PDA

View Full Version : Scam complaints accumulate


Sam
06-07-2005, 08:40 PM
Contrary to my knowledge from last year I know that scamming is not legal.
Because of the accumulation of the scams we need to take radical measures against it.

That doesn't mean you dont need to take care of your stuff!

1. Don't give valuable items to someone else and let him "test and hold" it!

2. Only trade on tables so there is a log to prove it.

3. If you still want to "lend" someone else your stuff, do it only for any other valuable stuff, you would accept to keep it in the case you dont get back your stuff.

Unless all this as a case arises I will ban player that permanent scam and betray others!

We don't accept people that disturb others fun by scamming, harassing insulting and so on.

Lyndzey
06-07-2005, 08:49 PM
How long are you banning them for?

Considering they pay $40 to play Kingdoms, I don't believe they should be banned permanently. I don't think bans should last longer than a day.

And how exactly are people scammed? We have trading tables.

protagonist
06-07-2005, 09:03 PM
You could always reset kingdoms. Then, there would be nothing to scam, and then I'd play it. Alot of items are ill-gotten (either by staff, scamming, whatever).

Zero Hour
06-07-2005, 09:10 PM
How long are you banning them for?

Considering they pay $40 to play Kingdoms, I don't believe they should be banned permanently. I don't think bans should last longer than a day.
And Zone... one day?
"You've been very bad, here's a lolli-pop"

Oi.
Then, there would be nothing to scam, and then I'd play it. Alot of items are ill-gotten (either by staff, scamming, whatever).
Yea, because nothing like that would ever happen again, right?

But I agree, format c!

Lyndzey
06-07-2005, 09:23 PM
And Zone... one day?
"You've been very bad, here's a lolli-pop"


So how long do you think they should be banned?

Zero Hour
06-07-2005, 09:27 PM
So how long do you think they should be banned?
A week, half a week - Mostly depends if they're a repeat offender or not.

Ofcourse you don't want it to be long enough for the player to lose interest in Graal - just long enough for them to suffer and regret their actions... and maybe through their regret they'll learn to resist the urge to repeat their actions :D

Lyndzey
06-07-2005, 09:35 PM
Unless all this as a case arises I will ban player that permanent scam and betray others!

I thought that Sam might have misplaced the word permanent; permanent scam doesn't make sense, so I figured he meant permanent ban. I think a permanent ban is way too severe for a scammer.

I think half a week would work good. I just remember that I once banned someone for scamming for 12 hours, and they went crazy ;o

Zero Hour
06-07-2005, 09:38 PM
I thought that Sam might have misplaced the word permanent; permanent scam doesn't make sense, so I figured he meant permanent ban. I think a permanent ban is way too severe for a scammer.

I think half a week would work good. I just remember that I once banned someone for scamming for 12 hours, and they went crazy ;o
Different strokes for different folks; no pun intended.

Gambet
06-07-2005, 09:41 PM
What are you talking about? Scamming is legal. GK has many ways to prevent scamming. How do people get scammed? They loan their items to other and/or they trade via dropping items on the floor. Don't be stupid, don't loan anyone your items, and don't be lazy, use the trade tables. People that get scammed, get scammed because of something stupid/foolish that THEY did, and has nothing to do with the server. Banning someone for scamming is just stupid.

Zero Hour
06-07-2005, 09:43 PM
What are you talking about? Scamming is legal. GK has many ways to prevent scamming. How do people get scammed? They loan their items to other and/or they trade via dropping items on the floor. Don't be stupid, don't loan anyone your items, and don't be lazy, use the trade tables. People that get scammed, get scammed because of something stupid/foolish that THEY did, and has nothing to do with the server. Banning someone for scamming is just stupid.
Personally, punishment for scamming isn't because they took items - but the fact they were as cruel as to take items from others.

Kaimetsu
06-07-2005, 09:55 PM
Considering they pay $40 to play Kingdoms, I don't believe they should be banned permanently. I don't think bans should last longer than a day

It's all about cost vs benefit. If a person is discouraging others from playing, he may be outweighing the $40 he contributed.

What are you talking about? Scamming is legal

Not according to Sam.

GK has many ways to prevent scamming. How do people get scammed? They loan their items to other and/or they trade via dropping items on the floor

Yeah, it's stupid. But since when was stupidity an offense? Protecting customers against the consequences of their foolish actions makes them happier and more likely to upgrade again. Why shouldn't we do it?

Gambet
06-07-2005, 10:04 PM
Not according to Sam.


Since when did Sam make the rules?



Yeah, it's stupid. But since when was stupidity an offense? Protecting customers against the consequences of their foolish actions makes them happier and more likely to upgrade again. Why shouldn't we do it?


So you're saying we should encourage players to be completely stupid and careless and not teach them that they should learn some responsibility on what they do with their items? You do know that this will most likely lead to players saying they were scammed by others, when they werent, and then a huge ordeal will be brought about. Punishing scammers will only lead to more problems. Players should learn to be responsible on what they wish to do with their items, and well, if they were foolish enough to lend out their items for no collateral, well, then that's their fault.

I understand that it would be the players happier, but they shouldn't be lending out their items anyways.

Kaimetsu
06-07-2005, 10:07 PM
Since when did Sam make the rules?

Since he was hired, I imagine. There doesn't seem to be anybody else doing it.

So you're saying we should encourage players to be completely stupid and careless

No. In fact I did not say anything like that.

You do know that this will most likely lead to players saying they were scammed by others, when they werent

Obviously we only intervene when there is evidence.

I understand that it would be the players happier, but they shouldn't be lending out their items anyways.

Uh? So what are your criteria for identifying a good administrative action?

Sam
06-07-2005, 10:15 PM
Rules of conduct:

...This 'caveat emptor' approach does not mean Scamming is legal, only that it is difficult to prove.....

Some people make it to their main issue to scam and sometimes also to sell the items for USD, we dont accept it to ruin the game by such acting "players".

I am still wondering that you Gambet don't know the rules, I thought you are a kind of staff on Zone?

Zero Hour
06-07-2005, 10:17 PM
I am still wondering that you Gambet don't know the rules, I thought you are a kind of staff on Zone?
Gambet isn't that bad, he's just a little confused and a bit of a newb at this.

Gambet
06-07-2005, 10:17 PM
Since he was hired, I imagine. There doesn't seem to be anybody else doing it.


Or maybe Sam just doesn't know all of the rules? Because scamming has always been legal. Or, maybe he's trying to change the rules, and maybe that could be a problem?

Sure, we don't see anyone else doing it, but does that mean that just because he's coming up with a bunch of rules that they would work out or that they are just in any way?


Obviously we only intervene when there is evidence.



I take it you have not played much of graal lately. If so, you'd know that some players just play to make the game for others a living hell. Players will always abuse systems and find loop holes around things. If scammers were punished for scamming, I could easily accuse you of scamming me, even if you didn't, and I would end up gaining a free item. I mean, if it's going to be nearly impossible to actually get your items back because of someone ACTUALLY scamming you, then what's the point? I mean, there is not many ways to prove that you were scammed anyways.


Uh? So what are your criteria for identifying a good administrative action?

Why should the administration act upon scammers anyways? As far as I'm concerned, scamming could be considered an act of role playing. Is that not what GK was designed for....Role Playing? I mean, there is always the 'thief' class that could try to scam players and they would be role playing on their character. You can't punish someone for scamming. THERE ARE ALREADY MANY WAYS TO PREVENT SCAMMING, and if you are too foolish to prevent yourself from being scammed, well, then tough luck. There are a lot of players on GK that have never been scammed before, and that's because they are smart and they don't loan their items to anyone, and they use the trade tables to trade. I mean, it's practically common sense on what you should do to NOT be at risk of being scammed.

Kaimetsu
06-07-2005, 10:36 PM
Or maybe Sam just doesn't know all of the rules? Because scamming has always been legal

Indeed? On which authority? Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim?

If scammers were punished for scamming, I could easily accuse you of scamming me, even if you didn't, and I would end up gaining a free item

What part of "we only intervene when there is evidence" didn't you understand?

Why should the administration act upon scammers anyways?

Because it increases the net happiness. I'm still waiting for your answer. Specify the criteria that an administrative action needs to meet in order for you to classify it as 'good'.

I mean, it's practically common sense on what you should do to NOT be at risk of being scammed.

Yes, yes, getting scammed is the user's fault. Why are you telling me this? We already agreed on it.

Gambet
06-07-2005, 10:41 PM
Indeed? On which authority? Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim?


Read all of the other threads on scamming and see for yourself. Don't ask me to get the links for you, because if you don't go about finding them yourself, well, I guess that shows your interest in the claim.


What part of "we only intervene when there is evidence" didn't you understand?


Evidence? How in the world will someone find evidence that they were scammed?


Because it increases the net happiness. I'm still waiting for your answer. Specify the criteria that an administrative action needs to meet in order for you to classify it as 'good'.


What does my criteria on a good administrative action have to do with this situation? Absolutely nothing. I'm not saying the administration should do anything about scammers, in fact, they shouldn't do anything.


Yes, yes, getting scammed is the user's fault. Why are you telling me this? We already agreed on it.

If you agree on it, then why the big deal on wanting the administration to act upon scammers? Do you want the administration to pamper the players?

Kaimetsu
06-07-2005, 10:48 PM
Read all of the other threads on scamming and see for yourself

I've seen them before. All the 'proof' I've seen is people like you yelling that it's legal.

Evidence? How in the world will someone find evidence that they were scammed?

Irrelevant. If people can't find evidence then people won't be punished for scamming. If you believe that this is the case then why would you oppose Sam's ruling?

What does my criteria on a good administrative action have to do with this situation?

You're saying that this action would not be good. I'm asking for the criteria used in this assessment.

If you agree on it, then why the big deal on wanting the administration to act upon scammers?

I've already explained this. Now specify your criteria.

Gambet
06-07-2005, 10:59 PM
I've seen them before. All the 'proof' I've seen is people like you yelling that it's legal.


Players have scammed others since GK started. They have never been punished, and it's also been said by staff that scamming is legal.



Irrelevant. If people can't find evidence then people won't be punished for scamming. If you believe that this is the case then why would you oppose Sam's ruling?



Until you can support your statement, my ruling stands. You want a rule to be put in effect that clearly has no way of prooving that you were indeed scammed. So, basically, it's just another rule to add to the 'rule book' that clearly is useless.

Besides, EVEN IF THERE WAS SOMEWAY TO PROVE THAT YOU WERE SCAMMED, why would it be illegal? It's in no way the fault of the administration. The past/present GK developers did a great job on making ways to prevent scamming. The rest is up to the players. Unless, of course, you want the administration to pamper the players, then by all means, go ahead.



You're saying that this action would not be good. I'm asking for the criteria used in this assessment.


Once again, read what I've been saying. I don't want the administration to do anything on this case, so why would I have criteria on a good action? You can't have criteria on a good action if you don't want an action to be done.


I've already explained this. Now specify your criteria.

Read what I said above.

Lyndzey
06-07-2005, 11:04 PM
Stealing things, if not explicitely allowed like on 'gangster'-servers, is not allowed either. On Graal Kingdoms this is not possible.

Abusing the fact that someone is missing information: Normally this can only be prevented by telling the people what ways of trading exist, what prizes are ok etc. It can sometimes be unfair if new players get scammed this way. In those cases normally the kingdoms should find ways of doing something against the scammers, since its more a social problem than a technical problem.


This was said by Stefan in the Soul-Blade vs. me fight. It was said 2 years ago, but I'm assuming the same rule still applies.

I don't disagree with players being punished, but I do disagree with them being permanently banned. I'm not sure if that was what Sam meant or not, but that is way too harsh. I think a few days without Graal will prevent most of the players from scamming again.

The only problem I see with having a punishment is people making false accusations. I have already received a couple complaints claiming that others framed the so-called scammers. This could become a big problem, unless we require a ton of proof for a ban.

The solution is quite simple: use trading tables. Perhaps someone should create a NPC in the Newbie Tutorial that talks about scamming and how to prevent it.

Kaimetsu
06-07-2005, 11:16 PM
Players have scammed others since GK started. They have never been punished, and it's also been said by staff that scamming is legal

The supermods never enforce 80% of the rules, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. As for the testaments of staff: What staff? How is it that their claims mean more than Sam's?

Until you can support your statement, my ruling stands

Which statement?

You want a rule to be put in effect that clearly has no way of prooving that you were indeed scammed

You're saying it can never be proven beyond reasonable doubt that somebody was scammed?

Besides, EVEN IF THERE WAS SOMEWAY TO PROVE THAT YOU WERE SCAMMED, why would it be illegal?

I already explained this. Specify your criteria.

Once again, read what I've been saying. I don't want the administration to do anything on this case, so why would I have criteria on a good action?

Ugh, so dense. You could maybe show that this doesn't meet those criteria?

Zero Hour
06-07-2005, 11:27 PM
Stefan says, "Scamming is bad"!
Yes, I recall him saying that not too long ago - although I do not specifically recall which thread it was said in.

Evil_Trunks
06-07-2005, 11:37 PM
I've seen them before. All the 'proof' I've seen is people like you yelling that it's legal.

Stefan indicates it is legal in these threads:

http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45645&highlight=scamming
http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45602&highlight=scamming

although I think it should not be

Gambet
06-07-2005, 11:38 PM
Scamming has never been punishable or illegal. It's always been said to not lend your items out to anyone, and if you must, then request some collateral. The staff cannot punish people for scamming, and a good reason, is what I mentioned about role playing. All the staff can do is make more ways to prevent scamming. I thought my idea on those special trading tables where you can lend out items and after X amount of time the item(s) are automatically returned was a great idea, but I guess it wasnt noticed. Instead of trying to punish those that scam, try to develop more ways of preventing it.

Googi
06-07-2005, 11:57 PM
Stefan indicates it is legal in these threads:

http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45645&highlight=scamming
http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45602&highlight=scamming

Not only are those threads pretty old, but Stefan never says scamming is legal in either of those threads.

Gambet
06-07-2005, 11:59 PM
Not only are those threads pretty old, but Stefan never says scamming is legal in either of those threads.


Someone doesn't have to directly say something to mean it.

Kaimetsu
06-08-2005, 01:37 AM
Stefan indicates it is legal in these threads

That wasn't my interpretation.

The staff cannot punish people for scamming, and a good reason, is what I mentioned about role playing

That's not a good reason at all. Should sexual harassment be allowed because some players might want to play foul-mouthed idiots?

Specify your criteria.

Googi
06-08-2005, 01:44 AM
Someone doesn't have to directly say something to mean it.

Yeah, and what's your point?

Gambet
06-08-2005, 01:46 AM
That's not a good reason at all. Should sexual harassment be allowed because some players might want to play foul-mouthed idiots?

Specify your criteria.



Sexual harassment is illegal. The fact that scamming is legal, gives you right to make your character a scammer. If it were to be illegal, then I guess you wouldn't be allowed to.

Come on now, Kai. Use some common sense. Stop giving stupid examples to back up your statements. A player can role play as whatever they want so as long as it's legal/within the rules of the server. Sexual harassment isi llegal on every server, so please, use more appropriate examples to disprove my reasons.

You are free to do as you please so as long as what you do obides to the rules. I thought this would be fairly clear, but I guess I have to remind you about the morals of common sense.

Googi
06-08-2005, 01:48 AM
The fact that scamming is legal

Except that it was just declared illegal.

Gambet
06-08-2005, 01:51 AM
Except that it was just declared illegal.


I'd rather the manager, Bjoern, or Stefan declare it illegal, rather then the EM Admin. Unless, of course, they asked him to make this thread, but from the looks of it, it just seems like another one of Sam's rules.

protagonist
06-08-2005, 01:53 AM
I'd rather the manager, Bjoern, or Stefan declare it illegal, rather then the EM Admin. Unless, of course, they asked him to make this thread, but from the looks of it, it just seems like another one of Sam's rules.
Since he's the highest admin who has said anything definitive on the subject, his word is law. Stefan probably doesn't want to say "yes it's okay" because it's brutally dishonest to scam, but probably doesn't want to say "no" because he would get spammed with requests to retrieve scammed items.

Googi
06-08-2005, 01:53 AM
I'd rather the manager, Bjoern, or Stefan declare it illegal, rather then the EM Admin. Unless, of course, they asked him to make this thread, but from the looks of it, it just seems like another one of Sam's rules.

I don't see them overuling him anywhere.

Gambet
06-08-2005, 01:57 AM
Since he's the highest admin who has said anything definitive on the subject, his word is law. Stefan probably doesn't want to say "yes it's okay" because it's brutally dishonest to scam, but probably doesn't want to say "no" because he would get spammed with requests to retrieve scammed items.


Yes, I suppose so. But, that doesn't make his rule just. Sam has always used his power to protect himself at times, which is why I'd rather someone else make it official. I'm not very fond of Sam.

