The Scam/Not a Scam debate storyline

[jstankaroslo]

Agreed. For example, I have on occasion listed items at 99,999,999 credits, specifically to reduce the odds that someone else would accidentally pay an outrageous amount for an item. No one has ever bought one of my "eight nines" items, probably because few people have that much credit on one toon.

 

If anyone ever does buy one, I'll give them their money back minus the 6% GTN fee, in exchange for whatever they bought. Why? Because to a large extent, we can be who we want to be in a video game to a greater degree than we can in real life, and I don't want to be someone who tries to screw people over by setting them up to make mistakes. Obviously, other people do want to be that kind of person: a "GTN griefer" as it where. I figure they are just as honorable and trustworthy -- that is, not at all -- in real life.

 

I am doing the same on my server. Works as a charm. GTN griefers disappear just after a couple of days of this.

Some more persistent try their luck on different mats, but the bulk of them just move somewhere else (possibly other servers, as they seem to do it professionaly). Of course they do come back a week later though

[LordArtemis]

Whatever...don't be so humble You do a great job of taking on these ridiculous threads and trying to come up with a summary that keeps us on topic, working towards a solution, rather than devolving into a debate about who's "to blame"...I don't say it enough, but I appreciate your topic neutrality in things like this

 

Thanks Tux.

 

Note I am not innocent...I engaged in some of the hyperbole myself. I just pulled myself out of it. Even if I get pulled into it, I usually step back, see what I am doing and correct my direction.

 

I had some help from some of the forum members to remind me of what is expected of me

 

At least I try to live up to that.

[TUXs]

Thanks Tux.

 

Note I am not innocent...I engaged in some of the hyperbole myself. I just pulled myself out of it. Even if I get pulled into it, I usually step back, see what I am doing and correct my direction.

 

I had some help from some of the forum members to remind me of what is expected of me

 

At least I try to live up to that.

Thank God I have a "bad boy" reputation

 

I kid...I admire that about you

[anonnn]

...

LordArtemis has a fantastic list of changes. Half of which are sorting / format changes which require little to no system overhaul. The majority of which would leave the GTN functionality the same as it is now, if not a tad more versatile thanks to more options.

 

The forced duration pop-up window is not necessary though.

...

 

LordArtemis's list of proposed changes only focuses on what happens BEFORE the buyer clicks a "Buy" button. Since the primary objective here is to prevent a buyer from finalizing a purchase that was an unexpectedly high amount, it's imperative for most of the solution to involve what the GTN does AFTER the buyer clicks a "Buy" button.

 

While it would be hugely helpful to remove decimal places on the GTN search results, that's the only helpful element from his list that's automatically activated and doesn't require the player to change their purchasing habits. The fact that the Purchase Confirmation is the primary mechanism of preventing mistaken purchases and LordArtemis is ignoring it completely is reason for concern.

 

Even though it might seem helpful to put features into the game to block specific sellers, the fact of the matter is that any scammer's objective is ALWAYS to get the buyer to buy an item without double-checking the purchase price. The Purchase Confirmation IS the point where the buyer is meant to double-check the purchase price. So the correct solution is to enhance the Purchase Confirmation however necessary to reduce the chance of a purchase-confirmation-failure as close to 0.0% as possible.

[MillionsKNives]

LordArtemis's list of proposed changes only focuses on what happens BEFORE the buyer clicks a "Buy" button. Since the primary objective here is to prevent a buyer from finalizing a purchase that was an unexpectedly high amount, it's imperative for most of the solution to involve what the GTN does AFTER the buyer clicks a "Buy" button.

 

While it would be hugely helpful to remove decimal places on the GTN search results, that's the only helpful element from his list that's automatically activated and doesn't require the player to change their purchasing habits. The fact that the Purchase Confirmation is the primary mechanism of preventing mistaken purchases and LordArtemis is ignoring it completely is reason for concern.

 

Even though it might seem helpful to put features into the game to block specific sellers, the fact of the matter is that any scammer's objective is ALWAYS to get the buyer to buy an item without double-checking the purchase price. The Purchase Confirmation IS the point where the buyer is meant to double-check the purchase price. So the correct solution is to enhance the Purchase Confirmation however necessary to reduce the chance of a purchase-confirmation-failure as close to 0.0% as possible.

 

Maybe the reason that everyone is ignoring your suggestion is that no one likes it. I think we've all read your suggestion and your reasoning by now. It's time to give it a rest.

[Theeko]

Also no ones making you double click but yourself.

[anonnn]

Maybe the reason that everyone is ignoring your suggestion is that no one likes it. I think we've all read your suggestion and your reasoning by now. It's time to give it a rest.

 

On the contrary, since the only reason you're citing for not supporting my solution is that you and some other people don't like it, perhaps you should step back and inspect your methodology for searching for the best solution. You're not citing even a single technical reason why my solution isn't a good idea. This has nothing to do with personal preference, this has only to do with the measure of buyer protection a solution will provide.

 

Try restarting the discussion by forgetting how you feel about the possible solutions, and take an objective look at how much buyer protection the solution will provide to buyers on the GTN.

[robertthebard]

I agree that improving the UI would reduce the number of occurrences, but I doubt it would remove the possibility entirely. You can only fool-proof a system so much before the system produces a better fool.

 

Even the most thoughtfully designed UI can be used incorrectly when people become complacent and inattentive to how they are using it.

 

You can't tank stupid, but you can try to reduce the probability. We do that in FPs and Ops by trying to help the people that tell us they've never been. Fixing, or maybe changing is a better word, the UI would go a long way to something similar. It's not much, and it doesn't adversely affect anyone, so why not? It sure beats hearing about it constantly.

[LyraineAlei]

On the contrary, since the only reason you're citing for not supporting my solution is that you and some other people don't like it, perhaps you should step back and inspect your methodology for searching for the best solution. You're not citing even a single technical reason why my solution isn't a good idea. This has nothing to do with personal preference, this has only to do with the measure of buyer protection a solution will provide.

 

Try restarting the discussion by forgetting how you feel about the possible solutions, and take an objective look at how much buyer protection the solution will provide to buyers on the GTN.

 

Very well, maybe not everyone dislikes your idea. But no one in this thread likes it.

[anonnn]

Very well, maybe not everyone dislikes your idea. But no one in this thread likes it.

 

Try discussing the ideas only on their technical merits. How you personally feel about any solution has absolutely nothing to do with choosing the correct solution.

 

And keep in mind that how the GTN functions now, the Purchase Confirmation IS the buyer protection mechanism. So what's your excuse for ignoring it?

[XiamaraSimi]

I think the problem a lot of the people giving all the "make more pop ups and hoops to jump through" posts dont seem to understand is those of us who have yet to become click happy ADD shoppers don't want to have to do the Hokey Pokey to make purchases because some people just derp their way through the GTN ignoring the tools already available to them... Edited November 13, 2014 by XiamaraSimi

[ScarletBlaze]

Try discussing the ideas only on their technical merits. How you personally feel about any solution has absolutely nothing to do with choosing the correct solution.

 

And keep in mind that how the GTN functions now, the Purchase Confirmation IS the buyer protection mechanism. So what's your excuse for ignoring it?

 

Maybe they are ignoring the idea because the purchase confirmation is already in game and has existed since the beginning.

 

Found here:

 

(Preferences-User Interface-General-Display Item Purchase Warning)

Edited November 13, 2014 by ScarletBlaze

[anonnn]

... don't want to have to do the Hokey Pokey to make purchases because some people just derp their way through the GTN ...

 

It's only a minor inconvenience, because my current idea is to have the improved Purchase Confirmation only forced to pop up for purchases that are more expensive at 500k credits or more.

 

I mean honestly, how often does someone make a purchase of 500K credits or more? And what percentage of the people who have made accidental purchases on the GTN did it in blocks of 500K or more?

 

.

...and I just thought of a potential tweak... what if after 2 seconds it was possible to click the PRICE in the Purchase Confirmation in order to enable the "OK" button so you don't have to wait the full 5 seconds? Well it sounds like a weird UI but it would force the buyer to look at the price.

[eartharioch]

I would also like to add that I do not support the idea of an algorithm, only because I think this MIGHT effect legitimate sellers. That said, I do support the idea of being able to mark "bad sellers" myself, for my eyes only, in the GTN interface so I can sort them to the bottom of every search.

 

That still allows me to see their sales, if they change their ways.

 

Just so we're clear, I wasn't advocating any sort of hand-holding algorithm either -- not sure if you thought I was or just adding that as a general comment in your reply to me (since a few comments around mine seem to focus on such solutions).

[MillionsKNives]

Try discussing the ideas only on their technical merits. How you personally feel about any solution has absolutely nothing to do with choosing the correct solution.

 

And keep in mind that how the GTN functions now, the Purchase Confirmation IS the buyer protection mechanism. So what's your excuse for ignoring it?

 

The technical merits are that I don't want to have to deal with your proposed solution. That and more popups aren't the answer. It doesn't matter how annoying you make it people aren't going to pay attention to it. And the more annoying you make it the less likely they are to pay attention. People have trained themselves to ignore confirmation popups and click whatever it takes to get them off the screen fastest. If they have to wait 5 seconds then they'll just ignore the game for 5 seconds until it goes away.

[_NovaBlast_]

I think the problem a lot of the people giving all the "make more pop ups and hoops to jump through" posts dont seem to understand is those of us who have yet to become click happy ADD shoppers don't want to have to do the Hokey Pokey to make purchases because some people just derp their way through the GTN ignoring the tools already available to them...

 

Maybe they are ignoring the idea because the purchase confirmation is already in game and has existed since the beginning.

 

Found here:

 

(Preferences-User Interface-General-Display Item Purchase Warning)

 

 

@XiamaraSim IMO There are 2 reasons to explain why it appears the way you describe in your post to you and many others that have posted here just going by what i have read.

 

1 . people are like this its becase they are in denial and they refuse to believe this is a 100% buyers caresses not paying attention to what they are doing issue and think that the seller are partially to blame because they "tricked" them into making a mispurchase when all you have do is pay attention and uses the existing tools properly and you can see any nefarious pricing from a mile away.

 

So becase they weren't paying attention and as a result made a mispurchase becase they were careless they need more "buyer protection"

 

2 Some simply want to turn a simple system into something more complicated with ratings and flags and what not and a bunch of other imo again unneeded features.

 

Really there is only 2 things i need to know on gtn ... as i said earlier some feel differently and want to make the system more bloated and complicated however they are entitled to their opinion

 

1 Does it have the product i'm looking for

 

2 who's selling for the lowest price .

 

Ii don't even need to know the names it really doesn't matter to me . The current system without any QOL improvements do that for me just fine and i have never fallen for any of the "scams" people on her complain about.

 

@ScarletBlaze i concur with that assessment

Edited November 13, 2014 by _NovaBlast_

[Edzew]

why not just make it where it rounds either up or down to the nearest dollar...err credit so no more .01 in fact no more .'s at all. wouldn't that fix everything???

 

if you have a stack of something and you give it a price that would have say .51 credits per single unit the GTN will just round it up to the next credit or if its .50 or lower it will round it down. same goes with a single item. if you try and list something for 100.51 credits it will round it up to 101 credits or if you try and list it at 100.50 it will round it down to 100.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Edzew

[LyraineAlei]

Try discussing the ideas only on their technical merits. How you personally feel about any solution has absolutely nothing to do with choosing the correct solution.

 

And keep in mind that how the GTN functions now, the Purchase Confirmation IS the buyer protection mechanism. So what's your excuse for ignoring it?

 

Ever been in a room with a screaming child who wants a specific toy but can't have it (toy is a reward for good behavior or something)?*

 

It is remarkable how easily an entire classroom just ignores the screaming. They just move on, usually working on something quiet (reading, writing, drawing) as if the screaming weren't happening until s/he stops screaming and then the class for back on schedule.

 

The popup and forced delay is like the screaming. Someone who auto clicks is not going to pay any more attention to the price than they already have. As said up thread, they will ignore the game or the popup until time's up and they move along.

 

Please note: This is not an example case of abuse, in this particular experience of mine, the child was refusing to do his work in order to earn the reward (the toy). The screaming is usually a cry for attention because at home, the child will scream until Mom/Dad/Grammy/Guardian gives up and gives the toy to the child to make the screaming stop. Not saying this is bad or good, just what it was.

[Levram]

The only reliable buyer protection is automatic buyer protection. If it requires the player to elect to participate in it, it doesn't equal buyer protection...This means ignoring the player-elective tools that require a choice to participate in the self-protection procedure...The Purchase Confirmation would forcibly pop up (even if it's disabled in Preferences)

 

Since you seem to be so gung-ho regarding 100% effective non-voluntary buyer protection, your idea needs to be expanded. You haven't protected the F2P player with only 50,000 credits who's purchasing materials for 1,000 credits and then mistakenly buys some materials for 10,000 credits. Therfore you should advocate expanding your system to include the following mandatory steps.

1. Everytime a player clicks the Buy button a window appears with the total price and the player has to click a Confirm button.
   
2. A second window then appears with a blank space where the player has to enter the exact total purchase price, from memory, to dismiss the window.
   
3. A third window then appears with the total purchase price listed and the player needs to enter the total purchase price, in words, to dismiss the window.
   
4. A fourth window then appears and the player needs to enter the mathematical formula that would result in a unit price that matches their purchase's unit price to dismiss the window.
   
5. A fifth window then appears and the game verbally announces both the total and unit price to the player as well as a secret password phrase that the player needs to type in to dismiss the window.

 

Once the five windows have been dismissed, the player's purchase is completed.

 

Or we could just go with a voluntary version of Step 1, which is already in the game, and be done with it.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Levram

[LordArtemis]

LordArtemis's list of proposed changes only focuses on what happens BEFORE the buyer clicks a "Buy" button. Since the primary objective here is to prevent a buyer from finalizing a purchase that was an unexpectedly high amount, it's imperative for most of the solution to involve what the GTN does AFTER the buyer clicks a "Buy" button.

 

While it would be hugely helpful to remove decimal places on the GTN search results, that's the only helpful element from his list that's automatically activated and doesn't require the player to change their purchasing habits. The fact that the Purchase Confirmation is the primary mechanism of preventing mistaken purchases and LordArtemis is ignoring it completely is reason for concern.

 

Even though it might seem helpful to put features into the game to block specific sellers, the fact of the matter is that any scammer's objective is ALWAYS to get the buyer to buy an item without double-checking the purchase price. The Purchase Confirmation IS the point where the buyer is meant to double-check the purchase price. So the correct solution is to enhance the Purchase Confirmation however necessary to reduce the chance of a purchase-confirmation-failure as close to 0.0% as possible.

 

To be fair Anonnn, I would make two points.

 

I am not ignoring your suggestion. I presented my opinion of your suggestion, and decided it would not be something that would likely have widespread appeal as a market improvement for the playerbase.

 

Also, you do not need my permission or approval to promote or discuss your suggestion. A lack of my support does not mean your suggestion lacks merit.

 

It only means I do not intend to personally promote it. Which in the end means next to nothing.

[LordArtemis]

On the contrary, since the only reason you're citing for not supporting my solution is that you and some other people don't like it, perhaps you should step back and inspect your methodology for searching for the best solution. You're not citing even a single technical reason why my solution isn't a good idea. This has nothing to do with personal preference, this has only to do with the measure of buyer protection a solution will provide.

 

Try restarting the discussion by forgetting how you feel about the possible solutions, and take an objective look at how much buyer protection the solution will provide to buyers on the GTN.

 

You seem to have missed the point entirely. This is no longer a discussion about buyer protections or buyer/seller behavior and responsibilities.

 

This discussion is now about the merit of suggestions as QoL improvements for the GTN. Under that criteria some folks have decided your suggestion lacks merit.

 

I am not telling you you cant promote your idea...but asking to return to the unproductive and toxic back and forth that existed prior to this phase of the discussion is not a wise move to make IMO.

 

The recent responses you have solicited with this suggestion demonstrate, IMO, why it is toxic to the conversation. Instead, I think it is better to move forward.

Edited November 13, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

Just so we're clear, I wasn't advocating any sort of hand-holding algorithm either -- not sure if you thought I was or just adding that as a general comment in your reply to me (since a few comments around mine seem to focus on such solutions).

 

Just added as a general point to make, not meant to be directed specifically at you earth. Sorry about the confusion.

[_NovaBlast_]

You seem to have missed the point entirely. This is no longer a discussion about buyer protections or buyer/seller behavior and responsibilities.

 

This discussion is now about the merit of suggestions as QoL improvements for the GTN. Under that criteria some folks have decided your suggestion lacks merit.

 

I am not telling you you cant promote your idea...but asking to return to the unproductive and toxic back and forth that existed prior to this phase of the discussion is not a wise move to make IMO.

 

The recent responses you have solicited with this suggestion demonstrate, IMO, why it is toxic to the conversation. Instead, I think it is better to move forward.

 

i hope you don't take this the wrong way i'm just trying to respectfully give you my opinion on your recent posts.

 

It may be just my opinion but your wording seem to be that you are "dictating authority" to the rest of us when you are dictating what this conversation is about in a general sense .

 

as myself as well as other have indicated some people don't see the merit in any QOL in this case but you don't seem to take that into consideration either.

 

TLDR i feel you are trying to derail the original topic of the thread for your own qol purposes ...just being honest please don't take offence .

Edited November 13, 2014 by _NovaBlast_

[LordArtemis]

The list, updated with some of the new suggestions. Added an optional pop up for large purchases, no harm in that IMO.

 

Buyers and Sellers have to both take responsibility for their behavior. Since most are unwilling to do that, this argument continues despite the efforts of some folks to just discuss the merits of the suggestions as QoL improvements for the GTN.

 

I will list the items again for the folks new to the thread.

 

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) 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.

9) Add a toggle to remove the display of fractional currency in the "price per item" field.

10) Line up all prices on the decimal, and display .00 for non fractional amounts.

11) Optional pop up box with buyout price threshold to warn players if they exceed set amount in the purchase.

12) Optional pop up box with per item price threshold to warn players if they exceed set amount in the purchase.

 

 

I support 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. I really like 2, 6 and 9. 6 seems to be the most popular one so far. I don't see the harm in 11 and 12, so they are included for folks to discuss, though I would not rate it as one of my favorite in the list.

[LordArtemis]

i hope you don't take this the wrong way i'm just trying to respectfully give you my opinion on your recent posts.

 

It may be just my opinion but your wording seem to be that you are "dictating authority" to the rest of us when you are dictating what this conversation is about in a general sense .

 

as myself as well as other have indicated some people don't see the merit in any QOL in this case but you don't seem to take that into consideration either.

 

TLDR i feel you are trying to derail the original topic of the thread for your own qol purposes ...just being honest please don't take offence .

 

I'm not offended. There were folks that wished to participate in a merit discussion after the original argument was answered by EM. Folks continued to argue the point however.

 

So I did, in fact try to steer the discussion to something more positive and constructive.

 

You said it yourself Nova...buyers do not want to take responsibility. Neither do sellers IMO. Therefore, what is the point of going back and forth about the point of contention? Nothing is likely to come of it.

 

However, do not take my comments to mean that discourse is not allowed...first, I cant set any rules, I am posting here at the pleasure of Bioware. They set the rules, not me. I want to stem the discourse between buyers and sellers over the original contention, but not against the suggestions themselves.

 

If you read some of the comments about what I am doing in this thread you will likely see this is not an example of promotion of MY ideas...frankly the only suggestion that is actually mine is the flag idea.

 

It is a promotion of a likely more constructive and productive conversation.

 

I appreciate your candor Nova. I also appreciate your opinion that the QoL suggestions are without merit, even if I do not agree with it.

 

But yes...if you attempt to start arguing with buyers again I will attempt to stifle it. It is not productive IMO.