waiting for resolution RAZBAM Situation Post Archive (will be deleted)

[Guest]

4 hours ago, RafaPolit said:

- The fact that ED could withhold payment for reasons that have nothing to do with the sales, is something I am not happy about.  Lets give ED all the benefit of the doubt and that there is a breach of contract on proprietary code sold or given away by Razbam.  That should 100% merit a court process where they demand payment, damages and compensation from Razbam, but that should not have prevented ED from paying Razbam the income made for selling the modules.  It should have been a separate process for which I would 100% stand by ED. 

While that sounds great in theory, in my experience in the real world that is not how these things work.  If Party A owes some amount of money to Party B, and then Party B breaches a contract and as a result owes (or arguably owes) Party A some money, Party A would almost always withhold or "set off" the amount owed.  To do otherwise would be silly, as once Party A pays the money it owes to Party B, Party B has no incentive to negotiate further. 

[Nightdare]

2 hours ago, exhausted said:

Hearsay is when an out of court statement is being used to prove the truth of what the statement is about

 

No, hearsay is not generally not admissible as evidence, that's why it's called "hearsay"

to be admissible, you can't use it as proof, you need to prove it as truth, but then it's not hearsay, but testimony

 

2 hours ago, exhausted said:

The biggest issue with this is that neither party is going to answer us, so there is no way to cross examine them in anyway

 

So in other words: you have nothing but conjecture

 

2 hours ago, exhausted said:

But hearsay is probably not harmful here

 

If hearsay puts off people from buying modules they would have done without, it most certainly is harmful

If hearsay makes people send 'less than civilized' messages concerning their purchase to a party involved, it most certainly is harmful

If hearsay puts people in the community against one another, it most certainly is harmful

 

Three very true situations currently happening, and yet, there you are, making that statement as if you didn't have prior acces to read over a 100 pages concerning this issue

 

The reason the (smart) people at ED and RB are not yapping their traps off is to prevent themselves/their company from doing what you are now: make statements that (can) make them lose credibility

And unlike you, they don't just have to deal with this community, but possible legal ramifications

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, exhausted said:

Hearsay is when an out of court statement is being used to prove the truth of what the statement is about, and it is used for its actual evidentiary value in several ways, even in court. 

33 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

No, hearsay is not generally not admissible as evidence, that's why it's called "hearsay"

to be admissible, you can't use it as proof, you need to prove it as truth, but then it's not hearsay, but testimony

Sorry to be that guy, but you are both correct in some ways.  In the US legal system, "hearsay" is exactly as exhausted described.  Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states "'Hearsay' means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." There is lots of very high-quality evidence that falls within the definition of hearsay.

The general rule in the US legal system is that hearsay is not admissible as evidence.  However there are mountains of exceptions to the hearsay rule (feel free to google Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence if you are having trouble sleeping). In practice a lot of hearsay is eventually admitted.  

Now, in common parlance, I agree with Nightdare's definition.  When normal non-lawyer humans use the term hearsay they mean uncorroborated gossipy information.  That kind of evidence is ALSO usually not admissible in court, but often for other reasons in addition to the hearsay rules.

Edited July 23, 2024 by wombat778

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

 

No, hearsay is not generally not admissible as evidence, that's why it's called "hearsay"

to be admissible, you can't use it as proof, you need to prove it as truth, but then it's not hearsay, but testimony

 

 

So in other words: you have nothing but conjecture

 

 

If hearsay puts off people from buying modules they would have done without, it most certainly is harmful

If hearsay makes people send 'less than civilized' messages concerning their purchase to a party involved, it most certainly is harmful

If hearsay puts people in the community against one another, it most certainly is harmful

 

Three very true situations currently happening, and yet, there you are, making that statement as if you didn't have prior acces to read over a 100 pages concerning this issue

 

The reason the (smart) people at ED and RB are not yapping their traps off is to prevent themselves/their company from doing what you are now: make statements that (can) make them lose credibility

And unlike you, they don't just have to deal with this community, but possible legal ramifications

 

The simple summary of what you just wrote is you are taking known statements and reducing them to conjecture, to..... win an internet argument? 

That's not how any of this works. Hearsay is evidence and is perfectly treatable as such. Since evidence is rarely conclusive, even, say, DNA, you have to remember it is up to the person viewing it to decide how persuasive that evidence is. And, if you can't agree with someone's opinion then that does not mean you have been appointed to police thought and tell people to get lost, like some of you have. 

You can call something hearsay all you want, but you will still be forced to understand that hearsay is evidence and it is allowable for several different reasons your negative comments have nothing to do with.

[Nightdare]

5 minutes ago, exhausted said:

you are taking known statements and reducing them to conjecture, to..... win an internet argument?

 

Go ahead, give us the actual details of the dispute, so we can asses if your 'known statements' are relevant testimony instead of hearsay...we'll wait

 

And yes, it's only for an internet argument, unlike using conjecture to try and prove a actual court case between parties you are not part of and will not be able to provide us detailed information concerning the case

[exhausted]

16 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

Go ahead, give us the actual details of the dispute, so we can asses if your 'known statements' are relevant testimony instead of hearsay...we'll wait

 

And yes, it's only for an internet argument, unlike using conjecture to try and prove a actual court case between parties you are not part of and will not be able to provide us detailed information concerning the case

That's nonsense, this is a forum and not a courtroom and there is no reason to follow court rules. I'd be surprised if you could even find the court rules for a forum where a case like this would even be tried. You're still using court terms completely out of context trying to shut people down and you show no more than halfway pseudo-expertise. Nobody is trying to prove a court case that hasn't even been filed. You can calm down and let people talk, without being high and mighty about policing the discussion, is all.

Edited July 23, 2024 by exhausted

[NineLine]

The forum defense rests...

[Hammer1-1]

18 minutes ago, NineLine said:

The forum defense rests...

ever had a stomach ulcer before?

[RafaPolit]

6 hours ago, wombat778 said:

While that sounds great in theory, in my experience in the real world that is not how these things work.  If Party A owes some amount of money to Party B, and then Party B breaches a contract and as a result owes (or arguably owes) Party A some money, Party A would almost always withhold or "set off" the amount owed.  To do otherwise would be silly, as once Party A pays the money it owes to Party B, Party B has no incentive to negotiate further. 

Yeah, obviously, that's why I mentioned that I am less interested in the legal part and more interested in the "humane" or "customer service" part, for lack of another term.  

[JuiceIsLoose]

On 7/15/2024 at 7:38 PM, NineLine said:

There is still room for discussion, and I hope very much we will get some more official announcements. 

So it has become nearly 4 months since the last official announcement by ED. Since we are being told to only look at official announcements, any chance we get a new one from ED management? That their last official statement is still valid, that they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness"? We are being told to only look at official announcements, and it has been nearly 4 months.......with no news.... 

Edited July 23, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[krazyj]

3 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So it has become nearly 4 months since the last official announcement by ED. Since we are being told to only look at official announcements, any chance we get a new one from ED management? That their last official statement is still valid, that they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness"? We are being told to only look at official announcements, and it has been nearly 4 months.......with no news.... 

 

chances are there are no shareable news yet, summer months, holidays and all. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 minute ago, krazyj said:

chances are there are no shareable news yet, summer months, holidays and all. 

Well you would hope ED would make resolution of this issue a priority, as they stated they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness." So hopefully they are actually doing that. You know, to benefit their customers who have purchased an EA module with 0 updates (apart from a single radar bug fix) in nearly 4months....... 

[krazyj]

2 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Well you would hope ED would make resolution of this issue a priority, as they stated they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness." So hopefully they are actually doing that. You know, to benefit their customers who have purchased an EA module with 0 updates (apart from a single radar bug fix) in nearly 4months....... 

legal matters and contract distputes can drag on for years depending on the complexity, so I wouldnt hold my breath that we see anything until the fall. and that is only if a settlement is made. if its going to court it depends on the court availability ect ect. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

3 minutes ago, krazyj said:

legal matters and contract distputes can drag on for years depending on the complexity, so I wouldnt hold my breath that we see anything until the fall. and that is only if a settlement is made. if its going to court it depends on the court availability ect ect. 

Then it would be great if ED made an official announcement saying, "Hey this is going to court. We no longer expect this to be resolved within a timely manner." Again last official announcement states they "are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims". So if that has changed would appreciate an official announcement. As again, we are being told to only follow official announcements.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, RafaPolit said:

Yeah, obviously, that's why I mentioned that I am less interested in the legal part and more interested in the "humane" or "customer service" part, for lack of another term.  

But if ED are only doing what any well-advised company in their shoes would do, is it really fair to hold that against them?

[exhausted]

2 hours ago, wombat778 said:

But if ED are only doing what any well-advised company in their shoes would do, is it really fair to hold that against them?

Yes, if it only results in consumers being kept unaware that the modules they will buy won't have the promised longevity in the game. Burden shifting to the consumers, who will be left with lemons may be fine between ED and Razbam, but will create a new issue with ED and its customers.

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So it has become nearly 4 months since the last official announcement by ED. Since we are being told to only look at official announcements, any chance we get a new one from ED management? That their last official statement is still valid, that they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness"? We are being told to only look at official announcements, and it has been nearly 4 months.......with no news.... 

 

I am sure all involved want nothing more than to address this as fast as possible. When we have something new to share we will. 

[Peregrino]

hace 1 hora, NineLine dijo:

I am sure all involved want nothing more than to address this as fast as possible. When we have something new to share we will. 

Totally agree, some people like me, may be waiting for this problem to be solved, to buy one or two razbam modules as soon as possible, the problems are solved. So more money income to both companies, then.

[Mizzy]

20 hours ago, exhausted said:

Wow mizzy... In a thread where others are discussing contracts and admissibility, your understanding of hearsay is wrong. When someone is trying to educate themselves and discuss, it is your role to not police discussion and tell people they are invalid simply because you don't personally agree. What kind of logic are you using anyways? Hearsay is when an out of court statement is being used to prove the truth of what the statement is about, and it is used for its actual evidentiary value in several ways, even in court. 

WOW, jumping on one of my posts yet again ! So where did I give a definition of 'hearsay' for you to conclude I am wrong and ostensibly means you are right !  What logic is that . So, what is my definition of 'hearsay' please expound your wisdom.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, exhausted said:

Yes, if it only results in consumers being kept unaware that the modules they will buy won't have the promised longevity in the game. Burden shifting to the consumers, who will be left with lemons may be fine between ED and Razbam, but will create a new issue with ED and its customers.

But at this point we have no actual reason to believe that will happen beyond guesswork.  All of the Razbam modules currently work fine, and ED have said they have taken/will take steps to ensure that continues.  Yes, the F-15E hasn't received any updates -- but ED have also provided refunds (granted of store credit) for the F15E.  So it seems to me that we have no reason to believe at this stage that that the modules we bought "won't have the promised longevity in the game"  

Edited July 23, 2024 by wombat778

[Mizzy]

12 minutes ago, Peregrino said:

Totally agree, some people like me, may be waiting for this problem to be solved, to buy one or two razbam modules as soon as possible, the problems are solved. So more money income to both companies, then.

I believe it has been addressed about the other modules. They are not in early access so they were not going to get any updates but will continue to be maintained in DCS regardless of Razbam staying or leaving DCS. 

Mizzy

3 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

All of the Razbam modules currently work fine, and ED have said they have taken/will take steps to ensure that continues.  

 

This is what I have been led to believe but some here just like to stir things.

Mizzy

[Mizzy]

15 hours ago, exhausted said:

That's nonsense, this is a forum and not a courtroom and there is no reason to follow court rules. I'd be surprised if you could even find the court rules for a forum where a case like this would even be tried. You're still using court terms completely out of context trying to shut people down and you show no more than halfway pseudo-expertise. Nobody is trying to prove a court case that hasn't even been filed. You can calm down and let people talk, without being high and mighty about policing the discussion, is all.

 

 Where did anyone mention this thread was a Courtroom and others are talking "completely out of context trying to shut people down". That is exactly what you are trying to do. Everyone who doesn't share your view is talking nonsense and their understandings are all wrong in your opinion. Change the record.  

[exhausted]

32 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

WOW, jumping on one of my posts yet again ! So where did I give a definition of 'hearsay' for you to conclude I am wrong and ostensibly means you are right !  What logic is that . So, what is my definition of 'hearsay' please expound your wisdom.

I think you missed out on quite a bit. No need to keep lashing out. Can we all just move on now?

[Peregrino]

hace 1 hora, Mizzy dijo:

I believe it has been addressed about the other modules. They are not in early access so they were not going to get any updates but will continue to be maintained in DCS regardless of Razbam staying or leaving DCS. 

Mizzy

I have full faith in that

In DCS, I have a bunch of modules, terrains and assets since some years. Nothing bought without a 30-50% discount. Finished RAZBAM modules were in discount sales up to last year (Spring Sale 2023 last one). Since them, no discount in finished Razbam modules. Suspiciously, or coincidentally, retrospectively. I'm sure that solved the problems, the discount in season sales will return.

 

Edited July 23, 2024 by Peregrino

[Beirut]

23 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Honestly I dont even know why the moderators havent shut this topic down specifically because of the hearsay because its not productive at all.

 

Nothing personal there, brother, but you have a lot of posts in this thread - a quick look and I saw six of your posts on one page alone - and now you're saying you want it closed.

 

Doesn't everyone have as much right to voice their opinion here as you?