Razer
Stalker
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Posts
- 1,853
- Avatar Name
- RAZER
The reason Mindark takes them is easy, and you can read it here in this thread:
The deeds aren't allowed to be traded, but they got traded anyway. People here doesn't understand that there are items that you might hold on to, but you aren't allowed to trade. And because some people doesn't understand that, the "bugged" items are now removed from game. This way the "bugged" items won't get traded yet Another time by mistake.
I seem to be repeating myself here.
Yes there are items that are not allowed to be sold, they are all either owned by a MA official or are flagged for being un-tradable, which mean you CAN'T sell them.
IF any of the MA officials for some reason sells his 1 shot 1 kill weapons to a player, they are not allowed to and I would assume they CAN'T do that because of some measure MA took to prevent it, but for the sake of this post lets imagine they are not allowed but CAN sell them.
MA would instantly reverse the sale of that item when they notice something wrong, right?
Not with this LA, David Post was not allowed to sell, or give them away, yet he still did. The one that got them eventually contacted support about the bugs. Shouldn't this ring all alarm bells at MA HQ about a non tradable item in circulation and shouldn't they have acted on that asap?
Yet they choose to keep the buyer hanging not fixing the problems. Then the LA got sold again to Narfi and he again contacted support with the issue and again they kept him hanging without fixing the issue and eventually giving him info on the LA's, that they where not supposed to be in game. "We never aproved that David Post sold (or gave) them to that guy" Again this does not tell me that Narfi was not allowed to sell them. But again MA did nothing to prevent Narfi from selling the LA, so he did (for a lot less then was working LA's go for) with all sorts of warnings that they were bugged and had issues.
Again the new owner contacted MA with the issues and again nothing happened, until all of a sudden they are removed from his inventory.
To use a laptop analogy, like aia did. Lets say there is a store that has a nice laptop on display that is a prototype and it is not allowed to be sold. Yet, one of the employees sells the laptop to me and I pay good money for it. I contact the manufacturer of the laptop with an issue giving them the serial number of the laptop, so they know I have the prototype laptop.
After a few weeks I resell the then broken laptop to someone, telling them it is broken and could possibly be fixed if they contact support. No issue so far. That buyer also contacts support with the issue and then support tells him that that laptop was not supposed to be sold all those weeks ago. I would see that info as "OK someone screwed up, but I bought it so it is not my problem", right?
Again a few weeks later I sell the still broken laptop to another person, again letting him know is broken, but could possibly be fixed. After 2 weeks the company breaks into the guys house and takes his laptop from him without him knowing about it. Seems they can not do that right?
What would the company really do? They would contact the final owner of the laptop, explain the problem and compensate him for the laptop IF he decides to turn it over to them. And the guy in the shop that sold it in the first place would get fired.