Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Billing error..

Tags:
  • Video Games
  • Product
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:23:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Anyone else get one of these?
Can't believe they're not waiving their own stuff up...... oh wait... yeah I
can.

T.
---------------------------


In mid-May, 2005, we advised you via email, patch message and website
announcement that the EverQuest subscription rates would be increasing in
June, 2005. We announced that the new pricing would be:

1 Month: $14.99
3 Month: $41.97
6 Month: $77.94
12 Month: $143.88

Due to a billing error, SOE undercharged you on any subscription cycles that
were processed since the new pricing went into effect. Accordingly, SOE
will be processing a one-time additional charge to your credit card for the
difference. This small additional charge will appear on your next credit
card statement.

Thank you for your understanding; we sincerely apologize for our error. If
you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact customer
service.

The customer service knowledgebase is available at
http://www.station.sony.com/kb

You can submit an email to support at
http://help.station.sony.com/cgi-bin/soe.cfg/php/enduse...

Live Chat support is available Monday through Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm PST at
http://help.station.sony.com/cgi-bin/soe.cfg/php/enduse...

Telephone support is available Monday through Friday 9:00am - 1:30pm and
3:30pm - 6:00pm PST at (858) 537 - 0898.

-Sony Online Entertainment

More about : billing error

Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Thomas Houseman wrote:
> Anyone else get one of these?
> Can't believe they're not waiving their own stuff up...... oh wait... yeah I
> can.
>
> T.
> ---------------------------
>
>
> In mid-May, 2005, we advised you via email, patch message and website
> announcement that the EverQuest subscription rates would be increasing in
> June, 2005. We announced that the new pricing would be:
>
> 1 Month: $14.99
> 3 Month: $41.97
> 6 Month: $77.94
> 12 Month: $143.88
>
> Due to a billing error, SOE undercharged you on any subscription cycles that
> were processed since the new pricing went into effect. Accordingly, SOE
> will be processing a one-time additional charge to your credit card for the
> difference. This small additional charge will appear on your next credit
> card statement.
>
> Thank you for your understanding; we sincerely apologize for our error. If
> you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact customer
> service.

Isn't that illegal in many States? We just got a new
consumer law here in Ontario, so I'm not sure what would
happen to subscribers here. Any decent company would and
should "eat" their mistake. Maybe they have some new albums
coming out on the music side that they need extra cash to
use as bribes for airplay )

Glad I canceled when I did! I hate credit card problems and
I certainly would have refused this.
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:23:14 +1000, "Thomas Houseman"
<thomashouseman@HomailHADTOPUTTHISHERETOSTOPTHESWENVIRUS.com> wrote:

>Anyone else get one of these?
>Can't believe they're not waiving their own stuff up...... oh wait... yeah I
>can.

Fee increases were announced sometime ago and it's possible SoE forgot
to charge the new fee when the time came. But I was under the
impression the 1 year plan wouldn't change???
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Related resources
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:26:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"KDragon" <nospam.for.me.please@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:UMpHe.921$pH4.204575@news20.bellglobal.com...
Accordingly, SOE
> > will be processing a one-time additional charge to your credit card for
the
> > difference. This small additional charge will appear on your next
credit
> > card statement.


Great CS! Make the customers pay for your mistake! Genius.

Glad I left EQ months ago.
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:29:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

KDragon <nospam.for.me.please@nospam.net> wrote in
news:UMpHe.921$pH4.204575@news20.bellglobal.com:

> Thomas Houseman wrote:
>> Anyone else get one of these?
>> Can't believe they're not waiving their own stuff up...... oh wait...
>> yeah I can.
>>
>> T.
>> ---------------------------
>>
>>
>> In mid-May, 2005, we advised you via email, patch message and website
>> announcement that the EverQuest subscription rates would be
>> increasing in June, 2005. We announced that the new pricing would
>> be:
>>
>> 1 Month: $14.99
>> 3 Month: $41.97
>> 6 Month: $77.94
>> 12 Month: $143.88
>>
>> Due to a billing error, SOE undercharged you on any subscription
>> cycles that were processed since the new pricing went into effect.
>> Accordingly, SOE will be processing a one-time additional charge to
>> your credit card for the difference. This small additional charge
>> will appear on your next credit card statement.
>>
>> Thank you for your understanding; we sincerely apologize for our
>> error. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
>> contact customer service.
>
> Isn't that illegal in many States? We just got a new
> consumer law here in Ontario, so I'm not sure what would
> happen to subscribers here. Any decent company would and
> should "eat" their mistake. Maybe they have some new albums
> coming out on the music side that they need extra cash to
> use as bribes for airplay )
>
> Glad I canceled when I did! I hate credit card problems and
> I certainly would have refused this.
>

We've had, what, one billing cycle since the increase? Maybe two for
some? We're only talking $2-4 at most for one monthly billing cycle.
Yes, I obviously realize that it's more for people with quarterly or
yearly subs, but it's not like we're winding up paying more than we
would have to begin with.

What's all the fuss? They made a mistake. No shocker there, but I hardly
think we're being treated badly.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 6:29:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Screw that. Sony messed up and we shouldnt pay for it. Everyone should
do I am going to do and dispute the charge to where sony gets $0.

__________________________________________________________
Submitted by: Vidden
This message was submitted through the Erollisi Marr Forum
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 10:23:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Vidden <Vidden.1t3hue@erollisimarr-dot-com-forum.com> wrote in
news:Vidden.1t3hue@erollisimarr-dot-com-forum.com:

>
> Screw that. Sony messed up and we shouldnt pay for it. Everyone should
> do I am going to do and dispute the charge to where sony gets $0.
>

Why? Did you not play during that period? Were you not informed of the rate
increase? If you *didn't* play, did you remember to cancel your account?
You knew the cost. Why try so hard to "get over"? Their "screw up" didn't
cost us anything. We are merely being charged what we were supposed to be
charged.

We played. We should pay what we agreed to pay. Sure, they made a mistake.
Sure, it would have been viewed as quite the act of positive customer
service had they just decided to move the instatement of the rate increase
back a month or so (actually, you probably would have had little good to
say about that, either, likely opting to comment on "what dufusses they
must be" or "typical SoE inefficiency" and/or "inaccuracy"). That doesn't
make it any more right to not pay the agreed amount for services rendered.

Sometimes I'm just amazed at the things about which many in the EQ
community tend to get bent out of shape.

Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from the
sideline next month after they cancel your account for non-payment. Your
call.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
August 1, 2005 11:37:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> Vidden <Vidden.1t3hue@erollisimarr-dot-com-forum.com> wrote in
> news:Vidden.1t3hue@erollisimarr-dot-com-forum.com:
>
> >
> > Screw that. Sony messed up and we shouldnt pay for it. Everyone should
> > do I am going to do and dispute the charge to where sony gets $0.
> >
>
> Why? Did you not play during that period? Were you not informed of the rate
> increase? If you *didn't* play, did you remember to cancel your account?
> You knew the cost. Why try so hard to "get over"? Their "screw up" didn't
> cost us anything. We are merely being charged what we were supposed to be
> charged.
>
> We played. We should pay what we agreed to pay. Sure, they made a mistake.
> Sure, it would have been viewed as quite the act of positive customer
> service had they just decided to move the instatement of the rate increase
> back a month or so (actually, you probably would have had little good to
> say about that, either, likely opting to comment on "what dufusses they
> must be" or "typical SoE inefficiency" and/or "inaccuracy"). That doesn't
> make it any more right to not pay the agreed amount for services rendered.

Yes, actually it does. Generally venders are *obligated* to absorb
errors like this. Be it honoring mismarked product on the shelf, or
taking the lower price in discrepency between posted price and scan
price at the till. (EVEN THOUGH the consumer may have put it in the
shopping cart in acceptance of the higher price!!!) etc.

> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from the
> sideline next month after they cancel your account for non-payment. Your
> call.

If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake SOE
made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ THAT badly?

Hell, take the rest of the summer off and go to the beach. Sign up again
in fall, your characters will all be there and you'll have the
satisfaction of knowing that SOE lost more money on you than it made
with its ridiculous move.
August 2, 2005 12:27:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" wrote
> Rumbledor wrote

>> That doesn't make it any more right to not pay the agreed amount
>> for services rendered.
>
> Yes, actually it does. Generally venders are *obligated* to absorb
> errors like this. Be it honoring mismarked product on the shelf, or
> taking the lower price in discrepency between posted price and scan
> price at the till. (EVEN THOUGH the consumer may have put it in the
> shopping cart in acceptance of the higher price!!!) etc.

No, actually it doesn't. It's a billing error, not a pricing error.
Yes, vendors are required to absorb pricing errors - doing
otherwise is illegal in various ways in most jurisdictions ("bait
and switch" tactics, etc.) The doesn't mean they can't send
you an updated bill if they find an error. Various utilities (water,
gas, electricity, etc) do this as business-as-usual - estimated
bills and corrected ones when meters are read. Think you'd
have much luck convincing the electric company you don't
owe money because they underestimated the prior month?

>> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from the
>> sideline next month after they cancel your account for non-payment. Your
>> call.
>
> If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake SOE
> made, let them.

They'll just terminate the account when the payment runs out, just like
any other time. At that time you could either pay the money owed or
move on.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:51:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d5819cd58377936989c44@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>
>> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from the
>> sideline next month after they cancel your account for non-payment.
>> Your call.
>
> If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake SOE
> made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ THAT badly?
>

How badly is that? Charging us what they said they would charge us?

I agree that the wisest decision for them would have been to cut their
losses and move on, but I just can't see the uproar over it all.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
August 2, 2005 3:57:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <9BvHe.46373$t43.10534@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
bgbdwolf@gte.net says...
>
> "42" wrote
> > Rumbledor wrote
>
> >> That doesn't make it any more right to not pay the agreed amount
> >> for services rendered.
> >
> > Yes, actually it does. Generally venders are *obligated* to absorb
> > errors like this. Be it honoring mismarked product on the shelf, or
> > taking the lower price in discrepency between posted price and scan
> > price at the till. (EVEN THOUGH the consumer may have put it in the
> > shopping cart in acceptance of the higher price!!!) etc.
>
> No, actually it doesn't. It's a billing error, not a pricing error.
> Yes, vendors are required to absorb pricing errors - doing
> otherwise is illegal in various ways in most jurisdictions ("bait
> and switch" tactics, etc.) The doesn't mean they can't send
> you an updated bill if they find an error.

Upon reflection you are right re pricing vs billing. But to your comment
that they can send an updated bill: they aren't sending me an updated
bill. They are helping themselves to the difference off my credit card.

And THAT, imo, is what pisses people off!

Most business would eat the loss of a couple bucks rather than suffer
the ill-will associated with simply helping themselves to some more
money of the card number you've entrusted them, or the hassle of sending
the customer an updated bill for $2.00.

> Various utilities (water,
> gas, electricity, etc) do this as business-as-usual - estimated
> bills and corrected ones when meters are read. Think you'd
> have much luck convincing the electric company you don't
> owe money because they underestimated the prior month?

That's really quite a different scenario entirely. Those bills only
cover estimated usage. We -expect- and its reasonable to expect more
precision from SOE.

> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from the
> >> sideline next month after they cancel your account for non-payment. Your
> >> call.
> >
> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake SOE
> > made, let them.
>
> They'll just terminate the account when the payment runs out, just like
> any other time. At that time you could either pay the money owed or
> move on.

Duh! But paying up the missing $2.00 and taking a month off is a net
loss of $14.95 for SOE.
August 2, 2005 4:33:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A5AB7FAA8EFRumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d5819cd58377936989c44@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>
> > In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >
> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from the
> >> sideline next month after they cancel your account for non-payment.
> >> Your call.
> >
> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake SOE
> > made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ THAT badly?
> >
>
> How badly is that? Charging us what they said they would charge us?

Badly enough to put up with SOE disconnecting your account over a minor
mistake they made in our favor for which we disputed an authorized
transaction to 'fix' it.

> I agree that the wisest decision for them would have been to cut their
> losses and move on, but I just can't see the uproar over it all.

That makes no sense.

The only REASON for them to cut their losses and move on would be to
AVOID the UPROAR.

It seems you agree they should have cut their losses and moved on? Why
do you agree? If the only reason is to avoid the uproar you seem to have
tacitly admitted that you too know there will inevitably be an uproar.

As to why there is an uproar? People don't like having their credit
cards automatically charged when there is a 'billing error'. While its
true we aren't paying any more than we would have been had they got it
right the first time it still rubs a lot of people the wrong way when
SOE just helps themselves to your cash "whenever they feel like it".
EVEN when you OWE them the money.

Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not carte
blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if a mistake was
made and you owe them the money they should still seek explicit
authorization to take more money.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:34:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d5856c63a2fee03989c47@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <9BvHe.46373$t43.10534@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> bgbdwolf@gte.net says...
>>
>> "42" wrote
>> > Rumbledor wrote
>>
>> >> That doesn't make it any more right to not pay the agreed amount
>> >> for services rendered.
>> >
>> > Yes, actually it does. Generally venders are *obligated* to absorb
>> > errors like this. Be it honoring mismarked product on the shelf, or
>> > taking the lower price in discrepency between posted price and scan
>> > price at the till. (EVEN THOUGH the consumer may have put it in the
>> > shopping cart in acceptance of the higher price!!!) etc.
>>
>> No, actually it doesn't. It's a billing error, not a pricing error.
>> Yes, vendors are required to absorb pricing errors - doing
>> otherwise is illegal in various ways in most jurisdictions ("bait
>> and switch" tactics, etc.) The doesn't mean they can't send
>> you an updated bill if they find an error.
>
> Upon reflection you are right re pricing vs billing. But to your
> comment that they can send an updated bill: they aren't sending me an
> updated bill. They are helping themselves to the difference off my
> credit card.
>
> And THAT, imo, is what pisses people off!

That seems to be an awfully slight distinction when you've authorized
them to charge that amount in the first place.

> Most business would eat the loss of a couple bucks rather than suffer
> the ill-will associated with simply helping themselves to some more
> money of the card number you've entrusted them, or the hassle of
> sending the customer an updated bill for $2.00.

Most people don't see it as that big a deal. As I said, you authorized
them to deduct $14.95/mo. That's $29.90 for the past two. When all is
said and done, that's all you will have paid.

This all really just sounds like opportunistic picking of nits.

>> Various utilities (water,
>> gas, electricity, etc) do this as business-as-usual - estimated
>> bills and corrected ones when meters are read. Think you'd
>> have much luck convincing the electric company you don't
>> owe money because they underestimated the prior month?
>
> That's really quite a different scenario entirely. Those bills only
> cover estimated usage. We -expect- and its reasonable to expect more
> precision from SOE.
>
>> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from
>> >> the sideline next month after they cancel your account for
>> >> non-payment. Your call.
>> >
>> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake
>> > SOE made, let them.
>>
>> They'll just terminate the account when the payment runs out, just
>> like any other time. At that time you could either pay the money
>> owed or move on.
>
> Duh! But paying up the missing $2.00 and taking a month off is a net
> loss of $14.95 for SOE.
>

As with most unnecessarily vehement flame-ups regarding SoE policy, I'm
quite certain the bark will be vicious while the bark all but non-
existant.

As I've said, it wasn't the brightest course of action on SoE's part,
but let's not make it out to be more than it really is.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:52:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:03:25 -0500 in
<Vidden.1t3hue@erollisimarr-dot-com-forum.com>, Vidden
<Vidden.1t3hue@erollisimarr-dot-com-forum.com> graced the world with
this thought:

>
>Screw that. Sony messed up and we shouldnt pay for it.


uhh... but you owe them the money...
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:27:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:33:09 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <Xns96A5AB7FAA8EFRumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
>Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d5819cd58377936989c44@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>
>> > In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
>> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> >
>> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from the
>> >> sideline next month after they cancel your account for non-payment.
>> >> Your call.
>> >
>> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake SOE
>> > made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ THAT badly?
>> >
>>
>> How badly is that? Charging us what they said they would charge us?
>
>Badly enough to put up with SOE disconnecting your account over a minor
>mistake they made in our favor for which we disputed an authorized
>transaction to 'fix' it.
>
>> I agree that the wisest decision for them would have been to cut their
>> losses and move on, but I just can't see the uproar over it all.
>
>That makes no sense.
>
>The only REASON for them to cut their losses and move on would be to
>AVOID the UPROAR.
>
>It seems you agree they should have cut their losses and moved on? Why
>do you agree? If the only reason is to avoid the uproar you seem to have
>tacitly admitted that you too know there will inevitably be an uproar.
>
>As to why there is an uproar? People don't like having their credit
>cards automatically charged when there is a 'billing error'. While its
>true we aren't paying any more than we would have been had they got it
>right the first time it still rubs a lot of people the wrong way when
>SOE just helps themselves to your cash "whenever they feel like it".
>EVEN when you OWE them the money.
>
>Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not carte
>blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if a mistake was
>made and you owe them the money they should still seek explicit
>authorization to take more money.

Personally I think SOE knows that the people still playing EQ will
continue to play EQ regardless of a billing mistake like this. There
may be a few who decide to cancel, that this was the last straw, but
really it will be lost in the noise.

At least that's how I see it. If they were trying to charge a one
time membership fee then that might be a different story.

~F
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 9:56:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:52:12 GMT alt.games.everquest bizbee
<tuberoo@earthlink.net> news:0tzHe.8160$Uk3.5781
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net wrote:

> uhh... but you owe them the money...

No. They want to retroactively raise rates. They forgot to increase the
rate when they said they wanted to.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d585f2777865799989c48@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96A5AB7FAA8EFRumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d5819cd58377936989c44@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>
>> > In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
>> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> >
>> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from
>> >> the sideline next month after they cancel your account for
>> >> non-payment. Your call.
>> >
>> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake
>> > SOE made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ THAT badly?
>> >
>>
>> How badly is that? Charging us what they said they would charge us?
>
> Badly enough to put up with SOE disconnecting your account over a
> minor mistake they made in our favor for which we disputed an
> authorized transaction to 'fix' it.

They wouldn't be "disconnecting" your account due to their mistake. They
would be doing so due to your refusal to pay the agreed upon sum.

>> I agree that the wisest decision for them would have been to cut
>> their losses and move on, but I just can't see the uproar over it
>> all.
>
> That makes no sense.
>
> The only REASON for them to cut their losses and move on would be to
> AVOID the UPROAR.

Correct.

> It seems you agree they should have cut their losses and moved on? Why
> do you agree? If the only reason is to avoid the uproar you seem to
> have tacitly admitted that you too know there will inevitably be an
> uproar.

You're still correct. Well, if you consider the very vocal few to amount
to an uproar. Most see it for what it is and aren't worried about trying
to get over.

> As to why there is an uproar? People don't like having their credit
> cards automatically charged when there is a 'billing error'. While its
> true we aren't paying any more than we would have been had they got it
> right the first time it still rubs a lot of people the wrong way when
> SOE just helps themselves to your cash "whenever they feel like it".
> EVEN when you OWE them the money.

I call that over-sensitivity. There was on ill-intent or unscrupulous
activity here in any sense. We owe'd them $29.90, they charged $21.90 to
our credit cards. Why do we care that it was done in two slightly
different sized amounts?

> Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not carte
> blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if a mistake was
> made and you owe them the money they should still seek explicit
> authorization to take more money.

What, do you expect them to send you a bill? For $2.00? That's just far
over-complicating the matter.

This amounts to little more than a mountain being made from a mole hill.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:21:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Mary Poppins <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A63C7B9745DMarypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142:

> Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:52:12 GMT alt.games.everquest bizbee
> <tuberoo@earthlink.net> news:0tzHe.8160$Uk3.5781
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> uhh... but you owe them the money...
>
> No. They want to retroactively raise rates. They forgot to increase
> the rate when they said they wanted to.
>

That's a manipulation of the facts. As of a specific date, the subscription
rate for playing EQ went up $2. The billing error doesn't change that. You
were still responsible for the amount.

I'd wager that all new subs were charged correctly.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 7:04:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Mary Poppins <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A63C7B9745DMarypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142:

> Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:52:12 GMT alt.games.everquest bizbee
> <tuberoo@earthlink.net> news:0tzHe.8160$Uk3.5781
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> uhh... but you owe them the money...
>
> No. They want to retroactively raise rates. They forgot to increase
> the rate when they said they wanted to.
>

No, they forgot to change the rates in their computer in a timely manner.
They did increase the rates when they said they would.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
August 2, 2005 11:03:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A65DF2351C8Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d585f2777865799989c48@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>
> > In article <Xns96A5AB7FAA8EFRumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.1d5819cd58377936989c44@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
> >>
> >> > In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> >> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >> >
> >> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining from
> >> >> the sideline next month after they cancel your account for
> >> >> non-payment. Your call.
> >> >
> >> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a mistake
> >> > SOE made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ THAT badly?
> >> >
> >>
> >> How badly is that? Charging us what they said they would charge us?
> >
> > Badly enough to put up with SOE disconnecting your account over a
> > minor mistake they made in our favor for which we disputed an
> > authorized transaction to 'fix' it.
>
> They wouldn't be "disconnecting" your account due to their mistake. They
> would be doing so due to your refusal to pay the agreed upon sum.

I declined to allow a transaction that wasn't authorized to go through.
If they'd bothered to ask for authorization perhaps I wouldn't have
disputed it.

When I pay for groceries I take the currency out of my wallet and hand
it to the cashier, they don't pickpocket my wallet for whats owed to
them. The end result is the same, but the distinction is not slight at
all.

> >> I agree that the wisest decision for them would have been to cut
> >> their losses and move on, but I just can't see the uproar over it
> >> all.
> >
> > That makes no sense.
> >
> > The only REASON for them to cut their losses and move on would be to
> > AVOID the UPROAR.
>
> Correct.
>
> > It seems you agree they should have cut their losses and moved on? Why
> > do you agree? If the only reason is to avoid the uproar you seem to
> > have tacitly admitted that you too know there will inevitably be an
> > uproar.
>
> You're still correct. Well, if you consider the very vocal few to amount
> to an uproar. Most see it for what it is and aren't worried about trying
> to get over.
>
> > As to why there is an uproar? People don't like having their credit
> > cards automatically charged when there is a 'billing error'. While its
> > true we aren't paying any more than we would have been had they got it
> > right the first time it still rubs a lot of people the wrong way when
> > SOE just helps themselves to your cash "whenever they feel like it".
> > EVEN when you OWE them the money.
>
> I call that over-sensitivity. There was on ill-intent or unscrupulous
> activity here in any sense. We owe'd them $29.90, they charged $21.90 to
> our credit cards. Why do we care that it was done in two slightly
> different sized amounts?

Because the cashier who undercharged me for groceries by mistake should
ask for the balance not pick my pocket for it. Its not the number of
transactions its the way they are conducted. Ditto SOE.

> > Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not carte
> > blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if a mistake was
> > made and you owe them the money they should still seek explicit
> > authorization to take more money.
>
> What, do you expect them to send you a bill?

Yes. I've received bills for smaller amounts from government, from
banks, from online retailers. All of them had the sense to ask for money
owed them instead of just helping themselves to it.

> For $2.00?

If that's what they feel I owe them. If the loss is so minor as to not
be worth asking for, its not worth taking from me either.

> That's just far
> over-complicating the matter.

Then don't do it.

The only time this sort of surreptitious billing is remotely acceptable
is when dealing with deadbeats (e.g. the guy who rents a movie, fails to
return it, doesn't respond to a letter in the mail, can't be reached or
is beligerent by phone... ie a customer you no longer want!! Then, and
only then, is it ok to ding the card for the amount owed, and deal with
the potential risk and hassle of having him dispute it.)

You seem much too happy to let SOE take money from you at their
convenience. Suppose your CC happens to get declined for this little
surcharge for any reason (maxxed out, cancelled, expired, whatever).
Would you be comfortable with SOE just withdrawing the funds directly
from your bank account? Or perhaps just use some other credit card of
yours which you might have used at some point in time on another Sony
product somewhere... perhaps you bought a cable at the sony store...

If you're ok with that... Wow...
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 12:01:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d59636aa1b5e514989c49@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96A65DF2351C8Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d585f2777865799989c48@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>
>> > In article <Xns96A5AB7FAA8EFRumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
>> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> >> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> >> news:MPG.1d5819cd58377936989c44@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
>> >> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining
>> >> >> from the sideline next month after they cancel your account for
>> >> >> non-payment. Your call.
>> >> >
>> >> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a
>> >> > mistake SOE made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ
>> >> > THAT badly?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> How badly is that? Charging us what they said they would charge
>> >> us?
>> >
>> > Badly enough to put up with SOE disconnecting your account over a
>> > minor mistake they made in our favor for which we disputed an
>> > authorized transaction to 'fix' it.
>>
>> They wouldn't be "disconnecting" your account due to their mistake.
>> They would be doing so due to your refusal to pay the agreed upon
>> sum.
>
> I declined to allow a transaction that wasn't authorized to go
> through. If they'd bothered to ask for authorization perhaps I
> wouldn't have disputed it.

It amounts to your being difficult. You owe them the money. You've
authorized them to charge a certain amount, yet now complain about the
manner in which they did it, though it caused you no undue hardship,
distress or even a slight inconvenience.

> When I pay for groceries I take the currency out of my wallet and hand
> it to the cashier, they don't pickpocket my wallet for whats owed to
> them. The end result is the same, but the distinction is not slight at
> all.

No, but if you opened your wallet and told them to reach in and get it,
yet they didn't pull out enough with the first attempt, you certainly
wouldn't look down your nose at them for going in for the rest?

>> > As to why there is an uproar? People don't like having their credit
>> > cards automatically charged when there is a 'billing error'. While
>> > its true we aren't paying any more than we would have been had they
>> > got it right the first time it still rubs a lot of people the wrong
>> > way when SOE just helps themselves to your cash "whenever they feel
>> > like it". EVEN when you OWE them the money.
>>
>> I call that over-sensitivity. There was on ill-intent or unscrupulous
>> activity here in any sense. We owe'd them $29.90, they charged $21.90
>> to our credit cards. Why do we care that it was done in two slightly
>> different sized amounts?
>
> Because the cashier who undercharged me for groceries by mistake
> should ask for the balance not pick my pocket for it. Its not the
> number of transactions its the way they are conducted. Ditto SOE.

See my above example. It's more approptiate.

>> > Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not carte
>> > blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if a mistake
>> > was made and you owe them the money they should still seek explicit
>> > authorization to take more money.
>>
>> What, do you expect them to send you a bill?
>
> Yes. I've received bills for smaller amounts from government, from
> banks, from online retailers. All of them had the sense to ask for
> money owed them instead of just helping themselves to it.
>
>> For $2.00?
>
> If that's what they feel I owe them. If the loss is so minor as to not
> be worth asking for, its not worth taking from me either.

In your opionion. What you suggest is the sort of thing that increases
costs.

>> That's just far
>> over-complicating the matter.
>
> Then don't do it.
>
> The only time this sort of surreptitious billing is remotely
> acceptable is when dealing with deadbeats (e.g. the guy who rents a
> movie, fails to return it, doesn't respond to a letter in the mail,
> can't be reached or is beligerent by phone... ie a customer you no
> longer want!! Then, and only then, is it ok to ding the card for the
> amount owed, and deal with the potential risk and hassle of having him
> dispute it.)
>
> You seem much too happy to let SOE take money from you at their
> convenience. Suppose your CC happens to get declined for this little
> surcharge for any reason (maxxed out, cancelled, expired, whatever).

Why would it, when I had accounted for that expense, anyway?

> Would you be comfortable with SOE just withdrawing the funds directly
> from your bank account? Or perhaps just use some other credit card of
> yours which you might have used at some point in time on another Sony
> product somewhere... perhaps you bought a cable at the sony store...

I don't recall authorizing them to charge any other cards for my EQ
service. If I had, then yes, I would not only *not* be jumping up and
down, but I would *expect* them to do so.

> If you're ok with that... Wow...

Easy does it with the rhetoric. A little goes a long way.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 12:40:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d59636aa1b5e514989c49@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96A65DF2351C8Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d585f2777865799989c48@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>
>> > In article <Xns96A5AB7FAA8EFRumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
>> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> >> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> >> news:MPG.1d5819cd58377936989c44@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
>> >> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining
>> >> >> from the sideline next month after they cancel your account for
>> >> >> non-payment. Your call.
>> >> >
>> >> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a
>> >> > mistake SOE made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ
>> >> > THAT badly?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> How badly is that? Charging us what they said they would charge
>> >> us?
>> >
>> > Badly enough to put up with SOE disconnecting your account over a
>> > minor mistake they made in our favor for which we disputed an
>> > authorized transaction to 'fix' it.
>>
>> They wouldn't be "disconnecting" your account due to their mistake.
>> They would be doing so due to your refusal to pay the agreed upon
>> sum.
>
> I declined to allow a transaction that wasn't authorized to go
> through. If they'd bothered to ask for authorization perhaps I
> wouldn't have disputed it.

By not cancelling your account after the price hike was announced, you
were tacitly agreeing to the increased price, thereby authorizing them to
charge you card that is on record for the amount of the increased price.
They mistakenly undercharged your card, and have now made a second charge
on the card for the difference, at no additional cost (over what you had
already agreed to) to you, they are eating the cost of the extra
transaction (Each transaction costs them money, small transactions
typically cost them a larger percentage of the charge).

If, OTOH, you had cancelled your account prior to the announced price
hike, then, there is no issue, as you would not have been charged either
the mistaken amount, or the additional amount to bring the total charge
to the correct amount.

Overall, I am reasonably certain they are on solid ground legally,
however, I am not a legal expert.

I think we can all agree, that in the interest of customer satisfaction,
it would have been best for them to just forgo the difference, and start
charging the increased price as of the next billing cycle.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:21:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I honestly can't believe anyone's upset about this. Great Ghu,
pay em the two bucks...
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:23:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D coo3t$72k$1
@reader2.panix.com:

>
> I honestly can't believe anyone's upset about this. Great Ghu,
> pay em the two bucks...
>
>

Exactly.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:30:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D coo3t$72k$1
@reader2.panix.com:

>
> I honestly can't believe anyone's upset about this. Great Ghu,
> pay em the two bucks...
>
>

Lol, I know.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:30:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Graeme Faelban" wrote:
> wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D coo3t$72k$1
> @reader2.panix.com:
>
>>
>> I honestly can't believe anyone's upset about this. Great Ghu,
>> pay em the two bucks...
>>
>>
>
> Lol, I know.

I'm thinking that this whole thing is solved by simply taking the credit
card off of the account and buying a game card. Maybe I'm wrong ......

Crash
August 3, 2005 1:32:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A6A6C02BD54Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D coo3t$72k$1
> @reader2.panix.com:
>
> >
> > I honestly can't believe anyone's upset about this. Great Ghu,
> > pay em the two bucks...
> >
> >
>
> Exactly.

All they ever had to do was 'ask'.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:35:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d59864651bc40ac989c4a@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96A6A6C02BD54Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D coo3t$72k$1
>> @reader2.panix.com:
>>
>> >
>> > I honestly can't believe anyone's upset about this. Great Ghu,
>> > pay em the two bucks...
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> All they ever had to do was 'ask'.
>
>

Well, technically speaking, they did ask...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
August 3, 2005 1:46:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A6954E94E8Erichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
RichardRapier@netscape.net says...

>
> By not cancelling your account after the price hike was announced, you
> were tacitly agreeing to the increased price, thereby authorizing them to
> charge you card that is on record for the amount of the increased price.

Absolutely.

> They mistakenly undercharged your card, and have now made a second charge
> on the card for the difference, at no additional cost (over what you had
> already agreed to) to you, they are eating the cost of the extra
> transaction (Each transaction costs them money, small transactions
> typically cost them a larger percentage of the charge).

How gracious of them. I'd be grateful except that anything less would be
a violation of their merchant contracts with the creditcard companies
and banks which explicitly prohibit directly passing the transaction
costs in the form of transaction surcharges.

> I think we can all agree, that in the interest of customer satisfaction,
> it would have been best for them to just forgo the difference, and start
> charging the increased price as of the next billing cycle.

I'm personally only mildly annoyed at the whole affair, and don't
begrudge them their 2 bucks, and will take no action beyond /feedback. I
do however fall solidly on the side of the fence that thinks SOE handled
this badly; and am only debating the topic because Rumbledor 'couldn't
understand' why anyone would be upset. *I* understand why people would
be upset.
August 3, 2005 2:07:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A698CCA7BD6Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d59636aa1b5e514989c49@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>
> > In article <Xns96A65DF2351C8Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.1d585f2777865799989c48@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
> >>
> >> > In article <Xns96A5AB7FAA8EFRumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> >> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >> >> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:MPG.1d5819cd58377936989c44@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <Xns96A5883386B43Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> >> >> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Btw, dispute the charge, and you will likely be complaining
> >> >> >> from the sideline next month after they cancel your account for
> >> >> >> non-payment. Your call.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If SOE wants to cancel their own customers accounts over a
> >> >> > mistake SOE made, let them. Does anybody really want to play EQ
> >> >> > THAT badly?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> How badly is that? Charging us what they said they would charge
> >> >> us?
> >> >
> >> > Badly enough to put up with SOE disconnecting your account over a
> >> > minor mistake they made in our favor for which we disputed an
> >> > authorized transaction to 'fix' it.
> >>
> >> They wouldn't be "disconnecting" your account due to their mistake.
> >> They would be doing so due to your refusal to pay the agreed upon
> >> sum.
> >
> > I declined to allow a transaction that wasn't authorized to go
> > through. If they'd bothered to ask for authorization perhaps I
> > wouldn't have disputed it.
>
> It amounts to your being difficult. You owe them the money. You've
> authorized them to charge a certain amount, yet now complain about the
> manner in which they did it, though it caused you no undue hardship,
> distress or even a slight inconvenience.

Precisely. Quite frankly I prefer that when someone wants to remove
money from my accounts that there be a 'slight inconvenience'. That
gives me great comfort.

> > When I pay for groceries I take the currency out of my wallet and hand
> > it to the cashier, they don't pickpocket my wallet for whats owed to
> > them. The end result is the same, but the distinction is not slight at
> > all.
>
> No, but if you opened your wallet and told them to reach in and get it,
> yet they didn't pull out enough with the first attempt, you certainly
> wouldn't look down your nose at them for going in for the rest?

Given that they didn't come back for the rest for over a month I most
certainly would. My credit card on file with them is a convenience so
that they can bill me once a month as my subscription comes up. Its not
an open wallet for them to pick through whenever they get an itch.

That they 'forgot' to bill me something is fine. I'll gladly pay. But
send me a bill.

> >> > Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not carte
> >> > blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if a mistake
> >> > was made and you owe them the money they should still seek explicit
> >> > authorization to take more money.
> >>
> >> What, do you expect them to send you a bill?
> >
> > Yes. I've received bills for smaller amounts from government, from
> > banks, from online retailers. All of them had the sense to ask for
> > money owed them instead of just helping themselves to it.
> >
> >> For $2.00?
> >
> > If that's what they feel I owe them. If the loss is so minor as to not
> > be worth asking for, its not worth taking from me either.
>
> In your opionion. What you suggest is the sort of thing that increases
> costs.

Making mistakes is a costly process. I suggest SOE learn to avoid them.

> >> That's just far
> >> over-complicating the matter.
> >
> > Then don't do it.
> >
> > The only time this sort of surreptitious billing is remotely
> > acceptable is when dealing with deadbeats (e.g. the guy who rents a
> > movie, fails to return it, doesn't respond to a letter in the mail,
> > can't be reached or is beligerent by phone... ie a customer you no
> > longer want!! Then, and only then, is it ok to ding the card for the
> > amount owed, and deal with the potential risk and hassle of having him
> > dispute it.)
> >
> > You seem much too happy to let SOE take money from you at their
> > convenience. Suppose your CC happens to get declined for this little
> > surcharge for any reason (maxxed out, cancelled, expired, whatever).
>
> Why would it, when I had accounted for that expense, anyway?

For starters that only accounts for it being maxxed out. The card could
easily have expired or been cancelled in the meantime... for any number
of reasons.

> > Would you be comfortable with SOE just withdrawing the funds directly
> > from your bank account? Or perhaps just use some other credit card of
> > yours which you might have used at some point in time on another Sony
> > product somewhere... perhaps you bought a cable at the sony store...
>
> I don't recall authorizing them to charge any other cards for my EQ
> service.

And I don't recall authorizing them to charge any cards at all for their
"billing errors". In my case, SOE has made several billing errors on my
accounts over the years. From double billing me for expansions, to
failing to terminate billing upon an account closure, to refusing to
refund what they had deducted AFTER the account had been closed until
legal action was threatened, and so forth.

No, SOE makes too damned many mistakes, and they haven't earned any
trust. To further abuse that trust with more mistakes and then
authorizing themselves to help themselves to the difference needed to
fix them only increases my annoyance.

> If I had, then yes, I would not only *not* be jumping up and
> down, but I would *expect* them to do so.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:23:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d598986d9aa9a32989c4b@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net...

>
> I'm personally only mildly annoyed at the whole affair, and don't
> begrudge them their 2 bucks, and will take no action beyond /feedback. I
> do however fall solidly on the side of the fence that thinks SOE handled
> this badly; and am only debating the topic because Rumbledor 'couldn't
> understand' why anyone would be upset. *I* understand why people would
> be upset.

And this surprises you because.....?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:21:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:29:28 GMT, Rumbledor
<Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:


>We've had, what, one billing cycle since the increase? Maybe two for
>some? We're only talking $2-4 at most for one monthly billing cycle.
>Yes, I obviously realize that it's more for people with quarterly or
>yearly subs, but it's not like we're winding up paying more than we
>would have to begin with.
>
>What's all the fuss? They made a mistake. No shocker there, but I hardly
>think we're being treated badly.

As a former EQ player it seems like there are a lot of "reasonable"
positions here. People have a right to be pissed off when a vendor
tells them "sorry, I screwed up and need to backcharge you for the
last couple of months'. Sony probably isn't eager to let a million
bucks (give or take) slip away just because they made a billing error.
And you're right, if you like EQ, what's the big deal?

All that having been said, at a time when EQ is probably still
bleeding players Sony needs to weigh that million or so bucks
carefully against the number of people who either get pissed off or
who get an email and say "gee, I'm still paying for that, I thought I
cancelled EQ 6 months ago". It wouldn't take a lot of people
cancelling to make this a foolish move on Sony's part.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:36:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d598986d9aa9a32989c4b@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96A6954E94E8Erichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
> RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
>
>>
>> By not cancelling your account after the price hike was announced,
>> you were tacitly agreeing to the increased price, thereby authorizing
>> them to charge you card that is on record for the amount of the
>> increased price.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>> They mistakenly undercharged your card, and have now made a second
>> charge on the card for the difference, at no additional cost (over
>> what you had already agreed to) to you, they are eating the cost of
>> the extra transaction (Each transaction costs them money, small
>> transactions typically cost them a larger percentage of the charge).
>
> How gracious of them. I'd be grateful except that anything less would
> be a violation of their merchant contracts with the creditcard
> companies and banks which explicitly prohibit directly passing the
> transaction costs in the form of transaction surcharges.
>
>> I think we can all agree, that in the interest of customer
>> satisfaction, it would have been best for them to just forgo the
>> difference, and start charging the increased price as of the next
>> billing cycle.
>
> I'm personally only mildly annoyed at the whole affair, and don't
> begrudge them their 2 bucks, and will take no action beyond /feedback.
> I do however fall solidly on the side of the fence that thinks SOE
> handled this badly; and am only debating the topic because Rumbledor
> 'couldn't understand' why anyone would be upset. *I* understand why
> people would be upset.
>

I still don't. It is such a non-issue that it shouldn't invoke the kind of
disdain we're seeing from some.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:46:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d598e77329b3148989c4c@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96A698CCA7BD6Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
< snip >
>
>> > When I pay for groceries I take the currency out of my wallet and
>> > hand it to the cashier, they don't pickpocket my wallet for whats
>> > owed to them. The end result is the same, but the distinction is
>> > not slight at all.
>>
>> No, but if you opened your wallet and told them to reach in and get
>> it, yet they didn't pull out enough with the first attempt, you
>> certainly wouldn't look down your nose at them for going in for the
>> rest?
>
> Given that they didn't come back for the rest for over a month I most
> certainly would. My credit card on file with them is a convenience so
> that they can bill me once a month as my subscription comes up. Its
> not an open wallet for them to pick through whenever they get an itch.

It's a convenience for *you* not them. They would be content to cancel
your account on your next billing cycle if you, for instance, subscribed
and then removed your credit card information from your account, failing
to specify it again when your month is up.

> That they 'forgot' to bill me something is fine. I'll gladly pay. But
> send me a bill.

See, I just find that completely unnecessary under the circumstances.
Are you just trying to teach them some kind of lesson or something?

>> >> > Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not
>> >> > carte blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if a
>> >> > mistake was made and you owe them the money they should still
>> >> > seek explicit authorization to take more money.
>> >>
>> >> What, do you expect them to send you a bill?
>> >
>> > Yes. I've received bills for smaller amounts from government, from
>> > banks, from online retailers. All of them had the sense to ask for
>> > money owed them instead of just helping themselves to it.
>> >
>> >> For $2.00?
>> >
>> > If that's what they feel I owe them. If the loss is so minor as to
>> > not be worth asking for, its not worth taking from me either.
>>
>> In your opionion. What you suggest is the sort of thing that
>> increases costs.
>
> Making mistakes is a costly process. I suggest SOE learn to avoid
> them.

Only when people insist upon making it that way.

>> >> That's just far
>> >> over-complicating the matter.
>> >
>> > Then don't do it.
>> >
>> > The only time this sort of surreptitious billing is remotely
>> > acceptable is when dealing with deadbeats (e.g. the guy who rents a
>> > movie, fails to return it, doesn't respond to a letter in the mail,
>> > can't be reached or is beligerent by phone... ie a customer you no
>> > longer want!! Then, and only then, is it ok to ding the card for
>> > the amount owed, and deal with the potential risk and hassle of
>> > having him dispute it.)
>> >
>> > You seem much too happy to let SOE take money from you at their
>> > convenience. Suppose your CC happens to get declined for this
>> > little surcharge for any reason (maxxed out, cancelled, expired,
>> > whatever).
>>
>> Why would it, when I had accounted for that expense, anyway?
>
> For starters that only accounts for it being maxxed out. The card
> could easily have expired or been cancelled in the meantime... for any
> number of reasons.

That's not exactly their problem.

>> > Would you be comfortable with SOE just withdrawing the funds
>> > directly from your bank account? Or perhaps just use some other
>> > credit card of yours which you might have used at some point in
>> > time on another Sony product somewhere... perhaps you bought a
>> > cable at the sony store...
>>
>> I don't recall authorizing them to charge any other cards for my EQ
>> service.
>
> And I don't recall authorizing them to charge any cards at all for
> their "billing errors". In my case, SOE has made several billing
> errors on my accounts over the years. From double billing me for
> expansions, to failing to terminate billing upon an account closure,
> to refusing to refund what they had deducted AFTER the account had
> been closed until legal action was threatened, and so forth.

Technically, they're not charging you for a billing error. They are
simply charging you the amount agreed upon by both parties for their
service.

> No, SOE makes too damned many mistakes, and they haven't earned any
> trust. To further abuse that trust with more mistakes and then
> authorizing themselves to help themselves to the difference needed to
> fix them only increases my annoyance.

What does trust have to do with it? You owed the money, you've
authorized them to charge it to your card, and they did it. Just in two
transactions rather than one.

For the record, this is the first billing "problem" I can ever remember
having with them.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
August 3, 2005 6:47:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A6D35081C87Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.199.17>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d598e77329b3148989c4c@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>
> > In article <Xns96A698CCA7BD6Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> < snip >
> >
> >> > When I pay for groceries I take the currency out of my wallet and
> >> > hand it to the cashier, they don't pickpocket my wallet for whats
> >> > owed to them. The end result is the same, but the distinction is
> >> > not slight at all.
> >>
> >> No, but if you opened your wallet and told them to reach in and get
> >> it, yet they didn't pull out enough with the first attempt, you
> >> certainly wouldn't look down your nose at them for going in for the
> >> rest?
> >
> > Given that they didn't come back for the rest for over a month I most
> > certainly would. My credit card on file with them is a convenience so
> > that they can bill me once a month as my subscription comes up. Its
> > not an open wallet for them to pick through whenever they get an itch.
>
> It's a convenience for *you* not them.

Like I said elsewhere, I prefer money leaving my accounts to be less
convenient. One of my many billing issues with SOE involved clicking on
the Order Now button for an expansion, expecting to be taken to an
information or confirmation screen... only to get a "Thank you, you card
has been billed"... Little "too" convenient for my taste that a single
click on a screen I have to click-through every time I login can cost me
30 bucks.

> They would be content to cancel
> your account on your next billing cycle if you, for instance, subscribed
> and then removed your credit card information from your account, failing
> to specify it again when your month is up.

FWIW I know a number of people who do just that. When they get blocked
from playing they decide if they want to continue and set it up again.
It works well. Because they're casual players they rarely try and login
the day it expires... I figure easily have access whenever they want
worst case having an extra 5 minute hoop once every month-ish, and
probably only pay for 10-11 months of access. :) 

> > That they 'forgot' to bill me something is fine. I'll gladly pay. But
> > send me a bill.
>
> See, I just find that completely unnecessary under the circumstances.
> Are you just trying to teach them some kind of lesson or something?

Under these circumstances I tend to agree with you, which is why I'm not
making a big stink about it, except here and mostly hypothetically, but
echoing the arguments and sentiments of others more dedicated to the
cause. For what its worth, however, these circumstances are enough like
other less acceptable ones that in SOE's case at least I think its fair
to err on the side of caution, or be irate about it in general.

> >> >> > Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not
> >> >> > carte blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if a
> >> >> > mistake was made and you owe them the money they should still
> >> >> > seek explicit authorization to take more money.
> >> >>
> >> >> What, do you expect them to send you a bill?
> >> >
> >> > Yes. I've received bills for smaller amounts from government, from
> >> > banks, from online retailers. All of them had the sense to ask for
> >> > money owed them instead of just helping themselves to it.
> >> >
> >> >> For $2.00?
> >> >
> >> > If that's what they feel I owe them. If the loss is so minor as to
> >> > not be worth asking for, its not worth taking from me either.
> >>
> >> In your opionion. What you suggest is the sort of thing that
> >> increases costs.
> >
> > Making mistakes is a costly process. I suggest SOE learn to avoid
> > them.
>
> Only when people insist upon making it that way.

I'm not insisting on it. They could have eaten the loss. They could have
gotten it right in the first place.

When a burger joint drops a raw patty on the floor its cheaper to flip
it back onto the grill than to flip it into the waste bucket. In all
honesty the odds of anyone being harmed by such a recovered burger are
vanishingly small. I still find it a highly distateful policy though,
and would likely refuse to eat there.

> >> >> That's just far
> >> >> over-complicating the matter.
> >> >
> >> > Then don't do it.
> >> >
> >> > The only time this sort of surreptitious billing is remotely
> >> > acceptable is when dealing with deadbeats (e.g. the guy who rents a
> >> > movie, fails to return it, doesn't respond to a letter in the mail,
> >> > can't be reached or is beligerent by phone... ie a customer you no
> >> > longer want!! Then, and only then, is it ok to ding the card for
> >> > the amount owed, and deal with the potential risk and hassle of
> >> > having him dispute it.)
> >> >
> >> > You seem much too happy to let SOE take money from you at their
> >> > convenience. Suppose your CC happens to get declined for this
> >> > little surcharge for any reason (maxxed out, cancelled, expired,
> >> > whatever).
> >>
> >> Why would it, when I had accounted for that expense, anyway?
> >
> > For starters that only accounts for it being maxxed out. The card
> > could easily have expired or been cancelled in the meantime... for any
> > number of reasons.
>
> That's not exactly their problem.

Of course.

You seem to have lost track of -why- were supposing this:

The point of this excercise was that SOE would find some other way of
helping themselves to the money you owe them as a "convenience" to you.

> >> > Would you be comfortable with SOE just withdrawing the funds
> >> > directly from your bank account? Or perhaps just use some other
> >> > credit card of yours which you might have used at some point in
> >> > time on another Sony product somewhere... perhaps you bought a
> >> > cable at the sony store...
> >>
> >> I don't recall authorizing them to charge any other cards for my EQ
> >> service.
> >
> > And I don't recall authorizing them to charge any cards at all for
> > their "billing errors". In my case, SOE has made several billing
> > errors on my accounts over the years. From double billing me for
> > expansions, to failing to terminate billing upon an account closure,
> > to refusing to refund what they had deducted AFTER the account had
> > been closed until legal action was threatened, and so forth.
>
> Technically, they're not charging you for a billing error. They are
> simply charging you the amount agreed upon by both parties for their
> service.

Without asking permission first. Its all about the permission, not about
the total, not about the number of transactions. Legally, we have an
agreement in place that allows them to do this, but its still extremely
rude to unilaterally do this to fix an error THEY made.

If I agree to lend you my cottage for 5 days in exchange for the use of
your boat on the long weekend and you only spend 3 days up there due to
a scheduling error you made, that's fine. I'll surely let you have it
for another weekend too... but I'd be right pissed if you just showed up
at the door with your bags a month later to collect on the debt.

If you then tell me you didn't bother phoning ahead to ask in order to
save on your cellular bill... er as a convenience to me, by not
bothering me with it...well that would hardly be satisfactory. ;) 

> > No, SOE makes too damned many mistakes, and they haven't earned any
> > trust. To further abuse that trust with more mistakes and then
> > authorizing themselves to help themselves to the difference needed to
> > fix them only increases my annoyance.
>
> What does trust have to do with it? You owed the money, you've
> authorized them to charge it to your card, and they did it. Just in two
> transactions rather than one.
>
> For the record, this is the first billing "problem" I can ever remember
> having with them.

I envy you. :) 
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:20:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:04:43 GMT alt.games.everquest Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net>
news:Xns96A65C5A54791richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4 wrote:

> No, they forgot to change the rates in their computer in a timely
> manner. They did increase the rates when they said they would.
>

You are wrong. They already billed. It doesn't matter what the company
wanted to do. It doesn't matter what company it is. If your cable company
or any company bills you for X services and then says that was less than
they wanted to bill, to bad so sad, end of story they can not backcharge
you. The bill is a contract and it clearly says what it paid for. I've
already settled mine, no backcharge, took all of thirty seconds on the
phone. /shrug
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:22:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:40:39 GMT alt.games.everquest Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> news:Xns96A6954E94E8Erichardrapiernetscap@
130.133.1.4 wrote:

> Overall, I am reasonably certain they are on solid ground legally,
> however, I am not a legal expert.
>

No but you sure do love paying more or something... You work for Sony?

It took me thirty secnds on the phone to fix this. Call them, tell them you
have a bill that clearly states you paid in full for stated services. End
of story they can't charge you more.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:24:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:21:01 GMT alt.games.everquest wrat@panix.com (the wharf
rat) news:D coo3t$72k$1@reader2.panix.com wrote:

> I honestly can't believe anyone's upset about this. Great Ghu,
> pay em the two bucks...
>

Or callem on your free Cellphone minutes and explain that you have a
contract from them that says you paid in full for X services and that you
aren't paying them a dime more. They say, thank you we won't back bill you.

End of story.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:54:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lol, I see, so if the situation were reversed and someone overcharged
you, you wouldn't dispute the overcharge because according to you "The
bill is a contract and it clearly says what it paid for"?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:00:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I know it is for a small amount like $2, but I wonder if any kind of
legal action is going to be taken against SOE for this. My card was
charged for $2.17 and I already filled out a dispute for at the bank
and got the money back

__________________________________________________________
Submitted by: Vidden
This message was submitted through the Erollisi Marr Forum
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:08:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96A74131D41C3Marypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142>,
Mary Poppins <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> wrote:
>
>Or callem on your free Cellphone minutes and explain that you have a
>contract from them that says you paid in full for X services and that you
>aren't paying them a dime more. They say, thank you we won't back bill you.
>

That's dishonest.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:10:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d59d005342c4b87989c4f@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96A6D35081C87Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.199.17>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...

< snip >

>> > That they 'forgot' to bill me something is fine. I'll gladly pay.
>> > But send me a bill.
>>
>> See, I just find that completely unnecessary under the circumstances.
>> Are you just trying to teach them some kind of lesson or something?
>
> Under these circumstances I tend to agree with you, which is why I'm
> not making a big stink about it, except here and mostly
> hypothetically, but echoing the arguments and sentiments of others
> more dedicated to the cause. For what its worth, however, these
> circumstances are enough like other less acceptable ones that in SOE's
> case at least I think its fair to err on the side of caution, or be
> irate about it in general.

Well, crikes, I thought we *were* talking about present circumstances. I
have no doubt that you could pose hypothetical scenarios in which I
would be in complete agreement with you.

>> >> >> > Giving someone authorization to bill your credit card is not
>> >> >> > carte blanche to just 'charge-it' whenever they like. Even if
>> >> >> > a mistake was made and you owe them the money they should
>> >> >> > still seek explicit authorization to take more money.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What, do you expect them to send you a bill?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes. I've received bills for smaller amounts from government,
>> >> > from banks, from online retailers. All of them had the sense to
>> >> > ask for money owed them instead of just helping themselves to
>> >> > it.
>> >> >
>> >> >> For $2.00?
>> >> >
>> >> > If that's what they feel I owe them. If the loss is so minor as
>> >> > to not be worth asking for, its not worth taking from me either.

By the way, that's really a seperate issue - whether they should have
charged us the additional amount or not - on which I actually agree with
you. Once they decided to do so, I just have no problem with them
charging it against my card, the card that I provided them for the very
purpose of charging me for their services.

>> >> In your opionion. What you suggest is the sort of thing that
>> >> increases costs.
>> >
>> > Making mistakes is a costly process. I suggest SOE learn to avoid
>> > them.
>>
>> Only when people insist upon making it that way.
>
> I'm not insisting on it. They could have eaten the loss. They could
> have gotten it right in the first place.
>
> When a burger joint drops a raw patty on the floor its cheaper to flip
> it back onto the grill than to flip it into the waste bucket. In all
> honesty the odds of anyone being harmed by such a recovered burger are
> vanishingly small. I still find it a highly distateful policy though,
> and would likely refuse to eat there.

That not the same. The practice of serving said burger patty to a
customer actually does them harm by introducing harmful germs and
bacteria into their system.

>> >> >> That's just far
>> >> >> over-complicating the matter.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then don't do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > The only time this sort of surreptitious billing is remotely
>> >> > acceptable is when dealing with deadbeats (e.g. the guy who
>> >> > rents a movie, fails to return it, doesn't respond to a letter
>> >> > in the mail, can't be reached or is beligerent by phone... ie a
>> >> > customer you no longer want!! Then, and only then, is it ok to
>> >> > ding the card for the amount owed, and deal with the potential
>> >> > risk and hassle of having him dispute it.)
>> >> >
>> >> > You seem much too happy to let SOE take money from you at their
>> >> > convenience. Suppose your CC happens to get declined for this
>> >> > little surcharge for any reason (maxxed out, cancelled, expired,
>> >> > whatever).
>> >>
>> >> Why would it, when I had accounted for that expense, anyway?
>> >
>> > For starters that only accounts for it being maxxed out. The card
>> > could easily have expired or been cancelled in the meantime... for
>> > any number of reasons.
>>
>> That's not exactly their problem.
>
> Of course.
>
> You seem to have lost track of -why- were supposing this:
>
> The point of this excercise was that SOE would find some other way of
> helping themselves to the money you owe them as a "convenience" to
> you.

I've not lost track of anything at all. You seem to be debating the
hypothetical rather than the issue at hand. Sure, in a perfect world,
they might not charge your card any amount without your expressed
permission. However, in that same perfect world, everyone would promptly
provide that permission or promptly pay the bill when it arrives. I see
not reason to complicate *this particular process* by bothering with a
bill or the mess of dealing with those who choose not to pay it.
Insisting them do so is just being difficult for some unknown reason.

Also, for the record, I don't see this particular undercharge as a
"billing error" that should to be eaten at all. Everyone was in
agreement on the cost - the customer by virtue of their continued
subscription. However, suddenly some customers are balking at paying it
for some reason.

>> >> > Would you be comfortable with SOE just withdrawing the funds
>> >> > directly from your bank account? Or perhaps just use some other
>> >> > credit card of yours which you might have used at some point in
>> >> > time on another Sony product somewhere... perhaps you bought a
>> >> > cable at the sony store...
>> >>
>> >> I don't recall authorizing them to charge any other cards for my
>> >> EQ service.
>> >
>> > And I don't recall authorizing them to charge any cards at all for
>> > their "billing errors". In my case, SOE has made several billing
>> > errors on my accounts over the years. From double billing me for
>> > expansions, to failing to terminate billing upon an account
>> > closure, to refusing to refund what they had deducted AFTER the
>> > account had been closed until legal action was threatened, and so
>> > forth.
>>
>> Technically, they're not charging you for a billing error. They are
>> simply charging you the amount agreed upon by both parties for their
>> service.
>
> Without asking permission first. Its all about the permission, not
> about the total, not about the number of transactions. Legally, we
> have an agreement in place that allows them to do this, but its still
> extremely rude to unilaterally do this to fix an error THEY made.

Well, that's where I see it as mere over-sensitivity to the subject.
There is absolutely no harm in the method they chose.

> If I agree to lend you my cottage for 5 days in exchange for the use
> of your boat on the long weekend and you only spend 3 days up there
> due to a scheduling error you made, that's fine. I'll surely let you
> have it for another weekend too... but I'd be right pissed if you just
> showed up at the door with your bags a month later to collect on the
> debt.
>
> If you then tell me you didn't bother phoning ahead to ask in order to
> save on your cellular bill... er as a convenience to me, by not
> bothering me with it...well that would hardly be satisfactory. ;) 

Again, that's a poor analogy, as $2 hardly compares with the
inconveniences and additional costs that could be incurred in your
scenario.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:38:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Mary Poppins <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A740EA6E287Marypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142:

> Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:40:39 GMT alt.games.everquest Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net>
> news:Xns96A6954E94E8Erichardrapiernetscap@ 130.133.1.4 wrote:
>
>> Overall, I am reasonably certain they are on solid ground legally,
>> however, I am not a legal expert.
>>
>
> No but you sure do love paying more or something... You work for Sony?

Ah, yes, the ever popular accusation.

Actually, it did not affect me, I currently have an all access account.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:57:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Mary Poppins <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A740814E016Marypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142:

> Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:04:43 GMT alt.games.everquest Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net>
> news:Xns96A65C5A54791richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4 wrote:
>
>> No, they forgot to change the rates in their computer in a timely
>> manner. They did increase the rates when they said they would.
>>
>
> You are wrong. They already billed. It doesn't matter what the
> company wanted to do. It doesn't matter what company it is. If your
> cable company or any company bills you for X services and then says
> that was less than they wanted to bill, to bad so sad, end of story
> they can not backcharge you. The bill is a contract and it clearly
> says what it paid for. I've already settled mine, no backcharge,
> took all of thirty seconds on the phone. /shrug
>
>

Was it really worth it to make a stink about it? $2 for crying out loud. $2
that you *agreed to pay*. Seems to me that paying for it was just the right
thing to do. /shrug

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:01:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Mary Poppins <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A740EA6E287Marypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142:

> Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:40:39 GMT alt.games.everquest Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net>
> news:Xns96A6954E94E8Erichardrapiernetscap@ 130.133.1.4 wrote:
>
>> Overall, I am reasonably certain they are on solid ground legally,
>> however, I am not a legal expert.
>>
>
> No but you sure do love paying more or something... You work for Sony?
>
>

Of course no one like to pay more for something. However, most don't like
it when people refuse to pay what they agreed upon.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:02:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:56:54 -0500 in
<Xns96A63C7B9745DMarypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142>, Mary Poppins
<Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> graced the world with this
thought:

>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:52:12 GMT alt.games.everquest bizbee
><tuberoo@earthlink.net> news:0tzHe.8160$Uk3.5781
>@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> uhh... but you owe them the money...
>
>No. They want to retroactively raise rates. They forgot to increase the
>rate when they said they wanted to.

No, they notified us that the raises were going up, but apparently
forgot to tell the billing department.
Sorry, you owe them the money.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:02:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

bizbee wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:56:54 -0500 in
> <Xns96A63C7B9745DMarypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142>, Mary Poppins
> <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> graced the world with this
> thought:
>
>
>>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:52:12 GMT alt.games.everquest bizbee
>><tuberoo@earthlink.net> news:0tzHe.8160$Uk3.5781
>>@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>uhh... but you owe them the money...
>>
>>No. They want to retroactively raise rates. They forgot to increase the
>>rate when they said they wanted to.
>
>
> No, they notified us that the raises were going up, but apparently
> forgot to tell the billing department.
> Sorry, you owe them the money.

Ethically, morally yes. Legally no.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:02:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in
news:D cqfl8$j53$1@reader2.panix.com:

> In article <Xns96A74131D41C3Marypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142>,
> Mary Poppins <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> wrote:
>>
>>Or callem on your free Cellphone minutes and explain that you have a
>>contract from them that says you paid in full for X services and that
>>you aren't paying them a dime more. They say, thank you we won't back
>>bill you.
>>
>
> That's dishonest.
>
>

Yup. Getting over.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:02:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:20:33 -0500 in
<Xns96A740814E016Marypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142>, Mary Poppins
<Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> graced the world with this
thought:

>You are wrong.

no he isn't, you're thrashing now.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 9:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

KDragon <nospam.for.me.please@nospam.net> wrote in
news:o e5Ie.19123$pH4.670658@news20.bellglobal.com:

> bizbee wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:56:54 -0500 in
>> <Xns96A63C7B9745DMarypoppinsperfectin@216.196.97.142>, Mary Poppins
>> <Mary.poppins@perfectineveryway.com> graced the world with this
>> thought:
>>
>>
>>>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:52:12 GMT alt.games.everquest bizbee
>>><tuberoo@earthlink.net> news:0tzHe.8160$Uk3.5781
>>>@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>uhh... but you owe them the money...
>>>
>>>No. They want to retroactively raise rates. They forgot to increase
>>>the rate when they said they wanted to.
>>
>>
>> No, they notified us that the raises were going up, but apparently
>> forgot to tell the billing department.
>> Sorry, you owe them the money.
>
> Ethically, morally yes. Legally no.

You are correct. However, in this case, the former should far and away
render the latter irrelevant.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!