My current items for sale or trade: Treasures in the Brambles.
Contact: Nuadjha (Discord and LNet), Briarfox@play.net
http://forum.gsplayers.com/album.php...achmentid=6488
Bam, Neathon.
everan
trouble is a friend of mine
Buying something for less than it's worth is not a scam. How some of you can go through life without understanding such a basic premise is beyond me. I don't care if the seller was talked into it. That's how negotiation works. It's not fraudulent or illegal to get a lower price on something than the buyer might otherwise get if they exercised patience.
Has the seller even chimed in yet? I know I've sold items for far less than they were worth because I needed cash for something else. There's just a whole hell of a lot of speculation and very little fact in this thread.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Edward R. Murrow
I think people are letting their (justified) dislike of Inspire color their opinion here.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Edward R. Murrow
He also for whatever reason decided to start calling me a scammer, in threads and on the merchant channel. Before this thread.
Line 24256: [Merchant]-GSIV:Alastir: "Keep trying to scam a pendant out of someone for 10m" (20:37:11)
Line 24883: [Merchant]-GSIV:Alastir: "Kalros is just trying to scam someones pendant for 10m" (20:41:05)
After all of this, I really thought, "Does he even know what a scam is?" It also really made me question his integrity as a merchant. Could he be this oblivious to his own faults? And then I got more information how about his scam went down. I really hate people taking advantage of the uninformed.
Perhaps this all harkans back to when I was scammed in 5th grade. When I firsted started playing TMG I went into a comic book store and bought my first 3rd edition booster pack. I pulled a white/black double land. Some older guy in the store saw it and offered me a White Knight. He said white knights were immune to black decks because of protection from black. It was awesome, and totally worth the trade for the double land. So I traded. And then when my father found out I made a trade, I received a very stern lecture about a variety of issues, unethical people, scammers, being informed, etc. Turns out I traded a $20 card for a .05 cent card.
Yes, we can educate and inform those uneducated, unsophisticated, and/or innocent sellers and buyers. But that doesn't mean the advantaged parties should get a pass. And they don't. Not here, not in the legal system either.
Tisket wanted to have an argument thats buying an item for $1 and selling for $1million (or whatever) is OK in our U.S. legal system. I didn't feel like taking the bait. But more and more people have been posting that its "ok" and that its "legal" and "capitalism." So, first off, the term 'legal' or 'illegal' should be clarified. Legality infers criminal sanctions. There is generally no crimes associated with the above (that I know of) except in the context of abusing the elderly. E.g. Selling ant-aging creams to the elderly.
So, Tisket is probably referring to 'civil liability', the non-criminal side. And, I hate to break it to you, but there is civil liability for buying extremely low and selling extremely high. In fact, there is multitudes of ways to void a contract (reverse the sale) when one party is uninformed or unknowledgeable, and the other the opposite. For any sale there is a contract, written or implied. In order for a contract to be formed, there has to be a 'meeting of the minds.' Parties cannot 'meet' if they do not understand what they are selling, or if one person is at an advantage to the other.
The legal term is called 'unconscionability'. This is an excerpt from a contracts book:
And for the record. 1m to 75m = 7500% mark up.b. Substantive: The "substantive" sort of unconscionability occurs where the clause or contract itself (rather than the process used to arrive at the contract) is unduly unfair and one-sided. [485]
i. Excessive price: An important example of substantive unconscionability is where the seller charges an excessive price. Usually, an excessive price clause only comes about when there is also some sort of procedural unconscionability (e.g., an uneducated consumer who doesn’t understand what he is agreeing to), since otherwise the consumer will usually simply find a cheaper supplier. [485 - 486]
TL;DR - Anyone who says 'capitalism' or 'its legal' or 'buyer beware' has no fucking clue what they are talking about.
/thread
Last edited by Haldrik; 05-09-2016 at 02:49 PM.
To me this isn't about what's a scam and what isn't a scam, it's about what's good business and what isn't. If you plan on sticking around, you're much better off making deals where both parties are satisfied. It doesn't mean you take a bath, or don't make a profit, as that is an unreasonable expectation, but it does mean fair dealing. Ask anyone who runs an established business, (like say, me), and they'll tell you that long term relationships and trust are keys to success. In the long run, you're better off doing a good deal with the newb than fucking them over for one big score, because if they stick around, you'll do a lot of business with them, and other future customers will trust you as well. Fuck them over and word gets around, and you lose business. Simple as that.
I don't use Lich. If you want to do business with me, contact me via PM, IG, or on AIM. Or maybe use smoke signals. Don't like it, get off of my lawn.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Edward R. Murrow