I see rupees and stock as the same thing, so there is no difference there. Why should the seller who neglected to double check the signs in their shop (especially for an item as expensive as that) be protected, but the shop owner who was very generous with an item and left very simple and explicit instructions not be protected? The linked post was linked to show that there is little to no clarification about the rules for player shops, and that in the past there have been injections of "well we do this", but never a formal statement. Based off of what IcC said in this thread in the form of what they would need to do, it would be very easy (from a standpoint of investigation) to figure out who purposely exploited a generous player's gift. I don't think they should all be banned, but I do think that whatever action would have been done (in reference to IcC's post) should be done due to it being possible to figure it out. I also think that there needs to be an extensive clarification about shop rules. I'm not trying to be a naysayer against the staff here, I just want to know what to expect. I want to know what advice/statement to regurgitate to other players in the future, but semi-contradicting statements and a lack of specific rules make it tough to know if I am leading people in the right direction.
... I saw this shop, and didn't touch it, because one) I don't know you very well so I didn't know what qualified as being a friend, 2) I thought other people would like to have one more than myself... In any case, I believe that what they did here should be punishable... I hate technicalities and I think they truly did abuse them. I can see people who only bought 5 or 8 could easily be let go, maybe just block them from your res for a few days, but the people who bought 27 upwards abused the shop. Especially if someone bought 170 diamonds at 1r each... Just what I think. We shouldn't allow people to find loop holes like this in the rules. It clearly states no scamming, stealing, etc. But because it doesn't go completely into detail, people can say, "Well they shouldn't have put it there in the first place". So, in the end, people here are getting rewarded for something that they did is wrong.
Very true, they're both valuable for trade. In this case the items were made available via player shop (a tool to sell things, not gift things); for a price; by the shop-keeper; with his knowledge. In the cases you linked and any similar, it would have been an exploit/error in the sign, the owner would have lost money (with nothing in return, unlike Manic's case), he wouldn't have known about it, ect ect. Lack of evidence that buying more than one was with intent (with a shop sign exploit it's obvious) Lack of available evidence beyond reasonable doubt "Gifter" made the items available with a tool used to sell things and not gift things, they made a trade. Shop owner exploit victim did not. I'm bringing up the point overs and over again, but it's just not reasonable to punish them, not only because it's so hard to prove, but because the ability to buy multiple diamonds was there. Of course, that's not to say it wasn't a rude/disrespectful thing to do if so done with intent as I've mentioned. :/ What I say/refute is merely opinion and experience from my perspective. As far as official rulings I'm positive ICC or Aikar would explain anything if you asked them
With all that's being said here, I have to bring up another scenario: We ask players who took more than one why they did it. They reply either: "There was no sign saying to only take 1." or "I didn't see the sign." Manic is obviously going to say that there was a sign there the entire time. We can neither confirm or deny that there was a sign there OR that the players saw it. So, in that case, what do we do, in your opinions?
I guess that I consider certain things proof that you do not, and you consider certain things necessary that I do not. No point in debating that.
Well, maybe you could actually go up to them and ask them, see what they have to say. I personally use Manic's shop quite a lot, and claimed 1 of these Christmas gifts. Although I understand my word isn't "confirming", I can guarantee that the sign was there. I also recall that sign placement is logged, maybe that could backup Manic's case as well?
I do believe there to be a noticeable difference between exploiting a mistake in a shop sign set up for profit and simply being rude and taking more than one diamond. There's no specific rule to state that not following instructions set out on signs will get you punished (with the exception of rule 6: Obey the staff). There's nothing to prove that the people in question did see the signs (or even able to read them) or that they weren't told they could take more than one via other forms of communication outside EMC's control (like Skype). The way I see it, if we punish these players in any form, there's nothing to stop other players from taking further situations out of control (for example, if a player puts up a sign asking for a player to give them rupees/items, and the other player doesn't, will they be punished?) TL;DR - No rules broken, no punishment.
This is the shop for it. I would find it practically impossible to see the usual black text and not see the much more contrasting white and red around it. And it kind of is possible to confirm whether the sign was there or not. The sign logs could be check to see if this sign was ever replaced, and it could be cross checked with the player logs of those who have build perms on his res. http://empireminecraft.com/threads/anti-griefing-tool.17155/ That tool can be used to determine if anyone was withing reaching distance if the sign. If there wasn't anyone there (with build perms) over the a time period specified by M4nic, then it wouldn't be possible for the sign to have been destroyed and replaced. I think that those who did abuse this should be confronted and asked to return the items (that is, if they are proven "guilty"), but not banned or anything severe. At the minimum I think they should be added to some sort of watchlist or a note placed on their account so that if anything happens in the future, their past isn't forgotten. They were logged in the past, what changed?
Everything you listed that could be used as possible evidence is either circumstantial or not a valid (or existing) method of moderation. It wouldn't be reasonable to have them spoken to or forced to return the items.
I'm happy that this turned into a productive discussion. Many interesting ideas - thank you! Although I was aware of the possibility of abuse, I was still angry to see it happen. But, I'm not looking for punishment or any revenge. I'd just like to have somewhat clear picture about what happened and about what to expect. This episode is one interesting puzzle in the picture called EMC From four accounts who took significant amount of diamonds, one I could reach over the forum has apologized and has returned the rest not yet returned. The other three are not reachable because one apparently does not have forum account at all and the other two never use the forum. So it seems that we are not able to ask them anything. Perhaps they have no idea that there is a rupee log - perhaps we can even assume this to be so. (?) Perhaps I'll meet them online some day and have opportunity to ask... Naturally the signs were there all the time, there is no doubt about it, it would be very unlikely and far fetched to assume that they were missing at some point in time. But, let's do exactly that: Let's forget for a moment that the intention was to set up a present chest, forget for a moment the signs around the chest-shop. Imagine just a chest-shop selling diamonds for 1r each. IMO, buying from such chest-shop, with price (far) below the half of current market value would be abusing an quite obvious chest-shop mistake. I don't agree - IMO it would be reasonable and valuable to speak to them. If it would be reasonable (within EMC) to force them to roll back the transaction(s) is the interesting question here. In RL, it very well would be reasonable and expected. The shops (generally) are meant for fair exchange and any exchange that is obviously not fair is considered abuse.
I wouldn't agree with this, as the buyers intent wouldn't be to steal, it would be to buy for as low as possible. It was a player shop and they are used to make purchases. As Brickstrike said, it's a bit of a loop-hole, but a logical one I think It's debatable if there's solid evidence and/or they admitted to it, but definitely not if otherwise IMO Fair point, I suppose it's all about how you define fair and reasonable when it comes to the abuse of your gifting
I for one won't say "well you SHOULD have done this" blah blah blah. The only "should" is that people "should" have been decent and used their critical thinking faculties when they see a diamond chest for 1r each. It sucks that we have to deal with immature goons every so often.
