Eternal bound wth?

[KalinOrthos]

"Wait, what do you mean I put together this piece of furniture wrong? I have to follow the instructions? You can't expect people to follow the instructions! I demand a refund!"

Remember kids, the customer is not always right.

[Arutan]

"Wait, what do you mean I put together this piece of furniture wrong? I have to follow the instructions? You can't expect people to follow the instructions! I demand a refund!"

Remember kids, the customer is not always right.

I get what you mean. But some things are wrong with this. Like, they could have add an option to have another one within the next 24h to avoid such thing, it's not like it cost them anything to send another virtual item, contrary to physical material in you example. But I guess they didn't because it is exchangeable, which is also wrong because some people use that to make gils; why not use the gift option to have a code like any other item on the shop instead of making it exchangeable, and add a timer of 48h before divorce to avoid people marrying with the same people to give them all the rewards. It's a way that sound far more logical than "hey you failed so pay us again".

[KalinOrthos]

I get what you mean. But some things are wrong with this. Like, they could have add an option to have another one within the next 24h to avoid such thing, it's not like it cost them anything to send another virtual item, contrary to physical material in you example. But I guess they didn't because it is exchangeable, which is also wrong because some people use that to make gils; why not use the gift option to have a code like any other item on the shop instead of making it exchangeable.

So you're telling SE to have a contingency option for every time some random person doesn't bother to read the instructions of what they want to buy? Sorry, but that's a big ask. It's simply easier, more sensible, and really far more common sense just to tell customers "read the instructions." Which, again, is common sense. The fact that you didn't speaks far, FAR more about you than it does SE.

And while I do agree that perhaps SE can give their GMs more options to help customers, it's not an excuse for you, again, NOT READING THE INSTRUCTIONS.

[Arutan]

So you're telling SE to have a contingency option for every time some random person doesn't bother to read the instructions of what they want to buy? Sorry, but that's a big ask. It's simply easier, more sensible, and really far more common sense just to tell customers "read the instructions." Which, again, is common sense. The fact that you didn't speaks far, FAR more about you than it does SE.

And while I do agree that perhaps SE can give their GMs more options to help customers, it's not an excuse for you, again, NOT READING THE INSTRUCTIONS.

As a computer scientist I try to do my best to code functionnalities that doesn't put people in trouble if they did something wrong. And even if they didn't read the instructions, I would adress the case because if it isn't intuitive enough without reading instructions, then it means I failed as computer scientist.

[KalinOrthos]

As a computer scientist I try to do my best to code functionnalities that doesn't put people in trouble if they did something wrong. And even if they didn't read the instructions, I would adress the case because if it isn't intuitive enough without reading instructions, then it means I failed as computer scientist.

And as an electrical engineer, I can tell you you cannot plan for every single problem. Customers will break things in ways you couldn't even dream, sure, but you also can't treat them like children handling a nuclear bomb. Your customers still need to understand what the device does and how it works at a basic surface level understanding. If I send my product out, I'm going to include a basic wiring diagram with it so that they can connect their device how they need it, I'm not going to go to them and do it for them. I'm not entirely sure why you are pushing back so hard against basic human competency and reading comprehension.