The official RMTer Goodbye P1999 Thread

[Fael]

Bazia you haven't a clue what your talking about.

1. It is not a crime unless you should have known. Willfull blindness, etc.

2. UCC entrustment in many situations gives a bona Fide purchaser for value superior title notwithstanding the validity of the trade.

Mens rea is required for almost any crime. I'm so sick of stupid dumb $&@/s who are quick to support the banning of an innocent person who is only guilty by association. It's not much different than the paki mentality that would justify charging a Todler with murder.

Dolic

[Stonecrush]

Originally Posted by Fael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bazia you haven't a clue what your talking about.

1. It is not a crime unless you should have known. Willfull blindness, etc.

2. UCC entrustment in many situations gives a bona Fide purchaser for value superior title notwithstanding the validity of the trade.

Mens rea is required for almost any crime. I'm so sick of stupid dumb $&@/s who are quick to support the banning of an innocent person who is only guilty by association. It's not much different than the paki mentality that would justify charging a Todler with murder.

Dolic

Someone just got schooled in the art of law. Oh Snap!

[Duckwalk]

Bona Fide Purchasers require lack of notice. How much you want to bet the majority of exchanges were along the lines of:

Allegedly innocent powerlvler says, "Meet me at EC tunnel"

Obvious RMT replies, " what is EC tunnel? Did you mail me my gear, where is mailbox? Someone stole my hearthstone, how do I get to you?"

[jaybone]

Originally Posted by Bazia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

in the real world accepting stolen goods is a crime

whether you know they were stolen or not

deal wit it

good thing this is a video game dumb fuck

[Bazia]

they borrowed the concept for a reason

[Fael]

1. They also have been known to make ex post facto rulings, often with suspensions involved. I'm sure they probably borrowed whatever you are referring to from the same place. I get it. Might makes right. I can accept that, but to call it fair and rooted in law is Michael Jackson ignorant.

2. I'm not critiquing the staff here. I can understand that they have little time to deal with these types of investigations. But when they blanket ban people involved in transactions with "known" rmters, you can be rest assured that many innocent people got associated with it. This of course was by design. They then took petitions from people to settle whether or not they were in fact not guilty of anything. There are some people however that have had a hard time providing an explanation of what was traded and for how much, etc, for trades that happened months ago. Naturally I assume it was their fault for not keeping detailed logs of every purchase, one instance I know of involves a meager 4,000. It's absurd.

Dolic

[deadlycupcakez]

Originally Posted by Fael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. They also have been known to make ex post facto rulings, often with suspensions involved. I'm sure they probably borrowed whatever you are referring to from the same place. I get it. Might makes right. I can accept that, but to call it fair and rooted in law is Michael Jackson ignorant.

2. I'm not critiquing the staff here. I can understand that they have little time to deal with these types of investigations. But when they blanket ban people involved in transactions with "known" rmters, you can be rest assured that many innocent people got associated with it. This of course was by design. They then took petitions from people to settle whether or not they were in fact not guilty of anything. There are some people however that have had a hard time providing an explanation of what was traded and for how much, etc, for trades that happened months ago. Naturally I assume it was their fault for not keeping detailed logs of every purchase, one instance I know of involves a meager 4,000. It's absurd.

Dolic

banned people were those that paid RL $$$ for IG items or pps. Not people who traded in game to in game.

[fishingme]

Originally Posted by Derubael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There seems to be a lot of confusion over this.

Only 2 people were exploiting. We banned every account they had logged into over the course of ~3 years, even if it was only a single time. When the actual owners of the accounts petitioned, we dropped the bans to suspensions on a case-by-case basis, so long as the account was clean and had a limited number of logins from one of the people who exploited.

If we had thought leadership or a larger portion of the guild was involved, we would have disbanded the guild and held leadership responsible.

The exploiters themselves got not only their accounts permanently banned, but also a number of accounts that weren't even theirs banned as well (based on high # of logins)

So, yes, I'd say that's substantially worse.

I believe he was referring to

http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=46654

[Derubael]

Originally Posted by fishingme [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I believe he was referring to

http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=46654

He was referring to this:

http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=131586

and comparing it to the recent ban wave you linked above, hence my explanation.

[quido]

More ban waves imo