WTB: Screenshot from Cokken

until you finally admit your sig!! *strangles* :P
 
*comfort Seveath* get on your brother's account and steal again from the gilsellers.. or.. even better.. LUCIFER!! GO GO GO XD
 
LoL anyone still up for cheese and campsongs?
 
If by cheese you mean sex, and by campsongs you mean....
 
*strangles Ish* :D
 
Valoran said:
1. The problem with RMT isn't that it puts gil in the hands of players who didn't work hard;

2. People buy inflated items they believe are necessary, such as Ochiudo's Kote.

3. The money is therefore maintained in a selective circulation, and the selected group that has access to it are only the persons who will buy gil.

4. Taking the gil or items away from them and damaging that selective control is a good thing for our economy, imo. Only problem I could see is if the guy who got the cape sells it and then uses the gil to buy back items that the gilsellers put up.
Click to expand...
I quoted some and numbered it to keep better track of what reply goes where:

1. If one more person says that, then I will actually search the Flameboard and quote every single instance in which lots and lots of people make the argument that gil buying is wrong because those who buy the gil didn't earn it, and thus shouldn't get it.

2. This has very little to do with RMT. In any game there are items that are in limited supply, but everyone and their child wants one. The desire for the item is unrelated to RMT. The price for the item is also largely unrelated to RMT, because even if regular players would obtain this item for resale, they would certainly price it as high as they possibly could while still being able to sell it.

The argument that people wouldn't pay XX million for it doesn't follow. Lots and lots and lots of regular players have more gil than they could possibly spend in a lifetime by virtue of having played for a long time and having a good business sense. Those players don't care whether they have to pay 10M or 50M for something they want.

3. This statement is imho incorrect. It completely excludes regular players who obtained gil by regular means and buy items off of gil sellers. Not a single player has to buy gil in order to afford an item.

4. If the person with the cape would hold that cape indefinitely, then indeed the damage to RMT would be tangible. However, I would put my money on the person selling the synthed errant sooner or later, thus potentially selling it to someone who bought gil, and thus completing the circle you used for your argument.

Bluefrost said:
So I agree with the whole idea that there's less money in the economy because it's going to Cokenn's wallet and not 3 random people's wallet for 10 million each, or however much it costs.
Click to expand...
Any which way you look at it, there is not less "value" in the economy. Cokenn had the cape synthed into an errant. No idea what it's value is, but it's fair to assume it is worth more than the cape.

The cape dropped for RMT.
Cokenn got it from RMT.
Cokenn converted it to a value-added item (at some expense).
Cokenn holds an item that is worth 50M (just made that number up)

In this process the economy has gained close to 50M.

Let's look at a different scenario:

The cape dropped for RMT.
Cokenn got it from RMT.
Cokenn sold it to someone for 40M.

In this process the as a whole economy has gained 40M, and Cokenn traded an item to obtain 40M out of the existing economy.

Basically the idea is that as soon as an item drops, the economy has already gained its value. It doesn't matter at all to how many different people you distribute that value. Giving 10M to four people doesn't mean there is less money around, it only means each individual didn't get more than 10M.

cokenn said:
I dont think this flame is about me anymore. ; ;
Click to expand...
I think that for some of us it still is. ;) Its those other guys who are focussed on the whole RMT thing that strayed off course.

Regardless, in the end we will all have to agree to disagree.
Some think it's alright to scam another individual in a game, if that other individual "deserves" it.
Others think that while there are shady types in the game, that is no justification to scam them.

We all know that cokenn thought about the whole thing for a while. We know that he did actually feel bad for a moment. To me that means that not all hope is lost. :thumbsup:

What I am curious about is: If Neogearzx came up with this plan, why didn't he implement it himself? Too scared?
 
Sculli, I think you misinterpreted #3? - The money gilsellers hold would potentially remain out of circulation, as long as no one bought gil. The only way for that gil to re-enter circulation is if someone bought it from them.

(Though that is technically incorrect since gilsellers do buy stuff off AH, one of em recently bought a Berserker's Axe..)


Sorry if I misread what you meant.
 
Sculli said:
1. If one more person says that, then I will actually search the Flameboard and quote every single instance in which lots and lots of people make the argument that gil buying is wrong because those who buy the gil didn't earn it, and thus shouldn't get it.
Click to expand...

A person who buys gil on the server didn't earn it themselves through the game's legal methods <3

Sculli said:
What I am curious about is: If Neogearzx came up with this plan, why didn't he implement it himself? Too scared?
Click to expand...

Neogearzx didn't have the real mecurial kris to trick them at the beginning
 
Mishaela said:
Sculli, I think you misinterpreted #3? - The money gilsellers hold would potentially remain out of circulation, as long as no one bought gil. The only way for that gil to re-enter circulation is if someone bought it from them.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I did misinterpret Valoran's statement. But, if that is the argument, then it really doesn't hold up, because if that were the case then RMT would run their own little economy which is physically disconnected from the rest of the server.

Let me try and restate Valoran's point to see whether I got it right this time:

  1. An item price gets inflated because of RMT (this is highly arguable, but let's just assume for this argument that it is true (which it isn't))
  2. A player gets frustrated with the fact that he or she isn't smart enough to make enough gil in-game, but luckily rich enough to buy gil (I still maintain that gil buyers buy it because their time is worth more to them than whatever it costs to buy gil they would have farmed in game during the same time period), and buys gil from the same people who are selling the inflated item.
  3. The gil buyer then proceeds to buy the item from the gil sellers, returning the gil he bought from them to them, but gaining an item.
  4. The gil sellers got the RL cash of the gil buyer, and they got the gil that the gil buyer bought back, but they did give up an item for it. So it's really not quite circular.
My issue was with: "The money is therefore maintained in a selective circulation, and the selected group that has access to it are only the persons who will buy gil."

This doesn't seem like a bad thing at all. In fact, if it would work like that, it would be awesome. In reality though, gil buyers do not only buy items from gil sellers, they also buy items from regular players. Those players may return the gil to the gil sellers, or they may not. Meaning that the gil sellers are "bleeding" gil all the time, and the selective circulation argument is off the table.

Elemmire said:
Neogearzx didn't have the real mecurial kris to trick them at the beginning
Click to expand...
Good point. :biggrin:
 
I can't believe people are making such a big deal about this. It's just a video game, and it's just a video game item.

Keep the item. Who cares about the guy that lost out, whom was also screwing over the economy?

I can't believe people are even suggesting that he drop the item. If he stole the item from a legitimate player, then it would be an issue, but since he stole it from a gil seller, it's a very moot point. Gil sellers break the EULA every minute they play, Seveath broke it for scamming the person.

An eye for an eye? Sounds good to me.
 
WTB: Sense for noobs especially Dejavu PST thanks.
 
Sculli said:
We all know that cokenn thought about the whole thing for a while. We know that he did actually feel bad for a moment. To me that means that not all hope is lost. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

That annoys me.

I've known Sev for a long time, long before FFXI came out. I know he's a good person. Don't pretend like he's fallen into some moral chasm and needs rescuing.

And between me and whoever else is so bored that they care about this topic now 20 pages long, I find it extremly difficult to feel sorry for anyone that breaks the ToS, be it gilsellers, mrargus bots, even people that use windower (hell, I even use windower). Everyone knows the chances they're taking and the consequences of those actions. Gil sellers know they're hated by most of the player base, they know what they do is wrong (if to no one else than SE). They took a chance and here's the payback.

Really, how much was the cape worth before resynth? 15mil? Maybe more, I'm not really sure. But does anyone really think that's going to hurt their wallet? They could go bot Serket and have it back in a day.
 
Sindarkus said:
I've known Sev for a long time, long before FFXI came out. I know he's a good person. Don't pretend like he's fallen into some moral chasm and needs rescuing.
Click to expand...
I don't need to pretend that it happened, he posted it himself.

I would like to apply your reasoning to our Chinese gil seller, let's call him Lowping. Lowping has friends who have known him for a long time, long before FFXI came out. They know that Lowping a good person, a loving father and husband. Why do we pretend that Lowping has fallen into some moral chasm by selling gil to us and needs rescuing? From Lowping's point of view selling gil is no more wrong to him than going over the speed limit is to us (except we can actually get in big trouble for that).

My point is that we all look at things from our own frame of reference. If we keep doing that, we will never able to understand where the other person is coming from. Read again, understand, not agree with their position, but truly understand their position.

I believe that when I look at it from Sev's frame of reference, I see initial hesitation, and then I see some regret, however minor. What that means to me is that he did consider his actions, before and after, which is more than a lot of other people would have done.

Whether anyone else agrees with my view in this particular case doesn't really matter to me. Until I get new information about a different issue, I will consider Sev as someone who intentionally screwed another person (I hope we are still considering Lowping a person) over, and felt some regret or shame afterwards. While that is not the best possible position he could have in my book, it is above those who would feel 100% justified in screwing Lowping.

Is Sev affected by how he does in my book? Nope, not in any way.
Knowing that; Should he care how he does in my book?
That's for him to decide, and for no one else.
 
Sculli said:
See, and that is were we actually disagree. I don't believe it's ineptitude, I believe it's unwillingness. If I were SE, would I get rid of RMT? Hell, no! Why should I? Gil sellers pay for accounts, gil buyers pay for accounts they may have canceled long ago if they had to farm for gil themselves, and you pay for accounts, because even with RMT around you still feel that it is worth to spend the $15/month on the game. SE has zero incentive to take actual measures against RMT. They throw an anti-RMT event once a year (this time screwing normal players in the process), and life is good.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a disagreement perse. personally i believe if you have yourself commited to do something as a job and you have the obligations of your job clearly written out in the form of a contract and legal terms to protect your position, by not performing those actions you fail at your job; hence you are inept.

Personally if i were SE i'd run my own RMT and eliminate the competitors. Keep the milk and the cow so-to-speak. It doesn't keep as many accounts open as having the third-partys in there but it does allow for people to not get so disenfranchised with the development company.

dedalius said:
If you didn't live with chickens, would you be working a sweatshop job like the GS?
Click to expand...

Play games for a living?

Are you fucking brain dead? Of course i'd play a game for a living .. i just wouldn't be a cock-bag about it, nor would i advertise it blatantly with my actions in game.

dedalius said:
Difference being: People who download music don't parade around as someone who did something amazing by stealing from the music industry.
Click to expand...

So no one listens to burned CDs ... gotcha.

dedalius said:
Robin Hood is rolling in his grave.
Click to expand...

Robin Hood's a fictional character, genius.

sculli said:
# An item price gets inflated because of RMT (this is highly arguable, but let's just assume for this argument that it is true (which it isn't))
Click to expand...

Now let's fix this to reflect the truth:

An item is occasionally inflated because either an RMT or a greedy player sets the market that way and everyone is too stupid to lower the price back down out of principle (something most of you dickweasels have been bitching about for 2 threads and 40 pages now) or fears the wrath of the bitching profiteer who whines about "those asshole undercutters."

The AH is like the pied piper of stupid, you dumbasses just keep dancing.

Take some goddamn responsibility: as much as i'm not for the RMT thing i'm not much on players who like scapegoating more than making the game better for themselves. The economics of the game fall on you, RMT, and SE and exactly in that order. That's it, no clearer way to put it, quit fucking bitching.
 
Last edited:
Sculli said:
I don't need to pretend that it happened, he posted it himself.

I would like to apply your reasoning to our Chinese gil seller, let's call him Lowping. Lowping has friends who have known him for a long time, long before FFXI came out. They know that Lowping a good person, a loving father and husband. Why do we pretend that Lowping has fallen into some moral chasm by selling gil to us and needs rescuing? From Lowping's point of view selling gil is no more wrong to him than going over the speed limit is to us (except we can actually get in big trouble for that).

My point is that we all look at things from our own frame of reference. If we keep doing that, we will never able to understand where the other person is coming from. Read again, understand, not agree with their position, but truly understand their position.

I believe that when I look at it from Sev's frame of reference, I see initial hesitation, and then I see some regret, however minor. What that means to me is that he did consider his actions, before and after, which is more than a lot of other people would have done.

Whether anyone else agrees with my view in this particular case doesn't really matter to me. Until I get new information about a different issue, I will consider Sev as someone who intentionally screwed another person (I hope we are still considering Lowping a person) over, and felt some regret or shame afterwards. While that is not the best possible position he could have in my book, it is above those who would feel 100% justified in screwing Lowping.

Is Sev affected by how he does in my book? Nope, not in any way.
Knowing that; Should he care how he does in my book?
That's for him to decide, and for no one else.
Click to expand...

Hug a tree lately?

Where in the ToS does it state i have to understand where anyone is coming from?

Why should i all of a sudden put on my sally struthers vestments for some dude i've never met just because he lives in an impoverished place? For all we know the guy could live in HK and drive a beamer.

Do i think it was 100% justified? yep. Because it was a GS? Nope. Because it was someone too stupid to drop trade after seeing the scam coming three times and not waiting to make sure it was decent trade? bingo.

The only way to turn stupid in to smart is experience. In this case he did RMT service if anything.

As i said before, there are more than enough people who live in poverty that still survive without doing the equivelent of collecting a paycheck for knocking over chess games in the park.
 
So the gil sellers can ruin our days but we can not ruin theirs? And don't give me that two wrongs don't make a right morale bullshit. If I wanted a sermon about bending over and taking it up the ass I would go to a church or something. They are actively ruining the game day by day; you guys forget the Christmas madness already? I can honestly say that was one of the biggest low points this game has ever gone through.
 
Mokk said:
1. Where in the ToS does it state i have to understand where anyone is coming from?

2. Why should i all of a sudden put on my sally struthers vestments for some dude i've never met just because he lives in an impoverished place? For all we know the guy could live in HK and drive a beamer.
Click to expand...
1. Cute, but unnecessary. It comes down to the purpose of an argument. There are essentially three types of people who argue.
  1. Attention whores.
  2. Fighters.
  3. Reformers.
Depending on what you want out of an argument, you may only be able to succeed if you understand, not agree to, the other sides position. Unless you are able to understand the situation from thier frame of reference, you will not be able to argue with the purpose of reforming.

If your goal is to attract attention, or to argue because something only slightly related or even unrelated has wronged (is that even a word) you, then understanding is not necessary, but the argument as such is pointless.

2. It is correct, we know nothing of the circumstance of Lowping. Wait, we do know that someone scammed him on a trade, and we know with near certainty that Lowping works for gil sellers.

I choose to believe that Lowping sees nothing wrong with his actions. He makes a living and provides a service that is in demand. Even if he realizes the marginal impact RMT has on inflation, his likely response will be: Ah, so what, 10M here, 10M there, American's are rich, they have no problem paying!
 
1 and 2 were addressing the same point.

Conversely i believe lowping is doing something he not only knows is wrong based on the terms of use of the service to which is paid for but also knows for a fact that the community in which he opporates loathes him. In which case his greed is paramount to that of the scamming player. That about cover understanding where he comes from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top