Issues with LeagueSafe (1 Viewer)

[The Duff Man]

How did they fail in this? An owner asked for a refund WAY before the season started. It is not like he took out other members money. No one in the league noticed it, but the info was there.

.

LeagueSafe does not know the details, did the draft for this league even take place yet, how do they know?

We're a dynasty league that drafted in February. The start of the NFL season is inconsequential. Why would we set a payment date of 3/1 if we were a redraft team? It's a poorly designed site that allows someone to get a refund for a league 4 months after a payment deadline.

As a far as not noticing he had done this, there should have been no reason why we needed to log in to our LeagueSafe account and constantly check it.

And he did take the other members money since he paid to be in the league and drafted his team. That money is owed to the person who wins the league this year.

The payment date was March. Refunds were available up until Sept. It is not their fault you did not realize this.

Someone took their refund....in agreement with their terms.

The guy is a dink, but they have to follow their own terms, regardless of whether you read them!

It sounds like they were not set up to be dynasty friendly but have changed that.

 

[cstu]

I'd be frustrated too, but it's pretty clear that there was no fault in what Leagusafe did in this situation based on their T&C's. End of story.

I'm not arguing that they are legally liable, but as a site meant to keep your league money safe they failed at that. They can hide behind their T&C but the truth is that it was poorly conceived.

 

[SayWhat?]

I'd be frustrated too, but it's pretty clear that there was no fault in what Leagusafe did in this situation based on their T&C's. End of story.

I'm not arguing that they are legally liable, but as a site meant to keep your league money safe they failed at that. /quote]

No, they didn't.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How did they fail in this? An owner asked for a refund WAY before the season started. It is not like he took out other members money. No one in the league noticed it, but the info was there.

.

LeagueSafe does not know the details, did the draft for this league even take place yet, how do they know?

We're a dynasty league that drafted in February. The start of the NFL season is inconsequential.

LeagueSafe has no idea when your league drafts, or anything else about your league. That's not their business. They had in place a deadline of mid-September for refunds. After getting feedback from users, they changed their policy to allow leagues to set their own individual deadlines. Neither of those seems like an unreasonable policy.

Why would we set a payment date of 3/1 if we were a redraft team? It's a poorly designed site that allows someone to get a refund for a league 4 months after a payment deadline.

Better question: Why do you bring up the payment date of 3/1 if it's not at all relevant to the LeagueSafe service? Just because no one in your league bothered to actually understand their policies before sending them all your money doesn't mean it's LeagueSafe's fault for adhering to their own terms.

As a far as not noticing he had done this, there should have been no reason why we needed to log in to our LeagueSafe account and constantly check it.

Sure. I've agreed multiple times in this thread that it sounds like LeagueSafe probably has some work to do on their communications, etc. But just because you're dissatisfied with their service doesn't mean you can demand that they pay you $300.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I.E. doing a great job in this thread convincing me to never consider using League Safe

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I.E. doing a great job in this thread convincing me to never consider using League Safe

Good? I imagine you think you're making some kind of point here, but as I said, I've never used the service, never will, and don't care. I honestly don't have a dog in the fight between OP and Josh and LeagueSafe. I had some honest feedback to provide on OP's situation. My honest feedback is that there's a lot of misplaced anger at LeagueSafe in this thread. Whether or not anyone ever uses their service again is inconsequential to me.

 

[Jrodicus]

I believe I've found a loophole of my own. I figured with how careless they were in other areas that there was a contradiction in their T&C, and I think I've found it.

I'm sure some of the trolls here will read it, not understand it, and say, "No it doesn't," but that's life.

I'll even use plain words for Ignoratio Elenchi (whose name I find incredibly ironic).

 

[Jrodicus]

More to come. I'll wait until I hear back from LeagueSafe to post more.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm sure some of the trolls here will ready it, not understand it, and say, "No it doesn't," but that's life.

Says the guy who's already demonstrated a lack of basic reading comprehension.

I'll even use plain words for Ignoratio Elenchi

Thanks, all them big words you were using earlier were really confusing!

(whose name I find incredibly ironic).

What's ironic about it?

 

[Genester]

I'd be frustrated too, but it's pretty clear that there was no fault in what Leagusafe did in this situation based on their T&C's. End of story.

I'm not arguing that they are legally liable, but as a site meant to keep your league money safe they failed at that. /quote]

No, they didn't.

I think they did. The premise behind LeagueSafe is indeed, the SAFE. These days, we expect recourse if we are clearly being swindled (which I don't think is being argued here). If someone swindles you and the net result is that your money is gone from your bank, you expect the bank to make good on it (not to mention you expect the bank to proactively limit this kind of behavior). I think it's clear folks didn't get that with LeagueSafe in this case. This is not about them being liable - I don't think they are, but rather at failing on their promise for this specific league.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I.E. doing a great job in this thread convincing me to never consider using League Safe

Good? I imagine you think you're making some kind of point here, but as I said, I've never used the service, never will, and don't care. I honestly don't have a dog in the fight between OP and Josh and LeagueSafe. I had some honest feedback to provide on OP's situation. My honest feedback is that there's a lot of misplaced anger at LeagueSafe in this thread. Whether or not anyone ever uses their service again is inconsequential to me.

All I'm saying is you are pointing out all the reasons why I wouldn't use them. It doesn't matter if we agree on how they handled this particular case or not. I feel bad for the guys that are screwed by that owner but it's good information for the rest of us not to be put into a potential bad situation.

I've never used League Safe before but did contact them with some questions on their service with the idea I was going to use them. But I found their customer service to be awful and they were totally inflexible even though I was offering to let them hold several thousand dollars. I moved on.

 

[nobiz]

Memo to some ot the Jethros who did not read the original post: LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had a policy on them which was not what LS now claims the policy was. OP has a very, very strong beef here, one likely to prevail in court if lawyers were free. The mind-numbing responses of some of you, saying OP "should have read the site" when OP read the LS site carefully while LS did not read its own site, are ridiculous. It's akin to you buying something on Amazon due to their 30-day return policy, then needing to return it, then being told by Amazon they had earlier changed the policy to "no returns" but forgot to put that change on the website when you bought.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I.E. doing a great job in this thread convincing me to never consider using League Safe

Good? I imagine you think you're making some kind of point here, but as I said, I've never used the service, never will, and don't care. I honestly don't have a dog in the fight between OP and Josh and LeagueSafe. I had some honest feedback to provide on OP's situation. My honest feedback is that there's a lot of misplaced anger at LeagueSafe in this thread. Whether or not anyone ever uses their service again is inconsequential to me.

All I'm saying is you are pointing out all the reasons why I wouldn't use them.

Fair enough. It's gotten a little hard to tell who's participating in reasonable discourse, and who's starting to get irrationally angry at me for simply providing a counterpoint to OP's perspective.

It doesn't matter if we agree on how they handled this particular case or not. I feel bad for the guys that are screwed by that owner but it's good information for the rest of us not to be put into a potential bad situation.

I agree. I think the lesson to be learned is that if you're going to play fantasy football for real money with complete strangers, you should be well acquainted with the terms of the service you use to hold all the money. OP wasn't and as a result they got burned by a scummy leaguemate. He also has a right to be disappointed in the service he received (e.g. a lack of email notification of the refund request) and to share that story with everyone. Whether or not LeagueSafe handled the aftermath properly is a matter of opinion, it's up to their marketing managers or whoever to decide whether it's worth sending OP $300 of their own money to avoid some potentially bad publicity. My only point throughout this entire thread is that I do not believe LeagueSafe owes OP any money. He seems to disagree (not just disagree, but actually seem to be offended that others don't share his take) and is apparently going to great lengths to find some kind of loophole to force their hand.

 

[Jrodicus]

I'm sure some of the trolls here will ready it, not understand it, and say, "No it doesn't," but that's life.

Says the guy who's already demonstrated a lack of basic reading comprehension.

I'll even use plain words for Ignoratio Elenchi

Thanks, all them big words you were using earlier were really confusing!

(whose name I find incredibly ironic).

What's ironic about it?

I don't know, bud, you tell me. Me english no good.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Memo to some ot the Jethros who did not read the original post: LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was.

They did?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm sure some of the trolls here will ready it, not understand it, and say, "No it doesn't," but that's life.

Says the guy who's already demonstrated a lack of basic reading comprehension.

I'll even use plain words for Ignoratio Elenchi

Thanks, all them big words you were using earlier were really confusing!

(whose name I find incredibly ironic).

What's ironic about it?

I don't know, bud, you tell me. Me english no good.

That's ok, I'm sure there's something you are good at! I hope you and your leaguemates get the $300 back from Josh.

 

[DepthCharts]

McDonalds knowingly served coffee that would burn the daylihgts out of someone. Leaguesafe knowingly had a practice that people could get refunds 2 weeks (9/20) into the season. There really is no difference in the calculated risks the two companies took. it was a known issue going in, they both have addressed since. I hold both companies in complete respobsibility for their actions.

 

[Quez]

I also have 10 other owners in my league who are seriously upset about this, and word of what has happened is already spreading on some of the more well-known fantasy football forums. Two of the owners in this league write for online fantasy football sites, and another owner is an owner and co-founder of another high traffic site.

 

[Jrodicus]

Memo to some ot the Jethros who did not read the original post: LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was.

They did?

Seriously, did you even read the orignal post?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Memo to some ot the Jethros who did not read the original post: LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was.

They did?

Seriously, did you even read the orignal post?

I obviously did, but it was a pretty long post and I read it yesterday, so perhaps I've forgotten something. Can you bump the part where they admit their new policy was not published properly on their site, and concede your proof that the pages you were reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was?

 

[Jrodicus]

I also have 10 other owners in my league who are seriously upset about this, and word of what has happened is already spreading on some of the more well-known fantasy football forums. Two of the owners in this league write for online fantasy football sites, and another owner is an owner and co-founder of another high traffic site.

You're GD right. I'm not going to bend over and take it willingly.

My responsibilities as commish are to the rest of the league. I even offered to pay the additional $306 into the kitty myself - not because I think it was my fault, but because this happened on my watch. If I'm going to fall on the sword for anyone, it'd be for my leaguemates.

 

[nobiz]

For the TL;DR crowd, OP showed LS a screen grab of their website on the date in question, the webpage showing the old policy, not the new one, the page having a proper "as of (today's date)" on it, and LS now claims the dates weren't really accurate. It's a simply ridiculous website with no QC whatsoever. I'd be worried they go bankrupt and leave everyone high and dry.

 

[Jrodicus]

Memo to some ot the Jethros who did not read the original post: LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was.

They did?

Seriously, did you even read the orignal post?

I obviously did, but it was a pretty long post and I read it yesterday, so perhaps I've forgotten something. Can you bump the part where they admit their new policy was not published properly on their site, and concede your proof that the pages you were reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was?

[SIZE=medium]“at the time” is the crux here. [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]I believe by “at the time,” nobiz means a few days ago when I was emailing them about this issue, not months ago when Josh got his refund.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If nobiz means “a few days ago,” then you can see in my OP that they didn’t have a correct timestamp on the FAQ and, more importantly, no timestamp whatsoever on the T&C page. This is not consistent with the rest of their website (for example - their Privacy Policy has and “Effective Date” at top).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The only timestamp on the FAQ was from when it was uploaded. They didn’t update it when the policy changed. This is basic document control – when you revise a document, you update the revision date. For companies that are ISO/TS16949 certified, this is a non-conformance. I’m willing to bet this is true in similar standards for the banking industry.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The issue with the time stamp and effective date is there in the OP. You’re welcome to go re-read it if you like.[/SIZE]

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

For the TL;DR crowd, OP showed LS a screen grab of their website on the date in question, the webpage showing the old policy, not the new one, the page having a proper "as of (today's date)" on it, and LS now claims the dates weren't really accurate. It's a simply ridiculous website with no QC whatsoever. I'd be worried they go bankrupt and leave everyone high and dry.

Someone yesterday pointed out that you can use the Internet Archive to just go back and actually see what terms were posted on the site back in the summer. No need to invent an argument based on a non-binding FAQ timestamp. It's not uncommon for a web post to retain its original post date even if it's subsequently edited - I know this is a feature in WordPress blogs, for example, which can be toggled. The manager even demonstrated that this is the case to OP, so to hinge an argument on the timestamp of a post in the FAQ is silly. It's a misguided angle of attack. Go get the actual terms that were in effect and on the website in July, and argue your case from there.

I think we can all agree that LeagueSafe has some work to do in the areas of communicating changes, notifying leagues of events like refunds, etc. (assuming everything went down the way OP described). I also think we all agree that because of this disappointing series of events, LeagueSafe might want to consider paying OP the $300 as an act of goodwill.

It seems the only thing there really is to disagree about is whether or not LeagueSafe actually owes OP $300. From what OP's presented so far, I see no reason to believe that they do, but I remain willing to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

“at the time” is the crux here. I believe by “at the time,” nobiz means a few days ago when I was emailing them about this issue, not months ago when Josh got his refund.

The only thing that really seems relevant is what the terms were at the time Josh got his refund. Everything else is an ignoratio elenchi (see what I did there?!)

If nobiz means “a few days ago,” then you can see in my OP that they didn’t have a correct timestamp on the FAQ and, more importantly, no timestamp whatsoever on the T&C page. This is not consistent with the rest of their website (for example - their Privacy Policy has and “Effective Date” at top).

I'm not sure it's valid to say they didn't have a "correct" timestamp on the FAQ. It's not uncommon for web posts to retain their original post date even if they're later updated. Again, these issues of inconsistent website formatting, etc., may be grounds for you to be dissatisfied with their service, but I'm not convinced they make LeagueSafe liable to pay you $300.

The only timestamp on the FAQ was from when it was uploaded. They didn’t update it when the policy changed. This is basic document control – when you revise a document, you update the revision date. For companies that are ISO/TS16949 certified, this is a non-conformance. I’m willing to bet this is true in similar standards for the banking industry.

Maybe. I said yesterday that I'm not a lawyer, and if you can demonstrate that they violated some kind of law or regulation by not properly timestamping their terms and conditions or whatever, then you have a case. I already said I wouldn't speculate because I don't know what their legal obligations are in that area.

The issue with the time stamp and effective date is there in the OP. You’re welcome to go re-read it if you like.

Yes, I remember that part. Once again, though, they didn't say what you're claiming they said. Can you actually bump a part where, as nobiz claimed, "LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was?"

 

[Jrodicus]

For the TL;DR crowd, OP showed LS a screen grab of their website on the date in question, the webpage showing the old policy, not the new one, the page having a proper "as of (today's date)" on it, and LS now claims the dates weren't really accurate. It's a simply ridiculous website with no QC whatsoever. I'd be worried they go bankrupt and leave everyone high and dry.

Someone yesterday pointed out that you can use the Internet Archive to just go back and actually see what terms were posted on the site back in the summer. No need to invent an argument based on a non-binding FAQ timestamp. It's not uncommon for a web post to retain its original post date even if it's subsequently edited - I know this is a feature in WordPress blogs, for example, which can be toggled. The manager even demonstrated that this is the case to OP, so to hinge an argument on the timestamp of a post in the FAQ is silly. It's a misguided angle of attack. Go get the actual terms that were in effect and on the website in July, and argue your case from there.

I think we can all agree that LeagueSafe has some work to do in the areas of communicating changes, notifying leagues of events like refunds, etc. (assuming everything went down the way OP described). I also think we all agree that because of this disappointing series of events, LeagueSafe might want to consider paying OP the $300 as an act of goodwill.

It seems the only thing there really is to disagree about is whether or not LeagueSafe actually owes OP $300. From what OP's presented so far, I see no reason to believe that they do, but I remain willing to be convinced otherwise.

Could I use the internet archive to go find out? Absoutely. Was it my responsibility? Absolutely not.

LeagueSafe was making the claim that this was true. The onus is on them to prove that it is true. It is not my responsibility to corroborate their claim for them.

They have an upset customer who sees that there is no timestamp on their T&C and sees a FAQ post with a timestamp that predates when a revision was made. Why wouldn't THEY use internet archive to show that customer that what they are saying is true?

If nothing else, they are guilty of extremely poor customer service.

 

[nobiz]

The emails from LS confess to an egregious lack of Quality Control over their site. If this went to civil trial, OP could not be challenged when he said he read the site and understood the rules the way he related them in here, while LS has admitted to an inconsistent reporting of those rules when the entirety of its website is taken into account. I have zero doubt the judge would rule in OP's favor. The burden of proof is 51% and OP has that by a mile.

 

[Jrodicus]

"Yes, I remember that part. Once again, though, they didn't say what you're claiming they said. Can you actually bump a part where, as nobiz claimed, "LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was?""

This is logic and reason. I don't know how to teach those things to you in this instance. The exact statements nobiz made are not in there verbatim. He is using logic and reason to connect the dots.

As you said, you are not a lawyer. This is also not any sort of legal proceeding. I really am not concerned with convincing you personally that I am telling the truth, that everything happened exactly the way I said, or that I didn't doctor the emails that I posted. You, as an individual, are more than welcome to doubt to me.

I am, however, posting this to make others aware of an issue that happened in my league. I personally know that I am telling the truth, that the sequence of events happened just as I stated, and that I didn't doctor the emails I posted. I actually did consider removing the parts where it looked like I was being a bully - because that's not my typical persona and it doesn't cast me in a favorable light - by I didn't feel right editing the correspondance.

Hopefully many here have thought I've been rational, understand the circumstances, and see my grieveance. It's is not my goal to convert everyone here to my conclusion, but share my story and let them draw their own.

 

[The Duff Man]

Memo to some ot the Jethros who did not read the original post: LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was.

They did?

Seriously, did you even read the orignal post?

Their email DOES NOT say this. Frankly, your anger makes more sense now....but I think you need to re-read what they sent you.

They had a policy in place to give refunds up until Aug

This guy got a refund in July

Their FAQ time stamp does not update, so it appears to you that they changed this policy back in April.

Takeaways:

Their communication is not good

They were not dynasty friendly - now changed

You did not understand their terms when you signed up

You think it is likely they are altering their terms and website to save them paying you $300?



I like a crusade as much as the next guy, but as was brilliantly posted already, they were OBLIGATED to give this guy his money back when asked and do not owe your league anything.

 

[The Duff Man]

The emails from LS confess to an egregious lack of Quality Control over their site. If this went to civil trial, OP could not be challenged when he said he read the site and understood the rules the way he related them in here, while LS has admitted to an inconsistent reporting of those rules when the entirety of its website is taken into account. I have zero doubt the judge would rule in OP's favor. The burden of proof is 51% and OP has that by a mile.

He read the rules in OCT

In OCT it says a set of rules were in place starting APR

This is due to someone not properly updating their website in AUG

In JULY a member asked for a refund and was given one based on the rules in JULY -do you admit they had to do this based on their terms?

Your entire argument is that in OCT they should retroactively enforce their new policy effective back to APR because they messed up on the web update and did not add the time when the new rule was coming into effect by changing the date to AUG instead of APR?

You seem hell bent on thinking that they are doing something malicious, it seems to me a person responsible for updating their website made a minor error and did not post the date when the new terms came into effect.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Could I use the internet archive to go find out? Absoutely. Was it my responsibility? Absolutely not.

LeagueSafe was making the claim that this was true. The onus is on them to prove that it is true.

On the contrary, you're accusing them of lying to you in an effort to avoid paying you $300 they owe you. That's a pretty weighty claim, and the onus is on you to prove it.

If nothing else, they are guilty of extremely poor customer service.

I think we all agree that perhaps they are, but unfortunately that's not a crime punishable by a $300 fine. You should clearly outline what you're fighting for here: Do you think they violated their terms and therefore legally owe you $300? Then prove it. Otherwise, you're just clamoring for them to compensate you out of their pocket for poor customer service, which is something they could do but certainly aren't obligated to.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

"Yes, I remember that part. Once again, though, they didn't say what you're claiming they said. Can you actually bump a part where, as nobiz claimed, "LeagueSafe admits their new policy was not published properly on their site, and LeagueSafe concedes the OP's proof that the pages OP was reading at the time had policies on them which were not what LS claims the policy in fact was?""

This is logic and reason. I don't know how to teach those things to you in this instance.

It's ok, you don't have to.

The exact statements nobiz made are not in there verbatim. He is using logic and reason to connect the dots.

Well, not yet he isn't (and neither are you). You're just claiming that the dots connect. You haven't actually shown any logical steps that connect the dots yet (which is how logic and reasoning work). You're welcome to take a stab at it though.

I really am not concerned with convincing you personally that I am telling the truth, that everything happened exactly the way I said, or that I didn't doctor the emails that I posted. You, as an individual, are more than welcome to doubt to me.

Where did I ever imply that you aren't telling the truth, that things didn't happen as you described, or that you doctored the emails? I never said anything like that.

 

[Flying Elvis]

Regardless of the fault in this particular case, I am appalled by the complete lack of communication by Leaguesafe. I have a few leagues using it (I am commissioner for one) and never received any notification of changes to their TOS. No email, no pop-up upon log in, nothing. That is completely unacceptable for a service that is holding finances.

 

[The Duff Man]

Here are the terms on June 1. Because I am bored on a Friday.

LS looks to be telling the truth.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130601184532/http://leaguesafe.com/terms

Aug 14 they are the same, Sept 13 they have been changed to what exists now.

 

[Jrodicus]

As promised. Below are excerpts from the T & C page from 6/1/13. https://web.archive.org/web/20130601184532/http://leaguesafe.com/terms

Payment Deadlines

For each Season, LeagueSafe will define a specific date (“Season Payment Deadline”) after which deposits will no longer be accepted until the post season. The Season Payment Deadline – usually two to three weeks into the Regular Season – will be clearly communicated on League home pages and cannot be changed by any Member or Commissioner. At its discretion, LeagueSafe may change the Season Payment Deadline or otherwise allow additional opportunities for Members to deposit funds.

Optionally, a Commissioner may choose to establish a League Payment Deadline to anearlierdate than LeagueSafe’s standard Season Payment Deadline. When this happens, LeagueSafe treats the League Payment Deadline identically to the normal Season Payment Deadline.

Later in the T & C it says:

Refunds

LeagueSafe honors refunds any time prior to the Season Payment Deadline for the League. Members who wish to request a refund must notify LeagueSafe prior to the Season Payment Deadline. After that time, refunds are not allowed. This measure safeguards the league against Members who might wish to pull their funds from the league when it becomes apparent that their team isn’t performing well.

Refund requests should be made by contacting customer service via the link found at the bottom of most pages of the LeagueSafe site.

It says, verbatim, "Optionally, a Commissioner may choose to establish a League Payment Deadline to anearlierdate than LeagueSafe’s standard Season Payment Deadline. When this happens, LeagueSafe treats the League Payment Deadline identically to the normal Season Payment Deadline."

Our League Payment Deadline was set to 3/1. The T & C says that this earlier date should be used "identically" as the Season Payment Deadline. The League Payment Deadline is the date after which no refunds are allowed. So, 3/1 should have been honored as the cut-off date when no owner would be allowed their refund.

 

[The Duff Man]

Now you are making a new point, about the league deadline over riding the LS one.

You never brought this up with them...or here,

But this appears to validate ypur argument.

 

[Jrodicus]

Nov 01 08:21 (CDT)

Laura,

Your terms and conditions currently say:

Payment Deadlines

For each Season, LeagueSafe will define a specific date (“Season Payment Deadline”) after which deposits will no longer be accepted until the post season. The Season Payment Deadline – usually two to three weeks into the Regular Season – will be clearly communicated on League home pages and cannot be changed by any Member or Commissioner. At its discretion, LeagueSafe may change the Season Payment Deadline or otherwise allow additional opportunities for Members to deposit funds.

Optionally, a Commissioner may choose to establish a different payment deadline (“League Payment Deadline”), which can be any earlier date than LeagueSafe’s standard Season Payment Deadline. When this happens, LeagueSafe treats the League Payment Deadline identically to the normal Season Payment Deadline.

1. Were these terms and conditions changed in the past 6 months?

2. If I am understanding this correctly, if the League Payment Deadline is set earlier than the Standard Payment Deadline, then the League Payment Deadline is treating the exact same as the normal Season Payment Deadline. Is this correct?

-Jared

Nov 01 09:49 (CDT)

Hi Jared,

I think I can clarify this one, as I know it's a little confusing because of the two different types of deadlines. The definition of the Season Payment Deadline and the League Payment Deadline has not changed in the last 6 months. The idea of the League Payment Deadline being treated identically to the Season Payment Deadline is in reference to the previous paragraph - specifically, that league members can no longer make payments after that League Deadline passes. The more specific Refund Policy is defined later in the document.

I've provided a link to what the terms were as of August 5, 2013, shortly after Josh requested his refund. You should be able to see that the Payment Deadline text was the same, and that our previous Refund Policy - the policy that allowed Josh to get his refund on July 30, without commissioner approval - was in place at that time as well.

Here's the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20130805120924/http://leaguesafe.com/terms

Additionally, we've changed our FAQ in several spots since the refund policy was updated in August, but I've provided screenshots from the previous FAQ that were in place at the time of Josh's request that attempted to explain the difference between the Season and League Deadlines, and what that distinction meant in relation to the refund policy. The FAQ is obviously not a legally binding document of any kind, and the time stamp on these screenshots is the same April 1 date that you'd see if you went to these individual FAQ posts today, so you can take from this what you will - this is just an effort to show you that we've always made a concerted effort to explain the distinction between Season and League Deadlines in relation to the refund policy in several different spots within our FAQ.

I will also tell you this; we take customer feedback very seriously at LeagueSafe, and we are already discussing ways to improve the way we disclose both changes in our Terms of Service and alerts/emails/notifications surrounding refund transactions. We haven't determined what course of action we're going to take, but I wanted you to know that we're not treating this lightly, and that we're internally discussing ways to make the refund process more clear to our users, and more transparent for commissioners.

It's feedback like this from previous commissioners that led us to change our refund policy in the first place. We have a complex service that is constantly evolving, and I'm confident that we're in a better spot today than we were back in July. Again, it's unfortunate that an apparently dishonest owner took advantage of our previous policy to remove funds from your league, but our new policy will go a long ways towards protecting commissioners like you in the future. I'm sorry that you got mixed up with an allegedly dishonest owner, and I wish I could go back and undo his actions, but unfortunately he was entitled to his refund under the Terms that were in place at the time he made his request.

Thanks,

Laura Drew

Manager

LeagueSafe Customer Support

Laura,

So the answer to my first question is yes this verbiage was in place 6 months ago.

The answer to my second question is that I am understanding those definitions correctly. However, you also are adding interpretation and clarification to that understanding. It is your interpretation that the Refund Policy, which comes later in the document, does not require the League Payment Deadline to be treated identically to the Season Payment Deadline. Perhaps that was your intent when the T & C were written, and that is your interpretation of the terms, but there is nothing that I can see in the T & C that conclusively shows that treating the League Payment Deadline identically to the Season Payment Deadline is bound only to the “Payment Deadlines” portion and not applicable to the “Refunds” portion.

Your FAQ screenshot attempt to clarify this. However, you have said that the FAQ is not a legally binding document. As such, it doesn’t matter that the FAQ attempts to clarify the differences; it only matters that in the T & C this is ambiguous at best.

You added a FAQ post because of ambiguity in the T & C at the time. You changed the T & C because you recognized the loophole. You started off your reply to me with, “I think I can clarify this one, as I know it's a little confusing because of the two different types of deadlines.”

Do you still believe that you are not culpable in our league’s understanding that no refund could be given once the League Payment Deadline of 3/1 had been reached?

-Jared

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here are the terms on June 1. Because I am bored on a Friday.

LS looks to be telling the truth.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130601184532/http://leaguesafe.com/terms

Aug 14 they are the same, Sept 13 they have been changed to what exists now.

Here's the part, if I were OP, that I would've brought to their attention, instead of all the non-binding FAQ timestamps and whatnot:

LeagueSafe honors refunds any time prior to the Season Payment Deadline for the League. Members who wish to request a refund must notify LeagueSafe prior to the Season Payment Deadline. After that time, refunds are not allowed. This measure safeguards the league against Members who might wish to pull their funds from the league when it becomes apparent that their team isn’t performing well.

And from a separate section:

Optionally, a Commissioner may choose to establish a League Payment Deadline to anearlierdate than LeagueSafe’s standard Season Payment Deadline. When this happens, LeagueSafe treats the League Payment Deadline identically to the normal Season Payment Deadline.

But I'm dumb and don't know logic and reading, so you probably shouldn't listen to me.

Edit: Ah, I see this was your big reveal! Good work OP, though you probably could've saved yourself a big headache if you'd just gone this route in the first place. I agree that the manager's latest response is a bit flimsy, and you now have a decent argument to make.

 

[ebsteelers]

what are we trying to accomplish here?

bash league safe?

get them to refund the money?

complain?

bash meyerj?

get him to fork over the cash?

blame game?

 

[Jrodicus]

Now you are making a new point, about the league deadline over riding the LS one.

You never brought this up with them...or here,

But this appears to validate ypur argument.

I didn't think about using the internet archive to find the T & C at the time until sangreal posted the link (thank you, btw).

I almost always read the full T & C for things like this (my real estate agent got mad at me when I bought my house because I read through all of the mortgage paperwork at signing). At the time of my initial email, I didn't have the opportunity to re-read the old T & C.

I thought for sure there had to be something in there that gave me the impression that a refund wouldn't be allowed after 3/1. Perhaps I was off my game from trying to keep this league together (or too much time spent on message boards). Anyway, I found it right away when I sat down and read them again.

 

[The Duff Man]

Once again logic and reason triumph where emotion and anger fail.

I think you owe IE a 10 percent commission on funds returned by LS

 

[Agent575]

I just don't like that so many folks act like leaguesafe is a necessary component to be in a league because they falsly believe their service protects them from unscrupulous jackasses. If nothing else, this thread should illustrate how worthless they are for any league that is dynasty or does anything different than a redraft that collects their funds and drafts 14 seconds before kickoff of the football season. Using leaguesafe is silly.

Hope this particular league uses this hard lesson as a way to find a better way to run your league and keep losers out.

Whether you can do anything about Leaguesafe and their garbage is obviously questionable but it certainly won't be worth it over $300...just stop using their service and recommend to everyone you ever talk to to do the same.

 

[The Duff Man]

Now you are making a new point, about the league deadline over riding the LS one.

You never brought this up with them...or here,

But this appears to validate ypur argument.

I didn't think about using the internet archive to find the T & C at the time until sangreal posted the link (thank you, btw).

I almost always read the full T & C for things like this (my real estate agent got mad at me when I bought my house because I read through all of the mortgage paperwork at signing). At the time of my initial email, I didn't have the opportunity to re-read the old T & C.

I thought for sure there had to be something in there that gave me the impression that a refund wouldn't be allowed after 3/1. Perhaps I was off my game from trying to keep this league together (or too much time spent on message boards). Anyway, I found it right away when I sat down and read them again.

You were angry at dickwad for pulling this stunt, quite rightly. And also angry at LS....also quite rightly it appears.

Not sure what his motive was....why not inform the league in July? If he did stayed and won there is no way he could claim the money. Just to troll people I guess :(

 

[Jrodicus]

Edit: Ah, I see this was your big reveal! Good work OP, though you probably could've saved yourself a big headache if you'd just gone this route in the first place. I agree that the manager's latest response is a bit flimsy, and you now have a decent argument to make.

I owe you partial credit. Your proding and questioning of my reading comprehension skills encouraged me to go back and find the contradiction. So...thanks for being you!

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

 

[Jrodicus]

Nov 01 10:48 (CDT) Jared,

I only mentioned the FAQ because that was a major part of your previous argument against us. As you correctly state, there's nothing legally binding about it. However, it's worth noting that there were at least three spots within our FAQ, easily viewable by searching the term "refund" in the FAQ search box, that explained that refunds could be requested, and granted, all the way up until the Season Deadline - under the old policy.

We've since updated the FAQ to reflect the new policy. Point being, any user who felt the Terms were ambiguous or misleading could have searched the FAQ for a more in depth explanation.

I'm not qualified to get into a discussion with you regarding the legality of certain phrases or terms within the Terms of Service document. All I'm trying to do is explain to you the rationale behind LeagueSafe's actions as it relates to your specific league and to the specific transaction in question, and to point out that we've made good faith efforts to clarify the refund policy in our FAQ for users who are or were unclear as to how the policy might affect their league(s).

It is our belief that we have acted in accordance with our Terms of Service throughout this entire process.

Laura Drew

Manager

LeagueSafe Customer Support

Laura,

Since you are not qualified to discuss legal issues and liability, with whom shall I speak?

-Jared

 

[CalBear]

Dude, just cut this year's payout by 9%, put the team in receivership status, and play with 11 owners.

It looks like Josh wanted to get out of the league. If he really wanted to swindle you he would have stayed as commish and asked for a refund of the entire league fees.

 

[Jrodicus]

Once again logic and reason triumph where emotion and anger fail.

I think you owe IE a 10 percent commission on funds returned by LS

lol

 

[Jrodicus]

Dude, just cut this year's payout by 9%, put the team in receivership status, and play with 11 owners.

It looks like Josh wanted to get out of the league. If he really wanted to swindle you he would have stayed as commish and asked for a refund of the entire league fees.

Dear Lord - I really hope that LeagueSafe wouldn't have given him everyone's money if he had asked for it.

You do understand that a refund goes back to the person that made payment, don't you? If he had asked for all of the buy-ins to be refunded, each of us would've gotten our buy-in back.

If Josh just wanted to get out of the league, why did he continue to play the first 7 weeks of the season.

You're killing me, smalls.

 

[cstu]

Dude, just cut this year's payout by 9%, put the team in receivership status, and play with 11 owners.

It looks like Josh wanted to get out of the league. If he really wanted to swindle you he would have stayed as commish and asked for a refund of the entire league fees.

That's our plan.

If he only wanted out of the league why didn't he tell anyone he got a refund instead of staying in the league, including making trades? The only way we found out is that he didn't set his lineup and someone checked LeagueSafe. He's a POS, there's no two ways about it.