All that needed to be posted here was to request the ticket be escalated or looked into by another Senior GM. The validity of scamming was never in question simply whether or not this scam was within the rules
Agreed. Unless there really was some unpublished change to how CCP deals with scams. Were there any recent court rulings or new laws put into effect that might tighten CCPs possibilities to ensure a scam-friendly in-game environment?
P.S. I think scams are an important part of the game, but Iâve always thought CCP must be riding the razors edge, legally speaking.
I wouldnât expect to receive a detailed explanation.
When one already knows one is messing with the trade window and tries to scam a player, and a GM then intervenes, then it explains itself. The explanation is simple: donât cross the line.
I didnt exploit anything i simply switched isk from 4b to 4m last second and he accept, as for the impersonation issue where i got scammed it happened months apart lol
That would be a weird way to handle things, though. I work in tech support myself, and believe me, you canât expect users to know what they did wrong, unless you explain it to them.
2 Likes
While I get that youâre just trying to scam is the trade window designed to make trading safe. You mess with that you mess with CCP.
If you had told the other player that you would need to pay in 10 chunks of 400m ISKs and so the first amount will be 400m and you then said youâd be giving him more thereafter, then it would have been acceptable. Messing with the values right at the input isnât messing with the player but messing with CCPâs game.
Trade Window games are not deemed an exploit, something determined years ago. The confusion on reddit is probably in relation CCP only having stated that years ago, and never having thought about it since. Thereâs good reasons why every new player organisation or pubbie group educates its kids on this exact thing.
4 Likes
Actually, thatâs a case of subjective perspective. Which may be right or wrong, but for CCP this has always been irrelevant. Even if they provide Support Articles warning players against these methods, they do stipulate that it is not a violation.
Whatever the complete picture may be in this individual case, it certainly is interesting in terms of the potential (!) shift in terms of policies. But, as stated before, a lot really depends on how accurate and complete the topicstarter was. The tidbit of changes in relation to Player Recruitment / Reward relations may be of importance, at this point that is a bit of a gap. At minimum in terms of information, whether it applies outside of the scope of those transactions.
GMs are not customer support. They are support, judge, jury and executioner in one.
And when the intervention by a GM isnât enough explanation then who knows how much explanation someone needs? Sometimes you just get a smack in the face, and when it needs an expalnation, too, then maybe see a therapist.
Of policy. They do not create this, they apply it. Overall they are very good at it, but human errors can happen, and lack of clarity or change over time can also be a factor. Would not be a first in EVEâs history. That said, CCP always figure it out, consolidate policy, and then business as usual.
I donât think so. I think the line between who gets scammed and by what means has always been clear. Only we get new players each year and we always get some who try to dig into the mechanics for scams. If we ever allowed for scams to exploit mechanics then we might also allow botting, because thatâs not so different in the end.
Oh sure, if he was just changing from 4B to 4M and the other didnât see it, itâs correct use of scam. (unless he used some form of input automatisation for it)
1 Like
Nobody is saying to allow scams by means of exploiting mechanics. The focal point here (for this type of âventureâ) is scamming by means of following available mechanics. There is a difference. But this is where CCP has always drawn the line. Take note of how we interpret subjectively, whereas CCP takes a step back.
Be this as it may, CCP can and does change policies over time. This would not be a first time. Once upon a time if you got caught botting, you got a 30 day ban. With the influx of new and different types of players, and thus the introduction of different learning and adaptation curves, CCP has changed those policies. Get caught now, and you get an explanation and a 3 Day ban.
This isnât a topic of âallow Xâ â âopen doorâ. CCP decides these things, on a type by type basis (different from case by case, obviously, as it was the year after EVE went live 
)
In most games is it the game master who sets the rules and polices. Thatâs why they are called game masters.
Yes, this is why I said "provided that what the topicstarter has shared is a) accurate and b) complete.
Experience tells us that when people let their belly speak, thereâs always more that meets the eye. That could be just emotion or such, but it also could be that someone is selective in sharing. Humans, odd species.
1 Like
Iâm balancing cloakies at the moment or Iâd go looking for CCPâs old devblogs and public statements on it, but they are around. Thereâs feedback and decision processes, but CCP has its own approach to matters. Rightly so, because there are innate difference between types of games and types of behaviour within them.
GMâs are human too. I once had a petition where the GM decided against something, but on a very odd basis. I escalated this, and a senior GM concluded that the previous GM was not fully informed. No worries, in training, can happen. We players are human too. So the reverse also holds true. Aside of us players being able to be devious and subversive which GMâs are not able to.
The only thing of real interest here is what popped up in regards to the potential policy change of âonce an agreement is established between players as visible in communications in game any transaction is enforceableâ.
Whatever happens with the topicstarterâs petition is seperate from that.
Yes, and youâre struggling with it.
When the focus of your scam is to mess with the direct input then youâre no longer messing with the naivety of another player. You are in fact messing with the input system, which was intentionally designed by CCP to make trading safe.
If thatâs something you cannot understand then itâs also the direct explanation why you fail to see the difference.
So it just means that there are more than one GM, and that they do decide over matters and even their own. Thatâs perfectly understandable.
âSaveâ. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. =P. Safe is what your looking for, for future reference. Let your auto correct know.
1 Like
I do get the difference. But CCP takes a different perspective from how we feel about it, that is their prerogative.
I once got scammed by a trade window, as once upon a time I got scammed with escrow (no longer exists). In both cases the scam made use of the mechanismâs flexibility to mess with input in interation between players. In both cases I got told âHTFUâ.
It would be nice if, following the potential of policy change, CCP would come up with a renewed statement on what is allowed / disallowed. They only do so rarely, often it takes years for them to be clear on something.
1 Like