| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shi Lang
   |
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:13:00 -
[1]
the best way to create accountability as to reduce the occurance of scams and to make players and theyre alts responsible for their actions would be to initialize an ingame system of "courts" completely supported by CCP, where if player A is scammed by player B player A can sopenna his character/alt ie the player himself to an ingame court where CCP looks at the evidence provided and makes a ruling where if player B is found accountable player B has the ISK worth of the scam deducted from his account as long as no EULA violations had occured, example Curzon Dax stealing the Navy Raven of a ISK buyer, pfft thats just dealing justice not scamming.
Just operate it completely on Common law or Napoleonic Code principles s that scam of scams or frivolous lawsuits are easily tossed aside and real work is done.
Neh?
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:53:00 -
[2]
firstly wow, I cannot believe how fast some people can utterly prove that they complete idiots, firstly its just an idea, secondly the point of a discussion thread is to discuss it, not to spam the OP with your immaturity.
Thirdly it is NOT legal ingame to blow you up to smithereens, if someone steals your money and if they're in high sec you cannot destroy them, and war dows cost isk to implement and have the ability to backfire.
Fourthly, hiring people t do the job is not neccasary, just say that if you can donate X many hours to it voluntarily and professionally you can get a Y% discount.
The thing about bring the player accountable and not his char is because the scammer can theoretically delete his char, its better to bring the character himself accountable to try to encourage at least semi decent behavior like how in real life ther's generally enough peer or social pressure to prevent about 90% of people from being complete $#%holes.
Fifthly as it turns out scamming is actually NOT condoned or supported by CCP, they offer a tonne of warnings about preventing scams to give them less work but it doesn't change that it is as it turns out not the official policy of CCP to allow scams, this is from a GM's word itself.
If you think a completely player driven system of courts and offer "legal" career path in Eve and hopefully you can get the same result.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 21:18:00 -
[3]
true, but i think for the vast majority of people who are new expecting people to be friendly only of course to end up getting taken advantaged of, and then unsubsribing from the game when if given te chance over time could of had a beneficial and positive contribution to the game, the game is open and freeform largely but this does not mean that everyone should behave like 12 year olds pretending to be big toughs when they're not, and to an extent to allow the vast majority of new players a chance to be immersed in the game certain precautions should be made before throwing them into the water to learn how to swim without a life jacket.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 22:28:00 -
[4]
fine dont waste ccp's tiume, just make it a player driven mini profession, people will do it.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 02:16:00 -
[5]
seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding on how this works, if a lawyer screws you, you can hire another lawyer to sue him, you see? It balances itself out as long as some lawyers are not *******s (hard to imagine i know) the system will largely work and will largely solve the scamming problem by making people more accountable for their actions.
Also yes people can exploit it but to a far lesser degree then free form contracts etc, just because something can be exploited doesnt man it should be avoided at all costs, contracts are cool but are exploited like hell. do we get rid of contracts? No! We simply add a check and balance to it.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 04:34:00 -
[6]
obviously whatever Rejaviks common law is and obviously if your insane you shouldnt be playing Eve.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 06:06:00 -
[7]
you post doesn't make sense. there are already laws in Eve, and numbers of ways around them, scamming was a completely unintentional and unsanctions side effect which have gotten worse with free form contracts I am certain that with a little creativity enforcing it will not be hard.
And what do you mean CCP doesnt force you to do anyhting? It forces you to do alot of things.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 19:33:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Tortun Nahme
Originally by: Shi Lang
you post doesn't make sense. there are already laws in Eve,
with the exception of high sec agression, what other ingame laws are there?
Quote:
and numbers of ways around them,
actually no, it will get you banned avoiding concord
Quote:
scamming was a completely unintentional and unsanctions side effect which have gotten worse with free form contracts
the devs say differently, frankly i think their opinion counts for alot more than yours.
Quote:
I am certain that with a little creativity enforcing it will not be hard.
then you either have no idea how hard it is to code subjective "enforcement" or you are a complete moron
Quote:
And what do you mean CCP doesnt force you to do anyhting? It forces you to do alot of things.
example? there isnt a single module or mechanic that you are forced into using, and no way to force others into using/doing anything either, you always have a choice, and control, of your character/ship
It was the devs themselves who have informed me that scamming is a completely unsupported and unintentional part of the game. And you have answered your own question on which mechanics of the game you are forced to go through.
And next whoeevr said the ******** statement that if you get scammed you deserve to get scammed, then I geuss if you get raped out in a parking lot you deserved it right for getting caught in that position right?
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:54:00 -
[9]
Quote:
...
pwned.
But yes, some of the more creative inputs are interesting, a warrant/arrest system where you would b allowed to attack someone whose "wanted" even in High sec without CC interfearing is an interesting addition.
Now the problem with an earler suggestion of having a player driven lawyer corp is how do you enforce the victom aside from ransoming him to give back the money? I think a certain point in these steps some dev action will be needed to force the perp to "oay up" and then let off on his merry way.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:04:00 -
[10]
I had recieved a message from a dev stating that scamming is in no way condoned or supported by CCP.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:34:00 -
[11]
Umm it IS relevent to the thread as some people here have said otherwise, as being the originator of the thread I think I have the right to determine what is or is not relevent.
One person here has claimed that CCP allows it or that it is supported by them, I am merely answering that based on the notice I have recieved that that is not the case. scamming (being the topic of this thread) is not in any way condoned or supported by CCP.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 00:23:00 -
[12]
no actually your just arguing semantics, they not condoning it = they not supporting it, they don't consider it an exploit because they have the warnings, but even with the scams there are still as I can tell from the help chat channel numerous people new to the game who still get taken advantaged of and I think some efforts eventually you know sometime after they fix the drone bug put in some kind of ingame framework of allowing players some means of punishing those and brining people accountable for their actions.
In real life you could walk on over and punch them in the mouth, in eve the best you can do is eject a can and hope he doesn't have a ship thats bigger then yours.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 02:47:00 -
[13]
"In real life" has every place in any discussion as a legitimate comparison and/or analogy.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 04:46:00 -
[14]
Too bad that despite all the time it took for you to research all of this that it in no way contradicts the intent of my thread or for that matter my claim that CCP does not condone it, nor does it refute that a player driven means of punishing scammers is somehow a bad idea.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.09.01 18:30:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Shi Lang
"In real life" has every place in any discussion as a legitimate comparison and/or analogy.
No, you're wrong, pure and simple.
It has no place here, and it never will, period.
Ooooh I am shivering in my boots due to your witty and cleverly constructed come back.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.09.02 23:15:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Shi Lang
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Shi Lang
"In real life" has every place in any discussion as a legitimate comparison and/or analogy.
No, you're wrong, pure and simple.
It has no place here, and it never will, period.
Ooooh I am shivering in my boots due to your witty and cleverly constructed come back.
I love people who reason like you do - Argument doesn't hold? No problem! Attack the person you're debating with.
If you're trying to remove all crediblity from yourself by smacktalking me, you succeded, nice work.
You call saying "your wrong" and then adding nothing pertinent to the conversation a credible and somehow well constructed arguement! *slaps forehead* I should've realized this sooner! Why waste hours writing a 5000 word essay on Libertarianism when I could just say "I am right." and leave it at that! And save myself 4997 words ands 10 hours of time spent on research. Brilliant, we should all learn by this example.
|
Shi Lang
|
Posted - 2007.09.03 00:57:00 -
[17]
Think of it this way, it would make rl concepts such as banking, investments, and player driven insurence infinitely more feasible without having to go through complicated policies of reimbursement and collateral.
|
| |
|