The Scam/Not a Scam debate storyline

[robertthebard]

First of all If i don't respond to you any more its not becase you made some grand point its becase I personally feel you never have anything useful to say and i am ignoring you.

 

 

If you can find a post of me looking for a bot please post it here and i will address it ..there won't be one becase i never said i was i have however said that when i do sell on gtn i undercut the lowest price by a large amount.

 

 

It has never been about them affecting me or supporting scammers becase if you pay attention you will nver miss buy a product you think is a "scam" .

 

its about buyers not accepting responsibility for their mistakes and blaming everything from gtn formating , sellers abusing stuff , being tired , hurriedly clicking becase they are doing other thing and have to get back to the game and other examples of careless behavior and expect the world to change becase they refuse to be more careful as the below post states .

 

 

basically this post .....

 

I guess you won't see this, but, the preface of this post is asking for a bot program I know, you didn't post that sober, or something? Wait, I know, it's everyone else's fault but yours that that's the definition of a bot program? Damn, we'd better get a hold of Webster's, and maybe Wikipedia to help you out, eh?

 

Well if that is the case why don't they just give me an perfectly optimized Ai setting that chooses its own targets fights like a nm level end boss or . Even just an auto fire one button for offensive ability and one button for defensive abilities that recognize cool downs .

 

So that i don't have to all my skills and don't have to put any effort into fighting would make the game alot nice for me then when i enter a fight i don't have to pay attention to what i'm doing and can just read the forum or go for a snack till the fights overr .

 

That would be an awesome QOL improvement and would make the game a lot nicer to .

 

think about it If everything already programmed into an ai or one or two buttons all people have to do is hit a button and all the bad player complaints would go away so it would help the community to .

Edited November 13, 2014 by robertthebard

[Reno_Tarshil]

I guess you won't see this, but, the preface of this post is asking for a bot program I know, you didn't post that sober, or something? Wait, I know, it's everyone else's fault but yours that that's the definition of a bot program? Damn, we'd better get a hold of Webster's, and maybe Wikipedia to help you out, eh?

 

I believe that was a sarcasm post.

[LordArtemis]

The list, updated with corrections to the last two suggestions as requested...let me know if I got it right.

 

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) Option to apply a maximum buyout price threshold to warn players if they exceed set amount in the purchase.

12) Optional to apply a maximum 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]

Your con is why I don't support the need for all these "QoL" changes Arty and everyone is proposing. There are more bugged and other breaking issues flooding the Bug report forum that could better use the resources that these suggestions would take up all because Little Timmy doesn't pay attention on the GTN when he has all the tools and information available to him in-game.

 

You are right and you are wrong Reno IMO.

 

Right in that you have every right to chose not to support the changes suggested for any reason you chose. Right also to say that you believe other things take priority....perfectly sensible contention.

 

But the "little timmy" comment is meaningless and hyperbole. First, the merits of the suggestions have NOTHING to do with whether or not buyers and sellers can take responsibility for their actions.

 

The VERY SAME arguments were made against "price per item" when it was suggested, and it turned out to be a pretty good addition, despite the movement against it.

 

Now personally I support quite a few of them. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves.

 

But to insinuate that they are being discussed or considered based entirely on buyer or seller protections is ludicrous.

 

Right now I don't have all the tools I WANT. They are not necessary, but I would LIKE them to make the process of using the GTN more enjoyable and intuitive.

 

I only speak for myself, but that is my motivation there. So your final comment couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

Your con is why I don't support the need for all these "QoL" changes Arty and everyone is proposing. There are more bugged and other breaking issues flooding the Bug report forum that could better use the resources that these suggestions would take up all because Little Timmy doesn't pay attention on the GTN when he has all the tools and information available to him in-game.

 

Again, you lace a perfectly sensible and logical contention with inane hyperbole.

 

Try supporting your views with something other than inflated vitriol. Then perhaps I might be able to take you seriously.

 

You know better Reno.

Edited November 13, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Fraah]

The list, updated with corrections to the last two suggestions as requested...let me know if I got it right.

 

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) Option to apply a maximum buyout price threshold to warn players if they exceed set amount in the purchase.

12) Optional to apply a maximum 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.

 

3, 4 & 7 please, those would appears useful, easy to implement and without danger of too many unforseen consequences.

 

Another idea I'd like to shoehorn in here is that hoary old chestnut legacy bank. No danger of spending 50m on useless mats if you keep 500k on you and the rest in the bank. ^^

 

Apart from that I am still amazed at how many people do not understand what a scam is (intent to deceive is what makes this a scam, as has been said many times, that people should be careful enough not to actually fall for it and are responsible for their own losses is completely irrelevant to whether the practice is a scam), but that has been discussed more than enough.

 

Personally I hope Bioware implement something soon, not to protect the careless and stupid, but because these listings currently make every GTN transaction a little more annoying than it would otherwise be and any effective form of buyer protection might lead to the postings disappearing (not that they will disappear...I remember when the popular money making scheme was hoping people would mistake molecular programmer for molecular stabilizer).

Edited November 13, 2014 by Fraah

[Heal-To-Full]

For every single Transaction I'm sorting the Items by price again ... and again ... and again ... before buying, but it works & I'm saving millions of credits.

Yes, but spending more time.

A UI enhancement, as simple as automatic sort by lowest price, is worthwhile not because it's the only way to stop this - it isn't - but because it saves time. Simple as that.

 

 

Ideally, I'd like to see the stackables market work like a real-life commodity market, where sellers essentially pour mats into a shared pool, each at their own price, and the buyers automatically buy up any selected amount of the commodity.

Anyone who has done real-life trading knows how it works. Very convenient once you get used to it, which takes all of a quarter hour. But that's a major change. Auto-sort by price is a minor and non-objectionable one.

 

Removing decimals is also a minor one, they were useless clutter in the first place.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Heal-To-Full

[Reno_Tarshil]

You are right and you are wrong Reno IMO.

 

Right in that you have every right to chose not to support the changes suggested for any reason you chose. Right also to say that you believe other things take priority....perfectly sensible contention.

 

But the "little timmy" comment is meaningless and hyperbole. First, the merits of the suggestions have NOTHING to do with whether or not buyers and sellers can take responsibility for their actions.

 

The VERY SAME arguments were made against "price per item" when it was suggested, and it turned out to be a pretty good addition, despite the movement against it.

 

Now personally I support quite a few of them. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves.

 

But to insinuate that they are being discussed or considered based entirely on buyer or seller protections is ludicrous.

 

Right now I don't have all the tools I WANT. They are not necessary, but I would LIKE them to make the process of using the GTN more enjoyable and intuitive.

 

I only speak for myself, but that is my motivation there. So your final comment couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

Again, you lace a perfectly sensible and logical contention with inane hyperbole.

 

Try supporting your views with something other than inflated vitriol. Then perhaps I might be able to take you seriously.

 

You know better Reno.

 

So you're telling me the GTN does not have the tools to sort by prices and all the available information on what price you're going to pay for an item? Because I don't think we're playing the same game. I honestly believe these suggestions will not help at all and the only thing that will is simple: Pay Attention. This would be non existant if people paid attention, you know this, I know this. No amount of QoL is going to stop people from not paying attention. That's why I personally feel it's not worth the effort.

[LordArtemis]

So you're telling me the GTN does not have the tools to sort by prices and all the available information on what price you're going to pay for an item?

 

More hyperbole. Of course not. I am telling you what I told you. It is self evident.

 

Because I don't think we're playing the same game.

 

You were probably making a point with this comment. I don't think that you accomplished what you were hoping to accomplish by sharing it however.

 

I honestly believe these suggestions will not help at all and the only thing that will is simple: Pay Attention. This would be non existant if people paid attention, you know this, I know this. No amount of QoL is going to stop people from not paying attention. That's why I personally feel it's not worth the effort.

 

But that makes no sense Reno. What does paying attention have to do with a desire to be able to post prices as "per item" as an option?

 

OBVIOUSLY you have every right to refuse to support any of the suggestions, and you don't need to provide a reason. But if you are going to post one, at least give one that makes sense.

 

NO AMOUNT OF ANYTHING IS GOING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM NOT PAYING ATTENTION. That much is painfully evident. Many have moved past that.

 

People will still make mistakes no matter how many precautions you put in place. It is useless to try.

 

The list provides suggested improvements as things that folks want to improve the GTN...as you have been told OVER and OVER again.

 

You are, of course, free to do and comment as you wish. Your lack of support for any of the changes is noted, and your opinion is appreciated.

Edited November 13, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

3, 4 & 7 please, those would appears useful, easy to implement and without danger of too many unforseen consequences.

 

Another idea I'd like to shoehorn in here is that hoary old chestnut legacy bank. No danger of spending 50m on useless mats if you keep 500k on you and the rest in the bank. ^^

 

Apart from that I am still amazed at how many people do not understand what a scam is (intent to deceive is what makes this a scam, as has been said many times, that people should be careful enough not to actually fall for it and are responsible for their own losses is completely irrelevant to whether the practice is a scam), but that has been discussed more than enough.

 

Personally I hope Bioware implement something soon, not to protect the careless and stupid, but because these listings currently make every GTN transaction a little more annoying than it would otherwise be and any effective form of buyer protection might lead to the postings disappearing (not that they will disappear...I remember when the popular money making scheme was hoping people would mistake molecular programmer for molecular stabilizer).

 

Well, I wouldn't depend on any of the suggested changes having any effect on either sellers that try to game the market or buyers that make mistakes.

 

They simply provide convenience IMO. In the end, you are correct, the way to prevent mistakes is to take care when making purchases and posting sales.

[khsolo]

All prices in the GTN should be alligned to the right side instead to the left side, this would solve this issue immediatelly Edited November 13, 2014 by khsolo

[LordArtemis]

All prices in the GTN should be alligned to the right side instead to the left side, this would solve this issue immediatelly

 

This is a common mistake in programming because most programers are not educated in the principles of accounting but thankfully easilly fixable in itself

 

It is clear that the human eye in this part of he world reads from left to right and by doing so these sellers look to induce people to make a mistake by posting prices that might look legit but in principle are just hoping for someone to make a mistake and take their hard earned credits, thats bad for bussiness

 

Allign prices to the right and pretty sure the problem will just go away

 

I don't agree, only in so far as the problem is not the GTN display....the problem is sellers gaming the market and buyers making mistakes, and that will not be solved by ANY change to the GTN.

 

However...it is a sensible suggestion IMO, as it would make it much easier to read. This way buyers AND sellers could more clearly discern the prices listed.

[Orizuru]

I don't agree, only in so far as the problem is not the GTN display....the problem is sellers gaming the market and buyers making mistakes, and that will not be solved by ANY change to the GTN.

 

However...it is a sensible suggestion IMO, as it would make it much easier to read. This way buyers AND sellers could more clearly discern the prices listed.

 

It might be more constructive to separate the UI issues with the GTN from the scam debate entirely.

 

I think it's fairly obvious to most people that while some changes to the UI would provide better tools to players to avoid being ripped off, ultimately these changes are no substitution for paying attention and being aware of what you are buying.

 

In light of that, I think it might be more constructive to allow the QoL changes for the GTN to stand on the merits of simply improving the UI for everyone because it has some flaws that could be improved upon.

 

If you try to tackle these improvements in a way that links the need for them to protecting buyers from these sellers, then that could lead to people thinking this will allow them to be careless and reckless on the GTN and be protected, which simply isn't true.

 

At the very least, it might keep a certain someone who knows less than nothing about software and UI design and how end-users react to multiple pop-ups from crapping all over the place.

[Fraah]

Well, I wouldn't depend on any of the suggested changes having any effect on either sellers that try to game the market or buyers that make mistakes.

 

They simply provide convenience IMO. In the end, you are correct, the way to prevent mistakes is to take care when making purchases and posting sales.

 

It would certainly have an effect in reducing number of accidental buys, though some would undoubtedly still occur. If the reduction in accidental buys were big enough the sellers would move on. But I guess that might really be more hopeful thinking than anything else (as shown by the fact that people have started posting crafting missions at exorbitant prices in the hopes of misclicks too, which do not stack and thus can have no decimals.

 

I still want a legacy bank at the end of this though. ^^

[LordArtemis]

It might be more constructive to separate the UI issues with the GTN from the scam debate entirely.

 

I think it's fairly obvious to most people that while some changes to the UI would provide better tools to players to avoid being ripped off, ultimately these changes are no substitution for paying attention and being aware of what you are buying.

 

In light of that, I think it might be more constructive to allow the QoL changes for the GTN to stand on the merits of simply improving the UI for everyone because it has some flaws that could be improved upon.

 

If you try to tackle these improvements in a way that links the need for them to protecting buyers from these sellers, then that could lead to people thinking this will allow them to be careless and reckless on the GTN and be protected, which simply isn't true.

 

At the very least, it might keep a certain someone who knows less than nothing about software and UI design and how end-users react to multiple pop-ups from crapping all over the place.

 

Yes, I agree the suggestions should be judged based on their merit as QoL improvements for the GTN, not as preventative measures.

 

I feel that any suggestion that provides nothing in the way of QoL, and does not benefit both buyers and sellers in some way does not deserve consideration. Especially any suggestions that are punitive in nature.

[LordArtemis]

It would certainly have an effect in reducing number of accidental buys, though some would undoubtedly still occur. If the reduction in accidental buys were big enough the sellers would move on. But I guess that might really be more hopeful thinking than anything else (as shown by the fact that people have started posting crafting missions at exorbitant prices in the hopes of misclicks too, which do not stack and thus can have no decimals.

 

I still want a legacy bank at the end of this though. ^^

 

I am hoping for a legacy bank as well.

[Max_Killjoy]

If the GUI can be improved to clarify pricing and prevent these things from happening, why would you not support it?

 

I think the more interesting question is, why do they so vehemently oppose it? Why aren't just just neutral on it?

 

What would any of the proposed changes do to hurt the game?

[Fraah]

Accidental repost...stupid phone. Edited November 13, 2014 by Fraah

[LordArtemis]

I think the more interesting question is, why do they so vehemently oppose it? Why aren't just just neutral on it?

 

What would any of the proposed changes do to hurt the game?

 

It's a good question, but I know that a few folks have given answers that I consider credible ones...I have no reason to think otherwise. I am paraphrasing here, but the few reasons against were something along these lines....

 

1) The suggestions are not worthy of developer time and resources considering how may problems the game current has at present.

 

2) Concern over whether adding more functionality might break the GTN, as some updates have done in the past, rather dramatically in some cases.

 

First seems like a reasonable stand against, certainly certain folks have other priorities. The second is a real concern IMO. They have broken the GTNs function in the past with updates.

[Reno_Tarshil]

I think the more interesting question is, why do they so vehemently oppose it? Why aren't just just neutral on it?

 

What would any of the proposed changes do to hurt the game?

 

Because they run the potential of breaking something in game, (which has happened before) and the resources spent on it could be used in another feature to expand the game. The GTN UI itself works good right now, it doesn't need to be messed with imo, when there are other issues that could be messed with.

[LordArtemis]

Because they run the potential of breaking something in game, (which has happened before) and the resources spent on it could be used in another feature to expand the game. The GTN UI itself works good right now, it doesn't need to be messed with imo, when there are other issues that could be messed with.

 

Reasonable concerns on both points IMO.

[Reno_Tarshil]

Reasonable concerns on both points IMO.

 

I'm going to check this off my forum bucket list now.

[MillionsKNives]

How cute, you feel the need to interject.

 

I gave actual real in game "evidence" of this so-called "scam."

 

Haven't seen any actual examples by anyone else, just off the cuff anecdotal stories laced with an air of false omniscience founded in ... well nothing.

 

i.e. You can't prove "intent to confuse" so stop trying. If you are, in fact, confused, well that's what I was just pointing out to the person who (for whatever reason) people seem to think are "nailing" this argument. unless of course you'd like to back up your statement with something a little more... developed.

 

You're right though, the "scam" debate has been in interesting circularly fake argument. i.e. the only "straw man" was the premise of a "scam" in the first place.

 

How cute, you think you can debunk the existence of a scam by showing us examples of...not scams. It's a straw man because you're debunking an argument that no one made. I.e., that those pictures are scams.

[LyraineAlei]

Reasonable concerns on both points IMO.

 

*knocks back a shot*

 

Sorry. I couldn't resist. Well, I could, but didn't want to.

 

Anyway, I had forgotten about the risk of breaking things in-game. In-game changes to X are expected to maybe affect Z or Y, but could break something in A or B that seemingly aren't related to X in the first place.

 

If a change were to be implemented, I think the least "breaking" thing should be (not a programmer here) changing just barely nudging something that already exists. Not sue what that could be offhand since I just woke up, maybe the autosort, but something based on already-in-game tools.

[MillionsKNives]

It's a good question, but I know that a few folks have given answers that I consider credible ones...I have no reason to think otherwise. I am paraphrasing here, but the few reasons against were something along these lines....

 

1) The suggestions are not worthy of developer time and resources considering how may problems the game current has at present.

 

2) Concern over whether adding more functionality might break the GTN, as some updates have done in the past, rather dramatically in some cases.

 

First seems like a reasonable stand against, certainly certain folks have other priorities. The second is a real concern IMO. They have broken the GTNs function in the past with updates.

 

I think they are valid concerns but I have problems with them. The first is that we're not product developers and it's not our job to tell the devs what should be prioritized. The second is that every change to the game runs the risk of breaking something, that is not unique to this or any other change. Which brings me to number three, that these arguments can be used as an argument against every past, present, future, and proposed change to this game. It's completely unproductive to discuss them, as we on the outside would never be able to come to a reasonable conclusion on them and they are implied in every discussion you could have on changes to the game.

 

TL;DR leave dev problems to the devs.

[Reno_Tarshil]

*knocks back a shot*

 

Sorry. I couldn't resist. Well, I could, but didn't want to.

 

Anyway, I had forgotten about the risk of breaking things in-game. In-game changes to X are expected to maybe affect Z or Y, but could break something in A or B that seemingly aren't related to X in the first place.

 

If a change were to be implemented, I think the least "breaking" thing should be (not a programmer here) changing just barely nudging something that already exists. Not sue what that could be offhand since I just woke up, maybe the autosort, but something based on already-in-game tools.

 

Because I feel there is no need for the GTN UI to messed with since it's working good so far, I will say this however. If I had to pick something to added/changed it would be auto-sorted to lowest when searching.