Being listed as a scammer has never, to my knowledge, been an administrative punishment. Selatos said the admins won't punish anyone, but the trading community might be able to level their own form of "punishment". I'm not advocating for or against it (I was completely unaffected by the camping), I am just curious as to whether or not it's something that the trading community as a whole was considering.
Okay, Imagine this.
This has been going on forever. But let's think about within the last sixty days.
If I or anyone traded for a property I desired, In good faith, spent my time and resources on developing said property. What about that? If someone purchased a shipyard, in good faith, and spent sum less amounts of effort and resources to acquire DCs purchase workers, and begin a build.
It's all the incidentals I thinking about that will hurt.
The ones that are getting punished (IMO) are the ones that bought these items from the campers. Like it has been said, one person camps, buys for a handful of credits, and then sells to someone that had zero knowledge of anything. If that item is taken from them, and the credits returned to the original buyer then that camper wins twice. Only way this ends fair is for something to be thought up to protect the ones who bought the items from the campers. After all, a lot of stuff gets sold in 60 days.
Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, the more I learned about this when I heard of it and had it tested, it isn't like this was mostly just individuals trying to make some money.
Certain factions had teams of people camped out on trading stations buying everything they could get their hands on. When planets go uncontrolled as in Cloud City's case, they use these teams to buy 100 flats skys for 722k. 50 flats HR's for 320k.
Welcome to a trading war for control based on an exploit.
If you bought something with this exploit in good faith of not knowing and sold it.... be a man/woman of character and just refund your buyer. No, it shouldn't be a.... oh let's let everything in the past slide and go from here. 60 days is as long as they have records for and Sel's decision is good.
EDIT: Oh and yes, you will get the 7 mill you spent for a Kaloth back, or 722k you spent for a HR100. If someone paid you 15 mill for that HR100 or 80 mill for that Kaloth, just give them their money back.
Edited By: Simkin Dragoneel on Year 16 Day 37 11:23 ____________
What I am saying Sim is, what if they dont give the buyer back the money?? It is all good to say they should, but is the admin team going to force it? I doubt they will. However the admin team is going to take the items back (from who ever owns them now, regardless if they was one of the campers). Now the item goes back to the NPC market, the camper gets a refund, but there is nothing in place to ensure the innocent doesnt get screwed over. All that is in place is that the guilty party (if they sold it) wins not once but twice.
If the camper can not or will not refund credits for a re-sold item, try to have them listed as a scammer. Either way, someone is being punished, at the tail end of a long-standing exploit. Why hide it?
Yeah the ones being punished is the ones that bought something correctly. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that everything bought by the campers in an illegal manner shouldnt be returned to the NPC market. All I am saying is that something should be done to protect these people. If someone camped and bought a Lictor for 3mill then sold it for 60mill, then the lictor gets taken back and the 3 mill returned, there is nothing forcing them to send the 60mill back. And under the scam rules, it isnt a scam. The person sold and made over the item listed. And even if they are listed, then what??? nothing. I just see a lot of innocent people about to get screwed over when they have done nothing at all wrong. Hell, they might have even used a middle in some of these transactions. So there is zero in place to safeguard the ones that did everything by the book.,
“From Q&A Sims: It is not the admins job to reverse IC business deals.”
That is exactly what is happening though. The ones that camp broke a rule, they knew it was wrong yet did it anyway. And you are about to reward them for it. The person who bought them (and I am sure it is more then 1% over a 60 day period) are the ones that will be punished. If you are going to take items from players that did nothing wrong, you should at the very least punish those who broke the rules. It is no different then making a multi to gain income. It is a rule violation that brought in an insane amount of credits from little to no work at all.
“For the 1% of people getting supposedly screwed by this, would you prefer everyone who was following the rules and waiting to bid on auctions that never happened to be screwed?”
There is nothing guaranteeing those people would have won a legit auction anyway... so wouldnt they be the 1%? I am sure more people bought items from campers then those that would have won an auction. Besides, those people are going to have an opportunity to get to bid on these items.
So once again, the only people getting punished here are the ones that followed the rules, and bought something that was made to look like a legit sale. There is NOTHING in place atm that will protect the innocent. Other then a scammer list that hurts no one.
However, the Asims reacted as quickly as they could once it was exposed and it's very hard to come up with anything they could possibly do to fix the other problems.
Exploiting a game mechanic for profit and then not returning the profit when caught seems like a pretty obvious integrity issue.
I would think any player in this position would not want the prolonged and repeated exposure to the volley of "scammer" threads in their name that will result if they don't just simply return the credits. We will all confirm who was cheating and who not to trust in the future if these matters are not handled promptly and discretely.
QA. Quality Assurance, as in testing. Not Q&A, which is question & answer, as in support. Ugh.
Anyway, everyone is getting a bit amped up over something that isn't even an issue yet. The admins have already pulled the relevant transactions and will be able to track what was sold on and whether that can be easily reversed as well. It may also turn out that isn't a problem in the first place. Just relax.
Looking into now because someone finally told me about it. Before that, it seems it wasn't properly explained. Both the code and an actual conversation with Zhao indicate this wasn't the intended behavior.
"On two occasions I have been asked,—"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
- Charles Babbage
I know this is a suggestion, but relevant to the topic, can it be coded back to public auction instead of silent. I would like to see how much of the ante "I" need to increase to win the auction. As stated "A fair and equal chance to win."