They are going to provide the giveaway through the C-Store.
About this talk about an exploit, from what I read here it would seem that the Code allowed all Characters on the Account to claim it. Sounds more like a faulty code to begin with.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
Making up your own what? I don't understand what you're talking about...
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
Oh grow up and stop whining! It is NOT bait and switch! It is a revocation of an offer! NOT THE SAME THING!!! Just because you (clearly an idiot) are stupid enough to think it's a bait and switch and use it like a buzzword, does not make it so! You haven't paid for anything else under the guise of the code (which was FREE, you entitled prick) so you have not been baited! You did not receive something different after paying, so the product was not switched! The term simply DOES NOT APPLY in this instance! And why the f*ck are you p*ssing and moaning about it?? The freebies were nothing special anyway! Are you seriously that bothered about not getting a bunch of free TRIBBLE? Trendy's said they're making amends, so seriously, dude, what's your beef??
I lost a damn ship due to a glitch in the patch! That's right A SHIP! Meaning I have to either pay actual cash for the zen for the dilithium to replace it, or hope I can level up the character to the next rank, for the next tier ship instead! I've brought it to forum attention so others don't make the same mistake I did, but I'm not sh*tting the bed over it like you are, over what amounts to stuff not even worth having! If you're that desperate for a new BOFF, just replay a mission to get one...
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
Intent is important and the initial intent does not appear to be defamation. Objections were presented to the "bait and switch" claimers that countered their false claims, including my clear examples of what is and is not "bait and switch." They have not as of yet done their due diligence and determined whether or not their claims were true. They have not yet edited or retracted their false claims to reflect the truth. Therefore, it is defamation unless they post a future retraction or edit. Preferably along with an apology.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
Alright time for everyone to put their heads down on their desks and nap.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Captains looking to jump into Agents of Yesterday: Artifacts can enjoy not only a host of new content, but a set of rewards when they log in today! From now until Saturday 10/29 at 9AM Pacific, you'll have the opportunity to log in and receive a reward pack filled with the following items:
• 1 Large XP Boost
• 3 Gamma Duty Officer Packs
• 1 R&D Box
Please note: this pack can be claimed once per account in the promotions tab for characters at least level 10. The items and the pack are character-bound.
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
Intent is important and the initial intent does not appear to be defamation. Objections were presented to the "bait and switch" claimers that countered their false claims, including my clear examples of what is and is not "bait and switch." They have not as of yet done their due diligence and determined whether or not their claims were true. They have not yet edited or retracted their false claims to reflect the truth. Therefore, it is defamation unless they post a future retraction or edit. Preferably along with an apology.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not.
the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
Forget codes already, the items are there in your Promotion Tab in the C-Store.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Yeah, you get THREE Gamma Quadrant Cadres instead of ONE Federation/KDF Duty Officer Pack. A much better deal. Three Rare, six Uncommon, and twelve Common Doffs. The Uncommon already ground down to Common and all Common donated to Fleet Projects.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
Intent is important and the initial intent does not appear to be defamation. Objections were presented to the "bait and switch" claimers that countered their false claims, including my clear examples of what is and is not "bait and switch." They have not as of yet done their due diligence and determined whether or not their claims were true. They have not yet edited or retracted their false claims to reflect the truth. Therefore, it is defamation unless they post a future retraction or edit. Preferably along with an apology.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not. the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
Ignorance is nothing to bask in... If one doesn't know the definition of something, there's no shame in admitting that, and educating oneself in the definition...
The definition of 'bait and switch' which salazarraze has provided, is entirely accurate, so you would do well to take them at their word on the definition and then maybe double check the definition yourself, if you need to be sure...
No it didn't! Cryptic put a code out to people offering some free stuff in goodfaith. They put an end-date for when the code would expire (if a55holes hadn't abused the flaw in the code, thus forcing Cryptic to withdraw the offer immediately) Do you not understand that? It's not as if they intended to put the code up for a few hours before withdrawing it so people couldn't get their free stuff! The removal of the code was a reaction to it being abused! They had to remove the code. How can you not understand that??
Trendy has now put out the details for how people can still get the stuff for free, from the C Store. So where is the bait?? Where is the switch?? Where is you getting having to pay out on something which was always being given away For Free?
Like I said, withdrawing the code with no word as to why, was poor customer-relations: But Cryptic has now Fixed That via the C Store...
Are you seriously that desperate for free stuff?? Free stuff which isn't even significantly worth having??
How does this sound: Give me your ingame character@username, and I will mail over to you a Jem'Hadar BOFF, a Jem'Hadar personal shield, a Rare Federation BOFF, and a Rare Mk IV phaser rifle.
The only catch, is that you shut up about this 'bait and switch' nonsense, and never mention it again... How does that sound for a deal for some free stuff? The offer is good for 24 hours from time of my posting this message...
[Edit to add:]
The time-limit stated in the boldened text has now expired with no contact or acknowledgement of such from darthgreater. The offer is now permanantly withdrawn and the resources will be re-allocated to my own accounts. LLAP \\//_
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not.
the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
I think that @marcusdkane covers all the bases in his post but I feel the need to reaffirm his point on ignorance. You can see with the below quoted post, that one of the false claimants is continuing to post false information despite the fact that he is 100% wrong and has been shown to be wrong earlier in this thread. One can only hope that he educates himself so that he doesn't continue to look like a fool going forward. Or he's just lying/trolling. It can be hard to tell on the internet.
Not in "bait and switch" terms, it didn't. The "switching" portion of "bait and switch" requires the offending party to make an attempt to sell you something that is less desirable. No one has attempted to "switch" you over to pay money for anything after having used the original promo as "bait." Hence, no bait and switch at all.
Post edited by salazarraze on
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
Yeah, you get THREE Gamma Quadrant Cadres instead of ONE Federation/KDF Duty Officer Pack. A much better deal. Three Rare, six Uncommon, and twelve Common Doffs. The Uncommon already ground down to Common and all Common donated to Fleet Projects.
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
Intent is important and the initial intent does not appear to be defamation. Objections were presented to the "bait and switch" claimers that countered their false claims, including my clear examples of what is and is not "bait and switch." They have not as of yet done their due diligence and determined whether or not their claims were true. They have not yet edited or retracted their false claims to reflect the truth. Therefore, it is defamation unless they post a future retraction or edit. Preferably along with an apology.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not. the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
Ignorance is nothing to bask in... If one doesn't know the definition of something, there's no shame in admitting that, and educating oneself in the definition...
The definition of 'bait and switch' which salazarraze has provided, is entirely accurate, so you would do well to take them at their word on the definition and then maybe double check the definition yourself, if you need to be sure...
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not.
the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
I think that @marcusdkane covers all the bases in his post but I feel the need to reaffirm his point on ignorance. You can see with the below quoted post, that one of the false claimants is continuing to post false information despite the fact that he is 100% wrong and has been shown to be wrong earlier in this thread. One can only hope that he educates himself so that he doesn't continue to look like a fool going forward. Or he's just lying/trolling. It can be hard to tell on the internet.
Not in "bait and switch" terms, it didn't. The "switching" portion of "bait and switch" requires the offending party to make an attempt to sell you something that is less desirable. No one has attempted to "switch" you over to pay money for anything after having used the original promo as "bait." Hence, no bait and switch at all.
I think that's what I said???
I intimated that salazarraze stated is correct and a simple google search would prove this to the other user and he is wrong in the use of the term but if he is unwilling to check as he believes himself to be in the right and in his mind there is no need to check then there is still no intentionally false or defamatory claim just a ignorance of the meaning of the term.
just to finish I will quote from google:
bait-and-switch
noun
noun: bait-and-switch
the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods.
"a bait-and-switch scheme"
end quote.
so although it might be obvious that the other user is wrong if he doesn't believe this there is no intentional false or defamatory claim.
even if this user later finds he is wrong he still doesn't have to apologise for making an intentional false or defamatory claim but just for the inappropriate use of the fraise.
Post edited by bobbydazlers on
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
Intent is important and the initial intent does not appear to be defamation. Objections were presented to the "bait and switch" claimers that countered their false claims, including my clear examples of what is and is not "bait and switch." They have not as of yet done their due diligence and determined whether or not their claims were true. They have not yet edited or retracted their false claims to reflect the truth. Therefore, it is defamation unless they post a future retraction or edit. Preferably along with an apology.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not. the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
Ignorance is nothing to bask in... If one doesn't know the definition of something, there's no shame in admitting that, and educating oneself in the definition...
The definition of 'bait and switch' which salazarraze has provided, is entirely accurate, so you would do well to take them at their word on the definition and then maybe double check the definition yourself, if you need to be sure...
