These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Margin Trading Scam...

First post First post
Author
Galen Darksmith
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#201 - 2013-07-25 05:34:33 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
However, a game mechanic that bypasses "normal procedures" of the market simply because somebody trained a skill, and then hides the fact that it has done so with no warning to other players, is a buggy mechanic. Sure it's bait and hook, but the hook is invisible.


Welcome to EVE.

If I attack a Mackinaw in a wormhole, and suddenly three cloaky Lokis appear, point, and kill me, that game mechanic bypasses "normal procedures." They don't appear on my overview or scanner until it's too late. The hook is (literally) invisible. Which is how it should be, otherwise it'd be a crappy hook. The way I can tell it's there is not game mechanics, but using my head. "Hmm, I've spent long enough on d-scan that he should have noticed me by now. Either he's not paying attention, or he's tanky bait for a trap." And thus I have a choice: go with my greed and make the attack anyways, or move on. If I choose to engage, it's not the cloakers fault for being invisible, or CCP's fault for designing a game mechanic that can be used to set a trap, it's my fault for making a bad call.

Why do you think the market would be any different than the rest of the game?

"EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for." -CCP Wrangler

Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#202 - 2013-07-25 05:35:53 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Jonathon Oday wrote:
Then, through my own naivety and greed, I fall for the Margin Trading Scam...


You just openly admitted that you tried to get greedy and exploit someone for fast easy profit and it didn't pay off.

Instead, it backfired on you and put you out of pocket. These things happen, you dust yourself off and keep moving.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You just have to remember that somewhere out there in New Eden, there's always someone smarter, more persuasive, more manipulative, or sometimes just more outright lucky than you.

Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things.

Welcome to EVE.

I dunno dude... I've made some fair coin scamming the old fashioned way, and even I think the margin trading scam is BS. It's only possible because there's a broken mechanic back there... I'm all for consequences for your choices. Believe me. I'd be kicked right out of any other game. ...and f*** them anyway I belong in EvE! ...but bad mechanics and consequences are not really the same thing, are they? When I scam people they really kick themselves, but they generally acknowledge inattention to details and fault themselves. The margin trade scam thing I fault with simplistic game mechanics. You should have to cover margin accounts with assets assessed by the game. In the case of fraud your assets are frozen until the debt is repaid, or you can let the EvE system automatically liquidate your collateral assets or outright transfer them via contract to the other side of the transaction (the guy you screwed). Just a thought.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#203 - 2013-07-25 06:56:17 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
What normal procedure is bypassed?
The procedure that both parties to the transaction are presenting the required amount of ISK and/or product to satisfy the order. That is normal procedure. A seller does not have a skill that allows him put up less that the full amount of product - because that would be crazy and unworkable. However a Margin Trader obviously does have a skill that allows him to put up less than the full amount of ISK into escrow. And that is a very relevant point, because the market itself is acting as an escrow agent. That's exactly what it does - it's a neutral 3rd party that handles the transaction between buyer and seller. However, it's a particularly bad escrow agent, in that it does not inform the seller that the buyer has not presented a full accounting of funds. And that is the "normal procedure" that is bypassed.

Now you seem to be arguing "that's how the Margin Trading skill works currently, so that is by definition what normal procedure is". Which is an interesting tact considering that before you were saying that the Lofty was bypassing "normal procedures of aggression". But at the time, that was just how aggro worked and that was the accepted risk of forming a gang. And you even got a little warning box that indicated that's how it worked. So your line of argument isn't really consistent. Would it be safer to say that CCP "fixed" the Lofty because it was (and I hate to use this word) unfair? If so, how is an escrow agent that does not give a full accounting of the transaction not unfair?

Quote:
An order failing cannot hurt you. You retain your stuff and are not charged any ISK for the sales attempt. Why should you be "warned" about something that cannot hurt you?
It's not a question of whether or not the transaction can hurt you, it's a question of transparency in the transaction. The seller MUST present the full amount of product regardless of whether or not he is placing a Sell order or fulfilling a Buy order, so that side of the transaction is always transparent. If the Buyer does not have to present the full amount of ISK in a Buy order, then in order to maintain transparency, there needs to be some indication that he hasn't. Which of course begs the question, why is transparency in a transaction important? Because it allows the Seller to make an informed decision of which Buy order to fill. The Seller is risking is his time and effort moving product to market. A willing Buyer is always assured that a transaction will succeed if a Seller brings product. A Seller however, does not have that assurance, and thus all the risk falls on him.

Quote:
Oh, and the market interface tells you how much something's worth. The only way you can be tricked into buying something that's way overpriced now is by failing to read the market interface.
Which is relevant how? I think I stated fairly clearly that I don't particularly care if people buy overpriced crap, and I have absolutely no problem with them doing so. Sell orders are perfectly fine as they are. I have no idea why you people keep bringing that point up.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#204 - 2013-07-25 07:02:03 UTC
Galen Darksmith wrote:
If I attack a Mackinaw in a wormhole, and suddenly three cloaky Lokis appear, point, and kill me, that game mechanic bypasses "normal procedures." ... Why do you think the market would be any different than the rest of the game?
Fairly certain you get a warning when you are about to jump thru a wormhole. So indeed, why should the market be different? What?
Looser Eto
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#205 - 2013-07-25 07:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Looser Eto
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
What normal procedure is bypassed?
The procedure that both parties to the transaction are presenting the required amount of ISK and/or product to satisfy the order. That is normal procedure. A seller does not have a skill that allows him put up less that the full amount of product - because that would be crazy and unworkable. However a Margin Trader obviously does have a skill that allows him to put up less than the full amount of ISK into escrow. And that is a very relevant point, because the market itself is acting as an escrow agent. That's exactly what it does - it's a neutral 3rd party that handles the transaction between buyer and seller. However, it's a particularly bad escrow agent, in that it does not inform the seller that the buyer has not presented a full accounting of funds. And that is the "normal procedure" that is bypassed.

Now you seem to be arguing "that's how the Margin Trading skill works currently, so that is by definition what normal procedure is". Which is an interesting tact considering that before you were saying that the Lofty was bypassing "normal procedures of aggression". But at the time, that was just how aggro worked and that was the accepted risk of forming a gang. And you even got a little warning box that indicated that's how it worked. So your line of argument isn't really consistent. Would it be safer to say that CCP "fixed" the Lofty because it was (and I hate to use this word) unfair? If so, how is an escrow agent that does not give a full accounting of the transaction not unfair?

Quote:
An order failing cannot hurt you. You retain your stuff and are not charged any ISK for the sales attempt. Why should you be "warned" about something that cannot hurt you?
It's not a question of whether or not the transaction can hurt you, it's a question of transparency in the transaction. The seller MUST present the full amount of product regardless of whether or not he is placing a Sell order or fulfilling a Buy order, so that side of the transaction is always transparent. If the Buyer does not have to present the full amount of ISK in a Buy order, then in order to maintain transparency, there needs to be some indication that he hasn't. Which of course begs the question, why is transparency in a transaction important? Because it allows the Seller to make an informed decision of which Buy order to fill. The Seller is risking is his time and effort moving product to market. A willing Buyer is always assured that a transaction will succeed if a Seller brings product. A Seller however, does not have that assurance, and thus all the risk falls on him.

Quote:
Oh, and the market interface tells you how much something's worth. The only way you can be tricked into buying something that's way overpriced now is by failing to read the market interface.
Which is relevant how? I think I stated fairly clearly that I don't particularly care if people buy overpriced crap, and I have absolutely no problem with them doing so. Sell orders are perfectly fine as they are. I have no idea why you people keep bringing that point up.


That is EXACTLY my point. And this is why Margin Trading will be removed.

And when it does, CCP Falcon will be required to formally and publicly apologize for his various posts.

And then, I will give the finger to all those who said "no CCP said it's ok and therefore things like these don't change"
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#206 - 2013-07-25 07:42:29 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
The procedure that both parties to the transaction are presenting the required amount of ISK and/or product to satisfy the order. That is normal procedure. A seller does not have a skill that allows him put up less that the full amount of product - because that would be crazy and unworkable. However a Margin Trader obviously does have a skill that allows him to put up less than the full amount of ISK into escrow. And that is a very relevant point, because the market itself is acting as an escrow agent. That's exactly what it does - it's a neutral 3rd party that handles the transaction between buyer and seller. However, it's a particularly bad escrow agent, in that it does not inform the seller that the buyer has not presented a full accounting of funds. And that is the "normal procedure" that is bypassed.


Sure it does. The order fails and the potential seller doesn't lose possession of their goods. The escrow agent does not allow the seller to part with their goods until the escrow is complete. That's what a good escrow agent does, and that's what EVE's escrow agent does.

For an example. If I'm buying a house, I can make an offer on a house long before any money goes into escrow. So long as the money goes into escrow before I get the key, that's not a problem. If the money doesn't get into escrow (bank denies loan, etc) I don't get the key, and the seller looks for another buyer.

In assuming that a market order is a contract rather than an offer to treat, you make a fundamental error about how the market works (similarly, in RL, if "I want to buy that for X" created a contractual bond, you could be liable for breach of contract if you forgot your wallet and couldn't pay at the mall checkout counter. Mortifying, yes. A tort, no. No transaction has taken place, no contract has been entered, everyone goes home.).

Quote:
Now you seem to be arguing "that's how the Margin Trading skill works currently, so that is by definition what normal procedure is". Which is an interesting tact considering that before you were saying that the Lofty was bypassing "normal procedures of aggression". But at the time, that was just how aggro worked and that was the accepted risk of forming a gang. And you even got a little warning box that indicated that's how it worked. So your line of argument isn't really consistent. Would it be safer to say that CCP "fixed" the Lofty because it was (and I hate to use this word) unfair? If so, how is an escrow agent that does not give a full accounting of the transaction not unfair?


No, that's not what I'm arguing. Margin trading does not allow you to bypass escrow requirements. It changes them. Just like Accounting does not allow you to bypass the market taxes, it changes them.

In the case of lofty. CCP decided that the ability to make someone a WT by fleeting them (but only if you had two warring fleetmates already) was broken, so they removed it. Could it be that the method was kind of contrived (hmm, if me and my enemy work together, we're both allowed to shoot this random third party)?
Oh, and there was the issue that the warning could be turned off by having the invite sent by someone who isn't at war.
Like I said, buggy mechanics.

Unlike Margin trading which does exactly what it says on the tin.

Again, the Escrow agent gives a full accounting of the transaction before the transaction occurs.

Quote:
It's not a question of whether or not the transaction can hurt you, it's a question of transparency in the transaction. The seller MUST present the full amount of product regardless of whether or not he is placing a Sell order or fulfilling a Buy order, so that side of the transaction is always transparent. If the Buyer does not have to present the full amount of ISK in a Buy order, then in order to maintain transparency, there needs to be some indication that he hasn't. Which of course begs the question, why is transparency in a transaction important? Because it allows the Seller to make an informed decision of which Buy order to fill. The Seller is risking is his time and effort moving product to market. A willing Buyer is always assured that a transaction will succeed if a Seller brings product. A Seller however, does not have that assurance, and thus all the risk falls on him.


Again, there is. The order fails. That's the indication. The order fails before anything happens.

The market is simply not transparent. And doesn't need to be.

The seller does not have a choice in what buy order to fill. The highest price order is always the one filled. Similarly, the lowest price sell order is always the first filled. If you choose to pay a higher price, or sell for a lower price, the owners of the filled orders get the excess (I once had someone buy an Armageddon in Jita from me for 4b because he didn't understand this. I was simply the lowest sell order at the right time.).

"If a seller brings product" That's a mighty big if.
A seller does not lose anything, and can simply sell to the next buy order on the list.

Quote:
Which is relevant how? I think I stated fairly clearly that I don't particularly care if people buy overpriced crap, and I have absolutely no problem with them doing so. Sell orders are perfectly fine as they are. I have no idea why you people keep bringing that point up.


Quote:
Greedy idiots that don't bother to fully read the market interface will still fall for it. But at least the warning was there before they leaped in.


Sufficient warning is already provided in the market interface.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Galen Darksmith
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#207 - 2013-07-25 08:09:08 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Galen Darksmith wrote:
If I attack a Mackinaw in a wormhole, and suddenly three cloaky Lokis appear, point, and kill me, that game mechanic bypasses "normal procedures." ... Why do you think the market would be any different than the rest of the game?
Fairly certain you get a warning when you are about to jump thru a wormhole. So indeed, why should the market be different? What?



I don't really get where you're coming from. You say you don't care if people buy overpriced goods, but that's the whole scam. If you somehow happen to possess what a margin scammer "wants", all you get is a failed buy order and your stuff back. You have to buy the overpriced goods to get scammed, and you get the warning when you buy those goods. And just as the wormhole warning does not specifically tell you "GOING IN HERE MEANS YOU MAY GET JUMPED BY CLOAKERS," the overpriced goods warning does not tell you "THIS MAY BE BAIT FOR A MARGIN TRADING SCAM".

And if you didn't buy overpriced goods...what the hell are you complaining about? I've had buy orders fail in Jita because someone bought the goods before I could. Is that exploiting? I mean, it's the same situation: what the market displayed wasn't actually true. Just as the buyer's ability to purchase the goods doesn't exist in margin trading, the goods I wanted to buy didn't exist even though the market showed them.

You get the appropriate warnings for the appropriate situations. You can be blown up in high-sec, but you don't get warned about that because it's not common enough to merit an ingame warning. You are more likely to die in a wormhole, so that gets a warning. A buy order can ail due to lack of buy funds, but that doesn't merit a warning because it's not only rare, but harmless to the seller. You DO get the warning if you buy the overpriced bait goods, because that DOES mean you're more likely to get scammed.

"EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for." -CCP Wrangler

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#208 - 2013-07-25 08:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Vladimir Norkoff
RubyPorto wrote:
In assuming that a market order is a contract rather than an offer to treat, you make a fundamental error about how the market works (similarly, in RL, if "I want to buy that for X" created a contractual bond, you could be liable for breach of contract if you forgot your wallet and couldn't pay at the mall checkout counter. Mortifying, yes. A tort, no. No transaction has taken place, no contract has been entered, everyone goes home.).
Ugh. RL examples tend to be bad cuz this not RL. It's EvE. It's a game. But if we are gonna go there.... I'm fairly certain that the EvE Market is not akin to a mall checkout counter. There is no 3rd party in that instance. There is you, and the store you are buying from. No 3rd party. I don't place a buy order at a mall kiosk. The mall shop does not come to me to sell the item. Etc. You might be a bit closer if you had used an example of ordering online, but even then there isn't really a 3rd party involved that handles the transaction. And it's not even a contract as you are bizarrely implying is my position (which notably is NOT my position). The EvE Market is an escrow agent pure and simple. And it's an agent that is heavily biased in favor of the Buyer.

Quote:
No, that's not what I'm arguing. Margin trading does not allow you to bypass escrow requirements. It changes them. Just like Accounting does not allow you to bypass the market taxes, it changes them.

In the case of lofty. CCP decided that the ability to make someone a WT by fleeting them (but only if you had two warring fleetmates already) was broken, so they removed it. Could it be that the method was kind of contrived (hmm, if me and my enemy work together, we're both allowed to shoot this random third party)?
Oh, and there was the issue that the warning could be turned off by having the invite sent by someone who isn't at war.
Like I said, buggy mechanics.

Unlike Margin trading which does exactly what it says on the tin.
Okay. I'm not particularly convinced that is not what you were arguing, but I will take your word for it. And the difference between "changing" and "bypassing" seems a bit like semantics to me. "You're not bypassing the rules, the rules are just being changed for you because you trained this skill!"What? 'Kay....

As for the Lofty stuff, that does seem alot like you are making the point that CCP was addressing the lack of information available to the victim. Which seems dreadfully familiar to the point I've been making in regards to Margin trades. Because while Margin Trading "does exactly what it says on the tin", that tin isn't on the trade. You gotta go look up the skill, it's not there on the trade interface. Kinda like having to go look up the rules on gang/aggro mechanics. It was out there if you looked for it, so it's all good... right? Apparently not for the Lofty. But for Margin Trading it's fine. Go figure.

Quote:
Again, the Escrow agent gives a full accounting of the transaction before the transaction occurs.
Ok that is just outright false. The EvE Market does NOT tell you that the Margin Trader doesn't necessarily have the cash to fulfill the order. That is absolutely NOT a full accounting of the transaction before it occurs. That is assuming you are talking about the EvE Market as "the Escrow agent" and not some nebulous agent you suddenly inserted into the conversation.

Quote:
The seller does not have a choice in what buy order to fill.
But he does have a choice of which market to take his product to. Believe it or not, not all sales occur in Jita. Or even in a place with multiple Buy orders for the same item. If Johnny Freighterboy is trying to fill a station-only Buy order off in some backwater system and it turns out the Buy is a bogus Margin trade, he is out his hauling time and effort. Again, all the risk falls on him because there is no transparency in the system. Which is why the transparency of knowing which Buys are margins and which are not, is needed.


Galen Darksmith wrote:
I don't really get where you're coming from. You say you don't care if people buy overpriced goods, but that's the whole scam.
You don't get where I'm coming from because you think the scam is what I'm addressing. I'm not. I'm addressing Margin Trading which has some pretty wide-ranging effects beyond the scam.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#209 - 2013-07-25 08:41:50 UTC
Jorden Ishonen wrote:
Meunchyocan wrote:
I find a great deal of the ideas in this thread both amusing and disturbing at once.


Mmmmm, love that opening. It guarantees quality amusement to come.

1. If someone beat you at poker, would you call them a sociopath because they bluffed you? Threaten them with physical harm because they lied to you in a game? Hell, you could end up losing REAL LIFE money in poker. Some games incorporate lying and deception as part of the game, and EVE is one of them. If you're not comfortable with that, why are you playing?


I heard that was happening quite often during the olden days. Lol

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#210 - 2013-07-25 08:42:11 UTC
There should be a pop-up warning when you shoot a lone maller

"warning this is probably a cyno trap"

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jorden Ishonen
Doomheim
#211 - 2013-07-25 08:58:01 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
You don't get where I'm coming from because you think the scam is what I'm addressing. I'm not. I'm addressing Margin Trading which has some pretty wide-ranging effects beyond the scam.


This caught my eye, most people have a problem with the scam itself. Care to sum up your complaints about the Margin Trading skill in general into a couple of bullet points?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#212 - 2013-07-25 09:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Meunchyocan wrote:
[X] I've researched the matter
[X] I understand the fact that players control the market
[X] I don't believe that a buy order is a guarantee
[X] I don't believe that the highest price displayed is the actual first working value
[X] I don't believe the order is still on the market because I'm smarter than everyone else
Good. Then you understand that the skill only does good and that the fault lies entirely with the victim. The skill is in fact not even required for the scam — it only makes it so that you don't need any alts and removes the need to recycle characters or any of that other nonsense that people seem to think scammers do a lot.

Quote:
I have a problem with the skill as it is. It detracts from my desire to play as a trader which I would like to do otherwise.
Why? It can't hurt you.

There are no “unreliable” buy orders and they have no impact on the players (other than the stupid and greedy ones who don't research their investments) because until they've generated a sale, they aren't part of the statistics. The worst thing that can happen to you is that a buy order is no longer available to you. That is all. The reason it's no longer available doesn't matter one whit to you. The supposed inconsistency you're talking about does not exist unless you don't understand how the market works, and if you think that this is a sudden change, it's only because you've only now learned how it has always worked.

Quote:
My first point was that events in Eve can and do have impact in the so-called "real world" as everything is in the "real world" eventually.
…and the part you failed to comprehend is that the magic circle differentiates between what goes on in-game and out-of-game in terms of what's allowed and what isn't. You've failed to comprehend the “real vs. game” distinction (which is troubling) and you're making up a massive strawman argument, with a bit of moved goal posts mixed in for fun.

Quote:
My third point asserts that buy orders which can fail with no indication which are valid and which are not is a bad game design element.
You can assert as much as you like, but it doesn't make it any more correct. In particular, you seem to think that there is such a thing as an “invalid” buy order. There isn't. All buy orders are valid. All can disappear from the market at the drop of a hat. The distinction you're trying to make doesn't exist. If the checklist above was actually true, you'd understand why it's all consistently reliable and why this is perfectly good game design.

In your incorrect analogy with the modules, you have to spend money on two modules — one that slows you down and one that speeds you up — and you have no way of telling which does which. Buy orders do none of that. You don't spend money on them; you don't get opposite effects from them; one will not randomly work differently than the other; you are not gambling on what will happen. In fact, you don't even have to determine anything since the system does it for you. All you do is rclick→sell, and hopefully the order is still around when've reviewed the numbers and click “sell”.

Quote:
My fifth point shows the potential the buy orders can have if used as any sort of metric.
No, your fifth point sets up a ludicrous scenario with no basis or foundation in reality. It's an argument by hyperbole, and since none of it would actually change the statistics, it's an argument from hyperbolic failure. And yes, it will end because that's who the mechanics work: you set up inflated buy orders worth trillions of ISK; the system automatically picks them when traders use the market; the orders are all invalidated. Traders go v0v and try the next buy order, which works. Thus the item returns remains at the real value the market has decided for it, and your ISK has just left the system without making a dent.

Again, had you researched the matter and understood how the market works, you would have know this already…
In short, your lack of understanding of how the market works does not constitute a reading comprehension failure on the part of everyone else, nor a design flaw in the game.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#213 - 2013-07-25 09:09:32 UTC
Jorden Ishonen wrote:
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
You don't get where I'm coming from because you think the scam is what I'm addressing. I'm not. I'm addressing Margin Trading which has some pretty wide-ranging effects beyond the scam.


This caught my eye, most people have a problem with the scam itself. Care to sum up your complaints about the Margin Trading skill in general into a couple of bullet points?
Post #203 does a fairly decent job of it. If you can't be bothered to read, then you are not deserving to be showered with my wisdom bukkake... Don't lie, you know you want it....
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
#214 - 2013-07-25 09:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Miilla
Last I checked this was a VIDEO GAME.

You honestly expect to WIN every game?

Some games you lose, respawn and try again.

I remember when computer games you didn't even respawn and try again from where you failed, you had to go back to the very start.

Why do we fall down? So we can learn to pick ourselves up again.

You, however, need a zimmerframe.


I think Eve should be available on Audio Cassette, with Turbo Loader, once we die, we don't respawn we should have to reload the game... from tape.
Jorden Ishonen
Doomheim
#215 - 2013-07-25 09:23:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorden Ishonen
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Jorden Ishonen wrote:
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
You don't get where I'm coming from because you think the scam is what I'm addressing. I'm not. I'm addressing Margin Trading which has some pretty wide-ranging effects beyond the scam.


This caught my eye, most people have a problem with the scam itself. Care to sum up your complaints about the Margin Trading skill in general into a couple of bullet points?
Post #203 does a fairly decent job of it. If you can't be bothered to read, then you are not deserving to be showered with my wisdom bukkake... Don't lie, you know you want it....



If posing your argument in a few sentences is too difficult for you, I'll grab a bit out of your post that seems to be the essence of it and go with that. If it's not the essence, your fault for refusing to sum up.

Quote:
It's not a question of whether or not the transaction can hurt you, it's a question of transparency in the transaction. The seller MUST present the full amount of product regardless of whether or not he is placing a Sell order or fulfilling a Buy order, so that side of the transaction is always transparent.


That's just due to common sense. Margin trading allows a trader to stretch their isk farther by making buy orders that they may not be able to fill at that exact instant, but expect to be able to fill by the time a seller makes an offer. It's a legitimate activity, and the only thing the seller loses out on if the order fails is...well, nothing. And that's the short of it: there is no harm from filling a buy order that fails.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#216 - 2013-07-25 09:28:20 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
I'm fairly certain that the EvE Market is not akin to a mall checkout counter. There is no 3rd party in that instance. There is you, and the store you are buying from. No 3rd party. I don't place a buy order at a mall kiosk. The mall shop does not come to me to sell the item. Etc. You might be a bit closer if you had used an example of ordering online, but even then there isn't really a 3rd party involved that handles the transaction. And it's not even a contract as you are bizarrely implying is my position (which notably is NOT my position). The EvE Market is an escrow agent pure and simple. And it's an agent that is heavily biased in favor of the Buyer.
How is it biased in favour of the buyer? The buyer gets no special consideration that the seller does not. For both parties, the rule is the same: until the broker has both the required ISK and items for the trade, the trade does not take place. If anything, it's favoured against the buyer since his order gets shredded, and none of his fees reimbursed, if the trade fails.

And I'm not sure where you got that checkout counter from — Ruby is saying that the EVE markets specifically aren't like that and that you're always dealing though a third party.

Quote:
Okay. I'm not particularly convinced that is not what you were arguing, but I will take your word for it. And the difference between "changing" and "bypassing" seems a bit like semantics to me. "You're not bypassing the rules, the rules are just being changed for you because you trained this skill!"What? 'Kay....
The rules actually remain the same: you have to put x% of money into escrow to enter an offer, where x is determined by the skill (representing market trust or certification or some similar guff). Nothing is bypassed: all buy orders work the same, and all attempts at either buying or selling also works the same.

Quote:
Ok that is just outright false.
No, it's not. He checks that everything is in order before going through with the trade. If it turns out that, no, some part is missing, you get informed. No transaction occurs until after the viability of the trade has been determined.

Quote:
But he does have a choice of which market to take his product to. Believe it or not, not all sales occur in Jita. Or even in a place with multiple Buy orders for the same item. If Johnny Freighterboy is trying to fill a station-only Buy order off in some backwater system and it turns out the Buy is a bogus Margin trade, he is out his hauling time and effort.
…and should probably have checked on the actual value of the investment before spending all that time. If the order turns out to be bogus, he can just resell it at a slight mark-up and recover his cash (unless he bought it an an inflated price, which would have been obvious when checking the market trends). Sure, his trip didn't pay off, but he's not out any cash.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#217 - 2013-07-25 09:37:24 UTC
Miilla wrote:

I think Eve should be available on Audio Cassette, with Turbo Loader, once we die, we don't respawn we should have to reload the game... from tape.
And the c64 tape-drive must be used, because it'll fail after 20 minutes the first three times, and then chew the tape up.

The margin trading scam isn't a game mechanics problem, it's a people problem, if some people weren't greedy and lazy it wouldn't work.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
#218 - 2013-07-25 09:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Miilla
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Miilla wrote:

I think Eve should be available on Audio Cassette, with Turbo Loader, once we die, we don't respawn we should have to reload the game... from tape.
And the c64 tape-drive must be used, because it'll fail after 20 minutes the first three times, and then chew the tape up.

The margin trading scam isn't a game mechanics problem, it's a people problem, if some people weren't greedy and lazy it wouldn't work.



I agree, Margin Trading IS a valid game mechanic, there is even a SKILL for it.

It is DESIGNED IN the game, by CCP for use by players to train and use.
Zora'e
#219 - 2013-07-25 10:13:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Zora'e
Personally I think the market is a tad weird. I go to buy something at lowest price (even if that means a trip for me) yet the market window sometimes pops up some idiot warning that the item you are buying is XXX above regional average (except.... it's the lowest priced item on the market being shown.....).

Now maybe I don't really understand exactly how the market runs (i'm a pretty straight forward player). If I see something I need. I buy it, if I got stuff I don't need I either reprocess it or sell it. I don't sweat the obvious scams because they are obvious to me, but when the market returns a statement saying the lowest priced item on the sellers list is whatever percentage over the regional average. you gotta question just how well or accurate the market returns information to you.

An example. I bought a single low meta lvl sensor booster for about 4k isk (lowest seller listed in the sellers window) and got a pop up message stating the item was being sold for 136% above regional average. Now... lowest price shown.. how in the heck is that 136% above regional average? So yeah I think the market is a tad weird, doesn't always return accurate information and in many ways seems to be easily manipulated to present false or unreliable information to the user.

As for the Margin Trading scams.... It may be a legitimate game mechanic but I think it's not really transparent enough, however generally, if the price seems to good too be true, i'm inclined to believe it isn't true.

So.. some of you market warriors care to explain to me the issue with the odd market value returns pop-ups? Cause i'd sure like to know how the lowest item in the sellers window can be over the regional average. That simply doesn't make any sense to me as it stands and i'd like it to make sense.

~Z

I won't say you are stupid, but you're not exactly on the Zombie menu either.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#220 - 2013-07-25 10:16:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Miilla wrote:

I agree, Margin Trading IS a valid game mechanic, there is even a SKILL for it.

It is DESIGNED IN the game, by CCP for use by players to train and use.

I think that the crux of the problem is that people come into Eve expecting just another MMO, despite its reputation for being harsh and allowing scams and the like, and expect the normal rules to apply. When they find out that the normal rules don't apply, they see it as a problem with the game, not themselves.

There are two types of Eve player, one adapts to the game, the other wants the game to adapt to them.

Zora'e wrote:

So.. some of you market warriors care to explain to me the issue with the odd market value returns pop-ups? Cause i'd sure like to know how the lowest item in the sellers window can be over the regional average. That simply doesn't make any sense to me as it stands and i'd like it to make sense.

~Z

The average covers both buy and sell orders, there's usually one or two orders, that are way out on the fringes price wise, that distort the regional average, if you go into the settings tab on the market interface you'll find some filters can be set, if you have any of them checked, uncheck them, then look at the highest sell order and the lowest buy order, they'll probably be way out of whack with the average price.

edit - You'll probably find that the highest buy price on your sensor booster was a few hundred isk tops. People purchase low meta items for recycling, so they're obviously going to buy them for less than mineral value from missioners and the like. I do it with shield modules, I can buy some at 1/3 of the reprocessed value using low ball buy orders

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack