EVE General Discussion

Give her the chair!

Why? My income is honest, the result of working for a living and not breaking rules. Hers was not.

You doubting something doesn't make it doubtful, and I'm not the one being sued for income fraud. You can make me out to be a bad guy all you want, but as long as you're doing so you're defending RMT. It makes me wonder if you aren't one of the most disgraceful gamers in the history of gaming.

See, I can play your game as well, and I tend to find those that question the morality of the person that brings an issue to light is the kind of person that finds insult in having the issue brought to light. This suggests to me that you're trying to divert the attention away from the shittiness of people who conduct RMT and make those that expose it out to be the bad guys. Fact is, nobody is perfect, everyone is guilty of doing something wrong, but that is for them to take responsibility for. If you want to make a thread about how evil I am, demonstrate it with some facts and I'll take responsibility for my crimes.

Yes, in this situation, I do applaud the thieves, and the insurance company. And FYI, insurance companies aren't evil by virtue of being insurance companies. I haven't made my opinions here a secret. I openly stated them and don't really care what people think of me for it. If I did, do you think I would have openly stated it? What I do care about is discussion regarding the case, and RMT in general, which it seems that most people on this thread have been mature enough to manage.

I have nothing to prove to you, though. Who are you that I should give one half a damn about your opinion of my morality? I'm not discussing morality, though, I'm discussing RMT and the consequences. Try to stay on topic, please.

Which it is, the judge was asking for further information (for whatever reason).

Perhaps you should re-read the article?

I just re-read the article from front to back, again.

At no point is AAMI questioning the source of the money.

The legality of the source of the money was raised by the judge.

Not AAMI...

You're welcome.

Thank you, Asuri, I've been getting a headache repeating myself and I was just going to let everyone think what they wanted to think. My opinions stand.

Why not just assume my comments aren't directed at journalists who don't display the aforementioned negative qualities? Is it your journalistic persecution complex?



Both the original author (who made a news story out of a detail which ought to be irrelevant to the trial) as well as yourself are very much responsible for presenting the topic with the ridiculous spin we're currently discussing. FWIW, I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't made a ******** moral argument about a court case while claiming to be a journalist.



This is supposed to be funny right? There's no way someone of your high journalistic caliber would make sweeping generalizations while complaining about sweeping generalizations. In any case, no, my dislike for journalists, as previously stated, stems from their perpetuation of ignorance on a variety of topics.



I'm not. Like everyone else with the relevant technical knowledge, I rolled my eyes at the "revelations". Similarly, I have no sympathy for immature dos'ers and website defacers.

You need to learn to read what people are saying, perhaps? And stop repeating yourself, since the message didn't get through the first time, how is saying the same thing over again going to change the outcome? Rather than repeating yourself, try a different tactic. Approach the explanation from a different direction, start with a different part of the story.

AAMI is counter suing their client, who is suing AAMI for a payout on an insurance policy relating to the loss of $45,000 worth of gold. AAMI is claiming that the loss was staged, so they have not paid out.

AAMI have not paid out. AAMI have started legal action against their client. I want to know how little evidence they have to support their claim of a staged theft besides, "we don't want to pay." As a client of AAMI's this is important to me.

Why SHOULDN'T she get reimbursed? It seems to be on the premise that her gains were gotten through some sort of cheating or underhanded action.

Think about it: She provided a SERVICE to the people she sold the items to, by acquiring and distributing access to and usage of said items. I think specifically CCP claims ownership over all virtual items on their servers, so, in the case of EVE, she wouldn't even be selling the items. She would be selling access to and usage of the items. I haven't read the EULA that carefully, but I thought it stated that you couldn't acquire items by buying them. Well, if CCP owns everything on the server, no one EVER really acquires ANYTHING. You only acquire the right of usage at CCP's discretion.

You can't say, "Dan owns everything on this farm. Bob is cheating because he sold a pig on the farm to Jim.". Neither Bob nor Jim are capable of owning said pig, because Dan owns everything on the farm. So, what legal right would Dan have for suing Bob or Jim for having a transaction if the pig never left the farm? Furthermore, wouldn't you have to prove that this transaction was in some way detrimental to Dan or the farm? In fact, if Dan arbitrarily changed the usage rights of Bob or Jim based on that transaction, then both Bob and Jim would be the ones who were detrimented and might have a legal case against Dan.

I think people look down on "gold farming" because it violates their sense of "fair play". They think you should have to earn what you have. Or maybe because it is associated with various cheating, such as botting. If people looked at it as a property issue, though, I think most would agree that if you "own" a pair of shoes, you should have every right to "sell" those shoes to whoever you damn well please for as much as they are willing to pay.