open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked People say that courier contracts aren't very profitable...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

Author Topic

RAW23
Posted - 2010.11.15 18:47:00 - [151]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 15/11/2010 18:59:15
Originally by: Ash Donai
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 Rolling Eyes.


Not trolling, I'm afraid. If you look back through the whole thread, rather than glancing at a couple of posts you will see that the reason I went to do some research into the legal situation is because I have been told by a number of people that this does not count as theft under the law. Since I'm not a lawyer and I don't have time to do a law degree to completely satisfy myself on this particular question I asked around to find out whether what I had been told about RL law in this thread was true.

You might also want to actually read a few more of the relvant posts before responding because you will then see that I have no interest in claiming that what is legal in one real jurisdiction is legal in eve. Eve obviously has no legal system. However, real life legal systems have developed in order to regulate personal and social behaviours and, as such, the arguments that have gone into developing legal systems may well be able to throw some light on the ethics of personal and social behaviour in eve, especially in areas relevant to MD, such as the forming and breaching of contracts. If you think it is illegitimmate to apply any out of game concepts to ingame behaviour at all, I suggest you start developing an entirely new language and an entirely new conceptual framework. If you are saying that RL contract law is not a good place to start when trying to understand the ethics surrounding contracts in eve I would be interested to hear why and to know where you think we should start.

@Thrasymachus - the lawyer I asked plays eve. On the question of whether all loans and contracts in eve are non-recourse, see my comments above (post 100). I don't think that this can really be the case for a variety of reasons and am not sure that you would be happy with the consequences of this doctrine when applied to unscured loans on MD. If all loans are seen as non-recourse and efficient breach is invoked then it will always be an efficient breach to pocket an zero collateral loan and will always be inefficient to repay such a loan. I'm working now but I'll have a think about your other comments and respond in more detail when I have the time.

Ash Donai
Minmatar
Kanu Industries
Posted - 2010.11.15 20:32:00 - [152]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 15/11/2010 18:59:15
[rabble rabble rabble]
If you are saying that RL contract law is not a good place to start when trying to understand the ethics surrounding contracts in eve I would be interested to hear why and to know where you think we should start.


The bottom line is that there are no RL legal implication if one breaches a make-believe contract in a make-believe environment which was created for the sole purpose of entertainment. Ethics are irrelevant to the discussion. The reason I think you are trolling is that the above ought to really be obvious.

RAW23
Posted - 2010.11.15 20:49:00 - [153]
 

Originally by: Ash Donai
Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 15/11/2010 18:59:15
[rabble rabble rabble]
If you are saying that RL contract law is not a good place to start when trying to understand the ethics surrounding contracts in eve I would be interested to hear why and to know where you think we should start.


The bottom line is that there are no RL legal implication if one breaches a make-believe contract in a make-believe environment which was created for the sole purpose of entertainment. Ethics are irrelevant to the discussion. The reason I think you are trolling is that the above ought to really be obvious.


ShockedShockedShocked

You really haven't been paying attention have you? No one anywhere in this thread has talked about real life consequences for breaching an ingame contract. If you think that is what I'm saying then you have definitely missed the point!

The question is whether this counts as theft INGAME or, more specifically, in terms of MD transactions. It has been suggested by a few people that if we understand INGAME ethics in terms of real life legal rules, taking possession of the contents of the INGAME ourier package does not count as theft INGAME. I have been trying to understand what out of game rules can tell us about INGAME social relations. You are the first person to so much as mention out of game legal implications.

Rather than summarising posts as rabble rabble, I suggest you read them and comment on the actual content instead of just making **** up.

Or are you trolling?

Ash Donai
Minmatar
Kanu Industries
Posted - 2010.11.15 21:43:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: RAW23
You really haven't been paying attention have you? No one anywhere in this thread has talked about real life consequences for breaching an ingame contract. If you think that is what I'm saying then you have definitely missed the point!

Yes, I missed the point of why you need a RL lawyer's advice, or in fact anyone's advice, to determine that if you take someone's ISK by agreeing to do something and you don't follow through that you then scammed (or stole, whatever) from that person. It's not that complicated of a concept.

Lecherito
Posted - 2010.11.15 21:52:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Ash Donai
Originally by: RAW23
You really haven't been paying attention have you? No one anywhere in this thread has talked about real life consequences for breaching an ingame contract. If you think that is what I'm saying then you have definitely missed the point!

Yes, I missed the point of why you need a RL lawyer's advice, or in fact anyone's advice, to determine that if you take someone's ISK by agreeing to do something and you don't follow through that you then scammed (or stole, whatever) from that person. It's not that complicated of a concept.


It's an interesting discussion for the sake of discussion, on a board whose name is 50% composed by such the term. The fact that can't grasp why and how it is not a black and white issue, as you so suggest, indicates that you haven't the analytical skill to take part in anything discussed on this page.

TL;DR: GTFO

-L

RAW23
Posted - 2010.11.15 21:52:00 - [156]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 15/11/2010 21:53:32
Originally by: Ash Donai
Originally by: RAW23
You really haven't been paying attention have you? No one anywhere in this thread has talked about real life consequences for breaching an ingame contract. If you think that is what I'm saying then you have definitely missed the point!

Yes, I missed the point of why you need a RL lawyer's advice, or in fact anyone's advice, to determine that if you take someone's ISK by agreeing to do something and you don't follow through that you then scammed (or stole, whatever) from that person. It's not that complicated of a concept.


I would instinctively agree entirely. However, some other posters think differently and have suggested that this wouldn't count as a scam/theft in real life due to various real legal doctrines. I asked a lawyer (who also plays eve) to give me some comments on the situation. The idea that this wouldn't count as theft is not one I would intuitively agree with but one that I find quite interesting and worth exploring.

Caldariftw123
Posted - 2010.11.15 21:55:00 - [157]
 

Edited by: Caldariftw123 on 15/11/2010 21:55:28
Originally by: Ash Donai
Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 15/11/2010 18:59:15
[rabble rabble rabble]
If you are saying that RL contract law is not a good place to start when trying to understand the ethics surrounding contracts in eve I would be interested to hear why and to know where you think we should start.


The bottom line is that there are no RL legal implication if one breaches a make-believe contract in a make-believe environment which was created for the sole purpose of entertainment. Ethics are irrelevant to the discussion. The reason I think you are trolling is that the above ought to really be obvious.



It is fairly obvious if you READ the discussion that people are discussing for the sake of discussing, we find it interesting. Nobody here is suggesting we should then expect some consequence to the action whether we think it's theft or not. EVE is a game with few consequences, doesn't mean we can't enjoy a discussion or two, especially when 99% of the rest of the forum is troll-or-be-trolled.

Aerograt
Gallente
Blue Republic
Posted - 2010.11.16 04:21:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Ermmm ... the cheer section does realise that this is theft, right?
Ermmm ... You do realize this is EVE Online right?

Mr Majestyk
Combat and Recon
The Last Chancers.
Posted - 2010.11.16 07:52:00 - [159]
 

I know in the US anyone carrying hazardous cargo must have their truck labeled. Thus if we go by US laws the courier must know what they are transporting.

Now if someone told me I am carrying hazardous waste and I find I have 5 billion USD in the back of my truck you sure won't see me again.

RAW23
Posted - 2010.11.16 09:52:00 - [160]
 

A response to Thrasymachus' last post. This exchange is going a bit faster than my own research can keep up with at the moment so I will just sit back and enjoy for a bit.

Quote:

An interesting response, but a courier contract is fundamentally different from a supply contract. The situation Judge Posner ... poses is a situation where the person breaching the contract has ownership of the goods to be delivered. I am afraid that this distinction is dispositive. An error such as this would easily lead to a successful malpractice suit.

My previous quip about the efficient breach doctrine still holds quite well. The efficient breach of a contract does not affect the damages owed the non-breaching party. The idea of the efficient breach is simple on its face, but not widely accepted by any stretch of the imagination. The doctrine merely states that if the breaching party would be better off by breach than staying the course of the contract, he should breach. The breaching party would still owe the non-breaching party damages. The problem with this theory is that the certainty of contracts is many times the most valuable thing to the parties.

In this circumstance, in order to "make whole" the non-breaching party, the damages might exceed the costs of the goods unsupplied in the first place. If, after being put in a desperate situation, the non-breaching party is forced to purchase those widgets at .20 a piece, then the breaching party would owe these higher damages making him worse off than if he didn't breach.

But alas, the meat of the matter: This is not a supplier contract, this is a courier contract. You are contracted to take the goods from point A to point B. At no point during the entire contract do you own the goods you are delivering. A breach of this contract is separate from the intentional taking of the goods for your own purposes. In this situation, two causes of civil action are readily available - breach of contract and the tort claim of conversion.

"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."

It might be an efficient breach, but it is also a crime and a tort. This sort of analysis is a gross misapplication of the doctrine of efficient breach. Whether or not any player is personally liable - "recourse" - for anything in this game is irrelevant to the analysis. At this level, any action whether through scam, fraud, or otherwise would be "not only OK but encouraged." The act of breaching and stealing goods from a courier contract is scamming. The person doing it is a scammer, plain and simple. Just because there is no recourse in the game does not mean that the persons should be encouraged to scam.

Merely because actions cause a breach of contract do not shield these actions from general tort or criminal law. To clarify this, the transaction should be unscrambled. There are three separate actions: Person A accepts a contract to courier goods to point C from person B; Person A breaches the contract by not delivering the goods; Person A steals the goods and claims them as his own. The mere fact that is is economically beneficial to the breaching party does not relieve them of wrongdoing.

The tort and criminal causes rise from the third action and not from the breach of contract. To me, this seems like a layperson applying specific principles to incorrect circumstances. I certainly hope he is not a fellow man of the scales. Looking forward to further response.



mjolnir feaw
Gallente
Posted - 2010.11.16 14:12:00 - [161]
 

Must say I'm impressed by the discussion.

If I take it in a RP point of view, we capsuleers are above common laws. All recents chronicles agree on that point. After all, a law that can't be enforced could as well not exist. So until Concord (ie CCP) takes or allows retaliation measures in case of contracted goods, yes, undercollateral contracts is fair game.
It is unethical. Yes, it is. So are attractive courrier contracts leading to gank camp.
But it's the way Eve works: there's no point denying it.

Of course, anyone can accept and fulfil righteously a courrier contract with no or law collateral, and maybe I would, in the sake of RP, but would you?


Ash Donai
Minmatar
Kanu Industries
Posted - 2010.11.16 14:20:00 - [162]
 

Originally by: Lecherito
It's an interesting discussion for the sake of discussion...


I am going to fail to return something of value from someone who expected me to return it to them. Am I really scamming? Was it I who got scammed? Is life a scam? Discuss! Please also include large amounts of legalese and pseudo-intellectual reasoning for the sake of the discussion! Rolling Eyes

Tasko Pal
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.16 15:47:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: RAW23
A response to Thrasymachus' last post. This exchange is going a bit faster than my own research can keep up with at the moment so I will just sit back and enjoy for a bit.

Quote:
It might be an efficient breach, but it is also a crime and a tort. This sort of analysis is a gross misapplication of the doctrine of efficient breach.



What I see as the problem here is the expectation that the property in a courier contract belongs to the party initiating the contract. That's clearly not true in the case of Eve contracts. I think a better analogy would be a courier contract where the cargo becomes the property of the hauler while they're hauling it, with ownership returning to the original owner upon delivery at the destination.

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:52:00 - [164]
 

The issue as I understood it was whether or not it was ethical to breach a hauling contract in Eve, not whether breaching a hauling contract IRL is a crime or a tort.

The importation of criminal law and legal remedies such as conversion is irrelevant, because they do not exist in Eve. Nor do they constitute ethical signposts in Eve.

In Eve, for hauling contracts, you have a specified remedy: Collateral. That is both the beginning and the end of any discussion of ethics in game.

My raising of "unclean hands", "in pari delicto", "efficient breach" - this was all meant to show why, within Eve's system, it would be improper to say that breaching the hauling contract is unethical within Eve.

To say: "But in real life its theft" is true, but irrelevant. Ethics are a construct of the legal system of norms within which you are operating.

This is also why your complaints about recognizing that all collateral and obligations in Eve are "non recourse" is misplaced. It is absolutely relevant - its the beginning and the end. This does not mean that an out of game loan (or bond or stock offering) which is not securitized should always be breached. The distinction is that the whole basis for the out of game loan is trust - there is no enforcement system provided by CCP.

With hauling contracts, CCP has provided the offeror protection in the form of a collateral system. The ethics of exchanging the items to be hauled for collateral stops there. The other legal concepts are to help you understand why, given Eve's system, there may be justifiable reasons for recognizing the breach as ethical, namely proper resource allocation (a la Efficient Breach), just desserts (a la in pari delicto and/or unclean hands), etc.

I hope this is clear enough for you and your eve-playign lawyer friend to understand.

TL/DR: It is not "unethical" to breach an in-game hauling contract because the offeror of the contract has already represented his damages in the event of breach (intentional or otherwise), and is guaranteed to recover those damages, all via an in-game system. Supporting concepts: (1) thats the "game" rules we've all agreed to; (2) efficient breach concepts of resource allocation (which hold true and have value "in game"); and (3) undercollateralizing is a misrepresentation by the offeror (unclean hands/in pari delicto).


Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:54:00 - [165]
 

Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 16/11/2010 17:58:42
Originally by: Tasko Pal
Originally by: RAW23
A response to Thrasymachus' last post. This exchange is going a bit faster than my own research can keep up with at the moment so I will just sit back and enjoy for a bit.

Quote:
It might be an efficient breach, but it is also a crime and a tort. This sort of analysis is a gross misapplication of the doctrine of efficient breach.



What I see as the problem here is the expectation that the property in a courier contract belongs to the party initiating the contract. That's clearly not true in the case of Eve contracts. I think a better analogy would be a courier contract where the cargo becomes the property of the hauler while they're hauling it, with ownership returning to the original owner upon delivery at the destination.



You're absolutely right. There is no "ownership" in Eve, apart from possession. In Eve, possession = ownership.

The better description of what a "hauling" contract in Eve represents:

1. A sale of a specified volume of unidentified goods for a certain price (collateral).
2. An option to the purchaser of said goods to put the goods back to the prior owner at a certain location by a certain time in exchange for a price that consists of collateral + reward.

This is a far more accurate representation of a "hauling" contract in Eve, and eliminates all concerns of ethics, etc.

Kruntologist
The Krovicants
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:24:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: CCP Adida
Removed link to a private CCP correspondence.


You know, for once, it would be nice to get a bit of transparency from you lot regarding these types of situations (TEST TCU obviously comes to mind, Inevitability's alliance wardec drops, etc.). Clearly, a situation occurred (none of which included reproducible tidbits) that had major implications for the economy, moreover which is directly relevant to the subforum that we are reading.

99.9% of the time it seems like you're just covering the fire with a wet blanket and holding your hands over your ears saying "LALALALALA"; you're clearly monitoring the thread, how about a comment above and beyond the standard copypasta cleanups?


I don't want this bit lost in between the MDers/RPers 'nerd fight' so I really think this needs to be quoted again.

I can understand redacting sensitive material ouf of GM Correspondances (account names, perhaps names of people involved a la killmail posting rules) but to automatically squash any and all GM correspondance just causes more confusion and calls of CONSPIRACY where none exist.

Furthermore, it is moot 99% of the time because of the other well-known EVE dedicated forums (SHC, kugu) have no such rules in place so the information WILL get out if anyone cares enough.

Mr Majestyk
Combat and Recon
The Last Chancers.
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:57:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Kruntologist
Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: CCP Adida
Removed link to a private CCP correspondence.


You know, for once, it would be nice to get a bit of transparency from you lot regarding these types of situations (TEST TCU obviously comes to mind, Inevitability's alliance wardec drops, etc.). Clearly, a situation occurred (none of which included reproducible tidbits) that had major implications for the economy, moreover which is directly relevant to the subforum that we are reading.

99.9% of the time it seems like you're just covering the fire with a wet blanket and holding your hands over your ears saying "LALALALALA"; you're clearly monitoring the thread, how about a comment above and beyond the standard copypasta cleanups?


