[Rob Fenix]

Originally posted by meade95
No one on here (and not me for sure) ever advocated any position that the "customer is always right"....What I did say is more often then not consumers (people) make the right decesions when given the freedom to decide issues for themselves. And this is 100% true!.....and quite the oppostie of the notion "the customer is aways right".....No one said such a thing and thus your argument against it.....is well, foolish.

We've somehow gotten miles off from the original topic here...

Indeed, it seems we are debating two seperate issues entirely. On the one hand, the sentiment that the customer is always right. Meaning that "Average Joe" can look at a 10 dollar bill and decide between spending it on an instant lotto ticket or a hot meal. Either way, "Joe's" decision is 100% the correct one. It is his $10 to spend. Not my place to say he's right or wrong. I think just about everyone can agree with this.

Then, we have "The customer is always right", the business motto that poor working shleps everywhere curse on a near daily basis. "Average Joe" has the choice of spending his $10 on a grease burger value meal, or a nice healthy dinner that's a bit easier on the arteries. "Joe" knows the pros and cons of each decision, but when he elects for the grease burger and unfailingly slaps the merchant with a law suit as soon as he is off the operating table. This is the issue I so adamantly loathe.

It may have been a missunderstanding of the original useage that led to this point in the first place, so I'll let it rest. I think we actually have a very similar view here, it just gets muddled in the forum translation.

And like I said I have emailed both Tom and Jim for years. I know things can be done via email with them.....that being said, if an offer in an email was made ....(and maybe Tom didn't know he was agreeing to such....but still agreed)....then that offer should be kept.

Again, I think you and I are not so different. If indeed an offer was made [u]in private[\u], via email, it should be upheld. My stance takes a sharp U-turn though when the issue is dragged into the public light, especially when initiated by the consumer. I view this as borderline extortion. There is, was, and likely never will be a reason why this type of thing can not be resolved by two parties in private. If the consumer does not reach the desired level of satisfaction, there are more appropriate ways to handle the situation. That's why we pay taxes.

It is silly to think otherwise. And, let me also say from past experience ...going back to Lance Haffner games.....if OOTP wasn't involved....the game would have been set out to "thebadguy" in a second! .....because of the miscommunication...

(lets just say from "history", I know this to be true).

I respect your past dealings with the Trunzo's. While I personally haven't had the pleasure of corresponding on a one-on-one level with either Tom or Jim, their name's and reputations were familiar to me even before they joined .400/OOTP. I do not own any of the older games. I do have a purchased license for "World Championship Boxing Manager", which incidently seems to have dropped from the face of the earth. I seem to recall their names from my days tracking that community, although I can't remember their involvement (if any) with that project.

I am very well acquainted with the duo of Markus Heihnson (appologies to Markus, I know the last name is misspelled) and Steve Kuffrey from the OOTP baseball series. I'm not sure who calls what shots when it comes to company policy at OOTP, but I know that Markus and Steve are both very honest and forthright in their dealings with customers.

I'm going to hush up now, as I think we could go back and forth till the release of Windows 2015XP/ME/NT v6.007.213.56C on this. Before I start rambling again, let me close with this, "Jim, Tom, I applaud your handling of this matter".

Edit - Wow. My HTML editting needs a bit of brushing up