EVE General Discussion

You were having too much "fun" with your "nanoed" "frigate" to be thinking clearly.

see? I can do it too!

/biomasses self

I got all of it, and I questioned it.
I'll take that as you not wanting to answer the questions then, so I'll try again:

What did they lose?
How is the decision any less valid?
What has changed in the environment?
How does being able to fly barges at max bonus, being able to instantly train into exhumers, being able to fly indy-CS (what their decisions yielded before) differ from being able to fly barges at max bonus, being able to instantly train into exhumers, being able to fly indy-CS (what their decisions will yield after the change)?
Why on earth should anyone be reimbursed when they haven't lost anything?
And why did you make up the lie about CCP handing out Mining Barge V?

I'll only give you more shot at this, or I'll conclude that you agree in full with the their being no loss and thus no grounds for reimbursement (thus making it the third time you come to that conclusion), and that answering these questions would reveal this, which is why you're doing your best (i.e. not very well) trying to avoid them.

Yes. It's not really applicable to costs you've paid in the past and for which you have gained the full set of benefits ever since (and ever after). What you have there is a sunk cost with persistent rewards that you accepted as entirely reasonable at the time and which therefore are entirely reasonable forever. If other people at some other point has paid a different cost is of no relevance — what mattered was the cost and benefit at the time and whether or not you thought one was worth the other.

No, they couldn't. Or, well, yes, they could, but then they would not have had the Orca and there would still be no grounds for reimbursement since they still hadn't lost anything. Those that did spend their time on MB V got something that's still useful: MB V. Since it still has a use, it's not really lost…

It's not the "tool" that "matters", it's how you "manoeuvre" it.

You need to answer this for yourself.

The only reason I drove to the servo* was for a bottle of milk. They didn't have any in stock. Should they now pay for the fuel I wasted?

If I was allowed to answer this for myself, and I was being honest, I would say no. But if I was gonna be whiny and butthurt about it, I'd be taking exact measurements on every trip, just in case.

*For those that don't understand, "servo" = Australian slang for service station, aka petrol/gas station, aka "garage"

So you agree, then — for the third time — that there is no grounds for reimbursement.
Well, I suppose that settles that, then.

Thank you for finally seeing things our way even if it had to be dragged out of you.
Had it not been easier to just say that to begin with?

Wasn't it just. Best in a while.

Maybe you shouldn't have let them "manoeuvre" their "ship" into your "station" so forcefully.

(OK, I know it's an Avatar ... deal with it)

My kids learned a long time ago that slamming doors and stomping their feet in my house = no allowance for the week. If they want to stomp around and be pissed at me, they do it outside now. They do like getting paid.

Edit: I should add, they also learned that stating valid reasons with their requests, and doing so in a polite and non-whiny manner, is more likely to result in my actually listening to their arguments and considering them before I say No. Occasionally I even say Yes, just to keep them on their toes.

Edit: I didn't feel comfortable with that. So I'm going to be a wuss and remove it.

The wife is asking why I'm laughing so much, but I told her it's a secret.