Star Citizen - The E.L.E.

[dsmart]

Note that the chart to the next Evocati release, not the PTU or final.  :ssh:

[FredBloggs]

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/7967hf/star_citizen_tax_credit_fraud_the_saga_continues/

Ahahaha! Crowdfunding to bring down CIG due to their tax evasion. I'm not sure if it was posted anywhere else.

Anyway,  :f5: :f5:

[dsmart]

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/7967hf/star_citizen_tax_credit_fraud_the_saga_continues/

Ahahaha! Crowdfunding to bring down CIG due to their tax evasion. I'm not sure if it was posted anywhere else.

Anyway,  :f5: :f5:

I haven't caught up on that one yet, but it's going to be a huge stretch to make a case for tax fraud.

[Motto]

But it may generate more (media) attention to the scam and she is willing to put up the first 500 herself. The second 500 she needs help with.

[premiumnugz]

The tax fraud case is tenuous at best, but the release of documents relating to the BFI and CIG would be interesting and is the right of all British and EU Citizens I believe, it would certainly generate a lot of inquiring headlines and media noise, further embarrassing Star Citizen. The fact that the BFI refused to release the documents due to "commercial sensitivity" or whatever after taking 2 months to think about it shows they must be sweating over something and not completely sure themselves, maybe they don't want bad press either. I would certainly chuck in a few dollars to make the sun shine where it usually doesn't.

[dsmart]

The tax fraud case is tenuous at best, but the release of documents relating to the BFI and CIG would be interesting and is the right of all British and EU Citizens I believe, it would certainly generate a lot of inquiring headlines and media noise, further embarrassing Star Citizen. The fact that the BFI refused to release the documents due to "commercial sensitivity" or whatever after taking 2 months to think about it shows they must be sweating over something and not completely sure themselves, maybe they don't want bad press either. I would certainly chuck in a few dollars to make the sun shine where it usually doesn't.

Yeah, but as much as I would like to see that happen, I just caught up on OSC chiming in on it across two lengthy posts, and I have to agree with him. The whole thing is a farce and has scam written all over it.

[Motto]

When is the repay to Coutts due?

[dsmart]

When is the repay to Coutts due?

We don't know because it's not public.

[StanTheMan]

The tax fraud case is tenuous at best, but the release of documents relating to the BFI and CIG would be interesting and is the right of all British and EU Citizens I believe, it would certainly generate a lot of inquiring headlines and media noise, further embarrassing Star Citizen. The fact that the BFI refused to release the documents due to "commercial sensitivity" or whatever after taking 2 months to think about it shows they must be sweating over something and not completely sure themselves, maybe they don't want bad press either. I would certainly chuck in a few dollars to make the sun shine where it usually doesn't.

I dont know much about this area of law however I do know that there have been plenty of Freedom of Information requests made on all sorts of issues and many don't result in a lot happening or a lot being revealed that is actionable or particularly reported in the media.   The public is getting bored of them and any discussions on tax avoidance and evasion are dominated by the likes of Google, Amazon and Celebrities.

There is an added problem which is that when the public hear Tax Credits most hear money given to relatively poor people (or people gaming the system) rather than businesses.

[Delvymatt]

The tax fraud case is tenuous at best, but the release of documents relating to the BFI and CIG would be interesting and is the right of all British and EU Citizens I believe, it would certainly generate a lot of inquiring headlines and media noise, further embarrassing Star Citizen. The fact that the BFI refused to release the documents due to "commercial sensitivity" or whatever after taking 2 months to think about it shows they must be sweating over something and not completely sure themselves, maybe they don't want bad press either. I would certainly chuck in a few dollars to make the sun shine where it usually doesn't.

I dont know much about this area of law however I do know that there have been plenty of Freedom of Information requests made on all sorts of issues and many don't result in a lot happening or a lot being revealed that is actionable or particularly reported in the media.   The public is getting bored of them and any discussions on tax avoidance and evasion are dominated by the likes of Google, Amazon and Celebrities.

There is an added problem which is that when the public hear Tax Credits most hear money given to relatively poor people (or people gaming the system) rather than businesses.

