Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

From DustFollow

#52 Aug 26 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Companies often have policies which favor type 1 errors at the cost of type 2 errors. That is, it is beneficial for the company to make the mistake of allowing someone to exploit them rather than make the mistake of denying someone with a legitimate (at least in the customer's mind) complaint. They have specific right off on their balance sheets that are basically "******* costs."

If you go to any fast food restaurant, you can have them make you a shake, take a few sips of it, and then tell them it tastes wrong and have them make you another at no charge. In this way you can get more shake than you normally would. People can and do exploit this, but the vast majority do not. It's more profitable for the company to give out a free shake to a cheating customer than accidentally **** off a customer who legitimately doesn't like their shake.

When I worked at Hallmark during High school, I remember taking the craziest returns. Probably the best one was a used candle that we refunded at full cost (because according to the customer it didn't work anymore). The reason we did this is because as a card store selling emotional junk, business depended heavily on the mood of the customers. Especially at Christmas, little old ladies with nothing better to do would come into our store and buy literally thousands of dollars worth of collectible ornaments, most of which were repainted versions of last years. Keeping these crazy women happy was key to business, and so we'd gladly take a crazy lady's used candle back, not because it was the right thing to do, but because in allowing her to take advantage of us we got to take an even greater advantage of her.

The point here is that just because you can legally do something to a company doesn't automatically make it ok. They know you are a douche and taking advantage of them. They allow it because overall it benefits them, but you're still a douche.
#53 Aug 26 2011 at 10:02 PM Rating: Default
*****
19,982 posts
Your analogy continues to fail. That's really all there is to it. There are significant differences between what you are describing and what is happening in this story that keep them from functioning in any kind of credible manner.

You have two examples.

1. A person who dislikes their milkshake (be it for legitimate or illegitimate reasons) and gets it remade for no cost.
2. A person who probably just doesn't like their candles, and is getting a full refund despite knowing exactly what she was getting.

I am no stranger to these situations. I have worked for 3 summers in an ice cream parlor in a beach town. I am WELL AWARE of what you do to keep a customer happy, even when you have done nothing wrong. I once remade one b*tch's sundae 3 times because she wasn't happy with it, and then ended up giving her something else in the end. She was an idiot and I hate her, because there was absolutely nothing wrong with the product.

But the problem is that we are talking about a case in which the company is the offender.

If my business had advertised that we would be giving away a free t-shirt with every ice cream purchase, and then didn't deliver, we would be in the wrong. It wouldn't be unlikely that we would then refund the prices of all the ice creams to people who wanted one. And that would be for the entire duration of the promotion in which we are failing to deliver on our promises. It doesn't matter whether or not the customer knew they'd be getting their ice cream free when they ordered it--WE are the ones at fault for having made a promise we didn't keep.

IT DOESN'T MATTER if the customers knew going into the store that they were getting free ice cream. It doesn't matter if they had no clue we had a promotion going on. The fact remains that we made a promise to our entire customer base that we failed to keep. No one who uses that to get a free product from us would be in the wrong. Why? Because we made that promise to them as well. They might not care that we broke it, but whether or not they care doesn't change their legitimate claim to the refund we are offering to make amends.

Does a lot of that have to do with keeping your customers happy? Yes. But the situations you are describing are ones in which the customer hasn't been wronged in any way. The fact is that, in this case, they have been. It doesn't matter if they aren't aware of that or not. If the company thinks that giving away the game is a good way to make amends, then that's their choice. And no one can be faulted for taking advantage of that, because they are the wronged party and the company wasn't forced to do anything to make it up to them.

It would, quite literally, be almost no different than taking advantage of the free PS3 games following the PSN downtime for any person who never made use of any online services. The only difference is that this would require them to call and simply say "I understand that due to your ToS violation that I am able to receive a full refund." You don't need to be dissatisfied with the product at all.

Because this has nothing to do with the product and everything to do with your rights as that company's customer.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#54 Aug 26 2011 at 10:38 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But the problem is that we are talking about a case in which the company is the offender.

But they aren't. He isn't necessarily going to receive a faulty product, which I mentioned before. You can't make the claim that the company is going to sell him a faulty product if he won't necessarily receive one. Not every From Dust is faulty.
#55 Aug 27 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,561 posts
Good lord. It was just idle musing. We should probably let the discussion about morals of knowingly buying a flawed game for a refund die before someone else comes in and rages all over the thread.

Edited, Aug 28th 2011 12:05am by IDrownFish
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#56 Aug 28 2011 at 11:25 AM Rating: Decent
*****
19,982 posts
Allegory wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But the problem is that we are talking about a case in which the company is the offender.

But they aren't. He isn't necessarily going to receive a faulty product, which I mentioned before. You can't make the claim that the company is going to sell him a faulty product if he won't necessarily receive one. Not every From Dust is faulty.


/sigh. It's because this has nothing to do with getting a faulty product, it's about getting faulty service.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#57 Aug 28 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Because you're still wrong. The service isn't faulty either, not for everyone. Only a few people are having problems with From Dust.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that he will necessarily be receiving something faulty, and therefore is justified. But he won't necessarily receive a faulty product/service/whatever-other-word-you-tack-on. If he could possibly receive a working copy of the game, you're wrong. And since he can, you're wrong.
#58 Aug 28 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,982 posts
/sigh. My argument doesn't at all depend on people finding anything at fault with from dust, at all. The game itself could be perfect in every way--the problem is that regardless of whether or not you care about the DRM, the fact remains that the company violated their agreement with you, the customer.

It flat out doesn't matter if you CARE that they did so--you still have every right to the offer they have made to make ammends for having done so. Youwere still the wronged party here.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#59 Aug 28 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
the fact remains that the company violated their agreement with you, the customer.

No, not in any actionable way. Not in any way that a court would find them to be so.

Ubisoft is accepting returns to save face, not because they have to. If it wouldn't bring them negative publicity to refuse to accept returns you would have no recourse.
#60 Aug 28 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,982 posts
Allegory wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
the fact remains that the company violated their agreement with you, the customer.

No, not in any actionable way. Not in any way that a court would find them to be so.

Ubisoft is accepting returns to save face, not because they have to. If it wouldn't bring them negative publicity to refuse to accept returns you would have no recourse.


Because the world is broken down into things that are illegal and things that are perfectly okay? Is that really the position you are taking? Because that's absurd, considering your position on taking advantage of the free game.

NATURALLY they don't have to (or maybe they do, according to France's laws, where they are based). But they're doing it to keep their customers. They set standards for how they'll treat customers (and potential customers) and then violated those standards. Anyone for whom they broke that promise is legitimately privy to whatever offer they make in response. The fact that they didn't HAVE to make any apology, but rather chose to, just makes taking advantage of it more legitimate to me--at least the company willingly chose this order of events.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#61 Aug 29 2011 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
this thread is going places.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#62 Aug 29 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Allegory wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
the fact remains that the company violated their agreement with you, the customer.

No, not in any actionable way. Not in any way that a court would find them to be so.

Ubisoft is accepting returns to save face, not because they have to. If it wouldn't bring them negative publicity to refuse to accept returns you would have no recourse.


Because the world is broken down into things that are illegal and things that are perfectly okay? Is that really the position you are taking? Because that's absurd, considering your position on taking advantage of the free game.


Aren't you the one making this absurd claim though? You're basically arguing that if it's allowed by the company (ie: legal) that it's perfectly ok. What I, and I believe Allegory as well, are saying is that there are more cases than just two: Things that are legal, things that are illegal, things that are "ok", and things that are "not ok". Even though taking advantage of the company to get a free copy of their game is "legal", does not mean it is also "ok".

But your argument rests on an assumption that unless something is illegal, then you would not criticize someone for doing it. I just plain disagree.

Quote:
Anyone for whom they broke that promise is legitimately privy to whatever offer they make in response.


Ok. But if you buy the game after knowing that it has some fault, then the company didn't break its promise to you. It broke its promise to all the customers who bought the game thinking it worked one way, and who then later discovered it worked a different way. Those people were actually wronged and deserve some form of compensation. Someone who comes in after the fact and buys the product just to cash in on the free refund (or whatever) wasn't wronged by the company. They are wronging the company.


I just think that there's more to making ethical decisions than "what can I get away with?".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CST
feelz, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (48)