ECA: Hal Halpin's Latest Statement: Changes are Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.

caltab

CAGiversary!
Feedback
20 (100%)
The new discussion thread is located HERE.


Latest update:

I recommend everyone read Hal's latest statement, it's his best statement to date and I believe shows the ECA finally has gotten our message. In it he offers better explanations for what happened with the auto-renew function, promises to notify members of changes to terms of service, and even apologizes.
http://www.gameculture.com/2009/12/...lpin-eca-head-discusses-membership-complaints

Disclosure: GameCulture(the source of this statement) is published by the Entertainment Consumers Association.

Can you give us a synopsis of what happened over the past week?
Sure. Back in September we had an intersection of a few things happen within a brief period of time: I wrote a guest editorial in one of the leading games magazines, at the end of which I provided readers with a coupon code for a free trial membership.
Stopping there for a minute, in hindsight, what was the result of that action?
Well, I have to say that I didn't think the decision through thoroughly-enough. My logic was that readers who took the time to read the piece, which focused on some of the more important and topical issues facing game consumers, were people we wanted as members. In the few seconds that it took to type, I didn't consider that one of those readers would run over to their computer and post the code, sans editorial - and in retrospect, it appears obvious.
Next, there was an issue with discount codes from a partner?
Well, sorta.’ We were being supplied with batches of codes from that partner for some time - about six months. And the organization had been growing steadily for the past few years, so one of the challenges we both had was anticipating the redemption rate, batch to batch...which meant accurately predicting new membership growth. That's an unknown quantity for any new business, but more so for a new non-profit that's cutting a new path. But the more time went on the better we got at understanding the influencers, like trade and consumer shows, advertising, co-marketing efforts, promotions, etc.
That's where detractors repeatedly point to the new free trial members being problematic?
It's correct that our critics keep saying that, but it's a false statement. Yes, there was a bump in new membership acquisition during that period, but it was modest... comparatively speaking... and we knew it was coming, so we requested a larger than normal-sized batch. That request was met with more than we asked for and an emergency back-up batch being supplied.
And how did those assumptions and projections play-out?
Pretty much as-expected. Our partners - this one included - were thrilled with our growth. After all, more members equals more potential customers. And with there being only a few in each category of business, that's a great strategic advantage for the merchant. Competitors, who we hadn't yet contracted, were very likely losing customers. And the partners were essentially getting new loyal customers from a very different demographic than they have traditionally. The discount of 10% could easily be rationalized as customer acquisition expense, though I have no insight into any of our sponsor's thinking or rationale. It could have just as easily been that they wanted to support the org and believe in what we're building and doing.
So the influx of new comped members wasn't an issue?
Not at all. We were all pleased. And it seemed as though - even though many of the new members weren't folks who read the article - they quickly got what the ECA is and that there's a lot more to it than all of the perks and discounts.
And next...
Next, we depleted the codes pretty quickly...a bit faster than expected, but not by much. Plus we had the back-up batch, which we implemented fairly quickly. After six months of experience, users were familiar with the process and knew the timeframe required for the merchant to create new unique one-time use codes, get them over to us, and for our IT folks to upload them into the back-end. The problem came when users found that each batch of codes were programmed slightly differently and if you exploited that difference you could essentially "game" the system - tricking it into "stacking" with codes from a different batch.
What did that "stacking" entail?
We notified the partner that there was an issue with their programming and that there was an exploit that some -albeit very few - people were taking advantage of. Those users were reporting that they could stack the coupons. Instead of getting 10% off, they could get 20%.
Wow. Once that got out it must have been pandemonium?
Not really. The partner requested a code attrition and usage report, which we provided, and they began doing their own analysis. Despite what you'll hear from the trade, retail margins don't leave a lot of room for promotions for 20% off, traditionally. But the number of people exploiting the system was fairly small as a percentage. The problem was exacerbated by a land rush for codes by opportunistic members. The way the system was designed permitted any one member to download one coupon at a time, use it once and have to log back in to retrieve another. Though they had just begun working on a long-awaited multi-use code... one which could be assigned one per member and used multiple times. There was also some discussion about tying their membership account to their merchant one, for the same purpose.
That sounds like a logical solution. But that never developed?
No. During that same time, we began throttling the code distribution process...so that users could only download one per day, temporarily, solving the problem. Users quickly realized that if they quit the association, many calling our Accounting department directly, they could quit and re-join, using the free trial offer, and download an infinite number of codes. A related issue with that was that our emergency supply was then depleted much faster than we anticipated. Some of those users... again, very few, began uploading them to re-sell on eBay. That practice was a breach of their membership agreement, but the financial rewards of joining for free, downloading coupons for free and then selling them, was very appealing to them. Our Legal department worked with eBay to get those auctions removed, but the herculean work which resulted in very fast removals, was done by many of our new members - who appreciated the fact that if this wasn't stopped, it would likely result in an end to the promotion. They were really great.
How did you address closing the loophole?
Well, this is yet another one of the confluence of factors that occurred: we were doing a system-wide upgrade to the back-end software that runs the sites. Each time we build or customize modules it's a learning process. Again, there aren't any other non-profit entertainment consumer organizations to model after, so it's very often a matter of building what we think we'll need, having it be scalable, and then watching how well it addresses our needs. In doing the upgrade, the development company left a non-functioning button "live" that shouldn't have been. I believe it was for about three weeks that a feature that looked to disable auto-renewing of one's account could be selected - giving them the false impression that our software - and our architecture - was able to accommodate that request. So just to reiterate, it never worked.
I can see how that would present a problem.
Indeed. Since our staffers are all members, we wouldn't see the option to know that it was there. We, of course, had the developers remove the button as soon as we were made aware. Since it would be a year before those folks would have to renew - and the vast majority of them were the new free trial folks - we knew we had some time to sort through it, rectify the problem and explain the situation to those effected users - with our apologies and a token of our thanks for their understanding. But the code problems persisted while the partner sorted through things and worked on the new solution. Stacking three codes from three batches yielded a 30% discount and those using the exploit were getting more and more aggressive in the size of their orders - no longer buying a game or two. Joining, getting a code, calling and quitting, re-joining and getting another code and placing ever-larger orders was the breaking point. Plus, those contacting us weren't particularly pleasant to deal with when confronted about the practice.
So you've got a real problem brewing now and not a lot of options for solving it?
Exactly. We changed the method for quitting the association temporarily to mailing in the notice. The rationale was that the only people we'd ever... to the best of my knowledge... had leave the org before, were people who forgot to renew or update their credit cards and there were very few of those. By requesting that members mail in a termination notice, the only people affected were those taking advantage of the system and they were none-too-pleased with the move. If you thought they were difficult to deal with before, they were now incensed. Communications devolved into very very rude and abusive voicemail and email messages. Our staff wasn't prepared for that or for the vulgarity. I didn't want anyone having to deal with that, nor should they have to.
Did the codes come back?
No. As the partner was working on their single code solution, it all was coming to a head. We ran out of the balance of the emergency batch and were awaiting the newly enhanced codes - a process that had taken from one to two weeks before. We removed the ads which promoted that discount and dealt with the feedback from members who were getting increasingly impatient for the next batch. A few people even sent nasty emails to the merchant in an effort to make them aware of their displeasure with having to wait. Some other members started getting angry that an advertised promotion wasn't online, so they accused us of bait-and-switch and became more threatening. We updated the sponsor's listing on the partnership page to indicate that they were still supportive of the org and our efforts, but that the promotion was suspended, as we didn't know if or when another would be offered. But changing the language just made those who were upset even more angry, demanding that we somehow force the partner to provide another offer. But shortly after, we heard what we were dreading: that the exploits and comments were just getting to be too much. Had there been just a little more time or patience, the new multi-use codes would have come in and all would have been well.
Wow! OK. I didn't realize that tensions were so high?
No one did. We're talking about a very small group of people to be fair, but they were free trial members who wanted initially to get a refund and then later demanded that their membership not auto-renew until and unless more discounts came available. We responded back letting them know that more, in fact, had come online and several more were almost contracted and done, but that the button they thought they used wasn't functional. They demanded that we bring it back online and weren't happy to learn that it just wasn't that simple. When they heard that we wanted a mailed letter for termination, they went viral and began a coordinated campaign to attack the association.
But if the group was so small, how effective could they be?
Again, playing Monday morning quarterback, I can say that I had no idea. They continued escalating the situation and incensing other members, rallying them to their cause. We heard the feedback on wanting to have the option of not auto-renewing online, which made a lot of sense, but wasn't an option with the current design. They began reaching out to several media outlets, telling them that we were running a scam and taking their money without giving them the option to leave or not auto-renew. We were blindsided.
...which was when you released the reaction statement?
Right. I tried to explain the situation and address the concerns of members who were becoming aware of issues by reading the stories. They had no idea what was going on and out of context, panicked, and rightly-so. Out of context we sound like horrible greedy people and they sound like victims who've been taken advantage of. The release was intended to answer questions, allay concerns and explain what the actions of this group have done. Unfortunately, it wasn't received by everyone that way. I never meant to offend and I certainly apologize.
Were there a lot of people upset by the release?
No, not that we're aware of. I think the vast majority of members weren't even aware that there was a problem and those who were and read the statement largely took it the way it was intended. I think the folks that I upset probably read the statement via one of the blogs on-going coverage - which usually included negative commentary from the writer. Those folks, having read it that way and reading the ensuing comments below those articles, were really concerned - wondering what happened to the association and what was going on. In the mean time, a few people continued to escalate their attacks, from personal assaults on staff members in the form of slander and libel, to inciting others to contact the Better Business Bureau (BBB), then the Attorney General's (AG) office and then finally our partners, merchants and credit card providers. They demanded that we reinstitute the non-functioning button and permit them to cancel by phone and email - while, all the time, communicating that message in as hateful and vile a correspondence as you can imagine.
What was the reaction from all of the people they were trying to convince not work with ECA anymore?
Really great. Most reacted by saying that they understood the situation and they have similar problems from time to time. The BBB folks also were very understanding and we're continuing to work with them, providing them with whatever documentation and information they request. We had one partner temporarily suspend their current offer for members, wanting to wait to see how the situation was resolved. And we had another who was approached directly by the inciters, who who chose to side with them - but to be fair, he very likely knew nothing of the situation at the time. Everyone else reaffirmed their commitment to the association and, in a few examples, even provided us with valuable feedback.
Do you have any sense of who these folks are?
Absolutely. We know precisely who they are - we have all of their information, of course. Seriously?! Now again, I should be clear that when I refer to the core group, I'm referring to the same people we've been discussing all along; not everyone who is concerned, upset or anxious. I think that those folks were likely relieved to see a new FAQ that we posted in the forums, earlier this past weekend, which explains that we're working on an auto-renew process, that it'll be substantially-similar to other major online gaming services or membership orgs in its design, and that we don't alter their credit card information...
Was that a concern as well?
Only recently. I believe that came to the surface from one of the newer folks who was generally concerned after reading all of the different forums posts. They looked through our membership agreement and came across a section where we state that we could alter expiration dates to process their renewals. It was part of the boiler plate. And again, makes sense in context: I want to renew, but my card just expired. Having that clause would enable us to make the transaction go through, so it never occurred to anyone that it was a bad thing. We never used it and couldn’t imagine other circumstances under which we would. But it was spun or interpreted to mean that we're going to renew you whether you like it or not! I can appreciate that concern, especially framed with all of the other stuff; so, after discussing it, we removed that section entirely.. Legalese, while complex out of necessity sometimes, can also be made clear. I believe that's been our position with EULA standardizations, generally, as well.
There was also some question about how best to communicate to the membership?
Yes, some members asked if we could communicate any significant changes to the membership agreement – such as our removal/rewording of that sub-section we just discussed. As a result of that suggestion, we said that that’s fair and the best way to do so would be via our member’s only monthly newsletter, going forward.
Are you concerned with how this has been playing out?
Of course, very. It’s been grueling on our staff and especially on our forums moderators, who have been on the front lines. On the other hand, getting feedback from members – when it’s communicated civilly – can be really productive. A lot of the things we’ve discussed reflect that open channel of communications where they provide suggestions and comments and we can assess the need and determine how best to address it. But it’s when those lines of communication fall apart, and the discussions happen on other forums, that it’s less productive.
So why take the ECA forums off-line?
Fair enough. That was my decision. Having read all of the discussion and debate all of the issues, it seemed to me that it had all been asked and answered. All of the opinions had been stated and as many of the updates that were available were posted. We hadn’t done a major update to the system – with security patches, with new features and new registration criteria – in some time, so it seemed like a good place to give everyone a break. Like with the other things we’ve said we’re working on, so too will the forums be addressed.
Other major online gaming services have had similar problems with user complaints, why is it so much more emotional with this situation?
With online gaming services, they’re delivering much more of a product than a service in my estimation. So when they went through backlash from users who were upset with their termination policies, there was that difference. Then there’s the fact that many – although not most – of our concerned members were the free trial folks, who didn’t have to pay to join. As compared with the members who did, there may be a mind frame difference. Gaming services cost money; there’s a value proposition, users weigh the pros and cons and commit to join or not. With ECA, we go through that same process, albeit at a much lower price threshold, and the reasons for joining are less about value for the dollar – again, referring to the paid users – and more about what the org does holistically. My guess is that the paid folks are more likely to be involved actively in our advocacy efforts, reading our newsletters and publications and generally aware of the non-benefits areas in which we’re involved. Similarly, the free trial members are probably more likely to be aware of the latest partners and offers that we’ve added as member benefits. That said, our members have an emotional connection with ECA that they probably don’t have – at least in the same way – with an online gaming service.
So where are you now and what’s the plan for moving forward?
As was addressed in the FAQ, we’re working on adding a new module for online account termination as one of the lead priorities. Since they’ve been down this road and had the back and forth with their customers, we can be fairly sure that the systems that are being used now are ones that our folks will be comfortable with. Getting an option to remove auto-renewals will also be addressed in this same build-out, as will be the notification date.
And where does the ECA stand with those members who still want to cancel?
Well, I’d hope that they’d understand that we’re working to address the issues that we’ve discussed at length here, but that these things do take time. I know that asking patience at an emotionally-charged time isn’t the easiest, but I think they’ll feel assured that we haven’t mislead them as they begin to see each of these things come to fruition. If they still decide to part ways, I can’t say that I understand, but I can say that I respect their decision. Look, all of this is new – to them and to us. We need to just do the best that we can and work toward solutions that we’re all comfortable with. That’s really the best that we can do and I hope that they’re willing to be a part of that.
Is there anything else you’d like to add regarding the issue?
Yeah, again, just to restate my sincere apology for anyone who was offended by our statement last week, who felt unintentionally lumped-in with the group that I was referencing. That was never my intention, and feel badly for not being more clear. It really is in all our best interests to work together, learn from the issue and continue to focus on the important work that still needs to be done.


In my opinion, if the ECA follows through with what he's saying they will have done a lot to fix this. Also, a lot of his explanation and tone is much friendlier and clearer. They seemed to be listening to ours and others concerns and making right. For that, I applaud them.

12/9: The ECA has removed the section of the TOS referring to their ability to change your CC's expiration date, again a positive change that they should be commended for.


--------------
12/7 update:

Latest word from the ECA's Gypsyfly:
"Right now ECA is working on implementing an online option for members which will require creating a new business, accounting, and site module as the site never had this option. They will also notify members of policies changes via their members newsletters even though they are not required to, some items in the TOS will also be updated moving forward to better reflect the needs of members."

I'd recommend waiting a bit before spending the time and money on a certified letter, we'll hopefully be able to cancel a more convenient way soon.

...........

12/4 update: the eca has a new faq that includes info about canceling. They still require written notice. While they say it doesn't need to be traceable, I'd still recommend it given part 12 of their terms. They also now say they are working on another way to cancel and an option to disable auto renew.
http://forums.theeca.com/showthread.php?t=7158
What is the annual membership fee?
The annual dues for membership in the ECA are $19.99 per year for normal membership, and $14.99 for student and military members (with a valid dot edu or dot mil domain extension). To join the association, click here.

What benefits are there associated with ECA membership?
The organization is dedicated to providing a wealth of community and affinity benefits to our members.* With membership, you can connect with like-minded gamers, explore career and educational opportunities in the business, start or join one of our network of chapters across the US and Canada, and much more.*Take a few minutes to check out our website to explore the advocacy issues that we work on, the empowerment tools that we provide, the accomplishments we’ve made and the other benefits of membership. We also have a more general FAQ, which may be helpful, available here.

What do I get in terms of actual dollar value for my $19.99 dues?
The member benefits section of the website provides a detailed explanation, but our goal is to provide members with access to a whole host of goods and services, such as low cost insurance, to advocacy campaigns, to discounts with retail partners. As a member of the ECA, you should be spending considerably less each year on goods and services because you’ll have access to them through us at a much cheaper/more compelling rate(s). The list is fairly long and is constantly being updated with new offers, but members can access the full roster of offers on the site.

Since the ECA is a non-profit, are my dues payments tax-deductable?
No. The association is a 501(c)(4) non-profit membership organization. You may be thinking of 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. For more information about the differences between different classifications of non-profits, try here.

Once I join will my membership auto-renew?
Yes. At the time of your registration, you are asked to provide a major credit card so that on your anniversary date you can be automatically renewed for the following year as standard practice – not dissimilar to parallel membership organizations or major online gaming services. Nearing your anniversary date we remind you that your term is coming to an end so that you can take action to update your credit card information or cancel your membership.

Can I choose to have my membership NOT auto-renew online?
The system is presently not set up for this, but due to membership feedback we have been actively working on solutions that should make it so. We’re modeling some of the other leading online games services and membership associations, so the process should be familiar and use best practices.

Wasn’t there a button that I could check to deselect auto-renewing?
For a brief period of time, some users may have seen a non-functioning button that referred to cancelling auto-renewal. This was due to developer error during a system upgrade to the back-end. It was removed as soon as we were made aware to avoid confusion and because it never had that functionality. However, the new enhancements we’re working on will address this option.

What happens if my credit card expires?
The ECA requires all members in good standing to have updated credit cards on file. This is for several reasons, not the least of which is that the system was designed to reduce overhead and back-end expenses. The credit card disclaimer – which can be found right above the section where new members are prompted for their details – explains that the card will not be charged again until your anniversary date (not unlike other non-profit membership organizations, online gaming services, or health club memberships for that matter). If new members are unwilling or unable to fully complete their registration information, we do not process their application. If your credit card expires or is lost/stolen, your profile must be updated so that you have a valid credit card capable of paying your dues on file with the association. The ECA does not automatically update expired credit cards.

Can I cancel my membership at any time?
You may terminate your active membership in the association at any time. However, refund requests will not be processed. Like with any other membership org, many of the benefits are accessible immediately upon joining. If this policy were not in place, people could join the association, take advantage of the benefits and seek a refund immediately afterward. It is disclosed in your Membership Terms & Conditions, which you can find here.

How do I cancel my membership?
While we build out the new accounting module, discussed above, we cannot accept emailed or voicemail cancellation requests at this time. We understand that it may be frustrating, but we ask for your patience while we work to enhance the system. In the interim, if you wish to cancel your ECA membership, simply send us a letter to the address listed below. (A certified letter is not required.) Please include your full membership details (full contact info and in as much detail as possible). Your membership will be terminated once processed and you will receive correspondence back, confirming your cancellation.

Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA)
Attn: Accounting Department
64 Danbury Rd, Suite 700
Wilton, CT *06897

What if I prefer not to send a letter to cancel my membership?
Until the new system is implemented, we can only accept mailed cancellation requests. We thank you for your patience and understanding during this time and will share the details of the update shortly.

Where can I find the ECA’s Privacy Policy, Terms of Membership and Membership Agreement?
As a consumer advocacy organization, the rights of consumers are the ECA’s priority. We also have a fiduciary responsibility to the organization as a whole and to the members individually. For those reasons our policies and agreements are modeled after the leading non-profit membership organizations and are available at the bottom of every page of our website. But for quick reference, our Privacy Policy can be found here and our Membership Terms & Conditions, here.

I’ve joined the association, but am having trouble accessing my account or logging-in.

Welcome! The system will send an authentication email to the address you provided in the first step, as well as a registration message acknowledging your complimentary subscription to ECA Today, our week-nightly HTML-based newsletter. You must click on the link in the authentication email to proceed to step two and finalize your registration. If you received the newsletter email, you will likely also receive the authentication message. Check your spam folder. If you didn’t receive either message, or you didn’t receive the authentication email after a short period of time, it may be that your ISP is blocking the email, or our message triggered something in your router’s filter settings. Just email us for additional help.

Does the ECA offer working journalists complimentary memberships?
We do offer members of the media a limited number of complimentary memberships in the association. For all media inquiries, please email [email protected] to communicate directly with our public relations staff.

How can I find out more about what the ECA is doing or has accomplished?
If you want to know how to get involved in any of the issue areas in which we’re engaged, try our action center here. We also keep members abreast of our activities via our week-nightly HTML-based newsletter, ECA Today, as well as our Monthly Member Newsletter, which broadly keeps you informed. And if you still have a question, comment or concern, you could always try our Forums.

I’d like to get the word out and help recruit new members, is there an affiliate program in place?
Yes. ECA is both a Publisher and Advertiser with Commission Junction, which is how we work with affiliate partners, so we would refer you to their website to connect via their portal, here.
Last edited by ezacharyk; Today at 08:29 PM.

I am pleased progress is being made, I still strongly feel they need to send an email to all members stating that the disable auto renew feature was never functioning. Also, while they say the feature was only available for a short time, there are indications it was available as far back as March and as late as the end of October (thanks blisskr for finding these posts). I wouldn't consider that a short period time, certainly its long enough to necessitate personal notice to all of their members. Please also note a mod responds to the March post and makes no mention of its non-functionality. I would also think that means they should have known about the button as early March, yet it was not removed until several months later. Additionally, according to several CAGs, the nonfunctional button gave verification that the auto renewal feature was canceled. It's very difficult to trust someone with your credit card information if such a major mistake is left on their website for months.


................

I am well aware that this is not a deal and many will flame me and say this is the wrong forum or that this is a re-post. However, at one point it seems like the majority of CAGs gave these people their credit card information in order to sign up for a paid or "free" membership. It should be emphasized that everyone who became a member(including free ones) had to give their credit card info, in case you have forgotten. Many if not all who signed up immediately canceled the auto renew billing feature using the website. It appears that it is now ECA's stance that anyone who did this did not actually cancel because it was never a working part of their website. They claim that the auto renew feature was only available for a limited time and never actually did anything because of some glitch, but anecdotal evidence from CAGs suggest it was online for several weeks and possibly months. Up to this point, they have refused to adequately accept responsibility for this mistake and have failed to personally notify their members of this problem. The original thread where I got this info from is found here, full credit should be given to Cager arcane93 for pointing all this out in this thread.

The ONLY way you can cancel your membership is by a letter through some form of TRACEABLE mail.

send your cancellation here, which according to their terms must be sent 30 days prior to your renewal date:
[FONT=&quot]Attn: Accounting, ECA, 64 Danbury Road, Suite 700, Wilton, CT 06897-4406. [/FONT]

What info is needed to cancel?
Just say you want to cancel and include your full name and email.

THERE IS NO WAY TO TURN OFF AUTO RENEW- you can only cancel your membership, they say here that "You will be notified a month before hand of your account expiring. So you have time to cancel if you decided to do so." But according to section 4 of their terms you must cancel 30 days prior to your renewal date. Obviously, this is highly problematic.

---for those concerned about potential unwanted charges: the charge shows up as: "ENT. CONSUMER ASSOC" Phone number 203-761-6180 CT"

Here are some tidbits from the ECA mod's themselves, taken from their forum:

Was there a button for auto-renewing?
Yes, for some browsers, but it wasn’t intended to be there, wasn’t a working option and was removed as soon as we became aware

Why can’t we terminate via email?
Because the org has grown too large to handle the volume and requiring a mailed piece separates those who are serious from those who are lazy or finicky – joining and leaving repeatedly – and it gives us written documentation, a paper trail to reconcile against

Notable Parts of their terms of service:

[FONT=&quot]5.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Right to update Credit Card Account Information[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. If the credit card provided by Member to ECA has expired during an attempt to bill fees per section 4, ECA will revise the expiration date and proceed with billing using the same credit card account.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Couldn't I get a free 30 day membership from gamefly, cancel, then resubscribe, then get another free 30 days ad infinitum? Maybe this kind of scam is what he was referring to.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch'] That's why if they rectify the situation I'm inclined to believe they never were trying to scam everybody.

[/QUOTE]

The big thing that bothers me and makes me lean on the side of scam is the fact that auto-renew was the default setting. Every non-profit I ever belonged to will bug you months before your membership is due to re-sign. By making auto-renew as the default, they were counting on a fair amount of people not reading the agreement and having the membership extended without their direct consent.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']Your argument makes no sense. It doesn't matter that there wasn't a need to cancel. The fact of the matter is people WERE canceling to exploit the system. To fix this they changed their TOS. It was handled poorly. We've covered that and everyone agrees. That's why they apologized, explained what went down, and claim to be rectifying the situation. That's why if they rectify the situation I'm inclined to believe they never were trying to scam everybody.

Keep chasing reasons to hate em though. Clearly you're more interested in being part of an angry mob than you are intelligent discourse.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the argument makes perfect sense. Many of us believe that this story about people calling to cancel was a lie plain and simple. If someone is looking to scam a company, they aren't going to do it in a time consuming way that involves having to deal with the same employee repeatedly. They are going to do it in the easiest and least confrontational way possible which in this case was to just reset their cache. I might have bought that these alleged exploiters were clicking on the account cancel button repeatedly, but ECA already conceded that it allegedly never worked, so it shouldn't have registered as cancellations with them anyway.

My theory on this is simple. When the ECA realized that the Amazon codes weren't coming back and therefore people wouldn't be renewing their subscriptions upon expiration, they made it very difficult for people to cancel. This is what every scammy telemarketing company does because they realize if you make it hard enough for people, they will just eat the $20 for another year and forget about it.

The ECA is allegedly a non-profit voluntary organization. As I posted earlier, I am a member of literally dozens of similar organzations and not a single one has ever automatically renewed my membership without sending me a snail mail or e-mail notice requiring my affirmative action. The fact that they even have a default auto-renew for membership is enough for me to conclude that this is an organzation that is conducting itself in an unethical and possibly illegal manner.

So, I could care less about Mr. Halpin's softening language. If he wants to put this issue to rest, all he has to do is send a notice to all current members stating that nobody will be automatically renewed without affirmative consent and then he doesn't even have to worry about adding back the phone cancellation or Internet cancellation button. Of course, he won't do that because he knows that nobody will renew.
 
[quote name='mogamer']The big thing that bothers me and makes me lean on the side of scam is the fact that auto-renew was the default setting. Every non-profit I ever belonged to will bug you months before your membership is due to re-sign. By making auto-renew as the default, they were counting on a fair amount of people not reading the agreement and having the membership extended without their direct consent.[/QUOTE]

Strongly agree. I have never in over 20 years of being a paid member of non-profits, community organizations or charities ever been forced into an auto-renew by default. That's not how non-profits operate and certainly not how a non-profit that is allegedly pro-consumer operates.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']Your argument makes no sense. It doesn't matter that there wasn't a need to cancel. The fact of the matter is people WERE canceling to exploit the system. To fix this they changed their TOS. It was handled poorly. We've covered that and everyone agrees. That's why they apologized, explained what went down, and claim to be rectifying the situation. That's why if they rectify the situation I'm inclined to believe they never were trying to scam everybody.

Keep chasing reasons to hate em though. Clearly you're more interested in being part of an angry mob than you are intelligent discourse.[/QUOTE]

As I've said before, the difficulty cancelling isn't the issue, it's the AUTO-RENEWAL. Let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that requiring a snail mail letter to cancel actually _did_ prevent code stacking. That still doesn't preclude offering an online (or phone based) way to opt-out of the (stupidly default) auto-renewal policy. As long as my membership expires at the end of the year, I could care less how difficult the mid-year cancellation policy is.

Having a default auto-renew, with no way to opt out (short of immediate cancellation) betrays their real motivation....to make money. While they've said they'll offer a method for cancelling online, I haven't seen anything about he option to opt-out of auto-renewal online (and I doubt I will).

I publicly offer my time, free of charge, to implement this functionality on their website.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']Probably because said exploiters were unaware there were easier methods to do so? Keep up the half-assed arguments though. You continue to amuse.[/QUOTE]

Hahaha. You are proving yourself to be completely inept.

So tell me, how many times do you think an exploiter could call the ECA in one day?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Couldn't I get a free 30 day membership from gamefly, cancel, then resubscribe, then get another free 30 days ad infinitum? Maybe this kind of scam is what he was referring to.[/QUOTE]

Even easier, people just had to use the free year GIMAG code over and over.

[quote name='mogamer']The big thing that bothers me and makes me lean on the side of scam is the fact that auto-renew was the default setting. Every non-profit I ever belonged to will bug you months before your membership is due to re-sign. By making auto-renew as the default, they were counting on a fair amount of people not reading the agreement and having the membership extended without their direct consent.[/QUOTE]

Right, which they are supposedly rectifying. Mistakes were made. If they own up to that and fix what they did wrong then no harm no foul right?

[quote name='bojay1997']Actually, the argument makes perfect sense. Many of us believe that this story about people calling to cancel was a lie plain and simple. If someone is looking to scam a company, they aren't going to do it in a time consuming way that involves having to deal with the same employee repeatedly. They are going to do it in the easiest and least confrontational way possible which in this case was to just reset their cache. I might have bought that these alleged exploiters were clicking on the account cancel button repeatedly, but ECA already conceded that it allegedly never worked, so it shouldn't have registered as cancellations with them anyway.

My theory on this is simple. When the ECA realized that the Amazon codes weren't coming back and therefore people wouldn't be renewing their subscriptions upon expiration, they made it very difficult for people to cancel. This is what every scammy telemarketing company does because they realize if you make it hard enough for people, they will just eat the $20 for another year and forget about it.

The ECA is allegedly a non-profit voluntary organization. As I posted earlier, I am a member of literally dozens of similar organzations and not a single one has ever automatically renewed my membership without sending me a snail mail or e-mail notice requiring my affirmative action. The fact that they even have a default auto-renew for membership is enough for me to conclude that this is an organzation that is conducting itself in an unethical and possibly illegal manner.

So, I could care less about Mr. Halpin's softening language. If he wants to put this issue to rest, all he has to do is send a notice to all current members stating that nobody will be automatically renewed without affirmative consent and then he doesn't even have to worry about adding back the phone cancellation or Internet cancellation button. Of course, he won't do that because he knows that nobody will renew.[/QUOTE]

Why is it so hard to believe a number of people may not have known they could just reset the cache to get a new code? I also don't find it ridiculous at all that some people would make a five minute phone call and then sign back up to save 20% per day as oppose to 10%. I personally wouldn't but many would.

I don't know how much clearer I can state this: THEY fuckED UP! I am aware of this. You are aware of this. They are saying they are aware of this and they apologize. They claim to be incorporating an auto-renew checkbox on the website, making it easier to cancel, and are informing all member about the change to the TOS and the mistakes made.

If they follow through with the above. AND ONLY IF THEY FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE ABOVE. I am saying I am willing to let a sleeping dog lie and call this whole fiasco one big mistake.

If others are happier being pissed off and forming an angry mob at what becomes a non-issue then by all means go ahead.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Couldn't I get a free 30 day membership from gamefly, cancel, then resubscribe, then get another free 30 days ad infinitum? Maybe this kind of scam is what he was referring to.[/QUOTE]

Nope, he specifically mentions 10% and stacking: "The discount of 10% could easily be rationalized as customer acquisition expense, though I have no insight into any of our sponsor's thinking or rationale. "
 
[quote name='confoosious']Hahaha. You are proving yourself to be completely inept.

So tell me, how many times do you think an exploiter could call the ECA in one day?[/QUOTE]

How the fuck should I know? Maybe some people were doing it once a day, maybe some were doing it once a week, maybe some people were doing it three times a day. It would obviously be a noticeable issue to cause the ECA to notice and change their TOS over it. It's funny you call me inept and have yet to offer a sensible counterargument other than "Why would people do things the stupid way when there's a not stupid way, that's stupid, you're stupid".
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']

I also don't find it ridiculous at all that some people would make a five minute phone call and then sign back up to save 20% per day as oppose to 10%. I personally wouldn't but many would.

[/QUOTE]


This is where your complete lack of knowledge of the situation does you in. That's not how the exploit worked.

If you didn't just accept whatever Hal said at face value, you knew that the stacking required you to have codes from PREVIOUS batches. In a sense, stacking was discovered by accident and then people started exploiting it.

You can't get two codes and stack em in the same day. Or even in the same week.

So you wouldve had to get a bunch of codes (J codes) by calling over and over to cancel. And then get a bunch of L codes the following week by calling over and over to cancel?

Come on man, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend the ECA. Whatever it is, god bless you.

But you're taking Hal's word on something that doesn't make sense logically. If you looked at it without an automatic defense up for the ECA, you'd see what everyone is talking about. You think this is a witch hunt and you wish everyone would back off? Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that Hal's explanation is a crock.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']Even easier, people just had to use the free year GIMAG code over and over.



Right, which they are supposedly rectifying. Mistakes were made. If they own up to that and fix what they did wrong then no harm no foul right?



Why is it so hard to believe a number of people may not have known they could just reset the cache to get a new code? I also don't find it ridiculous at all that some people would make a five minute phone call and then sign back up to save 20% per day as oppose to 10%. I personally wouldn't but many would.

I don't know how much clearer I can state this: THEY fuckED UP! I am aware of this. You are aware of this. They are saying they are aware of this and they apologize. They claim to be incorporating an auto-renew checkbox on the website, making it easier to cancel, and are informing all member about the change to the TOS and the mistakes made.

If they follow through with the above. AND ONLY IF THEY FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE ABOVE. I am saying I am willing to let a sleeping dog lie and call this whole fiasco one big mistake.

If others are happier being pissed off and forming an angry mob at what becomes a non-issue then by all means go ahead.[/QUOTE]

But the problem is that nobody from ECA has said they will implement what we are suggesting. All Mr. Halpin has said is that they are working on putting back an on-line cancellation option and notifying members of the changes. They are ignoring the easiest and quickest and most acceptable fix which is just to send an e-mail out to all ECA members apologizing and saying they will never auto-renew us and that 30 days before a membership is expiring, they will notify us to give us the option of staying a member for another year. The problem with what you are suggesting is that unless all of us stay engaged, the ECA is likely to just hope everything blows over and go back to their shady billing practices once again. I'm willing to forgive if and when the changes actually occur, but I'm certainly not willing to just walk away satisfied because of a couple of puff pieces Mr. Halpin has posted on his own controlled web sites.
 
[quote name='confoosious']This is where your complete lack of knowledge of the situation does you in. That's not how the exploit worked.

If you didn't just accept whatever Hal said at face value, you knew that the stacking required you to have codes from PREVIOUS batches. In a sense, stacking was discovered by accident and then people started exploiting it.

You can't get two codes and stack em in the same day. Or even in the same week.

So you wouldve had to get a bunch of codes (J codes) by calling over and over to cancel. And then get a bunch of L codes the following week by calling over and over to cancel?[/QUOTE]

And again I'm not necessarily referring to stacking and you're ignoring previous parts of my argument. They reached a point where they had a limited batch of codes to hand out while they waited on Amazon to create the multi-use codes that would never be. So to ration them they only allowed one code per member per day. People figured out they could cancel and resubscribe to get multiple codes in one day (because not everyone realized you could just clear your cache). Thus they could save up to 20% per day. Doesn't matter if they stacked or not. You can still use two seperate 10% off codes in two separate orders.

Your avatar is very fitting. I certainly picture you as a Ralph Wiggum type of moron.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']And again I'm not necessarily referring to stacking and you're ignoring previous parts of my argument. They reached a point where they had a limited batch of codes to hand out while they waited on Amazon to create the multi-use codes that would never be. So to ration them they only allowed one code per member per day. People figured out they could cancel and resubscribe to get multiple codes in one day (because not everyone realized you could just clear your cache). Thus they could save up to 20% per day. Doesn't matter if they stacked or not. You can still use two seperate 10% off codes in two separate orders.

Your avatar is very fitting. I certainly picture you as a Ralph Wiggum type of moron.[/QUOTE]

Except Hal said it was specifically because of the stacking.

"We notified the partner that there was an issue with their programming and that there was an exploit that some -albeit very few - people were taking advantage of. Those users were reporting that they could stack the coupons. Instead of getting 10% off, they could get 20%."

(Oh and before you say that the 20% off was on two separate orders, that's not what stacking means.)

So what say you now, Mr Genius?

Oh. Nothing to say? I didn't think so. Feel free to fuck off now. This "Ralph Wiggum type of moron" just owned you.
 
[quote name='bojay1997']But the problem is that nobody from ECA has said they will implement what we are suggesting. All Mr. Halpin has said is that they are working on putting back an on-line cancellation option and notifying members of the changes. They are ignoring the easiest and quickest and most acceptable fix which is just to send an e-mail out to all ECA members apologizing and saying they will never auto-renew us and that 30 days before a membership is expiring, they will notify us to give us the option of staying a member for another year. The problem with what you are suggesting is that unless all of us stay engaged, the ECA is likely to just hope everything blows over and go back to their shady billing practices once again. I'm willing to forgive if and when the changes actually occur, but I'm certainly not willing to just walk away satisfied because of a couple of puff pieces Mr. Halpin has posted on his own controlled web sites.[/QUOTE]


Are you not reading what I've been saying?

"I don't know how much clearer I can state this: THEY fuckED UP! I am aware of this. You are aware of this. They are saying they are aware of this and they apologize. They claim to be incorporating an auto-renew checkbox on the website, making it easier to cancel, and are informing all members about the change to the TOS and the mistakes made.

If they follow through with the above. AND ONLY IF THEY FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE ABOVE. I am saying I am willing to let a sleeping dog lie and call this whole fiasco one big mistake.
"
 
I'm just pissed because I had signed up, gotten one code which I lost.. and was waiting to make an order on Amazon and they took the codes down.

Hal's a dick for trying to say everyone who signed up for free was just in to exploit (he alludes to this).. he only half-ass owns up to being stupid by not expecting someone to post of the free code online without his lame story. Seriously, it's 2009 and the internet, nothing stays hidden for long anywhere.

I mean shit, Tiger's up to how many girls now? 7.. or is it 8?
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']Even easier, people just had to use the free year GIMAG code over and over.



Right, which they are supposedly rectifying. Mistakes were made. If they own up to that and fix what they did wrong then no harm no foul right?



Why is it so hard to believe a number of people may not have known they could just reset the cache to get a new code? I also don't find it ridiculous at all that some people would make a five minute phone call and then sign back up to save 20% per day as oppose to 10%. I personally wouldn't but many would.

I don't know how much clearer I can state this: THEY F***ED UP! [edit] I am aware of this. You are aware of this. They are saying they are aware of this and they apologize. They claim to be incorporating an auto-renew checkbox on the website, making it easier to cancel, and are informing all member about the change to the TOS and the mistakes made.

If they follow through with the above. AND ONLY IF THEY FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE ABOVE. I am saying I am willing to let a sleeping dog lie and call this whole fiasco one big mistake.

If others are happier being pissed off and forming an angry mob at what becomes a non-issue then by all means go ahead.[/QUOTE]

Yes, they did screw up. But that screw up is what has a lot of people angry. I appreciate the apology they issued, but at the same time, that does not renew my confidence. (They checked no on my confidence auto-renewal..)

Their screw up showed me 2 things. First that they are out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent, and therefore are not able to effectively represent them. Secondly, they were unable to manage a situation within their own membership, a situation of discontent, anger, and confusion. As many have said, were they simply to email everyone a newsletter, explain the situation, explain when everything would be rectified, a great deal of public outrage would have been avoided. If they cannot be trusted to handle a situation properly within their own organization, why should they be trusted to represent their membership in other situations.

Even if you scrape away all the scam arguments, on both sides, this comes to simple conclusion... They screwed up, as noted by all, and that means that a great many people have lost confidence in them as an organization, and I say, rightfully so.
 
[quote name='confoosious']Except Hal said it was specifically because of the stacking.

"We notified the partner that there was an issue with their programming and that there was an exploit that some -albeit very few - people were taking advantage of. Those users were reporting that they could stack the coupons. Instead of getting 10% off, they could get 20%."

So what say you now, Mr Genius?

Oh. Nothing to say? I didn't think so. Feel free to fuck off now. This "Ralph Wiggum type of moron" just owned you.[/QUOTE]

No I have plenty to say.

No. During that same time, we began throttling the code distribution process...so that users could only download one per day, temporarily, solving the problem. Users quickly realized that if they quit the association, many calling our Accounting department directly, they could quit and re-join, using the free trial offer, and download an infinite number of codes. A related issue with that was that our emergency supply was then depleted much faster than we anticipated. Some of those users... again, very few, began uploading them to re-sell on eBay. That practice was a breach of their membership agreement, but the financial rewards of joining for free, downloading coupons for free and then selling them, was very appealing to them. Our Legal department worked with eBay to get those auctions removed, but the herculean work which resulted in very fast removals, was done by many of our new members - who appreciated the fact that if this wasn't stopped, it would likely result in an end to the promotion. They were really great.


That's the part where he talks about the canceling to get more codes and doesn't mention stacking at all. But go on and continue with your straw man argument. I'd be happy to read the whole article to you since you appear to be illiterate.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Couldn't I get a free 30 day membership from gamefly, cancel, then resubscribe, then get another free 30 days ad infinitum? Maybe this kind of scam is what he was referring to.[/QUOTE]
No because Gamefly isn't trying to give you an excuse to cover for something

If you went to apply for a Gamefly trial someone would say "sorry but you already used your free trial"

Something the ECA could have done very easily
 
[quote name='Siterath']Yes, they did screw up. But that screw up is what has a lot of people angry. I appreciate the apology they issued, but at the same time, that does not renew my confidence. (They checked no on my confidence auto-renewal..)

Their screw up showed me 2 things. First that they are out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent, and therefore are not able to effectively represent them. Secondly, they were unable to manage a situation within their own membership, a situation of discontent, anger, and confusion. As many have said, were they simply to email everyone a newsletter, explain the situation, explain when everything would be rectified, a great deal of public outrage would have been avoided. If they cannot be trusted to handle a situation properly within their own organization, why should they be trusted to represent their membership in other situations.

Even if you scrape away all the scam arguments, on both sides, this comes to simple conclusion... They screwed up, as noted by all, and that means that a great many people have lost confidence in them as an organization, and I say, rightfully so.[/QUOTE]

I don't think I ever disagreed with this. In fact I noted earlier that even if this whole thing does get fixed I am canceling my membership because of the way they handled this situation.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']No I have plenty to say.

No. During that same time, we began throttling the code distribution process...so that users could only download one per day, temporarily, solving the problem. Users quickly realized that if they quit the association, many calling our Accounting department directly, they could quit and re-join, using the free trial offer, and download an infinite number of codes. A related issue with that was that our emergency supply was then depleted much faster than we anticipated. Some of those users... again, very few, began uploading them to re-sell on eBay. That practice was a breach of their membership agreement, but the financial rewards of joining for free, downloading coupons for free and then selling them, was very appealing to them. Our Legal department worked with eBay to get those auctions removed, but the herculean work which resulted in very fast removals, was done by many of our new members - who appreciated the fact that if this wasn't stopped, it would likely result in an end to the promotion. They were really great.


That's the part where he talks about the canceling to get more codes and doesn't mention stacking at all. But go on and continue with your straw man argument. I'd be happy to read the whole article to you since you appear to be illiterate.[/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight. I talk about stacking. You said it's not about stacking. But Hal said it was about stacking. So you quote a part of an article where he doesn't talk about stacking.

Good try kid.

Lemme know when you stop feeling stupid. I know it's tough when you have egg on your face. But do not compound it with more egg.

By the way, do you even know what a straw man argument is? Or did you hear it once on Judge Judy?


Oh, and nervousxtian: Tiger is 8 over par right now.
 
[quote name='confoosious']So let me get this straight. I talk about stacking. You said it's not about stacking. But Hal said it was about stacking. So you quote a part of an article where he doesn't talk about stacking.

Good try kid.

Lemme know when you stop feeling stupid.

By the way, do you even know what a straw man argument is? Or did you hear it once on Judge Judy?


Oh, and nervousxtian: Tiger is 8 over par right now.[/QUOTE]

I've been talking about the section of the article I quoted this whole time. You keep trying to bring stacking into this. I have no idea why since it has nothing to do with the repeat cancellation issue and if you read the interview they never claim it did. It's like you're completely ignoring my arguments and then claiming I'm making arguments I'm not making that would make your responses make sense.

It must be terrible being you. Do you always strive to be so blindly pissed off about such trivial things?

Anyway I'm signing off for the night. I have shit to do and I know your mommy is probably going to send you to bed soon. Sleep tight kiddo.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']I don't think I ever disagreed with this. In fact I noted earlier that even if this whole thing does get fixed I am canceling my membership because of the way they handled this situation.[/QUOTE]

Which is fair ... but through the last several posts, you've made clear that should they follow through with their promises, you'd be content to let the issue move on. And that's perfectly fine.

Others, however, have lost complete faith in them as an organization. Speaking for myself, for instance, as someone who never even saw an amazon code, let alone used one, this whole issue should never have involved me. I should have been able to sit back and watch as the ECA went after people it felt were exploiters, if they so chose. However their handling of the situation (which you have already noted you are well aware of) alienated me in such a way that, even if they carry through with their latest promises, I would still have no faith in them as an organization any more.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. These people are not arguing that scamming is good, they are simply fed up with the ECA as an organization, and they way they were treated by the organization.

Where you seem to be content ending the issue when the promises are completed, for many others, the issue will only end when their memberships do, and they can finally walk away from an organization which has done nothing but alienate them in every way possible.
 
[quote name='simmias']Unfortunately I can't access this site from work, but as Reira said the package has been mailed around noon today (EST). The tracking number is 2307 1770 0000 1360 8470 if anyone wants to watch its progress.

Since each letter meets the criteria for cancellation outlined by the ECA, I don't see how they could deny them without causing more stink for themselves. But in any case, I can't wait for them to open up 700+ cancellation letters. :)

Somebody mentioned earlier that I shouldn't refuse compensation, and should instead have Cheapy donate the money to Child's Play. Excellent idea, if he's so inclined. Mailing costs weren't bad at all... only about $13. Other costs (paper, printing, gas, etc) were probably $12, so maybe $25 to Child's Play?[/QUOTE]

You are a god among CAGs. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall when they open that box.
 
PvtChurch - are you trying to win supporters to your side of the argument through insults? Interesting tactic. In any case, the reason many people are upset is not because "mistakes were made," but rather because of the arrogant, haughty attitudes of many people at the ECA when confronted with these mistakes. The most arrogant of all? Hal, by a landslide. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way, including me. If you can look past it, more power to you.

IRHari - the Gamefly code was the same for everyone. I don't know why someone would cancel and rejoin just to get the exact same code.
 
[quote name='Siterath']Which is fair ... but through the last several posts, you've made clear that should they follow through with their promises, you'd be content to let the issue move on. And that's perfectly fine.

Others, however, have lost complete faith in them as an organization. Speaking for myself, for instance, as someone who never even saw an amazon code, let alone used one, this whole issue should never have involved me. I should have been able to sit back and watch as the ECA went after people it felt were exploiters, if they so chose. However their handling of the situation (which you have already noted you are well aware of) alienated me in such a way that, even if they carry through with their latest promises, I would still have no faith in them as an organization any more.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. These people are not arguing that scamming is good, they are simply fed up with the ECA as an organization, and they way they were treated by the organization.

Where you seem to be content ending the issue when the promises are completed, for many others, the issue will only end when their memberships do, and they can finally walk away from an organization which has done nothing but alienate them in every way possible.[/QUOTE]

Like I just said. If they fix the cancellation issues I am going to cancel my membership and wash my hands of the organization due to how they handled this situation. I see no point in continued ranting and bitching however.

I swear no one on this forum knows how to read.
 
[quote name='simmias']PvtChurch - are you trying to win supporters to your side of the argument through insults? Interesting tactic. In any case, the reason many people are upset is not because "mistakes were made," but rather because of the arrogant, haughty attitudes of many people at the ECA when confronted with these mistakes. The most arrogant of all? Hal, by a landslide. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way, including me. If you can look past it, more power to you.

IRHari - the Gamefly code was the same for everyone. I don't know why someone would cancel and rejoin just to get the exact same code.[/QUOTE]

Right because I was the first person to throw an insult out. :roll:
 
So, okay. We're theorizing that people found the GI code, realized they could get subscriptions for free, realized that they could open multiple accounts, didn't realize that they could open multiple accounts simultaneously, and didn't realize there were exploits available.

This small handful of people decided the easiest thing to do would be to repeatedly call the ECA, repeatedly identify themselves, repeatedly go through a phone cancellation (at a place with a staff of 15 total, so probably with the same person.... over and over...), repeatedly go through the entire sign-up process again, to get multiple codes in the same day

These non-paying (per Hal) people then, when the codes died, asked for "refunds of their memberships" via the phone, to an extent which was just too much for the staff to handle.

Even though there were only a small number of them, and they all kept opening and closing the same account, so really they couldn't be calling for that many refunds.

This is easier to believe than that an organization which has--repeatedly--lied about the length of time a feature appeared on their website is also bending the truth regarding the reason they made it harder to cancel. I have no doubt the death of the Amazon codes saw an increase in the number of people wanting out. I even buy that stackers would call six times to close out their six accounts to get the ECA away from their credit card numbers. And I can buy that a consumer organization that failed to set up someone to handle their members couldn't handle... their members calling in at an increased rate. But I don't buy the official theory, because the official theory makes no sense.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']I've been talking about the section of the article I quoted this whole time. You keep trying to bring stacking into this. I have no idea why since it has nothing to do with the repeat cancellation issue and if you read the interview they never claim it did. It's like you're completely ignoring my arguments and then claiming I'm making arguments I'm not making that would make your responses make sense.

It must be terrible being you. Do you always strive to be so blindly pissed off about such trivial things?

Anyway I'm signing off for the night. I have shit to do and I know your mommy is probably going to send you to bed soon. Sleep tight kiddo.[/QUOTE]
So maybe your as brilliant as Hal and can explain why anyone would join and cancel to get the codes at that point when those particular codes wouldn't stack together to give a multiplied % off you'd need to have both J and L codes which came from much earlier batches to accomplish that. The problem with the whole joined, quit, rejoined theory is that if its applying to stacking that wasn't how stacking worked. And if you wanted additional codes once 'they throttled them' all you had to do was clear your cookies and get another one but even those two wouldn't stack together for 20%.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']Right because I was the first person to throw an insult out. :roll:[/QUOTE]
I can understand swapping insults with confoosious, but you've been condescending to people who are responding to you respectfully.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']Like I just said. If they fix the cancellation issues I am going to cancel my membership and wash my hands of the organization due to how they handled this situation. I see no point in continued ranting and bitching however.

I swear no one on this forum knows how to read.[/QUOTE]

The point is... where you're happy to let the situation simply pass into the night, others are feeling slightly more alienated than you.

So while you plan to cancel your membership eventually, they are now waiting for their cancellation to finish processing. Where you wish to simply walk away, they wish to make their voice heard, by both the ECA (in the small hope that the ECA listens, and there are MASSIVE changes), and by those in the gaming community (after all, if this issue was about not being informed, they want to make sure others are informed of the situation) so others can make up their own minds in the future. After all, I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of this a year from now.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']I've been talking about the section of the article I quoted this whole time. You keep trying to bring stacking into this. I have no idea why since it has nothing to do with the repeat cancellation issue and if you read the interview they never claim it did. It's like you're completely ignoring my arguments and then claiming I'm making arguments I'm not making that would make your responses make sense.

It must be terrible being you. Do you always strive to be so blindly pissed off about such trivial things?
[/QUOTE]

You know why I bring stacking into this? because your boy Hal brought the stacking into this.

He equates the exploiters with stacking.

Is this not the crux of Hal's excuse: Hal Halpin said that the snail mail was required to cancel because a small group of exploiters figured out that you could stack codes and get 20% off (unnamed partner, which we all know is Amazon.). Since you could only get 1 code per account per day, they repeatedly cancelled and joined to get more codes.

Full text here just for record keeping sake:
Disclosure: GameCulture is published by the Entertainment Consumers Association.

Can you give us a synopsis of what happened over the past week?

Sure. Back in September we had an intersection of a few things happen within a brief period of time: I wrote a guest editorial in one of the leading games magazines, at the end of which I provided readers with a coupon code for a free trial membership.

Stopping there for a minute, in hindsight, what was the result of that action?

Well, I have to say that I didn't think the decision through thoroughly-enough. My logic was that readers who took the time to read the piece, which focused on some of the more important and topical issues facing game consumers, were people we wanted as members. In the few seconds that it took to type, I didn't consider that one of those readers would run over to their computer and post the code, sans editorial - and in retrospect, it appears obvious.

Next, there was an issue with discount codes from a partner?

Well, sorta.’ We were being supplied with batches of codes from that partner for some time - about six months. And the organization had been growing steadily for the past few years, so one of the challenges we both had was anticipating the redemption rate, batch to batch...which meant accurately predicting new membership growth. That's an unknown quantity for any new business, but more so for a new non-profit that's cutting a new path. But the more time went on the better we got at understanding the influencers, like trade and consumer shows, advertising, co-marketing efforts, promotions, etc.

That's where detractors repeatedly point to the new free trial members being problematic?

It's correct that our critics keep saying that, but it's a false statement. Yes, there was a bump in new membership acquisition during that period, but it was modest... comparatively speaking... and we knew it was coming, so we requested a larger than normal-sized batch. That request was met with more than we asked for and an emergency back-up batch being supplied.

And how did those assumptions and projections play-out?

Pretty much as-expected. Our partners - this one included - were thrilled with our growth. After all, more members equals more potential customers. And with there being only a few in each category of business, that's a great strategic advantage for the merchant. Competitors, who we hadn't yet contracted, were very likely losing customers. And the partners were essentially getting new loyal customers from a very different demographic than they have traditionally. The discount of 10% could easily be rationalized as customer acquisition expense, though I have no insight into any of our sponsor's thinking or rationale. It could have just as easily been that they wanted to support the org and believe in what we're building and doing.

So the influx of new comped members wasn't an issue?

Not at all. We were all pleased. And it seemed as though - even though many of the new members weren't folks who read the article - they quickly got what the ECA is and that there's a lot more to it than all of the perks and discounts.

And next...

Next, we depleted the codes pretty quickly...a bit faster than expected, but not by much. Plus we had the back-up batch, which we implemented fairly quickly. After six months of experience, users were familiar with the process and knew the timeframe required for the merchant to create new unique one-time use codes, get them over to us, and for our IT folks to upload them into the back-end. The problem came when users found that each batch of codes were programmed slightly differently and if you exploited that difference you could essentially "game" the system - tricking it into "stacking" with codes from a different batch.

What did that "stacking" entail?

We notified the partner that there was an issue with their programming and that there was an exploit that some -albeit very few - people were taking advantage of. Those users were reporting that they could stack the coupons. Instead of getting 10% off, they could get 20%.

Wow. Once that got out it must have been pandemonium?

Not really. The partner requested a code attrition and usage report, which we provided, and they began doing their own analysis. Despite what you'll hear from the trade, retail margins don't leave a lot of room for promotions for 20% off, traditionally. But the number of people exploiting the system was fairly small as a percentage. The problem was exacerbated by a land rush for codes by opportunistic members. The way the system was designed permitted any one member to download one coupon at a time, use it once and have to log back in to retrieve another. Though they had just begun working on a long-awaited multi-use code... one which could be assigned one per member and used multiple times. There was also some discussion about tying their membership account to their merchant one, for the same purpose.

That sounds like a logical solution. But that never developed?

No. During that same time, we began throttling the code distribution process...so that users could only download one per day, temporarily, solving the problem. Users quickly realized that if they quit the association, many calling our Accounting department directly, they could quit and re-join, using the free trial offer, and download an infinite number of codes. A related issue with that was that our emergency supply was then depleted much faster than we anticipated. Some of those users... again, very few, began uploading them to re-sell on eBay. That practice was a breach of their membership agreement, but the financial rewards of joining for free, downloading coupons for free and then selling them, was very appealing to them. Our Legal department worked with eBay to get those auctions removed, but the herculean work which resulted in very fast removals, was done by many of our new members - who appreciated the fact that if this wasn't stopped, it would likely result in an end to the promotion. They were really great.

How did you address closing the loophole?

Well, this is yet another one of the confluence of factors that occurred: we were doing a system-wide upgrade to the back-end software that runs the sites. Each time we build or customize modules it's a learning process. Again, there aren't any other non-profit entertainment consumer organizations to model after, so it's very often a matter of building what we think we'll need, having it be scalable, and then watching how well it addresses our needs. In doing the upgrade, the development company left a non-functioning button "live" that shouldn't have been. I believe it was for about three weeks that a feature that looked to disable auto-renewing of one's account could be selected - giving them the false impression that our software - and our architecture - was able to accommodate that request. So just to reiterate, it never worked.

I can see how that would present a problem.

Indeed. Since our staffers are all members, we wouldn't see the option to know that it was there. We, of course, had the developers remove the button as soon as we were made aware. Since it would be a year before those folks would have to renew - and the vast majority of them were the new free trial folks - we knew we had some time to sort through it, rectify the problem and explain the situation to those effected users - with our apologies and a token of our thanks for their understanding. But the code problems persisted while the partner sorted through things and worked on the new solution. Stacking three codes from three batches yielded a 30% discount and those using the exploit were getting more and more aggressive in the size of their orders - no longer buying a game or two. Joining, getting a code, calling and quitting, re-joining and getting another code and placing ever-larger orders was the breaking point. Plus, those contacting us weren't particularly pleasant to deal with when confronted about the practice.

So you've got a real problem brewing now and not a lot of options for solving it?

Exactly. We changed the method for quitting the association temporarily to mailing in the notice. The rationale was that the only people we'd ever... to the best of my knowledge... had leave the org before, were people who forgot to renew or update their credit cards and there were very few of those. By requesting that members mail in a termination notice, the only people affected were those taking advantage of the system and they were none-too-pleased with the move. If you thought they were difficult to deal with before, they were now incensed. Communications devolved into very very rude and abusive voicemail and email messages. Our staff wasn't prepared for that or for the vulgarity. I didn't want anyone having to deal with that, nor should they have to.

Did the codes come back?

No. As the partner was working on their single code solution, it all was coming to a head. We ran out of the balance of the emergency batch and were awaiting the newly enhanced codes - a process that had taken from one to two weeks before. We removed the ads which promoted that discount and dealt with the feedback from members who were getting increasingly impatient for the next batch. A few people even sent nasty emails to the merchant in an effort to make them aware of their displeasure with having to wait. Some other members started getting angry that an advertised promotion wasn't online, so they accused us of bait-and-switch and became more threatening. We updated the sponsor's listing on the partnership page to indicate that they were still supportive of the org and our efforts, but that the promotion was suspended, as we didn't know if or when another would be offered. But changing the language just made those who were upset even more angry, demanding that we somehow force the partner to provide another offer. But shortly after, we heard what we were dreading: that the exploits and comments were just getting to be too much. Had there been just a little more time or patience, the new multi-use codes would have come in and all would have been well.

Wow! OK. I didn't realize that tensions were so high?

No one did. We're talking about a very small group of people to be fair, but they were free trial members who wanted initially to get a refund and then later demanded that their membership not auto-renew until and unless more discounts came available. We responded back letting them know that more, in fact, had come online and several more were almost contracted and done, but that the button they thought they used wasn't functional. They demanded that we bring it back online and weren't happy to learn that it just wasn't that simple. When they heard that we wanted a mailed letter for termination, they went viral and began a coordinated campaign to attack the association.

But if the group was so small, how effective could they be?

Again, playing Monday morning quarterback, I can say that I had no idea. They continued escalating the situation and incensing other members, rallying them to their cause. We heard the feedback on wanting to have the option of not auto-renewing online, which made a lot of sense, but wasn't an option with the current design. They began reaching out to several media outlets, telling them that we were running a scam and taking their money without giving them the option to leave or not auto-renew. We were blindsided.

...which was when you released the reaction statement?

Right. I tried to explain the situation and address the concerns of members who were becoming aware of issues by reading the stories. They had no idea what was going on and out of context, panicked, and rightly-so. Out of context we sound like horrible greedy people and they sound like victims who've been taken advantage of. The release was intended to answer questions, allay concerns and explain what the actions of this group have done. Unfortunately, it wasn't received by everyone that way. I never meant to offend and I certainly apologize.

Were there a lot of people upset by the release?

No, not that we're aware of. I think the vast majority of members weren't even aware that there was a problem and those who were and read the statement largely took it the way it was intended. I think the folks that I upset probably read the statement via one of the blogs on-going coverage - which usually included negative commentary from the writer. Those folks, having read it that way and reading the ensuing comments below those articles, were really concerned - wondering what happened to the association and what was going on. In the mean time, a few people continued to escalate their attacks, from personal assaults on staff members in the form of slander and libel, to inciting others to contact the Better Business Bureau (BBB), then the Attorney General's (AG) office and then finally our partners, merchants and credit card providers. They demanded that we reinstitute the non-functioning button and permit them to cancel by phone and email - while, all the time, communicating that message in as hateful and vile a correspondence as you can imagine.

What was the reaction from all of the people they were trying to convince not work with ECA anymore?

Really great. Most reacted by saying that they understood the situation and they have similar problems from time to time. The BBB folks also were very understanding and we're continuing to work with them, providing them with whatever documentation and information they request. We had one partner temporarily suspend their current offer for members, wanting to wait to see how the situation was resolved. And we had another who was approached directly by the inciters, who who chose to side with them - but to be fair, he very likely knew nothing of the situation at the time. Everyone else reaffirmed their commitment to the association and, in a few examples, even provided us with valuable feedback.

Do you have any sense of who these folks are?

Absolutely. We know precisely who they are - we have all of their information, of course. Seriously?! Now again, I should be clear that when I refer to the core group, I'm referring to the same people we've been discussing all along; not everyone who is concerned, upset or anxious. I think that those folks were likely relieved to see a new FAQ that we posted in the forums, earlier this past weekend, which explains that we're working on an auto-renew process, that it'll be substantially-similar to other major online gaming services or membership orgs in its design, and that we don't alter their credit card information...

Was that a concern as well?

Only recently. I believe that came to the surface from one of the newer folks who was generally concerned after reading all of the different forums posts. They looked through our membership agreement and came across a section where we state that we could alter expiration dates to process their renewals. It was part of the boiler plate. And again, makes sense in context: I want to renew, but my card just expired. Having that clause would enable us to make the transaction go through, so it never occurred to anyone that it was a bad thing. We never used it and couldn’t imagine other circumstances under which we would. But it was spun or interpreted to mean that we're going to renew you whether you like it or not! I can appreciate that concern, especially framed with all of the other stuff; so, after discussing it, we removed that section entirely.. Legalese, while complex out of necessity sometimes, can also be made clear. I believe that's been our position with EULA standardizations, generally, as well.

There was also some question about how best to communicate to the membership?

Yes, some members asked if we could communicate any significant changes to the membership agreement – such as our removal/rewording of that sub-section we just discussed. As a result of that suggestion, we said that that’s fair and the best way to do so would be via our member’s only monthly newsletter, going forward.

Are you concerned with how this has been playing out?

Of course, very. It’s been grueling on our staff and especially on our forums moderators, who have been on the front lines. On the other hand, getting feedback from members – when it’s communicated civilly – can be really productive. A lot of the things we’ve discussed reflect that open channel of communications where they provide suggestions and comments and we can assess the need and determine how best to address it. But it’s when those lines of communication fall apart, and the discussions happen on other forums, that it’s less productive.

So why take the ECA forums off-line?

Fair enough. That was my decision. Having read all of the discussion and debate all of the issues, it seemed to me that it had all been asked and answered. All of the opinions had been stated and as many of the updates that were available were posted. We hadn’t done a major update to the system – with security patches, with new features and new registration criteria – in some time, so it seemed like a good place to give everyone a break. Like with the other things we’ve said we’re working on, so too will the forums be addressed.

Other major online gaming services have had similar problems with user complaints, why is it so much more emotional with this situation?

With online gaming services, they’re delivering much more of a product than a service in my estimation. So when they went through backlash from users who were upset with their termination policies, there was that difference. Then there’s the fact that many – although not most – of our concerned members were the free trial folks, who didn’t have to pay to join. As compared with the members who did, there may be a mind frame difference. Gaming services cost money; there’s a value proposition, users weigh the pros and cons and commit to join or not. With ECA, we go through that same process, albeit at a much lower price threshold, and the reasons for joining are less about value for the dollar – again, referring to the paid users – and more about what the org does holistically. My guess is that the paid folks are more likely to be involved actively in our advocacy efforts, reading our newsletters and publications and generally aware of the non-benefits areas in which we’re involved. Similarly, the free trial members are probably more likely to be aware of the latest partners and offers that we’ve added as member benefits. That said, our members have an emotional connection with ECA that they probably don’t have – at least in the same way – with an online gaming service.

So where are you now and what’s the plan for moving forward?

As was addressed in the FAQ, we’re working on adding a new module for online account termination as one of the lead priorities. Since they’ve been down this road and had the back and forth with their customers, we can be fairly sure that the systems that are being used now are ones that our folks will be comfortable with. Getting an option to remove auto-renewals will also be addressed in this same build-out, as will be the notification date.

And where does the ECA stand with those members who still want to cancel?

Well, I’d hope that they’d understand that we’re working to address the issues that we’ve discussed at length here, but that these things do take time. I know that asking patience at an emotionally-charged time isn’t the easiest, but I think they’ll feel assured that we haven’t mislead them as they begin to see each of these things come to fruition. If they still decide to part ways, I can’t say that I understand, but I can say that I respect their decision. Look, all of this is new – to them and to us. We need to just do the best that we can and work toward solutions that we’re all comfortable with. That’s really the best that we can do and I hope that they’re willing to be a part of that.

Is there anything else you’d like to add regarding the issue?

Yeah, again, just to restate my sincere apology for anyone who was offended by our statement last week, who felt unintentionally lumped-in with the group that I was referencing. That was never my intention, and feel badly for not being more clear. It really is in all our best interests to work together, learn from the issue and continue to focus on the important work that still needs to be done.

And the ultimate question still remains: why would the stackers/exploiters cancel over and over (via phone) when they didn't need to?

My answer is that they did not. This is simply Hal's smokescreen.

There's two answers from your standpoint.

1) Cause they felt like it. (Doubt you really think this is a good answer.)
2) they didn't know you could clear caches and/or they didn't have multiple email addreses.

Now, let's address 2:

Let's say they didn't have multiple email addresses, as far fetched as that is.

You're trying to argue that they would call the ECA's limited staff repeatedly over the course of a day to get multiple codes.

I said this would be the worse scamming ever because those codes wouldn't stack.

You said they don't have to stack. Exploiters could get 10% off two different orders.

Which brings us back to Hal: Hal says the exploiters were stacking.

You see the problem here? Of course not. But everyone else here that isn't an ECA mod will.

Game. Set. Match, PvtChurch. I've done nothing in this post but boil down our argument. And you lose.

I wasn't even flaming you to start this discussion. I was explaining why Hal is wrong. But you decided to ignore everything everyone has written and just blindly defend the ECA and Hal. And then you claim no one else but you can read. When in reality, it seems you're the one who can't read or think logically.


(Oh hey folks, PvtChurch just sent me the goatse image in my PM. That's the level of maturity we're talking about here. And he has the nerve to condescend to me.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='blissskr']So maybe your as brilliant as Hal and can explain why anyone would join and cancel to get the codes at that point when those particular codes wouldn't stack together to give a multiplied % off you'd need to have both J and L codes which came from much earlier batches to accomplish that. The problem with the whole joined, quit, rejoined theory is that if its applying to stacking that wasn't how stacking worked. And if you wanted additional codes once 'they throttled them' all you had to do was clear your cookies and get another one but even those two wouldn't stack together for 20%.[/QUOTE]

^^ This... Also, it should be added for those who don't know how it all worked (and there are plenty here who feel the need to comment without knowing - I'm not singling anyone out) that you could put in a SINGLE order at Amazon and have the 20% apply to the entire order (of however many games you wanted). There was no need to stack repeatedly to order multiple games. So, not only did you have to have an older (and thus no longer available code) to do the stacking (thus making acquiring multiple new ones in a day unnecessary), you could make one huge order with the old and new code to get the discount (again, making acquiring multiple new ones in a day even more unnecessary). And if, for some reason, you did want multiple codes in one day you could clear the cache, use a different browser, or use a different computer to generate them. But each of those codes would only give you 10% by themselves (and as stated you could order more than 1 game and have 10% apply so there was no point getting more just for different orders).

Now, it is certainly possible that a handful of morons didn't know any of this and called to cancel repeatedly in order to get multiple non-stacking codes per day. But they can't have been that numerous - and by all means I would agree with the ECA punishing them with any means they had at their disposal for their stupidity if nothing else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='io']^

Now, it is certainly possible that a handful of morons didn't know any of this and called to cancel repeatedly in order to get multiple non-stacking codes per day. But they can't have been that numerous - and by all means I would agree with the ECA punishing them with any means they had at their disposal for their stupidity if nothing else.[/QUOTE]

Maybe they disguised their voices like the land shark.

ECA: "Is this that land shark calling to cancel again"
Exploiter: "UPS man"

That's exactly what I mean. People who didn't know about the exploit are commenting on the exploit. This isn't an argument about the ethics of stacking. People who weren't here didn't even know how it worked. And if they did, they would know that you didn't cancel over and over to make it work.
 
Uh...as many others have already ask...exactly how large could this group of idiotic "exploiters" actually have been? I realize the ECA keeps crying they are a small organization, but you can't tell me they don't have the manpower to control a few dozen morons who allegedly kept canceling and joining up again.
 
[quote name='simmias']
Somebody mentioned earlier that I shouldn't refuse compensation, and should instead have Cheapy donate the money to Child's Play. Excellent idea, if he's so inclined. Mailing costs weren't bad at all... only about $13. Other costs (paper, printing, gas, etc) were probably $12, so maybe $25 to Child's Play?[/QUOTE]

I like this idea and just donated $25. The way I look at it, if it wasn't for this thread, I would've got charged $20 next year and either had to eat the cost or go through a royal pain in the ass to get my money back. So there's $20 and I'll say the extra $5 is a fuck you to Hal to show him that even cheapasses don't mind giving money to a cause they know is legitimate and positive.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Uh...as many others have already ask...exactly how large could this group of idiotic "exploiters" actually have been? I realize the ECA keeps crying they are a small organization, but you can't tell me they don't have the manpower to control a few dozen morons who allegedly kept canceling and joining up again.[/QUOTE]


Exactly. Here's the problem with their argument.

Let's say they had 10 people answer phones in accounting. (Which is probably 9 more than they did, but whatever.) If the exploiters were so diligent in canceling over and over, (Remember, it'd have to in one day because you got another code the next day.) wouldn't the 10 people recognize the names and emails after... oh i dunno, a few times?

And if they had tons of people answering phones so that they wouldn't recognize names (like say an Amazon call center), then there goes their "we're too small to handle call volume" argument.

The most likely scenario is that nobody called to cancel. They are just trying to tie two things together that make no sense.

And by and large, exploiters tend not to be moronic. Shady yes but not moronic. As someone else pointed out, they would never call and raise red flags.
 
I found another one of ECA's sponsors that posted a comment on this controversy.
Sorry if this has been posted, I don't remember seeing it and couldn't find it in the search.

Dawdle
 
The most likely scenario is that nobody called to cancel. They are just trying to tie two things together that make no sense.

Well, I am certain people called to cancel, but only after the ECA instituted the 'cancel-by-mail-only' policy.



On a side note...
Now, it is certainly possible that a handful of morons didn't know any of this and called to cancel repeatedly in order to get multiple non-stacking codes per day. But they can't have been that numerous - and by all means I would agree with the ECA punishing them with any means they had at their disposal for their stupidity if nothing else.

Well put, you make the rest of us proud.
 
[quote name='Wrong']Well, I am certain people called to cancel, but only after the ECA instituted the 'cancel-by-mail-only' policy.


.[/QUOTE]

Right. I meant no one called to cancel in order to exploit the system.
 
[quote name='PvtChurch']People figured out they could cancel and resubscribe to get multiple codes in one day (because not everyone realized you could just clear your cache). Thus they could save up to 20% per day. Doesn't matter if they stacked or not. You can still use two seperate 10% off codes in two separate orders.[/QUOTE]

Oh. Wow. Someone needs to go back to 6th grade math. I'm truly amazed that not one person has pointed out to you yet that 10% off of one order + 10% off of another order does not equal a 20% savings, no matter how you do the math . . .

Beyond that, how often do you really think that people were placing multiple Amazon orders in one day, anyway? Given that the code, when applied, worked for an entire order, not just a single item, there would be absolutely no reason to parcel things out into separate orders.

I mean, I absolutely don't doubt that there were maybe a few people displaying the same level of intelligence that you are here who were doing that. But a significant number that would result in the ECA having to clamp down? Not likely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='ravenz7']I found another one of ECA's sponsors that posted a comment on this controversy.
Sorry if this has been posted, I don't remember seeing it and couldn't find it in the search.

Dawdle
[/QUOTE]

First and foremost, the ECA does do good work. They are forceful advocates for gamers' rights in a way that no other organization is. They do their best to keep the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) honest and they do a remarkable job of monitoring legislative developments at the state and local level. These efforts take people, and the ECA is funded primarily through memberships.
We're all still trying to figure out WHAT good work they do. This response from Dawdle sounds like something Hal or one of his underlings wrote, because it contains the same sort of vague comments we're getting way too familiar with. What specific good have they done? We all get it that they "organize"...something...sometime...somewhere. And they "monitor"...stuff.
 
Thanks to everyone for explaining the situation in detail so that I, and retards like PervertChurch, can understand. So sick of ECA-supporter nonsense, you guys are my beacon of hope while awaiting a resolution.

Oh...+10 points to confoosious
 
[quote name='arcane93']Oh. Wow. Someone needs to go back to 6th grade math. I'm truly amazed that not one person has pointed out to you yet that 10% off of one order + 10% off of another order does not equal 20% off . . .[/QUOTE]

I think by that point people just assumed everyone knew that he was an idiot.

An the proof that backs that that two 10% off coupons used on two different orders don't equal 20% off.

10%*10+10%*10=2 or 10*(10+10)=2
20%*20=4

(Note: the second equation is off of 20 because that is the total amount spent in the first equation and second one must have the same amount spent, otherwise the equations are not equal)
 
[quote name='arcane93']Oh. Wow. Someone needs to go back to 6th grade math. I'm truly amazed that not one person has pointed out to you yet that 10% off of one order + 10% off of another order does not equal a 20% savings, no matter how you do the math . . .

Beyond that, how often do you really think that people were placing multiple Amazon orders in one day, anyway? Given that the code, when applied, worked for an entire order, not just a single item, there would be absolutely no reason to parcel things out into separate orders.

I mean, I absolutely don't doubt that there were maybe a few people displaying the same level of intelligence that you are here who were doing that. But a significant number that would result in the ECA having to clamp down? Not likely.[/QUOTE]

I took the response posed in the ECA post at the beginning page to mean that people were stacking 10% and 10% on single orders as the codes were from different batches that through Amazons website were considered 'different' so they would both apply. I skimmed though. But that's my take.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']We're all still trying to figure out WHAT good work they do. This response from Dawdle sounds like something Hal or one of his underlings wrote, because it contains the same sort of vague comments we're getting way too familiar with.[/QUOTE]
Lol thats exactly part of the problem but no one seems to address it. Until the Eca pissed off alot of members who in turn decided to take a closer look at the Eca and discovered that they don't really do much of anything besides release some statements or emails on issues, thats not worth giving them 20 dollars for imo. Fool me once shame on me, but your not going to fool me twice Eca lol.
 
[quote name='Wrong']I think by that point people just assumed everyone knew that he was an idiot.

[/QUOTE]

Dammit! Why didn't you people chime in. I thought people were actually buying his line of reasoning. I couldve saved myself a lot of trouble.

Not to mention the disgusting goatse pic he sent to my PM. After I had dinner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top