AlienEyeTX Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 And has been debunked, as the listing uses American decimal / comma placement, and that fractions of a credit only go out two decimal positions (Y.XX,) not three (Y.XXX.) Thus, there is still no deception. Moreover, it is not possible to misrepresent the number, as the listed price will be accurate, barring a glitch or bug in the system. A number cannot be made (inferring that is is changed or hidden) to look like another number. The only numbers shown will be the quantity, list price, and unit price. Deception is not possible in this system. Many times items are listed for sale at prices that most will consider to be unreasonable. That does not constitute a scam. That is a person attempting to make a larger than normal profit in a free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 No, it's not. You suggest a connection between the two. I see none. I ask again: Where's the connection between a Pyramid scheme and the OP misreading / misinterpreting a listing on the GTN? Its an attack on a logical premise. Do you understand the logical premise being used in ikinai's defense? If not, it doesn't really matter and you can ignore that aspect of my debate. There are two counts on which I'm aware of that a purchase like this(which constitutes a contract normally) could be voided. One, mistake of fact. I brought this up quite a while ago and have yet to see anyone dispute this. The other is unconscionability. Simply put, something like this would not be tolerated in 1st world economies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Not always. Since you seem to be at least somewhat familiar with this kind of thing, can we both agree that most likely a case where the price that one party thought had been agreed to was three orders of magnitude off, would generally be sufficient grounds? I have mentioned there is a lot of discretion involved, if that's what you're getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottythebod Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 No, it's not. You suggest a connection between the two. I see none. I ask again: Where's the connection between a Pyramid scheme and the OP misreading / misinterpreting a listing on the GTN? Because in a pyramid scheme the person being conned is given all the information, they are not lied to about what's going on. So by your line of thinking they should be legal because it's the guy that got schemed's fault since he signed a contract containing all the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) The intent of the seller is irrelevant, seeing there was ABSOLUTELY NO(!!!) mischief in the listing. The intent of the seller is everything. The mischief is listing in such a way that a person will mistake the price for a different price, knowing how the (otherwise correct) information is displayed. Edited August 28, 2014 by MillionsKNives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienEyeTX Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Simply put, something like this would not be tolerated in 1st world economies. Sure it would. The thing is, people just don't buy the unreasonably priced product. I'm sure if you go on Amazon or eBay or any number of resale/auction sites, you can find plenty of examples of people overcharging for items, even without going to the extent of misrepresentation. Why? Because maybe it's my lucky day and someone actually buys the item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calsetes Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 No it has not. Just because you'd be stupid to fall for something does not mean that one can't be deceived into falling for it. It just means that the person was stupid and fell for it. So ignorance is an acceptable reason to get a refund? If I go into an ice cream parlor and order a "Peanut Butter Extreme Sundae," and know that I have a peanut allergy, but they did not tell me that peanuts were used in the making of said "Peanut Butter Extreme Sundae," I have been thusly scammed and the store in question has attempted to assassinate me, entitling me to a refund? Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse with a system that is as open as this one. The buyer has to have responsibility here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) Sure it would. The thing is, people just don't buy the unreasonably priced product. I'm sure if you go on Amazon or eBay or any number of resale/auction sites, you can find plenty of examples of people overcharging for items, even without going to the extent of misrepresentation. Why? Because maybe it's my lucky day and someone actually buys the item. People not using the options available to them isn't the same as it not being available. Your ebay example, people can get refunded. Edited August 28, 2014 by Vandicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienEyeTX Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I have been thusly scammed and the store in question has attempted to assassinate me, entitling me to a refund? Stop it! You're making me lol at work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Wicked Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) Because in a pyramid scheme the person being conned is given all the information, they are not lied to about what's going on. So by your line of thinking they should be legal because it's the guy that got schemed's fault since he signed a contract containing all the details. There's no contract being signed here. There's no layer upon layer upon layer. It is a simple transaction where the OP misinterpreted / misread one simple listing, where all the information was available to be viewed. Again, I still don't understand why people tie a simple transaction on the GTN to Pyramid schemes. Didn't the OP got what he purchased last I checked, whether he misread it or not? This isn't some medium-to-long term investment. The intent of the seller is everything. The mischief is listing in such a way that a person will mistake the price for a different price, knowing how the (otherwise correct) information is displayed. Again, the intent is irrelevant. It falls to the player to double-check to make sure he's buying what he's searching for. All the information is in plain view for the player to peruse, numerous times, at will. Period. All it matters is the listing. Edited August 28, 2014 by Darth_Wicked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OIFVET Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 As much as I love this game there are reasons I still actively play Eve online where scamming is not only allowed but encouraged. Sorry if you can't pay attention to what you are doing it is your fault and problem. Perhaps in the future you will pay better attention to what you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) There's no contract being signed here. There's no layer upon layer upon layer. It is a simple transaction where the OP misinterpreted / misread one simple listing, where all the information was available to be viewed. Again, I still don't understand why people tie a simple transaction on the GTN to Pyramid schemes. Didn't the OP got what he purchased last I checked, whether he misread it or not? Again, the intent is irrelevant. It falls to the player to double-check to make sure he's buying what he's searching for. All the information is in plain view for the player to peruse, numerous times, at will. Period. All it matters is the listing. Not really interested in trying to explain how contract law works. There's a contract when you buy a hot dog. Now this is a transaction within a video game. I'm not aware of any particular rules or regulations regarding video games. I brought up real life for the sake of comparison regarding what is considered a scam, and what is considered legitimate business behavior. Edited August 28, 2014 by Vandicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calsetes Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Stop it! You're making me lol at work! I've found using "thusly" tends to make people laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienEyeTX Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 People not using the options available to them isn't the same as it not being available. Your ebay example, people can get refunded. In that example, they may be able to return the item for a refund. That may not be possible with certain other retailers. I can sell you a standard #2 pencil for $25. If I have a sign up that reads, "All Sales Final," you have no recourse when you go to the store next door and see that they sell the same type of pencil for $0.25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Wicked Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Not really interested into trying to explain how contract law works. There's a contract when you buy a hot dog. Now this is a transaction within a video game. I'm not aware of any particular rules or regulations regarding video games. I brought up real life for the sake of comparison regarding what is considered a scam, and what is considered legitimate business behavior. You assume I need an explanation. I do not. You also revealed you're talking out of your backside, when you chose to bring up Pyramid schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikinai Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Since you seem to be at least somewhat familiar with this kind of thing, can we both agree that most likely a case where the price that one party thought had been agreed to was three orders of magnitude off, would generally be sufficient grounds? I have mentioned there is a lot of discretion involved, if that's what you're getting at. That's just it, it wasn't off. That was indeed the intended price. If it was an error, perhaps, even then it still comes down to the purchaser to make the informed decision. Since the GTN has the tools to do this, it makes it difficult for me to call it a scam. I see things listed for outrageous prices all the time. I just don't buy them. I may be going blind, but I still see well enough to tell the difference in numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienEyeTX Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I've found using "thusly" tends to make people laugh. That and the assassination thing. Comedy gold! 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 being signed here. Read up on "implied contracts" and learn something new... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 You assume I need an explanation. I do not. You also revealed you're talking out of your backside, when you chose to bring up Pyramid schemes. To repeat. There was a premise established. "Its not a scam if there's full disclosure of information" Pyramid schemes are a scam. They can operate with full disclosure of information just fine. They are regarded as a scam, both generally and legally. It is an attack on a premise. You're free to ignore it if you don't wish to apply that premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Moreover, it is not possible to misrepresent the number, as the listed price will be accurate, barring a glitch or bug in the system. A number cannot be made (inferring that is is changed or hidden) to look like another number. The only numbers shown will be the quantity, list price, and unit price. Deception is not possible in this system. In an absolute sense, the numbers are not the same. But people are not computers and we see the world not as it exists but as we view and interpret it. When the number 333 can be represented as 333.000 (even if it isn't in this specific game) it is quite reasonable to say that a person can mistake, at a glance, it for 333,000 or vice versa, especially if they were expecting a price near that number. Given this information, it is possible for a dishonest person to list an item at said price (i.e., 333,000) with full intention of tricking a person into buying it, because they thought it was a different number (i.e., 333.000). This deception can be done in plain view with all of the information disclosed to the buyer. This works because people are not perfect and are prone to viewing information incorrectly, especially at first glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 That's just it, it wasn't off. That was indeed the intended price. If it was an error, perhaps, even then it still comes down to the purchaser to make the informed decision. Since the GTN has the tools to do this, it makes it difficult for me to call it a scam. I see things listed for outrageous prices all the time. I just don't buy them. I may be going blind, but I still see well enough to tell the difference in numbers. The OP clearly states that he believed the price to be 333. The actual price was three orders of magnitude larger, 333k. One party, the OP, was unaware of the price he was agreeing to pay, which is rather significant in any transaction. Mistake of fact. Banks are required to quote effective annual interest rates to make it harder for them to mislead people on actual returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Wicked Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Read up on "implied contracts" and learn something new... Because those hold truly well within a virtual realm, as far as the GTN is concerned, right? Try harder. To repeat. There was a premise established. "Its not a scam if there's full disclosure of information" Pyramid schemes are a scam. They can operate with full disclosure of information just fine. They are regarded as a scam, both generally and legally. It is an attack on a premise. You're free to ignore it if you don't wish to apply that premise. Your premise is nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandicus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Because those hold truly well within a virtual realm, as far as the GTN is concerned, right? Try harder. Your premise is nonsensical. Its not my premise. Its the premise others were using. I was attacking it. Would this kind of behavior(attempting to mislead the buyer as to the price of a transaction) be considered a scam irl? Yes. Its pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienEyeTX Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 The OP clearly states that he believed the price to be 333. The actual price was three orders of magnitude larger, 333k. One party, the OP, was unaware of the price he was agreeing to pay, which is rather significant in any transaction. Mistake of fact. Banks are required to quote effective annual interest rates to make it harder for them to mislead people on actual returns. Being mistaken is not the same as being unaware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Wicked Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Its not my premise. Its the premise others were using. I was attacking it. Would this kind of behavior(attempting to mislead the buyer as to the price of a transaction) be considered a scam irl? Yes. Its pretty simple. Again, so you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts