RMT Again

[Throndor]

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

Staff does seem to be very quick to clear accounts with only a single suspect transaction when the player is polite and can provide the info necessary to clear them (i.e. name of char who received the MQ and logs of the conversations and MQ with timestamps.) Always have your log running and don't be an ass to the staff seem to be the keys.

I.e. guilty until proven innocent? Since when does the burden of proof (that it didnt happen) lie in the hands of the accused. This seems a bit back-asswords as far as modus operandi go.

[Ele]

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

I.e. guilty until proven innocent? Since when does the burden of proof (that it didnt happen) lie in the hands of the accused. This seems a bit back-asswords as far as modus operandi go.

Let me check the constitution of Project1999.

I don't see a First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendment. I also don't think P99 signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by picaro11 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All im saying is build this thing to pay the people who built it a little more and now im the enemy.

Damn P1999 staff...you really got'em spoiled. It isn't surprising, its expected.

No. You're saying this because you got caught breaking one of the very few rules that will get you banned here. Now you think you can spin it by pretending to be industrious. They have been running the server(actually two servers, three if you count beta) for 5 years now. They made a decision at the outset that boxing ant RMT would not be allowed. You are not bringing anything to the table by trying to coerce them into running the project for profit. The fact that you are so pitifully unaware of the sheer futility of your argument is kind of funny though.

[Glenzig]

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

I.e. guilty until proven innocent? Since when does the burden of proof (that it didnt happen) lie in the hands of the accused. This seems a bit back-asswords as far as modus operandi go.

You think this is Judge Joe Brown son?

[fred schnarf]

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

Every decision is a result of a risk benefit analysis. Where risk or perceived loss outweighs potential benefit, a rational individual will decline to engage in the requisite activity. One who engages in comparably riskier behavior falls into one of three categories:

1) Irrational - Unreasoned embrace of risk
2) Ignorant - Incapable of accurate risk assessment
3) Apathetic - Places equally diminished value on all things

I will give you the benefit of the date and assume you belong to category three though I recognize flares of overconfidence alluding to infusions of categories 1 and 2.

Those who disagree with your view simply value the project as it is over potential revenues. You'd risk the loss, because you are deeply dissatisfied with everything. Your willing to trade the project (and anything else) for a widely accepted medium of exchange so that you can continue in search of something to fill that void of dissatisfaction. Maybe these latter assumptions are inaccurate and you dissatisfaction is limited to this project. If that is the case then I apologize, but your words are telling.

you arent insane at all , this is a totally normal post

[Ele]

School must be back in session. People spouting stuff they read about in econ and psychology 101.

lol

[Glenzig]

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

School must be back in session. People spouting stuff they read about in econ and psychology 101.

lol

Exactly.

[picaro11]

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

No. You're saying this because you got caught breaking one of the very few rules that will get you banned here. Now you think you can spin it by pretending to be industrious. They have been running the server(actually two servers, three if you count beta) for 5 years now. They made a decision at the outset that boxing ant RMT would not be allowed. You are not bringing anything to the table by trying to coerce them into running the project for profit. The fact that you are so pitifully unaware of the sheer futility of your argument is kind of funny though.

Well. Aren't you hardly a decision maker. And sorry to burst your bubble friend. The guys who run this show can do what they damn well please.

[Throndor]

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

You think this is Judge Joe Brown son?

Who said anything about a trial. It's just standard philosophical etiquette that the one making the claim is responsible for the burden of proof.

It seems a bit underhanded that in order to play on this server, one must keep extensive logs of what they are doing at all points in time, should they spontaneously be accused of something.

What did you have for lunch on October 23rd, 2012? Someone ate a baby on October 23rd, 2012. If u can't prove what you ate with logs (of feces) saved from October 23rd, 2012, you're guilty of eating babies.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by picaro11 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well. Aren't you hardly a decision maker. And sorry to burst your bubble friend. The guys who run this show can do what they damn well please.

I guess I was right earlier. You actually can't read. That's the whole point that has been made against you. They can do whatever they want, and they have already decided what that is as far as earning money goes. They have always had the option to risk trying to turn a profit off of this project. They have always decided against it. It is their choice. You aren't presenting them with some glorious tertiary option that has not been explored.