doing, you are FORMING A CONTRACT, no different than in Brick and Mortar stores, for the use of the goods or services. This is, by definition, a clickwrap agreement. And, such agreements have been deemed legal and upheld. The most famous case of which is Feldman v. Google, Inc, where Judge Giles basically held that if an online user has been given reasonable notice of the agreement’s term and it is clear that once the user clicks on the acceptance “button”, then the user agrees to be bound by those terms ... the online clickwrap agreement becomes binding on the online user.

The basic tennant of this law is evidenced in Restatements Second of Contracts, Restatement 19:

(1) The manifestation of assent may be made wholly or partly by written or spoken words or by other acts or by failure to act.
(2) The conduct of a party is not effective as a manifestation of his assent unless he intends to engage in the conduct and knows or has reason to know that the other party may infer from his conduct that he assents.
(3) The conduct of a party may manifest assent even though he does not in fact assent. In such cases a resulting contract may be voidable because of fraud, duress, mistake, or other invalidating cause.

I'll summarize it for you, since this was basic poo poo that we learned in first year of law school:

In common law (the Restatements are the most recognized treatise on contract law by the way) courts will focus on whether there was reasonable notice of and manifested assent to the agreement at hand. An affirmative "click" of the checkbox agreeing to the terms satisfies this "focus." That is what Feldman upheld. But here, I'll give you one more example:

In Be In, Inc v Google, Inc, 2013 the courts basically concluded that assent even more attenuated in browsewrap agreements than in the clickwrap or shrinkwrap contexts because “users can continue to use the website or its services without visiting the page hosting the browsewrap agreement or even knowing that such a webpage exists.” Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 12–cv–03373–LHK, 2013 WL 5568706, at *6. In other words, the courts concluded users are required to have actual or constructive knowledge of a website’s terms and conditions before enforcing browsewrap (or click wrap) agreements. Again - this court cited Restatement Second, 19.

tl;dr You are wrong. You have no legal grounds. You are talking out of your rear end. The End.

P.S. - Since we're all friends on these forums, if you want a primer on these legal foci, I'd be happy to send you some of my notes. Just PM me.

ManofManyAliases posted:

You're thinking of click-wrap agreements. By using software or service, you abide by the Terms of Service set forth:

"PLEASE READ THESE TERMS OF SERVICE (“TERMS OF SERVICE”) CAREFULLY. BY CLICKING THE “ACCEPT” BUTTON AT THE END OF THESE TERMS OF SERVICE BELOW, OR BY USING THE https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com WEBSITE AND RELATED WEBPAGES (THE “WEBSITE”) OR ANY OF THE CONTENT MADE AVAILABLE VIA THE WEBSITE OR THE GAME LAUNCHER. YOU AGREE THAT THESE TERMS OF SERVICE ARE ENFORCEABLE LIKE ANY WRITTEN CONTRACT SIGNED BY YOU."

The ToS just needs to be "noticeable and opportune to view."

"Section 19(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, a major codification of contract law, states assent may be manifested through conduct with or without words or action provided that “[t]he conduct of a party is not effective as a manifestation of his assent unless he intends to engage in the conduct and knows or has reason to know that the other party may infer from his conduct that he assents.”

Second Circuit says: "Acceptance need not be express, but where it is not, there must be evidence that the offeree knew or should have known of the terms and understood that acceptance of the benefit would be construed by the offeror as an agreement to be bound"

quote:

A pledge is a bailment that conveys possessory title to property owned by a debtor (the pledgor) to a creditor (the pledgee) to secure repayment for some debt or obligation and to the mutual benefit of both parties. The term is also used to denote the property which constitutes the security.

PST posted:

So when you say 'not compelled' you mean 'inside the US and not the EU and Australia where the TOS is unlawful, right?'

And when you say 'not compelled' you mean 'because they really, really didn't want any actual legal attention or holy gently caress a judge looking at that TOS and tearing it to shreds' right?

I'm just trying to be clear on your understanding, which historically has been that of someone who neither understands accounting, nor the law, in any jurisdiction.

Also, it's a poo poo tech demo that is going to amount to the biggest con in gaming, get your refund asap.