Teach SSG a lesson

[Forzah]

I am not questioning it. I am refuting it outright.

Forgoing a sale is not buying whats being sold. Players can choose to not buy whats being sold, and still not cheat the system to get it free (aka stealing).

Thus what we are talking about here, is not forgoing a sale. The more you attempt to word smith this the more complicit it makes you appear (regardless if you are actually complicit or not).

I don't say exploiting is the same as forgoing a sale; I say the result of exploiting is forgone sales. I realize the difference is subtle.

[Chai]

I don't say exploiting is the same as forgoing a sale; I say the result of exploiting is forgone sales. I realize the difference is subtle.

More word smithing, after the fact.

Sure, the company makes less money, but they're not being stolen from. Deciding to forgo a sale is not stealing.

Here you lawyered the actions of the exploiters as "deciding to forgo a sale" - You were not lawyering the the result of money lost as forgone sales.

Not a good look.

[Forzah]

More word smithing, after the fact.



Here you lawyered the actions of the exploiters as "deciding to forgo a sale" - You were not lawyering the the result of money lost as forgone sales.

Not a good look.

That's consistent with everything I've said. Wanting to buy a certain item and then not buying it because something similar could be obtained otherwise is not stealing (in this case, it's not even the same item that's being obtained!). Just like it's not stealing from the grocery store when you grow your own vegetables, despite that it loses them sales.

Either way, thanks for the discussion and goodbye.

[Aelonwy]

This is reaching new heights of ridiculousness.

Most people agree exploiting is bad - check.
Most people agree exploiters need punished - check.
Most people agree the punishment was appropriate - not sure
Most people agree on an analogy of this particular exploit - no not even close, but so what?

Just because someone doesn't agree with the other person word for word doesn't put them on the opposite side entirely.

[HungarianRhapsody]

By your logic those who already exploited and got all pl feats would be left unscratched because they are already done exploiting and just picking fruits. By all means if exploit was known and you intentionally abused it doesn't matter of what margin you deserve to get equal ban as others who abused it plainly. As long as actions wont be severe enough exploiting will continue, and next time other would think twice before abusing it instead of reporting. As player from Sarlona who didn't participate in exploiting I feel good about action and stand they took specially directed to those who were bragging about achievements they made by unfair methods.

Whenever someone says, "by your logic," you know that they're going to wildly misrepresent what you just said.

[Renvar]

I don't say exploiting is the same as forgoing a sale; I say the result of exploiting is forgone sales. I realize the difference is subtle.

The result of exploiting (in this case) is gaining the benefit of an item for sale without paying for the item for sale. What do we call it when you take something without paying for it?

You are overthinking this. It's really quite simple.

[HungarianRhapsody]

Youre not calling out any of the other "inaccurate analogies" (and there are plenty in this thread alone) even after claiming that when you see anything inaccurate it bothers you.

I'm not calling out other "inaccurate analogies" because you already did that for me. Pretty much all of the analogies in this thread are terrible.

As I said before, analogies are outstanding for explaining your argument. Analogies are terrible for justifying your argument.

Piracy is a form of theft as defined by our legal code, but it has a substantially different impact on businesses than physical theft does even though it is treated similarly (not identically) under the law. You keep trying to act like I'm in favor of exploiting. I (mostly) am not. I just think that it's important to recognize that exploiting (ESPECIALLY with SSG/Turbine's history of ignoring or tacitly encouraging exploits) is not the same as stealing physical goods.

SSG/Turbine's overreaction in this situation and the honeytrap that they set up are the parts that I especially object to. That doesn't make exploiters into heroes. It does mean that SSG made some really bad and unethical decisions leading up to this.

[Chai]

The RIAA loves people like you.

True. I purchase artists products, rather than steal them.

[Chai]

I'm not calling out other "inaccurate analogies" because you already did that for me. Pretty much all of the analogies in this thread are terrible.

As I said before, analogies are outstanding for explaining your argument. Analogies are terrible for justifying your argument.

Piracy is a form of theft as defined by our legal code, but it has a substantially different impact on businesses than physical theft does even though it is treated similarly (not identically) under the law. You keep trying to act like I'm in favor of exploiting. I (mostly) am not. I just think that it's important to recognize that exploiting (ESPECIALLY with SSG/Turbine's history of ignoring or tacitly encouraging exploits) is not the same as stealing physical goods.

SSG/Turbine's overreaction in this situation and the honeytrap that they set up are the parts that I especially object to. That doesn't make exploiters into heroes. It does mean that SSG made some really bad and unethical decisions leading up to this.

The single bad decision SSG made was, as usual, waiting as long as they did before taking action. That doesnt mean they shouldnt take action however. This is not overreaction here. In fact, had they taken stronger action sooner, there would be far less need in the present to take the action they are now taking.

As for the "honeytrap" stuff - any objective observer saw that coming over 9 parsecs away. How they gonna set up an entire online community devoted to sharing information on how to exploit a single game system, and not expect it to be infiltrated through and through by employees and associates of the company who maintain the system? The only surprise here, once again, is that it took this long to happen.

[Chai]

If done illegitimately, it's called an offense, otherwise, it's being smart. No item was actually taken from the store, so you can't call it stealing.

Might have been correct like five decades ago when the laws basically covered brick and mortar businesses and physical objects.

Not so much in 2018.

That's consistent with everything I've said. Wanting to buy a certain item and then not buying it because something similar could be obtained otherwise is not stealing (in this case, it's not even the same item that's being obtained!). Just like it's not stealing from the grocery store when you grow your own vegetables, despite that it loses them sales.

Either way, thanks for the discussion and goodbye.

More analogies.

(subject) Deciding to forgo a sale is not (same subject) stealing

is not the same as....

the result of exploiting is forgone sales.

You literally did post:

Sure, the company makes less money, but they're not being stolen from. Deciding to forgo a sale is not stealing.

And it was only after pointing out how this was not a good look that the view changed to...

I don't say exploiting is the same as forgoing a sale; I say the result of exploiting is forgone sales. I realize the difference is subtle.

This tactic works better in a verbal conversation where after the filibuster occurs, someone doesn't have a portable stenographer they can use to play back what was said to point out the contradiction, realization of contradiction, and attempt at a tactical retreat as a damage control mechanism, but on a forum of typed posts, we can just scroll back and quote word for word what was posted.

If this equal footing discussion gets uncomfortable for you, I will remind you that you had the option of refraining from quoting and replying to me which we have discussed several times in the past. You chose to challenge my position instead, and did so using analogies, and supporting other analogies, which show every favor to those who exploit (ex: they were just forgoing a sale. its called "being smart" not stealing) and which condemn the actions of the company around every corner. (ex: executing a jaywalker)

[HungarianRhapsody]

The single bad decision SSG made was, as usual, waiting as long as they did before taking action. That doesnt mean they shouldnt take action however. This is not overreaction here. In fact, had they taken stronger action sooner, there would be far less need in the present to take the action they are now taking.

As for the "honeytrap" stuff - any objective observer saw that coming over 9 parsecs away. How they gonna set up an entire online community devoted to sharing information on how to exploit a single game system, and not expect it to be infiltrated through and through by employees and associates of the company who maintain the system? The only surprise here, once again, is that it took this long to happen.

So it's okay to be unethical and put out a honeytrap as long as you're bad at it?

Gotcha.

[Chai]

So it's okay to be unethical and put out a honeytrap as long as you're bad at it?

Gotcha.

How are they being unethical in disallowing people to steal from them?

Specificity required here.

[Forzah]

The result of exploiting (in this case) is gaining the benefit of an item for sale without paying for the item for sale. What do we call it when you take something without paying for it?

You are overthinking this. It's really quite simple.

If done illegitimately, it's called an offense, otherwise, it's being smart. No item was actually taken from the store, so you can't call it stealing.

Note that it is possible to carry out the offense independent of the existence of the store, so it is very strange to call it stealing when there is a store, and something else when there isn't; it's consistent to use the same name in both cases.

[bartharok]

I believe MOST people will agree that exploiting is bad (unless they are caught doing it), so defending it is kind of silly. The fact that it is possible at times is no excuse, and cant be used to shift the blame (i think most people will agree, as long as they are not the ones caught doing it)

No analogies can be completely appropriate even in the best of times, so lets not quibble about which one is the worst.

I think the problem is that a lot of people have been in the belief that exploiting will just get you a slap on the wrist, and thus have done it as much as they can. Now the slap was executed with an axe, and people are shocked. That doesnt mean that the punishment was unjust, just that it was unexpected after a long history of minor punishments, which people have been complaining about for a long time. Perhaps SSG could have ramped up the punishments slower, but the shock makes people think twice about doing it again.

[HungarianRhapsody]

How are they being unethical in disallowing people to steal from them?

Specificity required here.

Disallowing people from cheating - fine.

Actively posting a step-by-step guide on how to cheat in order to entice people into cheating so that you can ban them - not fine.

[Kaboom2112]

This horse is dead, move on people.

[Forzah]

More analogies.

(subject) Deciding to forgo a sale is not (same subject) stealing

is not the same as....

the result of exploiting is forgone sales.

You literally did post:


And it was only after pointing out how this was not a good look that the view changed to...

Besides worded differently, there is no difference in meaning between those sentences. Deciding to forgo a sale (after exploiting) is indeed not the same as stealing.

This is quite a funny logical error: suppose I steal one item and, as a result, decide to forgo buying the item, then apparently I have stolen two items!

This tactic works better in a verbal conversation where after the filibuster occurs, someone doesn't have a portable stenographer they can use to play back what was said to point out the contradiction, realization of contradiction, and attempt at a tactical retreat as a damage control mechanism, but on a forum of typed posts, we can just scroll back and quote word for word what was posted.

If I see you don't understand what I wrote, then I try to explain it again in different words.

If this equal footing discussion gets uncomfortable for you, I will remind you that you had the option of refraining from quoting and replying to me which we have discussed several times in the past. You chose to challenge my position instead, and did so using analogies, and supporting other analogies, which show every favor to those who exploit (ex: they were just forgoing a sale) and which condemn the actions of the company around every corner. (ex: executing a jaywalker)

I've already commented on the other analogies and made it very clear that I disapprove of this exploiting and that there should be a punishment.

[FlimsyFirewood]

Trying to read this thread made my head hurt.

Like so:

[hinton]

[QUOTE=Forzah;6074666]If done illegitimately, it's called an offense, otherwise, it's being smart. No item was actually taken from the store, so you can't call it stealing.

Note that it is possible to carry out the offense independent of the existence of the store, so it is very strange to call it stealing when there is a store, and something else when there isn't; it's consistent to use the same name in both cases.[/QUOTE

Sure it's not stealing it's cheating. Where I'm from you can get killed (or just severely beaten) for cheating.

No person was actually killed you can't call it execution. It's more like kicked out of, all assets(not just the cheating gains) removed. But not bared ftom p[laying again..

I would liken it to getting caught cheating in a poker game getting run out and losing your entire stake not just from the hand(s) you cheated at.

Punishment may have been harsh(don't know the details of the offenses) But not unreasonable,

[HungarianRhapsody]

I would liken it to getting caught cheating in a poker game getting run out and losing your entire stake not just from the hand(s) you cheated at.

Punishment may have been harsh(don't know the details of the offenses) But not unreasonable,

Analogy time!

In this particular case, SSG went to a local bar (that bar will go unnamed since saying the name of that forum, I mean bar is also banworthy) and actively recruited people to come to their own poker game and cheat with a thorough explanation of HOW to cheat at that specific poker game.

...and then ran them out of the of the game and took their entire stake, not just the hand(s) they cheated at.


I'm not going to defend cheaters. I am going to repeatedly point out just how underhanded and unethical that gambit was for SSG to pull.