Hiku said:
Captain_Yuri said:
I highly doubt people actually share their passwords with strangers specially when you have your credit card tied to your account and if they do, that is the next level of being dumb but I doubt such a thing would happen. But fine, I will agree that in this perticular sitution, it can be considered unauthorized transaction not that it could be proven either ways
Well its not that hard to believe the victim cause even after it got spread, Sony didn't deny their idiotic policies on the matter which obviously means its true so I doubt I am leaning in one direction at all because its Sony's policies. Could it have ended up by him getting a refund anyway? Sure but thats just going into speculation. The fact of the matter is that this is what their policies state hence why they wouldn't have give him a full refund if it didn't blow up. You can defend them all you like but that is exactly what Sony's policies are and its one of the worst policies I have ever heard. And heres the thing, again, its about their policies and companies have policies for a reason and that is to follow them... Sony said that if what the dude was saying turns out to be true, his resolution out of all of this would result in those very limited things so I don't see whats so hard to understand about it. And its funny that you are telling me that I lean towards one side while you are doing the same even though there are quite a number of things against the side you are leaning towards
Yes, you do get vastly different responses but this should have not been a response at all. The best response should have been that "we will investigate the sitution and based on the investigation, we will give you a full refund if what we find out matches what you are saying to be true (or something along those lines)" and not saying that even after the investigation reveals what he is saying is true, he will be limited to those terrible resolutions...
And the bottom line is that Sony's customer service is terrible when it comes to this sort of a sitution with their policies which they will hopefully revise and not make it so idiotic. Their policies stated that the best outcome for him would have been those terrible choices instead of saying that he would get a full refund if all things resulted in his statements being true.
|
Well it's a scary reality, but it looks like account sharing with strangers is a lot more common than we'd like to think. It's all over the internet, all the time. Here's the first hit I got on a Google search:
Don't know how many of these people have a creditcard tied to their account vs PSN cards, but as we've established before, people are stupid. So it's safe to say that the likelyhood of some of them having that is there, given the sheer amount of people getting into this.
And I'm not defending them. I'm defending my stance of "decide after a thorough investigation", which began in opposition of your original comment, which was him "providing clear proof." And I think we've established that there was very little that he himself can prove regarding the access of his account. That mainly falls on Sony to look into. The fact that the money was seemingly spent against his will, I never disputed, and pointed out myself several times.
I gave them both the benefit of the doubt. But if you're only leaning one way, I'll have to be the one to point out the other possibilities. That is how debating works.
Though I'm not sure what your point is here: "Could it have ended up by him getting a refund anyway? Sure but thats just going into speculation."
Isn't your suggestion that he wouldn't have been refunded if this didn't hit the news also speculation? Because that's why I replied with another speculation.
Or so, I'd like to say. But now I noticed that there's been a confusion here.
You see, in the article that I originally read, it did not state that these were his only options after the investigation. http://www.vgchartz.com/article/253363/psn-user-got-account-hacked-and-lost-600-sony-will-only-refund-150/
But in this topic, I see now that that that's what it said. So there may be a discrepancy here between the articles, as phrasing can change depending on how the article writer interprits it, or wants to word it.
I was basing my comments on what I read in the other article. And in that one it sounded like things could change after they investigate, because only at the end did they mention that an investigation was underway, after an update on the matter.
I see now why you seemed to have a strong conviction of the opposite. Hopefully you understand where I was coming from as well. I'd like to see how the original article was worded before I'm certain of one or the other. But if it's true that these were the only outcomes even after an investigation, then I agree with you that they're very stupid policies.
|
