... in this case it wasn't really a very explicit promise due to ambiguity. Is the banana supposed to be looted? Is it analogous to the amber situation mentioned earlier? ...
Arrgh!!!
Doer, u the last person i'd expect to come up with such a fuzzy thinking. Where's that ambiguity, show me? I can't see no ambiguity whatsoever. Let me show u what i can see.
First of all, lets just forget for a moment all the random associations that may pop up in your mind but have no direct reference in the message (i.e. Tanhok Amber). Otherwise we'll drown into unimportant irrelevant details and never get out of that mess. Deal?
OK, so here's that infamous message:
It seems we can split the message into 3 statements:
A) Receive banana
B) Beat Bruce 5000 times
C) Send support case and get the deed
All the important info in the message is included in those 3 statements. Agree?
Next step, how those statements are related in this message?
A = C
B = C
It is a very simple pattern, do you agree? And we can safely assume "C" in both cases is indeed the same thing. Right?
If so, we can also say:
IF A=C AND B=C THEN A=B
OK, So far so good.
At this point we're facing
The Contradiction - if indeed A=B (if beating Bruce 5000 times brings the banana), then why didn't this happen ingame?
From here only 2 possibilities, either the message was wrong (meaning, it was meant to say something else, but failed) or (if the message is correct) the game mechanics were broken (meaning, the banana had to drop but failed because of some bug).
And now the conclusion:
In a hindsight it doesn't matter, which one of those 2 possibilities was true. Even if it was the message that was faulty, MA still has to take responsibility and pay up
according to the message as it was posted ingame.
Where's the ambiguity here? Afaik, there's no ambiguity, it's all very simple.