Support Info: External PED Purchases

[Traf Rellik]

Originally Posted by Tussi

I object.
The moment i (or some other participant) suffer from bug (which are plenty in existence, as we hopefully all can agree on) and MA hides behind EULA ('we can't compensate') and they don't fix the bug instantly then there is definitively something wrong.

No matter how big the monetary impact on the customer.

Tussi

Your objection is irrelevant. The EULA is an agreement that YOU agreed to that says that such occurrences are to be allowed for. They don't promise any particular service periods, and don't *charge* for the service itself, so any outages do not impart a financial obligation.

Similar example: your cell phone -- If you suffer a cell phone interruption that causes you financial, medical, or other problems... you have contractually agreed not to pursue the phone company as liable for the costs. The limits to which you are entitled are for service outages. Since EU has not guaranteed any particular service times, they owe you nothing if they interrupt service, regardless of the reason. However, the law may or may not hold that stipulation up based on circumstance. Either way though, their terms of service SAY they are not responsible.

Better examples probably exist, since the cell phone actually DOES contain a service period and therefor contains a financial liability for outages. Also, to be a good example it would include a violation of usage terms on your part. Such violations would be terminated without prior notice, and without a challenge for virtually ALL service contracts as a standard "CYA". Otherwise, they could be considered complacent in criminal activities.

It's not like they *want* to disable accounts for no particular reason. It's more like they have a lawyer advising them (on occasion) that if they don't disable an account, they would incur some degree of culpability for complacence in any illegal actions. The policy just can't pick and choose the conditions under which it's enforced.

They are NOT hiding behind the EULA any more than any other service company out there.

As for bugs, check out your Windows EULA regarding bugs and liability. To expect people to "fix it instantly" is not realistic by any stretch. In fact, they have no obligation to fix any bug at all. The only *reason* they fix them is to ensure that people are happy enough to use it. If the bug doesn't interfere with their profits, they have no reason to spend development time or money on it!

Sad? sort of, but only because that's what being a service oriented company means today.

All in all, they do a GREAT job of taking care of us when you factor in both sides of the equation. They are slow to enforce the EULA when it's "questionable", and quick when it's clear-cut. That's just the way it should be, IMHO.

Bottom line, if your deal is on the up and up, there is only ONE reason to feel threatened: if the other person in your deal cannot be trusted. They can screw it up for you by casting suspicion on the deal, effectively scamming you in the process. If both sides are happy, MA won't say a thing, I'm (virtually) 100% confident of that. The EULA is there to protect MA, and they would support the transaction if they could, but we have too many lawyers in this world for that to be a clear cut case.

[Tussi]

Traf,

with fix a bug (that costs users PED) instantly i mean the next VU (or the one after that, but better ASAP with a mini-update).

And in case you think that the EULA is good as it is, and that it is normal and OK for a service oriented company to deal with customers this way:

Please, get your head examined.

Tussi

PS: About your telco example... when mine messes up they don't forward my complaint to /dev/null but reimburse me for it.

PPS:

The policy just can't pick and choose the conditions under which it's enforced.

Anyone remembering the compensation after landgrab (the autoclicker issue)?

[Cloud]

I think Bugs and EULA here are two separate discussions.

They have Clauses in the EULA to be utilised in case of Fraud and other mischiefous situations.

The EULA may also give some leeways in regard to effecting Bugs but i thought people in this thread were referring to the EULA being a tool MA could use if there was an unusual PED transfer.

[Immortal]

I think people need to read the original post again before spouting yet more conspiracy theoires.

1. MA have not said you will be banned if you use it, just that they will not support it. This means if you get screwed, MA won't take responsibility. And nor should they, dumbass.
2. MA clearly state if any kind of deal you make in this matter involving interaction with an avatar involved in a hack/scam, you will be banned. No questions asked.

Ps Direct bank to bank transfer incurs no 'tax' on your deposits, which is why i suggest it in every single thread related to this topic (that topic being people whining cos they don't want to use deposit options that do not incur fees). The fee Ma charges on c/card payments is no different from any other business requiring cost recovery of the administration of such a payment.

[Raffaele Meiers]

Originally Posted by Tussi

I object.
The moment i (or some other participant) suffer from bug (which are plenty in existance, as we hopefully all can agree on) and MA hides behind EULA ('we can't compensate') and they don't fix the bug instantly then there is definitively something wrong.

No matter how big the monetary impact on the customer.

Tussi

Seams to me as if I go to supermarket and the cashier slides my items over the scanner, it gets added to the list I have to pay but dissapears then.

So I have to pay for something I do not get.

Isnt this the same as using a Item in EU and the item cant performe its action but decays still. I pay and do not get anything for it.

What is the english word for this action of beeing charged for something you do not get in the end?


BTW I do not think there will be ever a EULA valid who says stealing or takeing money from your customer and not deliver anything is valid and customer cant get money back.

[Xandra]

Originally Posted by Traf Rellik

Several of us have said essentially the same thing: it's POLICY, nothing more. It gives them latitude and jurisdiction control, nothing more.

With all due respect, Traf, I object, too.

Policies where one part remains nearly rightless when the other part reserves to act at will are considered "contra bonos mores" here in Germany, and this might very well hit MA.
Think of it, this is marketed as "the most secure virtual reality" of all, and, in fact, MA reserves the rights to do whatever they want - is this really OK?

MA doesn't have any security for our "deposits" in their book-keeping (according to the quarterly records), and they claim in the support reply I quoted that any actions like this:

Originally Posted by Xandra

[...] Question: If I did things like this (receiving small amounts of PEDs from other avatars without countervalue), provided that such activities would be fully at my/ my business partners risk and MA would be in full discharge from any liability (due to EULA anyway), would this put any risk onto my avatar of getting banned? [...]

could result in things like:

Originally Posted by MA

As a result our common policy is to block the involved Entropia accounts, in reference to the EULA 17 h. § and 18 §. [...]

It's fine that many of us have enough trust in MA to be sure that they wouldn't abuse such a possibility to block nearly all & every participants account at will (and I'm among these), but, as I have elaborated earlier, things might change. The sheer possibility of such actions is a pending danger, and I cannot understand that some ppl talking about "deposits" when they, in fact, give their money to MA in full knowledge they don't have any right at all to claim it back, should things go wrong.
With the current policy MA (or whoever get's in possession of it) is easily able to simply shutdown, keeping all the "deposits".

Originally Posted by Traf Rellik

If you freak out any time you see somebody "reserve a right" for this or that, you probably haven't spent much time reading small print or public notices in the places you visit.

Right, you'd give your money to an investment fund that reserves the right to kick you at will, keeping your money, without any means of legal resistance? Well, I have one, we're investing in coastal immobile's in Austria, usually we pay about 56% interest - feel free to contact me about my banking details ;-))

Originally Posted by Traf Rellik

Stop shouting that the sky is falling, it's not even cracked.

Right, not yet. But it could happen any time. What do we know who buy's in IPO? And how much? And who would this be? And how much shares would come to market? And what would be the goal of a new majority owner? I could imagine it could be a nice deal to take over EU for cheap now, have it run some more year, then cash out. We don't know.

And since we "deposit" real money, I cannot help to think that we'd deserve clear rules and safe reserves, as we'd expect in any other kind of pecuniary investment, too. Is this this far-fetched?

Have fun!

[Traf Rellik]

An example that might make it more clear would be along the lines of:

• Purchase a car for regular use
• Using that car to smuggle drugs
• Getting caught
• Having the police impound it

It doesn't matter who bought the car or who used it to do the smuggling, and the company that financed it would still consider it a legal debt. Once everything is settled, the car may or may not be returned to the owner, even. The point is that if you look at the contract you signed when you bought it, you said you wouldn't use it for illegal activities. If you look at the financing documents, it said you would be liable to pay it back regardless of it's fitness for any particular use, or the condition it's in at any point in time.

I agree on points regarding paying for something and not getting it, what I'm saying is that you are not paying for something under terms of use that you directly control. It's a fine line and a small point in the argument, regarding the "when" you can use it as opposed to the "fact" that it is there for your use. The "it" is not the items you purchase in game, but the overall service itself, after all. The PED does not constitute a purchase of goods, in this sense, but even if it did, the PED is subject to confiscation pending determination of any legal involvement. Same as any other service or product you purchase.

MA's policy is not designed to give them a means to take things away without reason, it is designed to give them the authority to lock all aspects of an account when given a reason to do so.

The conditions stated in the OP indicate that there would be no reason to do so. The EULA thus only applies if a reason is fabricated outside of the process (hence it would be similar to a scam in that respect).

I really do suggest you read some of the EULA/TOS you take part in every day... If EU's EULA freaks you out, you will be surprised at how mild it really is in comparison to others out there. Work place policies have gotten a lot like this, someone can make something up about you, and your boss can be forced into firing you even if they KNOW it's wrong, if the policy were ever held in a black and white "100% enforcement" way. The reason is that they eliminate the need to have legal evidence and determination of guilt before acting, etc... the point: they pretty much *have* to give absolute control in exchange for absolute proof.

Yes, my examples are extremes that highlight the defenses we would want to have available to us. MA doesn't want to hear those defenses, and wouldn't stay in business long if they indiscrimenantly used the EULA to "take" our stuff. They won't, unless given a compelling reason to.

[Traf Rellik]

Originally Posted by Xandra

With all due respect, Traf, I object, too.

Policies where one part remains nearly rightless when the other part reserves to act at will are considered "contra bonos mores" here in Germany, and this might very well hit MA.
Think of it, this is marketed as "the most secure virtual reality" of all, and, in fact, MA reserves the rights to do whatever they want - is this really OK?

MA doesn't have any security for our "deposits" in their book-keeping (according to the quarterly records), and they claim in the support reply I quoted that any actions like this:

could result in things like:


It's fine that many of us have enough trust in MA to be sure that they wouldn't abuse such a possibility to block nearly all & every participants account at will (and I'm among these), but, as I have elaborated earlier, things might change. The sheer possibility of such actions is a pending danger, and I cannot understand that some ppl talking about "deposits" when they, in fact, give their money to MA in full knowledge they don't have any right at all to claim it back, should things go wrong.
With the current policy MA (or whoever get's in possession of it) is easily able to simply shutdown, keeping all the "deposits".


Right, you'd give your money to an investment fund that reserves the right to kick you at will, keeping your money, without any means of legal resistance? Well, I have one, we're investing in coastal immobile's in Austria, usually we pay about 56% interest - feel free to contact me about my banking details ;-))


Right, not yet. But it could happen any time. What do we know who buy's in IPO? And how much? And who would this be? And how much shares would come to market? And what would be the goal of a new majority owner? I could imagine it could be a nice deal to take over EU for cheap now, have it run some more year, then cash out. We don't know.

And since we "deposit" real money, I cannot help to think that we'd deserve clear rules and safe reserves, as we'd expect in any other kind of pecuniary investment, too. Is this this far-fetched?

Have fun!

I'll try to make this brief: policy and law are (as I've said before) nearly unrelated. The legal claim you refer to as "contra bonos mores" probably has an equivalent in virtually all countries, and probably CAN be used as a successful challenge to the EULA. I'm not claiming otherwise, in fact, that's PART of what I'm saying. The EULA is an untested and one sided agreement. What I'm saying is that it's purpose is NOT to allow MA to be one sided, but to ensure that they have all the latitude they need to comply with all the various issues, whether they are regulatory, statuatory, or whatever. As for the trust aspects, I also agree that it's about trust. You either trust that MA is going to continue to provide the service (to the best degree they can), or you don't. No argument there.

Same goes for the clear rules, even. We *DO* deserve clear rules. I am GLAD that they are quite clear in regards to unsupported activities, like the rule that caused all this. They clearly state their position. Part of that position is that if you are involved in illegal activities, your account will be shut down. This contributes to the security of the environment, and makes my ability to play more enjoyable. They don't recommend external transfers because the security IS NOT THERE for it, so it's much more likely to be involved in something illegal.

Investment funds are a VERY good example. EU has at least one investment fund already. It offers NO security for your investment. From a legal perspective, you have NO RIGHTS, and the PED/Items you give to them are considered fully transfered to the ava that runs it. I don't use it, BUT MANY DO. They apparently trust them, and I don't think they are stupid or foolish for doing it. In the real world, you can buy stocks that have no guarantee of any kind, same thing. You either trust the stock issuer or you don't. History and past performance, the reliability of the company, and so many other things may help, but in the end it's all a gamble on their ability and willingness to live up to the agreement made when you entered it.

MA's past performance and reliability may be questionable to some, but I think they've done well enough to stay in business as a viable "investment." If you don't agree, you should "sell out" of any investment you've made with them. The EULA itself has nothing to do with that, though. If you think it increases the risk of the deal, you are simply reading more into it than it deserves.

What I'm saying: your points are valid from a customer's rights perspective. The EULA just doesn't address customer rights, only responsibilities (and MA's rights), to protect THEM. It's just up to you to determine your rights under the law and protect yourself. Unfortunately, MA isn't going to make it easy on you (but partially because it varies too much for them to cover in detail).

[Xandra]

Hi Traf,

to make it short: I think we can agree to disagree in some points.

Just some final little remarks:

1. I am not talking about any illegal activities. I'm talking about activities that many of us are performing on a regular basis, and that, according to MA's policy, might imply the risk to get the account blocked.
   
   I've given enough examples of completely innocent activities that would be, from a database point of view, not distinguishable from buying external PEDs. Add to it that everybody of us that ever does trades of any kind is always at risk to become connected to illegal activities:
   Do you know the money you get fulfilling an order in AH isn't from a CC fraud?
   Do you know the ghost feet you buy at Twins isn't from a "hacked" account?
   Should such happen, you'll be inspected closely. And you might have to proof that the HoF you shared some months again, the FAPper you paid last year etc. was not selling "external PED" ...
   .
2. I am not talking about the usual video game, the usual computer program or an operating system - things where EULA's like we have are common and maybe suitable. I'm talking of an RCE virtual reality system where some people "invest" serious amounts of money, and this is not comparable!
   
   What we have here is ways more related to our RL financial investments that are heavily regulated, and EU should be treated accordingly, IMHO. It's about our real cash, and there's a serious difference between a ModMerc and my dwarfen huntress' epic rifle ...
   .
3. I am not saying that I'm in fear to have my account blocked now, I'm sure MA wants my deposits and wouldn't block me just for fun. But things might change, and then these policies might become a real danger!
   
   Many western countries (especially Germany) have, for instance, laws that drastically limit the power of the government - these are not here to hinder the current democratic govt., they was made to assure a possible not-so-democratic govt. that might come to power wouldn't have such easy game! Things might change ...

Still waiting for another answer to my support case, since Mar 11 now. Will post when it arrives.

Have fun!

[Traf Rellik]

Originally Posted by Xandra

Hi Traf,

to make it short: I think we can agree to disagree in some points.

Fair enough. Besides, I'm agreeing with 99% of what you say, I'm just saying the EULA cannot be interpretated as a legal definition of anyone's rights, and it's designed to protect them, not you. That's a very small point unless you try to interpret it as such.

Originally Posted by Xandra

Just some final little remarks:
[*] I am not talking about any illegal activities. I'm talking about activities that many of us are performing on a regular basis, and that, according to MA's policy, might imply the risk to get the account blocked.

I understand, and mentioned so in more than one previous post. It's NOT about legality directly though. It's about suspicion of illegal acts (and by proxy: allegations of legality). The key word is suspicion. If you deal with a trusted person, no suspicion will exist and MA will not be forced to take any action at all. If not... well, you'll have to fight for your rights as the EULA will be used to protect MA. The crux of my argument is about this and you keep coming back with the same avoidance of that nuance.

Originally Posted by Xandra

I've given enough examples of completely innocent activities...

Yes, EXACTLY -- the mere fact that they have not resulted in a large number of suspensions should provide you with COMFORT. Comfort that