The game in question released a buggy update that recharacterized some of the player slots as spectator slots unless a workaround was appliedThis was a known bug that we notified all our customers of, with a fix known to be coming with the next versionAll servers of this type (Battlefield 4) were affected, at all hosts An easy workaround was available to make the slots operate properly again, and we communicated this to the customerIt did work, and we verified that it workedOther customers also found the workaround and verified it, detailing their experiences in a public thread at http://www.nfoservers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=93&t= [redacted] (that we linked for this customer to ensure that he saw it) This is not a question of ethicsThis was a simple technical problem with the game, and one which had a defined and simple solution that we communicatedThe customer did not lose value because of this, and we held up our commitment of providing all services that were orderedA refund of unrelated, non-refundable funds is not warranted The buggy release was made on February The game developer fixed the bug with an updated release on February 13, and the workaround is no longer required now
The services that we provide have specifications that are described on the order page and we honor those specificationsThis customer ordered a Minecraft server with a specific amount of memory and supported number of players, and we provided it.We allow full access for customers to modify their servers to meet their own needsIn the case of this game, customers can essentially change anything that they want about the game, and in doing so, they can radically changing its properties, including its CPU performanceWe can't provide deep help with such modifications because there is such a wide variety of them and some are very poorly writtenBut, for general inquiries about our systems, we provide immediate, thorough support here when a customer contacts usLooking at our support system, I see that the customer contacted us on these occasions:- On December 19, 2016, to ask about FTP timeouts during high-speed transfers (>Mbps) to the serverA staffmember responded within minutes and the concern was immediately escalated to the CEO level, with a final resolution within minutesAnother staff member followed up two days later to confirm that the matter was resolved.- On December 21, 2016, to request that the automatic daily restarts be disabled (we restart game servers every day by default for performance reasons)Staffmembers responded within minutes and disabled restarts for the customerAnother staff member followed up two days later to confirm that the matter was resolved.- On December 24, to request a refundThe customer started the request with this:"I'm running a modded Minecraft server, but the performance of the server can't keep up, mostly due to Minecraft being single threadedThis current setup does not suit my needs, and I apologized, but is it possible to get a refund at this point?"Multiple staff members examined the server and determined that the problems were caused by very high CPU usage due to unusual customizations made to the server by the customerThey recommended adjustments that would helpThe customer stated that performance was lower than a very high end, expensive dedicated server from a competitor (which makes sense, as that is a very different services) and refused to make the basic adjustments.The customer repeated the demand for a refund, but per our TOS, the service did not qualify for a refundThe TOS specifies that a refund is only granted for certain automatic payments made within hours(The customer manually agreed to the TOS during the order process, and this document is relatively easy to read and understand.)In this same support request, the customer said that he or she opened a dispute with [redacted] I looked into this and see that he or she did, in fact, open such a dispute on December -- saying that the merchandise was not as described -- and then escalated it to a claim the next dayA staffmember responded to [redacted] with the facts of the case, and [redacted] decided it in our favor on December It appears that the customer opened this Revdex.com complaint after that.We are happy to provide the remainder of the month of service to this customer, and to work with this customer to fix their customizations -- continuing to offer the fast, high-quality support that we are known forBut, a refund will not be granted here
A contract is a promise that one is required by law to keepThis customer entered into a contract with us to provide him a service for six monthsWe have held up our end of that bargain, providing a high-quality service backed up by a 100% SLA and performance guarantee.We understand that the customer wants to take back his promise and cancel the contract earlyNo extenuating circumstances have been presented along with the request, and the customer is significantly into his contracted service termHe had complete knowledge in advance of the payment and terms of the contract; the payment length was manually chosen by him and confirmed several times during the signup process (in 2012), during the renewal process that has been happening every six months, and in multiple emails sent to him at the time of the most recent renewalHe received a significant discount for agreeing to pay for this length of subscription.In terms of the assertion made by the customerthat the wrong payment source was charged, this is not accurateThe payment source is chosen by the customer during the subscription signup process and the system never uses a different oneEmployees do not have any mechanism for changing the source used; only the customer can do this, either by updating the source directly (by modifying it to use a different credit card number, for instance) or by creating a new source and updating the subscription to use the new source.Thirty days is as long as most subscriptions last in our system, and a significant portion of even long-term subscriptionsBecause it is not feasible for us to give customers the option of waiting a month after a payment to decide if they wish to continue a subscription, we are careful to communicate up-front how the subscriptions work, as well as to make sure that customers know directly by email when the subscription renews (as we did here).Despite our firm and well-communicated policy against refunds in this circumstance, we have, in good faith, provided the customer with a prorated service credit that he can use for future services with usWe have determined that a refund is not justified or reasonable in this case.If a chargeback is submitted through the customer's bank, he will be prevented from doing business with us in the futureThis is because future transactions would have an extreme and unavoidable risk to our company
The game in question released a buggy update that recharacterized some of the player slots as spectator slots unless a workaround was appliedThis was a known bug that we notified all our customers of, with a fix known to be coming with the next versionAll servers of this type (Battlefield 4) were affected, at all hosts An easy workaround was available to make the slots operate properly again, and we communicated this to the customerIt did work, and we verified that it workedOther customers also found the workaround and verified it, detailing their experiences in a public thread at http://www.nfoservers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=93&t= [redacted] (that we linked for this customer to ensure that he saw it) This is not a question of ethicsThis was a simple technical problem with the game, and one which had a defined and simple solution that we communicatedThe customer did not lose value because of this, and we held up our commitment of providing all services that were orderedA refund of unrelated, non-refundable funds is not warranted The buggy release was made on February The game developer fixed the bug with an updated release on February 13, and the workaround is no longer required now
The services that we provide have specifications that are described on the order page and we honor those specificationsThis customer ordered a Minecraft server with a specific amount of memory and supported number of players, and we provided it.We allow full access for customers to modify their servers to meet their own needsIn the case of this game, customers can essentially change anything that they want about the game, and in doing so, they can radically changing its properties, including its CPU performanceWe can't provide deep help with such modifications because there is such a wide variety of them and some are very poorly writtenBut, for general inquiries about our systems, we provide immediate, thorough support here when a customer contacts usLooking at our support system, I see that the customer contacted us on these occasions:- On December 19, 2016, to ask about FTP timeouts during high-speed transfers (>Mbps) to the serverA staffmember responded within minutes and the concern was immediately escalated to the CEO level, with a final resolution within minutesAnother staff member followed up two days later to confirm that the matter was resolved.- On December 21, 2016, to request that the automatic daily restarts be disabled (we restart game servers every day by default for performance reasons)Staffmembers responded within minutes and disabled restarts for the customerAnother staff member followed up two days later to confirm that the matter was resolved.- On December 24, to request a refundThe customer started the request with this:"I'm running a modded Minecraft server, but the performance of the server can't keep up, mostly due to Minecraft being single threadedThis current setup does not suit my needs, and I apologized, but is it possible to get a refund at this point?"Multiple staff members examined the server and determined that the problems were caused by very high CPU usage due to unusual customizations made to the server by the customerThey recommended adjustments that would helpThe customer stated that performance was lower than a very high end, expensive dedicated server from a competitor (which makes sense, as that is a very different services) and refused to make the basic adjustments.The customer repeated the demand for a refund, but per our TOS, the service did not qualify for a refundThe TOS specifies that a refund is only granted for certain automatic payments made within hours(The customer manually agreed to the TOS during the order process, and this document is relatively easy to read and understand.)In this same support request, the customer said that he or she opened a dispute with [redacted] I looked into this and see that he or she did, in fact, open such a dispute on December -- saying that the merchandise was not as described -- and then escalated it to a claim the next dayA staffmember responded to [redacted] with the facts of the case, and [redacted] decided it in our favor on December It appears that the customer opened this Revdex.com complaint after that.We are happy to provide the remainder of the month of service to this customer, and to work with this customer to fix their customizations -- continuing to offer the fast, high-quality support that we are known forBut, a refund will not be granted here
A contract is a promise that one is required by law to keepThis customer entered into a contract with us to provide him a service for six monthsWe have held up our end of that bargain, providing a high-quality service backed up by a 100% SLA and performance guarantee.We understand that the customer wants to take back his promise and cancel the contract earlyNo extenuating circumstances have been presented along with the request, and the customer is significantly into his contracted service termHe had complete knowledge in advance of the payment and terms of the contract; the payment length was manually chosen by him and confirmed several times during the signup process (in 2012), during the renewal process that has been happening every six months, and in multiple emails sent to him at the time of the most recent renewalHe received a significant discount for agreeing to pay for this length of subscription.In terms of the assertion made by the customerthat the wrong payment source was charged, this is not accurateThe payment source is chosen by the customer during the subscription signup process and the system never uses a different oneEmployees do not have any mechanism for changing the source used; only the customer can do this, either by updating the source directly (by modifying it to use a different credit card number, for instance) or by creating a new source and updating the subscription to use the new source.Thirty days is as long as most subscriptions last in our system, and a significant portion of even long-term subscriptionsBecause it is not feasible for us to give customers the option of waiting a month after a payment to decide if they wish to continue a subscription, we are careful to communicate up-front how the subscriptions work, as well as to make sure that customers know directly by email when the subscription renews (as we did here).Despite our firm and well-communicated policy against refunds in this circumstance, we have, in good faith, provided the customer with a prorated service credit that he can use for future services with usWe have determined that a refund is not justified or reasonable in this case.If a chargeback is submitted through the customer's bank, he will be prevented from doing business with us in the futureThis is because future transactions would have an extreme and unavoidable risk to our company