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I have seen no "false and defamatory claims against Cryptic", a gift was offered and withdrawn before the expiry date and before many could claim it and through these threads and other sources we learned that there was a problem with the code and no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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
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
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him.
we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
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.
Read mail. Put in promo code. Didn't work. Looked up problem on the boards. Looked faintly irritated, as I don't enjoy reminders of how bad they can be at anticipating exploits. Waited two days while things sorted themselves out. Picked up goodies via promo tab. Sold common doffs into slavery on K-13. All is right with the world .
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him. we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
And as a community, we have an obligation to correct darthgreater's error toward our hosts... And to continue to do so, when erroneous claims continue to be made...
Read mail. Put in promo code. Didn't work. Looked up problem on the boards. Looked faintly irritated, as I don't enjoy reminders of how bad they can be at anticipating exploits. Waited two days while things sorted themselves out. Picked up goodies via promo tab. Sold common doffs into slavery on K-13. All is right with the world .
People still complaining ? Even after they upped the doff packs from 1 to 3 ? AND decided to just gift it to EVERYONE...
Give a man a dollar and he want ten dollars, give him ten dollars and he wants a hundred, give him a hundred.....you get the point. People want everything given to them for free. Take what you are given and be happy!
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him. we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
And as a community, we have an obligation to correct darthgreater's error toward our hosts... And to continue to do so, when erroneous claims continue to be made...
we are not obliged to do anything, we can choose to do something or simply ignore him.
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
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him. we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
And as a community, we have an obligation to correct darthgreater's error toward our hosts... And to continue to do so, when erroneous claims continue to be made...
we are not obliged to do anything, we can choose to do something or simply ignore him.
Example:
You're travelling on a train, when you see an elder lady, who is travelling alone, being abused and harrassed by another traveller. Do you i) Intervene ii) Ignore it, because it's 'not your place to do anything'?
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him. we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
And as a community, we have an obligation to correct darthgreater's error toward our hosts... And to continue to do so, when erroneous claims continue to be made...
we are not obliged to do anything, we can choose to do something or simply ignore him.
Example:
You're travelling on a train, when you see an elder lady, who is travelling alone, being abused and harrassed by another traveller. Do you i) Intervene ii) Ignore it, because it's 'not your place to do anything'?
I suspect I know your answer...
entirely up to you, you are not the law or an enforcer of it, you might be inclined to tell the abuser what he is doing is wrong but if you stepped in with force you could find yourself on an assault charge regardless of your honourable intentions.
you are not required to assist by law especially if you fear by doing so you could potentially put yourself in danger.
the most you are required to do is at your earliest opportunity inform someone in authority who can deal with the incident.
ergo, you have advised this user he is in the wrong, he has chosen to ignore your advise, you cannot force him to change his thinking therefore your only course of action is to report him to the moderators and let them deal with him.
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.
Why are we still talking about this. They have corrected the problem with a better alternative delivery mechanism. Enough about 'bait and switch' and fraud about FREE stuff.
'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...
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him. we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
And as a community, we have an obligation to correct darthgreater's error toward our hosts... And to continue to do so, when erroneous claims continue to be made...
we are not obliged to do anything, we can choose to do something or simply ignore him.
Example:
You're travelling on a train, when you see an elder lady, who is travelling alone, being abused and harrassed by another traveller. Do you i) Intervene ii) Ignore it, because it's 'not your place to do anything'?
I suspect I know your answer...
entirely up to you, you are not the law or an enforcer of it, you might be inclined to tell the abuser what he is doing is wrong but if you stepped in with force you could find yourself on an assault charge regardless of your honourable intentions.
Fine. You clearly endorse such behaviour and attitudes. Such is your prerogative... I'm going to find something more constructive to do with my time. LLAP \\//_
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him. we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
And as a community, we have an obligation to correct darthgreater's error toward our hosts... And to continue to do so, when erroneous claims continue to be made...
we are not obliged to do anything, we can choose to do something or simply ignore him.
Example:
You're travelling on a train, when you see an elder lady, who is travelling alone, being abused and harrassed by another traveller. Do you i) Intervene ii) Ignore it, because it's 'not your place to do anything'?
I suspect I know your answer...
entirely up to you, you are not the law or an enforcer of it, you might be inclined to tell the abuser what he is doing is wrong but if you stepped in with force you could find yourself on an assault charge regardless of your honourable intentions.
Fine. You clearly endorse such behaviour and attitudes. Such is your prerogative... I'm going to find something more constructive to do with my time. LLAP \\//_
no endorsement at all, I would simply rather let the moderators worry about that sort of thing, it's their job not mine to police these forums.
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.
Marcus, I don't think that's a fair assessment of Bobby.
Even if you disagree with him.
Ironically, by making an unsubstantiated claim about Bobby's persona and/or moral capacity, you're in fact doing something similar to what Darth has done by calling this promo a "Bait and Switch".
Making accusations and judgment calls on someone's RL persona based on little to no evidence is just as bad.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your main point. But be careful not repeat the same behavior that Darth has displayed, in doing so, you undermine your main point, and credibility.
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.
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
This is not a free society, though this is a privately owned forum where there are guidlines and rules of conduct. As such, darthgreater has the obligation not to abuse our hosts...
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him. we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
And as a community, we have an obligation to correct darthgreater's error toward our hosts... And to continue to do so, when erroneous claims continue to be made...
we are not obliged to do anything, we can choose to do something or simply ignore him.
Example:
You're travelling on a train, when you see an elder lady, who is travelling alone, being abused and harrassed by another traveller. Do you i) Intervene ii) Ignore it, because it's 'not your place to do anything'?
I suspect I know your answer...
entirely up to you, you are not the law or an enforcer of it, you might be inclined to tell the abuser what he is doing is wrong but if you stepped in with force you could find yourself on an assault charge regardless of your honourable intentions.
Fine. You clearly endorse such behaviour and attitudes. Such is your prerogative... I'm going to find something more constructive to do with my time. LLAP \\//_
no endorsement at all, I would simply rather let the moderators worry about that sort of thing, it's their job not mine to police these forums.
Marcus, I don't think that's a fair assessment of Bobby.
Even if you disagree with him.
Ironically, by making an unsubstantiated claim about Bobby's persona and/or moral capacity, you're in fact doing something similar to what Darth has done by calling this promo a "Bait and Switch".
Making accusations and judgment calls on someone's RL persona based on little to no evidence is just as bad.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your main point. But be careful not repeat the same behavior that Darth has displayed, in doing so, you undermine your main point, and credibility.
Marcus, I don't think that's a fair assessment of Bobby.
Even if you disagree with him.
Ironically, by making an unsubstantiated claim about Bobby's persona and/or moral capacity, you're in fact doing something similar to what Darth has done by calling this promo a "Bait and Switch".
Making accusations and judgment calls on someone's RL persona based on little to no evidence is just as bad.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your main point. But be careful not repeat the same behavior that Darth has displayed, in doing so, you undermine your main point, and credibility.
Duly noted \\//_
You still playing Trexels ?
Pretty decent mobile game
Marcus, I don't think that's a fair assessment of Bobby.
Even if you disagree with him.
Ironically, by making an unsubstantiated claim about Bobby's persona and/or moral capacity, you're in fact doing something similar to what Darth has done by calling this promo a "Bait and Switch".
Making accusations and judgment calls on someone's RL persona based on little to no evidence is just as bad.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your main point. But be careful not repeat the same behavior that Darth has displayed, in doing so, you undermine your main point, and credibility.
Duly noted \\//_
You still playing Trexels ?
Pretty decent mobile game
Not as frequently as I was, as I pretty much hit a grind/pay wall, but yes, I do still play My father in law often needs someone to ride shotgun on 4-5 hour trips for his business, so I use that time to collect rewards every quarter of an hour
My first AoY toon is a porting of my Trexels ship and crew (except I have Tarsi with T'Karra instead of Louise Solomon, and Louise Solomon as one of Cara's BOFFs... It's incongruous, I know, but all part of the fun of how Cara's crew has grown )
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.
It was 3 doffpacks in both promos. Just, faction doffs in the first and gamma doffs in the second.
And it doesn't really matter if the doffpacks are all for one toon, because the doffs inside are not bound you can mail them to another toon if you want.
'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.'
Everything under the Notifications tab is enabled in my Arc settings. Some people said they had an option to disable mails under the language tab in Arc settings but I'm not even seeing an option to disable anything there. Just language choices.
try https://www.arcgames.com/en/my/setting then under LANGUAGE of all stupid a s s things.... a little tick box 'Allow us to send occasional newsletters and updates to your registered email address.'
lol, thanks; been looking for that; did a search for 'newsletter' and this forum thread popped up
once again, newsletters enabled, lol!
Comments
And once they were informed something was wrong, they would not reprint it. Which is what darthgreater has done by continuing to repeat that it was a bait and switch. Regardless of any lack of 'obligation' one may have to confirm/deny someone else's opinion, one has an obligation to be well-informed, so to intentially wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth... But by all means, continue to justify and enable such unacceptably childish and demanding behaviour... The only thing that rewards, is the notion that by making enough noise, one eventually gets one's own way, even if one is in the wrong...
and yet again I say to take this information as true darthgreater would have to trust and believe that information and the source from which that information originated, without the trust that this information is correct darthgreater is not obliged to do anything.
it is true that to wallow in ignorance, when a matter of doubt comes into a topic, is a sign of unacceptable arrogance, entitlement, and mental-sloth but nobody has the right to force darthgreater into checking, if he believes he is using the term correctly, it is his choice to believe he is right regardless of what others say and in a free society he has the right to believe what he likes even when he is wrong.
others are free to try and educate him but he is not obliged to except others interpretation of the meaning.
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.
that is up to the moderators or originators of this forum and its rules to determine and contact the user privately to inform him he has overstepped the mark, it is not up to other users to force any action upon him.
we can only advise him of his error and hope he takes this advise, if he chooses to disregard that advise as he believes it to be inaccurate that is his choice.
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.
My character Tsin'xing
Give a man a dollar and he want ten dollars, give him ten dollars and he wants a hundred, give him a hundred.....you get the point. People want everything given to them for free. Take what you are given and be happy!
Artwork for Sale:
https://www.deviantart.com/borgking001a/store/
https://www.renderosity.com/?uid=883914
https://www.redbubble.com/people/borgking001a
we are not obliged to do anything, we can choose to do something or simply ignore him.
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.
My character Tsin'xing
You're travelling on a train, when you see an elder lady, who is travelling alone, being abused and harrassed by another traveller. Do you i) Intervene ii) Ignore it, because it's 'not your place to do anything'?
I suspect I know your answer...
My character Tsin'xing
entirely up to you, you are not the law or an enforcer of it, you might be inclined to tell the abuser what he is doing is wrong but if you stepped in with force you could find yourself on an assault charge regardless of your honourable intentions.
you are not required to assist by law especially if you fear by doing so you could potentially put yourself in danger.
the most you are required to do is at your earliest opportunity inform someone in authority who can deal with the incident.
ergo, you have advised this user he is in the wrong, he has chosen to ignore your advise, you cannot force him to change his thinking therefore your only course of action is to report him to the moderators and let them deal with him.
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.'
My character Tsin'xing
no endorsement at all, I would simply rather let the moderators worry about that sort of thing, it's their job not mine to police these forums.
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.
Even if you disagree with him.
Ironically, by making an unsubstantiated claim about Bobby's persona and/or moral capacity, you're in fact doing something similar to what Darth has done by calling this promo a "Bait and Switch".
Making accusations and judgment calls on someone's RL persona based on little to no evidence is just as bad.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your main point. But be careful not repeat the same behavior that Darth has displayed, in doing so, you undermine your main point, and credibility.
You still playing Trexels ?
Pretty decent mobile game
My first AoY toon is a porting of my Trexels ship and crew (except I have Tarsi with T'Karra instead of Louise Solomon, and Louise Solomon as one of Cara's BOFFs... It's incongruous, I know, but all part of the fun of how Cara's crew has grown
And it doesn't really matter if the doffpacks are all for one toon, because the doffs inside are not bound you can mail them to another toon if you want.
http://images-cdn.perfectworld.com/arc/ac/bc/acbc79208346c053d6c6067a5ee8b8041477074925.jpg
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.'
lol, thanks; been looking for that; did a search for 'newsletter' and this forum thread popped up
once again, newsletters enabled, lol!