| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Brian Ballsack
   |
Posted - 2010.11.14 16:34:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: repuker
its odd how the contract was made and accepted at exactly the same time. i smell bull****.
Dont speak then and we wont be able to smell your breath.
|
Hax Zoidberg
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 16:38:00 -
[122]
Quote:
Regretfully we are forced to remove 42 billion ISK as well as 4,3 million units of megacyte you received when you failed a courier contract issued by JitaTradeGoddess. This mecacyte was created out of thin air by a duplication exploit. Due to the potentially game-breaking amout involved, we have no option but to take this action. We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
It seems that not only is JitaTradeGoddess a moron, he's also an exploiter. There goes my ISKies. 
|
Nikolai Kondratiev
Sphere Design Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 17:20:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Quote:
Regretfully we are forced to remove 42 billion ISK as well as 4,3 million units of megacyte you received when you failed a courier contract issued by JitaTradeGoddess. This mecacyte was created out of thin air by a duplication exploit. Due to the potentially game-breaking amout involved, we have no option but to take this action. We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
It seems that not only is JitaTradeGoddess a moron, he's also an exploiter. There goes my ISKies.
Heh that explains a lot about the contract collateral being undervalued, he was probably hoping for someone to steal it 
_
WTS Capital BPOs |
Vested Interest
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 17:21:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Quote:
Regretfully we are forced to remove 42 billion ISK as well as 4,3 million units of megacyte you received when you failed a courier contract issued by JitaTradeGoddess. This mecacyte was created out of thin air by a duplication exploit. Due to the potentially game-breaking amout involved, we have no option but to take this action. We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
It seems that not only is JitaTradeGoddess a moron, he's also an exploiter. There goes my ISKies.
Did they give you back your collateral?
|
Brian Ballsack
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 17:27:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Nikolai Kondratiev
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Quote:
Regretfully we are forced to remove 42 billion ISK as well as 4,3 million units of megacyte you received when you failed a courier contract issued by JitaTradeGoddess. This mecacyte was created out of thin air by a duplication exploit. Due to the potentially game-breaking amout involved, we have no option but to take this action. We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
It seems that not only is JitaTradeGoddess a moron, he's also an exploiter. There goes my ISKies.
Heh that explains a lot about the contract collateral being undervalued, he was probably hoping for someone to steal it
Steal it with another of his accounts more like, not realising how quick it would get snapped up.
|
Mike TheMiner
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 17:33:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Mike TheMiner on 14/11/2010 17:35:37
lol @ RAW23
highly amused by your posts.
Never before have i seen someone so confused and so over the top regarding such a simple mechanism.
Proof indeed, as suspected by myself on numerous occiasions, that no significant intelligence is needed to obtain an extensive knowledge of the english language.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 17:54:00 -
[127]
Edited by: RAW23 on 14/11/2010 17:58:02
Originally by: Mike TheMiner
Edited by: Mike TheMiner on 14/11/2010 17:35:37
lol @ RAW23
highly amused by your posts.
Never before have i seen someone so confused and so over the top regarding such a simple mechanism.
Proof indeed, as suspected by myself on numerous occiasions, that no significant intelligence is needed to obtain an extensive knowledge of the english language.
Please explain the 'simple mechanism' and its presumably simple interface with ethics.
Edit - And try to do it simply for simple people like me.
|
Razz XXX
Minmatar
Vashta Nerada Corp
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 18:13:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Razz XXX
Edited by: Razz XXX on 11/11/2010 12:12:27
Welcome to Mega-Rich club!!
May take while sell.
Nice catch.
Only a few individuals who have the most relevant and specific qualifications for the position in Mega-Rich club. I regretfully inform you that after careful review your admission as been denied.
|
Lecherito
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 18:26:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Razz XXX
Originally by: Razz XXX
Edited by: Razz XXX on 11/11/2010 12:12:27
Welcome to Mega-Rich club!!
May take while sell.
Nice catch.
Only a few individuals who have the most relevant and specific qualifications for the position in Mega-Rich club. I regretfully inform you that after careful review your admission as been denied.
How are we measuring the bar for "Super Rich" this week?
-L
|
Halborn
Celtic Technologies Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 18:32:00 -
[130]
Mega-rich i'd define as those that can get blown up in a titan and lose their pod with another few bil implanted and afford to pay it all back twice :)
Also I may have sounded a bit all for this (which really i dont like piracy the numbers went to me head too many billions) but Raw is completely right. This is theft in essence. Although it is worth mentioning that equivalent collateral should have been placed and I completely understand why the OP stole this you cannot argue against Raw point because from an MD perspective he is stealing from a person who is putting faith in him to complete an agreement.
------------------------------
CEO Celtic Technologies Inc. |
|
|
Max Cetera
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 18:55:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Halborn
you cannot argue against Raw point because from an MD perspective he is stealing from a person tard who is putting faith in him any random stranger to complete an agreement not get a free 10b+ from him.
Fixed. And sure.
|
Lecherito
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 19:07:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Halborn
Mega-rich i'd define as those that can get blown up in a titan and lose their pod with another few bil implanted and afford to pay it all back twice :)
Also I may have sounded a bit all for this (which really i dont like piracy the numbers went to me head too many billions) but Raw is completely right. This is theft in essence. Although it is worth mentioning that equivalent collateral should have been placed and I completely understand why the OP stole this you cannot argue against Raw point because from an MD perspective he is stealing from a person who is putting faith in him to complete an agreement.
As I argued on page 4, this is not a black and white case of theft.
-L
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 19:20:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Quote:
Regretfully we are forced to remove 42 billion ISK as well as 4,3 million units of megacyte you received when you failed a courier contract issued by JitaTradeGoddess. This mecacyte was created out of thin air by a duplication exploit. Due to the potentially game-breaking amout involved, we have no option but to take this action. We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
It seems that not only is JitaTradeGoddess a moron, he's also an exploiter. There goes my ISKies.
So do CCP GMs regularly spell simple words like "amount" and words found in their own game such as "megacyte" incorrectly?
|
Lecherito
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 19:26:00 -
[134]
Originally by: corestwo
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Quote:
Regretfully we are forced to remove 42 billion ISK as well as 4,3 million units of megacyte you received when you failed a courier contract issued by JitaTradeGoddess. This mecacyte was created out of thin air by a duplication exploit. Due to the potentially game-breaking amout involved, we have no option but to take this action. We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
It seems that not only is JitaTradeGoddess a moron, he's also an exploiter. There goes my ISKies.
So do CCP GMs regularly spell simple words like "amount" and words found in their own game such as "megacyte" incorrectly?
This whole thing absolutely reeks of phony. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if it were Ricdic on a comeback.
-L
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 21:00:00 -
[135]
Edited by: RAW23 on 14/11/2010 21:00:49
So, having done a little research into these questions I also decided to canvas the opinions of as many people with legal training as I could lay my hands on today. This is one response from a lawyer, inter-cut with two of my questions to him. I asked a few other questions as well, such as for some clarification on efficient breach, the answers to which are mixed in with the wider responses. I'm not suggesting that these responses are definitive (see his disclaimer) but I would be interested to hear what the other legal brains who have been posting in this thread think. Obviously, I'm inclined towards supporting these views because they are in line with my own  but I'm still more than open to being persuaded otherwise.
Quote:
Although contracts is not really an area of expertise of mine, I will try and offer a few somewhat educated - I hope - opinions on the questions you raise. (Disclaimer)
Originally by: RAW
"the basic question is whether real life legal codes would consider the deliberate failing of a courier contract and the keeping of the goods being couriered to be theft or if it would just be considered to be a fair exchange for the collateral, even if the contract was only partially collateralised?"
There are civil and criminal issues in this question. Most actions are dual in nature and have both of these issues present. Almost all criminal actions have a civil remedy attached to them, but they are entirely separate causes of action. "Theft" is a criminal matter, and conversion is it's civil cause of action. The satisfaction of one of these claims has no affect on the other.
The intentional keeping of goods that one was contracted to move would be theft - criminal - conversion and breach of contract - both civil. It would not, under any circumstances be considered a "fair exchange," whether there was full collateral or not. The doctrine of Efficient Breach does not relieve the breacher any sort of damages he may owe the breachee.
In contracts, the "make whole" doctrine generally applies for breach, The damages one may receive due to breach of contract may be entirely covered by the collateral that is forfeited due to breach, but the circumstance in which one deliberately breaches a courier contract when the item has 100%+ collateral should never happen. In order for it to happen, the collateral and the item would necessarily have to be different values (or the breacher would have to be irrational).
The satisfaction of the breach of contracts claim has no affect on the conversion claim (or the theft one). The conversion claim has various remedies available for it. that are not available under the contracts claim. These include equitable and punitive damages. In the case where one party intentionally forms a contract in order to steal the goods they are contracted to courier, the court would probably not only award punitive damages but also probably seize the good and return it to its rightful owner. And the breaching party would still be open to criminal prosecution for theft.
Originally by: RAW
"Basically, I think it might be more of a property rights question than a contractual question as the contract is for delivery of goods belonging to someone and I can't quite get my head around the idea that those goods can legally cease to belong to the person offering the contract just because the contractor decides to default on his courier obligations.á It seems to me that this would be theft with the loss of collateral serving as a partial restitution for the theft.á"
You are right to suspect this and have trouble with this notion. The goods never cease belonging the original owner. The right to possession and title never swap in this circumstance. The only way in which title switches from the original owner to someone else - unless it is the government - is by voluntary transfer. I hope these are somewhat helpful.
|
Hax Zoidberg
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 21:15:00 -
[136]
Originally by: corestwo
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Quote:
Regretfully we are forced to remove 42 billion ISK as well as 4,3 million units of megacyte you received when you failed a courier contract issued by JitaTradeGoddess. This mecacyte was created out of thin air by a duplication exploit. Due to the potentially game-breaking amout involved, we have no option but to take this action. We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
It seems that not only is JitaTradeGoddess a moron, he's also an exploiter. There goes my ISKies.
So do CCP GMs regularly spell simple words like "amount" and words found in their own game such as "megacyte" incorrectly?
Go file a complaint with GM Nova then. He's the one who sent the message. In the title of the message he also misspelled 'characters' as 'charcaters'.
|
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 23:14:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Go file a complaint with GM Nova then. He's the one who sent the message. In the title of the message he also misspelled 'characters' as 'charcaters'.
Would be happy to, however then you would end up with a ban for sharing GM correspondence.
|
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 23:56:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Of the 20 or so billion ISK I made prior to this 60 billion megacyte contract, I'd say about 80-90% was made from confiscating the contents of packages that failed their customs inspection.
You sir are my new hero *tips hat* |
sakk sokkaris
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 08:02:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Quote:
Regretfully we are forced to remove 42 billion ISK as well as 4,3 million units of megacyte you received when you failed a courier contract issued by JitaTradeGoddess. This mecacyte was created out of thin air by a duplication exploit. Due to the potentially game-breaking amout involved, we have no option but to take this action. We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
It seems that not only is JitaTradeGoddess a moron, he's also an exploiter. There goes my ISKies.
You had a tip in the description of his corp:
"JITEM is pure scam-free, original, intelligent trading. Contact JitaTradeGoddess for special contracts.."
|
Angelo Doelman
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 14:45:00 -
[140]
Originally by: RAW23
You are right to suspect this and have trouble with this notion. The goods never cease belonging the original owner. The right to possession and title never swap in this circumstance. The only way in which title switches from the original owner to someone else - unless it is the government - is by voluntary transfer or death. I hope these are somewhat helpful.
So, if you pod the dude, all is good?
|
|
|
JitaTradeGoddess
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 15:38:00 -
[141]
Dear Hax Zoidberg,
The contents within those courier contracts were in fact glitched over the usage of a zero-day exploit I myself reported and had it fixed. I am sure you thought I did a mistake over the collateral which I did not. There were supposed to be 500,000 units of Megacyte instead of 5mil, and therefore the collateral amount was set correctly. Since either you or the repliers to this thread have no tangible knowledge about the details underlying this problem, you can only rest assured that it is now fixed, and EVE Online has got a winner. Everyone wins...
If still unsure, ask yourself this question; would you wish to play a game where only cheaters win? If not, go on playing as ever, with your loss of 40b+, even you are a winner. 
|
Tyburn Stannis
Xenon Salvage Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 16:03:00 -
[142]
Bull****. You claim you found an exploit and you claim you reported it for the good of the game. And yet you found a need to set up a courier contract for your conjured goods instead of just leaving them in station to be deleted.
Real story? You lost your glitched fortune because you screwed up collateral trying to lay a false trail away from the creation point, and figuring you were about to get caught when this thread went public, you petitioned it as a "bug report" out of spite because if you couldn't profit damned if anyone else was going to. And now you're trying to play the selfless martyr as the last brazen attempt at a cover-up.
10/10 for the outrageous last throw of the dice. 0/10 for being a nasty parasitic exploiter. |
thelung187
Guiding Hand Social Club
Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 16:17:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Tyburn Stannis
Bull****. You claim you found an exploit and you claim you reported it for the good of the game. And yet you found a need to set up a courier contract for your conjured goods instead of just leaving them in station to be deleted.
Real story? You lost your glitched fortune because you screwed up collateral trying to lay a false trail away from the creation point, and figuring you were about to get caught when this thread went public, you petitioned it as a "bug report" out of spite because if you couldn't profit damned if anyone else was going to. And now you're trying to play the selfless martyr as the last brazen attempt at a cover-up.
10/10 for the outrageous last throw of the dice. 0/10 for being a nasty parasitic exploiter.
Throw in a baby with questionable parental lineage, a mild-mannered adult hiding a dark secret from their past, and toss in a love triangle for good measure, this whole situation suddenly will become a mid-afternoon EVE soap opera.
On-topic: a screenshot from Zoidberg of GM Nova's correspondence should provide some clearer guidance regarding the action in question. Thus far, a lack of locky-lock (or any other defacto editorial commentary) from any GM for revealing said correspondence is somewhat telling imho.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 16:19:00 -
[144]
Raw:
You misunderstand "efficient breach" and you asked your friend the wrong question.
Efficient breach says that the "penalty" for breaching a contract is merely to make the non-breaching party "whole" under the governing legal system. In Eve, making a party "whole" means that the non-breaching party gets the collateral that they required at the time the contract was entered into.
If party hauling the goods finds someone who values the goods more than the original offeror, and can breach the original deal, lose collateral, sell to new purchaser, and pocket a profit in the meantime, that is called an "efficient breach" and in the eyes of Chicago-school Law & Economics (see Richard Posner and his cronies) is not only AOK but is encouraged.
Here is Posner's original formulation of the issue, as published in the seminal work "Economic Analysis of Law":
Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $.10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory at great cost, and offers me $.15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $.15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $.15 to him. But it was worth only $.14 to A û $.10, what he paid, plus $.04 ($1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus the breach resulted in a transfer of the 25,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use.
In Eve, the damages suffered by "A" are stipulated damages: "A" specifically sets the damages he requires in the event of breach by virtue of his collateral requirement, and the "hauler" agreed to pay those damages by agreeing to the collateral requirement. This is done "in the shadow of the law" of Eve that says "all contracts are non-recourse".
I suspect if you asked your friend the question again and clarify that in the relevant jurisdiction (Eve Online) all transactions are non-recourse, he may change his mind. Note further that the question of "theft" or property rights or any of a variety of "torts" (including intentioanl breach of contract) does not arise in the example above at all - that's the whole point of the theory, is to insure that the only "cost" of breach is to make the non-breaching party whole.
In Eve, that means forfeiting the collateral that they themselves set.
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 16:26:00 -
[145]
Yeah this story is getting more and more fishy.
|
JitaTradeGoddess
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 16:51:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Tyburn Stannis
Bull****. You claim you found an exploit and you claim you reported it for the good of the game. And yet you found a need to set up a courier contract for your conjured goods instead of just leaving them in station to be deleted.
Real story? You lost your glitched fortune because you screwed up collateral trying to lay a false trail away from the creation point, and figuring you were about to get caught when this thread went public, you petitioned it as a "bug report" out of spite because if you couldn't profit damned if anyone else was going to. And now you're trying to play the selfless martyr as the last brazen attempt at a cover-up.
10/10 for the outrageous last throw of the dice. 0/10 for being a nasty parasitic exploiter.
I would get caught if I continued to use this, eventually, yes. But setting up a faulty (and inexplicably glitched) courier contract is not by any means related to the exploit. And, a setting up a courier for "laying a false trail away from the creation point" would actually be the most adverse thing to do as all contracts are logged for a life-time. Would you prefer that I did not 'find' the exploit, or 'report' this exploit, and let it remain unnoticed? Can I please learn what you would do in the higly stressful condition where you have unleashed a method to virtually forge unlimited ISK in your favorite MMORPG?
For me it grew intolerable, and I am more than happy to see it is gone, even if I lost trillions of ISK, my decision shall stand. 'Parasite'? Yes I am, if you call players who 'cannot' break the game as parasites.
|
Ash Donai
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 16:51:00 -
[147]
Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 14/11/2010 21:58:36
Edited by: RAW23 on 14/11/2010 21:00:49
So, having done a little research into these questions I also decided to canvas the opinions of as many people with legal training as I could lay my hands on today
I tried to stay away from this thread but you really pulled me in on this one, well trolled.
Still, in the unlikely even that you are not trolling you are a complete and utter ****** for bringing RL laws (which, by the way, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) into EVE. Just LOL and  . |
Hax Zoidberg
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 17:49:00 -
[148]
Originally by: thelung187
On-topic: a screenshot from Zoidberg of GM Nova's correspondence should provide some clearer guidance regarding the action in question. Thus far, a lack of locky-lock (or any other defacto editorial commentary) from any GM for revealing said correspondence is somewhat telling imho.
If you want confirmation of the GM action: http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/4397/gmaction.png
|
TooFatToFish
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 17:58:00 -
[149]
C/D
|
thelung187
Guiding Hand Social Club
Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.15 18:20:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
Originally by: thelung187
On-topic: a screenshot from Zoidberg of GM Nova's correspondence should provide some clearer guidance regarding the action in question. Thus far, a lack of locky-lock (or any other defacto editorial commentary) from any GM for revealing said correspondence is somewhat telling imho.
If you want confirmation of the GM action: http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/4397/gmaction.png
Interesting... that certainly lends some credence to the situation I suppose 
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |