14712 Posts in 2613 Topics - by 7960 Members - Latest Member: Sumthanbuub

Author Topic: Ban request for crackas  (Read 8142 times)

casun

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2012
  • 13 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:20151360 STEAM_0:0:20151360
« February 09, 2014, 01:54:10 AM » #11004
+6 items a day don't have a set price its a really unset price. On the other hand everyone knows +3 item a day jewel are 20m but you traded him 1m. 1m to 20m. If you wanted mark go get banned for getting 1/2 profit then maybe you should be banned too  :)

We could begin breaking this down to the basics of economics. What's worth 20m to you might be worth nothing to me. The person on the other end on the trade has no issue with the trade. Only a few people who have been playing a while have an issue. The ban is for scamming, but does the other person think he's been scammed? He sure didn't seem to care to me. If anyone has the ability to appeal for his ban it's the other party in the trade.

Skoomers

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2014
  • 49 Posts
    • STEAM_0:1:43891363 STEAM_0:1:43891363
« February 09, 2014, 02:03:15 AM » #11005

We could begin breaking this down to the basics of economics. What's worth 20m to you might be worth nothing to me. The person on the other end on the trade has no issue with the trade. Only a few people who have been playing a while have an issue. The ban is for scamming, but does the other person think he's been scammed? He sure didn't seem to care to me. If anyone has the ability to appeal for his ban it's the other party in the trade.


Or we could just use webster -A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.

Tsor

  • August 2013
  • 26 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:33552309 STEAM_0:0:33552309
« February 09, 2014, 02:05:46 AM » #11006

We could begin breaking this down to the basics of economics. What's worth 20m to you might be worth nothing to me.

That could make sense if the item was worthless kinda like a wood frag or crate, those can be given out freely. But a +3 item a day isn't even close to 1m or "worthless to players". Maybe if you paid 15m it would be reasonable.

aotonidas

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2014
  • 2 Posts
    • STEAM_0:1:29237021 STEAM_0:1:29237021
« February 09, 2014, 02:23:19 AM » #11007
the fact is that % wise, crackas trade was worse. In terms of pure profit, marks trade was twice as worse. Do the math, crackas made 19mil profit and mark made 60mil profit. If mark didn't get banned then neither should crackas.

Skoomers

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2014
  • 49 Posts
    • STEAM_0:1:43891363 STEAM_0:1:43891363
« February 09, 2014, 02:32:23 AM » #11008
the fact is that % wise, crackas trade was worse. In terms of pure profit, marks trade was twice as worse. Do the math, crackas made 19mil profit and mark made 60mil profit. If mark didn't get banned then neither should crackas.



Those are two different jewels and it's been resolved, and by that logic, if I were to buy 9 gold bars and make a 3 billion profit (which isn't exactly possible) I shouldn't be banned because Mark wasn't? It's immoral. Even if his was twice as worse, Mark didn't rip off the guy as much as crackass did.

casun

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2012
  • 13 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:20151360 STEAM_0:0:20151360
« February 09, 2014, 02:34:35 AM » #11009
the fact is that % wise, crackas trade was worse. In terms of pure profit, marks trade was twice as worse. Do the math, crackas made 19mil profit and mark made 60mil profit. If mark didn't get banned then neither should crackas.



Those are two different jewels and it's been resolved, and by that logic, if I were to buy 9 gold bars and make a 3 billion profit (which isn't exactly possible) I shouldn't be banned because Mark wasn't? It's immoral. Even if his was twice as worse, Mark didn't rip off the guy as much as crackass did.

But he did, for 41m more. That's just a different way of looking at it. Judging by your statements i'm beginning to assume it's less about the scamming and more about a personal grudge against crackas.

Tsor

  • August 2013
  • 26 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:33552309 STEAM_0:0:33552309
« February 09, 2014, 02:39:54 AM » #11010

i'm beginning to assume it's less about the scamming and more about a personal grudge against crackas.
Too bad skoomers is not even a month old to the server and he has only seen crackas twice.

And if assuming is your best defense is really depressing.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 02:44:17 AM by Lambo-san »

Skoomers

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2014
  • 49 Posts
    • STEAM_0:1:43891363 STEAM_0:1:43891363
« February 09, 2014, 02:42:36 AM » #11011
Too bad skoomers is not even a month old to the server and he has only seen crackas twice.

casun

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2012
  • 13 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:20151360 STEAM_0:0:20151360
« February 09, 2014, 02:44:04 AM » #11012
Too bad skoomers is not even a month old to the server and he has only seen crackas twice.

He's throwing a bunch of weightless statements into the argument. The solid cash vs percentage argument is a different side to the same coin. Shooting it down is just counter-productive to the argument.

No one has yet to mention that crackas is using the item, not flipping it for profit as was Mark's intention.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 02:46:25 AM by casun »

Tsor

  • August 2013
  • 26 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:33552309 STEAM_0:0:33552309
« February 09, 2014, 02:47:59 AM » #11013
How do you know mark's intentions? Your really just assuming your entire defense which is "mark is just as bad"

Skoomers

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2014
  • 49 Posts
    • STEAM_0:1:43891363 STEAM_0:1:43891363
« February 09, 2014, 02:50:05 AM » #11014
He's throwing a bunch of weightless statements into the argument. The solid cash vs percentage argument is a different side to the same coin. Shooting it down is just counter-productive to the argument.

No one has yet to mention that crackas is using the item, not flipping it for profit as was Mark's intention.



Regardless of Mark's intention, it goes both ways for both parties.

casun

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2012
  • 13 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:20151360 STEAM_0:0:20151360
« February 09, 2014, 02:50:30 AM » #11015
He purchased the item and posted on the forum a couple hours later. That's not what crackas did.

Tsor

  • August 2013
  • 26 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:33552309 STEAM_0:0:33552309
« February 09, 2014, 02:55:24 AM » #11016
This post has nothing to do with mark at all. I don't understand why that is all you bring up. It is all about crackas, if you wanna post about master mark make a ban request for him and post it there.

casun

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2012
  • 13 Posts
    • STEAM_0:0:20151360 STEAM_0:0:20151360
« February 09, 2014, 02:58:12 AM » #11017
The post is about a scamming ban. Mark recently brought the scamming rules into question and avoided a ban. His case is relevant for use here, as this is a ban request for the same reason.

Skoomers

  • This user has no personal avatar.
  • January 2014
  • 49 Posts
    • STEAM_0:1:43891363 STEAM_0:1:43891363
« February 09, 2014, 03:01:32 AM » #11018

In the +6 item per day jewel thread (seen here: http://moronyard.com/forums/index.php?topic=1793.0) where I myself was accused of scamming, nonSENSE comes out and says that underpaying or overpaying for an item is not an issue - but paying some atrocious price like 1 or 2m for a highly valued item in the community is clear grounds for ripping off another user, and would bring up the problem with him.
   

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.