I don't want this bit lost in between the MDers/RPers 'nerd fight' so I really think this needs to be quoted again.

I can understand redacting sensitive material ouf of GM Correspondances (account names, perhaps names of people involved a la killmail posting rules) but to automatically squash any and all GM correspondance just causes more confusion and calls of CONSPIRACY where none exist.

Furthermore, it is moot 99% of the time because of the other well-known EVE dedicated forums (SHC, kugu) have no such rules in place so the information WILL get out if anyone cares enough.


It could simply be that if a GM were to step in and give an official answer then this entire discussion and future discussions wouldn't occur since all we would want is an official answer. I think part of the great thing about EVE is it is never black and white.

thelung187
Guiding Hand Social Club
Dystopia Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:04:00 - [168]
 

Originally by: Mr Majestyk
Originally by: Kruntologist
Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: CCP Adida
Removed link to a private CCP correspondence.


You know, for once, it would be nice to get a bit of transparency from you lot regarding these types of situations (TEST TCU obviously comes to mind, Inevitability's alliance wardec drops, etc.). Clearly, a situation occurred (none of which included reproducible tidbits) that had major implications for the economy, moreover which is directly relevant to the subforum that we are reading.

99.9% of the time it seems like you're just covering the fire with a wet blanket and holding your hands over your ears saying "LALALALALA"; you're clearly monitoring the thread, how about a comment above and beyond the standard copypasta cleanups?


I don't want this bit lost in between the MDers/RPers 'nerd fight' so I really think this needs to be quoted again.

I can understand redacting sensitive material ouf of GM Correspondances (account names, perhaps names of people involved a la killmail posting rules) but to automatically squash any and all GM correspondance just causes more confusion and calls of CONSPIRACY where none exist.

Furthermore, it is moot 99% of the time because of the other well-known EVE dedicated forums (SHC, kugu) have no such rules in place so the information WILL get out if anyone cares enough.


It could simply be that if a GM were to step in and give an official answer then this entire discussion and future discussions wouldn't occur since all we would want is an official answer. I think part of the great thing about EVE is it is never black and white.


To be fair, there is a difference between "questions left open-ended with implied vagueness in order to stimulate and facilitate community conversation" and "Eastern-Bloc-style methods of informational censorship that intentionally exist in order to stymie any effort to gain perspective or clarity on a wide-reaching issue or set of issues."

I don't think that a more open dialogue with the customer base is an outlandish expectation. ugh

Kruntologist
The Krovicants
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:15:00 - [169]
 

Originally by: Mr Majestyk


It could simply be that if a GM were to step in and give an official answer then this entire discussion and future discussions wouldn't occur since all we would want is an official answer. I think part of the great thing about EVE is it is never black and white.


There will always be philosophical debates, nerd fights and flame wars, have no fear.

If anything, CCP coming out with their OFFICIAL stance on certain events/'exploits' would at least keep the discussions ON TRACK since it would eliminate the distractions of alleged favoritism, conspiracy, etc from CCP.

It would also provide a reasonable expectation of what to expect if/when such an event would happen to you, your corp or your alliance.

(To be fair, I made most of this post while thinking about the recent GM ended wardec incident, not so much the courier contract guy losing his billions)

Nadarius Chrome
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:30:00 - [170]
 

Edited by: Nadarius Chrome on 16/11/2010 21:33:25
Has anyone suggested that Zoid is JitaTradeGoddess' alt and it was an attempt at laundering? "I stole it fair and square, you gotta let me keep it" kind of thing?

Oh and I love eve-search. Cached threads with links to moderated content kick arse.

And GM Nova needs to get a spellchecker built in to his game client. He even spelled "Eve Online" wrong. Laughing

edit: Why is JTG still active? Surely if there was a dupe exploit anyone abusing it would receive hammer of bannage pon face right quick?

RAW23
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:36:00 - [171]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 16/11/2010 21:42:11
Originally by: Thrasymachus

To say: "But in real life its theft" is true, but irrelevant. Ethics are a construct of the legal system of norms within which you are operating.



I think this may be where we fundamentally and irreconcilably disagree. Personally, I absolutely reject the notion that ethics are a construct of legal systems of norms. Rather, in my opinion, legal systems are formalisations of particular ethical codes, formalisations that tends to come with large flaws and various other interests frequently acting on their development. The idea that ethics are constructs of law is hugely problematic, as the legal but horrendous actions perpetrated in various countries in the last century (and, indeed, on an ongoing basis) shows (to me at least).
Quote:

This is also why your complaints about recognizing that all collateral and obligations in Eve are "non recourse" is misplaced. It is absolutely relevant - its the beginning and the end. This does not mean that an out of game loan (or bond or stock offering) which is not securitized should always be breached. The distinction is that the whole basis for the out of game loan is trust - there is no enforcement system provided by CCP.




But there is an available enforcement system out of game as well (whether it's provided by CCP seems immaterial). Hauling contracts in game can be uncollateralised, partially collateralised or fully collateralised. Exactly the same options are available out of game for loans on MD. I don't see how it is only the additional element of trust with regard to MD loans that makes theft a possibility when it is not an option for describing ingame acts.


Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Posted - 2010.11.17 01:57:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
The issue as I understood it was whether or not it was ethical to breach a hauling contract in Eve, not whether breaching a hauling contract IRL is a crime or a tort.

The importation of criminal law and legal remedies such as conversion is irrelevant, because they do not exist in Eve. Nor do they constitute ethical signposts in Eve.


The existence of such remedies is ancient and is built upon pre-existing ethical considerations. It is not wrong because of the legal remedies, it is independently wrong and the legal remedies are a societal construct to attempt to right these wrongs.
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
In Eve, for hauling contracts, you have a specified remedy: Collateral. That is both the beginning and the end of any discussion of ethics in game.

My raising of "unclean hands", "in pari delicto", "efficient breach" - this was all meant to show why, within Eve's system, it would be improper to say that breaching the hauling contract is unethical within Eve.

You have little idea, no matter how much Latin you misquote, as to application of efficient breach. I suggest you start by reading the chapter, instead of small excerpts you found on the internet.

The remedy to the action is not the issue, the ethics of it are. I am quite concerned by your inability to separate the two. Whether or not there is a remedy in EVE is irrelevant as to whether the action taken is ethical. Absent a legal remedy, actions such as stealing and murder would still be unethical.
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

To say: "But in real life its theft" is true, but irrelevant. Ethics are a construct of the legal system of norms within which you are operating.

Rofl. Good luck with that.
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

This is also why your complaints about recognizing that all collateral and obligations in Eve are "non recourse" is misplaced. It is absolutely relevant - its the beginning and the end. This does not mean that an out of game loan (or bond or stock offering) which is not securitized should always be breached. The distinction is that the whole basis for the out of game loan is trust - there is no enforcement system provided by CCP.

With hauling contracts, CCP has provided the offeror protection in the form of a collateral system. The ethics of exchanging the items to be hauled for collateral stops there. The other legal concepts are to help you understand why, given Eve's system, there may be justifiable reasons for recognizing the breach as ethical, namely proper resource allocation (a la Efficient Breach), just desserts (a la in pari delicto and/or unclean hands), etc.


There doesn’t need to be a remedy in order for something to be ethically wrong. I would hope you would agree that scamming in its most simple form would be unethical, although I am starting to question whether you would or not.
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
I hope this is clear enough for you and your eve-playign lawyer friend to understand.

Thank you for putting it in terms I can understand, I wouldn’t have been able to craft some of the jewels of logic and reason you typed out for this post.

tl;dr It is a scam. Whether or not there is a remedy in EVE is entirely irrelevant to the ethical dilemma posed. There is no remedy for absolutely anything that happens in the game, I would hope no one would argue that the absence of a remedy makes any action taken ethical.

-GV

Kruntologist
The Krovicants
Posted - 2010.11.17 03:49:00 - [173]
 

Originally by: Nadarius Chrome

edit: Why is JTG still active? Surely if there was a dupe exploit anyone abusing it would receive hammer of bannage pon face right quick?


Interesting question.. I'd surely like to think that if someone managed to dupe 40b of something they'd be banzored..

Cobalt Sixty
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2010.11.17 13:41:00 - [174]
 

Originally by: Kruntologist
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome

edit: Why is JTG still active? Surely if there was a dupe exploit anyone abusing it would receive hammer of bannage pon face right quick?


Interesting question.. I'd surely like to think that if someone managed to dupe 40b of something they'd be banzored..

Megacyte =/= Moon Goo?

(But really, who knows? Neutral )

JitaTradeGoddess
Posted - 2010.11.17 17:03:00 - [175]
 

I am not banned, because I have reported the exploit myself, and I can assure you my assets have been removed by GMs if that will help you stop creating conspiracy theories about CCP. Do not get me wrong, but those conspriacy theories look really pathetic... What is even more pathetic is your 'critical' approach to GM Nova's typos. If you need to discuss English language, I cannot say EVE Forums are the place for that.

Here, if you wish to learn what happened:

- I find an exploit which causes an instability on the quantity of items concerned
- I make an alt to try it
- Not expecting this type of stuff to occur on server-side, I try various things on the items to be sure, hastily creating courier contracts with the said items
- The first courier is sucessfully delivered in minutes, the others are accepted by Hax Zoidberg but not yet delivered
- I decide to report the exploit after playing with it for a while, remembering how the previous starbase duping exploit went unnoticed for a year and had game-breaking consequences. Not being personally involved in RMT, the ISK/assets that could be gained this way were totally useless to me
- Just as I report the exploit, I notice Hax Zoidberg naturally decided to fail the contracts as they contained ten times more items than I projected them to be
- I report the exploit
- The exploit is fixed by CCP developers in no time, and the assets generated this way are removed from respective accounts

This is the end of the story. If you really wish to append new stories to it, I hope you reconsider that you may be accusing people or companies with 'imaginary' wrongs.

Fly safe and fly un-exploited.

Athre
Minmatar
The Higher Standard
Posted - 2010.11.17 17:49:00 - [176]
 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

The better description of what a "hauling" contract in Eve represents:

1. A sale of a specified volume of unidentified goods for a certain price (collateral).
2. An option to the purchaser of said goods to put the goods back to the prior owner at a certain location by a certain time in exchange for a price that consists of collateral + reward.

This is a far more accurate representation of a "hauling" contract in Eve, and eliminates all concerns of ethics, etc.


That may be your definition, however it is far from mine. Please do not talk for all haulers.

I define courier contracts as moving contracts with a time stipulation.

Person A wants item(s) moved from D to E and I can choose to move them for the reward or not. If I so choose to move them for the stated reward it is my honor and duty to complete the contract to the best of my ability. The collateral is for failsafe aka if I fail to be safe and get blown up, the owner gets to keep my "insurance" (collateral) isk.

Tasko Pal
Aliastra
Posted - 2010.11.17 21:06:00 - [177]
 

Originally by: Athre


Person A wants item(s) moved from D to E and I can choose to move them for the reward or not. If I so choose to move them for the stated reward it is my honor and duty to complete the contract to the best of my ability. The collateral is for failsafe aka if I fail to be safe and get blown up, the owner gets to keep my "insurance" (collateral) isk.


So what happens if (as allegedly happened here) the contract value is far above the collateral and happens to be big enough to turn you into a gank magnet? What do you do then? What about those notorious 0.0 contracts that can't be delivered to station?

That's the problem I see with this approach to ethics. There is no recourse, if you're asked to do a contract that's far more difficult than you were led to believe when you accepted the contract.

AstarothPrime
Posted - 2010.11.19 14:42:00 - [178]
 

Well I was wondering why 60B worth of megacyte (and only megacyte) was doing 2 jumps from jita waiting to be transported...

This turned up to be a good story afterall - exploiter scammed a thief for 4b ISK Laughing

Eve it the best.

I.

Carnagge
Posted - 2010.11.19 15:29:00 - [179]
 

so just to clarify if the collateral isn't market value, steal it instead and sell it?

REDNECKPRICECHECK
Posted - 2010.11.19 16:15:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Hax Zoidberg
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. Crying or Very sadCrying or Very sadCrying or Very sad



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'.


Go check EVE-Search for the image link that was removed, and read the subject line:

ISK Removed from your EVE Onliune charcaters

:F <--- FAIL smiley


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only