I don't see them overuling him anywhere.

Stefan is on vacation. Bjoern, well, don't have a clue what he's doing since he spends his days on debug/GK.

Anyways, as VT stated, I doubt Stefan would say anything. Also, I doubt Bjoern would protest, since it would probably lead to problems between them.

Kaimetsu
06-08-2005, 02:02 AM
Sexual harassment is illegal. The fact that scamming is legal, gives you right to make your character a scammer

Good god, man. Have you ever stopped to think about this? Here's a condensed version of your argument:

"Scamming is possibly part of somebody's character"
"Scamming is legal"
"Therefore scamming should be legal"

If we're determining whether or not scamming should be legal then the roleplaying aspects are irrelevant. But you yourself claimed that you had given a "good reason" when you cited them in opposition to Sam's ruling.

Just think. That's all I ask!

Googi
06-08-2005, 02:02 AM
Anyways, as VT stated, I doubt Stefan would say anything. Also, I doubt Bjoern would protest, since it would probably lead to problems between them.

Which pretty much gives Sam the authority to declare scamming illegal, seeing as how he plans to enforce the rule against it.

Gambet
06-08-2005, 02:15 AM
Good god, man. Have you ever stopped to think about this? Here's a condensed version of your argument:

"Scamming is possibly part of somebody's character"
"Scamming is legal"
"Therefore scamming should be legal"

If we're determining whether or not scamming should be legal then the roleplaying aspects are irrelevant. But you yourself claimed that you had given a "good reason" when you cited them in opposition to Sam's ruling.

Just think. That's all I ask!


You are not quite bright.

I said scamming could be part of ones character, or class for the matter, if they chose the ways of a thief. Scamming is legal, unless this thread officially made it illegal, which I still don't see why it would/should be illegal. And where did I say therefore scamming should be legal? I don't recall ever stating that.

Kaimetsu
06-08-2005, 02:48 AM
I said scamming could be part of ones character, or class for the matter, if they chose the ways of a thief

How is that an argument for keeping it legal, you dolt?

Gambet
06-08-2005, 03:47 AM
How is that an argument for keeping it legal, you dolt?


FOR CRYING OUT LOUD....RPING...ROLE PLAYING YOU "DOLT".


The thief class could be perfect for such "scamming". I mean, if you are foolish enough to allow yourself to be scammed, then so be it. Most people that are scammed usually don't get scammed anymore, since being scammed opens their darn eyes. Let the players learn from their mistake, but don't pamper them.

protagonist
06-08-2005, 03:53 AM
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD....RPING...ROLE PLAYING YOU "DOLT".


The thief class could be perfect for such "scamming". I mean, if you are foolish enough to allow yourself to be scammed, then so be it. Most people that are scammed usually don't get scammed anymore, since being scammed opens their darn eyes. Let the players learn from their mistake, but don't pamper them.
Does that mean we can ban non-thief scammers?

Gambet
06-08-2005, 03:56 AM
Does that mean we can ban non-thief scammers?


On the note of role playing characters, yes, I suppose so. Scamming is something a thief would do, not a barbarian or a warrior or a mage.

Kaimetsu
06-08-2005, 04:03 AM
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD....RPING...ROLE PLAYING YOU "DOLT"

YES. HOWEVER, YOU ALREADY SAID THAT THINGS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD CONSTITUTE PART OF A PERSON'S CHARACTER.

THINK

Gambet
06-08-2005, 04:06 AM
YES. HOWEVER, YOU ALREADY SAID THAT THINGS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD CONSTITUTE PART OF A PERSON'S CHARACTER.

THINK


No, I didn't. I said scamming could constitute as part of a persons character, thus, it should be allowed, not that it shouldn't. Heck, I still don't see any valid reasoning as to why scamming should be illegal.

Kaimetsu
06-08-2005, 04:08 AM
No, I didn't

Yes you did. Otherwise you would be agreeing that sexual harassment should be allowed.

protagonist
06-08-2005, 04:22 AM
Yes you did. Otherwise you would be agreeing that sexual harassment should be allowed.
omfg wil u shut up? if u cant c wut hez sayen, r33d it aggen. i had no prawblemz wit it.

juice188
06-08-2005, 04:42 AM
same, you gotta read stuff thoroughly

Butz
06-08-2005, 05:51 AM
I see nothing wrong with making illegal an action that directly reduces the enjoyment of other people playing the game.
Gambet makes an argument for roleplaying a thief?
Thieves get caught. Thieves get punished. Just because you're a thief doesn't mean you'll get away with something.
Also, I find it rather hard to believe that someone would stand up for the right to scam, unless there's something that they personally gain from scamming being allowed. What's your story Gambet?

Gambet
06-08-2005, 05:59 AM
I see nothing wrong with making illegal an action that directly reduces the enjoyment of other people playing the game.
Gambet makes an argument for roleplaying a thief?
Thieves get caught. Thieves get punished. Just because you're a thief doesn't mean you'll get away with something.
Also, I find it rather hard to believe that someone would stand up for the right to scam, unless there's something that they personally gain from scamming being allowed. What's your story Gambet?


I don't play GK anymore, so I hope you're not trying to imply anything.

All I'm saying is, I want someone to give me valid reasoning as to why they feel scamming should be illegal. Give me your reasoning and support it, and then I will either agree or disagree and prove my points. Kai already spoke with me on AIM his reasoning, and I agree with that, but it's still not sufficient enough to make scamming illegal.

Kaimetsu
06-08-2005, 06:03 AM
All I'm saying is, I want someone to give me valid reasoning as to why they feel scamming should be illegal

How are we supposed to do that when you haven't told us how you identify good or bad actions?

If the objective is to increase Graal's revenue then scamming should be illegal. I think you agreed with that. But I don't know how to address the issue from your perspective because you haven't told us what your criteria are.

Splke
06-08-2005, 06:43 AM
I don't see them overuling him anywhere.

I didn't see them overrule Sam's obvious power abuse.. frankly I don't see them do much.

xAndrewx
06-08-2005, 12:22 PM
I recommend a ban for a month for the scammers.
Once they're banned, they will go to the forums and
start 'dissing' the person who banned them. Leading
to a ban on the forums. People never learn.

Gambet
06-08-2005, 02:33 PM
How are we supposed to do that when you haven't told us how you identify good or bad actions?

If the objective is to increase Graal's revenue then scamming should be illegal. I think you agreed with that. But I don't know how to address the issue from your perspective because you haven't told us what your criteria are.


Why havn't I listed my criteria? Well, just to let you know, I'm completely against scammers. I don't like them. But, I'm trying to look at this new rule from both sides, which is why I'm not trying to be persuasive towards making/leaving scamming to be legal. Personally, I would love something to be done about all of the scammers, but you have to look at things from both sides. Scammers are not doing anything that can not be avoided. I mean, yes, of course they piss people off and sometimes lead them to quitting, but scammers are doing that's really wrong.

Heck, if you drop an item on the floor and I went to pick it up and took it and didn't return it, well, you'd call me a scammer. But, if you're going to blame me for "scamming" you, then you should look at it from both sides, because if someones to blame then we both should be blamed. You were careless enough to drop your items, and I just so happened to pass by when you dropped your items and I picked them up. Tough luck.

Yes, I'm completely against scamming, but just because I'm against something doesn't mean I'd deem it illegal just because I don't like it. I try to look at things from both sides before making a decision.

Malinko
06-08-2005, 04:11 PM
Whoa whoa whoa!

Scamming IS legal on Graal Kingdoms.

The only time when scamming is illegal is when items are obtained by bug/glitch, as in an abuse of this bug/glitch.

If you give your items to players to borrow or hold, then Graal Kingdoms is not held responsible for lost items.

Kaimetsu
06-08-2005, 11:09 PM
Why havn't I listed my criteria?

Evidently because you prefer to hide behind ambiguity.

I'm trying to look at this new rule from both sides[...]
Scammers are not doing anything that can not be avoided

Nor are sexual harassers. Nor are those that hijack accounts or delete playerworlds. Should we make these things legal too?

Gambet
06-08-2005, 11:27 PM
Nor are sexual harassers. Nor are those that hijack accounts or delete playerworlds. Should we make these things legal too?


THOSE THINGS ARE ILLEGAL ALREADY. I'VE SAID THIS MANY MANY TIMES. SCAMMING IS LEGAL THUS FAR, MEANING THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR SCAMMING. IF SCAMMING IS MADE ILLEGAL, THEN THAT MEANS YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SCAM OR YOU'D BE PUNISHED.

Kaimetsu
06-08-2005, 11:59 PM
THOSE THINGS ARE ILLEGAL ALREADY

I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU. WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SCAMMING SHOULD BE LEGAL. IF YOU USE THE ASSERTION THAT IT IS LEGAL THEN YOU'RE EMPLOYING CIRCULAR LOGIC.

"SCAMMING SHOULD BE LEGAL BC ITS LEGAL LOLOLOLOLOLOL"

If scamming should be legal just because it's avoidable then SO SHOULD ALL THE THINGS I LISTED.

THINK

Sam
06-09-2005, 12:04 AM
Hmm, maybe Stefan said to Gambet: "Make new rules!"

The rules we have are not valid anymore, because Gambet made new ones.
He is the know it all person. To prove that he uses capital letters...

Raziel
06-09-2005, 12:16 AM
You can't scam and call it roleplay. I mean, how do you explain a scammer logging off in roleplay terms? How do you explain the fact that the person who got scammed cannot get the item back by cutting the scammer's throat in his sleep? In real life the thief would be caught, his hands cut off, and the items returned to their rightful owner. You can't say this is part of the roleplay of a character, because it just doesn't all work.

Gambet
06-09-2005, 01:33 AM
You can't scam and call it roleplay. I mean, how do you explain a scammer logging off in roleplay terms? How do you explain the fact that the person who got scammed cannot get the item back by cutting the scammer's throat in his sleep? In real life the thief would be caught, his hands cut off, and the items returned to their rightful owner. You can't say this is part of the roleplay of a character, because it just doesn't all work.


Says who? It's a game, so maybe the thief could get away with it. Anything can happen in a game :cool:


Kai:


I say that a person could role play as being a scammer, so you say that the same could apply for sexual harassers. Yes, that's true, but since we are arguing over whether or not scamming should be legal, that means that scamming is not illegal thus far. Currently, scamming is legal, so a player COULD role play as a scammer. Now, if it were made illegal, then I guess you would not be able to.

I'm not using it as a point to make scamming legal, because scamming is already legal. This thread is to make it illegal.


Sam:


Honestly, what in the world did you say? I didn't understand a thing.

Splke
06-09-2005, 01:35 AM
Scamming doesn't have much roleplay relevence, since you use the "trust" of the person IRL of you to scam items; which if implimented into roleplay would be considered metagaming.

If you played off of their stupidity, then you also are playing off of an aspect of their RL traits (though it may be IC as well), which would be considered metagaming as well.

It doesn't work. Sorry. :/

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 01:38 AM
since we are arguing over whether or not scamming should be legal, that means that scamming is not illegal thus far

I really don't know how that logic is supposed to work. Either way, the current state is irrelevant to determining the ideal state. You are not permitted to use circular reasoning.

Currently, scamming is legal, so a player COULD role play as a scammer. Now, if it were made illegal, then I guess you would not be able to

So what's your point? If you're not trying to argue that scamming should be legal then what are you doing?

Gambet
06-09-2005, 01:41 AM
I really don't know how that logic is supposed to work. Either way, the current state is irrelevant to determining the ideal state. You are not permitted to use circular reasoning.


We are not arguing over whether scamming should be legal or illegal. We are arguing over whether scamming should be illegal, since it currently is legal. I have quite a feeling that all of our posts probably wouldn't influence the decision at all, but oh well.



So what's your point? If you're not trying to argue that scamming should be legal then what are you doing?

It already is legal. I don't like scamming, but I'm looking at things from both sides. I'm just waiting for valid reasoning as to why it should be made illegal.

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 01:59 AM
We are not arguing over whether scamming should be legal or illegal. We are arguing over whether scamming should be illegal

Same thing.

It already is legal

'Should be legal' is not the same as 'should be changed so that it is legal'. If you are opposing the illegalisation of scamming then you are saying that it should be legal.

I don't like scamming, but I'm looking at things from both sides

No. What are your arguments supposed to achieve? You observe that scamming can be prevented and that it can form part of somebody's character. What are these observations meant to prove?

Gambet
06-09-2005, 02:07 AM
Same thing.


'Should' and 'is' are completely different.


'Should be legal' is not the same as 'should be changed so that it is legal'. If you are opposing the illegalisation of scamming then you are saying that it should be legal.


It is legal for crying out loud.


No. What are your arguments supposed to achieve? You observe that scamming can be prevented and that it can form part of somebody's character. What are these observations meant to prove?

Nothing, yet. I'm just stating a few reasons to support why it should remain legal.

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 02:15 AM
'Should' and 'is' are completely different

What's your point? Saying that X should be Y is not the same as saying that X currently isn't Y.

Nothing, yet. I'm just stating a few reasons to support why it should remain legal.

Except that you're not. How do your observations imply that it should be legal? Scamming can be avoided, I'll grant you that. But how does that support your claim that it should be legal?

Gambet
06-09-2005, 02:21 AM
What's your point? Saying that X should be Y is not the same as saying that X currently isn't Y.


How many times have I said that I'm not trying to say that scamming should be legal? IT ALREADY IS LEGAL, so, why would I fight that it should be what it already is? If anything, I would be fighting to keep it legal, but it's not the case.


Except that you're not. How do your observations imply that it should be legal? Scamming can be avoided, I'll grant you that. But how does that support your claim that it should be legal?


Once again, it is legal. It justs supports one point for why it should remain legal. Now, we just need more points as to why it should be illegal, and then from there we can discuss.

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 02:28 AM
How many times have I said that I'm not trying to say that scamming should be legal? IT ALREADY IS LEGAL

STOP
and
THINK

I already explained: 'X should be Y' does not imply that X isn't currently Y. You're apparently confused as to the meaning of 'should'.

You are arguing that scamming should be legal. Other people are arguing that scamming should not be legal. None of these are statements about its current legality.

It justs supports one point for why it should remain legal

You completely failed to answer my question. How do those observations support the claim that scamming should be legal?

Velox Cruentus
06-09-2005, 02:37 AM
My comment on this:
Scamming is illegal, but can't be proved by any other way then by the trade tables. Therefore, any other trading is at the risk of the trader itself. -- That's my interpretion.

Googi
06-09-2005, 02:46 AM
Once again, it is legal.

What are you saying? That just because something is legal, it should always remain legal no matter what?

Gambet
06-09-2005, 02:49 AM
What are you saying? That just because something is legal, it should always remain legal no matter what?


No? Where the heck did you get this from? I didn't even say that scamming is currently legal because of that.

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 03:02 AM
What are you saying? That just because something is legal, it should always remain legal no matter what?

He doesn't understand what the word 'should' means. I tried to address this on AIM, but I couldn't get much sense out of him. He told me that I must be wrong, since VT disagrees with me :)

Gambet
06-09-2005, 03:03 AM
He doesn't understand what the word 'should' means. I tried to address this on AIM, but I couldn't get much sense out of him. He told me that I must be wrong, since VT disagrees with me :)


Don't put words in my mouth.

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 03:08 AM
He's gonna ask VT which one of us he hates more. Apparently he thinks this will decide who won the argument.

Raziel
06-09-2005, 03:10 AM
Says who? It's a game, so maybe the thief could get away with it. Anything can happen in a game :cool:


Wrong. Not anything can happen. I can't kill you and take my items back, now can I?

Gambet
06-09-2005, 03:12 AM
He's gonna ask VT which one of us he hates more. Apparently he thinks this will decide who won the argument.


Don't put words in my mouth, you arrogant bafoon.


Raz:

You could if it were implemented to the system :cool:

Damix2
06-09-2005, 03:22 AM
Says who? It's a game, so maybe the thief could get away with it. Anything can happen in a game :cool:



Including scamming being made illiegal.

Gambet
06-09-2005, 03:24 AM
Including scamming being made illiegal.


I never said it couldn't and I never said I was against it. I just want there to be valid reasons before a decision is made.

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 03:26 AM
Don't put words in my mouth, you arrogant bafoon

Man, you'd probably be better off if I did. I don't use pretend words like 'bafoon'.

Splke
06-09-2005, 03:27 AM
You could if it were implemented to the system :cool:

Lvl 110 USD power-gamer "Theif" running around "roleplaying" as a "murderer" stealing everybodys items.

YAY FOR RP!

Googi
06-09-2005, 03:43 AM
No? Where the heck did you get this from? I didn't even say that scamming is currently legal because of that.

