There, fixed that for you :p

Thank you for your correction of my obvious mistake.

I wonder if we will get to have a player elected body to oversee these types of crisis and to check up on the CCP Devs, Internal affairs and the current CSM?

Damn, two hours left on my last account and I cant think of anything good/funny to say in what could be my last ever post, this will have to do...

Saw the reason CCP closed DNS's thread and it had nothing to do with rmt.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3755219#post3755219
So if you sell a character for $$$ without using a lottery it is ok?

I am sure I will see you else where, have fun in non-RMT games.

Interesting they closed the thread on the lottery angle but I suppose if they closed it for RMT too many people would be laughing our asses off at them

The other question is of course was the transfer successful? or did they dig them selves a bigger pit, deleting the character while Somer still RMTs?

Yeah no ****, "lets point at something obscure and avoid RMT."

Lotteries for character sales are not permitted under the Character Bazaar Rules.

As such, this thread is locked.

he didn't lotto the character. he lotto'ed a chance to bid on the character.

You're missing the point. Just like MMMitch told you before, he didn't directly raffle the character, he raffled a chance to get a Buyout on it. So he didn't sell it using a Lottery, he still sold it using an Auction and Buyout in the Character Bazaar forum section, just like the normal procedure endorsed by CCP for character exchange. The object of the raffle being a character buyout, plexes, ships or isk doesn't matter according to Somer Blink, Eve-Games.net and other unsanctioned in-game item raffling conducts, as long as they're all tranferred by the CCP designated trading mechanisms.

You're still missing the point. They aren't "hiding behind details". They are using the same procedure used by Somer Blink and others that has not only been unsanctioned, but also supported and advertised by CCP.

Moving your thread is not endorsement, it's making sure that it's in the correct forum for the topic.

Discussion is still ongoing internally regarding this kind of practice.

Reference to any endorsement of this by CCP Staff have been removed until an decision is made regarding it rather than misinformation.

Don't put words in my mouth in future.

We don't need to put words in your mouth. Your actions speak louder.

EVE Vegas is over, and the readers of this thread may find this interesting:

http://evenews24.com/2013/10/22/jesters-trek-sponsor-and-gamble/

I would agree that it could be worth waiting out...

CCP is waiting it out - if we wait it out too - that will be the last we hear of it.

B. Selling Items and Objects

You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction. The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions, newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game.

Accounts may not be used for business purposes. Access to the System and playing EVE is intended for your personal entertainment, enjoyment and recreation, and not for corporate, business, commercial or income-seeking activities. Business entities and anyone who is acting for or on behalf of a business or for business purposes may not establish an Account, access the System or play EVE. Accessing the System or using the Game for commercial, business or income-seeking purposes is strictly prohibited.

Australia

On 28 June 2001 the Australian Government passed the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA). The government said that the IGA was important to protect Australians from the harmful effects of gambling.

The IGA targets the providers of interactive gambling services. The IGA makes it an offence to provide an interactive gambling service to a customer physically present in Australia, but it is not an offence for Australian residents to play poker or casino games online. In stark contrast to the USA, sports betting online is also completely legal in Australia, with many state government licensed sportsbooks in operation, such as Centrebet, Sportingbet & Betfair.

The offense applies to all interactive gambling service providers, whether based in Australia or offshore, whether Australian or foreign owned.

In this particular case I don't think you'll be able to get back at them from a legal standpoint. For all effects, they are merely selling their business product, the Game Time Codes (albeit through a 3rd party referral system to increase sales and even rewarding it for the effort).

They are indeed not enforcing their own EULA and Term of Service rules to certain costumer(s), but I don't think that there is anything forcing them to. These EULA and ToS documents are created by these companies to act as legal backup that gives them full legitimacy to do whatever they want with the game and the costumers' accounts, they aren't created to protect the costumers in case the company decides to violate its own rules. There is no rule in the whole documents that forces them to enforce any of the other rules.

However there might be national laws written in the Business Code (either in Iceland or in Britain) that forbid a service providing company to have double standards when serving its costumers. It's a matter of contacting the Icelandic Consumer Defense Agency and inquiring them about the existance of such or related regulations and find out whether a lawsuit under such grounds may be filed. If the costumer service double standards are a violation of any existing Icelanding Business law and CCP's practice can be proven in court, then there is the possibility that the judge will deem them guilty of such practice.

Regarding Somer Blink, the best way to legally get back at him at the moment is to contact the Tax Administration Office of the country where he lives and inform them of his activity. He's most likely not declaring any of the income he's getting from the GTC referrals and just that situation has the potential to confiscate a big part (if not the total) of his profits. Like CCP he wont be suceptible of being sued for illegal gambling because he's merely doing it with fake money inside the game, while receiving a real money fee for the referral of the GTC sales.

You are putting this in the same bag as online gambling with real money, but that's not what's happening here. They are converting the real money into isk and rewarding the 3rd party with real money for the increased GTC sales, but still gambling with fake money only. Only if the isk was converted back to real money would this example apply.

They're gambling with fake money only and there isn't any law that forbids that.

People are buying 'Merchandise' with real money, with which to gamble. Not much different than buying poker chips to gamble, except that you will lose 100% of the time unless you convert your winnings into plex to pay for your account.

So in this case the bank wins 100% of the time.