🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40o1kn$uus@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>
peterscc@ucsu.colorado.edu (C.C. Petersen) writes:
>
>Would anyone in the administration of the university, the library or
>Campus Copies care to make a comment on what's happening with the copy
>cards, and why this money won't be refunded? 

I'm can't speak for CC or the university, but it's standard procedure
for such cards to be non-refundable.

The criticial issue is the risk to CC if fradulent cards are produced.
A bored EE major who hacks up a copy card "xerox" (e.g., something that
will copy a $20 card onto an empty card) is a modest risk since the cost
of a single copy is much less that the price of a single copy.  For instance,
the cost a ream of copier paper (in bulk) plus use of toner might be $5.00,
but the price of 500 copies is $50.00.

The difference provides depreciation on the capital gear, maintenance,
overhead, etc.  It also provides a small buffer against fraud.  If
fraud becomes a problem, CC undoubtably retained the right to invalidate
all outstanding cards.

Now let's assume that CC was willing to refund the outstanding balance
on the copy cards.  That $20 fradulent card is now a risk of $20,
not $2.  Worse, the potential loss before fraud become evident is
much higher.

CC _could_ provide refunds if it had more money set aside against
fradulent use, but that might raise the cost of a single copy from
$0.10 to $0.15.  Most people would rather risk losing a couple bucks
(since we know to keep modest balances on our cards :-) than to
know they'll pay more for each copy during the next couple years.

(BTW, I might still have old copy cards from the company before
Campus Copies.  Hmm; I wonder if they might become useable again. :-)

Bear Giles
bear@cs.colorado.edu
-- 
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov