Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Please Help 120k peds Mistake!

Status
Me Really Never said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you describe is a scenario I've seen happening before my eyes, sadly. Was playing a bit of online poker years ago, when the ruling there suddenly banned all US players. They were literally shut out overnight, friends lost touch if they hadn't established contact by other means. The lawmakers then did not even understand that poker isn't gambling, but a competition of skill to utilize the chances you are dealt. But this is a different discussion.

This here is about trade of assets with real-world value. Gambling, loot, chances, whatever isn't even touched. I'm not aware of a precedent when a case of trade dispute in a VR has been tested in court, I would also be interested in learning how that went. The damage would have to be big enough to justify the effort. But jurisdiction is nothing theoretical at all. MA is a facilitator within it, not a judge. This is what most people don't understand, it seems. It is a bit counterintuitive, given the technical powers.
 
Whatever the outcome it will have consequences.

I think under exceptional circumstances, ‘without prejudice’ MA can decide to adjudicate or mediate a situation at their will without setting a precedence. Nor do they have to justify or measure that internal business decision with any other historical or future in-game transaction.

No one has broken any rules, it’s simply a question of ethics. If the trade stands… fine, if the trade is reversed….fine.

However all this talk about it opens the flood gates is complete rubbish. If I was MA I would view it like this, what creates the least damage to my business, and base my decision on that. Lets’ be fair, both sides have consequences.

But I say this; after the Helena trade, if this goes south as well. I will ‘NEVER’ deposit for deeds ever again, and I won’t be the only one. Not because of the ethics of the two situations or the players (I don’t know them personally), but because it simply is not worth the personal risk.

Rick
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: San
  • Like
Reactions: San
I value my house at £1Mil it wont sell at that price because its market value is £500k. This is the same as RCE items. We are putting a value on this of $12k because thats what we get in GAME for the items. But if MA pack up and take their ball home with them and I still own $12k Deeds what is the value then? $0 poof all gone up in smoke.

Game law and real world law are different things. If I kill you and take your stuff in PVP does this mean I have broken real life laws? Nope it means I won the game. If I bid on ebay and get an Iphone 7 for £50 that means I got a good deal woohoo. If I go to the casino and bet my last £10 on red and loose its gone. If I put £10k on 13 and it wins I win.

I am so sorry for MJ making such a big mistake and I hope some arrangement can be made between them but the account should not have been blocked. He has done nothing wrong.

My 2 pec as somebody who has hardly played for 2 years and is coming back to see the same things that have been happening as far back as 2006.
 
Droops said:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/10/dutch-court-imposes-real-world-punishment-for-virtual-theft/

http://www.technollama.co.uk/dutch-supreme-court-declares-virtual-goods-are-property

http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2012/12/04/what-is-the-legal-status-of-virtual-goods/#6429085a6be2
Click to expand...

this is interesting indeed but it doesnt even fit the situation a single bit.
1st. this was not theft. it was everything correctly done by ingame mechanics that were 100% functioning
2nd. in the link there was also blackmailing and physical punishment involved with is definitely not the case here.
3rd. its dutch law but swedish law should be applied or the english one...
if i would to argue now that all real world laws apply then i would take the german law that every trade on auction systems like ebay are final and a legal contract that has been fulfilled.
but the real outcome could only be decided by a judge
also this would be most likely decided by a civil rights judge and no real law enforcement
 
Last edited:
lol

u can send pm to wirlo

:) but donno if u will take back at last 1 lol:eyecrazy::eyecrazy::eyecrazy::eyecrazy:
 
Me Really Never said:
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.
Click to expand...

There have been a number of decisions:

On the 31st of January 2012, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands found that items in the online game RuneScape had been stolen from a player. This is a ground-breaking case as it is the highest national court in the West to rule that taking virtual objects in this way is theft under national criminal law. This ruling may have broad implications for the online games industry.
The case dates back to 2007 when two youths used violence and threats of violence to forced another player to log into the game of RuneScape. After the victim logged in to the game one of the defendants transferred virtual items and virtual currency!from the victims account to their own. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for theft but reduced the number of hours of community service to be served (taking into account Juvenile detention served).
The appeal did not turn on the material facts, i.e. whether there were threats were made or items were transferred. Rather, the appeal centred on the question of whether what had occurred was ‘theft’ as defined by the law of the Netherlands.
Key Arguments
The key arguments against the!incident!being defined as ‘theft’ considered by the court they were as follows:
Virtual items are not goods but an ‘illusion’ of goods made up of bits & bytes i.e. they are data
Virtual items are Information
The point of the game is to take objects from each other
The virtual items are and remain the property of the publisher of the game not the victim or the!defendant!- hence they could not have been stolen

The ‘Illusion’ argument
The court ruled that:
Virtual items have value in virtual of the effort and time invested in obtaining them
The value in Virtual items is recognised by those that play the game (including the defendents who went to the trouble to take them)
The Virtual items were under the exclusive control of the player – who was relieved of this control
The court made reference to cases of electricity theft which is a similar intangible good but certainly has properties of power and control, and consequently can be stolen.
The ‘mere data’ argument
The court agreed that virtual items are data, but crucially added that they are not just data. That is, the fact that virtual items have data like properties does not mean that they don’t also have properties that make them capable of being stolen. In particular the court noted again that the virtual item had perceived value and were under the exclusive control of a player.
The ‘I was playing a thief’ argument
The defence argued that one of the points of the game of RuneScape is to take virtual items from other players. The court noted that this was true but the way that the property was taken was outside the ‘context’ of the game.
The ‘not your property’ argument
The court agreed that under the RuneScape terms and conditions, the virtual items in the game are owned by the publisher of RuneScape who grant the players have a ‘right to use’. However it concluded that the items in question were under the ‘exclusive dominion’ of the victim until they were removed from them, hence the position of RuneScape being owners of the items (from the!perspective!of !intellectual property / contract law) is ‘not relevant’ in the context of the criminal case under consideration.Here the court made defence to money – which is the property of the sate but can still be stolen.
In coming to these conclusions the court noted that it is down to the discretion of the court to determine whether “due to the digitization of society, a virtual reality has been created, all aspects of which cannot be dismissed as mere illusion where the commission of criminal acts are not be possible” [Google!Translation with amendments by R Reynolds].
 
Me Really Never said:
this is interesting indeed but it doesnt even fit the situation a single bit.
1st. this was not theft. it was everything correctly done by ingame mechanics that were 100% functioning
2nd. in the link there was also blackmailing and physical punishment involved with is definitely not the case here.
3rd. its dutch law but swedish law should be applied or the english one...
if i would to argue now that all real world laws apply then i would take the german law that every trade on auction systems like ebay are final and a legal contract that has been fulfilled.
but the real outcome could only be decided by a judge
also this would be most likely decided by a civil rights judge and no real law enforcement
Click to expand...

Quite clearly you have no legal background or indeed training. You don't seem to understand how international law works or indeed how it is applicable to virtual worlds.

For a start you look at the EULA, the situs of the server and the whereabouts of the players. Depending upon where the action is taken a judge will then determine if he has locus to take the case.
 
gwit said:
Quite clearly you have no legal background or indeed training. You don't seem to understand how international law works or indeed how it is applicable to virtual worlds.

For a start you look at the EULA, the situs of the server and the whereabouts of the players. Depending upon where the action is taken a judge will then determine if he has locus to take the case.
Click to expand...

and that is why i said sweden is the point to look at the laws. this is of course only the case if he would sue mindark. if he wants to sue pitbull then it would be the place where pitbull lives. though he will most likely not get the needed information thus he would need to sue in sweden first to get the needed information from mindark and then sue at the living place of pitbull.
also there has been no eula violation, nor any law. he would need to start a civil rights process to get the difference from his price and the actual market value. the process would most likely not come to an end and would end up with an agreement between both parties, if there would be any chance to win at all.

also the needed money to start all this + the running cost of the process will most likely exceed the 12k usd value and the process may take several years. i would not recommend trying that.
 
das said:
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
Click to expand...
These are exactly my toughts.
Its not that this situation doesnt suck, because i'd hate be on MJ's feet right now
However MA breaking their own rules, whenever you try to reverse trades you get told "all trades are final" whenever something bigger, but within same rule set happened, suddenly magic happens.

I Understand that he got banned to not further the damage (in case he'd sell them asap), but it is also bullshit, he got banned because someone fucked up and support case?
Hell lets all send support case for those auction rats then and maybe half of them get banned just cos you did a "mistake"?
it is a bad move imo, because if this case has a turnaround, why shouldnt all others anyway.

James Francis said:
u can send pm to wirlo

:) but donno if u will take back at last 1 lol:eyecrazy::eyecrazy::eyecrazy::eyecrazy:
Click to expand...

Do you know about Wirlo / Helena story?

If you dont i sugest you to investigate or I can tell you a lil extra

I know wirlo didnt give Helena his cash back, why?
Cos well Helena I know for a while, he has an explosive temper, i understand. specially on such ocasion
But he sent someone that scammed Wirlo in the past, (since both were spanish, prolly they would have a common ground easier) to ask him to see the case.
However the guy was called scammer thief and such before even given a chance to speak, not all are as forgiving.
I did speak to Wirlo, wirlo did get scammed in the past by this one guy that was sent to talk to him.
How do you think they aquired his RL name adress, number and such that they were spreading around ? (they even posted on PCF).
That was breaking rules aswell.
Wirlo did say was a poor move by them, specially because both sides got kids, and preying on others kids is just a big no no, and so wirlo's decision was, if Helena wants some cash back, well he might aswell get it from the guy that he asked since he owes wirlo.

More to this i can add if some find it relevant. I didnt post it then becasue it'd take nowhere on the shitstorm.


However, sry for the off topic

Glad to see comunication, but sad for MA to not make it clear the ruleset
 
demonseedgfx said:
I value my house at £1Mil it wont sell at that price because its market value is £500k. This is the same as RCE items. We are putting a value on this of $12k because thats what we get in GAME for the items. But if MA pack up and take their ball home with them and I still own $12k Deeds what is the value then? $0 poof all gone up in smoke.
Click to expand...

Same with any investment in the real world. If a company goes bankrupt, kiss your investment good bye.

No investment anywhere, in any market, is 100% safe. Your country's government might backup an investment to a certain amount, but again that is not 100% gauranteed.


Rgds

Ace
 
Me Really Never said:
and that is why i said sweden is the point to look at the laws. this is of course only the case if he would sue mindark. if he wants to sue pitbull then it would be the place where pitbull lives. though he will most likely not get the needed information thus he would need to sue in sweden first to get the needed information from mindark and then sue at the living place of pitbull.
also there has been no eula violation, nor any law. he would need to start a civil rights process to get the difference from his price and the actual market value. the process would most likely not come to an end and would end up with an agreement between both parties, if there would be any chance to win at all.

also the needed money to start all this + the running cost of the process will most likely exceed the 12k usd value and the process may take several years. i would not recommend trying that.
Click to expand...

Again not true - most countries have small claims procedures. This would fall within the small claim court in the UK and probably a number of other countries too.

And regarding where to sue - this is a jurisdictional point as nowadays most claims can be enforced in other countries.
 
gwit said:
Again not true - most countries have small claims procedures. This would fall within the small claim court in the UK and probably a number of other countries too.

And regarding where to sue - this is a jurisdictional point as nowadays most claims can be enforced in other countries.
Click to expand...

depends... "If the value of a case is £10,000 or less, it will generally be allocated to the small claims track." regarding the UK. pretty close though depending on how they calculate it
 
There are a few good post about how to avoid this kinds of mistakes but,

Personally i think MA should also limit the amount of item one can bid on at once :scratch2:
Say 7 item max and untill 1 expire one can bid on another one again :yup:
Why 7, well with 7 one can bid on a full armor set if needed ;)

I feel the need for greed is way to much when it comes to these reseller folks :mad::laugh:
Example, is there really a reason to bid on every single A3 justifier II in the last week or so by 1 person :scratch2:
And lets not forget all other items this person has an bid on as well :silly2:
And yes, there are a few more of these reseller out there :eyecrazy:
One just have to watch the auction for a week and one will know everyone of them :yup:

By limiting the max item bid at once will distribute items more along other players because other may also get a chance to get something :yup:

And yes, some will say that these folks will just create more alts but having more atls with lots of bids will make it very hard and more time consuming to go thru all :yup: and so they will get stressed out and leave some :laugh:

Anyway, my 3 cents on the auction :laugh:
 
Erza said:
There are a few good post about how to avoid this kinds of mistakes but,

Personally i think MA should also limit the amount of item one can bid on at once :scratch2:
Say 7 item max and untill 1 expire one can bid on another one again :yup:
Why 7, well with 7 one can bid on a full armor set if needed ;)

I feel the need for greed is way to much when it comes to these reseller folks :mad::laugh:
Example, is there really a reason to bid on every single A3 justifier II in the last week or so by 1 person :scratch2:
And lets not forget all other items this person has an bid on as well :silly2:
And yes, there are a few more of these reseller out there :eyecrazy:
One just have to watch the auction for a week and one will know everyone of them :yup:

By limiting the max item bid at once will distribute items more along other players because other may also get a chance to get something :yup:

And yes, some will say that these folks will just create more alts but having more atls with lots of bids will make it very hard and more time consuming to go thru all :yup: and so they will get stressed out and leave some :laugh:

Anyway, my 3 cents on the auction :laugh:
Click to expand...

Limit - mayby. But 7 is way too little. Probably like 30 or so.

I often alrady swear at the selling auction limit and i am not trading with anyone - just selling my regular loot.

@edit:
it would not solve the problem we are facing here though.

Falagor
:bandit:
 
Last edited:
Mega said:
"All trade are final" is like every rule ermik. There are exceptions to it.

Some historic ones have already been mentioned in this thread.
Click to expand...

Where has history shown a trade player vs player that MA enforced to be reversed?

And one where scamming hasnt been the case?

All im saying is, be careful what you wish for.
 
I find the number of players advocating the hard-coding of restrictions into the auction system very disturbing. How narrow minded is it to assume without reason that the system should be trimmed to accommodate my buying/selling behavioral patterns, but disallow the next guy's? When developers rely too heavily on psychology to guess how players experience their game, and consequently what features players want and don't want, trouble arises. The proper solution is to have a Settings page in the auction, where the user can parameterize (and later change) their OWN restrictions (highest bid amount, highest stack size, etc.).
 
  • Like
Reactions: das
Additionally, I must point out that the vilification of traders/resellers/whatever you want to call them is not a good thing.

They provide essential liquidity for people, and also a great source of items when you have liquidity yourself.

If you do not like the idea of traders, please make sure that you do not shop at any supermarket but only buy directly from the farmer for every single one of your real life purchases.

Traders are essential to a functioning economy. Bad traders, sure, bash them. But people providing honest services should not be tarred with the same brush (7 auction bids... come on).
 
Me Really Never said:
and that is why i said sweden is the point to look at the laws. this is of course only the case if he would sue mindark. if he wants to sue pitbull then it would be the place where pitbull lives.
Click to expand...

I think this point warrants further inquiry. If so, the plaintiff would need to obtain a court order in Sweden first i.o. to get the other party's identity if not known, then proceed to their home country which can be daunting. Maybe this is only necessary if valuables are claimed which are not (anymore) in-game. Which does not so easily happen in EU, might apply more to other games. While MA holds the lid on it anyway and they can't withdraw, Swedish law could be applied. I don't know if it works this way though, only guessing here.
 
ermik said:
Where has history shown a trade player vs player that MA enforced to be reversed?

And one where scamming hasnt been the case?

All im saying is, be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

When certain locked avatars were "accidentally" (it wasn't a bug but an unwanted sideffect of the migration I believe) unlocked at VU10 and tried to give back items they had loaned at the time of their ban in 06 MA went in and retrieved the items after they were traded

but that's not nearly the same situation since all MA did was to enforce the "all trades are final" that occurred before the ban...which is still a dick move because they were informed the items were loaned and wanted the trade reversed

or so the story goes....
 
"All trade are final"

If MA change it now, it makes no sense to buy something from AH. Everybody can write a Supportmail and can get his or her Item back. Sorry Mary Jane but its your mistake, only yours. You playing with Money you need and after you lose it you come in the Community and let it like has somebody Scam you.

What you have do, AUDs going worthless and nobody wants them, or Entropia Universe going Bankrupt. You are like a Child, want the provit, make mistakes and after this you try to get you money back. But i say you you have not the right to get this Money back not in this online game and not in real world.

A conbtract is a contract, you have sell it, you have drunk to much and have make it, so its only your problem and nobody else. Becouse you stupidy a normal Entropian Player has get locked his account. What have he do wrong, he have buying it, was lucky, thats it.

It gives nothing to talking about, you have lose , he have win. You have a Wife, 2 Childern? How cares, why you take all you Money to Entropia, why you make a risk like this, and after you lose it, you says i need it blablabla...

I dont get it, everytime this happen, people think the have not make a mistake and hope the get something back. Never play with the Money you need! I really hope MA change not the rules and give you nothing back, i hope Bitbull hold all AUDS. It was a normal conract on AH.

Sry but Entropia goes from year to year more stupid. A player win a Auction and some people talking about scam and this guy talking about help. Help for what? How you are that we help you, Why we help you? Now everyboody get problems in Future becouse you make stupid decision and after that you have not balls to stay with it..wtf?
 
its not only entropia though... peoples stupidity in general increases every year. u should watch idiocracy... its scary because that could be the truth lol
 
Me Really Never said:
its not only entropia though... peoples stupidity in general increases every year. u should watch idiocracy... its scary because that could be the truth lol
Click to expand...

Yea Sign. I mean its really afraid me. Grown Mann over 18 + Responsible for a family with two children! Gambling all his savings and crying now. Now everyone else should stop the head. Incomprehensible to me.
 
caveat emptor. bad luck but that's it. if the guy gives you a refund, better be thankful, cause he certainly isn't morally bound to do so. "all trades are final" for a reason!
 
I was really tired and was going to fly to Calypso last night, I could have sworn I removed all my stackables and quickly clicked on the message that told me I was going into lootable PVP. I got shot down and looted and then realized that I hadn't cleared my inventory of lootables.

I lost 120k Peds because of a mistake.

Can MA please lock the person who looted me and make them give back my stuff?

I've got four kids to feed.
 
I was drunk many years in the past, engaged into a fistfight with a person a didn´t know.

Hurt him badly.

That sent me to prison for three years and left me with liability over 500k €.

Did anybody help me?

NO !

Do I still drink alcohol?

NO !

Sorry Mary bad mistake

All I can say:
Shit happens - live is a bitch!

Stand up, restart from scratch.
Good luck for your future.

Hope you learned the lession - don´t drink while playing with money or even better don´t drink at all.
 
Wait.... did I read that someone had his "life savings" in the game? :scratch2:
No, that can't be possible, I must have read it wrong.
 
billairboy said:
Wait.... did I read that someone had his "life savings" in the game? :scratch2:
No, that can't be possible, I must have read it wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe he meant his avatars life savings :confused:

btw, did you hear the one about the guy that mortgaged his house and bought an asteroid in a video game? :D
 
The whole thing is easy for both parties to sort out.

An error was made by Mary Jane, and no offence/scam has taken place by Pitbull, both parties are innocent.

Its wrong to call Pitball names, I genuinely believe he didn't know, and he will be a stand up guy and resolve the issue.

If both parties communicate, I am sure Mary Jane will be only too happy to give Pitbull a drink (some peds) as compensation or as a thank you for doing the right thing and returning the items.

On a separate note, I think its actually reassuring that MA have taken the matter seriously, it gives me confidence that perhaps they could help or mediate in any future error I made where considerable amounts of money are involved.

Hope you both sort it out amicably and life can continue for you both without the stress.

I vote for Entropian of the Year award goes to Pitbull for doing the right thing.
 
Status
Back
Top