The Scam/Not a Scam debate storyline

[agamemnon-]

Caveat Emptor.

[LordArtemis]

Caveat Emptor.

 

.....Caveat venditor

[agamemnon-]

.....Caveat venditor

 

Sellers on GTN aren't selling sub quality products that would cause your car to explode. If someone can't take a few seconds to check the price figure, they shouldn't be using any kind of technology unsupervised.

 

Advertising a blue mod over GenChat while actually selling greens would be a scam an dishonest. Buying a piece of green level 13 armoring for a perceived exorbitant amount is the fault of the buyer; the price on GTN is clearly listed for all to see.

 

In essence, you have a solution but are in desperate search for a problem.

Edited November 9, 2014 by agamemnon-

[_NovaBlast_]

Sellers on GTN aren't selling sub quality products that would cause your car to explode. If someone can't take a few seconds to check the price figure, they shouldn't be using any kind of technology unsupervised.

 

Advertising a blue mod over GenChat while actually selling greens would be a scam an dishonest. Buying a piece of green level 13 armoring for a perceived exorbitant amount is the fault of the buyer; the price on GTN is clearly listed for all to see.

 

In essence, you have a solution but are in desperate search for a problem.

 

I second this .

[LordArtemis]

Sellers on GTN aren't selling sub quality products that would cause your car to explode. If someone can't take a few seconds to check the price figure, they shouldn't be using any kind of technology unsupervised.

 

Advertising a blue mod over GenChat while actually selling greens would be a scam an dishonest. Buying a piece of green level 13 armoring for a perceived exorbitant amount is the fault of the buyer; the price on GTN is clearly listed for all to see.

 

In essence, you have a solution but are in desperate search for a problem.

 

I don't understand your reply. Do you think I disagree?

 

I'm not in a desperate search for anything. You must have confused me with someone else in the thread.

 

The response was "seller beware"....obviously it seems buyers, at least some folks, are getting fed up with some of the behavior on the GTN. The movement to discourage it seems like it is growing.

 

So...perhaps the days when sellers could do as they please without any repercussions might end. That, IMO, would be a great day indeed for the game, game economy and the playerbase overall.

 

Your arguing the wrong point to me. I am not saying buyers need to be protected. I am not saying that I NEED a change. I certainly do not need protection, nor have I ever needed it. All of the changes made to the GTN over time were simple QoL changes in my eyes.

 

I am saying it would be nice to not have to use my physical "no buy" list any longer. Not a big deal if it doesn't happen, but would certainly appreciate if if it does.

 

How does that make me desperate?

Edited November 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[_NovaBlast_]

Caveat Emptor.

 

+1 to this quote to

 

 

*edited due to misquote

Edited November 9, 2014 by _NovaBlast_

[LordArtemis]

Just on a side note, dont think that because I would like a flag system for convenience that means that I do not agree with you Nova about buyers and the lack of need to protect them...a fact that seems lost on you. Obviously if a buyer buys something at an inflated price the fault sits with the buyer, not the seller.

 

i certainly do not make that mistake. Nor have I ever made that mistake.

Edited November 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[_NovaBlast_]

Why waste time on any QoL feature.

 

Naturally some folks do not care about QoL improvements. I do.

 

So the why is that it would be good for the game, the economy and the playerbase, and bad for sellers that like to engage in dishonorable sale tactics.

 

By the way...my issue is that I want to flag certain sellers so I can demote their sale displays on the GTN. Currently I keep a "bad seller" list and avoid making purchases manually, but naturally that can be tedious when the list gets rather large...its at 24 names right now.

 

A flag feature would remove my need to use a list.

 

Always remember the rule...there is nothing more important than what is important to you.

 

 

 

I dont see this as a quality of life improvement becase there is no actual problem its improving . Gtn already gives you all the tools you need to find what you're looking for. other than reorganizing products to your specific requirements .What your asking for already exists if you take the time to use it correctly and pay attention to what you're buying.

 

There are no bad sellers or good sellers . . really even whos selling it doesn't matter . all that maters is for very product there is still lowest price is still the lowest price and the highest is still the highest .

 

Its up to the buyer to pay attention to which is which and gtn already gives you the tools to do this .

Edited November 9, 2014 by _NovaBlast_

[LordArtemis]

I dont see this as a quality of life improvement becase there is no actual problem its improving .

 

Fair enough, but I do...it is improving my ability to rate sellers. To me that is a huge improvement.

Gtn already gives you all the tools you need to find what you're looking for. What your asking for already exists if you take the time to use it correctly and pay attention to what you're buying.

 

I don't think your paying attention to what I am saying, or perhaps you think I am saying something else....I don't need the tools that are in place. I dont need anything. I pay attention already, as I always have.

 

I am asking for the ability to rate sellers. That is not a need, protection or requirement. I do not need my hand held.

 

There are no bad sellers or good sellers . . really even whos selling it doesn't matter . all that maters is for very product there is still lowest price is still the lowest price and the highest is still the highest .

 

I couldnt disagree more. Of course there are bad and good sellers. There are sellers that inflate prices, or drastically undercut other sellers, thereby reducing the value of the items below crafting cost. I do not give my business to those kind of toxic sellers....they do not deserve my business.

 

Its up to the buyer to pay attention to which is which and gtn already gives you the tools to do this .

 

You keep saying this...and it is getting rather odd. What does paying attention have to do with me desiring the ability to rate sellers? The GTN does not give me any tools to rate sellers, to keep saying this is rather silly. The current tools are unimportant to me...they are simply QoL features, nothing more.

 

Like a flag would be.

Edited November 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd say just remove the damn fractional credits on GTN and be done with it.

 

Why do people find the lowest price, and then try to make their price 10x or 100x or 100x that price, but with just the right figures to make it blend in a bit with the lowest price, if someone browsing doesn't notice the difference between . and , on that little screen?

 

Hmmm... I wonder why they'd do that... nah, can't be with any sort of hope that someone will make a mistake and grossly overpay, it must be a coincidence when it happens.

 

 

Just because the buyer should have been more careful doesn't make the intent on the part of the scammer any less dishonest.

[LordArtemis]

Look, here it is in a nutshell.

 

Buyers do not need protection. They can protect themselves if they just pay attention.

 

Sellers do not need protection. If they want to sell merchandise they should engage in fair market practices.

 

Any attempt to do either one of those things, provide protection to buyers or sellers is a rather silly practice IMO.

 

I say it is time to allow us to personally rate sellers. Let them experience the fruits of their labors, and perhaps the market will be better for it.

The current tools in place on the GTN are not "protections". They protect neither buyers nor sellers. They are, very simply, QoL features.

 

Naturally that is all just my opinion.

Edited November 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Theeko]

why do you even need to flag/rate someone, when the "Credit Cap Filter" was already in game since beta?

[LordArtemis]

why do you even need to flag/rate someone, when the "Credit Cap Filter" was already in game since beta?

 

...because the credit cap filter has nothing to do with rating a seller Theeko. That much should be obvious.

 

I'm curious...do you think they are related in some way? Because I can't see it.

Edited November 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[GavinPatterson]

i make alot of transactions in the game everyday. I always double check. Bottom line is you want someone to fix a problem. That problem is your not slowing down and double checking. Your fault Mate.

[Silverspar]

Adding materials that normally cost 3k at a price just under 3 million in the hopes that people are too tired or unattentive for any reason is a scam.

 

To use the Merriam Webster definition of scam:

a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

 

Twist it as you like it is a deceptive act.

 

Now I agree that there are things you can do and I certainly make sure I don't fall for this sort of thing but it still is a scam to post sales like this.

 

Not even in the remotest sense is your statement true. If people are too tired or inattentive, it is not a scam, that is those people's fault. Try as you might there was no scam in the process, it was the fault of those people and only those people because they chose not to pay attention and just kept speed clicking.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Silverspar

[LyraineAlei]

I do not want the debate carried into this thread now. I have raised my thread from the dead as an archive right now. If I missed a thread, please post the link and I will add it to the original post.

 

This is not a thread to continue the debate/war. This is an archival thread as of my raising it from the dead threads pile.

[LordArtemis]

Shenanigans.

[LordArtemis]

Yea, i dont think it is a scam. I think it's pretty obvious that the seller is depending on a buyer making a mistake though, which is pretty underhanded.

 

But heh....that is business.

[LyraineAlei]

Shenanigans.

 

Just an archive thread. Not the debate. Just an archive.

[LordArtemis]

Just an archive thread. Not the debate. Just an archive.

 

I know. Had to say it though. The entire argument is pretty silly on both sides.

[LyraineAlei]

I know. Had to say it though. The entire argument is pretty silly on both sides.

 

...

 

 

..

....

 

Yeah. Which is why I hope something will come through and just say "Topic is DEAD." And end everything.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not even in the remotest sense is your statement true. If people are too tired or inattentive, it is not a scam, that is those people's fault. Try as you might there was no scam in the process, it was the fault of those people and only those people because they chose not to pay attention and just kept speed clicking.

 

And so the deliberate intent on the seller's part, to hope for and attempt to increase the odds of such a mistake being made, aren't objectionable in the slightest?

 

Just because you can greatly reduce the odds of being mugged by avoiding certain places at certain times, and indeed it's foolish to go to those places at those times, doesn't prompt most people to assert that the muggers are blameless and have done nothing wrong.

 

Are people really saying that there's nothing wrong in deliberately trying to get someone else to make a mistake and grossly overspend for an item?

[LordArtemis]

And so the deliberate intent on the seller's part, to hope for and attempt to increase the odds of such a mistake being made, aren't objectionable in the slightest?

 

Just because you can greatly reduce the odds of being mugged by avoiding certain places at certain times, and indeed it's foolish to go to those places at those times, doesn't prompt most people to assert that the muggers are blameless and have done nothing wrong.

 

Are people really saying that there's nothing wrong in deliberately trying to get someone else to make a mistake and grossly overspend for an item?

 

Well, I think it is certainly a dishonorable practice Max, and many have conceded that. So of course it is wrong in principle, but it is common in business.

 

The best punishment for this kind of behavior, IMO, is to avoid giving these kind of sellers any business.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, I think it is certainly a dishonorable practice Max, and many have conceded that. So of course it is wrong in principle, but it is common in business.

 

The best punishment for this kind of behavior, IMO, is to avoid giving these kind of sellers any business.

 

That's the best punishment, yes.

 

However -- why are some people so opposed to small changes that would make it a harder trick for those sellers to pull off, and not take anything away from anyone else? For example, eliminating the display of fractional per-unit prices? Does anyone really care about or gain a benefit from what amounts to never more than 0.99 credits per unit, when the max stack of anything is 99 and so the hypothetical max difference would be 98 whopping credits?

 

I always sort by unit price lowest to highest anyway, so this isn't even something that affects me, I'm just bugged that people even try this kind of crap.

 

Consider this a "Max is from another planet" moment, where I don't get human beings... I'm just very confused by the vehement, sometimes venomous opposition to even the least intrusive efforts against this practice.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Max_Killjoy

[LordArtemis]

That's the best punishment, yes.

 

However -- why are some people so opposed to small changes that would make it a harder trick for those sellers to pull off, and not take anything away from anyone else? For example, eliminating the display of fractional per-unit prices? Does anyone really care about or gain a benefit from what amounts to never more than 0.99 credits per unit, when the max stack of anything is 99 and so the hypothetical max difference would be 98 whopping credits?

 

I always sort by unit price lowest to highest anyway, so this isn't even something that affects me, I'm just bugged that people even try this kind of crap.

 

I think that folks are so used to the argument they are sticking to their guns no matter what.

 

I have had people argue the old arguments with me, when I was never part of that argument. That is a clue to how some folks are just focused on the singular point-counterpoint deal.

 

I have said it before, I will say it again....

The current QoL features on the GTN are not protections for buyers or sellers. They are simply QoL features.

Doing things like right justifying the amounts or removing fractional currency would not harm sellers.

Allowing flags WOULD harm sellers, but only those that likely deserve to lose business.

 

I prefer the flag method.