Home The Bridge

Store refunds/account bans

Is it in the STT game or forum terms that discussing refunds from providers (eg Apple or Google) is a ban-able offence?

I’ve just read in a Polywater Yar thread that someone was banned for discussing their story.

A bit shocked by this if it’s to be taken at face value.
«1

Comments

  • Is it in the STT game or forum terms that discussing refunds from providers (eg Apple or Google) is a ban-able offence?

    I’ve just read in a Polywater Yar thread that someone was banned for discussing their story.

    A bit shocked by this if it’s to be taken at face value.

    It seems unlikely.
    Ten Forward Loungers - Give Your Best, Get Our Best!
    Check out our website to find out more:
    https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
  • ~peregrine~~peregrine~ ✭✭✭✭✭
    Is it in the STT game or forum terms that discussing refunds from providers (eg Apple or Google) is a ban-able offence?

    I’ve just read in a Polywater Yar thread that someone was banned for discussing their story.

    A bit shocked by this if it’s to be taken at face value.

    I doubt this also, but the Terms of Service may be found here:

    https://www.disruptorbeam.com/tos/

    🖖🏻
    "In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it's us players who define the game." — Nicky Case, The Evolution of Trust
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2018
    .
  • Ego DraconisEgo Draconis ✭✭
    edited September 2018
    Galdran wrote: »
    To be clear, you bought a product. You then got the product. The product was modified, which is allowed, in the EULA and terms of Service.

    Then you got a refund. By going to your payment method merchant, instead of the merchant you purchased the product from?

    And, you think you were banned because you discussed it?

    Do you think that there might be another reason?

    Someone else in my fleet got banned due to it (afaik, posting on that thread). They aren't joking about it, but they're joking about the in game bugs.
    (Sorry, had to say it)
  • Bylo BandBylo Band ✭✭✭✭✭
    PenguinJim wrote: »
    ByloBand wrote: »
    PenguinJim wrote: »
    Galdran wrote: »
    Then you got a refund. By going to your payment method merchant, instead of the merchant you purchased the product from?

    Disruptor Beam refused to give refunds, despite providing a different product than the one paid for.

    If you pay for a red sofa, and then the store only wants to give you a blue sofa, the customer has the right to a refund instead. What DB has done in this case is absolutely shameful. You can shout about the EULA until you're red in the face, but I'm shocked to see someone defend this practice.

    (I didn't spend any real money myself. I just have this thing called "empathy".)

    Empathy, while a tremendous boon to personal growth and enrichment, is not a trait useful to this discussion. Galdran essentially described the modern version of the genie in a bottle allegory, namely that the customer in both situations when introduced to the prospect of something new and exciting (for the finder of the genie's lamp it is the prospect of having wishes granted, for new players to STT it is the prospect of playing a Star Trek themed game that allows people to assemble a crew across all franchises) and how the individual skips over the fine print at the beginning, leaps head first into new situation, and then gets blindsided at the end when the fine print comes back to bite them (with the genie it is that the wishes are frequently not fulfilled in the way the wisher intends and there is no take-backs, and with STT it is that every player signed a document giving DB the right to make changes to crew).

    In essence, the only way to play this game is to agree to the terms of service, which if read states that DB has the right to make changes to existing content. It is the responsibility of the player to be aware of that. Based on this I see absolutely no reasonable way a player dissatisfied with the handling of the Polywater Yar situation can demand or expect a refund. Caveat emptor.

    That being said, I see nothing wrong with customers in this situation asking DB for redress, that was a mighty big rug that was pulled out from under a lot of people, and their anger is justified. It seems rather shortsighted for DB to stand on a rigid interpretation of the terms of service and refuse to address the situation at all; it is a classic example of winning the battle but losing the war, as this single event is likely to have generated a lot of money in the short-term, but will just as likely lead to a reduction in revenue long-term.

    But, it is their right to do that, and if that is the choice they have made, so be it. At that point the dissatisfied customer has but three choices: accept this decision and continue playing normally, reluctantly accept the decision with an adjusted sense of DB's operational tactics and spend less/no money in the future, or quit playing. That is the only freedom given to the player in this situation.

    Players are not going to get refunds for this, that seems clear. I applaud Captain Jellico for having the wisdom to accept this fate, and I wish the same for everyone else. Acceptance is the key to happiness, because until that happens the wound created by this is just going to remain festering and painful. I really feel badly for you all, and moving forward all of us will need to take a hard look at how you were treated by DB and make our own choices regarding how we all proceed with our accounts.

    No.

    Edit: sorry, just a one-word answer seems a little rude. No, I disagree with your opinion that a EULA supersedes legal consumer rights. I don't think they're technically connected in this case, despite that being the knee-jerk appearance.

    What has happened here is that Captain Jellico has the refund they are entitled to, and Disruptor Beam have withdrawn access to their service, which is also something they are entitled to do.

    Players are going to get refunds for this if they want to. It's just that Disruptor Beam can remove their access to Timelines if they want to, without legal repercussion (although I agree with you that there will be some financial repercussion).

    I should clarify my point then. Clearly there is a path for players to get a refund by doing the described work around, I should have been more precise and stated that at this point it seems clear that DB is not going to directly refund anybody, and that players expecting this outcome should comes to terms with that reality.

    I agree with everything you said however, it is possible for a player to acquire a refund by going over DB's heads, and that in so doing DB has the right to terminate their account. Sorry for the unintended miscommunication.
  • PenguinJimPenguinJim ✭✭✭✭✭
    ByloBand wrote: »
    I get the feeling that we are saying the same thing, only in different ways.

    Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

    Shaka, when the walls fell.

    I think it's:

    "DB, when the walls fell."
  • ThurthoradThurthorad ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't think DB can even do refunds. I've been told by customer support to get a refund from the source.
  • Hunter247Hunter247 ✭✭✭✭
    In Europe consumer rights always supercede EULA or TOS. So any european citizens that have been banned, because of a similar reason as described in this thread should really take legal steps imo

    We still have the right for companies to refuse service to customers as long as they are not discriminating illegally.

    This would appear to be a perfectly legal reason to refuse service to someone.
  • IronagedaveIronagedave ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2018
    Personally I just find the whole fiasco deplorable clearly DB are hard lining here and it's just going to bring more animosity. It's clear DB also pays far more attention on the forums than they lead us to believe from Q&A responses, which leads me to the question why have DB done nothing about this? The more I question it the more faithless I become.

    Point of reference though even if you have signed up to a TOS - there is such a thing as "unreasonable terms," particularly if any part of it can be used and exploited to the detriment of the consumer, if this can be proven then any outcome would most likely side in the consumers favour.
    [was on Sabbatical/Hiatus] Currently a trialist at Galaxy SquadronSTAY SAFE and KBO
  • Jim RaynorJim Raynor ✭✭✭
    edited September 2018
    In Europe consumer rights always supercede EULA or TOS. So any european citizens that have been banned, because of a similar reason as described in this thread should really take legal steps imo

    In Germany we had some rulings about banned accounts. At least in cases of cheating/bot using the courts ruled in favor of the company and said that the account ban was legal, even in cases were people spent lots of money in the game which was lost with the ban. But the courts always checked the ToS and also ruled that it was a violation of the German Civil Code as well as cheating/bot using is considered as a harmful interference a company doesn't have to tolerate.

    In cases were people got a refund from Apple/Google for an offer which gets nerfed right after it was bought/released and get their account banned because they got a refund, it will be pretty tricky in Germany. Courts will check if the demand for a refund was reasonable and justified by implicitly checking if the offer might be considered as a bait and switch offer or if the game provider had a right to change the stats of the virtual item. In general, game providers have the right to change the balancing of games and nerf or buff stats of items or crew if it is necessary for the game balancing (like it is written in their ToS). But in cases were they do it right after a release when many people spent lots of money for it, they probably will have to prove that they are doing a general QA to avoid such balancing problems and it might even end up in a legal refund opportunity. But I don't want to bet how such a case would be decided in Germany. This will be a coinflip decision, depending on the court and justice. It really depends on the details of the case and probably on how often such nerfs right after a release occured in the past and how good the general QA is to prevent such things.
  • Jim RaynorJim Raynor ✭✭✭
    edited September 2018
    You are probably from the US, where things are pretty complicated and expensive regarding legal stuff. This is not even close in Germany. But anyway, at least I don't say that taking legal action is a good idea in this case. The situation is very complicated and it is usually not a very productive way to take legal action, even if the costs are way lower. It usually only makes sense when you spent lots of money in a game and get banned for no reason as companies are not allowed to ban you for no good reason (and ToS have to comply with strict consumer protection laws to be enforcable and be a reason to be allowed to ban).


    At least in Europe, the European Comission offers an Online Dispute Service, which is free for customers. All companies who want to do business within the EU are forced to offer this as part of customer protection regulations. It only applies to EU customers.

    To quote DB's own ToS (pretty at the bottom of the ToS):
    If you live outside of the United States or Canada:

    Alternative dispute resolution is a process where an independent body considers the facts of a dispute and seeks to resolve it, without you having to go to court. If you are not happy with how Disruptor Beam has handled any complaint, you may want to contact the alternative dispute resolution provider we use. You can submit a complaint to the European Commission Online Dispute Resolution website (“ODR”) via their website at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/odr/main/index.cfm . ODR will not charge you for making a complaint and if you are not satisfied with the outcome you can still bring legal proceedings.

    The headline in their ToS is wrong though, you have to live within an EU country or in Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein to be able to use it.
  • [10F] Belle'Anna [10F] Belle'Anna ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2018
    Just gonna delete that. Too much trouble it's gonna cause.
    Ten Forward Loungers - Give Your Best, Get Our Best!
    Check out our website to find out more:
    https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
  • Cranky (SC) Cranky (SC) ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2018
    Interesting to read everyone’s feedback and experiences where applicable.

    I do wonder if DB’s approaches are a little biased toward US methods? As someone else mentioned, in the UK (and probably many EU countries), customers are normally directed to the the company at point of sale (eg Apple, Google, Steam or Facebook in this case) for resolution.

    In retail, we have manufacturer direct warranties and service lines, but that’s generally considered an ‘add-on’ to our consumer rights available from the place of purchase. Ie Its not a priority/preferred means of resolution.

    This all means that DB have to play ball with whatever local laws are in place where they sell, overriding anything contradictory in the EULA/T&C’s.

    But I also agree, it’s probably not worth testing the theory unless you want to risk a ban and/or a legal challenge.
  • R2-EQR2-EQ ✭✭
    edited September 2018
    Yeah,the law stuff isn't the way to go, clearly. But theres a middle ground between Avoid name calling, thanks. ˜Shan DB CS support and spending thousands of dollars on lawyers. And its not just about the money, it's also the principle.
  • Hunter247Hunter247 ✭✭✭✭
    [quote="{ACE}

    I do wonder if DB’s approaches are a little biased toward US methods? As someone else mentioned, in the UK (and probably many EU countries), customers are normally directed to the the company at point of sale (eg Apple, Google, Steam or Facebook in this case) for resolution.
    [/quote]

    I am not sure where the purchase is considered to be made in this instance.

    I am not sure about others but I make my purchases through the app. With only the money handled by Google etc.

    The storefront is within the DB app. It would be different if the purchases were made directly via Google as DLA

This discussion has been closed.