Lost 1 day of play.

[KrissKringle]

I have referenced empirical studies as a whole, who has time to read those when I am entitled to my rights? Stop hiding behind written doctrine and ideology.

It's a fun game to play, isn't it?

To be fair, aren't you the one hiding behind doctrine and ideology? You literally are referencing rules that have been indoctrinated into society because of an intense ideology. I am simply arguing against it by saying perhaps I should get what I pay for.

[Kuwagami]

To be fair, aren't you the one hiding behind doctrine and ideology? You literally are referencing rules that have been indoctrinated into society because of an intense ideology. I am simply arguing against it by saying perhaps I should get what I pay for.

You already have what you pay for FFS...

You paid for that maintenance. Wether it pleases you or not is none other business than your own

[KrissKringle]

I admit I may have said a few things out of line, but some of your posts don't even contain anything other than the insult.


It's just going back and forth, you're arguing "it's the principle of losing 25 hours of potential game time" which is fair enough, most people see it as "I want my 50c back!", I'm not arguing against you when I say go find a law that demands companies to compensate consumers for lost time under any and all circumstances, just a suggestion of what should be done if you honestly feel you're entitled to that lost time.

I have no problem having a logical conversation about this, but if you are going to sling insults I have no problems slinging them back. I am in no way concerned about my money because it is so little. I am also aware what ToS states. What I am literally arguing is that it is unreasonable to tell someone they shouldn't be compensated for it because all logic suggests that you should because in reality nobody is actually paying to not play a game. I get what you and everyone else is saying and all I am doing is providing a rational response in return as to why I disagree. But I have yet to have been met with what I believe to be a decent argument against something that I just find to be so fundamentally easy to understand.

[KrissKringle]

You already have what you pay for FFS...

You paid for that maintenance. Wether it pleases you or not is none other business than your own

Please feel free to actually read the other posts that have been made as to not waste your energy.

[LilithMakyomo]

To be fair, aren't you the one hiding behind doctrine and ideology? You literally are referencing rules that have been indoctrinated into society because of an intense ideology. I am simply arguing against it by saying perhaps I should get what I pay for.

I have a wall of text that I abide by, and you have a false sense of entitlement that is only there due to a bunch of people thinking they deserve more. Technically, if the rules weren't in place, you would absolutely be right about all this.

[KrissKringle]

I have a wall of text that I abide by, and you have a false sense of entitlement that is only there due to a bunch of people thinking they deserve more. Technically, if the rules weren't in place, you would absolutely be right about all this.

How is it a false sense of entitlement? It really just seems like you're telling me to shut up, along with everyone else who doesn't quite understand this concept. Almost all arguments I have seen have just been insults.

[Kuwagami]

Please feel free to actually read the other posts that have been made as to not waste your energy.

You not being aware or willingfully ignoring what you pay for because you have faith in a "greater truth" does not put you above the rules you agreed to follow.

[Cadwgan]

I have no problem having a logical conversation about this, but if you are going to sling insults I have no problems slinging them back. I am in no way concerned about my money because it is so little. I am also aware what ToS states. What I am literally arguing is that it is unreasonable to tell someone they shouldn't be compensated for it because all logic suggests that you should because in reality nobody is actually paying to not play a game. I get what you and everyone else is saying and all I am doing is providing a rational response in return as to why I disagree. But I have yet to have been met with what I believe to be a decent argument against something that I just find to be so fundamentally easy to understand.

'Eh, I guess most people just accept the ToS and find something else to do for the day, we're gamers, as long as we have something to entertain us. I understand people feel entitled to what they have paid for, in your situation I'd honestly vote with my wallet by unsubscribing and find a lawyer to start digging around, the language SE understands best (other than Japanese) is money. I find it unreasonable to demand compensation, I'd request it as a gesture but I'm not going to kick up a fuss over it.

[KrissKringle]

You not being aware or willingfully ignoring what you pay for because you have faith in a "greater truth" does not put you above the rules you agreed to follow.

Actually it does. People are always above rules because they aren't forced to follow them, which essentially makes them moot. If it isn't reasonable it shouldn't be a rule, and this just isn't reasonable.

[LilithMakyomo]

How is it a false sense of entitlement? It really just seems like you're telling me to shut up, along with everyone else who doesn't quite understand this concept. Almost all arguments I have seen have just been insults.

No, I'm not. You are asking for more than what you agreed to pay for. That is a form of being entitled just because you pay for something. Why is it so bad that rules have to be in place for something?