Heads Up - Support does not consider scamming a perma-ban-worthy offense

Jason Xll ..

my buddy was scammed out of 800 armbraces because the seller posed as a trusted member of QQ

Again with the amounts... It should be the act of scamming that gets someone banned. Not the amount. A scammer who is willing to scam 10k is also willing to scam 175ectos or 400arms (though i dont see how someone would scam 400 arms and then GIVE AWAY SOMETHING WORTH MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT HE COULD HAVE JUST SOLD THE ITEM... I digress...).

Also, this guy could have been one of the idiots that was running scams for 30-60k during halloween. I made a thread. Someone decided to close it. This could have been a 2nd offense. Or maybe he would have been banned by now.

Luny asked no retaliation. That's fair I guess. But hopefully they ban this guy so there is some justice.

Like I said in my old thread, take the time to report any scammer. It may be a small amount to you, but it could help someone from losing a large amount later.

caveat emptor

as the post above that one says jason did unlucky luny but shouldnt be surprised these issues were there from long time ago

I wouldn't trust anyone from QQ in the first place...

Wow... Didn't expect that from him.. The few times we met he always seemed like quite an honest guy.

same thing can be said on these forums or any other, it comes down to the person in the end.

There's been a few cases that have gone through courts, in a few countries, that have ruled that virtual possessions have real world value & have awarded damages to victims of hacking, theft, and scamming. It began in Asia, I think, or at least the first case that was won by a victim - if memory serves from reading the case file the Supreme Court ordered the company to reimburse his entire account and restore all items that had been lost in a hack as well as monetary damages & legal fees.

Most recently (that I'm aware of) was the Supreme Court in The Hague re: theft in Runescape. It was a more complex case that involved people who knew each other in real life & was based on in game theft of 2 items, but the ruling of virtual items having intrinsic real world value due to the time invested to obtain them is what ultimately matters & is what will be cited by future cases.

Anet better get on the ball with these things. The more rulings that end in favor of the victims of theft, hacking, and scamming the higher the probability of such a case coming to light against them.

I just want to take a moment to talk about the good things Anet has done with preventing scams and also banning the scammers. Anet is constantly trying to improve the game to protect you the player from getting scammed. Back in 2005-06 the trade window was in desperate need of a revamp to make it easier for player to be able to tell the gold amount from plat or gold pieces. They also added a feature where the trade window would alert you of a change in items. Obviously changing an in game skin of a weapon would be tougher than making some changes in the trade window and also upset some of us, but I am sure Anet has learned from their mistakes as any person would. Thanks Anet.

For sure, Jason is proof of that. Just because someone who is well known on a site or in a specific community such as GWguru or QQ doesn't mean they are trustworthy. Everyone's honesty has a threshold.

and if they a really close friend and have previously, successfully moderated a trade for you before?

Well, an update to this ...

I spent some time back and forth emailing with Support. I thought perhaps the problem was something I failed to do/ask, so they could be 100% sure from logs that it was fraud. I asked them if there was something more we, as potential victims of fraud, can get spelled out in chat logs where they will perma someone found guilty afterwards. I thought maybe there was some "safe way" to trade things like Serpent Axes, where you can't determine a version difference from the trade window.

The reply from Support was there is nothing more I can ask a seller to confirm that offers such disincentive protection. Players can and do get perma'd for scamming just once, but it's determined by amount, not intent. I don't know the cutoff where it goes from temp to perma ban.


I saw my scammer logged back into GW on Mar. 14, 2012 for the first time since hearing he'd been suspended on Jan. 26, 2012. So that 175e cost him no more than seven weeks locked out of that GW account. On the day he scammed me, the HoM calculator showed he had a total of 38 total points, with 7/8 in Resilience. He was missing the point for obby armor. Checking today, his account has 39 points total with the obby armor added.

Pardon me if I'm still left doubting the actual enforcement of the no-scamming policy does anything other than enable those who would scam in the first place.


On the bright side, I'll never again feel so guilty about how much fun I have in GW for how little real money I spent on it that I go shopping at the in-game store looking for ways to send them a little revenue.



Re Bane/Malice - Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass on EVE ... screwing other people out of their pixels doesn't sound like fun to me. If it did, I'd have this interesting new GW research project to work on anyway! ... EDIT, well the post this bit was in reply to has been deleted now, so nevermind!

In the future, if you ever want a true tyrain serpent without the risk, go for one with a damage % of 12 or 13 (for gold, ofc). Then you know it can't be canthan

Of course, I will then hound you until you sell it to me, but still...

Sorry but as far as your original post is concerned, you are wrong.

It happened to me.

How is it wrong, and what exactly happened to you?

My concern is that those of us who wouldn't scam others for our own, personal reasons can easily mistake that players who would scam us do so at risk of certain loss of their accounts if found guilty. I'm sure that is not the case because the player found guilty of scamming me out of 175e got a temp ban, not a permanent ban. Support had everything they needed in game logs to determine that it was, without a doubt, intentional fraud as opposed to the possibility of an honest mistake. They still temp-banned the guy because he didn't have enough of a record as a fraudster already and because he didn't scam enough pixels this time.

It seems the risk of permanent ban for first offense depends on the amount/value of pixels you screwed another player out of, not simply screwing another player out of any pixels at all. That's a flawed system imo, but I posted here to warn others that we are not nearly as protected against scammers by Support as we might easily assume.

My $.02, scamming is wrong, and stupid yes. But, those that do it, I consider smart, because well, if the person being scammed is too dumb to notice a flaw in the trade or whatever, s/he deserves to be scammed. It's not different than me giving a key to my house to some stranger, hoping they don't ransack the place. Sucks it happened, really it does, but be more observant, pay attention.

Keyez stfu, you the biggest guild scammer around.

it happened to you but what is 150 ecto to you when you scammed 800 armbraces yourself?

Great advice, yep. But there are a few things in this game where the buyer can't see the difference from the trade window because different skinned items have identical icons and pop-up info tag details. Serpent Axes are probably the most expensive example, but they're far from the only one.

Given Support's relatively lenient response as long as you don't scam too much too often, I agree that my scammer was pretty smart! If you don't mind (or even enjoy) scamming other players and all you risk is not being able to use an account for a few weeks, why wouldn't you go around looking for scams to run? You have this vast pool of targets who either don't realize you could be scamming at all or assume you wouldn't scam so little in-game wealth when it would cost you an account perma-ban if caught. I'm worried about the potential other marks out there who don't realize how very little a scammer actually risks.

If you can't tell for sure from the trade window then do not assume Support offers any kind of effective disincentive to keep someone from intentionally defrauding you when they assure you you're buying one version of a skin instead of another.