ikinai Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 A person double-clicks the sort because it's buggy and/or laggy. Tada! And that's still not a scam, no matter how you try to spin it, that is not a scam. It is still incumbent upon the purchaser to do their due diligence to make sure they are getting what they want. Nowhere did the seller do anything to change the deal. The deal was there without change, the purchaser took it without looking, still not a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 And that's still not a scam, no matter how you try to spin it, that is not a scam. It is still incumbent upon the purchaser to do their due diligence to make sure they are getting what they want. Nowhere did the seller do anything to change the deal. The deal was there without change, the purchaser took it without looking, still not a scam. Another failed attempt to debunk. A person failing to do their due diligence is what most scams rely on. A deal does not have to change for there to be a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calsetes Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Unless that higher-priced item at the top is the 333,333 per unit, which they expected as the lowest item. There's no reason that there can't be other entries between 333,333 and 333.333. All it requires is that the person thinks it's sorted by lowest, for the number they're looking at to be what they expected (even if what they expected is in actuality 100x less), and that the number is at the top. This situation is pretty easy to pull off. Not many people sensibly price these items at those levels so most likely there won't be any listed for more expensive. The sorting column is buggy and sometimes requires multiple clicks for it to sort properly (i.e., when you first search for an item, even if the sort column is set to ascending it won't be sorted at all), or it's laggy and also requires multiple clicks for it to register. And some/many people aren't very careful or perceptive when going about rote tasks. Which goes back to my other example using the Satele Shan Tunic and how that could also be "a scam" using your criteria, because someone didn't take the steps needed to cover their own butt. Regardless, priced highest-to-lowest, someone would notice an extra number there anyway and would be less likely to click on it if they only paid attention. Another click to verify he was looking at the lowest-priced item would have shown him he wasn't, and another click to go back to what he was looking at would still take him exactly back to where he was. Again, if he happened to be "too slow" to capitalize upon a "deal," then he would get a refund anyway from the GTN and he'd have to go over and get his money from the mail. In this case, he didn't. We're not talkign about rocket science here. We're not talking about comparing 500 entries on the GTN all at once. We're talking about looking at one single page - hell, a few entries on that page - and seeing that he shouldn't have clicked that. This is not a scam. This is player stupidity. A stupid story, mind you, riddled with holes (new player having a few million and not knowing how the GTN works, and only being 3 weeks old at that. More holes than Swiss cheese shot with three clips from an uzi.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikinai Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Another failed attempt to debunk. A person failing to do their due diligence is what most scams rely on. A deal does not have to change for there to be a scam. But it wasn't a scam, that's the thing of it, I don't think you really understand scams. Look at it this way, you go to buy a house, the seller has it for 1670000, you see 167000 and think what a great deal. You go through all the paperwork and buy the house. Not the sellers fault you just paid 1.67 million for something that is worth 167k. You really think you can back out of the deal after you sign the paperwork? Too bad, you are on the hook for 1.67M. Same thing here, he bought something that was over priced by his inattention, that does not constitute a scam. All relevant information was available to make an informed decision, therefore there was no scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eartharioch Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) did you just accuse me of being a scammer? seriously? I can see no other reason for defending scammers/spammers than being one. IRL, I have met only one person who defended spamming. That person ran a business sending unsolicited coupons to local businesses fax machines. He spent an entire night at a party trying to justify his business. Like you and the others defending the seller, he failed. I don't even.. I give up. personal responsibility is apparently a lost concept. as is paying attention. That's the basic self-justification that every scammer/spammer here keeps repeating. What the seller is doing is spamming a scam whether or not anybody falls for it. The degree to which a victim is to blame, and what (if) anything a victim should be able do about being scammed are separate questions. and no. I don't list stuff like that. I'm far too impatient. I look at the lowest price per unit and undercut it, usually listing in smaller quantities so that it shows up as close to first page as I can manage, regardless of whether you are looking by cheapest unit cost or total price, so that I could move my stuff quickly. or would you call that a scam too? at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you did. No, I wouldn't call that a scam. What you described is listing mats in a way that makes them look cheaper than other people's because they are cheaper, not "still look cheaper even if you sort by most expensive". And just so we're clear, I'm not saying that anything should be done about the OP's (or anybody's) specific case. I'm saying that it's clear that there is a problem; my recommended solution (at least at this time) is for BW to clean up the interface (always show fractions and line up numbers consistently). It's quick and easy, and I don't see anybody arguing that a cleaner interface would hurt anybody except scammers. So, when people want to say "everything is fine, working as intended, caveat emptor", I have no reason to think that they are saying those things out of anything other than self interest. Edited August 29, 2014 by eartharioch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Which goes back to my other example using the Satele Shan Tunic and how that could also be "a scam" using your criteria, because someone didn't take the steps needed to cover their own butt. Regardless, priced highest-to-lowest, someone would notice an extra number there anyway and would be less likely to click on it if they only paid attention. Another click to verify he was looking at the lowest-priced item would have shown him he wasn't, and another click to go back to what he was looking at would still take him exactly back to where he was. No it couldn't, because the person didn't think they were buying it for less than they were, and the person listing it wasn't trying to take advantage of someone by making them think they were buying it for less than they were. Again, if you can't see the difference then I can't help you (I'm aware that I had originally made this comment to a different person). A person who is not consciously checking the number of trailing zeros and who expects to be seeing a different number will not be dissuaded by an extra zero. After all 333.333 is a valid number, and could potentially be shown on the GTN (even though it won't). And again, it doesn't matter if him doing his due diligence would have avoided the issue, the issue is that someone priced the item specifically to prey upon people who aren't doing their due diligence by tricking them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 But it wasn't a scam, that's the thing of it, I don't think you really understand scams. Look at it this way, you go to buy a house, the seller has it for 1670000, you see 167000 and think what a great deal. You go through all the paperwork and buy the house. Not the sellers fault you just paid 1.67 million for something that is worth 167k. You really think you can back out of the deal after you sign the paperwork? Too bad, you are on the hook for 1.67M. Same thing here, he bought something that was over priced by his inattention, that does not constitute a scam. All relevant information was available to make an informed decision, therefore there was no scam. It was brought up before, and yes you can back out of it. Mistake of fact, as linked by someone trying to prove that it doesn't count in the OP's case (it does) pretty much says that if someone makes a mistake in their assumption and the difference is material it can void a contract. You can keep saying it's not a scam but that doesn't mean it's not. You have nothing to back up your assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikinai Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 No it couldn't, because the person didn't think they were buying it for less than they were, and the person listing it wasn't trying to take advantage of someone by making them think they were buying it for less than they were. Again, if you can't see the difference then I can't help you (I'm aware that I had originally made this comment to a different person). A person who is not consciously checking the number of trailing zeros and who expects to be seeing a different number will not be dissuaded by an extra zero. After all 333.333 is a valid number, and could potentially be shown on the GTN (even though it won't). And again, it doesn't matter if him doing his due diligence would have avoided the issue, the issue is that someone priced the item specifically to prey upon people who aren't doing their due diligence by tricking them. You have no evidence to support that claim, or any evidence to support the OPs claim in the first place, it's all hearsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 You have no evidence to support that claim, or any evidence to support the OPs claim in the first place, it's all hearsay. You missed the images that someone posted where the lowest and the highest listed prices for the same item are off by a comma and a zero didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikinai Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 It was brought up before, and yes you can back out of it. Mistake of fact, as linked by someone trying to prove that it doesn't count in the OP's case (it does) pretty much says that if someone makes a mistake in their assumption and the difference is material it can void a contract. You can keep saying it's not a scam but that doesn't mean it's not. You have nothing to back up your assertion. Actually that is not a mistake of fact, as the price is well established. Perhaps reread what a mistake of fact is. The seller has set the price, the purchaser agreed to it by signing the documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikinai Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 You missed the images that someone posted where the lowest and the highest listed prices for the same item are off by a comma and a zero didn't you? Was it the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 You have no evidence to support that claim, or any evidence to support the OPs claim in the first place, it's all hearsay. Which is exactly why this would be better dealt with by Bioware taking a look at it. Nobody but the seller knows his "true" intent, but reasonable judgement can be used to determine what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kantaso Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Can you all give it a rest. This is a stupid topic, the OP bought something without paying attention, his fault no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Can you all give it a rest. This is a stupid topic, the OP bought something without paying attention, his fault no one else. NO! We ALL blame YOU now!!! Just kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) Actually that is not a mistake of fact, as the price is well established. Perhaps reread what a mistake of fact is. The seller has set the price, the purchaser agreed to it by signing the documents. Read for yourself Mistake of Fact. It's when a person makes a mistake even if the price was well established, through assumptions or ignorance. That's pretty much exactly what happened in your scenario. The buyer mistook the price to be of lesser value, to a material degree, through ignorance and carelessness. But I'm not going to argue that your scenario was a scam, because you mention no intent of deceit from the seller. And since clearly neither of us are lawyers there is no reason to continue discussing this topic (mistake of fact) further. Was it the OP? So we both agree that the person who listed the prices in the images provided was a scammer, but that we can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person selling the mats which the OP purchased was a scammer, because all we have is his word? We finally agree! I'm glad to see you've come around to the light. That said I still believe the OP was scammed even if I can not prove it 100%. But neither can you prove the opposite. And since this isn't a court of law it doesn't matter. Edited August 29, 2014 by MillionsKNives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kantaso Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 NO! We ALL blame YOU now!!! Just kidding. LOL My fault I didnt read the little prints... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 *finally just stops reading to reply* Crafting is a pretty good way to make credits, as is questing and not paying to upgrade your skills. But I agree with you, no scam. Mistake in reading =/= scam. That is why we're supposed to read that fine print, and check the pricing before buying. I've made a similar mistake once by assuming the GTN would always remember my sorting preference for 'by price'. I bought something and nearly cleaned myself out. But I learned. Some sellers just don't bother looking up the market price. Mistake in reading =/= scam Deceptively pricing items to take advantage of other players == scam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kantaso Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 *finally just stops reading to reply* Crafting is a pretty good way to make credits, as is questing and not paying to upgrade your skills. But I agree with you, no scam. Mistake in reading =/= scam. That is why we're supposed to read that fine print, and check the pricing before buying. I've made a similar mistake once by assuming the GTN would always remember my sorting preference for 'by price'. I bought something and nearly cleaned myself out. But I learned. Some sellers just don't bother looking up the market price. QFT and agree with you 100%, I have to stop writing because my blood pressure just went up. We dont live in a fair world, you must learn that to survive, there are scamers, there are bullies, there are abusers, there are those who use every gimmick and trick in the world to obtain things without working for it, but at the end it is up to you to make the right choice and the right decision. Enuff said, my pressure is going.... 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 depp breth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienEyeTX Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 It was brought up before, and yes you can back out of it. Mistake of fact, as linked by someone trying to prove that it doesn't count in the OP's case (it does) pretty much says that if someone makes a mistake in their assumption and the difference is material it can void a contract. You can keep saying it's not a scam but that doesn't mean it's not. You have nothing to back up your assertion. Mistake of fact was debunked. Do you have another misunderstood term to throw out for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azudelphi Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) I see, you are one of the "blame the victim" people then? "She was asking for it", is that the sort of thing you say? Yes, the OP made a mistake, but the seller isn't faultless either, they posted at a price clearly intended to trick. Quite frankly, you lost all credibility in this thread when you got dangerously close to comparing accidentally buying something overpriced in a game to rape... Edited August 29, 2014 by azudelphi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernixx Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I can't believe this thread is still going. Yes, what was done was deceptive and with the intent to trick inattentive and gullible players. No, what was done is not, strictly speaking, a 'scam' that would result in in-game actioning. Yes, you can 'call' it a scam and call the listing player a scammer in order to show how terrible of a person you think he or she is. No, that doesn't mean anything. Nor is it anything to get wound up over. Honestly, this needed a 500+ post thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewski Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 So, to summarize: OP made a mistake, got hosed by it, and asked if there's any recourse. (A question, note, not a demand.) Where it seems to me the proper answer should be something like "Yeah, that sucks, but there's not much you can do about it. Ask the seller for a refund, or if you think he did it on purpose, report him in game and move on." Instead we get 50 pages of people arguing over the semantics of words and raging about the nature of crime. Yeah, it's a normal day on the TOR forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 So, to summarize: OP made a mistake, got hosed by it, and asked if there's any recourse. (A question, note, not a demand.) Where it seems to me the proper answer should be something like "Yeah, that sucks, but there's not much you can do about it. Ask the seller for a refund, or if you think he did it on purpose, report him in game and move on." Instead we get 50 pages of people arguing over the semantics of words and raging about the nature of crime. Yeah, it's a normal day on the TOR forums. 54...l2countpagesnub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraineAlei Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 So, to summarize: OP made a mistake, got hosed by it, and asked if there's any recourse. (A question, note, not a demand.) Where it seems to me the proper answer should be something like "Yeah, that sucks, but there's not much you can do about it. Ask the seller for a refund, or if you think he did it on purpose, report him in game and move on." Instead we get 50 pages of people arguing over the semantics of words and raging about the nature of crime. Yeah, it's a normal day on the TOR forums. *holds out a fresh bag of popcorn* Want some popcorn? I think there is a table over there with all the stuff you could for a bag of popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) Mistake of fact was debunked. orly, do tell. Because I recall correcting you on your incorrect debunking with a quoted segment from the article you linked which contradicted you. Edited August 29, 2014 by MillionsKNives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts