Star Citizen: Difference between revisions

Line 20:

===Ships and Vehicles===

*Idris-M: Military variant sold in 2012 for $1,000, incomplete version delivered May 2025.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-M</ref>

*Idris-M: Military variant sold in 2012 for $1,000, incomplete version delivered May 2025.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-M ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260202174221/https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-M Archived])</ref>

*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, incomplete version delivered May 2025.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-P</ref>

*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, incomplete version delivered May 2025.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-P ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251220101204/https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-P Archived])</ref>

*Banu Merchantman | Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale); currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman</ref>

*Banu Merchantman | Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale); currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251219235610/https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman Archived])</ref>

*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), the industrial mining vessel remains undelivered; current price is $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion</ref>

*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), the industrial mining vessel remains undelivered; current price is $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260128224132/https://starcitizen.tools/Orion Archived])</ref>

*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner</ref>

*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251112221548/https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner Archived])</ref>

*Endeavor: Made available in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), with limited availability due to price increases.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Endeavor</ref>

*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D</ref>

*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251213110038/https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D Archived])</ref>

*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E</ref>

*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260219233750/https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E Archived])</ref>

*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible</ref>

*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260117044445/https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible Archived])</ref>

*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer</ref>

*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260125190110/https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer Archived])</ref>

*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken</ref>

*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251112222501/https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken Archived])</ref>

*Railen: First sold in 2021 for $200 (original concept sale), remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Railen</ref>

*Railen: First sold in 2021 for $200 (original concept sale), remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Railen ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251129082032/https://starcitizen.tools/Railen Archived])</ref>

Note: All listed vessels have been sold multiple times since their original concept sales, often at increased prices. Many remain in concept phase or early development despite years passing since initial sales.

Line 38:

The practice of selling digital products years before they are implemented has raised significant concerns regarding consumer protection. Despite marketing these items as 'pledges' or 'concepts', CIG continues to charge real money for digital goods with no firm delivery timeline or guarantee of implementation. The company's terms of service have been modified multiple times since 2012, changing the conditions under which refunds are offered and altering customer rights regarding purchased content. Many backers who attempted to obtain refunds for undelivered products have reported difficulties, with CIG often citing their evolving terms of service as justification for denial. The lack of concrete development schedules for sold items, combined with regular price increases for unreleased content, has led to criticism from consumer advocacy groups and gaming industry observers. Additionally, the practice of artificial scarcity through "limited-time sales" of digital products that don't yet exist has been questioned as potentially misleading marketing.

[[File:ASA Response .png|thumb|A response letter from the Advertising Standards Authority affirming that Cloud Imperium Games likely had breached the Advertising Rules. ]]

In 2021, following a consumer complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by a member of the /r/starcitizen_refunds community, Cloud Imperium Games was required to modify its concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined that they violated UK advertising rules<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/</ref>, Cloud Imperium Games was needed to alter its concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined they violated Advertising Rules in the UK. The issue centered on emails promoting concept ships without clear disclosure that the advertised vessels did not yet exist in the game. In response, CIG added a standardized disclaimer to their marketing emails stating that concept ships are "being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge". The disclaimer also notes that purchasers receive a temporary "loaner vehicle" until their bought ship becomes available.

In 2021, following a consumer complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by a member of the /r/starcitizen_refunds community, Cloud Imperium Games was required to modify its concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined that they violated UK advertising rules<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20210831222423/https://old.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/ Archived])</ref>, Cloud Imperium Games was needed to alter its concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined they violated Advertising Rules in the UK. The issue centered on emails promoting concept ships without clear disclosure that the advertised vessels did not yet exist in the game. In response, CIG added a standardized disclaimer to their marketing emails stating that concept ships are "being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge". The disclaimer also notes that purchasers receive a temporary "loaner vehicle" until their bought ship becomes available.

==Development status contradictions==

Line 44:

==Development communication issues==

Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ultimately failed when CIG failed to deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast, including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson. <ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42</ref> Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.

Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ultimately failed when CIG failed to deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast, including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson. <ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42 ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260221031725/https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42 Archived])</ref> Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022 ([http://web.archive.org/web/20250814053537/https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022 Archived])</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.

==Consumer response==

[[File:-r-Starcitizen Corruption.png|thumb|CIG Employee Zac Preece is requesting that a post be removed from the /r/starcitizen Reddit in a private Discord server. This post, by the Reddit moderator Ian (MrRiceGuy), didn't violate the rules, yet it was still removed anyway. ]]

The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community, which has over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities</ref> and the discussion of support tickets/moderation decisions.

The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community, which has over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20250803112513/https://old.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/ Archived])</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities ([http://web.archive.org/web/20250714211323/https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities Archived])</ref> and the discussion of support tickets/moderation decisions.

While unofficial communities, such as the /r/starcitizen subreddit and Discord server, exist, these spaces are heavily moderated to prevent discussion of negative sentiment due to the strong ties between their moderators and Cloud Imperium Games employees.

Line 56:

==In-game moderation inconsistencies==

[[File:Example of Exessive Griefing .png|thumb|An example of a user being banned for the term 'Excessive Griefing' and being directed to review the terms of service and rules of conduct for a term that doesn't exist. ]]

The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receive bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.

The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receive bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260204133014/https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos Archived])</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251023231231/https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct Archived])</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.

Star Citizen's Persistent Universe, or PU for short, is an open sandbox that allows players to engage in PVP activities such as Piracy and Bounty Hunting, yet participating in these activities could lead a player to being banned for 'excessively' engaging in this activity under the guise of it being 'harassment' to do so.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ===Ships and Vehicles===
-*Idris-M: Military variant sold in 2012 for $1,000, incomplete version delivered May 2025.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-M</ref>
+*Idris-M: Military variant sold in 2012 for $1,000, incomplete version delivered May 2025.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-M ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260202174221/https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-M Archived])</ref>
-*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, incomplete version delivered May 2025.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-P</ref>
+*Idris-P: Civilian variant sold since 2012 for $1,250, price increased to $1,500, incomplete version delivered May 2025.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-P ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251220101204/https://starcitizen.tools/Idris-P Archived])</ref>
-*Banu Merchantman | Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale); currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman</ref>
+*Banu Merchantman | Merchantman: First sold in 2013 for $250 (original concept sale); currently priced at $600.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251219235610/https://starcitizen.tools/Merchantman Archived])</ref>
-*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), the industrial mining vessel remains undelivered; current price is $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion</ref>
+*Orion: First sold in 2014 for $325 (original concept sale), the industrial mining vessel remains undelivered; current price is $575.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Orion ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260128224132/https://starcitizen.tools/Orion Archived])</ref>
-*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner</ref>
+*Genesis Starliner: Sold in 2015 for $400 (original concept sale), passenger transport remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251112221548/https://starcitizen.tools/Genesis_Starliner Archived])</ref>
 *Endeavor: Made available in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), with limited availability due to price increases.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Endeavor</ref>
-*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D</ref>
+*Hull D: Sold since 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), price increased in subsequent sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251213110038/https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_D Archived])</ref>
-*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E</ref>
+*Hull E: Offered in 2015 for $550 (original concept sale), increased to $950 in later sales.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260219233750/https://starcitizen.tools/Hull_E Archived])</ref>
-*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible</ref>
+*Crucible: Sold in 2015 for $350 (original concept sale), repair ship remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260117044445/https://starcitizen.tools/Crucible Archived])</ref>
-*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer</ref>
+*Pioneer: Marketed in 2017 for $850 (original concept sale), base-building vessel remains in concept phase<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260125190110/https://starcitizen.tools/Pioneer Archived])</ref>
-*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken</ref>
+*Drake Kraken: First sold in 2018 for $1,400 (original concept sale), capital ship with privateer variant sold for $2,000, remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251112222501/https://starcitizen.tools/Kraken Archived])</ref>
-*Railen: First sold in 2021 for $200 (original concept sale), remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Railen</ref>
+*Railen: First sold in 2021 for $200 (original concept sale), remains undelivered.<ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Railen ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251129082032/https://starcitizen.tools/Railen Archived])</ref>
 Note: All listed vessels have been sold multiple times since their original concept sales, often at increased prices. Many remain in concept phase or early development despite years passing since initial sales.
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 The practice of selling digital products years before they are implemented has raised significant concerns regarding consumer protection. Despite marketing these items as 'pledges' or 'concepts', CIG continues to charge real money for digital goods with no firm delivery timeline or guarantee of implementation. The company's terms of service have been modified multiple times since 2012, changing the conditions under which refunds are offered and altering customer rights regarding purchased content. Many backers who attempted to obtain refunds for undelivered products have reported difficulties, with CIG often citing their evolving terms of service as justification for denial. The lack of concrete development schedules for sold items, combined with regular price increases for unreleased content, has led to criticism from consumer advocacy groups and gaming industry observers. Additionally, the practice of artificial scarcity through "limited-time sales" of digital products that don't yet exist has been questioned as potentially misleading marketing.
 [[File:ASA Response .png|thumb|A response letter from the Advertising Standards Authority affirming that Cloud Imperium Games likely had breached the Advertising Rules. ]]
-In 2021, following a consumer complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by a member of the /r/starcitizen_refunds community, Cloud Imperium Games was required to modify its concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined that they violated UK advertising rules<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/</ref>, Cloud Imperium Games was needed to alter its concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined they violated Advertising Rules in the UK. The issue centered on emails promoting concept ships without clear disclosure that the advertised vessels did not yet exist in the game. In response, CIG added a standardized disclaimer to their marketing emails stating that concept ships are "being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge". The disclaimer also notes that purchasers receive a temporary "loaner vehicle" until their bought ship becomes available.
+In 2021, following a consumer complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by a member of the /r/starcitizen_refunds community, Cloud Imperium Games was required to modify its concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined that they violated UK advertising rules<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20210831222423/https://old.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/pfgchs/uk_advertising_standards_agency_rule_concept_ship/ Archived])</ref>, Cloud Imperium Games was needed to alter its concept ship marketing emails after the ASA determined they violated Advertising Rules in the UK. The issue centered on emails promoting concept ships without clear disclosure that the advertised vessels did not yet exist in the game. In response, CIG added a standardized disclaimer to their marketing emails stating that concept ships are "being offered here as a limited vehicle concept pledge". The disclaimer also notes that purchasers receive a temporary "loaner vehicle" until their bought ship becomes available.
 ==Development status contradictions==
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ==Development communication issues==
-Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ultimately failed when CIG failed to deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast, including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson. <ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42</ref> Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.
+Squadron 42's "Answer the Call 2017" marketing campaign ultimately failed when CIG failed to deliver the promised single-player campaign, despite extensive marketing featuring a star-studded cast, including Mark Hamill, Gary Oldman, and Gillian Anderson. <ref>https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42 ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260221031725/https://starcitizen.tools/Squadron_42 Archived])</ref> Following community backlash over the missed release, CIG announced plans for a new project roadmap in late 2017. However, this evolved into what became known as the "Roadmap to the Roadmap," with a release view being finally available in March of 2018. When finally delivered, the new roadmap consistently showed missed deadlines and delayed features. Rather than address these delays, CIG ultimately discontinued much of the roadmap's progress tracker in February 2022, dismissively labeling concerned backers as "roadmap watchers" <ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022 ([http://web.archive.org/web/20250814053537/https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/roadmap-roundup-february-2nd-2022 Archived])</ref> and claiming that showing development progress "puts too much attention on features that had a high probability of shifting around" and was "a distraction both internally at CIG and within the community". This marked a significant departure from their previous promises of transparency and was met with substantial community backlash, particularly from backers who had used the roadmap to track progress on features they had purchased years earlier.
 ==Consumer response==
 [[File:-r-Starcitizen Corruption.png|thumb|CIG Employee Zac Preece is requesting that a post be removed from the /r/starcitizen Reddit in a private Discord server. This post, by the Reddit moderator Ian (MrRiceGuy), didn't violate the rules, yet it was still removed anyway. ]]
-The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community, which has over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities</ref> and the discussion of support tickets/moderation decisions.
+The prolonged development timeline and sales practices have led to organized consumer response movements, notably the /r/starcitizen_refunds subreddit community, which has over 18,000 members.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20250803112513/https://old.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/ Archived])</ref>. This subreddit serves as a platform for dissatisfied backers seeking refunds, documenting development delays, and tracking changes to terms of service that affect consumer rights. Discussion of these issues on official channels is heavily restricted, with CIG's Spectrum forum rules explicitly prohibiting posts deemed to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" (FUD)<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities ([http://web.archive.org/web/20250714211323/https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013196427-Spectrum-and-Website-Rules-and-Moderation-Responsibilities Archived])</ref> and the discussion of support tickets/moderation decisions.
 While unofficial communities, such as the /r/starcitizen subreddit and Discord server, exist, these spaces are heavily moderated to prevent discussion of negative sentiment due to the strong ties between their moderators and Cloud Imperium Games employees.
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ==In-game moderation inconsistencies==
 [[File:Example of Exessive Griefing .png|thumb|An example of a user being banned for the term 'Excessive Griefing' and being directed to review the terms of service and rules of conduct for a term that doesn't exist.  ]]
-The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receive bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.
+The moderation practices of Cloud Imperium have drawn criticism for inconsistent and opaque enforcement. Users can receive bans for "excessive griefing" despite this term having no defined parameters in either the Terms of Service<ref>https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260204133014/https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/tos Archived])</ref> or Rules of Conduct<ref>https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251023231231/https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/4409491235351-Rules-of-Conduct Archived])</ref> documentation. Users receive these bans without stated reasons, requiring them to file support tickets to learn of their alleged infractions. This lack of transparency and disconnect between written policies and enforcement has created significant uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable behavior.
 Star Citizen's Persistent Universe, or PU for short, is an open sandbox that allows players to engage in PVP activities such as Piracy and Bounty Hunting, yet participating in these activities could lead a player to being banned for 'excessively' engaging in this activity under the guise of it being 'harassment' to do so.