Darth_Wicked Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 How could that possibly be? Click it sorts, click it sorts, click it sorts. It has two states. High to low and low to high. If you can't see the difference when you click, that is your fault, not the seller, not the game and it is not a scam. That is entirely the purchasers fault. ^^ Hear, hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heat-Wave Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 There's no contract here. Yes, there is... It is an implied contract which has a long history of law behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 This is not real life and like I mentioned, there was no contract whatsoever. This was the simplest of the transactions, where full disclosure on the buyer's part was provided. That would be a hard sell in court one might add, taken into account your "real life" example. As I mentioned over and over again, all the information was there and said information was accurate. There was no omission of any data whatsoever... The buyer got what he purchased. Again, there was full disclosure on the seller's part... He did NOT hide anything about the deal; The price per unit was there, the number of units, plus the total price. It falls to the buyer to pay attention to what he was doing and he ultimately didn't. In order for it to be a scam, I guess that in the immediate future - this being GTN and virtual items - the OP would realize he did NOT got what he purchased. Yet again, this is not the case. HE DID GOT WHAT HE PURCHASED, not what he had anticipated given that he misinterpreted the listing. Different things altogether, as I said repeatedly. It would never make it to court because the would-be buyer would simply refuse to execute the transaction. You can force the seller to sell, but you can't force the buyer to buy. Would selling insurance under a different name and thus avoiding insurance regulations intended to protect purchasers of insurance be fraudulent to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikinai Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yes, there is... It is an implied contract which has a long history of law behind it. Then take the seller to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calsetes Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yes, it's the OP's fault. But that doesn't mean the price wasn't predatory. Not saying it isn't - but the fault still lies with the OP in the end. The seller wasn't there haranguing him to buy it for that price "before it expires, get it quick!" The seller didn't do a straight-out trade and quickly change the stack from... I don't know, 99 units to 9 units. The seller didn't send them via mail with a promise of "more to come" and a COD in that first batch. There are plenty of tools available to him - even as a completely free-to-play account, not even preferred - to prevent anything like this from happening in the first place. The seller posting those for that price is about as predatory as... I don't know, selling an Underworld Arrangement Bar set for 20 million when it's normally 2 million. Is it dishonest? Who's to say - if it was the only one on there when they posted it, then they might think it's a valid price. If twenty other people throw their up for lower prices, finally balancing around 2 million, does that make the initial seller dishonest? There's a lot of variables there, but one thing is for certain - the OP could have prevented the thing by double-checking the price. The only thing he would have missed out on was a deal, in which case he either buys them at the regular price if he needs those components, or he finds another item to flip if he's playing the GTN stock broker game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elminster_cs Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Well right now you can buy a stack of syntetic prefeb, 20k each, buy some stuff and sell them back on GTN... at 120k or even 230k... is this scam? No is people stupidity? yes Same as OP, sorry but you MUST read better. Sometimes ago I have bought a ship (for gfs) at 45k, a revan mask a 1.2m and a chest at 500k... al sold back, 4.5 milion, 18 milion and 2milion. Scam? No People stupidity? yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Wicked Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yes, there is... It is an implied contract which has a long history of law behind it. Not sure if serious. It would never make it to court because the would-be buyer would simply refuse to execute the transaction. The transaction has already been made. You can force the seller to sell, but you can't force the buyer to buy. No one forced any of the parties doing anything. You're just clutching at straws now. Would selling insurance under a different name and thus avoiding insurance regulations intended to protect purchasers of insurance be fraudulent to you? Straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 How could that possibly be? Click it sorts, click it sorts, click it sorts. It has two states. High to low and low to high. If you can't see the difference when you click, that is your fault, not the seller, not the game and it is not a scam. That is entirely the purchasers fault. Its the difference between , and . for the unit price. A lot of the problem could be solved by simply rounding to the nearest credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rankyn Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 In real life, that'd be up to the discretion of judges following legal guidelines. For the sake of comparison to real life, which has regulated markets and things like receipts for a reason, its not unreasonable to treat each transaction(which in real life constitutes a contract) as following the same rules. Was there an attempt at deceit? Yes. Was it successful? Yes. Was there harm to the one being deceived and benefit to the deceiver? Yes. To me that's a scam. There's all kinds of ways to swindle people. *EDIT Even from a business perspective, that kind of behavior harms the market(while providing no economic benefit). Aside from morality the laws are also based on economic practicality.If you're going to try to make real life parallels to this, I think you're going to have a hard time proving that there was deception. Was the advertised product delivered as offered in the stated quantity? Yes. Was the buyer aware of the stated price? Yes. For it to be a scam, something would have to be hidden from the buyer and the nature of the GTN system makes that impossible. - All items are identical. - Quantities are listed. - Cost is displayed. - Even unit cost is displayed so you don't have to do the math yourself. Consumer carelessness ≠ scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Again, there was full disclosure on the seller's part... He did NOT hide anything about the deal; The price per unit was there, the number of units, plus the total price. One can be dishonest and deceptive while displaying all of the information. In order for it to be a scam, the OP would realize he did NOT got what he purchased. Yet again, this is not the case. That is not the limits of what constitutes a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Not sure if serious. The transaction has already been made. No one forced any of the parties doing anything. You're just clutching at straws now. Straws. Heat-wave is perfectly serious. Actually a transaction lasts longer than the transfer of funds funnily enough. Even after the stage of a transfer of funds of accidental amount, the buyer still has the option not to buy. I'm referencing direct real-life rules regarding business here. Not straws. The basis for your argument seems to be that its technically legal. That was the justification for Credit default swaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Wicked Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 One can be dishonest and deceptive while displaying all of the information. You're mixing things up. The seller's intent may be both dishonest and deceptive. Alas, the listing is not. I've been talking about the latter. Different things and as such, it falls to buyers to pay attention to what they're doing. That is not the limits of what constitutes a scam. There was no scam. The buyer got what he purchased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikinai Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Its the difference between , and . for the unit price. A lot of the problem could be solved by simply rounding to the nearest credit. Buyer beware, if you can't tell the difference with the tools at your disposal it is ultimately your fault. Not the seller. The seller did nothing wrong. Look at the interface, it says price per unit, but it also tells you right there how much you are going to spend to purchase it. If you can't calculate the difference between 333000 per unit and 333 per unit that isn't the sellers responsibility to teach you how to do basic math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 If you're going to try to make real life parallels to this, I think you're going to have a hard time proving that there was deception. Was the advertised product delivered as offered in the stated quantity? Yes. Was the buyer aware of the stated price? Yes. For it to be a scam, something would have to be hidden from the buyer and the nature of the GTN system makes that impossible. - All items are identical. - Quantities are listed. - Cost is displayed. - Even unit cost is displayed so you don't have to do the math yourself. Consumer carelessness ≠ scam. Since normally you can simply not pay, things like this aren't executed in real life. As I referenced earlier, even after an agreement to pay, the buyer cannot be forced to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 You're mixing things up. The seller's intent may be both dishonest and deceptive. Alas, the listing is not. I've been talking about the latter. Different things and as such, it falls to buyers to pay attention to what they're doing. If the seller's intent is dishonest and deceptive it is a scam. There was no scam. The buyer got what he purchased. It doesn't matter if he got what he purchased. I already said that it doesn't define whether or not it's a scam. Please try reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eartharioch Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 But what action is supposed to be taken by Bioware exactly? They could do what I've already said -- align the numbers consistently and allow us to ignore sellers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottythebod Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 It's not a scam. The person who posts something at 1000x market value isn't being dishonest. He may be hoping and praying for an idiot to come along and presses a button they shouldn't, but they are saying, "Here's what's for sale, here's how much I want for it." and has no ability to force anyone to click it. There's no crime, no scam... just people preying on human stupidity to make a few quick credits. Yeah I'd say preying on someone less intelligent than you to get vastly more than something is worth is in fact a scam. Let me ask you this if I go to your grandma's house & convince her to give me $25,000 for a "solar powered clothes drier" then after she gives me the cash I go run a string between two trees & tell her to hang her clothes on there & the sun will dry them. I wasn't dishonest, her clothes will dry using solar power, I didn't force her to give me the money. All I'm saying is here's what's for sale, here's what I want for it, if she's dumb enough to buy it it's her fault right? I was just preying on her stupidity to make a few quick bucks. Problem is someone is in jail for doing this very thing. How would you feel if you saw an ad for a solar-powered clothes dryer and it was only $39? Excited? So were the hundreds of consumers who sent in their $39, only to receive a piece of rope in return. This was just one of the many scams run by an ex-con man name Steve Comisar. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Wicked Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) If the seller's intent is dishonest and deceptive it is a scam. Yet again, the listing itself was accurate. Or you're going to tell me that the buyer did not pay 333 for one piece of Turadium as advertised? Again, where's the scam in that? It doesn't matter if he got what he purchased. I already said that it doesn't define whether or not it's a scam. Please try reading. Take your own advice, please. They could do what I've already said -- align the numbers consistently and allow us to ignore sellers. That I agree with. Edited August 28, 2014 by Darth_Wicked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 The seller did nothing wrong. The seller is taking advantage of limitations within the UI which can make different prices appear similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaron Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Eh... it's one of those things that's in a grey zone. I personally do consider it scamming, since you're basically preying on people who might be drunk, have poor eyesight or are in a hurry. There probably isn't anything you can do though, since you did buy the item when you should've seen it was insanely priced. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eartharioch Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Are you European or American? Yes. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yet again, the listing itself was accurate. Or you're going to tell me that the buyer did not pay 333 for one piece of Turadium as advertised? Again, where's the scam in that? Take your own advice, please. I don't even...have you even read anything I said? It would appear not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abercromb Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 One can be dishonest and deceptive while displaying all of the information. That is not the limits of what constitutes a scam. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Arthur Conan Doyle A fool and his money are soon parted. Thomas Tusser Try a thing you haven’t done three times. Once, to get over the fear of doing it. Twice, to learn how to do it. And a third time, to figure out whether you like it or not. Virgil Garnett Thomson We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true. Robert Wilensky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikinai Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 The seller is taking advantage of limitations within the UI which can make different prices appear similar. All the information is right there to make a decision, again it's down to the purchaser to be able to do some simple math, not the sellers problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 The seller is taking advantage of limitations within the UI which can make different prices appear similar. Exactly this!!! The seller knew full well what he was doing. A refund should be made to the buyer imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts