Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
THCS
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 00:56:00 -
[1]
Recently a friend has had 8.5 billion isk removed from his account for GTC sales over the last year or more (most have been outside the secure method), this happened because he was selling GTC's as many people do for isk on the bazarr forum section, nothing illiegal about it, now CCP on the 23/02/2007 introduced the secure gtc transfers but selling them the old way was still allowed at the time just was not going to be supported by CCP if you were scammed ect.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=480961
Now another recent addition to this has been the following post from CCP GM nova, if you look at the updated section at the bottom of the post it makes out that if you sell gtc's to a person who violates the EULA the isk will be reversed, now this update happened 1 month ago or so.
Linkage
Now the question I would ask would be, if I sell gtc using the secure method to a EULA voilater is that not the same as selling it through the unsecure method? the post makes no mention of that, surely CCP can not retrospectivly punish people or hold people accountable for a rule that did not exsist! Hence taking isk from the person going back over a year when the rule was only enacted a month ago.
Or is that if you sell the GTC using "our" secure method to a EULA violater its ok and we wont take the isk, but if you do it another way we will take the isk? either way its surely illegal isk? or because CCP laundered the isk themselves using "there" secure method its acceptable?
So anyway in closing my friend is probably going to quit over this having -8.5 billion in your wallet kind of ends your time in eve, that quates to CCP taking about $600 dollors from someone, now fine take away any transactions in the last month since the rule was introduced no problem but to apply the rule retrospectivly over the last year or more is just wrong.
Just because I sell a GTC to a isk seller or eula violater in no way means I am a isk seller or Eula violater, there is no way to know and a player can not be held responsable for someone else breaking the game rules. If I sell someone a Car and they run someone over am I to blame for there reckless driving..the short and simple answer is NO, if I sell someone a GTC and they break the EULA am I responsable..the short and simple answer is NO.
As above I would not be punished for selling the Car, players should not be punished if some tard that bought a GTC from them on a open forum decides he will break the rules.
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:03:00 -
[2]
Surly, CCP is joking here. They cant remove 8.5 billion from someone just because someone they sold to broke the law... That is like a grocery store getting fined because they sold stuff to a guy that went out and stole a car.
As well, what do you know if the guy is going to break the EULA or not? If the guy is a paying customer, how are you going to know beforehand that he is going to do something bad?
bad idea, CCP.
|
Vitrael
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:03:00 -
[3]
Originally by: THCS Now the question I would ask would be, if I sell gtc using the secure method to a EULA voilater is that not the same as selling it through the unsecure method? the post makes no mention of that, surely CCP can not retrospectivly punish people or hold people accountable for a rule that did not exsist!
No, it's not the same. Without using the secure method there is no way at all of proving the transaction wasn't totally illegitimate and you were not part of the EULA violator's isk sales. The exact details of your account are way too fuzzy to make an honest judgment of what happened. Just tell your friend to petition and have it escalated and if he gets an answer he doesn't like, chances are he was doing something he wasn't supposed to.
Also, the word is retroactively.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:03:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 11/10/2007 01:04:16 Can I have his stuff? Oh wait, it'll get taken away from me
Originally by: Liz Kali Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking
I owned someone on forums!!! |
Vitrael
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:05:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Can I have his stuff? Oh wait, it'll get taken away from me
Can't believe I didn't think to ask first.
|
Arvald
Caldari House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:06:00 -
[6]
Originally by: THCS Recently a friend has had 8.5 billion isk removed from his account for GTC sales over the last year or more (most have been outside the secure method), this happened because he was selling GTC's as many people do for isk on the bazarr forum section, nothing illiegal about it, now CCP on the 23/02/2007 introduced the secure gtc transfers but selling them the old way was still allowed at the time just was not going to be supported by CCP if you were scammed ect.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=480961
Now another recent addition to this has been the following post from CCP GM nova, if you look at the updated section at the bottom of the post it makes out that if you sell gtc's to a person who violates the EULA the isk will be reversed, now this update happened 1 month ago or so.
Linkage
Now the question I would ask would be, if I sell gtc using the secure method to a EULA voilater is that not the same as selling it through the unsecure method? the post makes no mention of that, surely CCP can not retrospectivly punish people or hold people accountable for a rule that did not exsist! Hence taking isk from the person going back over a year when the rule was only enacted a month ago.
Or is that if you sell the GTC using "our" secure method to a EULA violater its ok and we wont take the isk, but if you do it another way we will take the isk? either way its surely illegal isk? or because CCP laundered the isk themselves using "there" secure method its acceptable?
So anyway in closing my friend is probably going to quit over this having -8.5 billion in your wallet kind of ends your time in eve, that quates to CCP taking about $600 dollors from someone, now fine take away any transactions in the last month since the rule was introduced no problem but to apply the rule retrospectivly over the last year or more is just wrong.
Just because I sell a GTC to a isk seller or eula violater in no way means I am a isk seller or Eula violater, there is no way to know and a player can not be held responsable for someone else breaking the game rules. If I sell someone a Car and they run someone over am I to blame for there reckless driving..the short and simple answer is NO, if I sell someone a GTC and they break the EULA am I responsable..the short and simple answer is NO.
As above I would not be punished for selling the Car, players should not be punished if some tard that bought a GTC from them on a open forum decides he will break the rules.
hey its ccp's property, they can do whatever the hell they want
ok but seriously i think thats pretty stupid that they did that --------------------------- how about ya have a nice tall glass of shut the hell up eh? |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:06:00 -
[7]
if he didn't use the secure method, his loss
all we have is his word that he isn't isk buying slime
Originally by: Akita T No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
ollobrains
White Wolf Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:11:00 -
[8]
another reason to avoid reselling gtcs White wolf enterprises recruitment spiel |
WarlockX
Amarr Free Trade Corp Kinetic Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:11:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme if he didn't use the secure method, his loss
all we have is his word that he isn't isk buying slime
i think the point is, CCP said its legal, and then they changed their minds. that's fine, but you can't punish ppl for using something they said was legal. ----------------------------------------------- "I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation." |
THCS
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:12:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Vitrael
Originally by: THCS Now the question I would ask would be, if I sell gtc using the secure method to a EULA voilater is that not the same as selling it through the unsecure method? the post makes no mention of that, surely CCP can not retrospectivly punish people or hold people accountable for a rule that did not exsist!
No, it's not the same. Without using the secure method there is no way at all of proving the transaction wasn't totally illegitimate and you were not part of the EULA violator's isk sales. The exact details of your account are way too fuzzy to make an honest judgment of what happened. Just tell your friend to petition and have it escalated and if he gets an answer he doesn't like, chances are he was doing something he wasn't supposed to.
Also, the word is retroactively.
Thanks the spelling update, it was petitioned and GM said emails are on the database but wont investigate furthur..ie Feck off. However the point was evemail sales where not againest the Eula until recently, the secure system when it came in did not say all other ways where againest the eula it mearly stated the only supported method for GTC would be the secure method, ie if ya get scammed dont come crying to us.
However the ammendments to the rules ie Evemail transactions and isk removed ect are only recent additions so how can CCP justify retroactively taking isk from the over the last year?
|
|
THCS
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:13:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme if he didn't use the secure method, his loss
all we have is his word that he isn't isk buying slime
The transactions removed date back over a year, secure method was only brought in 6 months ago.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:13:00 -
[12]
Originally by: WarlockX
Originally by: Tortun Nahme if he didn't use the secure method, his loss
all we have is his word that he isn't isk buying slime
i think the point is, CCP said its legal, and then they changed their minds. that's fine, but you can't punish ppl for using something they said was legal.
no, the point is he has been consistently recieving isk from an isk seller, with no gtc trail, he has the option to petition and escalate, but someone would rather ***** on the forums
Originally by: Akita T No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
THCS
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:16:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme
Originally by: WarlockX
Originally by: Tortun Nahme if he didn't use the secure method, his loss
all we have is his word that he isn't isk buying slime
i think the point is, CCP said its legal, and then they changed their minds. that's fine, but you can't punish ppl for using something they said was legal.
no, the point is he has been consistently recieving isk from an isk seller, with no gtc trail, he has the option to petition and escalate, but someone would rather ***** on the forums
Was petioned mate trust me, I seen the response's, as you know a GM response cant be posted so I wont, as regards forums, unfortunatly at times the community itself needs to be informed of stuff like this so maybe the next person that comes along wont get screwed or CCP might take notice and realise wait how can we apply a rule retroactively.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:19:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Tortun Nahme on 11/10/2007 01:19:11 was it escalated? was an email to internal affairs sent?
quite frankly all we have is someones word on the forums that this happened at ALL so why should anyone be alarmed or care?
you'll forgive me if I save my tinfoil for something a little more important, as for CCP violating its own rules, it hasn't, it has has always maintained that it will remove the isk given by isk sellers, burden of proof is on your "friend" to prove he didn't buy it
Originally by: Akita T No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
Xen Gin
The Dragoons
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:20:00 -
[15]
Hmm, I wonder what CCP meant with "Secure".
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:21:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme Edited by: Tortun Nahme on 11/10/2007 01:19:11 was it escalated? was an email to internal affairs sent?
quite frankly all we have is someones word on the forums that this happened at ALL so why should anyone be alarmed or care?
you'll forgive me if I save my tinfoil for something a little more important, as for CCP violating its own rules, it hasn't, it has has always maintained that it will remove the isk given by isk sellers, burden of proof is on your "friend" to prove he didn't buy it
Why don't we call everyone on the forums a lier and call it a day?
He is letting people know about an issue, lay off buddy. -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:29:00 -
[17]
He is letting us know that ccp continues to fight against isk buyers and sellers, other than that the rest is baseless ranting
Originally by: Akita T No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
Cutie Chaser
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:34:00 -
[18]
Originally by: THCS
Now the question I would ask would be, if I sell gtc using the secure method to a EULA voilater is that not the same as selling it through the unsecure method? the post makes no mention of that, surely CCP can not retrospectivly punish people or hold people accountable for a rule that did not exsist! Hence taking isk from the person going back over a year when the rule was only enacted a month ago.
It's pretty straight forward.
If you use the secure method it is easy to tell what happened, and that a GTC actually changed hands.
If you use the unsecure method I could claim to be selling a GTC, and then just have an ISK seller send me ISK that I really paid for with my CC. As part of the ploy I'd send evemails back and forth. OFC they'd just be for show.
Thats why we have the secure method now.
*** Thats a Templar, the amarr fighter. Its a combat drone used by carriers. |
Vitrael
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:37:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Cutie Chaser
Originally by: THCS
Now the question I would ask would be, if I sell gtc using the secure method to a EULA voilater is that not the same as selling it through the unsecure method? the post makes no mention of that, surely CCP can not retrospectivly punish people or hold people accountable for a rule that did not exsist! Hence taking isk from the person going back over a year when the rule was only enacted a month ago.
It's pretty straight forward.
If you use the secure method it is easy to tell what happened, and that a GTC actually changed hands.
If you use the unsecure method I could claim to be selling a GTC, and then just have an ISK seller send me ISK that I really paid for with my CC. As part of the ploy I'd send evemails back and forth. OFC they'd just be for show.
Thats why we have the secure method now.
Nice hat.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:38:00 -
[20]
he is SO chasing you cutie
Originally by: Akita T No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:38:00 -
[21]
Much as I would like to be sympathetic, I can't get over the fact that this person would have had to sell a 90 day GTC every other week to make that much in a year.
How much ISK did he get for each GTC? Anything over the "norm" would have definitely have raised flags and led to an accounting....
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since this thread continues to fight against the people who derail it into the macro miners witchhunt. I will move it to features and ideas discussion where ...
|
Cutie Chaser
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:42:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Vitrael
Nice hat.
Pardon?
There is no tinfoil-hattery here. I merely showed an outdated method that ISK sellers utilized to get around tracking, that likely led to the changes to a secure method.
Rather or not that happened here, dunno. As I said, I'm not in a position to know.
*** Thats a Templar, the amarr fighter. Its a combat drone used by carriers. |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:43:00 -
[23]
your avatar, has a hat
Originally by: Akita T No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
Cutie Chaser
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:45:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Cutie Chaser on 11/10/2007 01:46:25
Originally by: Tortun Nahme your avatar, has a hat
Oh, yeah, my bad :P
Thanks!
EDIT: I guess it just goes to show that I've been on the eve forums too long when someone mentions a hat and my first thought is "tin foil hat" :P
*** Thats a Templar, the amarr fighter. Its a combat drone used by carriers. |
Vitrael
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 01:54:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme your avatar, has a hat
This man speaks the truth.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 02:03:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Vitrael
Originally by: Tortun Nahme your avatar, has a hat
This man speaks the truth.
LIES!
Originally by: Akita T No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 02:04:00 -
[27]
The transactions to which CCP is alluding is over a year old, according to the OP. CCP removed the ISK retroactively.
So, he was doing "non-secure" transactions, supposedly, even after the posted rules? Since you said: "...now fine take away any transactions in the last month since the rule was introduced..."
I would guess that CCP got suspicious, because of the continued influx of ISK, from the supposed "non-secured/non CCP Sanctioned" method, and audited his account logs going back as far as a year, just to see if there are any irregularities there.
I work for a tax agency, sorry ya all, but thats what my guys do too, when they see an irregularity in the audit, they dig as far as they can, to try and fine more.
Basically, they saw an issue in the past month, determined that it may not be legit, and audited the account for the last year to see if they find more - it seems they found more, or at least they think they found more, as such they withdrew the ISK they thought was being obtained in an illegal way.
1) You Petitioned. 2) You were denied. 3) You escalated to a Senior GM. 4) You were denied by a Senior GM.
IA is the last chance to prove his innocence man. That is the only thing I can think of. IA should investigate the case, and make a determination, if there is an unequivocal evidence of wrong doing on the part of the player, or, if there is overzealous enforcement on the part of the GM Team.
My guess your if your friend is innocent, the he will be vindicated by the IA. Unless the logs and transactions prove clearly that he was receiving an influx of ISK throughout the twelve month period, and on a regular basis, from the sources which can now be clearly identified by CCP as RMT elements, he should be vindicated.
|
Kimsukicom
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 02:12:00 -
[28]
I am the player the op is posting in regards too.
I would ask that a spectacle not be made on the eve forums over this issue.
I look at this from CCP's perspective and I must admit I cannot deny the concern on thier end. Yes Im angry, yes I feel cheated... but TBH now that I think about it, not so much by CCP than by the person (or now as i know it, group of people) I was selling GTC's too.
They specifically did not want to use the secure trading sytem when it came out. Obviously because they were buying the GTCs for me for ISK to resell along with thier currency ring. In my case I am geniune in my claims of GTC's being the trade and not direct currency purchases. But how many players out there who are not honest use the same excuse when they get nailed by CCP? Really CCP only has some in game chatter, 1 or 2 eve mails and comments on the isk transfers to go by, which could very easily have all been staged to protect the partys involved.
This is the way CCP sees it, I have actually had a bit of a realistic discussion with some folks and I can understand thier views. For this reason my accounts were not banned or warned in any way. Only a reversal of funds. According to them, in most cases my accounts would have been suspended for investigation and likely later banned. I guess I should be greatful that wasn't the case for me.
|
Xen Gin
The Dragoons
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 02:24:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Kimsukicom I would ask that a spectacle not be made on the eve forums over this issue.
That's like asking a live grenade with the pin pulled to not go off.
|
Space Hopper
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 02:40:00 -
[30]
Quote: am the player the op is posting in regards too.
I would ask that a spectacle not be made on the eve forums over this issue.
I look at this from CCP's perspective and I must admit I cannot deny the concern on thier end. Yes Im angry, yes I feel cheated... but TBH now that I think about it, not so much by CCP than by the person (or now as i know it, group of people) I was selling GTC's too.
you ve defenetly done sonething funny there
|
|
Vrizuh
Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 03:03:00 -
[31]
What, a player who understands the realities CCP must deal with? My god, get him OFF eve-o!
That said, are you going to sell the character? a -8.5 bil wallet would not only be a neat novelty/conversation starter, but cheap SP.
|
Mioelnir
Minmatar KULT Production Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 03:44:00 -
[32]
Iirc you can't transfer a character with a negative wallet.
|
illusionary beauty
Raid Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 05:01:00 -
[33]
Sadly CCP is rediculously Anal about isk sellers. Ive said it before and ill say it again. Anyone involved with isk sellers whether or not they know they are isk sellers get butt ****** by CCP. It sucks. Its unfair. CCP cant control the situation so they just screw everyone they come acrossed. I feel sorry for your friends loss, but these things have happened to alot of people.
|
NOK NOK
Bounteous Immortals TALIONIS ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 05:57:00 -
[34]
at the end of the day, if unsecured GTC was legal 8 months ago, and the ISK was made then.
Then CCP applies a new rule/law 1 month ago stateing that non Secured GTC selling is a eula rule then u cant take his isk off him.
Anything from the last month that was processed against the rules by all means.
However you can't enforce a law and back date it to when you want.
Its like if u get your drivers licence when you are 16 then 2 years on they say, you arn't allowed to get it until your 19, does that mean u lose your licence?
i mean come on.. once a law/rule is enforced its effective from that date not what happened in the past.
this place is getting worse by the day.
Bounteous we are, Immortal you are not.... |
|
Kaemonn
Forum Moderator
|
Posted - 2007.10.11 05:59:00 -
[35]
Do not discuss this here. If you need to discuss this, file a petition, or escalate it to a senior GM.
forum rules | [email protected]| Eve-CCG
Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |