RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

V'aleera · **02-13-2015, 04:06 PM**

"Alternative payment accepted, PM for details"

Problem solved. Also, I didn't see anywhere that SE said they would be vigorously enforcing this part of the ToS. Just that it falls under the ToS.

Melkire · **02-13-2015, 04:08 PM**

This is all rather silly. #GrahamChapman

That said, I can see why they're tightening their stance on the matter. Essentially what they're trying to avoid is real market value for gil, i.e. a relatively stable conversion rate. That means being against trading of real goods for virtual currency, regardless of whether said goods are hard currency or something you could purchase with hard currency.

I don't know. I personally prefer CCCP's approach, which is to roll with it, but E.V.E. is a vastly different game, environment, community, etc.

(02-13-2015, 04:05 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: The spice must flow.

Muad'Dib, Muad'Dib, Muad'Dib!

Leto the II was a creepy ass mofo.

V'aleera · **02-13-2015, 04:10 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:03 PM)Titor Wrote: it is making it worse.

How, specifically, is it making things worse?

Titor · **02-13-2015, 04:14 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:10 PM)Intaki Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:03 PM)Titor Wrote: it is making it worse.
How, specifically, is it making things worse?

It is opening up more options for people to get scammed. If an artist says they will take alternative payment, and all the negotiations take place in skype/etc there is no way to enforce payment, there is no social front to go with. The artist could be like "person x never paid me, so I never drew the art"

and the other person can be like

"I did pay you! Where is my art" And never did pay, but could cause a scene against a particular person to ruin their reputation and there will be no proof to either the artist receiving the money or the person paying it, or the public eye being a pseudo-observer of the agreement

These sneaky transactions leave a loootttt of room for scamming.

Cato · **02-13-2015, 04:14 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:10 PM)Intaki Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:03 PM)Titor Wrote: it is making it worse.
How, specifically, is it making things worse?

It doesn't reflect very well on the site as a whole to be discussing how to circumvent the established rules. It'd be far better and more constructive for people to rally together and make a thread about it over on the official site to see if the rule can be adjusted.

Then there's the stuff that Titor outlined above. It's a bit of a slippery slope.

Titor · **02-13-2015, 04:14 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:14 PM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:10 PM)Intaki Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:03 PM)Titor Wrote: it is making it worse.
How, specifically, is it making things worse?

It doesn't reflect very well on the site as a whole to be discussing how to circumvent the established rules. It'd be far better and more constructive for people to rally together and make a thread about it over on the official site to see if the rule can be adjusted.

This too

Zaheela · **02-13-2015, 04:19 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:06 PM)Intaki Wrote: "Alternative payment accepted, PM for details"

Problem solved. Also, I didn't see anywhere that SE said they would be vigorously enforcing this part of the ToS. Just that it falls under the ToS.

But if they do enforce it or are forced to look into it because of someone (namely the commissioner) claims they were scanned, they do have logs. I would say that in order to protect not only your SE account, but also this site, take such things to a Private messaging site or such, like skype.

V'aleera · **02-13-2015, 04:20 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:14 PM)Titor Wrote: It is opening up more options for people to get scammed. If an artist says they will take alternative payment, and all the negotiations take place in skype/etc there is no way to enforce payment, there is no social front to go with. The artist could be like "person x never paid me, so I never drew the art"

and the other person can be like

"I did pay you! Where is my art" And never did pay, but could cause a scene against a particular person to ruin their reputation and there will be no proof to either the artist receiving the money or the person paying it, or the public eye being a pseudo-observer of the agreement

These sneaky transactions leave a loootttt of room for scamming.

But that is nothing new. Regardless of where negotiations take place (and they rarely do so publicly as is anyway), the possibility of being scammed exists.

As the buyer, the tool already exists in order to prove your claim that payment was delivered: screenshot the trade. As the seller, you should never, ever be handing over a product without first receiving payment.

None of these issues are newly created. Buying things from individuals on the internet has always been a very caveat emptor situation.

Gegenji · **02-13-2015, 04:22 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:14 PM)Titor Wrote: The artist could be like "person x never paid me, so I never drew the art"

"I did pay you! Where is my art" And never did pay, but could cause a scene against a particular person to ruin their reputation and there will be no proof to either the artist receiving the money or the person paying it, or the public eye being a pseudo-observer of the agreement

These sneaky transactions leave a loootttt of room for scamming.

The issue I have with this statement is you could've done this even before art sales were forbidden. What proof would someone have of the payment being made in this case that's different? The only thing I can think of is the art threads marking that the person has paid, but they could still take the gil and say they weren't.

The issue now becomes that if someone does that, BOTH could are liable to get in trouble. The person who scammed, and the person who broke the rules by making/paying for art with gil.

Cliodhna Eoghan · **02-13-2015, 04:25 PM**

(02-13-2015, 03:59 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: I, for one, welcome our noir-as-fuck futurepast.

[Image: tumblr_lfppcxcmnm1qb7lnbo1_500.gif]

Cato · **02-13-2015, 04:28 PM**

Well, that's why this thread is useful: sufficient forewarning is being given and so anyone who goes ahead and tries to circumvent the established rules only have themselves to blame.

Edgar · **02-13-2015, 04:29 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:14 PM)Titor Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:10 PM)Intaki Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:03 PM)Titor Wrote: it is making it worse.
How, specifically, is it making things worse?
It is opening up more options for people to get scammed. If an artist says they will take alternative payment, and all the negotiations take place in skype/etc there is no way to enforce payment, there is no social front to go with. The artist could be like "person x never paid me, so I never drew the art"

and the other person can be like

"I did pay you! Where is my art" And never did pay, but could cause a scene against a particular person to ruin their reputation and there will be no proof to either the artist receiving the money or the person paying it, or the public eye being a pseudo-observer of the agreement

These sneaky transactions leave a loootttt of room for scamming.

There is a thing we have that prevents that from ever happening.

It's called a list. I never gave you art? You paid me? Where's your name on the fucking list, then? Oh, it isn't there? Then there was no transaction, was there? *Watches as argument falls apart*

We've been doing that since before the TOS update. And people have been trying to scam us since before the TOS update. You act as though we never had to put up with it before.

Titor · **02-13-2015, 04:35 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:29 PM)Edgar Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:14 PM)Titor Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:10 PM)Intaki Wrote:
(02-13-2015, 04:03 PM)Titor Wrote: it is making it worse.
How, specifically, is it making things worse?
It is opening up more options for people to get scammed. If an artist says they will take alternative payment, and all the negotiations take place in skype/etc there is no way to enforce payment, there is no social front to go with. The artist could be like "person x never paid me, so I never drew the art"

and the other person can be like

"I did pay you! Where is my art" And never did pay, but could cause a scene against a particular person to ruin their reputation and there will be no proof to either the artist receiving the money or the person paying it, or the public eye being a pseudo-observer of the agreement

These sneaky transactions leave a loootttt of room for scamming.

There is a thing we have that prevents that from ever happening.

It's called a list. I never gave you art? You paid me? Where's your name on the fucking list, then? Oh, it isn't there? Then there was no transaction, was there? *Watches as argument falls apart*

We've been doing that since before the TOS update. And people have been trying to scam us since before the TOS update. You act as though we never had to put up with it before.

Right now anyone can say that they had an agreement over skype for art, but since there is no public record of the agreement people can literally go around slandering people's names. There is no defense of an open agreement with third party validation. Artists not following through with art can no longer be held accountable to their public image, as they can simply deny that the agreement or transaction ever took place.

This has happened to me (And some others I know) in the past before, which is why I make sure that everything is very clearly explicitly known. Â If an artist gets paid and does not follow through, their public image is still kept since there was no easily validated appearance, aside from skype/3rd party contacts but at that point you are basically just screaming that you violated tos which beats the point of taking it to secret.

Gegenji · **02-13-2015, 04:38 PM**

(02-13-2015, 04:29 PM)Edgar Wrote: It's called a list. I never gave you art? You paid me? Where's your name on the fucking list, then? Oh, it isn't there? Then there was no transaction, was there? *Watches as argument falls apart*

That works from the artist's angle, and if they request payment before starting work. The list doesn't hold much water, though, if the art is made first and the buyer states that they paid and they haven't. How can you prove you were paid?

And, while I severely doubt any of the artists here would do such a thing... the list also means nothing against a buyer who is being scammed by the ARTIST. Since, what's to keep the artist from taking the payment and then just not putting the name on the list? Oh, they're not on the list, so they obviously haven't paid.

As mentioned, there's a lot of faith being put on freeform internet transactions such of these, whether it be in gil OR in cash. At least with Paypal and the like you can have receipts of payment.

QueenFrejyalen · **02-13-2015, 04:46 PM**

I have updated my threads to reflect the stance the forum is taking on the ToS.

And for those worried about scams: Â I'm with you there. Â Though I would say that people still scam even if there's a public eye watching.

My advice is to document everything you can in case that does happen, but it'll indeed be tricky to prove/use in light of the ToS.

Also I would like to add my support to Aya's idea of some sort of trading board for art! Â =Oc

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (9): « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next » Jump to page:

Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes