Introduce a moratorium on the release of new premium ships

[Viridem]

Dude buys women shoes in size 6 and then comes complaining they don't fit his man's size 7 feet. He's asking to see the manager.

Cherry on top, they're white and gold. He wanted brown ones.

 

Achievement get: you're so wrong you make others defend WG's business practices.

[NewHorizons_1]

4 hours ago, chef_vvp said:

I don't see wargaming giving me the benefit of a test drive before buying or a return option.

A couple of years ago WG did have a scheme where you could rent a premium ship for, IIRC, 250k credits.

The ship you got was random (no surprise) but it did make you try something different for a change.

Quite useful for newer players.

The random drops I got were :-

• Lenin - Nelson like turret layout with great guns like SinOP. But also like SinOP a quite vulnerable citadel
• Mutsu - IJN BB with torps. I didn't really get along with that.
• Monaghan - Oddball T6 US DD that can be built as a torp boat.

The latter caught my interest as, at the time, I hadn't got very far along any of the destroyer tech trees.

It was one of the first DDs where you had a nice margin for stealth torping. I ended up buying that and it encouraged me to research the DD tech trees.

It's a pity WG don't bring this scheme back as a try-before-you-buy could encourage quite a few sales - I really doubt I would have bought Monaghan for example.

[Varian_Dorn]

17 hours ago, chef_vvp said:

how smart you are!
Where are you from?
For example, my country has a Consumer Rights Act. According to which I can return any item to the store within 14 days, because it did not suit me. With a number of conditions, of course, such as the absence of visible traces of operation and the presence of commodity packaging. Restriction - medicines, food and so on.

before buying a car, I can run it in, steer, completely climb around and sit inside, in a car dealership, checking driving performance and ergonomics.
I don't see wargaming giving me the benefit of a test drive before buying or a return option.

Ah, let me add entitlement and laughable non-applicable comparisons to the list of charges against you.

 

Since anything else I got on my mind regarding you would count as an insult by forum rules I will keep this in my mind.

[evil_communist_from_ussr]

14 hours ago, Viridem said:

Dude buys women shoes in size 6 and then comes complaining they don't fit his man's size 7 feet. He's asking to see the manager.

Cherry on top, they're white and gold. He wanted brown ones.

 

Achievement get: you're so wrong you make others defend WG's business practices.

If you have an inner need to buy women's stilettos, you have every right to do so. and then within 14 days return them to the seller, if the presentation is preserved and there is packaging.

[evil_communist_from_ussr]

42 minutes ago, Varian_Dorn said:

Ah, let me add entitlement and laughable non-applicable comparisons to the list of charges against you.

 

Since anything else I got on my mind regarding you would count as an insult by forum rules I will keep this in my mind.

Believe me, the last thing I care about is what you think about me or someone else!
The interests of the players are above all! And compliance with the norms of ethics and morality, and within the framework of socialist legality!

[Varian_Dorn]

33 minutes ago, chef_vvp said:

Believe me, the last thing I care about is what you think about me or someone else!
The interests of the players are above all! And compliance with the norms of ethics and morality, and within the framework of socialist legality!

The only person that is so very interested in this is YOU. One singular being. Aka, in the grand scheme, mostly insignificant.

 

Ethics and moralitity We´re not in a church here, but on the forum of a profit-oriented company. Framework of socialist legality... Seriously, whatever you have been consuming prior to undertaking your little crusade here... lay it off. Or at least reduce the dosage.

 

Take my 2 cents on this one: just stop. You´re making a complete fool of yourself here.

[Johnny_Moneto]

Vor 19 Stunden, chef_vvp sagte:

I have been buying premiums in this game since 2015, the first was the battleship Nikolai 1, then warspite came out, tirpitz ... and so on

[evil_communist_from_ussr]

51 minutes ago, Varian_Dorn said:

The only person that is so very interested in this is YOU. One singular being. Aka, in the grand scheme, mostly insignificant.

 

Ethics and moralitity We´re not in a church here, but on the forum of a profit-oriented company. Framework of socialist legality... Seriously, whatever you have been consuming prior to undertaking your little crusade here... lay it off. Or at least reduce the dosage.

 

Take my 2 cents on this one: just stop. You´re making a complete fool of yourself here.

if you like to eat pancakes from a shovel, I don't want it, and we are fighting for the rights of all people against greedy online games!

[WildWind84]

So, let's see - if I understood correct, you wanna that company stop try to earn money because you can't stop buying everything, even noone didn't force you to buy anything???

Errm, uhm, do you really can't see any problem in your's statements???

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 3 Minuten, chef_vvp sagte:

if you like to eat pancakes from a shovel, I don't want it, and we are fighting for the rights of all people against greedy online games!

I have to admit, it more of sounds like a fight against compulsive behaviour to me. Even where laws allow for it, one shouldn't just grab anything that looks remotely interesting to try out and in most cases return. That's just not responsible behaviour.

 

And it doesn't really have anything to do with a moratorium on publishing new premiums either, does it. So which one is actually your point here? Do you want a massive reduction in premium ships being published? Maybe with more thought being given to quality and/or uniqueness (though your mileage may very much vary on those). Or do you want a return policy for sales in WoWs? Which one do you want to talk about?

[WildWind84]

2 minutes ago, LukkaiCH said:

I have to admit, it more of sounds like a fight against compulsive behaviour to me.

Agree with this.

[evil_communist_from_ussr]

1 hour ago, LukkaiCH said:

I have to admit, it more of sounds like a fight against compulsive behaviour to me. Even where laws allow for it, one shouldn't just grab anything that looks remotely interesting to try out and in most cases return. That's just not responsible behaviour.

 

And it doesn't really have anything to do with a moratorium on publishing new premiums either, does it. So which one is actually your point here? Do you want a massive reduction in premium ships being published? Maybe with more thought being given to quality and/or uniqueness (though your mileage may very much vary on those). Or do you want a return policy for sales in WoWs? Which one do you want to talk about?

"pot stop cooking porridge"
"quantity must turn into quality"
"The economy must be economical - this is the requirement of the time"

[Saltface]

4 hours ago, chef_vvp said:

The interests of the players are above all! And compliance with the norms of ethics and morality, and within the framework of socialist legality!

The interest of the company is above all. The obligation of the management is to maximize profit of the owners of the Company within the boundaries of the Law. Ethics and Morality are NOT a part of the equation. The only thing that matters is if transactions are within the boundary of the legal framework that is in place to regulate interaction between a seller and a buyer. Legal Frameworks are developed under a level of commonly perceived ethical values and moral codes, but, given the subjective nature of both these notions you can understand that things are tricky.

 

Socialist Legality? Boloks. Either you use a translator that screws up what you want to say or you don't understand what you are writing. 

 

 

[COPlUM]

4 hours ago, chef_vvp said:

The interests of the players are above all! And compliance with the norms of ethics and morality, and within the framework of socialist legality!

[COPlUM]

2 hours ago, chef_vvp said:

we are fighting for the rights of all people!

Wargaming releases a lot of premiums, you can't keep up with buying all of them, you want them to sell less premiums so you can continue buying all of them.
Have you considered ... hold on, this might shock you, have you considered Not buying all of them? Wargaming isn't responsible for your compulsive behaviour lmao

[WorthyOpponent]

23 hours ago, chef_vvp said:

the first was the battleship Nikolai 1, then warspite came out, tirpitz ... and so on. Each of these boats was excellent and a real pleasure to play on them

So a Gangut clone, a QE clone and a Bismarck clone...

 

23 hours ago, chef_vvp said:

Or copy-pastes that do not give anything new in terms of gameplay - Mecklenburg is a pathetic parody of bourgogne, shikishima is a pathetic shadow of yamato, Why spend 30 thousand steel on them?

What a contradiction

[WildWind84]

Guys, just check registration date of his account, number of battles, premiums and all writed here... Things could become little clear 

[evil_communist_from_ussr]

2 hours ago, WorthyOpponent said:

So a Gangut clone, a QE clone and a Bismarck clone...

 

What a contradiction

 

if you consider these legendary ships to be clones, then this is a not comment

[evil_communist_from_ussr]

2 hours ago, Saltface said:

The interest of the company is above all. The obligation of the management is to maximize profit of the owners of the Company within the boundaries of the Law. Ethics and Morality are NOT a part of the equation. The only thing that matters is if transactions are within the boundary of the legal framework that is in place to regulate interaction between a seller and a buyer. Legal Frameworks are developed under a level of commonly perceived ethical values and moral codes, but, given the subjective nature of both these notions you can understand that things are tricky.

 

Socialist Legality? Boloks. Either you use a translator that screws up what you want to say or you don't understand what you are writing. 

 

 

no one is distorting anything.
read the literature on the Internet on this issue, and everything will become clear to you.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

56 minutes ago, chef_vvp said:

read the literature on the Internet on this issue, and everything will become clear to you. 

56 minutes ago, chef_vvp said:

read the literature on the Internet on this issue, and everything will become clear to you. 

56 minutes ago, chef_vvp said:

read the literature on the Internet on this issue, and everything will become clear to you.

 

The internet is entirely devoid of morons, as anyone from the flat earth society can tell you.

[Varian_Dorn]

I`m gonna put this nutjob on ignore now.

[stefanorgano]

3 hours ago, WorthyOpponent said:

So a Gangut clone, a QE clone and a Bismarck clone...

Let's give him credit where credit is due. Nikolai, Warspite and Tirpitz were introduced in WoWS looooong before Gangut, QE and Bismarck. How many people got Tirpitz back in the day just because Bismarck wasn't in the game yet?

[Saltface]

1 hour ago, chef_vvp said:

read the literature on the Internet on this issue, and everything will become clear to you.

I don't need to go to the internet for literature as I will not discuss political philosophy and philosophy of the Law on the forum with someone that wants to apply it to premium ships. Because this is moronic to start with.

 

However, because cheap tricks don't work here, and you cannot look smart by telling us to go read something, I ll reference something for you.

Mind you, IMHO, You have never read or heard what you are talking about here when you were sober, and, maybe you have remotely heard about it  when you were trying to bed a communist [edited]e, so just read the following:

 

"All this is part of the systematic Soviet attempt to assimilate moral norms to legal norms, a process which tends to make morality as a whole increasingly "legalistic." "Legalism," of course, is not the same thing as "legality"; and the "rule of law" - a conception which Soviet writers repudiate as "bourgeois" - is distinct from both. "Socialist legality" means not the rule of law, but rather the rule of a Party by means of a (manipulable) legal system. Like its ancestor, "revolutionary legality," "socialist legality" is another name for "politicalized rule of law" - or "rule of politicalized law." Khrushchev criticizes Stalin for "violating socialist legality" not primarily as a dictator whose personal will ran counter to the dictates of an impersonal legal system, but as a Party leader whose political will ran counter to the Party interests vested in a politicalized legal system."

 

Now guys, do you really think this guy has any gray matter or it has been replaced with hay?

 

EDIT sorry forgot to put a source

Kline, George L., "Socialist Legality and Communist Ethics" (1963). Natural Law Forum. Paper 92.

retrieved from http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_naturallaw_forum/92

[COPlUM]

2 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

I`m gonna put this nutjob on ignore now.

You can't, putting this nutjob on ignore is not in compliance with the norms of ethics and morality, nor is it within the framework of socialist legality

[endlessBoogie]

I think this is right on topic: