Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Please Help 120k peds Mistake!

Status
Looks like things are going the way they suppose to. Seller/buyer can get to an angreement and buyer actually isn't (after all the shit on forums) making a dick move. Well, that's what I expect to happen.

MA locking account is fine, it's ~10k$ base value after all. Sorry, but markup does not count here. In our country, if I find 10k EUR and do not turn it into police and keep it, it's considered a crime. It's not like that everywhere else, but it's like that here. I'm not sure about Swedish law, but that amount of $ sure makes people react, like MA did. Pitbull (he makes shit music!) just needs to wait it out and go back to his gaming, whatever he decides. Calling him names on forums just shows how fucking little people you are.

MJ, offer him MU on these AUD and I'm sure he be happy to take the deal :) 20k ped is not that much, considering that you might end up with zero, since he can actually keep them all and MA will do nothing about it. They just can't set that precendent.

Not all of us are narrow minded shitforbrains little people (Pitbull incl, though he still makes shit music!). Can't say that for some though. Sad, how someones personal tragedy brings up all the little wankers out of their caves, while they shouldnt have the access to internet at all.

PS! Not sure why 50 PED value stock item does not have 50 PED TT value. Screws something up in the system?
 
Would you allow an opponent to take back an action in chess after they'd committed to the play? Should event staff at a tournament rewind game states to account for a player's mistake?

The answer, if not flatly negative, is surely "it depends!" What strikes me is that it is at the highest level of play, precisely at events that often require the greatest travel expenses and award the most valuable prizes, that this sort of informal adherence to the rules and tournament policy would be least tolerated. In non-tournament chess games, or at your local hobby shop tournament, it may well be appropriate at times to bend rules to make the game more enjoyable or inviting to the casual player, but when big money is on the line, there's an expectation for players to take a greater degree of responsibility for their own mistakes. Why in Entropia do some people cite high stakes circumstances as reason to neglect this responsibility rather than serve as a paradigm setting for it?
 
It's really a can of worms, a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of situation for MA. I hope this latest and biggest occurrence triggers a shift in priorities to doing something about these mousetraps. Seeking advice from a psychologist about why this keeps happening so easily seems prudent. It was just a matter of time until one case gets too big to just throw their arms in the air. For the amount involved, a lawsuit becomes a realistic possibility. If this case gets resolve between the players once more, the next one might not.

NPV said:
PS! Not sure why 50 PED value stock item does not have 50 PED TT value. Screws something up in the system?
Click to expand...
Because TT value is what they owe you. If they had the full liability on their balance sheet, they wouldn't have gotten a dollar to spend through the original sale of the deeds. Like it is, you can only get it back by selling it to another investor.
 
Last edited:
San said:
Because TT value is what they owe you. If they had the full liability on their balance sheet, they wouldn't have gotten a dollar to spend through the original sale of the deeds. Like it is, you can only get it back by selling it to another investor.
Click to expand...

Ok, not so good with balances and sheets and stocks :) I have my accountant for that :p

So if Arkadia Underground goes Under (lol), whatever happens, MA owes you only TT value of the stock, right? High risk stuff. Love it!
 
San said:
For the amount involved, a lawsuit becomes a realistic possibility.
Click to expand...

No. Ok, maybe in some countries, but definetly not here, we are part of EU so probably not even EU.

I had 3 cases in court due to 2009 recession, lost quite a bit of PEDs due to clients/partners bankruptcy/scheming etc and I can say for sure, that this kind of case we have here with MJ, only a lawyer who wants to milk his client, would pick up.

I'm not even sure how can one have a logic, that beeing drunk (admiting to alcohol) and spending money in social casino, making mistake and losing it, could end up a case vs casino? Honestly? Is that some alien logic, we humble people of earth, do not understand yet?
 
So it was direct purchase not a sale to order.

I have to smile though at Malcolm's post though.

He bought a ton of deeds really cheap, nothing really seemed out of the ordinary (got to smile).
He had no idea how many he bought, until he checked it later....yeah right lol. (funny stuff)

The reality is; He decided to wait it out see what happened. Sense the community and sellers reaction, lets say it how it is. Ok fair enough, I don't hold that against him.

He hoped for the best, and had a short window of opportunity to reverse it "if he wanted to" then got temporary locked (just so the problem can't escalate with further sales). It's not a blame game, it's isolating the issue.

Sure it's not Malcolm fault. In fact if another trader picked up the deeds, then dumped them like crazy it could've got really messy. At least he made a clever move and put them in storage....and waited to see what would happen.

He could make a deal, but Malcolm is playing it cool. Who knows he may win it all.
Personally I think making an offer and turning it into a win-win result for both parties is the better option.

Let's see what MA does then, and hope it can be resolved as soon as possible.

Rick
 
Two things:
1) I see nowhere in Pitbulls two posts information that he wants to give AUDs back (in fact his snd post is sugesting he made much smaller mistake and did not get recompensation in any form so mayby he thinks similar now too). So everyone who assumed he will give it back by just writing polite words - please read it again.
If i understand - he is just waiting for MA decision now.
It may be the language barrier though so i am not 100% sure about his inentions here yet.

2) "IF" MA "forces" Pitbull to give part/all AUDs back - i am really afraid they will sentence themselves for a lot of support cases (for example Gewitter mentioned in this thread could and imo should write one then).
And to be honest that would be terrible thing to happen (not that i do not want you Gewitter to get your item back).
Imagine now person who sold FIRST unlimited welding wire blueprint on auction for 300peds. It was quite long ago - but it is in market history so it DID sell. Now they go for how much? 15k? 20k? more? Should he/she write support case to retract that trade? If yes - when is the time you can and you can't retract auction deals? And who decides about it?
There would be probably hunrdeds if not thousands of support cases send like this and items probably already have changed owners few times in meantime - basicly no way to reverse this.

I think siutation at the moment is:
- Mary Jane is full o hope.
- Pitbull is waiting patiently for MA to act.
- MA are scratching their heads what to do now.

I really hope that in the end Mary Jane will get AUDs back but it is not that simple to do as some people may think without pure good will of Pitbull.

Falagor
:bandit:
 
Malcolm got on PCF and posted several paragraphs, with no clear intention of "I'll reverse the trade", after he found out that he got banned on EU. All I see is another set of whining rants. At this point, it's just Malcolm's ethics VS MA's ruling.

Falagor said:
1) I see nowhere in Pitbulls two posts information that he wants to give AUDs back (in fact his snd post is sugesting he made much smaller mistake and did not get recompensation in any form so mayby he thinks similar now too). So everyone who assumed he will give it back by just writing polite words - please read it again.
If i understand - he is just waiting for MA decision now.
It may be the language barrier though so i am not 100% sure about his inentions here yet.
Click to expand...
 
Falagor said:
Two things:
1) I see nowhere in Pitbulls two posts information that he wants to give AUDs back (in fact his snd post is sugesting he made much smaller mistake and did not get recompensation in any form so mayby he thinks similar now too). So everyone who assumed he will give it back by just writing polite words - please read it again.
If i understand - he is just waiting for MA decision now.
It may be the language barrier though so i am not 100% sure about his inentions here yet.

2) "IF" MA "forces" Pitbull to give part/all AUDs back - i am really afraid they will sentence themselves for a lot of support cases (for example Gewitter mentioned in this thread could and imo should write one then).
And to be honest that would be terrible thing to happen (not that i do not want you Gewitter to get your item back).
Imagine now person who sold FIRST unlimited welding wire blueprint on auction for 300peds. It was quite long ago - but it is in market history so it DID sell. Now they go for how much? 15k? 20k? more? Should he/she write support case to retract that trade? If yes - when is the time you can and you can't retract auction deals? And who decides about it?
There would be probably hunrdeds if not thousands of support cases send like this and items probably already have changed owners few times in meantime - basicly no way to reverse this.

I think siutation at the moment is:
- Mary Jane is full o hope.
- Pitbull is waiting patiently for MA to act.
- MA are scratching their heads what to do now.

I really hope that in the end Mary Jane will get AUDs back but it is not that simple to do as some people may think without pure good will of Pitbull.

Falagor
:bandit:
Click to expand...

I agree, MA's inaction in all other cases has brought them here where I believe they're praying he'll give the deeds back...because tbh I don't think they can act.
option A: keep saying all trades are final and then MAYBE implement further safeguards....in which case I think it deserve a courtcase to protect consumer rights etc etc

or B: help out and have EVERYONE who ever made a similar mistake come raining down why they did not receive any such help
 
NPV said:
PS! Not sure why 50 PED value stock item does not have 50 PED TT value. Screws something up in the system?
Click to expand...
The fact that the original price was 50 ped doesn't make them worth 50 ped. They were as low as 44 at one point.
 
Svarog said:
The fact that the original price was 50 ped doesn't make them worth 50 ped. They were as low as 44 at one point.
Click to expand...

yea, figured that out in others explanation :)
 
From Pitbull's comments and as far i have talk 2-3 times whit him ing.. think he is nice guy . I am kinda even happy that he got em and not other order zombies . Wish you two a nice end of this shit :)

Best time of year it is lets not forget we are all humans :):xmas::dj: and best of luck ya all
 
If every time someone makes a good purchase will have to be investigated ... That's not the way.
The purchase is 100% legal. People should be careful when selling any item and more talking about such high amounts.
I hope it will be solved but the MA solution of temporarily blocking the buyer account seems totally unaceptable and gives a lot to think about the game.
GL
 
RickEngland said:
Let's see what MA does then, and hope it can be resolved as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda suprised & pissed off MA blocked the account, if it was only about this trade..
It can be seen like pushing the buyer into making a deal hoping to get his account unlocked, a very dangerous business move IMO
 
Well, MA cant act at all in this case, since all trades are final, as it should be, and no scam has been commited.

The only hope is for they guy who bought the AUD´s to man up and settle this to the satisfaction of all parties.
 
Jess. said:
If every time someone makes a good purchase will have to be investigated ... That's not the way.
The purchase is 100% legal. People should be careful when selling any item and more talking about such high amounts.
I hope it will be solved but the MA solution of temporarily blocking the buyer account seems totally unaceptable and gives a lot to think about the game.
GL
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, it is wrong on so many levels and make auction seem unreliable and not final trades. The buyer also loses potential ped income while having his account locked. Anyone would have bought that auction and it feels unsafe that a legal auction trade can get account locked through support cases.

I am starting to wonder what reasons the account was locked for. Maybe it was not the complaint from the seller, instead it might be that this particular sale is a potential threat for CLD/AUD markup decrease...
 
Last edited:
Jess. said:
The purchase is 100% legal.
Click to expand...

No, it is not, according to the law cited above. Please review. People keep confusing the EULA and the jurisdiction it lives in. MA is just not the final arbitrator, should the involved parties be unable to resolve their problem. The EULA does not supplant and replace the law of the land.

The only way to get this unhinged is by finding out that this is not true and Swedish law does not apply in digital realms inside of which no borders exist, regardless of which country the whole thing is established in. Is this so? If yes, which law applies then? None? I don't know this for certain only because I haven't looked it up. Somebody else done that?
 
XarcX said:
Yes I agree, it is wrong on so many levels and make auction seem unreliable and not final trades. The buyer also loses potential ped income while having his account locked. Anyone would have bought that auction and it feels unsafe that a legal auction trade can get account locked through support cases.

I am starting to wonder what reasons the account was locked for. Maybe it was not the complaint from the seller, instead it might be that this particular sale is a potential threat for CLD/AUD markup decrease...
Click to expand...

It is very bad that even the players themselves can not feel safe with the auction system managed by MA.
PS: To all the whiners who continue giving the reason to the buyer, 99.9% of all of you would have bought at that price. No more dramas, please
 
Theres nothing wrong with the auction system..
If you place a stack with hides, oils or whatever then you are setting the price for the full stack not just ONE of the items.
Same goes for all stacks, cant blame anyone else then the seller for not being carefull.
Sure as hell sucks what happened here but the price was set and the deal was done.
I would rip my hair off if i was in the same situation.
Hope you 2 guys get it sorted.
 
San said:
No, it is not, according to the law cited above. Please review. People keep confusing the EULA and the jurisdiction it lives in. MA is just not the final arbitrator, should the involved parties be unable to resolve their problem. The EULA does not supplant and replace the law of the land.

The only way to get this unhinged is by finding out that this is not true and Swedish law does not apply in digital realms inside of which no borders exist, regardless of which country the whole thing is established in. Is this so? If yes, which law applies then? None? I don't know this for certain only because I haven't looked it up. Somebody else done that?
Click to expand...

the thing is real world laws applying to real world situations dont automatically apply to stuff that has happened in a video game.
 
Beci has never said:
Theres nothing wrong with the auction system..
If you place a stack with hides, oils or whatever then you are setting the price for the full stack not just ONE of the items.
Same goes for all stacks, cant blame anyone else then the seller for not being carefull.
Sure as hell sucks what happened here but the price was set and the deal was done.
I would rip my hair off if i was in the same situation.
Hope you 2 guys get it sorted.
Click to expand...
At least there are people who know what it says...
+1
 
Quite clear we have allot of "The Goodwife" and Eeeek "Judge Judy" fans here :silly2: Seriously, just 8 years and you all can be professionals at this and get paid :D
 
Last edited:
Me Really Never said:
the thing is real world laws applying to real world situations dont automatically apply to stuff that has happened in a video game.
Click to expand...

R-C-E for the umpteenth time.

It does not apply to your avatar getting killed or stuff like that. It applies to the real-world value of your assets and governs their trading just like anything else. Grey areas are possible, e.g. where an in-game currency unit is not directly convertible to real-world currency, only maybe through trade between players. Here, it is even directly convertible.

This would apply unless some parliament or supreme court has excluded competent jurisdiction there, but this seems rather unlikely given the tendency among lawmakers of going the other way, i.e. occupying any uncharted territory. I would like to see a definitive ruling on it, if someone knows where to look.
 
Beci has never said:
Theres nothing wrong with the auction system..
If you place a stack with hides, oils or whatever then you are setting the price for the full stack not just ONE of the items.
Same goes for all stacks, cant blame anyone else then the seller for not being carefull.
Click to expand...

It's all true with one [not so] little nuance - on all other stackables but deeds the markup is set in %, so this kind of mistake is not quite possible (or would take way more that 2 cans of beer). In fact, this kind of mistake has started exactly after MA changed the markup on deeds from % to peds. I recheck everything many times when using auction and terminals and still 4 or 5 times was very close to doing the same thing as OP.
 
ermik said:
Well, MA cant act at all in this case, since all trades are final, as it should be, and no scam has been commited.

The only hope is for they guy who bought the AUD´s to man up and settle this to the satisfaction of all parties.
Click to expand...

"All trade are final" is like every rule ermik. There are exceptions to it.

Some historic ones have already been mentioned in this thread.
 
San said:
R-C-E for the umpteenth time.

It does not apply to your avatar getting killed or stuff like that. It applies to the real-world value of your assets and governs their trading just like anything else. Grey areas are possible, e.g. where an in-game currency unit is not directly convertible to real-world currency, only maybe through trade between players. Here, it is even directly convertible.

This would apply unless some parliament or supreme court has excluded competent jurisdiction there, but this seems rather unlikely given the tendency among lawmakers of going the other way, i.e. occupying any uncharted territory. I would like to see a definitive ruling on it, if someone knows where to look.
Click to expand...

thats nice and all in theory. but has there been actual decision by court in similar cases as reference? if not its all just speculations
also such a court decision might lead to USA players being banned from the game as it is already a grey area for them.
it could also be that law sees this as a gambling loss in the virtual EU casino. nobody knows what would happen.
 
Status
Back
Top