You keep saying "SCAMMING CANT BE COMPARED TO SEXUAL HARRASMENT BECAUSE SCAMMING IS LEGAL".

Except that.

1. Scamming isn't legal as Sam said it's illegal.

2. They can be compared, because nobody is comparing their legality, but rather how both are things people don't like.

Gambet
06-09-2005, 03:57 AM
You keep saying "SCAMMING CANT BE COMPARED TO SEXUAL HARRASMENT BECAUSE SCAMMING IS LEGAL".

Except that.

1. Scamming isn't legal as Sam said it's illegal.

2. They can be compared, because nobody is comparing their legality, but rather how both are things people don't like.



1. I wan't it to be official before anyone goes around saying scamming is now illegal. If it were official, then the GK staff would say that it's illegal, but as you can see from Malinko's post, scamming is still legal.

2. Uh, no.

Googi
06-09-2005, 04:31 AM
1. I wan't it to be official before anyone goes around saying scamming is now illegal. If it were official, then the GK staff would say that it's illegal, but as you can see from Malinko's post, scamming is still legal.

Since when could Malinko overule Sam?

2. Uh, no.

Way to not provide an explanation.

Gambet
06-09-2005, 04:37 AM
Since when could Malinko overule Sam?



That's not what I meant. What I said by that, is that if the GK staff still believe scamming is legal, then...

A) This rule was made by Sam and is one of his own personal rules

B) It is not official yet

Googi
06-09-2005, 04:48 AM
That's not what I meant. What I said by that, is that if the GK staff still believe scamming is legal, then...

A) This rule was made by Sam and is one of his own personal rules

B) It is not official yet

So? He's going to enforce it.

Raziel
06-09-2005, 05:42 AM
Raz:

You could if it were implemented to the system :cool:

It won't be implemented into the system and therefore scamming is and should be illegal.

Malinko
06-09-2005, 06:50 AM
The hell? Bjorn and I have made it very clearly, scamming IS legal unless it is done by bug/glitch abuse. Abusing bugs and glitches to your advantage IS against the rules.

Read my posts FULLY.

Just because you're idiotic enough to give your items to a player and not have those items returned or items of the same value, we are not responsible for it. That's your stupid move.

Splke
06-09-2005, 06:55 AM
Apparently Sam didn't get permission from Stefan, if other staff members are unsure on this rule.

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 06:56 AM
The hell? Bjorn and I have made it very clearly, scamming IS legal unless it is done by bug/glitch abuse

Why?

Just because you're idiotic enough to give your items to a player and not have those items returned or items of the same value, we are not responsible for it

Nobody's denying that there's fault on the part of the victims. But why should that mean that staff shouldn't help?

calani
06-09-2005, 07:02 AM
But why should that mean that staff shouldn't help?

I agree completely. Without staff helping the players when they feel wronged, they will leave and may never come back.

XGoLink
06-09-2005, 10:26 AM
This is rediclious, you have nothing to say, Sam.. Scamming is legal/

Malinko
06-09-2005, 03:50 PM
But why should that mean that staff shouldn't help?
It's not like we don't help. Of course, we try to retrieve the scammed items back, though, if we can't, we can't. Usually, I'll even give my items or items of value to make up for scammed items.

If a player wants us to watch a trade to make sure he/she doesn't get scammed, we will watch to make sure.

protagonist
06-09-2005, 04:22 PM
I agree completely. Without staff helping the players when they feel wronged, they will leave and may never come back.
Exactly. I know that one time when I was starting kingdoms I got scammed out of 2 diamonds. I did not play for about a year and a half, after that.

GoZelda
06-09-2005, 05:14 PM
Rules of conduct:

...This 'caveat emptor' approach does not mean Scamming is legal, only that it is difficult to prove.....
Way to place it out of context:

"If Graal Police witness a scam directly they may punish the offending player."

And you are not Graal Police either.

Sam
06-09-2005, 05:25 PM
Way to place it out of context:

"If Graal Police witness a scam directly they may punish the offending player."

And you are not Graal Police either.

You are so clever. You dont play the game, but you think you know all.
To let you know: I am beside Björn the highest staff on GK, with Admin rights, not only EM Admin. And we do not have aspecial GP on GK. Play the game and you maybe don't fail with your comments in the future.

GoZelda
06-09-2005, 06:06 PM
Play the game and you maybe don't fail with your comments in the future.
No sir, you failed with your comments.

First off, you're slow. Do you honestly think I ment that Graal Police comment seriously?

Second off, you did not adress my main point. You can only punish a player if you witness the scam directly.

EDIT:

I am beside Björn the highest staff on GK, with Admin rights, not only EM Admin. And we do not have aspecial GP on GK. Play the game and you maybe don't fail with your comments in the future.
I've heard of others who play the game that your oh-so great powers are at certain moments restricted to the pub, that you suddenly can't speak English, and that you refuse to help them.

Malinko
06-09-2005, 06:58 PM
Hm.

Okay, from recent hearings, I guess scamming is now illegal.

It was agreed on between Sam and I, already aprroved by Bjorn and Stefan.

So scamming is illegal.

No more argument?

EDIT: SORRY, I MADE A TYPO!

Raziel
06-09-2005, 07:02 PM
Fix your typo on your post ^

Edit: Ok cool, fixed :D

REJOICE, PEOPLE! REJOICE!

GoZelda
06-09-2005, 07:21 PM
So scamming is illegal.
It apparently always has been.

How is someone going to prove a scam?

Lyndzey
06-09-2005, 07:46 PM
It apparently always has been.

How is someone going to prove a scam?

Screenshots.

However, a couple people have come to me saying that they have been framed. I really don't see how a screenshot can prove whether or not a person scammed another person unless the guy says "haha i scammed you"

The only time I feel that an admin should ban a person for scamming is when the admin is moderating the trade. For the people that have been banned so far, this has not been the case.

GoZelda
06-09-2005, 08:35 PM
Screenshots.
...

Images can be edited.

Googi
06-09-2005, 09:41 PM
It apparently always has been.

How is someone going to prove a scam?

Logs for great justice.

GoZelda
06-09-2005, 09:49 PM
Logs for great justice.
How the hell are logs gone proof a scam?

I can give someone an item, and then say 'omg he scamd me, ban plz' and judging by Sam's... reactions it wouldn't be far from the truth if the ban occured.

Lyndzey
06-09-2005, 10:08 PM
...

Images can be edited.

...

However, a couple people have come to me saying that they have been framed

I understand that. That's why I'm not too thrilled about the idea of banning people for scamming unless an admin witnesses it.

Zero Hour
06-09-2005, 10:25 PM
...

Images can be edited.
And I, personally, can tell when images are editted :)
in the new mudlib system I imagine, if they give each trade a specific ID, you may be able to UNDO a trade (if you're an admin)

Kaimetsu
06-09-2005, 10:45 PM
It's not like we don't help. Of course, we try to retrieve the scammed items back, though, if we can't, we can't

Then in what way was it ever legal?

Zero Hour
06-09-2005, 10:56 PM
Then in what way was it ever legal?
I didn't enforce any rules against scamming - I was told not to by Bjorn.

One time I tried to retrieve some items from a player who had scammed another - then I was very rudely scolded by Bjorn so I decided that if that's what he wants - I'll do it. I also didn't enforce the rule against USD sales very often either (Back when there was zero tolerance)

It's funny, you help the players you get scolded... you enforce the rules to a period and make an example of a player every now and then and you get canned. *shrug* Ces't le vie.

calani
06-10-2005, 03:36 AM
It's funny, you help the players you get scolded... you enforce the rules to a period and make an example of a player every now and then and you get canned. *shrug* Ces't le vie.


I feel your pain.

TheJames
01-04-2006, 08:29 PM
Yea this is really old but I most say, how is a GK Staff member able to sell USD and still be a staff member? nullify sold $500 worth to Crusty Deadbeard and since hes staff no ones doing anything.

protagonist
01-04-2006, 08:48 PM
Yea this is really old but I most say, how is a GK Staff member able to sell USD and still be a staff member? nullify sold $500 worth to Crusty Deadbeard and since hes staff no ones doing anything.
:o

...

xAndrewx
01-04-2006, 09:04 PM
Yea this is really old but I most say, how is a GK Staff member able to sell USD and still be a staff member? nullify sold $500 worth to Crusty Deadbeard and since hes staff no ones doing anything.
When was this? x-x

GoZelda
01-04-2006, 09:12 PM
Yea this is really old but I most say, how is a GK Staff member able to sell USD and still be a staff member? nullify sold $500 worth to Crusty Deadbeard and since hes staff no ones doing anything.
This is Graal.

And USD selling isn't illegal.

dNeonb
01-04-2006, 09:53 PM
and since hes staff no ones doing anything.

Because noone knows anything about it ?

And no he is no staff on Graal Kingdoms. He is some Kingdom LAT on Debug but not on Graal Kingdoms.

Zero Hour
01-04-2006, 10:23 PM
Because noone knows anything about it ?

And no he is no staff on Graal Kingdoms. He is some Kingdom LAT on Debug but not on Graal Kingdoms.
Yea this is really old but I most say, how is a GK Staff member able to sell USD and still be a staff member? nullify sold $500 worth to Crusty Deadbeard and since hes staff no ones doing anything.
I would like to point out to both of you that it was made very clear that selling/buying for USD is perfectly "legal" so long as the arrangement for is not made on the Graal Online servers. This way, if you're scammed, Graal Online can in no way be held responsible.

Buying/selling USD is a risk you take.

TheJames
01-05-2006, 08:24 PM
It happend Monday. And it was done on Graalonline. On Graal Kindgoms, I have pictures and stuff to prove it aswell. A few history screen shots and a few player screen shots. I don't really care, just the fact that hes letting everyone glitch good items..But thats another topic, glitching. Haha.. Well on the topic of nullify, he wears his "GK Staff" tag and that seems like he's staff to me..? Not to mention he claims that he is staff. I massed a cussword, oh bad me :whatever: and he claims that he will pillory me the next time I mass a cussword because he is "GK Staff". So your saying that he isnt? ..Well anyways.. Sam claims that USD'ing is completely illegal and tries to stop it. He massed some rules last week and it said that USD was illegal, so I presume it is illegal considering hes GP Admin for Graal Kingdoms?

Craigus
01-05-2006, 08:36 PM
He is admin but still needs to follow the Graal code of conduct...perhaps you should read it if you are confused.

Sam
01-06-2006, 01:22 PM
I
...ILLEGAL AND BANNABLE IS ALSO:

- Selling, buying, advertising items, or accounts for real money on Graal


This is what I massed and you can read the complete text here (http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59503).

I will explain that a bit more.
We do not allow to do business for real money on Graal Servers. That includes announcing items for USD.
All deals people do outside of Graal isn't our business.

If someone announces: "Selling bomy lord helmet for 100 USD" it is illegal.
If he find a silly person who will pay for pixels lots of money outside of Graal it is a lucky guy. He can be happy to sell a pic to an idiot.

The tag (GK Staff) is available for all staff working on Graal Kingdoms, including kingdoms staff like LAT's, translaters or kingdom leaders. That doesn't mean they have any rights like pillory or so.

nullify
01-06-2006, 04:14 PM
Selling for USD is legal as long as nothing is coordinated on the game itself. I was told this by every admin, so it must be true!