The Scam/Not a Scam debate storyline

[_NovaBlast_]

Go easy on Arty; he actually is a level-headed forumite and there is a reasonable QoL argument to be made concerning how the search first appears. I usually have to click the price per unit column to be able to sort alphabetically and it is somewhat annoying. However, I agree with you that the main focus of this thread seems to be to serve as a soapbox for incompetency.

 

I'm not attacking him in any way just saying that i think he is not as neutral as he claims to be . is all. At least that's how i interpreted that statement as being " i'm just here to be neutral" after reading other statements that he has made.

 

I have played throw this game 5x even when i was was on my first time through i never had a problem with gtn. All anyone is saying including Eric is nothing needs to be "fixed" or "added for QOL" if you just pay attention to what you are doing

Edited November 11, 2014 by _NovaBlast_

[LordArtemis]

no your trying to be a closet supporter and hide behind QFL argument and suggestions that create an unnecessary bloated system .

 

the system and tools are simple and work perfectly in where finding the lowest price is concerned when used with care and attention to detail

 

Closet supporter? Hide....Unnecessarily bloated.

 

You surprise me Nova. I didn't count you among those kind of folks. Perhaps I was mistaken about you.

 

You of all people should know two things about me....I have no problem with folks that disagree with me, and I do NOT try and claim my opinion is the correct one.

 

It is only my opinion, which means next to nothing. The only agenda I have is the intent to demonstrate self respect...something that seems to lost on most of the folks that have engaged in this discussion on BOTH sides of the fence.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[idnewton]

Do you know what the word communist even means?

 

I swear, people like you make it much harder to actually discuss economic policy when people assume use of the word is simply for dramatic effect.

 

For an efficient market to operate, buyers cannot exist in a constant state of suspicion of sellers.There must be a reasonable degree of trust. This is advantageous to buyers AND sellers.

 

Would you like to run the possibility of rat meat in burgers? Who here wants to live in a country where there are no regulations on sanitation in the food industry?

 

The cost of certain basic regulations to effectively provide a guarantee of certain qualities is in fact conducive to conducting business. Screaming communist every time someone brings up something you dislike delegitimizes use of the word in pertinent discussions, namely excessive government control and involvement in business.

 

Arguing against QOL improvements that'd make the GTN easier and quicker to use is asinine. Why the devil is the first sort for price per unit the highest? That has no functional purpose. Decimal point differences per unit are not large enough to be a concern for purchasers, but force them to spend extra time searching and verifying to avoid being ripped off. Additionally no valid reason for left justifying prices.

 

If you know it sorts by the most expensive first, then click it twice, like everyone else. This is common sense, people. I called him a communist because he is one. He's hoping that the 'government' (Bioware) will make everything equal and fair, and hold everyone's hand through all their troubles, all at the expense of convenience and well-being.

 

You say that there must be trust between buyers and sellers. I disagree. Verify or get rekt. If you're going to blindly assume that everyone else has your best interest in mind, you're going to fall flat on your face financially. Welcome to the real world. Why should this be any different?

[LordArtemis]

And you try to accomplish that by disagreeing with everyone? Lol, GG.

 

*I* am the voice of reason.

 

No, I disagree with those that spout hyperbole.

 

You are about as far from a voice of reason as one person could be, at least in this thread. What you are is part of the "buyers want protection" crowd.

 

That is not a voice of reason.

 

And the voice of reason says, if you make a choice of your own free will, the consequences of that choice are your own fault. You have no one to blame but yourself.

 

Your right....that is what I have been saying all along. What I have NOT been saying is that any of the suggestions posted would protect buyers or sellers....because they would not.

 

Therefore it stands to reason that if a player buys an item from the GTN and confirms the purchase, the player accepts the consequences of that purchase.

 

Your stating the obvious. This is NOT in dispute, at least from me. I completely agree.

[idnewton]

Closet supporter? Hide....you mean like when I supported "price per item"?

 

Unnecessarily bloated. You guys are really digging at the bottom now.

 

I'm not a fool. I know why quite a few of you are railing against any further changes. At least the silly "i need protection" folks are not being straightforward. After all, quite a few of you presented almost the exact same arguments against "price per item".

 

Are you going to tell me that made the GTN "bloated", or it made the client "buggy beyond repair", or, my favorite, "it only benefits buyers that wants Bioware to hold their hands".

 

You surprise me Nova. I didn't count you among those kind of folks. Perhaps I was mistaken about you.

 

Back to pretending to be holier-than-thou, I see. You claim to be 'neutral'. I guess that's true, in a sense, similar to the way that an object with no net velocity can be the product of many velocities all pointed in directions such that they cancel each other out. You are 'neutral' not because you disagree with no one, but because you disagree with everyone, have no real personal opinion of your own, and are here for the purpose of stirring up argument rather than actually expressing your personal opinion (which I am not even convinced you have).

[anonnn]

I saw no responses to me that were legitimately on-topic, so I'll pose a question:

 

What's the purpose of the Purchase Confirmation popup that was put into the GTN features from the beginning?

 

.

[LordArtemis]

Back to pretending to be holier-than-thou, I see. You claim to be 'neutral'. I guess that's true, in a sense, similar to the way that an object with no net velocity can be the product of many velocities all pointed in directions such that they cancel each other out. You are 'neutral' not because you disagree with no one, but because you disagree with everyone, have no real personal opinion of your own, and are here for the purpose of stirring up argument rather than actually expressing your personal opinion (which I am not even convinced you have).

 

Fair enough. Luckily for me your approval does not qualify my stance in this discussion.

 

I stand by my posts.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[_NovaBlast_]

Closet supporter? Hide....you mean like when I supported "price per item"?

 

Unnecessarily bloated. You guys are really digging at the bottom now.

 

I'm not a fool. I know why quite a few of you are railing against any further changes. At least the silly "i need protection" folks are not being straightforward. After all, quite a few of you presented almost the exact same arguments against "price per item".

 

Are you going to tell me that made the GTN "bloated", or it made the client "buggy beyond repair", or, my favorite, "it only benefits buyers that wants Bioware to hold their hands".

 

You surprise me Nova. I didn't count you among those kind of folks. Perhaps I was mistaken about you.

 

My main issue with this and with the changes is actually people not taking responsibility for their own actions . No one has ever gotten "scammed" on gtn . They made a mistake becase They were not paying attention

 

I can't remember which of these thread s i said it on but i stated that if the op had simply said

 

Hey i made a mistake becase i wasnt paying attention and thought up ways to make things easier so others don't make the same mistake

 

i probably wouldn't have had an issue with it . unless the suggestions were as below ...nothing that just paying attention would solve

 

but when people start blaming their own issues on others and calling it a "scam" and then as one person here put it the specifically want a system they don't have to pay attention "even when they aren't paying attention and being careless.

 

making qol improvement so people can intentionally be carless is not what i consider a QOL and a waste of dev time .

Edited November 11, 2014 by _NovaBlast_

[idnewton]

What you are is part of the "buyers want protection" crowd.

 

That is not a voice of reason.

I know you think that. You're wrong. It's very reasonable to accept the reality right in front of one's face. Like it or not, people like this guy:

And the GTN Purchase Confirmation can't just be about protecting buyers when they're paying attention, it needs to be about protecting them also when they're NOT paying attention. It needs to be foolproof.

want 'buyer protection'.

 

I know for a fact that buyers want protection because they are asking for it! Why do you think all of these combined threads exist? Because buyers want protection. I literally do not understand how it is humanly possible that you are missing this point. ALL OF THESE THREADS, THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION, EXIST BECAUSE BUYERS WANT PROTECTION. YOU ARE MAKING A POINT IN A THREAD WHICH DISPROVES YOUR POINT BY ITS VERY EXISTENCE.

Edited November 11, 2014 by idnewton

[LordArtemis]

I will repost my stance to make my "position" clear.

 

I will repost the list I had in place at the beginning of the thread with EMs comment before the merge.

 

Thank you Mr Musco. Here are the suggestions so far...I see them as QoL changes that would be nice to have. If you see any you think might be relevant and wish to pass them on, I appreciate it.

 

1) The ability to ignore a character name on the GTN, so the items sold by that character are not shown in searches.

2) The ability to place a red flag on sellers you do not like, green flag on ones you prefer, and a sort function to move red flags to the bottom of a search, green flags to the top. Only you would see the flags you apply.

3) Remove the ability for the system to display fractional currency in the "price per unit" field.

4) Have the formatting right justified instead of left justified.

5) Have the ignore list also apply to the GTN.

6) Change total price to price per unit, or just add a price per unit option for posting items for sale.

7) Default the GTN to sorting by lowest price first, or lowest per unit price.

8) Larger text for the price display.

 

Any of them would be welcome changes IMO. None of them are necessary.

 

I would personally love to see the ability to price per unit when placing a sale, and having a flag system so I could flag sellers based on how I rate them...for my eyes only. The flag with a sort function would be very convenient.

 

It seems the ability to price items per unit as an option is the most popular suggestion.

 

Now, on to what I see as some truths....

 

Buyer beware. Oldest rule in the book. If you post a sale for too low of a price or buy an item at an inflated price the only person to blame, in the end is you.

 

There are good sellers and bad sellers.

 

Gaming the GTN is not against the rules, it is not "scamming", but it is perhaps dishonorable.

 

Dishonorable practices, no matter how distasteful is common in business. That is just how it is.

 

No change that has EVER been made to the GTN has protected buyers or sellers.

 

None of the suggested changes will protect buyers or sellers. People will still make mistakes.

[Vandicus]

If you know it sorts by the most expensive first, then click it twice, like everyone else. This is common sense, people. I called him a communist because he is one. He's hoping that the 'government' (Bioware) will make everything equal and fair, and hold everyone's hand through all their troubles, all at the expense of convenience and well-being.

 

You say that there must be trust between buyers and sellers. I disagree. Verify or get rekt. If you're going to blindly assume that everyone else has your best interest in mind, you're going to fall flat on your face financially. Welcome to the real world. Why should this be any different?

 

 

OK, its apparent you are entirely unfamiliar with how most business or any economy works.

 

It is ludicrously expensive to force every party to verify that there is nothing materially dishonest or misleading in the other party's position in every single transaction. Government enforced penalties(which lend force to market-wide investigations that are privately funded) reduce these costs to something practical. Widespread dishonest practice within a single industry is hugely destructive, simple negligence was enough to start a worldwide recession.

 

Lack of economic integrity is LITERALLY the reason 3rd world economies collapse.

 

The fundamental underpinning of the US economy is trust.

[LordArtemis]

My main issue with this and with the changes is actually people not taking responsibility for their own actions . No one has ever gotten "scammed" on gtn . They made a mistake becase They were not paying attention

I can't remember which of these thread s i said it on but i stated that if the op had simply said

 

Hey i made a mistake becase i wasnt paying attention and thought up ways to make things easier so others don't make the same mistake

 

i probably wouldn't have had an issue with it . unless the suggestions were as below ...nothing that just paying attention would solve

 

but when people start blaming their own issues on others and calling it a "scam" and then as one person here put it the specifically want a system they don't have to pay attention "even when they aren't paying attention and being careless.

 

making qol improvement so people can intentionally be carless is not what i consider a QOL and a waste of dev time .

 

I agree completely, and I think that is a valid complaint. It is not the sellers fault that people do not pay attention, most definitely.

 

Dont think I dont understand the view from sellers that they are getting persecuted here....that much is obvious.

 

But instead of saying "sorry, I know its underhanded, but hey, I have to make a buck. its not personal, its business" they instead fall to the same kind of silly defensive arguments.

 

If BOTH sides were more forthcoming, honest and willing to take responsibility this would be a MUCH different conversation.

 

BTW Nova...sorry about my "maybe your not who I thought you were comment". That was probably unfair to say.

[LyraineAlei]

I saw no responses to me that were legitimately on-topic, so I'll pose a question:

 

What's the purpose of the Purchase Confirmation popup that was put into the GTN features from the beginning?

 

.

 

*points to the title, then to her Original Post*

 

Actually the topic is an archive of the debate. Nothing more. BioWare Mods chose to merge the other threads into mine.

 

So continuing the debate is actually off topic as of the merge.

 

Let it took. Let it gooo. Don't hold on anymorrre.

[LordArtemis]

I know you think that. You're wrong. It's very reasonable to accept the reality right in front of one's face. Like it or not, people like this guy:want 'buyer protection'.

 

I know for a fact that buyers want protection because they are asking for it! Why do you think all of these combined threads exist? Because buyers want protection. I literally do not understand how it is humanly possible that you are missing this point. ALL OF THESE THREADS, THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION, EXIST BECAUSE BUYERS WANT PROTECTION. YOU ARE MAKING A POINT IN A THREAD WHICH DISPROVES YOUR POINT BY ITS VERY EXISTENCE.

 

The changes will not protect buyers nor sellers and you know it idnewton.

 

Being that I know you are definitely intelligent enough to know that, without a doubt, I have to question why you would stand on the "buyers want protection" bandwagon to prevent or stand against changes.

 

This is my point.

 

EVERY QoL change that has been made to the GTN since the inception of the game did NOTHING to protect buyers or sellers. That much should be painfully obvious.

 

Do I really have to explain to you that a statement like "you cant be protected, there is no way they can protect you, you play the market, you take your chances" IS the voice of reason?

 

You and I both know the pursuit of protection is fruitless. You have to know that. I refuse to believe you are not intelligent, your posts say otherwise.

 

 

Just to be clear...the statement "buyers want protection" AND "sellers want protection" is accurate, in so far as it speaks to general motivations, either exposed or hidden for most of the discussion participants. What is not accurate is to desire or reject the suggestions made because they would provide those protections.

 

They will not. THAT is the voice of reason.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[idnewton]

OK, its apparent you are entirely unfamiliar with how most business or any economy works.

 

It is ludicrously expensive to force every party to verify that there is nothing materially dishonest or misleading in the other party's position in every single transaction. Government enforced penalties(which lend force to market-wide investigations that are privately funded) reduce these costs to something practical. Widespread dishonest practice within a single industry is hugely destructive, simple negligence was enough to start a worldwide recession.

 

Lack of economic integrity is LITERALLY the reason 3rd world economies collapse.

 

The fundamental underpinning of the US economy is trust.

 

So your solution is: Everything should just be fixed and work perfectly, everyone should have perfect trust in each other, and everything should run smoothly and be fine.

 

No ****. Everyone agrees. But this isn't a perfect world, that will never happen, so the question is how close we can get to the ideal scenario, and how do we get there.

[LordArtemis]

But this isn't a perfect world, that will never happen, so the question is how close we can get to the ideal scenario, and how do we get there.

 

VERY good question.

 

The only viable conversation is can the GTN be improved, should it be improved, and would those improvements benefit the entire playerbase.

 

One could argue "price per item" turned out to benefit everyone.

 

Which of the suggestions are acceptable, not acceptable, good, toxic...that is the conversation we SHOULD be having IMO.

 

I posted a llst of all of the suggestions I could find in the thread a few posts back. I would like to hear if folks like them, hate them and why.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[idnewton]

The changes will not protect buyers and you know it idnewton.

 

NO, THEY WON'T! EXACTLY! THANK YOU!

 

You must have misunderstood my point. My point is NOT that any changes will protect buyers. My point is that buyers are asking to be protected, and that nothing will ever fully protect them from themselves. Not only can they not be protected from themselves, it is a waste of time to try. You can fix a boss. You can fix a crew skill. You can fix a quest.

. And attempting to do so is a waste of time. It is for this reason that I applaud Bioware on their decision.

 

I want to reiterate this in massive font so that this is made perfectly clear.

 

NOTHING CAN PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THEIR OWN STUPIDITY, AND IT IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER WASTE OF TIME TO TRY.

Edited November 11, 2014 by idnewton

[idnewton]

Again I'm not entirely sure how you read my posts and missed my points, but from your last two posts it looks like we actually agree on pretty much everything.

[Vandicus]

So your solution is: Everything should just be fixed and work perfectly, everyone should have perfect trust in each other, and everything should run smoothly and be fine.

 

No ****. Everyone agrees. But this isn't a perfect world, that will never happen, so the question is how close we can get to the ideal scenario, and how do we get there.

 

Have you ever tried having a discussion without strawmanning(the practice of misrepresenting, or in this case entirely falsifying the opposing position) or accusations of communist leanings? They're far more productive I assure you.

 

There are practical ways to reduce verification costs(or make verification largely unnecessary). I doubt you verify the origin of the stuff you eat very often(which is extremely difficult for any consumer of things such as ground beef, spam, hot dogs, or similar products).

 

This can involve anything from commonsense regulations to eliminate any incentive to defraud people on small exchanges, to collectively exercised verification(credit scores or audits are examples, the cost of gathering the information is shared, and the information itself is shared as well).

 

Most any financial professional will tell you that the SEC is a good thing. It is essential to reducing the costs involved with investing, which is key to the economy.

 

 

Markets already exist which make it nigh impossible to take advantage of people in the fashion done here. Our commodities markets work that way(as do our financial markets in general; even less regulated markets like dark pools employ these systems).

 

*EDIT

 

In other words, an ideal system for this kind of problem(actually the issue of exchanging goods in general especially electronically) already exists.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Vandicus

[LordArtemis]

Again I'm not entirely sure how you read my posts and missed my points, but from your last two posts it looks like we actually agree on pretty much everything.

 

But...since you agree with my views, why stand against the changes?

 

THAT is the point. They are nothing more than QoL suggestions. Some are good, others not so good.

 

I really like the flag suggestion and the ability to post price per unit as an option and have the GTN compute total price for me.

 

Do you like any of the suggestions? Do you dislike any of them.

 

This is the conversation we should be having. Instead of participating in the exchange of hyperbole.

 

That is what I meant by voice of reason. The voice of reason discusses the suggestions based on their QoL merit, not why they are being asked for or whether or not they will protect buyers and/or sellers.

 

That argument is silly to engage in.

 

Here are the suggestions I compiled. I like most of them.

 

1) The ability to ignore a character name on the GTN, so the items sold by that character are not shown in searches.

2) The ability to place a red flag on sellers you do not like, green flag on ones you prefer, and a sort function to move red flags to the bottom of a search, green flags to the top. Only you would see the flags you apply.

3) Remove the ability for the system to display fractional currency in the "price per unit" field.

4) Have the formatting right justified instead of left justified.

5) Have the ignore list also apply to the GTN.

6) Change total price to price per unit, or just add a price per unit option for posting items for sale.

7) Default the GTN to sorting by lowest price first, or lowest per unit price.

8) Larger text for the price display.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[ZETA_SCORPII]

Man, I sure am lucky my computer came with a built -in calculator.

[idnewton]

First I want to post this, so we can get our mistaken disagreement out of the way, since we actually agree on the two most important things.

 

• Pursuit of protection:

Me:

This guy put it even better though:

Player stupidity is not something bioware can fix.

nothing will ever fully protect [buyers] from themselves. Not only can they not be protected from themselves, it is a waste of time to try. You can fix a boss. You can fix a crew skill. You can fix a quest.

. And attempting to do so is a waste of time.

You:

The changes will not protect buyers nor sellers

You and I both know the pursuit of protection is fruitless.

 

 

• Caution:

Me:

regardless of how Bioware treats it, the buyer is still at fault. Hopefully if/when you hear the saying "Caveat emptor" you will understand it better after reading this thread

You:

Buyer beware. Oldest rule in the book. If you post a sale for too low of a price or buy an item at an inflated price the only person to blame, in the end is you.

Edited November 11, 2014 by idnewton

[anonnn]

Here's an example of a snippet that will protect GTN buyers a little more:

 

If the purchase price is 1M credits or more, pop up the Purchase Confirmation.

.

[LordArtemis]

First I want to post this, so we can get our mistaken disagreement out of the way, since we actually agree on the two most important things.

 

Yes, I am of the same mind in that respect.

 

I think the only place we disagree (and quite a few do) is that the suggestions do not have merit as a result.

 

IMO who cares why the suggestions were made, many of them are good ideas IMO.

 

So instead I would rather ignore the silly diatribe and look at the merit of each suggestion instead.

 

We got a GREAT suggestion, IMO, out of the last argument...the price per unit addition to the GTN.

 

I bet few would argue that was a bad addition.

[EvenHardNiner]

Fact is there will always be stupid people. But allowing this GTN "scam" practice to continue just because "it will teach them a lesson" isn't the right way to do it.

 

Many people are defending this "scam" by saying "pay more attention", "it's your own fault". This is pure victim blaming.

 

They need to change the way the prices look on the GTN, and these "stupid people" won't be scammed. It's a simple QOL feature that should be put in.

 

"Well pay more attention". no. "change the way the prices are displayed" is the answer to this problem.