Forums
First  << 1  2  3  4 >>  Last
Forum Main>>General Discussion>> Federal for SUBSCRIBERS
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_I_

ID: 575607
Level: 65
Posts: 7780
Score: 6370
_I_ [575607]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:10:18
By DarthBrogo [21801]
You mean they - we - are being good Citizens.


There's nothing more dangerous than knowing a small amount of anything. Makes people think they know more than they actually do.

If any of you genuinely think that all of Torn's T&C's, especially with regard to money changing hands haven't already been gone over by at least one fine English Lawyer (as English law is *all* that matters here), you're more gullible than I thought.

+++ 5 star sports company always hiring, $100k/day - Needed: 4-5* Efficiency and 2000+ manual. +++
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
atentat

ID: 1583407
Level: 52
Posts: 2032
Score: 1462
atentat [1583407]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:40:12
By _I_ [575607]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
You mean they - we - are being good Citizens.


There's nothing more dangerous than knowing a small amount of anything. Makes people think they know more than they actually do.

If any of you genuinely think that all of Torn's T&C's, especially with regard to money changing hands haven't already been gone over by at least one fine English Lawyer (as English law is *all* that matters here), you're more gullible than I thought.


what makes you think only UK laws matter?

Seems youre a smart ass just like the people who you call out for talking without actually knowing.

some time ago the founders of bwin were arrested in france because their website broke france laws.

How can that happen if only the law of the country matters where your company is?

R U avin a giggle ther m8? ill bash ye fookin ead in i sware on me mum.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
kyle8048

ID: 488020
Level: 71
Posts: 14545
Score: 5865
.kyle8048 [488020]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:44:11
By atentat [1583407]
By _I_ [575607]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
You mean they - we - are being good Citizens.


There's nothing more dangerous than knowing a small amount of anything. Makes people think they know more than they actually do.

If any of you genuinely think that all of Torn's T&C's, especially with regard to money changing hands haven't already been gone over by at least one fine English Lawyer (as English law is *all* that matters here), you're more gullible than I thought.


what makes you think only UK laws matter?

Seems youre a smart ass just like the people who you call out for talking without actually knowing.

some time ago the founders of bwin were arrested in france because their website broke france laws.

How can that happen if only the law of the country matters where your company is?


I think it only matters where the servers are hosted. That's why many sites are on small tax exempt islands.

And an online gambling site is hardly the best example as gambling is heavily licenced.

Last Edited: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:46:27
kyle1.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
atentat

ID: 1583407
Level: 52
Posts: 2032
Score: 1462
atentat [1583407]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:51:10
By kyle8048 [488020]
By atentat [1583407]
By _I_ [575607]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
You mean they - we - are being good Citizens.


There's nothing more dangerous than knowing a small amount of anything. Makes people think they know more than they actually do.

If any of you genuinely think that all of Torn's T&C's, especially with regard to money changing hands haven't already been gone over by at least one fine English Lawyer (as English law is *all* that matters here), you're more gullible than I thought.


what makes you think only UK laws matter?

Seems youre a smart ass just like the people who you call out for talking without actually knowing.

some time ago the founders of bwin were arrested in france because their website broke france laws.

How can that happen if only the law of the country matters where your company is?


I think it only matters where the servers are hosted. That's why many sites are on small tax exempt islands.


This only works for small porn sites, where hosting in panama for instance can protect your identity. For large companies it doesnt really matter where they host. They get sued locally, like google for instance gets sued in europe. I think it depends on each country how they handle the webz. No doubt north korea could decide to sue you in north korea if they feel you broke their rules.

Same with facebook, ebay etc.

The reason they have their companies there is for tax reasons.

R U avin a giggle ther m8? ill bash ye fookin ead in i sware on me mum.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_I_

ID: 575607
Level: 65
Posts: 7780
Score: 6370
_I_ [575607]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:51:31
By atentat [1583407]
what makes you think only UK laws matter?


Because the servers are based in the UK, so it's UK law that takes precedence.

+++ 5 star sports company always hiring, $100k/day - Needed: 4-5* Efficiency and 2000+ manual. +++
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
bogie

ID: 148747
Level: 77
Posts: 20157
Score: 21263
JUXbogie [148747]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:52:03
By Dreemin34 [711289]
The Terms of Service is posted in WIKI. Therefore, they wouldn't be from a reliable source anyway. On WIKI, things can be edit as well as added or taken away. Even the average college student knows how unreliable WIKI is. I wouldn't think this would get by a judge. TORN could take the subscription money if they had a valid contract.As for the subscription renewal, that is the burden of the person who set it up to discontinue it.:@


Pages such as the terms of service cannot be edited by players or even by staff such as myself. (Even if I could I wouldn't dare try, it's been made abundantly clear to us that these pages are off limits either way)

Only admins (e.g. Clansdancer/Chedburn) can edit those pages.

10xws4h.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
atentat

ID: 1583407
Level: 52
Posts: 2032
Score: 1462
atentat [1583407]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:54:45
By _I_ [575607]
By atentat [1583407]
what makes you think only UK laws matter?


Because the servers are based in the UK, so it's UK law that takes precedence.


no its not

Each country has its own laws.

wow man first you call out people for being wanna be lawayers and then you talk this bullshit. Seriously dont you feel ridiculous?

R U avin a giggle ther m8? ill bash ye fookin ead in i sware on me mum.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_I_

ID: 575607
Level: 65
Posts: 7780
Score: 6370
_I_ [575607]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 13:02:06
By atentat [1583407]
Each country has its own laws.


Yes, you are an idiot.

Thanks for playing.

On servers based in the UK.



+++ 5 star sports company always hiring, $100k/day - Needed: 4-5* Efficiency and 2000+ manual. +++
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
manik

ID: 1554958
Level: 55
Posts: 1219
Score: 1147
JUXmanik [1554958]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 13:21:12
It'll be UK law. It's a UK limited based company (a UK entity) you would be suing.

Unless you wanted to extradite Ched. Which would be a little extreme to say the least...

That said, knowing our stupid Government they'd find it easy






1nydmq.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3845
Score: 3150
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 13:21:22
By _I_ [575607]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
You mean they - we - are being good Citizens.


There's nothing more dangerous than knowing a small amount of anything. Makes people think they know more than they actually do.

If any of you genuinely think that all of Torn's T&C's, especially with regard to money changing hands haven't already been gone over by at least one fine English Lawyer (as English law is *all* that matters here), you're more gullible than I thought.



Since you mention it: it strikes me as fairly obvious that the sollicitor in question worked with standardised T&C's for a business-to-business contract.

Not the best choice possible, but it was quite understandable in 2003, in the infancy of what was then called the 'new economy'. T&C work is fairly dreary, and does not attract the best of talent, which goes into Litigation and Represntation. The finest lawyer was not used,and Chedburn Networks - certainly at the time - would be hardly in a position to pay fees to say, Addleshaw&Goddard or Hunton&Wlliams.

With between 25K and 40K active users and presuming a turn-over of 125K/month ( probably a fraction since hardly everyone is a subsriber ) you are talking 'retail'. So you'd expect fairly pedestrian lawyers, local ones, who simply pull a standardised set out-of-the-filing cabinet. If I were to guess: the family-lawyer.

Last Edited: Mon Apr 29, 2013 13:27:02
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
atentat

ID: 1583407
Level: 52
Posts: 2032
Score: 1462
atentat [1583407]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 13:37:03
By _I_ [575607]
By atentat [1583407]
Each country has its own laws.


Yes, you are an idiot.

Thanks for playing.

On servers based in the UK.



I think its time for you to step on a bridge and reevaluate your life if you get this mad for being called out on your bullshit you keep preaching.

Boowhoo now youre gonna cry for being exposed as a hipocrit? Pls grow up and stop pretending you have some kind of understanding of anything.

Every time you talk the same in the forums, like you know anything. Well now we know how much you actually know, your deep wisdom.

iaintevenmad.jpg

R U avin a giggle ther m8? ill bash ye fookin ead in i sware on me mum.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
KickRocks

ID: 1030718
Level: 84
Posts: 862
Score: 450
oYsKickRocks [1030718]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 13:53:41
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By KickRocks [1030718]


What exactly has the consumer purchased?

And the seller is covered by rights, as well. What makes the consumers rights more than the seller's?

Since you ask: Directive 93/13.

In a conflict between a business and a consumer, the rights and interests of the consumer take precedence.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0013:EN:HTML

If you will take a look at the preamble ( and as born out by 20+ years of Jurisprudence ):
the overaching concern of the Directive is to protect the Buyer, and not the Seller.

To quote but 4 consecutive alineas in the whereasses:



Whereas the two Community programmes for a consumer protection and information policy (4) underlined the importance of safeguarding consumers in the matter of unfair terms of contract; whereas this protection ought to be provided by laws and regulations which are either harmonized at Community level or adopted directly at that level;

Whereas in accordance with the principle laid down under the heading 'Protection of the economic interests of the consumers', as stated in those programmes: 'acquirers of goods and services should be protected against the abuse of power by the seller or supplier, in particular against one-sided standard contracts and the unfair exclusion of essential rights in contracts';

Whereas more effective protection of the consumer can be achieved by adopting uniform rules of law in the matter of unfair terms; whereas those rules should apply to all contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers; whereas as a result inter alia contracts relating to employment, contracts relating to succession rights, contracts relating to rights under family law and contracts relating to the incorporation and organization of companies or partnership agreements must be excluded from this Directive;

Whereas the consumer must receive equal protection under contracts concluded by word of mouth and written contracts regardless, in the latter case, of whether the terms of the contract are contained in one or more documents;


The general drift is clear, as you will see, and born out by jurisprudence.

No, I sell service agreements all the time. If a customer pays only a portion of their agreement or does something that goes against the agreement and costs me more money, then I either pull the contract or I back charge them. It's not that hard to follow. Why should someone else cost me more money to run a job or business? The agreement was upheld on my end.

I'm reading with attention. United States?

I'm led to this question by your statement:
What exactly has the consumer purchased?

A lack of precision in describing what has been purchase would tend to make the contract nill and void.

I do not presume to understand US contractual law, I merely imderstand that is different.

There are several tests that a transaction must stand up to, here.

1] Definite Object - no 10 Dollars and other valuable considerations.

2] Definite Parties - Mr A and Mrs B, and not e.g. the Vegan Community in London and All Left-handed Males in Yorkshire.

3] Adherence to Statute - the modalities and strictures of Public Law must apply.

4] Legitimate Object - which is to say that a Contract to supply drugs is nill and void, the supply of drugs being prohibited.


I try to speak from a logical standpoint, not legal. As i know all too well first hand that logic goes out the window when the skeeves in the judicial system get involved. The seller still has rights. I can't speak for the UK, but in the US the seller just typically doesn't exercise them, as it would cost more for them to than the monetary value the debt is worth. Too many small business go out of business here cause of either outstanding debts and/or a waste of money in fighting for money that they are owed. It is this thought process of 'lets sue Chedburn and Co. cause I donated money toward this game and got my "contract" revoked by my own actions' that has ruined private enterprise and created a world where only big business can succeed in many areas. People need to get a f**king grip and need a reality check.

As far as what is being purchased/sold by this game, that was more of a rhetorical question. Service is what is being purchased/sold. Even if it's as little as having the blue X above ones name, that's still a service. In this case, it's a service to me cause I don't have to take the time to re-up my donor status monthly. To me, it's a pain in the ass, so I subscribe to the service.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Devils-Advocate

ID: 887880
Level: 59
Posts: 738
Score: 398
HTDevils-Advocate [887880]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 14:06:30
Looking at the degree that this thread has become.....i find it humerous that such a question has turned into a juducial review of laws etc.

I do believe the figures involved here are $48.50 for an annual subscription (about 30 ish) which is not even worth arguing about...its not even a round of drinks lol




5* Cruise Company Hiring. Just Apply if you have Good INT stats
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_I_

ID: 575607
Level: 65
Posts: 7780
Score: 6370
_I_ [575607]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 14:16:19
By atentat [1583407]
By _I_ [575607]
By atentat [1583407]
Each country has its own laws.


Yes, you are an idiot.

Thanks for playing.

On servers based in the UK.



I think its time for you to step on a bridge and reevaluate your life if you get this mad for being called out on your bullshit you keep preaching.

Boowhoo now youre gonna cry for being exposed as a hipocrit? Pls grow up and stop pretending you have some kind of understanding of anything.

Every time you talk the same in the forums, like you know anything. Well now we know how much you actually know, your deep wisdom.

iaintevenmad.jpg


You might want to stop now, you're just looking foolish.

Oh, and it's hypocrite, fyi. But as you don't know what it actually means, it stands to reason you won't know how to spell it.

Ciao!



+++ 5 star sports company always hiring, $100k/day - Needed: 4-5* Efficiency and 2000+ manual. +++
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
BambinaDuckie

ID: 477368
Level: 60
Posts: 3946
Score: 1474
ShhhBambinaDuckie [477368]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 14:42:21
By supertramp [1007731]
I know it is a taboo to do the "ILLEGAL" things in TORN like having multiple accounts etc. etc. but I am curious on to what happens to those people who have "SUBSCRIBED" to the TORN service and do these so called ILLEGAL activities. Especially those YEARLY subscribers...
Does the TORN staff given them a warning OR are they punished like everyone else..? If they are, then what happens to the money that they have paid to subscribe for TORN.?


No one is telling you that you can not play if you do not subscribe. Therefore it is still a donation.And yes all punishments are handed out equal...Illegal means Illegal.Can't bribe a cop now can ya?

Duckie1-1.png
Made by the talented Cloudkicker
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
atentat

ID: 1583407
Level: 52
Posts: 2032
Score: 1462
atentat [1583407]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 15:48:57
By _I_ [575607]
By atentat [1583407]
By _I_ [575607]
By atentat [1583407]
Each country has its own laws.


Yes, you are an idiot.

Thanks for playing.

On servers based in the UK.



I think its time for you to step on a bridge and reevaluate your life if you get this mad for being called out on your bullshit you keep preaching.

Boowhoo now youre gonna cry for being exposed as a hipocrit? Pls grow up and stop pretending you have some kind of understanding of anything.

Every time you talk the same in the forums, like you know anything. Well now we know how much you actually know, your deep wisdom.

iaintevenmad.jpg


You might want to stop now, you're just looking foolish.

Oh, and it's hypocrite, fyi. But as you don't know what it actually means, it stands to reason you won't know how to spell it.

Ciao!



resorting to spelling mistakes = ran out of arguments.

you make me laugh

R U avin a giggle ther m8? ill bash ye fookin ead in i sware on me mum.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3845
Score: 3150
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 15:55:38
By KickRocks [1030718]

I try to speak from a logical standpoint, not legal. As i know all too well first hand that logic goes out the window when the skeeves in the judicial system get involved. The seller still has rights. I can't speak for the UK, but in the US the seller just typically doesn't exercise them, as it would cost more for them to than the monetary value the debt is worth. Too many small business go out of business here cause of either outstanding debts and/or a waste of money in fighting for money that they are owed. It is this thought process of 'lets sue Chedburn and Co. cause I donated money toward this game and got my "contract" revoked by my own actions' that has ruined private enterprise and created a world where only big business can succeed in many areas. People need to get a f**king grip and need a reality check.

As far as what is being purchased/sold by this game, that was more of a rhetorical question. Service is what is being purchased/sold. Even if it's as little as having the blue X above ones name, that's still a service. In this case, it's a service to me cause I don't have to take the time to re-up my donor status monthly. To me, it's a pain in the ass, so I subscribe to the service.


For your 1st paragraph, there is nothing I should add apart from stating my general agreement.
But I should note that if a contract is revoked, or its application is drastically altered ( fedding ) then it can become a matter of some urgency to start paying back any 'forward sums'.
I have been quoting EU Law because British law, in the matter at hand, simply is application of the Directive and there are copyright issues with directly copy-pasting UK laws.

For your 2nd paragraph, I should note that subscription( combined with added goodies ) undermines the Donation argument. I noted earlier that there is a substantial difference between donation and subscription.


Last Edited: Mon Apr 29, 2013 17:04:10
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_I_

ID: 575607
Level: 65
Posts: 7780
Score: 6370
_I_ [575607]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 15:58:18
By atentat [1583407]
resorting to spelling mistakes = ran out of arguments.

you make me laugh


That's nice dear.

You're still wrong, though.

+++ 5 star sports company always hiring, $100k/day - Needed: 4-5* Efficiency and 2000+ manual. +++
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
KickRocks

ID: 1030718
Level: 84
Posts: 862
Score: 450
oYsKickRocks [1030718]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 16:30:32
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By KickRocks [1030718]

I try to speak from a logical standpoint, not legal. As i know all too well first hand that logic goes out the window when the skeeves in the judicial system get involved. The seller still has rights. I can't speak for the UK, but in the US the seller just typically doesn't exercise them, as it would cost more for them to than the monetary value the debt is worth. Too many small business go out of business here cause of either outstanding debts and/or a waste of money in fighting for money that they are owed. It is this thought process of 'lets sue Chedburn and Co. cause I donated money toward this game and got my "contract" revoked by my own actions' that has ruined private enterprise and created a world where only big business can succeed in many areas. People need to get a f**king grip and need a reality check.

As far as what is being purchased/sold by this game, that was more of a rhetorical question. Service is what is being purchased/sold. Even if it's as little as having the blue X above ones name, that's still a service. In this case, it's a service to me cause I don't have to take the time to re-up my donor status monthly. To me, it's a pain in the ass, so I subscribe to the service.


For your paragraph, there is nothing I should add apart from stating my general agreement.
But I should note that if a contract is revoked, or its application is drastically altered ( fedding ) then it can become a matter of some urgency to start paying back any 'forward sums'.
I have been EU Law because British law, in the matter at hand, simply is application of the Directive and there are copyright issues with directly copy-pasting UK laws.

For your paragraph, I should note that subscription( combined with added goodies ) undermines the Donation argument. I noted earlier that there is a substantial difference between donation and subscription.


I personally don't perceive that as such. Many companies give incentives for commitment. Anywhere from discounts for paying in an agreed upon time frame to free t-shits and hats (torn does both through their discounted rate per donation and 'free goodies' with their two free items). They are still incentives and whether someone is purchasing their product on account or with cash, they are still your customer. If the account customer doesn't pay in the agreed upon time, they lose their discount and are subject to penalty for their delinquent account. If a 'cash customer' pays with a check and the check bounces, they are subject for any reprocessing fees. Paying via donor pack or subscription are ultimately one in the same, the former just doesn't get the incentives offered to the latter.

Edit: I think I see what you're saying now. I believe torn is a business, not a non-profit, therefore, maybe the confusion lies with the wording of how they make their money.

Last Edited: Mon Apr 29, 2013 16:36:20
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3845
Score: 3150
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 16:56:45
By KickRocks [1030718]


I personally don't perceive that as such. Many companies give incentives for commitment. Anywhere from discounts for paying in an agreed upon time frame to free t-shits and hats (torn does both through their discounted rate per donation and 'free goodies' with their two free items). They are still incentives and whether someone is purchasing their product on account or with cash, they are still your customer. If the account customer doesn't pay in the agreed upon time, they lose their discount and are subject to penalty for their delinquent account. If a 'cash customer' pays with a check and the check bounces, they are subject for any reprocessing fees. Paying via donor pack or subscription are ultimately one in the same, the former just doesn't get the incentives offered to the latter.


In order for a Donation to be legal ( under common law ), there must be an absence of considerations in return. Granted, that has always some fictional elements. ( You are right in arguing that a commercial firm can seek donations, odd as it may seem. )

But I think that the fiction becomes too thin in the case of subscrition. To mention but one obstacle: the contract only becomes valid witb the actual transfer of money or goods. Once you start applying penalties for late payment the legal fiction evaporates.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
LadyDreemin34

ID: 711289
Level: 55
Posts: 2060
Score: 151
EQ2LadyDreemin34 [711289]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 17:12:00
By bogie [148747]
By Dreemin34 [711289]
The Terms of Service is posted in WIKI. Therefore, they wouldn't be from a reliable source anyway. On WIKI, things can be edit as well as added or taken away. Even the average college student knows how unreliable WIKI is. I wouldn't think this would get by a judge. TORN could take the subscription money if they had a valid contract.As for the subscription renewal, that is the burden of the person who set it up to discontinue it.:@


Pages such as the terms of service cannot be edited by players or even by staff such as myself. (Even if I could I wouldn't dare try, it's been made abundantly clear to us that these pages are off limits either way)

Only admins (e.g. Clansdancer/Chedburn) can edit those pages.


bogie, I understand that only a few can edit and that they decide who actually can do this, but WIKI still is not a reliable source to use. But anyone that is going to sue over the subscription money is stupid anyway. At the most they would get what they paid. Who would want to spend money over a period of months or years for an attorney and court cost for a $5 dollar payment.

judgmentdaylogo-1.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
KickRocks

ID: 1030718
Level: 84
Posts: 862
Score: 450
oYsKickRocks [1030718]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 17:19:57
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By KickRocks [1030718]


I personally don't perceive that as such. Many companies give incentives for commitment. Anywhere from discounts for paying in an agreed upon time frame to free t-shits and hats (torn does both through their discounted rate per donation and 'free goodies' with their two free items). They are still incentives and whether someone is purchasing their product on account or with cash, they are still your customer. If the account customer doesn't pay in the agreed upon time, they lose their discount and are subject to penalty for their delinquent account. If a 'cash customer' pays with a check and the check bounces, they are subject for any reprocessing fees. Paying via donor pack or subscription are ultimately one in the same, the former just doesn't get the incentives offered to the latter.


In order for a Donation to be legal ( under common law ), there must be an absence of considerations in return. Granted, that has always some fictional elements. ( You are right in arguing that a commercial firm can seek donations, odd as it may seem. )

But I think that the fiction becomes too thin in the case of subscrition. To mention but one obstacle: the contract only becomes valid witb the actual transfer of money or goods. Once you start applying penalties for late payment the legal fiction evaporates.


Torn isn't really applying late fees though, they are simply 'firing the customer.' In this case, a customer that they feel has violated the agreement to play the game by the rules set forth. In my case, I do this to people that are assholes or waste my time. Is it illegal to refuse service to someone? I really don't know, though if so, I'd have been locked up a long, long time ago.

I think you are hung up on the word 'donation.' The definition of the word says nothing about anything in return, whether implied or expected. Whatever (if anything) that comes in return for your donation doesn't make it not a donation. It is still a donation, and there is nothing wrong or shady with giving incentives to donate. Most major charity organizations do it, even the cookie and juice after you donate blood is essentially a kick back.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/donation

Last Edited: Mon Apr 29, 2013 17:24:43
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3845
Score: 3150
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 17:46:11
I checked my law-manual for the UK, and worked with that.

To condense 2 legalese paragraphs:
- an 'imperfect' contract defined by want of consideration.
- validated by physical delivery ( 'executable by execution', the Editor was trying to be epigrammatic )

Different perceptions about who you can buy from or sell with have always plagued anglo-american relations.
I give you the Boston Tea Party.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
V1X3N

ID: 1669002
Level: 38
Posts: 385
Score: 292
V1X3N [1669002]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 17:46:31
By KickRocks [1030718]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By KickRocks [1030718]


I personally don't perceive that as such. Many companies give incentives for commitment. Anywhere from discounts for paying in an agreed upon time frame to free t-shits and hats (torn does both through their discounted rate per donation and 'free goodies' with their two free items). They are still incentives and whether someone is purchasing their product on account or with cash, they are still your customer. If the account customer doesn't pay in the agreed upon time, they lose their discount and are subject to penalty for their delinquent account. If a 'cash customer' pays with a check and the check bounces, they are subject for any reprocessing fees. Paying via donor pack or subscription are ultimately one in the same, the former just doesn't get the incentives offered to the latter.


In order for a Donation to be legal ( under common law ), there must be an absence of considerations in return. Granted, that has always some fictional elements. ( You are right in arguing that a commercial firm can seek donations, odd as it may seem. )

But I think that the fiction becomes too thin in the case of subscrition. To mention but one obstacle: the contract only becomes valid witb the actual transfer of money or goods. Once you start applying penalties for late payment the legal fiction evaporates.


Torn isn't really applying late fees though, they are simply 'firing the customer.' In this case, a customer that they feel has violated the agreement to play the game by the rules set forth. In my case, I do this to people that are assholes or waste my time. Is it illegal to refuse service to someone? I really don't know, though if so, I'd have been locked up a long, long time ago.

I think you are hung up on the word 'donation.' The definition of the word says nothing about anything in return, whether implied or expected. Whatever (if anything) that comes in return for your donation doesn't make it not a donation. It is still a donation, and there is nothing wrong or shady with giving incentives to donate. Most major charity organizations do it, even the cookie and juice after you donate blood is essentially a kick back.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/donation


Even though it is referred to as 'donator status' in Torn, I feel like that is just a title that was thrown on it. If anything, I would classify 'donator status' as a membership. Anyone can play the game with an account, but once you become a paying member you receive extra perks. The majority of people buying donator packs, do not purchase them to simply make a donation to the business. I have no idea whether that would make a difference or not, but I don't believe the term 'donation' would even apply in regards to the law.

bacep.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
PsychoPaul

ID: 869170
Level: 72
Posts: 3329
Score: 2174
eVPsychoPaul [869170]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 19:27:43
By bogie [148747]
http://www.torn.com/wiki/Terms_and_Conditions_of_Supply


" the Consumer Credit Act gives you a 14-day cooling off period to cancel the agreement. "

So that terms and conditions if wrong right off the bat, and thats just at a first glance.



2pzwjm8.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Pluto

ID: 541636
Level: 82
Posts: 3368
Score: 1315
FTWPluto [541636]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 19:36:37
By V1X3N [1669002]
By KickRocks [1030718]
By DarthBrogo [21801]
By KickRocks [1030718]


I personally don't perceive that as such. Many companies give incentives for commitment. Anywhere from discounts for paying in an agreed upon time frame to free t-shits and hats (torn does both through their discounted rate per donation and 'free goodies' with their two free items). They are still incentives and whether someone is purchasing their product on account or with cash, they are still your customer. If the account customer doesn't pay in the agreed upon time, they lose their discount and are subject to penalty for their delinquent account. If a 'cash customer' pays with a check and the check bounces, they are subject for any reprocessing fees. Paying via donor pack or subscription are ultimately one in the same, the former just doesn't get the incentives offered to the latter.


In order for a Donation to be legal ( under common law ), there must be an absence of considerations in return. Granted, that has always some fictional elements. ( You are right in arguing that a commercial firm can seek donations, odd as it may seem. )

But I think that the fiction becomes too thin in the case of subscrition. To mention but one obstacle: the contract only becomes valid witb the actual transfer of money or goods. Once you start applying penalties for late payment the legal fiction evaporates.


Torn isn't really applying late fees though, they are simply 'firing the customer.' In this case, a customer that they feel has violated the agreement to play the game by the rules set forth. In my case, I do this to people that are assholes or waste my time. Is it illegal to refuse service to someone? I really don't know, though if so, I'd have been locked up a long, long time ago.

I think you are hung up on the word 'donation.' The definition of the word says nothing about anything in return, whether implied or expected. Whatever (if anything) that comes in return for your donation doesn't make it not a donation. It is still a donation, and there is nothing wrong or shady with giving incentives to donate. Most major charity organizations do it, even the cookie and juice after you donate blood is essentially a kick back.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/donation


Even though it is referred to as 'donator status' in Torn, I feel like that is just a title that was thrown on it. If anything, I would classify 'donator status' as a membership. Anyone can play the game with an account, but once you become a paying member you receive extra perks. The majority of people buying donator packs, do not purchase them to simply make a donation to the business. I have no idea whether that would make a difference or not, but I don't believe the term 'donation' would even apply in regards to the law.


Yes.


By PsychoPaul [869170]
By bogie [148747]
http://www.torn.com/wiki/Terms_and_Conditions_of_Supply


" the Consumer Credit Act gives you a 14-day cooling off period to cancel the agreement. "

So that terms and conditions if wrong right off the bat, and thats just at a first glance.



More yes - except it is a 7 day cooling off period - I too cannot see that in Torn rules.

Edit - and if not in rules, it is a tough one for Torn to defend. Well, defend without going to prison

Last Edited: Mon Apr 29, 2013 19:37:59
29lzm79.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
atentat

ID: 1583407
Level: 52
Posts: 2032
Score: 1462
atentat [1583407]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 19:38:04
By _I_ [575607]
By atentat [1583407]
resorting to spelling mistakes = ran out of arguments.

you make me laugh


That's nice dear.

You're still wrong, though.


You agreed on me being right the moment you ran out of arguments. I may be wrong, but according to you im right.

And btw i am right. US doesnt give a shit about uk laws and vice versa get that through your thick skull maybe.

R U avin a giggle ther m8? ill bash ye fookin ead in i sware on me mum.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Pluto

ID: 541636
Level: 82
Posts: 3368
Score: 1315
FTWPluto [541636]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 19:44:02
By Dreemin34 [711289]
By bogie [148747]
By Dreemin34 [711289]
The Terms of Service is posted in WIKI. Therefore, they wouldn't be from a reliable source anyway. On WIKI, things can be edit as well as added or taken away. Even the average college student knows how unreliable WIKI is. I wouldn't think this would get by a judge. TORN could take the subscription money if they had a valid contract.As for the subscription renewal, that is the burden of the person who set it up to discontinue it.:@


Pages such as the terms of service cannot be edited by players or even by staff such as myself. (Even if I could I wouldn't dare try, it's been made abundantly clear to us that these pages are off limits either way)

Only admins (e.g. Clansdancer/Chedburn) can edit those pages.


bogie, I understand that only a few can edit and that they decide who actually can do this, but WIKI still is not a reliable source to use. But anyone that is going to sue over the subscription money is stupid anyway. At the most they would get what they paid. Who would want to spend money over a period of months or years for an attorney and court cost for a $5 dollar payment.


$5?

Plus the time spent building the account, plus all the donations. Plus the embarrassment factor of being in Fed. People I know play this game. Then, we have the stress, the anxiety and the degrading of ones standing to compensate for.



29lzm79.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
DarthBrogo

ID: 21801
Level: 51
Posts: 3845
Score: 3150
DarthBrogo [21801]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Apr 29, 2013 20:43:15
By PsychoPaul [869170]

" the Consumer Credit Act gives you a 14-day cooling off period to cancel the agreement. "

So that terms and conditions if wrong right off the bat, and thats just at a first glance.



Indeed.

As I said earlier, it strikes me as fairly obvious that the sollicitor who produced the T&C worked with standardised T&C's for a business-to-business contract. The oversight of the provisions of the CCA would be in line with that assessment.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Jon_Snow
ID: 1007731
Level: 52
Posts: 1565
Score: 351
Jon_Snow [1007731]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Tue Apr 30, 2013 09:14:26
:D

KbCB6T_zpsfeb9f8dd.png
Forum Main>>General Discussion>> Federal for SUBSCRIBERS
First  << 1  2  3  4 >>  Last