Sadly "commercially sensitive" is a common response when public bodies don't wish to disclose details and has been used by a common defence by HMRC also. There are some excellent articles on how to attack them though. such as here

https://onlinejournalismblog.com/2015/01/09/what-to-do-if-your-foi-is-refused-under-commercial-sensitivity-and-breach-of-confidence/

[Motto]

Apparently, CIG SC is not so busy with the prea-Alpha 3.0 build, since they have time to find new words to deflect refunds

As I posted before when we all received the copy paste 3.0 reply halting refunds I submitted complaints to every entity recommended. Please see CIGs response to BBB complaint:

“Customer's complaint is addressed to the wrong entity: his contract is with Roberts Space Industries Corp. ("RSI"), and we are responding on behalf of that entity.

The complaint is premature since complainant has been advised by our Player Relations department that his request is under review, and that our E-commerce specialists will revert to him as soon as they have had an opportunity to analyze his account.

Complainant has conducted 25 transactions on his account in 2015 and 2016 which renders the processing of complainant's refund request time consuming. Firstly, we can refund only items which are returnable (e.g. excluding delivered physical merchandize or monthly subscription fees for expired months), and which remain on customer's account. Secondly, since the gifting, store credit services, and so forth may have been used by and amongst the players for third-party trading, we need to verify which amount remains on the account and is actually refundable pursuant to applicable FinCEN rules issued by the US Treasury. Under these mandatory rules, we cannot refund an item to a third party (e.g. a giftee having received a digital item from another backer on our site), since this would constitute an unlicensed money transfer.

Generally, after an initial "no questions asked" refund period of 14 days, refunds are indeed discretionary. To make this abundantly clear to every customer at the time of each pledge, they are asked to click a button acknowledging and agreeing to the following unequivocal statement: "... the game is currently in development and funds collected from your pledge will be used for the development of the game itself. ... Any deficiencies of alpha releases, or any deviations from game design decisions or schedule announcements may not be considered a breach of our obligations, and will not entitle you to a refund." In other words, the refund issue is never "buried" in some lengthy Terms of Service document, but its acknowledgment is an explicit and required part of the pledge process, specifically agreed to every time the backer makes a pledge. Nonetheless, we consider a refund request always on a case by case basis to decide whether and to what extent we can grant it on a courtesy basis. As stated above, we will revert to this customer as soon as possible when the review of his complex account has been completed.”

On mobile but I can do screenshots upon request.

[dsmart]

I see they're still clinging onto the 14 day refund nonsense, even though that only applies AFTER you have delivered the product promised.

[N0mad]

So here's an interesting question: has Dual Universe pre-Alpha now overtaken Star Citizen in terms of scope and delivery?

I know Elite Dangerous has been available for a while with planets but they are largely empty and it's not so much a first person or MMO experience. Whereas Dual Universe has:

• A true single shard MMO
• Ship to planet to first person experience
• Multiple planets
• True "go anywhere do anything" experience, including building your own ships / bases etc

Honestly, how long will it be before Star Citizen is even relevant any more? Although I'm sure the zealots won't see it like that.

[Motto]

Until now, Nova Quark is doing things the right way. Regular community feedback with a monthly newsletter, a monthly Dev progress video, an open forum. Slow but steady progress and nothing hyped up. Or sold as JPEGs.

Actually it's kinda sad, but there is a real chance that Dual Universe might become best known as the next best thing compared to the game Chris Roberts wanted to make, but fucked up. Which wouldn't do NQ/DU justice.

Ah well, as long as Derek doesn't feel the urge to blog about them  :smuggo:

[N0mad]

Until now, Nova Quark is doing things the right way. Regular community feedback with a monthly newsletter, a monthly Dev progress video, an open forum. Slow but steady progress and nothing hyped up. Or sold as JPEGs.

Actually, I think there's more than that: NQ implemented the most complex technology first, namely the voxel technology, planets and the single shard server setup. The core technology will often impact the subsequent features in all sorts of ways and you need a solid base on which to build the rest of the game. Star Citizen is a case study of how not to develop software - start with the pretty visuals then try changing all the underlying core systems and wonder why everything is broken.