Savage Wolf, on 20 May 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:
So many people feeling entitled to having the Phoenix all to themselves.
Of course. We paid good money for it and were promised it was a one-time only event. PGI should release a Phoenix II package instead of releasing the original. To release the original is akin to breaching a contract. Putting it bluntly, it's false advertising and incredibly disrespectful to the consumer.
So, yeah, those of us who were here at the beginning and performed the requirements feel like
PGI should keep its promiseto us.
Savage Wolf, on 20 May 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:
They are not breaking a promise if we agree to lifting that promise or changing that promise. Promises is a contract and contracts can be renegotiated. And saying that it will somehow allow them to do more than they are asking is false. We are answering a simple question with very defined bounderies. It cannot give permissions for anything beyond the Phoenix or they would need to ask a different question.
Each purchase is its own separate contract. PGI can't establish a poll and allow a simple majority to determine this. Each individual purchaser is, in essence, an individual contractor.
You cannot renegotiate
my contract with PGI. That's not how things work. If you are truly so naive as to believe that it does not esablish a precedent, then you should go back and read your history books again. It is the little, seemingly insignificant things that establish precedents far more often than it is large or flashy issues.
In this case, the problem is, at its heart, whether PGI will keep its word. It doesn't matter if the vote is in favor of releasing the pack, there are still contracted parties whose rights, as a consumer, will be violated. There is no getting around that. PGI should never even have brought this up or dared to broach the subject. All it can do is hurt its credibility.
Far better would it have been to poll us on a Phoenix II Pack with the new variants instead. Then, there would have been no danger of damaging PGI's image or reneging on a promise.
Savage Wolf, on 20 May 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:
They might ask different questions later, but there is nothing wrong with that, no matter the answer to this one.
The Phoenix package was a package of mechs, just like the Resistance packs are. Nothing more. It was never advertised as such. With the Founders, it's literally in the name, so yes, that's different.
No, it was different. In the FAQ itself,
it is spelled out that it would
never again be released. That alone is enough to distinguish it from the packs that followed. The
one-time offer was also a big part of the
advertising. Releasing it now would constitute
false advertising, a business sin that is punishable by law.
Savage Wolf, on 20 May 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:
Accusing people wanting the Phoenix pack of playing the victim card by playing the victim card.
In this case, the
people who missed out were not victimized because
nobody took advantage of them. There is
no rational basis to even think of them as victims. However, the
people who did purchase the pack would very well be victimized because releasing the pack again would, in essence, show that
PGI hoodwinked us with promises it never intended to keep. We would be
victims of false advertising and business malpractice.
Savage Wolf, on 20 May 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:
That's is why they are asking, so they can do it with trust, if we give it to them.
Except that, even if the "Yes" crowd wins, you still have a sizeable number of consumers who don't want to see it released or their rights violated.
That doesn't build trust. Instead,
it demonstrates a willingness to break a contract at the merest excuse, and with a total disregard for a large number of the contracted parties.
You really don't get this, do you? It's so simple and it makes me kind of aggravated that there are people around that are so willing to blind themselves like this.
6
