darkSpyro

Quote: SlayerX11

Quote: dinoah2005

Quote: SlayerX11

It would have been cooler if the magic pack had figures that weren't in other packs or had 2 figures that weren't in packs and one variant.

I totally agree.
I wonder how many people will buy this, not knowing in the long run they will end up spending more to complete their collection.

Some, at $75 for the game alone that is alot for some ppl. Thou some may find the deal with the triple and a figure worth it for one large xmas gift for johnny or annie (random names). There is also the fact not everyone buys triples, some kids get just a figure here and there. I'm pretty sure $25 for a toy turns some ppl off. $10 is prob the ok amount and even a giant at $15 is pushing it. I truely see this package as a black friday/xmas only item that will disappear after xmas (and whatever is left will sit on the shelves for awhile until a birthday or something).

So ya i do see it selling, but I also think it will be a limited run item.

Sounds like Best Buys Bundle, I did see some right before Giants came out. There was none to be found when we jumped on the Skylander Band Wagon (January - 4 Months after SSA release).

Quote: dinoah2005

Quote: SlayerX11

Quote: dinoah2005

I totally agree.
I wonder how many people will buy this, not knowing in the long run they will end up spending more to complete their collection.

Some, at $75 for the game alone that is alot for some ppl. Thou some may find the deal with the triple and a figure worth it for one large xmas gift for johnny or annie (random names). There is also the fact not everyone buys triples, some kids get just a figure here and there. I'm pretty sure $25 for a toy turns some ppl off. $10 is prob the ok amount and even a giant at $15 is pushing it. I truely see this package as a black friday/xmas only item that will disappear after xmas (and whatever is left will sit on the shelves for awhile until a birthday or something).

So ya i do see it selling, but I also think it will be a limited run item.

Sounds like Best Buys Bundle, I did see some right before Giants came out. There was none to be found when we jumped on the Skylander Band Wagon (January - 4 Months after SSA release).

I actually ran into one of those in late spring and had no idea at first what it was or that it even existed. I thought that i'd prob had gotten that if I joined during SSA.

Just ordered my Enchanted Hoot Loop. It says it will be here by the 22nd. ($16.16 out the door)

Quote: BahamutBreaker

Ugh. Let it go, Bob. How can you claim that you aren't contrary and generally seeking conflict or pointless debate when you make posts like the one you just made directed at Defpally?

C'mon, man ... you're doing nothing there other than trying to egg him on and/or trying to fuel a fire that doesn't need to burn.

You know, even when I extend him an olive branch and a compliment, UncleBob still has to keep on going. He says he doesn't care what people think, yet based on past interactions he cares VERY MUCH. People called him a liar and reported him when he posted info and for months he kept harping on it. It bothers him a great deal when these Internet people do not accept his word as fact.

And UncleBob, I doubt you would "leave him alone" if he gave you the benefit of the doubt and some respect like you say. I just did exactly that for you and you went right back on the attack. When I first posted I wasn't responding to you, I was talking with GhostRoaster. You jumped on me. Don't act like some poor victim that doesn't stir up the hornet's nest for his own amusement when it blows back.

^ Exactly, Defpally. Nail --> head.

Reminds me of one time several months ago when UncleBob and I had an argument or some unsavory disagreement, and afterward, in good faith, I asked if he would apologize. He retorted that he would apologize if I would first. So, I did apologize. After my apology, there was nothing but *crickets* from UncleBob.

It really irks me that UncleBob clearly knows how to skirt the rules and how to troll professionally without getting caught or doing anything overt that could serve as grounds for discipline. I guess we all have unique talents ... for UncleBob it's Monopoly and trolling, apparently. Hey Moderators, I hope you're listening and/or reading: UncleBob is trolling his heart out (like usual) ... are you going to pay attention and notice and do something about him at some point? Or are you just going to ignore his trolling indefinitely?

I apologize if this diversion bothers anyone that isn't involved. I just can not sit on my hands when it comes to people like UncleBob. Fortunately, there are few people like that on this forum.

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: BahamutBreaker

[...]Bob.[...]

Quote: BahamutBreaker

UncleBob, I really have nothing left to say to you. Go away and leave this community alone. And if you can't handle that, then at least leave me alone. Thank you.

Bahamut - if you want me to "leave you alone", then you need to butt out of my conversations and stop posting attacks at me. After the previous thread, I thought you sincerely planned to stop trying to antagonize and goad me into fights, so I said to myself that I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and leave you alone - if you showed me the same. If you want me to leave you alone, then don't respond to my posts (even in a backward/secret/code/passive aggressive way). Consider this your singular "freebie".

See ... this is you, in a nutshell. The only reason I stepped into this conversation is because you started disrupting this thread by trolling and/or antagonizing one of my friends. You can not pick a fight publicly, and then blame a 3rd party for it. Look in the mirror, man. You're a massive troll. This is not an "attack"; it's stating a fact. You are not in a position to issue me any "freebie" or anything like that, and your attitude of self-appointed superiority and entitlement is nauseating and entirely disruptive to almost every thread that you post on here in this forum. I don't act in a "secret coded passive-aggressive" way ... that's YOUR cup of tea, sir, not mine. I'm a straight-shooter. And I'll tell you bluntly, your attitude and commentary is not wanted here.

Quote: defpally

You know, even when I extend him an olive branch [...]

Your "olive branch" is accusing me of arguing just to argue and trying to analyze why so many people hate me... Your olive branch sucks.

Quote:

He says he doesn't care what people think, yet based on past interactions he cares VERY MUCH. People called him a liar and reported him when he posted info and for months he kept harping on it. It bothers him a great deal when these Internet people do not accept his word as fact.

A) For "months"? It's funny, because YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up. Thread after thread. After thread.
Not caring what a few select people (like someone who would post "eat a ****" on someone's guestbook) care about be is very different than being irked for being accused of lying.

Quote:

And UncleBob, I doubt you would "leave him alone" if he gave you the benefit of the doubt and some respect like you say.

I hadn't replied to him since the posts in the help/suggestions forum. Although, after his last two replies, he's shown that he has no interest in a cease fire in his little "campaign". Therefore, I will not extend him anything at this point. And, by the way, I *never* asked for Bahamut's respect. Because he's shown that's worth less than a 2002 copy of Madden.

Quote:

I just did exactly that for you and you went right back on the attack. When I first posted I wasn't responding to you, I was talking with GhostRoaster. You jumped on me. Don't act like some poor victim that doesn't stir up the hornet's nest for his own amusement when it blows back.

How, exactly, did I "jump" on you? By correcting what you posted and not allowing false information to stand?

Then, I apologize. Please, go on telling falsehoods.

Quote: BahamutBreaker

words words words...

Dude. Keep it up. Please.

I like you all as much as I can tell, but you're all breaking my ballz a little bit here. I want to talk about Enchanted Hoot Loops. Did I read right that the figure's colors will change in the sun, and that the character's colors will change in the game, too? If so, that whole not-so-different-from-the-regular-version paint job isn't so bad....

Quote: UncleBob

Dude. Keep it up. Please.

Yes, let's.

Why would I bring it up again again again? Hmm. Because it keeps happening. I'm not claiming to be "above" drilling you for it. You are claiming to "not care" what people think, or just "some" people? You apparently care what I think, that's why you are anxious to "correct" me, despite me just making observations.

And this is well trodden ground with you, but you cannot pick minor details apart and call them "falsehoods". All of the things I posted are true. Were any of those not possible reasons for not allowing trading? Your opinion was that they weren't likely Dark's reasons, to which I agreed. That is not the definition of "falsehood". You "jumped" on me by saying I was "lying" and "making stuff up" by posting my limited insight and opinion.

An "olive branch" was me acknowledging your opinion and value here, observing that is where we usually head down the rabbit hole and a request that we just call a truce there on this issue. After all we both agree that trading isn't allowed and likely never will be allowed. That's offensive to you? I even offered a way for you to make your point in a less confrontational and constructive way. You proceeded to spit it back in my face by picking me apart again, notably clipping out things that reflect positively (I assume to foster the view that you are just defending yourself - from a non-existent attack).

Please, def - you seem to be a fairly knowledgeable gent. Please point out the last time that I initiated conversation regarding the Molten Hot Dog issue that you seem to harp on so often.

And me correcting you has little to do with what *you* think, and more to do with informing the new poster who came into this thread trying to trade. You know, the one that started this conversation about trading.

As for falsehoods....

Quote: defpally

There are all kinds of potential legal issues due to contract law concerning children. Making a deal online is still considered a form of "contract".

Please cite a case law that shows precedence for this statement - that there's any potential legal issues for the webhost in a situation where underage individuals use the webforum to initiate a trade. Please. I'd love to read it. It'd be interesting.

Ahhh...getting off topic here guys. Enough with the ranting..please

I cancelled GameStop order for Dark Edition and went with this WalMart Super Starter.. Seems like the best option for the buck !

Uncle, I would be happy to pull up a list of every time you have posted about your offense every time someone posted new info that was disputed. Unfortunately, the Search feature never works right for me and I cannot pull up your post history. Oh well, the evidence remains for the dedicated to find if they choose, but I don't think the regulars even question this - and neither did you until very recently. Your memory hole is protected by the lack of easy reference. I only brought it up here because of your statement about how you don't care what people think - and it is a direct contradiction. And I do not deny using it several times in the past when it was appropriate.

And I wasn't chiding the new poster, he was informed appropriately by others. My response was in reference to Gooch who thought it appropriate to take a cheap shot on his long running crusade.

And that last statement, let's break it down.

Quote: defpally

There are all kinds of potential legal issues due to contract law concerning children. Making a deal online is still considered a form of "contract".

- Contract law with children is rife with special concerns and regulations for their protection. True or false?
- A trade/sale is a form of "verbal" contract? True or false?
- Parents tend to react fiercely when they believe their child has been taken advantage of, even if they are unaware of the complete case. True or false?
- The venue for a transaction can be involved in a dispute, depending on if they were viewed negligent in allowing it. True or false?
- Even in absence of culpability, a venue can be on the hook to provide evidence, testimony or even just customer support time concerning an action which incurs costs on their part. True or false?
- Being involved or even complicit in a situation that involves children being taken advantage of has the potential of generating very damaging reputation/brand problems. True or false?

All of that adds up to a factual observation, not "making stuff up" or "falsehoods". Opinion comes into it when you determine if that is the likely reason for the conclusion - and I clearly stated that part was opinion, and not a statement of fact.

Quote: PlayableMoogle

I like you all as much as I can tell, but you're all breaking my ballz a little bit here. I want to talk about Enchanted Hoot Loops. Did I read right that the figure's colors will change in the sun, and that the character's colors will change in the game, too? If so, that whole not-so-different-from-the-regular-version paint job isn't so bad....

And for those that want this back on topic, yes Enchanted Hoot Loop changes color in the sun, Walmart's website says so. He originally came up as $99 (a placeholder price) in the cart, but that is fixed now. The release date has moved around, but it appears to be settled back on release of the game (factoring shipping time). He is exclusive to Walmart in the US, and Gamestop in some countries in Europe.

And yes, their package deal is a much better deal than the Dark, if you don't care about "Dark" figures. TRU had a slightly better deal, but it isn't available anymore. The release date and whether LC Hex is part of a pre-order of the package is still unknown as is whether it is available on Day 1.

A.) Pointing out the specific instance when I was accused of lying is a whole world apart from pointing out that there's a small crew of folks who accusing everyone of lying and making stuff up, in spite of the fact that they have been proven wrong time and time again.

Again, I'll be here waiting for you to pull up the last time that I specifically mentioned the Molten Hot Dog situation. Sure, you can sit there and say "You did it, but I can't be bothered to look for it." I think that pretty much speaks for itself.


B.) All that true/false stuff... Funny. I could do something similar.

-In the event of a radioactive Zombie attack tomorrow, it is possible that society will shortly degrade to a point where Skylanders figures will be used as a form of currency, with Enchanted Hoot Loop being an ultra-rare and sought after figure, commanding a large value on the aftermarket - True/False. Hey, that's true! It *could* happen. Therefore, it's not a falsehood that Skylanders will be worth billions in the near future!

But I'm still waiting for some kind of precedence for your statement. You know, some kind of evidence that what you said holds any truth to it - not just conjecture. I won't hold my breath.

Making a ludicrous analogy is not a form of proving your point.

Every single one of mine is a legitimate concern for a website that allows transactions.

Every one of your "facts" in that example is based upon the first statement which is clearly farcical. By that logic I can precede ANY statement with an outlandish statement and then claim the rest is irrelevant/false as a result.

If your statement of legal issues is a "legitimate concern", then you should be easily able to cite legal precedence where a forum that allows transactions was held liable for a person-to-person transaction that occurred on that forum. It's a pretty simple request.

Quote: UncleBob

If your statement of legal issues is a "legitimate concern", then you should be easily able to cite legal precedence where a forum that allows transactions was held liable for a person-to-person transaction that occurred on that forum. It's a pretty simple request.

Sure, let me spend the afternoon Googling and reading legal judgements so I can provide you with exact decisions and passages. I think you know how ridiculous that sounds, which is why you say it. Make the bar for confirmation so high the other party will be unwilling/unable to clear it then claim by default you were right.

I'll do it another (easier) way. You know those gigantic "terms and conditions" statements everyone checks a box to agree to when they buy something from a website? I'll take one from bestbuy.com:

Quote:

Intended for Users Over 13
The Best Buy Web site is intended for use by individuals 13 years of age or older. The Best Buy Web site is not directed for use by children under the age of 13. Users under the age of 13 should get the assistance of a parent or guardian to use this site.

I'm sure they just have that there for funsies, because there is clearly no acceptable precedent. Similar statements on most other online sites that allow commerce (Ebay, Amazon, PayPal, etc.).

I'll let Best Buy know they can scrub that from their terms and conditions. Because Zombies and stuff.

Wow. Amazing.

First off, you realize that "minors" (which is what you're hung up on regarding "contract law") is children under 17 (depending on the individual state, for the most part), not 13, right? It makes no sense to try to apply that statement on Best Buy's website to contract law.

Second, the "under 13" thing is there because COPPA. See how I can provide an explanation? I can even provide links upon request, if you'd like. COPPA makes it ILLEGAL for websites to collect information from children under 13 without those sites jumping through some crazy hoops (which they generally don't want to do, so they just say "no one under 13!") It has absolutely nothing to do with contract law, commerce, etc. It's simply because of COPPA (that one major act that this site is in a clear violation of, by the way).

Third, this website (via the main webhost's terms of service) has a very similar language in the terms of service.

Quote:

The Websites are not directed toward children under 13 years of age nor does Curse knowingly collect information from children under 13. If you are under 13, please do not submit any personally identifiable information.

Therefore, if that magic phrase was intended to mean *anything* regarding "contract law", then, by your logic, this site would already be in the clear for having a similar phrase, right?

Fourth, For the vast majority of what BestBuy.com offers, it's business-to-person transactions, which is far different from person-to-person transactions. If Dark started conducting business d/b/a DarkSpyro.net, then he'd be wise to adopt all kinds of legalize to protect himself.

And fifth, I'm sorry that asking you to provide actual evidence of your statements is too high of a bar for you.

Yes, I see how you can provide an explanation. So can I, and I did. Whether you accept it is another question. And that's what it always comes down to, you refusing to accept anything that didn't originate between your left ear and right ear.

Yes, that has to do with COPPA, but why can't a kid "use" the website as the language states? COPPA only applies to them creating an account and providing identifying information. See, I can nitpick the language too. According to the language a 12 year old cannot even search for Skylanders and look at them.

Now as far as your business to person transaction - what about EBay?

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement.html

Quote:

Using eBay
While using or accessing the Services you will not:
...
use our Services if you are not able to form legally binding contracts (for example if you are under 18), or are temporarily or indefinitely suspended from using our sites, services, applications or tools;

They are not using the 13 and under COPPA term, they use 18. In fact they are specifically making my point. You saying EBay's lawyers are wrong here? Again, my statement you claim is a "falsehood" is this:

Quote: defpally

There are all kinds of potential legal issues due to contract law concerning children. Making a deal online is still considered a form of "contract".

Asking for evidence is fine. Asking someone to produce a legal precedence at the spur of the moment on an online fan forum, yes that bar is too high. I'm not arguing a case in front of a judge, I'm debating a point with a particularly hard-headed Internet person.

I thought this thread was for Walmart Exclusives?
Your giving me a headache.

^So did I dinoah...would you 2 knock it off already...you 2 want to continue to rant, do it to each other in PM's

Now, back on topic... i would like to see this color change of the Enchanted Hoot Loop....because looking at in on the Walmart site it just looks black...like a bad version of a "Dark" color scheme.

I have witnessed many trolls on many forums over the years. Seriously, UncleBob, you take the cake, by a healthy margin. I suppose you'll take that as a compliment, and that doesn't surprise me.

I am astonished that you're allowed to continue blasting people with veiled insults, and that you're allowed to continue antagonizing almost everyone you encounter here. It's really a shame that you're even here. A troll of your professional caliber most certainly should be able to find a more appropriate and suitable forum to carry-on your antics.

I wasn't lying a week or so ago when I said I thought I had nothing left to say to you. You've just gone on and impressed me SO much with your truly superior dedication to and tenacity for unrelenting trolling ... that I realized I did have more to say after all. But now I've said it. So, I'll return to ignoring you, as long as you'll stop trolling my friends. Since I don't have a lot of friends here, it shouldn't be too hard for you to do that, right?

Well, since this thread had outlived its purpose, may I suggest closing it now? Honestly, right now its just a breeding ground for more hateful posts to be thrown about. Just a thought...

I agree. Please stop, guys.

I'm all for it, Matteomax. Please do close it.

Quote: defpally

Yes, that has to do with COPPA, but why can't a kid "use" the website as the language states? COPPA only applies to them creating an account and providing identifying information. See, I can nitpick the language too. According to the language a 12 year old cannot even search for Skylanders and look at them.

You're right - you are simply nit-picking the language. But, to your point, Best Buy probably doesn't care if a 12 year old "can't" browse, since they "can't" buy anything either.

Quote:

Now as far as your business to person transaction - what about EBay?
[...]

They are not using the 13 and under COPPA term, they use 18. In fact they are specifically making my point. You saying EBay's lawyers are wrong here?

Ohhh... getting close. Not quite there, but close. There are two major differences, though, between eBay and a private forum.

First off, an auction, even an online auction, is a very specific type of contract.
Second, eBay isn't a person-to-person transaction. You may think it is, but it isn't. Follow the money. eBay takes a cut. Therefore, it becomes a brokered transaction - which has various legal conditions placed on it that don't apply to something like, say, a message board.

Think of it this way - if someone posts a flyer onto a telephone pole for "free candy". Then, a kid gets abducted trying to get the "Free Candy"... do you sue the telephone company for the flyer posted on the pole?

Quote:

Asking for evidence is fine. Asking someone to produce a legal precedence at the spur of the moment on an online fan forum, yes that bar is too high. I'm not arguing a case in front of a judge, I'm debating a point with a particularly hard-headed Internet person.

I never gave you a time table. Please, do feel free to take all the time you need to Google something that you seem to believe is a very obvious thing.

And for the record, you don't even have to provide links to court documents or anything of the like. For a case like this, there's bound to be a news story or two.

I'll give you a starting point - there's been a couple of times when someone has posted on Craig's List an ad that says something along the lines of "Hey, all the stuff in my house is free, come and take whatever you want."... except the address the person posting gave wasn't their own. After folks went in and robbed the house blind, the owners of the house found out what happened and did what...? Did they sue Craig's List and win? Because one would think there'd be something about that in a news story...

Quote: BahamutBreaker

So, I'll return to ignoring you, as long as you'll stop trolling my friends.

Does that ignoring me include taking pop shots at me in threads I've not even posted in on forums I rarely visit?

Quote:

Since I don't have a lot of friends here[...]

Ya don't say? Hm.

Oh, hey... the exact thing I'm looking for.

http://www.dmlp.org/threats/gibson-v-craigslist

The lawsuit itself is only slightly related, but dude illegally buys a gun off Craigslist, then uses that gun to shoot someone. Victim then sues Craigslist, claiming that they are responsible for the firearm sales that lead to him getting shot.

Craigslist won a total dismissal of the lawsuit based of of section 230 of the "Communications Decency Act"

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

You can read much more about it here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...ons-decency-act

Even more related would be Doe v. Myspace (2008) where MySpace was sued for failing to protect a minor from something that occurred because of communication on the site. I won't go into the details (you can Google it if you want, but it's not pleasant), but it covers your supposed concerns in a nutshell.

^Realy? ....i agree with the others. SkylanderPrime you need to close this .....because it looks like (trollmaster)UncleBob dosen't want to stop.

Responding to posts made directly to me (with facts to back me up) doesn't make me a troll.

Name calling, however...

but UncleBob..what you talking about has nothing to do with the topic....and instead of feeding them....just let it go.

Quote: Phoenix_Lord

but UncleBob..what you talking about has nothing to do with the topic....and instead of feeding them....just let it go.

He doesn't let it go, ever. I gave him several outs last time and even when he chose to jump in this time and accuse me of "making stuff up" despite him not having a stake in the conversation at all, I offered him a way to not turn this into an argument.

And now he is taking this off on a tangent about case law for what was a pretty harmless statement, that is proven true definitively in post #120 (not that he will admit it). That isn't normal. No one can say I wasn't polite to him, even concerning his history, look back at the early posts and his responses. Simply not responding to him isn't effective, he jumps in on your posts like this one for me, and for him to act all offended at "name calling" is dumb given the accusations he makes towards people over the tiniest little thing.

I think Uncle is a value to this forum, but he simply chooses to start arguments with sooooo many people over the dumbest little things. Then claims offense in his endless quest for the last word. So yeah, maybe it is time for him to get yet another thread closed. And maybe even time for the mods to consider giving him a reasonable length Gnorcing to think it over. He lacks the ability to self regulate. But, I'm sure he thinks it is MY fault. And Bahamut's fault. And Phoenix_Lord's fault. And so on.

Edit: And yes I posted again, but wouldn't you if someone called you a "liar"?

A.) It's funny that you're concerned about being called a liar... because that was what irked me in the Molten Hot Dog situation that you seem to think wasn't anything to be concerned about.

B.) Post #120 proved nothing at all.

C.) Post #127-128 give you the exact answer you're looking for.

Looks like this thread has run its course. Not much on topic any more.

^ Yes SkylanderPrime...just close it