| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Max Cetera
   |
Posted - 2010.11.11 14:03:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: RAW23
Ermmm ... the cheer section does realise that this is theft, right? There is no difference between stealing from a courier contract and scamming a bond or loan. Yes, the mechanisms are there to place adequate collateral for courier contracts. But such mechanisms are also there for bonds and loans. If you want to say this is a legitimate tactic then you can't really criticise anyone for scamming an unsecured bond. After all, the investors could have only invested in secured bonds ...
tl;dr the people losing out here are suffering for their own mistakes. But their mistakes are mistakes because there are thieves who would take advantage of them.
Getting ready to mass scam and tell people you just did some "ninja-bonding" ? Can't see any other reason for you to post that bull**** trying to relate exploiting disabled people who can't figure how to place a collaterals and scamming people you worked "hard" to gain their trust.
|
Kel'airy
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 14:55:00 -
[32]
Quote:
[ 2010.09.09 22:55:59 ] Skjordr Longfang > crack that thing open
[ 2010.09.09 22:56:23 ] Hax Zoidberg > I get 15M for 13 jumps on auto-pilot
[ 2010.09.09 22:56:34 ] Skjordr Longfang > but, i want to see whats inside =[
[ 2010.09.09 22:56:36 ] Hax Zoidberg > vs. possibly get a ship that's only worth like 10M
[ 2010.09.09 22:57:19 ] Hax Zoidberg > I know cargo scanners can peer inside courier contracts
[ 2010.09.09 22:57:32 ] Skjordr Longfang > you can also courier it to yourself or some such
[ 2010.09.09 22:58:51 ] Hax Zoidberg > but how would that tell me what's inside without actually opening it?
[ 2010.09.09 22:58:58 ] Skjordr Longfang > cant remember
[ 2010.09.09 22:59:05 ] Skjordr Longfang > but.. there is a way...
[ 2010.09.09 22:59:07 ] Skjordr Longfang > bleh
[ 2010.09.09 22:59:08 ] Skjordr Longfang > nvm
[ 2010.09.09 22:59:32 ] Kel'airy > you can open the container without breaking it...just like any normal container
[ 2010.09.09 23:00:22 ] Hax Zoidberg > I asked about opening a courier container several days ago, and someone said that opening it would fail the courier contract
[ 2010.09.09 23:00:34 ] Kel'airy > well they're wrong
[ 2010.09.09 23:01:05 ] Kel'airy > there's open container which just lets you peek inside, and there's break which actually breaks it open and gives you a warning box
[ 2010.09.09 23:04:45 ] Kel'airy > pretty sure you can even use 'view contents' remotely with the assests tab
[ 2010.09.09 23:05:07 ] Hax Zoidberg > OK
I've created a monster.
It puts a big grin on my face to see this insane plunder happen after watching you grow from a confused nublet to a professional courier ninja in TNA chat firsthand. Your story is the true spirit of EVE, and all those dramatic non-expansion trailers CCP loves to make.
Another small quote that will now seem ironic:
Quote:
[ 2010.09.13 13:08:34 ] Hax Zoidberg > well, some people are already quite rich
[ 2010.09.13 13:08:39 ] Hax Zoidberg > so another billion won't matter to them
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 15:16:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
edit: answer to RAW's question is - at least the characters (and maybe the people behind them) posting in this thread are mostly not the ones who condemn scamming in other threads.
Yeah - mostly true. Although I was disturbed to see someone I was about to invest in joining in the backslapping and announcing that he has a price too. But it is indeed the case that the majority of the posters are the dregs from other boards.
|
Captain Muscles
Caldari
Clan Farthammer
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 15:21:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Halborn
*feints*
if it were only a few bil i would probably complete the deal but that much its just so worth the piracy tbh :p
*parries*
Damn! Well played, sir!
____________________
Captain Muscles sez:
|
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 15:30:00 -
[35]
I'll chime in Raw.
In my opinion, there are scams, then there are blatantly obvious mistakes any person with an IQ of 40 wouldn't make. This falls into the latter, in which case, Darwin approves.
|
Transient Drifter
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 16:06:00 -
[36]
i can't exactly feel sorry for people who either don't pay attention to wtf they are doing, or are just too damn lazy.
Congrats Hax, well done :)
|
Tasko Pal
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 16:27:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Spectre Wraith
I'll chime in Raw.
In my opinion, there are scams, then there are blatantly obvious mistakes any person with an IQ of 40 wouldn't make. This falls into the latter, in which case, Darwin approves.
I don't think it's stupidity or laziness. I think the guy greedily wanted to save some isk. The courier fee required for a 14 billion isk collateral shipment is a lot more than it is for a billion isk shipment. I doubt he could have gotten it moved for a mere 30 million isk.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 16:39:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Spectre Wraith
I'll chime in Raw.
In my opinion, there are scams, then there are blatantly obvious mistakes any person with an IQ of 40 wouldn't make. This falls into the latter, in which case, Darwin approves.
There are two sides to this: the stupidity or whatever else leads to the error (tiredness, greediness etc) and the theft. The former leaves the door open for the latter but theft from someone who has acted stupidly is still theft.
A courier contract is à a contract. Breaching a courier contract is à breach of contract. Stealing the goods you have been contracted to courier is à theft.
The purpose of the collateral system is to protect you against theft. If you don't use it properly that just leaves you open to theft, it does not stop the theft being theft. If you leave your front door unlocked and you get robbed, sure, an element of the responsibility for getting robbed lies with you. BUT this in no way absolves the people that did the stealing from responsibility. It is NOT ok to steal from people that don't take the proper precautions against theft, stupid or otherwise.
It has often been stated on MD that anyone who lends money uncollateralised or invests in an uncollateralised bond is stupid. Does that mean scamming them isn't scamming? Of course not. They have laid themselves open to the possibility of being scammed for whatever reason (greed, stupidity, trust etc) but this in no way absolves the scammer of responsibility for his or her actions.
The two situations seem, to me, to be almost entirely analogous.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 16:40:00 -
[39]
Originally by: RAW23
Ermmm ... the cheer section does realise that this is theft, right? There is no difference between stealing from a courier contract and scamming a bond or loan. Yes, the mechanisms are there to place adequate collateral for courier contracts. But such mechanisms are also there for bonds and loans. If you want to say this is a legitimate tactic then you can't really criticise anyone for scamming an unsecured bond. After all, the investors could have only invested in secured bonds ...
tl;dr the people losing out here are suffering for their own mistakes. But their mistakes are mistakes because there are thieves who would take advantage of them.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I see a core difference between the two. One is a commodotized market (hauling contracts) the other is a personal relationship of trust (unsecured bonds/loans). Besides, to complete teh analogy you'd need to to compare collateralized bonds, since this was colalteralized. The fact is the issuer is to blame b/c he expressly undercollateralized. That is grossly different from an issuer expressly breaking a promise.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 16:49:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
Originally by: RAW23
Ermmm ... the cheer section does realise that this is theft, right? There is no difference between stealing from a courier contract and scamming a bond or loan. Yes, the mechanisms are there to place adequate collateral for courier contracts. But such mechanisms are also there for bonds and loans. If you want to say this is a legitimate tactic then you can't really criticise anyone for scamming an unsecured bond. After all, the investors could have only invested in secured bonds ...
tl;dr the people losing out here are suffering for their own mistakes. But their mistakes are mistakes because there are thieves who would take advantage of them.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I see a core difference between the two. One is a commodotized market (hauling contracts) the other is a personal relationship of trust (unsecured bonds/loans). Besides, to complete teh analogy you'd need to to compare collateralized bonds, since this was colalteralized. The fact is the issuer is to blame b/c he expressly undercollateralized. That is grossly different from an issuer expressly breaking a promise.
You're right that the issue of personal trust is absent in the courier scenario but personal trust is not integral, in my opinion at least, to the idea of scam or theft. Your comments seem to treat the contract between the courier and his client as if it has an implicit clause that there is no need to fulfil the contract if it is undercollateralised. I just don't see that. The point of the collateral is to ensure that the delivery is made regardless of whether the courier is personally trusted. Absence of adequate collateral does not equal license to steal.
As to needing to compare collateralised loans to collateralised courier contracts to complete the analogy, I don't think that is the case. An analogy doesn't have to be perfectly isomorphic, it only has to match structurally on the relavant points.
|
|
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 17:11:00 -
[41]
Originally by: RAW23
The purpose of the collateral system is to protect you against theft.
It may depend upon one's definition of "protect against", but I disagree with that statement. The collateral system exists to *compensate* the shipper for failure of the consignee to deliver the package. One possible cause of failure to deliver is "ninja courier" a/k/a "theft". But, the collateral does not in any way prevent any of the causes of failure to deliver.
Otherwise, I think RAW's position that "ninja courier" is equivalent to "unsecured loan scam" is accurate.
MDD
|
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 17:16:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Spectre Wraith on 11/11/2010 17:22:18
Quote:
It has often been stated on MD that anyone who lends money uncollateralised or invests in an uncollateralised bond is stupid. Does that mean scamming them isn't scamming? Of course not. They have laid themselves open to the possibility of being scammed for whatever reason (greed, stupidity, trust etc) but this in no way absolves the scammer of responsibility for his or her actions. The two situations seem, to me, to be almost entirely analogous.
This is where we don't necessarily see eye to eye. I see a big difference between an intentional act of deception to defraud and an act of sheer stupidity that would make Charles giggle. Now, I'm pretty sure no one is refuting that this isn't theft, of course it is.
If were going to be analogous....if you were perusing contracts, and saw a Navy Raven being sold for 560 isk, would you buy it or would you contact the contract issuer knowing he made a mistake? It's not quite the same as a courier contract you may argue, but you know no one in their right mind would list a Navy Raven for that.
It's unfortunate for the person who issued the courier contract, but Eve is pretty reknown for being a harsh and unforgiving place. If I were to issue a public bond/ipo, you can bet no amount of isk in my wallet would make me feel compelled to run off, that's just not my style (it's also not my style to go public, but that's another topic all together). However if I were in the OP's shoes and saw what I saw, I wouldn't hesitate to make sure Eve remains a harsh and unforgiving place.
I don't think the OP is bragging he stole, it comes across to me that he's pointing out stupidity and how he rewarded himself through another person's stupidity in a game notorious for just that.
We can both agree it's theft and I think we can also agree we both see it from a different point of view.
Edit - Another perspective, when the contractor presses the confirmation button he's agreeing to take said collateral as trade in case of loss. And between 2 complete strangers which courier contracts are generally intended for, who would take less then 100% collateral for their goods being shipped? 
|
flakeys
DRAMA Inc
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 17:38:00 -
[43]
To Raw23 , regarding my own comment it was not the fatc that he walked off with the amount wich surprised me , you got scammers and thieves everywhere.
The ting that STRUCK like lightning was the fact that this was on courier.You know anyone can accept them right?I have had investments up to 80+ Bille at a certain point but i never ever would give the loan to just anybody now would i?
There is the big awwwww thing , the person setting up the courier had to go from the basic to trust ANYONE with that stuff and it shows how wrong that can go.
|
Miss TechOne
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 17:44:00 -
[44]
hmmmm wd...
I would say now that some sort of rating and/or stats could be added to couriers avatar e.g This person has completed X amount of contracts and 0 breaches and is rated "Green" or if a "Bad" courier Amber/Red and you could have an option of what class of player you would have carrying your goods based on there History. My example is very oversimplified but I believe it would enhance courier "job" and be advantage for both parties.
With a minimum payment for greens in accordance with volume(maybe). I am 100% sure someone else could/will come up with a better system but you get the idea. All said and done you could become the most well known and trusted courier and pull a massive "scam" but ateast you would have traded your carrier/status for it. As it stands there is no risk for the "scammer" on this venture. If someone does something bad in this case stealing then there should be penalty's like pirates have, in that respect its not fair.
Please excuse my spelling.
To the OP ..... You lucky sod ! 
|
Mme Pinkerton
United Engineering Services
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 17:48:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Spectre Wraith
Edit - Another perspective, when the contractor presses the confirmation button he's agreeing to take said collateral as trade in case of loss.
By an extension of that argument society tells me that it's ok to commit murder as long as I am willing to spend 20 years in jail afterwards... 
|
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 17:51:00 -
[46]
Quote:
By an extension of that argument society tells me that it's ok to commit murder as long as I am willing to spend 20 years in jail afterwards...
Nope! There's no popup message that says, "Are you sure you want to kill this person?" IRL!
|
rain9441
Big Head Want Dolly
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 17:52:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Spectre Wraith
And between 2 complete strangers which courier contracts are generally intended for, who would take less then 100% collateral for their goods being shipped?
The collateral on those courier contracts would be somewhere around 15 billion though. I don't think many (or any) are going to accept a contract whose collateral is 15 billion.
The person who put up the contract likely thought that the contents would be hidden due to being in a freight container. They needed to contract the freight container to an alt as a courier first. After that take that alt and contract the 'package' to be taken to the destination. This way the person accepting the contract could not see what is inside. They could open it for 1 billion isk (the collateral) hoping its not empty, but nobody is going to do that.
There are plenty of reasons to contract out courier with less collateral than the value. Well, as long as the contents are hidden anyway.
|
Hax Zoidberg
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 18:12:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Hax Zoidberg on 11/11/2010 18:13:11
Originally by: rain9441
The person who put up the contract likely thought that the contents would be hidden due to being in a freight container. They needed to contract the freight container to an alt as a courier first. After that take that alt and contract the 'package' to be taken to the destination. This way the person accepting the contract could not see what is inside. They could open it for 1 billion isk (the collateral) hoping its not empty, but nobody is going to do that.
If you've ever wondered how you can turn your 60 billion into a mere 4 billion, please listen to this man.
If you're docked at a station, you can view the contents of a courier contract package embedded in another courier contract.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 18:23:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Edited by: Hax Zoidberg on 11/11/2010 18:13:11
Originally by: rain9441
The person who put up the contract likely thought that the contents would be hidden due to being in a freight container. They needed to contract the freight container to an alt as a courier first. After that take that alt and contract the 'package' to be taken to the destination. This way the person accepting the contract could not see what is inside. They could open it for 1 billion isk (the collateral) hoping its not empty, but nobody is going to do that.
If you've ever wondered how you can turn your 60 billion into a mere 4 billion, please listen to this man.
If you're docked at a station, you can view the contents of a courier contract package embedded in another courier contract.
But the point remains valid: The use of 4 billiion in collateral, instead of 60, may not have been a "mistake" at all, but rather a calculated risk taken to make the contract more likely to be filled.
Indeed, you could turn it around and say that the offeror of the contract was him/herself the scammer - for suggesting the value of the cargo was only 4 bill instead of its true value (60 bill), to induce acceptance. Hell, it may have even been a setup that Hax just got lucky and didn't get ganked on. So many possibilities ...
Bottom line: Offeror set the terms, they were merely accepted. And I don't view failing a contract as immoral or theft the way that I view "trust me for your investment, oops I pocketed it all!" as theft.
YMMV.
|
Bath Sheeba
Gallente
Another Success Story
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 19:12:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Edited by: Hax Zoidberg on 11/11/2010 18:13:11
Originally by: rain9441
The person who put up the contract likely thought that the contents would be hidden due to being in a freight container. They needed to contract the freight container to an alt as a courier first. After that take that alt and contract the 'package' to be taken to the destination. This way the person accepting the contract could not see what is inside. They could open it for 1 billion isk (the collateral) hoping its not empty, but nobody is going to do that.
If you've ever wondered how you can turn your 60 billion into a mere 4 billion, please listen to this man.
If you're docked at a station, you can view the contents of a courier contract package embedded in another courier contract.
But the point remains valid: The use of 4 billiion in collateral, instead of 60, may not have been a "mistake" at all, but rather a calculated risk taken to make the contract more likely to be filled.
Indeed, you could turn it around and say that the offeror of the contract was him/herself the scammer - for suggesting the value of the cargo was only 4 bill instead of its true value (60 bill), to induce acceptance. Hell, it may have even been a setup that Hax just got lucky and didn't get ganked on. So many possibilities ...
Bottom line: Offeror set the terms, they were merely accepted. And I don't view failing a contract as immoral or theft the way that I view "trust me for your investment, oops I pocketed it all!" as theft.
YMMV.
Wow. This is one of the weirdest rationalizations I have ever read.
"Oferor[sic] set the terms, they were merely accepted."
That is like saying, the carbon instead of charon scammers are OK people. They just set the terms, if some schlob accepts it is their fault.
*shakes head*
|
|
|
Vol Jbolaz
Odinsdagrting
United Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 20:48:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
At the time, I'm unaware that you can safely look inside courier packages, because when I asked in chat someone said it would fail the contract. It's not for a couple weeks after I start couriering that someone tells me that right-clicking a package and selecting Open is perfectly safe to do.
I think this is the important part. I, for one, have never dealt with courier contracts with freight containers. I assumed they worked like the packages that couldn't be opened. I have to imagine the original contract issuer didn't know this, either.
Mind you, it has been years since I've messed with courier contracts, so it is possible those can be opened, too.
Vol Jbolaz
Odinsdagrting CEO
Blog, @vol_jbolaz |
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 21:04:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 11/11/2010 21:07:51
Originally by: Bath Sheeba
Quote:
Bottom line: Offeror set the terms, they were merely accepted. And I don't view failing a contract as immoral or theft the way that I view "trust me for your investment, oops I pocketed it all!" as theft.
YMMV.
Wow. This is one of the weirdest rationalizations I have ever read.
"Oferor[sic] set the terms, they were merely accepted."
That is like saying, the carbon instead of charon scammers are OK people. They just set the terms, if some schlob accepts it is their fault.
*shakes head*
You misued [sic] as I didn't misspell offeror. Regardless ...
This is nothing like the "trick someone with a typo" scam. You are assuming that teh offeror of the contract made an error in choosing to set the collateral too low. I'm not sure your assumption is warranted.
The system is based NOT on trust, but rather on collateral, the offeror is in control of their own protections. They can choose to put 15 billion collateral (nobody will take it) or they can do what this guy did. Indeed, you could say that the guy who put LOW collateral is in fact engaged in a fraud himself because he is misrepresenting the value of the goods to be hauled. Why he chose to do that is known only to himself. But there is no need for recourse to morality in this situation because the offeror himself set the terms.
If he made a typo - that's a shame, but its not an issue of morality (in my view). If he intentionally set a too low collateral, then I'd say he got his just desserts. There is a legal concept known as "unclean hands" you may want to read about.
Edit: In pari delicto may be more on point. But they're related concepts.
|
Daerrol
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 21:30:00 -
[53]
Confirming I just got an 18.9 million Isk fully fit Basilisk support cruiser.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 22:26:00 -
[54]
@Thrasymachus
You seem to be assuming that courier contracts are a special type of contract which are bound by certain implicit rules such that it is impossible to steal from one. You appear (correct me if I'm wrong) to get to this position by privileging the collateralised status of the contract over its contractual status.
Here's how I see it. A courier contract is a contract between two people for person A to move good belonging to person B to a set destination within a set time-frame in exchange for a fixed reward. These are what might be called the essential elements of the transaction. A courier contract cannot be set up without player B owing some goods, offering a reward, setting a destination and a timeframe.
Now, because eve is full of untrustworthy buggers, an additional, entirely optional, mechanic is available such that the contract issuer can, but not must, also demand collateral in order to protect himself from the loss or theft of his cargo. A perfectly valid contract can be set with zero collateral if the person setting the contract is willing to trust whatever set of people the contract is open to (particular friend, corp, or all of eve). For A to take the cargo for himself is simply for A to take B's property, so that is theft.
Now, your understanding seems to be different. You seem to be assuming that actually the collateral is an essential part of the contract and that the option to take the cargo in exchange for the collateral is always a valid option (this is what I understand from your talk of 'misrepresenting' a cargo's value and thus, in some sense, scamming or getting your hands dirty by trying to get one over on the person who picks the cargo up). If collateral is set at X this is actually a signal to the person accepting the cargo telling him its value, either as much as or rather than a protection measure for the person setting the contract. As far as I can see, only on some such understanding can you claim that the person setting the contract is doing anything wrong by under-collateralising.
What I don't get is where such a view of courier contracts qua contracts comes from. It seems to be an institutionalisation of theft, by which I mean that these rules are only really relevant when a contract is set up with the expectation that it will be accepted by a thief and the only beneficiaries of such an understanding over a standard understanding of such contracts are the thieves. Misrepresentation of cargo value is only relevant to someone who is interested in taking the cargo (someone else's belongings) for himself if he is able.
I understand that this may derive from a practical sense of the eve- environment û that it is full of thieves and scoundrels û but the idea that the frequency of thieves in an environment should actually determine what a contract is understood to consist in is very strange to me. Certainly this notion of a courier contract seems to have nothing to do with the common real life notion. If I pay a courier company to move my belongings from one country to another and I don't ask for any collateral from them, or I ask for collateral that is less than the value of the cargo, and they take my stuff for themselves, then they are thieves.
I'm not entirely sure I've grasped or represented your position accurately so I'll ask. What, precisely, is it that you are saying stops the contract being what it looks like on its face: an agreement between two people for one to move the other's belongings? How, exactly, do we get to the situation where the cargo no longer belongs to the person that set the contract and becomes fair game for the person who accepts the contract to appropriate?
Btw û the 'the lady doth protest too much line'? Are you again implying that I'm going to scam? You said pretty much the same about a year ago on the grounds that I was too critical of people providing support to scammers. Care to give a time-frame.
|
sakk sokkaris
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 22:29:00 -
[55]
Jita Unlimited corp description : ''We who are not as others.''
JITEM is pure scam-free, original, intelligent trading. Contact JitaTradeGoddess for special contracts..
---------
Corp founded 11/09/2010 21:20 by JitaTradeGoddess char created same day 3 hours before. his bio : Building and destroying empires since 2003.
So basically this Jitatradegoddess, alt created by someone ( who if he is not BSing, is a 2003 player ) who have pockets deep enough to have 60 bill worth of minerals, and still did not figured out it would be a good idea to invest 1 bill in a freighter alt ?
|
Mme Pinkerton
United Engineering Services
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 22:37:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Mme Pinkerton on 11/11/2010 22:44:13
editing post
|
ForumWarrior
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 22:59:00 -
[57]
Originally by: RAW23
Yeah - mostly true. Although I was disturbed to see someone I was about to invest in joining in the backslapping and announcing that he has a price too. But it is indeed the case that the majority of the posters are the dregs from other boards.
Hey look, VV has a little sister.
---
ôThere is a powerful tension in our relationship to technology. We are excited by egalitarianism and anonymity, but we constantly fight for our identity.ö |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 23:24:00 -
[58]
Originally by: ForumWarrior
Originally by: RAW23
Yeah - mostly true. Although I was disturbed to see someone I was about to invest in joining in the backslapping and announcing that he has a price too. But it is indeed the case that the majority of the posters are the dregs from other boards.
Hey look, VV has a little sister.
Did you learn how to insult people in kindergarten today? It's been a few years since it has been possible to offend me by calling me a little girl.
Now, the comparison to VV on the other hand ...
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 23:30:00 -
[59]
Originally by: RAW23
If I pay a courier company to move my belongings from one country to another and I don't ask for any collateral from them, or I ask for collateral that is less than the value of the cargo, and they take my stuff for themselves, then they are thieves.
Incorrect. You really need to stop using the term theft because theft implies no consent and there is clearly consent in a courier contract.
A courier contract also clearly defines what happens if the contents of the courier package are misplaced or lost or destroyed or kept. And those terms are that if I do not get my stuff then I receive the collateral. You seem to erroneously think you are entitled to your stuff and the collateral. Let's use a loan contract. I get a 100 isk reward and put down my 500 isk starship as collateral. I If I do not pay any isk on the loan, the bank takes my 500 isk starship collateral and I keep the 100 isk reward. Is the bank a thief in this case? No.
Thrasymachus TheSophist is also correct in what he writes. It is up to you to determine the correct collateral and there are tons of people who's only job is to do just that. If you put in a collateral too high or too low and something bad happens then it is too bad on you. You can easily look up real world precedents on this if you so choose to. Adequate consideration might help you in your search.
It isn't ethical to purposely fail courier contracts in this way but it is not theft and is not stealing. If someone did that I would certainly never use their courier service again and think they are a shady person but if I just went up to someone and gave them a contract that was a really bad deal for me and a good deal for them, you cannot blame them for taking it.
Tl;DR interweb space lawyers in action pew pew pew
-
It's not "Play through a pre-set story, become stronger, do endgame". Gameplay is open ended, and you make your own story. Unless you're too afraid of 'pvp grief' to do anything relevant |
Darrigaaz
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 23:50:00 -
[60]
Firstly, I agree with Raw.
Secondly, the problem here lies with how the system allows people to view contents of a container without breaking the seal. Hax said himself he was fine just delivering courier contracts while thinking that he couldn't view them. Once he found out he could view them without penalty, he became a criminal.
Granted, he doesn't seem to have a moral objection to being a thief, but he wouldn't have become the thief had he not been able to view the packages without breaking the seal.
Imagine if FedEx drivers could view what's in your packages without breaking the seal.. Kinda makes you wonder how many deliveries would "get lost"...
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |