Scammed on the GTN

[TheNahash]

It's more important to call people who just want to enjoy a video game stupid and defend dishonest players than to be decent to each other, I guess.

 

No, but it is more important to learn to use your brain and eyes when making decisions or buying stuff than to expect the world to become a Utopia of saintly people sending love and light to each other while singing Kumbaya or to ask of others to constantly protect you from those that might try to fool you.

 

Whether the seller was indeed trying to scam the buyer is irrelevant.

What's relevant is that the buyer was careless enough to fall for it/make a bad purchase.

And as long as there was no breaking of rules involved, it's the buyer's fault for not being careful enough.

 

And you know, learning to keep your eyes open is as important as it is for your body to create antibodies.

Keep protecting them all the time and the minute you let them out of your sight, someone will definitely take advantage of them.

And it WON'T be pretty.

[Heat-Wave]

The point I'm trying to make is that this is not a scam because

 

-snip-

 

There is no evidence showing he had malicious intent with what's provided. Thus, not evidence of a scam taking place. Period.

 

Your view of what would count as "evidence" is a little lacking... the evidence is there, you just don't want to see it.

 

The item was priced specifically to trick the OP. It wasn't just a random high price, it was a very specific price designed to trick.

 

That is all the evidence that is required... There is no other reasonable explication behind it, the trickery reason is the most reasonable, thus that is what a court would accept.

[Darth_Wicked]

Your view of what would count as "evidence" is a little lacking... the evidence is there, you just don't want to see it.

 

The item was priced specifically to trick the OP. It wasn't just a random high price, it was a very specific price designed to trick.

 

That is all the evidence that is required... There is no other reasonable explication behind it, the trickery reason is the most reasonable, thus that is what a court would accept.

 

There's no evidence at all, since you can't possibly know what the seller intended.

 

"ASSUMPTION" is NOT the same as "EVIDENCE".

 

The only thing that is both factual and accurate is the listing, the only thing linking both the seller and the buyer and the latter ultimately failed to check the listing with attention. Period.

[Heat-Wave]

Whether the seller was indeed trying to scam the buyer is irrelevant.

What's relevant is that the buyer was careless enough to fall for it/make a bad purchase.

And as long as there was no breaking of rules involved, it's the buyer's fault for not being careful enough.

 

That doesn't fly in the real world, it shouldn't fly online either...

 

If the seller made the above argument to a Judge, they would lose...

 

Do we really want the Internet to remain the wild west? Back then, such problems were solved with guns and a dual. I thought we had evolved from that, but perhaps not...

 

You are not allowed to do whatever you want, there are laws you must follow, and trickery and acting in bad faith is illegal is most of the civilized world.

 

This isn't going to court any time soon, but if it were, the OP would have a pretty good case.

[scottythebod]

The point I'm trying to make is that this is not a scam because:

 

-Everything was detailed in the listing

-It was not done in any sort of illegitimate manner (all prices were as marked and the math added up correctly)

-The buyer received exactly what was promised in the listing for the amount he had spent

 

Where the confusion is popping up is people saying it was the seller's intent to "scam" someone (which we can't determine with the data present) and that being the point of contention. Some people say it depends entirely on the seller's intent. Other people say the intent doesn't play a factor because of the process used to execute the transaction and the tools available to all people using the method of transaction on both ends.

 

It's mostly coming down to people assuming the seller was dishonest or had an ulterior motive and thus it being a "scam," and other people disputing that information either because we have no actual knowledge or evidence of his intent, or because the tools exist to prevent anything like this happening in the first place.

 

Without knowledge of intent, there is nothing else to support the claim of a scam. And while one can say that this one posting could be an indicator of intent, without other listings by said person in question showing that trend, it could easily be a mistyped number on the seller's part and not any sort of ulterior motive.

 

There is no evidence showing he had malicious intent with what's provided. Thus, not evidence of a scam taking place. Period.

Which is why you'll notice I said I believe he was scammed or I preface everything with IMO. Because as I've stated before the only thing debatable in this is whether the seller in this case possibly mistakenly listed them for that price. What I'm arguing is the people trying to claim you CAN'T scam on the GTN.

 

And I definitely wouldn't say there's no evidence, maybe not enough to stand up in court, but this isn't court.

[ikinai]

Your view of what would count as "evidence" is a little lacking... the evidence is there, you just don't want to see it.

 

The item was priced specifically to trick the OP. It wasn't just a random high price, it was a very specific price designed to trick.

 

That is all the evidence that is required... There is no other reasonable explication behind it, the trickery reason is the most reasonable, thus that is what a court would accept.

 

No they wouldn't. A judge would not take the case based on the evidence at hand. In a system where one is free to price a service or goods as they see fit, it is well within the rights of the individual to price it in a manner that while distasteful is not against the rules. No rule or law broken, a judge would not take the case.

[Darth_Wicked]

(...) And I definitely wouldn't say there's no evidence, maybe not enough to stand up in court, but this isn't court.

 

Which is why Heat-Wave keeps pretending that it is and confuses "ASSUMPTION" with "EVIDENCE".

[Drockter]

My god, almost 60 pages of this?

 

OP... be very careful when buying from the GTN... I suggest making sure you sort the Price Per Unit columns twice... the first click sorts High to Low, and the second Low to High.

[Darth_Wicked]

No they wouldn't. A judge would not take the case based on the evidence at hand. In a system where one is free to price a service or goods as they see fit, it is well within the rights of the individual to price it in a manner that while distasteful is not against the rules. No rule or law broken, a judge would not take the case.

 

Correction: A judge would laugh at the case.

[Heat-Wave]

There's no evidence at all, since you can't possibly know what the seller intended.

 

"ASSUMPTION" is NOT the same as "EVIDENCE".

 

Have you ever been to court? Been involved in a lawsuit?

 

I have, spend some time in business and sooner or later you will.

 

I assure you that such "assumptions" are used in court all the time. There is rarely enough "evidence" to your standard in most cases, the court must try to figure out what the intent was.

 

In this case, the most reasonable intent that can be assumed is that there was an intent to deceive, to use trickery to hoodwink the buyer. There is no other reasonable assumption.

 

If this were a single item, not a stack of items, priced at 2m credits, with other copies for sale for 200k credits, then that assumption wouldn't stand because the per unit price wouldn't divide out to look like a much lower number.

 

This trick only works with items that stack.

[Heat-Wave]

The intent does not matter.

 

Holy crap that is funny...

 

You're wrong, but still funny...

[Darth_Wicked]

Have you ever been to court? Been involved in a lawsuit?

 

I have, spend some time in business and sooner or later you will.

 

I assure you that such "assumptions" are used in court all the time. There is rarely enough "evidence" to your standard in most cases, the court must try to figure out what the intent was.

 

In this case, the most reasonable intent that can be assumed is that there was an intent to deceive, to use trickery to hoodwink the buyer. There is no other reasonable assumption.

 

If this were a single item, not a stack of items, priced at 2m credits, with other copies for sale for 200k credits, then that assumption wouldn't stand because the per unit price wouldn't divide out to look like a much lower number.

 

This trick only works with items that stack.

 

You lost all credibility when you mistook "ASSUMPTION" with "EVIDENCE" but carry on if it makes you feel better.

[Heat-Wave]

You lost all credibility when you mistook "ASSUMPTION" with "EVIDENCE" but carry on if it makes you feel better.

 

I'm sorry for you, but you simply don't know what you're talking about...

[TheNahash]

That doesn't fly in the real world, it shouldn't fly online either...

 

In the real world there are laws and regulations for the prices of certain products.

There is no such thing in Swtor.

You can sell a Walker for 100 mil credits or 10 credits.

Would you like Bioware to tell you how much you can sell things for?

 

Also, the real world =/= an online market

People's lives are at stake in a real world scenario. Their livelihoods and their survival.

In an online market, where you're buying stuff for credits that you can make by simply running around doing dailies, no one's life is at stake.

 

Please, let's not compare the two. It's a pointless comparison.

Edited August 29, 2014 by TheNahash

[MillionsKNives]

There's no evidence at all, since you can't possibly know what the seller intended.

 

"ASSUMPTION" is NOT the same as "EVIDENCE".

 

The only thing that is both factual and accurate is the listing, the only thing linking both the seller and the buyer and the latter ultimately failed to check the listing with attention. Period.

 

"Your honor, ignore everything else and just look at the knife. It went from my hand into his back, that's all you know. You can't prove my intent was to kill him, I might have been trying to scratch his back and pressed to hard. It might have even been someone else controlling me. All you can do is assume that I intended to kill him, and that's not the same thing as evidence. Therefore, since you can't prove intent I move that murder is impossible.

 

The only thing that is both factual and accurate is the knife, the only thing linking me and the dead man and the latter ultimately failed to continue breathing. Period."

[Darth_Wicked]

* snip *

 

No answer concerning this...?

You are correct, he wasn't paying attention to what he was doing. That's why the scam worked.

Ohhhhh... This one is priceless. This one is truly priceless.

 

So I see this chest on the GTN for 430k, while there are a dozen(!) more of them for 43k. Regardless, I still go for the most expensive one, most likely because I'm clueless and / or can't read a simple listing...

 

Does the above qualify to claim that I was scammed...?! Really...?!

Edited August 29, 2014 by Darth_Wicked

[Heat-Wave]

And I definitely wouldn't say there's no evidence, maybe not enough to stand up in court, but this isn't court.

 

You're right, this isn't court... but all things that happen are subject to the courts. Many people feel that online actions are outside of "real life" and that they can "do whatever they want".

 

They are mistaken and people are in jail right now for stuff they have done online.

 

The reason this won't go to court of course is that the OP wasn't harmed enough to justify taking legal action. But they do have the right to do so if they wish.

 

The dollar amount involved isn't worth even considering it of course, 2m credits is worth about $16, give or take...

 

This is lunch money we're talking about after all...

[Calsetes]

Yea, crazy isn't it?

 

What can I say, these idiots keep wanting to blame the victim and assign no responsibility to the seller at all.

 

Perhaps they are defending the seller so much because they ARE the seller in this case?

 

Scummy people exist on these forums, just like they do in the game and in real life.

 

There you go, jumping to conclusions again. When I sell stuff on the GTN, I try to price it as low as I can without breaking my own bank. The exception to this is when I'm clearing out cargo hold space with crap like warzone XP boosters and such, which I sell for 5 credits for 5 boosts since they're pathetically cheap as it is.

 

But I clearly must be a scammer because you've made that assumption, right? Who needs evidence, anyway.

[Darth_Wicked]

There you go, jumping to conclusions again. When I sell stuff on the GTN, I try to price it as low as I can without breaking my own bank. The exception to this is when I'm clearing out cargo hold space with crap like warzone XP boosters and such, which I sell for 5 credits for 5 boosts since they're pathetically cheap as it is.

 

But I clearly must be a scammer because you've made that assumption, right? Who needs evidence, anyway.

 

You learn something new everyday.

 

Just like hood toggle is the new cowbell, "assumption" is the new "evidence".

[Vandicus]

No they wouldn't. A judge would not take the case based on the evidence at hand. In a system where one is free to price a service or goods as they see fit, it is well within the rights of the individual to price it in a manner that while distasteful is not against the rules. No rule or law broken, a judge would not take the case.

 

If someone was trying to get people to make an agreement to buy say, gold, at 1000 times the spot price, you'd better damn well expect that person to be prosecuted. If it were say, a property which has a very subjective value, it'd be much less likely to be brought up, which is why that used to be a way to bribe people or conduct other illegal transactions. Nowadays abnormal prices are a big red flag.

 

The way the markets are currently in place and designed to operate normally wouldn't allow for such a radical shift in commodity price to occur, except for in a two party purchase agreement. If someone had somehow gotten another party to agree to purchase something at 1000 times its normal cost, the would-be purchaser can simply decide not to buy/transfer funds, even after signing the contract. Even after funds have been transferred, in most scenarios they would be recoverable. Predation of that sort is pursued by legal authorities

[Heat-Wave]

A judge would not take the case based on the evidence at hand. No rule or law broken, a judge would not take the case.

 

You're thinking of a criminal case...

 

This would fall more into a civil action, which has a lower standard of evidence than a criminal case does...

 

Think of OJ Simpson, he got off on the criminal case because that required evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil case does not, it only requires a preponderance of evidence, a much lower standard...

 

What you're really thinking is that a prosecutor wouldn't file charges... and I'd agree with you... but you can always file a civil lawsuit...

[azudelphi]

Update!

 

State of the Thread

[MillionsKNives]

Ohhhhh... This one is priceless. This one is truly priceless.

 

So if I see this chest on the GTN for 430k, while there are a dozen(!) more of them for 43k. Regardless, I still go for the most expensive one, most likely because I'm clueless and / or can't read a simple listing...

 

Does the above qualify to claim that I was scammed...?! Really...?!

 

Were you deceived into thinking that 430k was 43k? Was the intention of the seller to deceive you into thinking 430k was 43k? If the answer to either of these is no then it was not a scam. But you would already know my answer if you knew the definition of a scam, were actually following along with the discussion you're responding to, and/or were being honest with your posting.

[Calsetes]

Were you deceived into thinking that 430k was 43k? Was the intention of the seller to deceive you into thinking 430k was 43k? If the answer to either of these is no then it was not a scam. But you would already know my answer if you knew the definition of a scam, were actually following along with the discussion you're responding to, and/or were being honest with your posting.

 

So he's trying to scam you with his post?

[ikinai]

"Your honor, ignore everything else and just look at the knife. It went from my hand into his back, that's all you know. You can't prove my intent was to kill him, I might have been trying to scratch his back and pressed to hard. It might have even been someone else controlling me. All you can do is assume that I intended to kill him, and that's not the same thing as evidence. Therefore, since you can't prove intent I move that murder is impossible.

 

The only thing that is both factual and accurate is the knife, the only thing linking me and the dead man and the latter ultimately failed to continue breathing. Period."

 

That's actually accurate. If you can't prove the intent to murder you can't be tried for it. The best they can get you for is manslaughter. Throw in some mental illness and reasonable doubt and you'll be walking out free and clear. I think you are starting to understand how it works