Game Guides Archive
Thread: Innocent SWG Players do this as instructed by a CSR
Jabourn wrote:
CreatureHypnotizer wrote:LOL, im betting younthat SOE-collector is a scam.The poster could have made a char named that and gotten all the creds.
A form of SWG bankrobbery.Abe
Uggg! Finally!... I'm reading along, wondering when someone is going to say the obvious here. Thank you Abe.
Um....they're banning anyone who receives duped credits. So, why would someone make a 'toon only to recieve duped credits? They'd be banned too.
TashunkaSapa wrote:
Yasha wrote:
It's not an invitation. Yes, they are ment for sales not storage,
Precisely! When you list something on a vendor, no matter what the price, no matter if you are only intending to store - you are still offering it for sale. If someone buys it, you have no recourse. If you offer it at a price that only a duper could possibly pay, only a duper will possibly buy it. Again, since vendors are meant for sales and not for storage, it can easily be argued that the individual is placing such items there to be sold to dupers. By placing it at that price, the merchant consents to accept that amount of money in exchange for the item.
I suppose I should never give a smuggler a weapon because they could possibly double-slice it, or open a trade window to anyone because as I recall there was a duping method in the past that used this.
Yes, it can possibly be bought by a duper, but alot of people list a 999,9999 backpack simply for information about their wares, and yes as storage. Saying "they deserve" to be banned because they are using them as storage is ludicris. I agree wholeheartedly with you in that they shouldn't be used for such, but until they give more storage per lot, lift the 250 cap, or the like I understand why it is done. No I don't agree with it, but saying they're doing the right thing by banning people for this is quite another story.
To me, justifying why I need to cover my ass or why I should be held accountable for the malicious acts of a few, rather than them simply plugging the hole and banning the dupers themselves is just silly.
Yasha wrote:
TashunkaSapa wrote:
Yasha wrote:
It's not an invitation. Yes, they are ment for sales not storage,
Precisely! When you list something on a vendor, no matter what the price, no matter if you are only intending to store - you are still offering it for sale. If someone buys it, you have no recourse. If you offer it at a price that only a duper could possibly pay, only a duper will possibly buy it. Again, since vendors are meant for sales and not for storage, it can easily be argued that the individual is placing such items there to be sold to dupers. By placing it at that price, the merchant consents to accept that amount of money in exchange for the item.
I suppose I should never give a smuggler a weapon because they could possibly double-slice it, or open a trade window to anyone because as I recall there was a duping method in the past that used this.
Yes, it can possibly be bought by a duper, but alot of people list a 999,9999 backpack simply for information about their wares, and yes as storage. Saying "they deserve" to be banned because they are using them as storage is ludicris. I agree wholeheartedly with you in that they shouldn't be used for such, but until they give more storage per lot, lift the 250 cap, or the like I understand why it is done. No I don't agree with it, but saying they're doing the right thing by banning people for this is quite another story.
To me, justifying why I need to cover my ass or why I should be held accountable for the malicious acts of a few, rather than them simply plugging the hole and banning the dupers themselves is just silly.
PS. Boycott JTL until ground game is fixed
Yasha wrote:
I suppose I should never give a smuggler a weapon because they could possibly double-slice it,
You know that this can happen, and if it does, you might be banned for possessing such a weapon. Yes, it's crappy, I don't like it any more tna you do - but that's how SOE does things.
Saying "they deserve" to be banned because they are using them as storage is ludicris. I agree wholeheartedly with you in that they shouldn't be used for such, but until they give more storage per lot, lift the 250 cap, or the like I understand why it is done. No I don't agree with it, but saying they're doing the right thing by banning people for this is quite another story.
What I basically said was that anyone who received duped funds from someone buying such an item on their vendor is subject to the consequences of that action. Whether they like it or not, they made an offer of sale. That offer was accepted by a duper (the only ones who could possibly do so). Maybe now people will see that there is a real risk for using vendors for storage - a risk even worse than selling items you didn't want to part with.
A lot of attention is being paid to this part of my post but no one seems to notice that I also said that I object to the way SOE is handling this. Does the one-star bandit think they're doing it the right way, or is he or she just too stupid to read the whole post?
Shaan'ti Hokai (Kauri) 
-
All persons potentially involved in the dupe have been banned or suspended. -
People who have been banned or suspended are going through the appeals process now.Each case is resolved privately between the customer and customer service.The appeals process will be complete by early next week. -
Over 75% of the duped credits are being removed from the economy preventing hyper-inflation in the SWG economy. -
No vendor owners were suspended for purchases made from their vendor with duped credits, only people that had money directly transferred to them were affected. -
We are committed to maintaining a safe and fair playing environment and exploiting will not be tolerated.
TashunkaSapa wrote:
What I basically said was that anyone who received duped funds from someone buying such an item on their vendor is subject to the consequences of that action. Whether they like it or not, they made an offer of sale. That offer was accepted by a duper (the only ones who could possibly do so). Maybe now people will see that there is a real risk for using vendors for storage - a risk even worse than selling items you didn't want to part with.