Dragon Raja Global

Due to the VERY POOR decision on gm on fayen obvious scam, i wondered if we should change the exchange system. In WoW, you have a case of 'none exchange' this might be usefull. A very nice system that WoW have is letter, where you can send item to other player even if they aren't on. There is a mode that the other person can pick the letter only if he sended the require thing to pay.

Let's says i want to buy a sard from you for 100 r.e. You send me the sard on mail using this option because i am not on. When i get on, see ur message, and need to send you the 100 r.e before i can pick the sard from mall. This can avoid alot of scam.

Mostly, i find the first option to be very important. When you trade 2 g4 to a player to combine them, you don't want to be scammed. With the none trading option, we could get our item combine without being afraid of get scam.

Any have idea/sugestion?

Noeyesee wrote:Due to the VERY POOR decision on gm on fayen obvious scam,

Yes it was a scam but like I mentioned before it could have been preventable if the player traded on the same day as payment. The risk of accepting a payment on a later date is something the player must be aware of and accept. Further as I have said again, the intent of Fayen was not to scam as he offered alternatives which had been refused. The only loss to the victim in this case is potential gains and not tangible.

As in the rules state, borrowing items (Which would include all lesser things including payment for borrowing items) is an exception to scam cases as we implore players to always take the safer route and never hand out items and/or account info.

Noeyesee wrote: i wondered if we should change the exchange system. In WoW, you have a case of 'none exchange' this might be usefull. A very nice system that WoW have is letter, where you can send item to other player even if they aren't on. There is a mode that the other person can pick the letter only if he sended the require thing to pay.

Let's says i want to buy a sard from you for 100 r.e. You send me the sard on mail using this option because i am not on. When i get on, see ur message, and need to send you the 100 r.e before i can pick the sard from mall. This can avoid alot of scam.

Mostly, i find the first option to be very important. When you trade 2 g4 to a player to combine them, you don't want to be scammed. With the none trading option, we could get our item combine without being afraid of get scam.

Any have idea/sugestion?

We have brought up a mail system in discussion. But trading with it has not been brought up, its an interesting idea for offline transactions.

The risk of accepting a payment on a later date is something the player must be aware of and accept. Further as I have said again, the intent of Fayen was not to scam as he offered alternatives which had been refused. The only loss to the victim in this case is potential gains and not tangible.

VERY stupid reply IMO. First, what does paying the next day or in 1 year change. They have a deal, gabriel respect is party and fayen DOESNT. This is same if you lend a char to a compagny, bring them back the char, says you will pay on CC but never pay it. He used the service, gave it back, but never paid for it.
Yes, he offered 2 sard, fine. In the hack section, i have been told to use logic, that we are humains and rules can have loophole, that we use logic to fix probleme. Fine with me. Let's go logic, someome how a cyc skin (800 r.e back in the time) for 2 sard (160 re at most). Do you find this logic? You make a deal and you need to pay your part. This is a scam, and it's outrageous to see gm action about it. Corruption discution are brought back in vysus now.

Anyway, this wasn't the discution i want to talk about, since it's obvious that gm made a very stupid decision.

It really seem like gm don't want to help us, the fair and nice playing trying to help the server. Another server helping these cunt abusing of every rules? We are tired of that. Get your fact straight and act against server doomer, dont help them .

Paying a smaller amount for the full amount is something accepted in the real world as an alternative to paying the fuller amount.

Now this will be my last post here regarding this as well since I don't want to take it off topic but in WoW if you make a ticket stating that you lent somebody 50G in agreement that you get in example 70G in return in the future but in the end you were only given 50G and not the 70G. Would the GMs of WoW enforce this? To my understanding they wouldn't since I've asked several people prior to this and they told me Blizzard does not enforce player made agreements especially if the victim doesn't incur a significant loss. The same would apply in this situation.

As you have indicated noeyesee, it is your opinion. I'm sorry to say you don't like the ruling. Perhaps it's a very poor decision from your view point. However, all things considered, we determined that this was the best course of action. If you wish to make a suggestion, please go ahead. But knock it off with mixing in snarky comments towards our decision. End of discussion on this case. Any further attempts to argue this will have this thread closed. You can use the case at hand to bolster your argument for your suggestion, but not in the way you have just used it. Thank you.

GMSignBreaker

Gab, what you are saying is getting to my point. Due to the poor gm implication and the VERY poor trading/exchange system, and they player being more jerk every single day, shouldn't we change the system?

For gmtempest; WoW wouldn't pay back. WoW have system for these kind of stuff, and 18 millions player, indeed they won't do that. They have system for jobbing that you can't be scammed at all. This is not borrow. Anyway, i don't feel like arguing about it since it's ridiculous.

Should we expect any change to the trading/exchange system?

Noeyesee wrote:Gab, what you are saying is getting to my point. Due to the poor gm implication and the VERY poor trading/exchange system, and they player being more jerk every single day, shouldn't we change the system?

For gmtempest; WoW wouldn't pay back. WoW have system for these kind of stuff, and 18 millions player, indeed they won't do that. They have system for jobbing that you can't be scammed at all. This is not borrow. Anyway, i don't feel like arguing about it since it's ridiculous.

Should we expect any change to the trading/exchange system?

Yes it was a borrow as a item was borrowed and later returned. It could have VERY easily had been prevented if the item was asked at the time of the trade (The total borrow time was under 5 minutes) even though our trade system is not as advanced as WoW it is still sufficient for this situation. Just like WoW's policy to stop helping a player that is scammed too much times, we wish for players to learn from their mistakes as well.

Further I wouldn't know about a change to the trading system but we do have a Auction House in progress that you can expect.

GMSignBreaker wrote:If you wish to make a suggestion, please go ahead. But knock it off with mixing in snarky comments towards our decision. End of discussion on this case. Any further attempts to argue this will have this thread closed. You can use the case at hand to bolster your argument for your suggestion, but not in the way you have just used it. Thank you.

GMSignBreaker

Thank you for not heeding my warning. I do not spew out empty words. Thread closed.