Scam complaints accumulate

[Sam]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Lyndzey

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.

Originally Posted by protagonist

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]

Originally Posted by Zero Hour

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]

Originally Posted by Lyndzey

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

[Lyndzey]

Originally Posted by Schlurfy

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]

Originally Posted by Lyndzey

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Lyndzey

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.

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Not according to Sam.

Since when did Sam make the rules?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Schlurfy

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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

Read what I said above.

[Lyndzey]

Originally Posted by Stefan

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Lyndzey

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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...light=scamming
http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...light=scamming

although I think it should not be

[Gambet]

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]

Originally Posted by Evil_Trunks

Stefan indicates it is legal in these threads:

http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...light=scamming
http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...light=scamming

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

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by Googi

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]

Originally Posted by Evil_Trunks

Stefan indicates it is legal in these threads

That wasn't my interpretation.

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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

Yeah, and what's your point?

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

The fact that scamming is legal

Except that it was just declared illegal.

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by Googi

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by protagonist

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.

Originally Posted by Googi

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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]

Originally Posted by Gambet

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]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

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.