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not.
the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
I think that @marcusdkane covers all the bases in his post but I feel the need to reaffirm his point on ignorance. You can see with the below quoted post, that one of the false claimants is continuing to post false information despite the fact that he is 100% wrong and has been shown to be wrong earlier in this thread. One can only hope that he educates himself so that he doesn't continue to look like a fool going forward. Or he's just lying/trolling. It can be hard to tell on the internet.
Not in "bait and switch" terms, it didn't. The "switching" portion of "bait and switch" requires the offending party to make an attempt to sell you something that is less desirable. No one has attempted to "switch" you over to pay money for anything after having used the original promo as "bait." Hence, no bait and switch at all.
I think that's what I said???
I intimated that salazarraze stated is correct and a simple google search would prove this to the other user and he is wrong in the use of the term but if he is unwilling to check as he believes himself to be in the right and in his mind there is no need to check then there is still no intentionally false or defamatory claim just a ignorance of the meaning of the term.
just to finish I will quote from google:
bait-and-switch
noun
noun: bait-and-switch
the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods.
"a bait-and-switch scheme"
end quote.
so although it might be obvious that the other user is wrong if he doesn't believe this there is no intentional false or defamatory claim.
even if this user later finds he is wrong he still doesn't have to apologise for making an intentional false or defamatory claim but just for the inappropriate use of the fraise.
Is English your first language? I only ask, because the way your previous post was written, it actually read as if you did not agree with salazarraze's definition, and would not look it up to see if it was right or wrong... Hense my comment...
If someone finds out they are wrong, they still have to apologize, because intentional or otherwise, a defamatory statement is harmful, and in this instance, not only did Cryptic not intend for the code to be unusable, but they have rectified the issue by reissuing a giveway in the C Store. Even though Cryptic made it right, darthgreater still made claims that they were pulling a Bait and Switch, so was still intentionally slandering Cryptic through a false claim! I now see that darthgreater is complaining about the amount of packs someone can claim!
But in the spirit of goodwill, I'm sorry if I misread the meaning of your post
Yeah, you get THREE Gamma Quadrant Cadres instead of ONE Federation/KDF Duty Officer Pack. A much better deal. Three Rare, six Uncommon, and twelve Common Doffs. The Uncommon already ground down to Common and all Common donated to Fleet Projects.
3 packs only one character can claim.
Is that not enough?? In the words of Zefram Cochrane: SWEET JESUS!!!
Just wondering if others have this issue. I went to claim the reward for the new Artifacts and when I submitted the code I got the message "This code has expired" . Anybody else having this issue?
Edit and update by @midniteshadow7 :
The promotion was cancelled as it was found that it could be exploited and there are no current plans for any replacement codes for those who have not been able to redeem it prior to it being pulled.
A good thing that i give little to no TRIBBLE about my AoY toon, then...
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
Intent is important and the initial intent does not appear to be defamation. Objections were presented to the "bait and switch" claimers that countered their false claims, including my clear examples of what is and is not "bait and switch." They have not as of yet done their due diligence and determined whether or not their claims were true. They have not yet edited or retracted their false claims to reflect the truth. Therefore, it is defamation unless they post a future retraction or edit. Preferably along with an apology.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not. the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
Ignorance is nothing to bask in... If one doesn't know the definition of something, there's no shame in admitting that, and educating oneself in the definition...
The definition of 'bait and switch' which salazarraze has provided, is entirely accurate, so you would do well to take them at their word on the definition and then maybe double check the definition yourself, if you need to be sure...
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not.
the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
I think that @marcusdkane covers all the bases in his post but I feel the need to reaffirm his point on ignorance. You can see with the below quoted post, that one of the false claimants is continuing to post false information despite the fact that he is 100% wrong and has been shown to be wrong earlier in this thread. One can only hope that he educates himself so that he doesn't continue to look like a fool going forward. Or he's just lying/trolling. It can be hard to tell on the internet.
Not in "bait and switch" terms, it didn't. The "switching" portion of "bait and switch" requires the offending party to make an attempt to sell you something that is less desirable. No one has attempted to "switch" you over to pay money for anything after having used the original promo as "bait." Hence, no bait and switch at all.
I think that's what I said???
I intimated that salazarraze stated is correct and a simple google search would prove this to the other user and he is wrong in the use of the term but if he is unwilling to check as he believes himself to be in the right and in his mind there is no need to check then there is still no intentionally false or defamatory claim just a ignorance of the meaning of the term.
just to finish I will quote from google:
bait-and-switch
noun
noun: bait-and-switch
the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods.
"a bait-and-switch scheme"
end quote.
so although it might be obvious that the other user is wrong if he doesn't believe this there is no intentional false or defamatory claim.
even if this user later finds he is wrong he still doesn't have to apologise for making an intentional false or defamatory claim but just for the inappropriate use of the fraise.
Is English your first language? I only ask, because the way your previous post was written, it actually read as if you did not agree with salazarraze's definition, and would not look it up to see if it was right or wrong... Hense my comment...
If someone finds out they are wrong, they still have to apologize, because intentional or otherwise, a defamatory statement is harmful, and in this instance, not only did Cryptic not intend for the code to be unusable, but they have rectified the issue by reissuing a giveway in the C Store. Even though Cryptic made it right, darthgreater still made claims that they were pulling a Bait and Switch, so was still intentionally slandering Cryptic through a false claim! I now see that darthgreater is complaining about the amount of packs someone can claim!
But in the spirit of goodwill, I'm sorry if I misread the meaning of your post
though you are correct that if someone finds out they are wrong they should apologize first they must find out they are wrong, they have no obligation to take anybody's suggestion that they are wrong from this forum or anywhere else otherwise I could say the world is square and you would have to believe me, they also have no obligation to check anywhere to see if they are wrong otherwise you would have to check my statement about the world being square to see if you are wrong about it being round but you are entitled to continue to believe that it is round and cannot be coerced into believing any tom d1ck or harry who might tell you otherwise.
as long as this user truly believes he is using the term in the right way there is no intentional false or defamatory claim just a misunderstanding of the term and while he continues to believe he has used the term correctly there is nothing to compel him to apologise for using it.
this will continue to be the case until the user finds out he is wrong from a source he implicitly trusts to be 100% correct, even then he does not have to apologize for intentionally making a false or defamatory claim for as far as he was concerned he was not at the time intentionally making a false or defamatory claim so all he would need to apologise for is misusing the term in this situation at most.
for the claim to be intentionally false or defamatory implies the user knows the correct meaning and is at that time intentionally using it in this situation regardless of that knowledge.
intentionally is the key word, if I asked you to press a button to turn on a light and in pressing the button you actually caused someone's death are you intentionally killing them? - no, you are not.
if you know by pressing the button you will cause someone's death and with that knowledge you still press it then you are intentionally killing them.
I will add - Is English your first language?, I only ask because anyone who doesn't understand the line "this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong" is referring to another person doesn't read English that good.
Post edited by bobbydazlers on
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
The original Promotion was supposed to be ONE Doff Pack for ONE Character. I did take basic math decades ago (before Star Trek) but I do recall that 3 > 1.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
Intent is important and the initial intent does not appear to be defamation. Objections were presented to the "bait and switch" claimers that countered their false claims, including my clear examples of what is and is not "bait and switch." They have not as of yet done their due diligence and determined whether or not their claims were true. They have not yet edited or retracted their false claims to reflect the truth. Therefore, it is defamation unless they post a future retraction or edit. Preferably along with an apology.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not. the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
Ignorance is nothing to bask in... If one doesn't know the definition of something, there's no shame in admitting that, and educating oneself in the definition...
The definition of 'bait and switch' which salazarraze has provided, is entirely accurate, so you would do well to take them at their word on the definition and then maybe double check the definition yourself, if you need to be sure...
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not.
the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
I think that @marcusdkane covers all the bases in his post but I feel the need to reaffirm his point on ignorance. You can see with the below quoted post, that one of the false claimants is continuing to post false information despite the fact that he is 100% wrong and has been shown to be wrong earlier in this thread. One can only hope that he educates himself so that he doesn't continue to look like a fool going forward. Or he's just lying/trolling. It can be hard to tell on the internet.
Not in "bait and switch" terms, it didn't. The "switching" portion of "bait and switch" requires the offending party to make an attempt to sell you something that is less desirable. No one has attempted to "switch" you over to pay money for anything after having used the original promo as "bait." Hence, no bait and switch at all.
I think that's what I said???
I intimated that salazarraze stated is correct and a simple google search would prove this to the other user and he is wrong in the use of the term but if he is unwilling to check as he believes himself to be in the right and in his mind there is no need to check then there is still no intentionally false or defamatory claim just a ignorance of the meaning of the term.
just to finish I will quote from google:
bait-and-switch
noun
noun: bait-and-switch
the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods.
"a bait-and-switch scheme"
end quote.
so although it might be obvious that the other user is wrong if he doesn't believe this there is no intentional false or defamatory claim.
even if this user later finds he is wrong he still doesn't have to apologise for making an intentional false or defamatory claim but just for the inappropriate use of the fraise.
Is English your first language? I only ask, because the way your previous post was written, it actually read as if you did not agree with salazarraze's definition, and would not look it up to see if it was right or wrong... Hense my comment...
If someone finds out they are wrong, they still have to apologize, because intentional or otherwise, a defamatory statement is harmful, and in this instance, not only did Cryptic not intend for the code to be unusable, but they have rectified the issue by reissuing a giveway in the C Store. Even though Cryptic made it right, darthgreater still made claims that they were pulling a Bait and Switch, so was still intentionally slandering Cryptic through a false claim! I now see that darthgreater is complaining about the amount of packs someone can claim!
But in the spirit of goodwill, I'm sorry if I misread the meaning of your post
though you are correct that if someone finds out they are wrong they should apologize first they must find out they are wrong, they have no obligation to take anybody's suggestion that they are wrong from this forum or anywhere else otherwise I could say the world is square and you would have to believe me, they also have no obligation to check anywhere to see if they are wrong otherwise you would have to check my statement about the world being square to see if you are wrong about it being round but you are entitled to continue to believe that it is round and cannot be coerced into believing any tom d1ck or harry who might tell you otherwise.
as long as this user truly believes he is using the term in the right way there is no intentional false or defamatory claim just a misunderstanding of the term and while he continues to believe he has used the term correctly there is nothing to compel him to apologise for using it.
this will continue to be the case until the user finds out he is wrong from a source he implicitly trusts to be 100% correct, even then he does not have to apologize for intentionally making a false or defamatory claim as the he was not at the time intentionally making a false or defamatory claim so all he would need to apologise for is misusing the term in this situation at most.
for the claim to be intentionally false or defamatory implies the user knows the correct meaning and is intentionally using it in this situation regardless of that knowledge.
If a newspaper prints something about a person which is false, when their error is pointed out, the comment they made is still defamatory/false/libelous etc, so they print a retraction...
I suspect that in less than 24 hours, one of my toons will be finding a Jem'hadar joining their crew, as well as getting a nifty new shield...
If they send out something to get people back to play that said good until Nov 1 but pulled it early saying it won't be back is bait and switch. There is nothing in that which says it only is bait and switch if money is involved. Nice try though. Almost worked.
It's not a bait and switch... Bait and switch is when company offers a product to get interest, takes the money, then gives something else. Money changes hands, and goods are received (just not the goods the person thought they were paying for) No money was exchanged here, and no one got something different than what was offered, because the offer itself was terminated. I can see why they did it, but it's still a pretty sh*tty way of treating customers. I got the email, but then had other stuff to do, and then the server was down for maintenance, so I never redeemed the code in time... Big whoop... I get more valuable/useful stuff by grinding played missions, and due to having to replay the missions to choose between KDF/Starfleet, I wound up with another Federation exchange officer, who I promptly mailed over to an alt. So yeah, not nice to have something offered then taken away, but I can't say I came away from the situation losing out...
Making up your own doesn't make it so.
If they say item is available until November 1 but it's not, that is also bait and switch. The e-mail they sent out didn't have "while supplies last". You know why that term appears so much? So companies can protect themselves. Cryptic did not do that.
No that's called "changing your mind" or "revoking an offer" which is not a bait and switch. Bait and switch requires an attempted "switch" out of one offer for a less desirable offer. Not a revocation of an offer without a replacement which is what happened until the excellent recent news. Also since Cryptic is making good on their offer, I fully expect apologies from all the posters who made false and defamatory claims against Cryptic.
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
Claiming "bait and switch" is false since there was no bait and switch. In cases in which the claim is knowingly false, the claim is also defamatory.
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
Intent is important and the initial intent does not appear to be defamation. Objections were presented to the "bait and switch" claimers that countered their false claims, including my clear examples of what is and is not "bait and switch." They have not as of yet done their due diligence and determined whether or not their claims were true. They have not yet edited or retracted their false claims to reflect the truth. Therefore, it is defamation unless they post a future retraction or edit. Preferably along with an apology.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not. the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
Ignorance is nothing to bask in... If one doesn't know the definition of something, there's no shame in admitting that, and educating oneself in the definition...
The definition of 'bait and switch' which salazarraze has provided, is entirely accurate, so you would do well to take them at their word on the definition and then maybe double check the definition yourself, if you need to be sure...
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not.
the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
I think that @marcusdkane covers all the bases in his post but I feel the need to reaffirm his point on ignorance. You can see with the below quoted post, that one of the false claimants is continuing to post false information despite the fact that he is 100% wrong and has been shown to be wrong earlier in this thread. One can only hope that he educates himself so that he doesn't continue to look like a fool going forward. Or he's just lying/trolling. It can be hard to tell on the internet.
Not in "bait and switch" terms, it didn't. The "switching" portion of "bait and switch" requires the offending party to make an attempt to sell you something that is less desirable. No one has attempted to "switch" you over to pay money for anything after having used the original promo as "bait." Hence, no bait and switch at all.
I think that's what I said???
I intimated that salazarraze stated is correct and a simple google search would prove this to the other user and he is wrong in the use of the term but if he is unwilling to check as he believes himself to be in the right and in his mind there is no need to check then there is still no intentionally false or defamatory claim just a ignorance of the meaning of the term.
just to finish I will quote from google:
bait-and-switch
noun
noun: bait-and-switch
the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods.
"a bait-and-switch scheme"
end quote.
so although it might be obvious that the other user is wrong if he doesn't believe this there is no intentional false or defamatory claim.
even if this user later finds he is wrong he still doesn't have to apologise for making an intentional false or defamatory claim but just for the inappropriate use of the fraise.
Is English your first language? I only ask, because the way your previous post was written, it actually read as if you did not agree with salazarraze's definition, and would not look it up to see if it was right or wrong... Hense my comment...
If someone finds out they are wrong, they still have to apologize, because intentional or otherwise, a defamatory statement is harmful, and in this instance, not only did Cryptic not intend for the code to be unusable, but they have rectified the issue by reissuing a giveway in the C Store. Even though Cryptic made it right, darthgreater still made claims that they were pulling a Bait and Switch, so was still intentionally slandering Cryptic through a false claim! I now see that darthgreater is complaining about the amount of packs someone can claim!
But in the spirit of goodwill, I'm sorry if I misread the meaning of your post
though you are correct that if someone finds out they are wrong they should apologize first they must find out they are wrong, they have no obligation to take anybody's suggestion that they are wrong from this forum or anywhere else otherwise I could say the world is square and you would have to believe me, they also have no obligation to check anywhere to see if they are wrong otherwise you would have to check my statement about the world being square to see if you are wrong about it being round but you are entitled to continue to believe that it is round and cannot be coerced into believing any tom d1ck or harry who might tell you otherwise.
as long as this user truly believes he is using the term in the right way there is no intentional false or defamatory claim just a misunderstanding of the term and while he continues to believe he has used the term correctly there is nothing to compel him to apologise for using it.
this will continue to be the case until the user finds out he is wrong from a source he implicitly trusts to be 100% correct, even then he does not have to apologize for intentionally making a false or defamatory claim as the he was not at the time intentionally making a false or defamatory claim so all he would need to apologise for is misusing the term in this situation at most.
for the claim to be intentionally false or defamatory implies the user knows the correct meaning and is intentionally using it in this situation regardless of that knowledge.
If a newspaper prints something about a person which is false, when their error is pointed out, the comment they made is still defamatory/false/libelous etc, so they print a retraction...
I suspect that in less than 24 hours, one of my toons will be finding a Jem'hadar joining their crew, as well as getting a nifty new shield...
they would apologise for printing it but would not admit that they were aware that at the time of printing it is false so it may have been defamatory/false/libelous but not intentionally.
of course before that apology they would want to see proof that it was false from a place they have faith is true.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
People still complaining ? Even after they upped the doff packs from 1 to 3 ? AND decided to just gift it to EVERYONE...
You people serious ?
It's a good thing you're not starving for a meal in a 3rd world country. We'd never hear the end of it.
#1stWorldProblems
strange you mention starving for a meal in a 3rd world country, I remember people starving for a meal in a 3rd world country when I was about 5 years old and I am 58 years old and they are still starving now so never have heard the end of it and doubt I ever will.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
Comments
http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1224096/update-on-blog-email-code
They are going to provide the giveaway through the C-Store.
About this talk about an exploit, from what I read here it would seem that the Code allowed all Characters on the Account to claim it. Sounds more like a faulty code to begin with.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no alternative had been offered at the time the code was axed.
many users didn't even have contact from cryptic to explain and apologise for the withdrawal of the offer.
it is only now that we hear that there is a 48hr window to claim the gift in game via the c-store.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
The rumor is that the code was reusable.
Oh grow up and stop whining! It is NOT bait and switch! It is a revocation of an offer! NOT THE SAME THING!!! Just because you (clearly an idiot) are stupid enough to think it's a bait and switch and use it like a buzzword, does not make it so! You haven't paid for anything else under the guise of the code (which was FREE, you entitled prick) so you have not been baited! You did not receive something different after paying, so the product was not switched! The term simply DOES NOT APPLY in this instance! And why the f*ck are you p*ssing and moaning about it?? The freebies were nothing special anyway! Are you seriously that bothered about not getting a bunch of free TRIBBLE? Trendy's said they're making amends, so seriously, dude, what's your beef??
I lost a damn ship due to a glitch in the patch! That's right A SHIP! Meaning I have to either pay actual cash for the zen for the dilithium to replace it, or hope I can level up the character to the next rank, for the next tier ship instead! I've brought it to forum attention so others don't make the same mistake I did, but I'm not sh*tting the bed over it like you are, over what amounts to stuff not even worth having! If you're that desperate for a new BOFF, just replay a mission to get one...
I just see that as a misuse of the term and not made in a "knowingly" false manner, in that respect it is neither intentionally false or defamatory but just at worse the unknowingly inaccurate use of a term to describe what gave upset to many users in a very genuine way.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
Essentially, it becomes "knowingly" after the fact since their awareness of what is and is not "bait and switch" has evolved yet they have not withdrawn their false claims.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/1224096/update-on-blog-email-code/p1?sso=eyJ1bmlxdWVpZCI6IjEwMzUzNTk5OSIsIm5hbWUiOiJqYWd1YXJza3giLCJlbWFpbCI6ImphZ3VhcnNreEB5YWhvby5jb20iLCJwaG90b3VybCI6Imh0dHA6XC9cL2ltYWdlcy1jZG4ucGVyZmVjdHdvcmxkLmNvbVwvYXJjXC80MFwvNDdcLzQwNDdhOTdhNWI3ZmRkZmIyOWJmMDY3MWM1ZDc1YTM2MTQzNTMzMzA4My5qcGciLCJyb2xlcyI6Ik1lbWJlciIsImNsaWVudF9pZCI6IjE0NDM5Njg5ODEifQ==+ae551a77c832e0cd81e899db8e817fae5645277b+1477593897+hmacsha1
• 1 Large XP Boost
• 3 Gamma Duty Officer Packs
• 1 R&D Box
Please note: this pack can be claimed once per account in the promotions tab for characters at least level 10. The items and the pack are character-bound.
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10229873
and this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong when in his opinion you are wrong and without checking into the proper use of the term that this user is unwilling or unable to do it still stands as a simple misuse or misinterpretation of the term and not intentionally false or defamatory in any way so as far as this user is aware there is no need for any retraction or apology in his eyes whether you demand one or not.
the mere fact that a simple google search for the meaning of the term would open this users eyes to the misuse of the term is immaterial.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Well, not exactly. It's not the same promotion. It's a new promotion with (almost) the same content.
Which is to say, if you got the code promo while it lasted, don't forget to pick up this new one, too.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
The definition of 'bait and switch' which salazarraze has provided, is entirely accurate, so you would do well to take them at their word on the definition and then maybe double check the definition yourself, if you need to be sure...
Trendy has now put out the details for how people can still get the stuff for free, from the C Store. So where is the bait?? Where is the switch?? Where is you getting having to pay out on something which was always being given away For Free?
Like I said, withdrawing the code with no word as to why, was poor customer-relations: But Cryptic has now Fixed That via the C Store...
Are you seriously that desperate for free stuff?? Free stuff which isn't even significantly worth having??
How does this sound: Give me your ingame character@username, and I will mail over to you a Jem'Hadar BOFF, a Jem'Hadar personal shield, a Rare Federation BOFF, and a Rare Mk IV phaser rifle.
The only catch, is that you shut up about this 'bait and switch' nonsense, and never mention it again... How does that sound for a deal for some free stuff? The offer is good for 24 hours from time of my posting this message...
[Edit to add:]
The time-limit stated in the boldened text has now expired with no contact or acknowledgement of such from darthgreater. The offer is now permanantly withdrawn and the resources will be re-allocated to my own accounts. LLAP \\//_
Not in "bait and switch" terms, it didn't. The "switching" portion of "bait and switch" requires the offending party to make an attempt to sell you something that is less desirable. No one has attempted to "switch" you over to pay money for anything after having used the original promo as "bait." Hence, no bait and switch at all.
3 packs only one character can claim.
I think that's what I said???
I intimated that salazarraze stated is correct and a simple google search would prove this to the other user and he is wrong in the use of the term but if he is unwilling to check as he believes himself to be in the right and in his mind there is no need to check then there is still no intentionally false or defamatory claim just a ignorance of the meaning of the term.
just to finish I will quote from google:
bait-and-switch
noun
noun: bait-and-switch
the action (generally illegal) of advertising goods which are an apparent bargain, with the intention of substituting inferior or more expensive goods.
"a bait-and-switch scheme"
end quote.
so although it might be obvious that the other user is wrong if he doesn't believe this there is no intentional false or defamatory claim.
even if this user later finds he is wrong he still doesn't have to apologise for making an intentional false or defamatory claim but just for the inappropriate use of the fraise.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
If someone finds out they are wrong, they still have to apologize, because intentional or otherwise, a defamatory statement is harmful, and in this instance, not only did Cryptic not intend for the code to be unusable, but they have rectified the issue by reissuing a giveway in the C Store. Even though Cryptic made it right, darthgreater still made claims that they were pulling a Bait and Switch, so was still intentionally slandering Cryptic through a false claim! I now see that darthgreater is complaining about the amount of packs someone can claim!
But in the spirit of goodwill, I'm sorry if I misread the meaning of your post
A good thing that i give little to no TRIBBLE about my AoY toon, then...
though you are correct that if someone finds out they are wrong they should apologize first they must find out they are wrong, they have no obligation to take anybody's suggestion that they are wrong from this forum or anywhere else otherwise I could say the world is square and you would have to believe me, they also have no obligation to check anywhere to see if they are wrong otherwise you would have to check my statement about the world being square to see if you are wrong about it being round but you are entitled to continue to believe that it is round and cannot be coerced into believing any tom d1ck or harry who might tell you otherwise.
as long as this user truly believes he is using the term in the right way there is no intentional false or defamatory claim just a misunderstanding of the term and while he continues to believe he has used the term correctly there is nothing to compel him to apologise for using it.
this will continue to be the case until the user finds out he is wrong from a source he implicitly trusts to be 100% correct, even then he does not have to apologize for intentionally making a false or defamatory claim for as far as he was concerned he was not at the time intentionally making a false or defamatory claim so all he would need to apologise for is misusing the term in this situation at most.
for the claim to be intentionally false or defamatory implies the user knows the correct meaning and is at that time intentionally using it in this situation regardless of that knowledge.
intentionally is the key word, if I asked you to press a button to turn on a light and in pressing the button you actually caused someone's death are you intentionally killing them? - no, you are not.
if you know by pressing the button you will cause someone's death and with that knowledge you still press it then you are intentionally killing them.
I will add - Is English your first language?, I only ask because anyone who doesn't understand the line "this user is supposed to take your word for it that he is wrong" is referring to another person doesn't read English that good.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I suspect that in less than 24 hours, one of my toons will be finding a Jem'hadar joining their crew, as well as getting a nifty new shield...
You people serious ?
It's a good thing you're not starving for a meal in a 3rd world country. We'd never hear the end of it.
#1stWorldProblems
they would apologise for printing it but would not admit that they were aware that at the time of printing it is false so it may have been defamatory/false/libelous but not intentionally.
of course before that apology they would want to see proof that it was false from a place they have faith is true.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
strange you mention starving for a meal in a 3rd world country, I remember people starving for a meal in a 3rd world country when I was about 5 years old and I am 58 years old and they are still starving now so never have heard the end of it and doubt I ever will.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.