Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

All auction bids are final? 60k bid in 1xx p balancing.

ShienLongDuckDongZhen said:
I am in contact with Fiona
Click to expand...
I can't necessarily offer this as pragmatic advice since you're under gunpoint right now, but my hope for the future precedent of the relation between consensual player trade and MindArk would be that you sort out the policy investigation charges first, and speak with Fiona only after that's settled.
 
I can only access my account info through the game when i try to go to the account page it gives me a 405 error in three of my different browsers ive tried
 
t
Jhereg said:
Impossible to work out a deal if their account is locked...
It is now between them and MA
I'm curious about the resolution of this matter, and the evolution of MA's all trades are final stance.
Click to expand...
Trade only happened because MA alowed it .
they were asked to revert the bid, before transaction hapenned.
Money and the ressources in question were in some sort of limbo by then, was neither in one player or other hands.
 
NevadaJake said:
It would be cool if the Auctioneer worked more similar to how eBay works. You can put in your max bid on eBay, but it will only bid up as other people bid. It doesn't immediately increase the current bid to your max bid like Entropia does. Perhaps that's only how eBay works in the USA though. Worldwide eBay might be different.
Click to expand...

The Ebay solution is a very good one , and would also help MindArk at least in this one avenue of money laundering.
 
ShienLongDuckDongZhen said:
I can only access my account info through the game when i try to go to the account page it gives me a 405 error in three of my different browsers ive tried
Click to expand...
This is Mindark's crappy response to DDOSing, not that you were banned or locked. You will have to ask support to green light your IP (until it changes).
 
TheOneOmega said:
I'm not sure if this is a troll as you have one post and registered today, but there was something similar that happened to the user Pitbul in a similar circumstance where their account was mysteriously locked for an unrelated reason and reopened after they stated they would give the item back. For all we know, there may be merit to the lockings, but if this becomes a pattern and MindArk is actually using bogus investigations as a fear tactic to try to coerce players into faux-consensual game play decisions instead of explicitly ruling on who is the rightful owner of the PED, then we have far more egregious problems than what comes of this particular auction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if MA wouldn't cancel the bid and then locks the seller's account for eternity, bacially MA gets the $6000 as it can never be withdrawn. That wouldn't be a good look. Either it's a legal (if unethical) trade, or not.
 
It's not a lock. It's the IP lock that the website does.
 
Thark said:
I would think you even have legal avenues open to you. I dunno Swedish law or even what jurisdiction MA/PE fall under but in the real world, stuff like this should easily be reversible. If you send the wrong amount of money via bank transfer, the seller has no right to the money. If you sign a contract and obviously wrong numbers are in there, you dont necessarily have to pay. It might even be illegal to have an asking price 60x of the value of a thing, depending on the thing. So even if MA doesn't act, 6k $ would be enough for me to go to a lawyer.
...
Click to expand...
Swedish law does include opportunistic exploitation of someone's mistake in the list of punishable offences. Another possible issue is a responsibility of everyone involved, like a facilitator of transfers or in whatever role, to minimize damages if empowered and permitted to do something about it and if they get knowledge about an ongoing problem. This would fall onto MindArk if it was found that there was neglect or refusal to at least halt things for investigation.

Edit: If it's true that the parties to this trade are in contact to get the situation resolved, then thumbs up we won't need any of this. In the past there were reported instances of genuine malice and when such legal hints were given, victims still rather wrote off the loss than going through the motions. This is as frustrating to watch as it must be for them because it keeps encouraging bad actors that getting away with it is easy enough.
 
Last edited:
As harsh as this situation is for the buyer, I personally would loose a lot of trust in MA if they interacted is this case...

The rules are pretty clear and we are talking about real money here, not WOW gold... If I was the seller and my account would be locked by MA or they interfere with the transaction I would most certainly use legal action against them (and I doubt that MA had a foot to stand on defending).

Ethically I am with the majority of people here, the right thing to do is to return the money to the buyer and we can live happily ever after, but the seller has every right not to do that.

just my 2 cents
 
ShienLongDuckDongZhen said:
I can only access my account info through the game when i try to go to the account page it gives me a 405 error in three of my different browsers ive tried
Click to expand...
This seems to be a common error on the web site and not necessarily because you're locked out.

If you withdrew, then ofc MA needs to be involved. If not, can't you make an in game trade?
 
In Love With said:
As harsh as this situation is for the buyer, I personally would loose a lot of trust in MA if they interacted is this case...

The rules are pretty clear and we are talking about real money here, not WOW gold... If I was the seller and my account would be locked by MA or they interfere with the transaction I would most certainly use legal action against them (and I doubt that MA had a foot to stand on defending).

Ethically I am with the majority of people here, the right thing to do is to return the money to the buyer and we can live happily ever after, but the seller has every right not to do that.

just my 2 cents
Click to expand...

I think there's an important distinction to be made.

There is a transaction I ask to reverse because I changed my mind, some time afterwards.

There is a transaction I ask to reverse because it was accidental, and I made it known immediately that it was accidental.

Allowing MA to adjudicate the first case would go against the spirit of RCE and the game. Allowing them adjudicate in the latter case not only makes sense, but leads to an ethical outcome.

To me the key element of the difference is how quickly it was reported. It were reported immediately, say within 24 hours, that would be pretty clear. If it were reported 6 days into a 7 day auction that would look like they got cold feet and just changed their mind. In between would be more gray, and would be a judgment call.

Granted, I understand why policy would be "all sales final". It is a cleaner policy that takes MA totally out of the interaction.
 
jwestonmoss said:
I think there's an important distinction to be made.

There is a transaction I ask to reverse because I changed my mind, some time afterwards.

There is a transaction I ask to reverse because it was accidental, and I made it known immediately that it was accidental.

Allowing MA to adjudicate the first case would go against the spirit of RCE and the game. Allowing them adjudicate in the latter case not only makes sense, but leads to an ethical outcome.

To me the key element of the difference is how quickly it was reported. It were reported immediately, say within 24 hours, that would be pretty clear. If it were reported 6 days into a 7 day auction that would look like they got cold feet and just changed their mind. In between would be more gray, and would be a judgment call.

Granted, I understand why policy would be "all sales final". It is a cleaner policy that takes MA totally out of the interaction.
Click to expand...
The reason why they can't do it is the same reason why they can't be bothered to answer support cases after 1 year.
 
Wow, that's a person you can trust then. Very nice. Congrats to all parts for a successful ending!
 
San said:
Swedish law does include opportunistic exploitation of someone's mistake in the list of punishable offences. Another possible issue is a responsibility of everyone involved, like a facilitator of transfers or in whatever role, to minimize damages if empowered and permitted to do something about it and if they get knowledge about an ongoing problem. This would fall onto MindArk if it was found that there was neglect or refusal to at least halt things for investigation.

Edit: If it's true that the parties to this trade are in contact to get the situation resolved, then thumbs up we won't need any of this. In the past there were reported instances of genuine malice and when such legal hints were given, victims still rather wrote off the loss than going through the motions. This is as frustrating to watch as it must be for them because it keeps encouraging bad actors that getting away with it is easy enough.
Click to expand...
just for the sake of the argument, let say:

who and how determine if someone did a mistake or not? the one who complains? cause i dont really understand something here like .. let's say someone is buying something from AH and he out of the blue decides that he" fking did a mistake" cause he found out a better deal or who knows he changed his mind over the night and he decides to say ..." oh boy.. i have bought something from AH and i think i made a mistake, i need to get the peds back from the AH transaction... MA pls HELP!"

is there something that literally says that 5000% MU is a mistake or 101% is a mistake ? who decides this and based on what? to lock someone or idk "force him" politely to refund a mistake is way ahead of any legal action as i see it

yes, good will and idk understanding is something else and i m into it, but in theory who can prove here that this was a mistake except the word of someone who say so

this thing opens op a shithole in my opinion, cause is a discrimination, if indeed is a direct involvement of MA in it except when both parties want it, all because for some "mistakes" is allowed and for others is not.

just my 2 pecs
 
.
 
Last edited:
Fiona Madonna said:
Ok, I just trade with seller and money are returned. I handed the reward and all parties are satisfied. I'd like to thank him for coming forward and ofc all the people here. Didn't really expect the community to react this way. I'm very humbled now.
Click to expand...
Wow glad this worked out in the end. Be more careful as the next guy might not be as nice
 
Praise to the error 425!!! lmao

Glad it ended well. 👍
 
tBANNA said:
just for the sake of the argument, let say:

who and how determine if someone did a mistake or not? the one who complains? cause i dont really understand something here like .. let's say someone is buying something from AH and he out of the blue decides that he" fking did a mistake" cause he found out a better deal or who knows he changed his mind over the night and he decides to say ..." oh boy.. i have bought something from AH and i think i made a mistake, i need to get the peds back from the AH transaction... MA pls HELP!"

is there something that literally says that 5000% MU is a mistake or 101% is a mistake ? who decides this and based on what? to lock someone or idk "force him" politely to refund a mistake is way ahead of any legal action as i see it

yes, good will and idk understanding is something else and i m into it, but in theory who can prove here that this was a mistake except the word of someone who say so

this thing opens op a shithole in my opinion, cause is a discrimination, if indeed is a direct involvement of MA in it except when both parties want it, all because for some "mistakes" is allowed and for others is not.

just my 2 pecs
Click to expand...
Sure i understand the implications and agree.

But could you whole heartedly say that you'd been okay with desicion that MA does not get involved with return if you'd made the mistake and didn't get your money back.

I dont think in legit mistake situation anyone would be happy about that.

RL you can cancel the trades in 14 days if product isnt what is promises to be or breaks.

Somebody has to supervise things even if it's RCE, i'd rather MA doing it then nobody.
 
tBANNA said:
just for the sake of the argument, let say:

...
Click to expand...
If it had come to the need to involve authorities, the argument would have been settled in a place where none of anyone's opinions here matter. I merely mentioned that in this country, provisions for such cases do exist. I am not arguing on either side.

Very happy to hear that this time, things were settled like they should between reasonable human beings.
 
Fanan said:
Praise to the error 425!!! lmao
Click to expand...
Just to clarify whether MA got actively involved or not, apart from initially saying no can do.
@ShienLong: Was there actually a ban, or just that annoying error trying to access stuff via the webpage? In that case, there's also the cancellation of the withdrawal I guess, which may have come from the submitted case to support.
Edit: no problem if you cannot clearly answer this. If so, then say: I'd rather not answer that - which leaves it open as to what the answer would actually be :p
 
Fiona Madonna said:
Ok, I just trade with seller and money are returned. I handed the reward and all parties are satisfied. I'd like to thank him for coming forward and ofc all the people here. Didn't really expect the community to react this way. I'm very humbled now.
Click to expand...
show final picture
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top