Scamming Presents?!

[Eike_XIII]

We made it illegal this year because we decided scamming gifts is not fair and we no longer tolerate players tricking other players by stealing their presents.

Yep who scam present in this period only need to shame and stay stfu.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[BlackandWhite]

Idk why you are complaining. You claimed you don’t scam so it shouldn’t affect you anyway.

Not speaking on imaginary behalf (and this is more personal belief), but if we consider the whole landscape of subtly announcing rules, this sets a dangerous precedent that admins can and will act however they feel fit; according to their subjective moral judgement, and subsequently do a complete 180 against existing rules (that scamming is legal), with the poor excuse of that they softly announced these rules (putting it on their status) or with no excuse. (Obviously, adding new rules is not inherently bad, however, these rules should be announced through the official vessels -and not simply on their status). What sort of justice is Graal trying to set when players are punished for crimes they realistically could not have known they were crimes in the first place?

but the way you’re criticizing it makes it look like you are mad at the rule, not them quietly implementing it..

How did you reach this conclusion?

[GrahfixCloud]

Not speaking on imaginary behalf (and this is more personal belief), but if we consider the whole landscape of subtly announcing rules, this sets a dangerous precedent that admins can and will act however they feel fit; according to their subjective moral judgement, and subsequently do a complete 180 against existing rules (that scamming is legal), with the poor excuse of that they softly announced these rules (putting it on their status) or with no excuse. (Obviously, adding new rules is not inherently bad, however, these rules should be announced through the official vessels -and not simply on their status). What sort of justice is Graal trying to set when players are punished for crimes they realistically could not have known they were crimes in the first place?


How did you reach this conclusion?

I disagree, they might not know they are breaking a rule but they are being selfish and doing something that hurts others anyway so why would they deserve warning. They were doing something that hurts others and they just don't care. Why should they be given the upper hand when their victims weren't.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

[BlackandWhite]

I disagree, they might not know they are breaking a rule but they are being selfish and doing something that hurts others anyway so why would they deserve warning. They were doing something that hurts others and they just don't care. Why should they be given the upper hand when their victims weren't.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

Correct me if I’m wrong, so you believe that since scammers are being, “selfish” and are doing something, “that hurts others and they just don’t care,” they should be discriminated against in the eyes of Graal’s law. Discriminated in the context of admins enforcing their power over gift scammers whilst only subtly announcing they will be doing so through their status instead of going through the proper vessel (making an official, public and clear statement that admins will be punishing gift scammers and denouncing scamming is legal); which would be an almost unprecedented move in other instances. And so you believe the deceit and improper procedures towards scammers are warranted?

- - - Updated - - -

I am also wondering how far does your philosophy go- Should players who cheat on others, in graal, be also punished as they are being selfish and are hurting others?

Also what do you mean by upperhand?

[GrahfixCloud]

Correct me if I’m wrong, so you believe that since scammers are being, “selfish” and are doing something, “that hurts others and they just don’t care,” they should be discriminated against in the eyes of Graal’s law. Discriminated in the context of admins enforcing their power over gift scammers whilst only subtly announcing they will be doing so through their status instead of going through the proper vessel (making an official, public and clear statement that admins will be punishing gift scammers and denouncing scamming is legal); which would be an almost unprecedented move in other instances. And so you believe the deceit and improper procedures towards scammers are warranted?

- - - Updated - - -

I am also wondering how far does your philosophy go- Should players who cheat on others, in graal, be also punished as they are being selfish and are hurting others?

Also what do you mean by upperhand?

This isn't real life and even if it was, in real life ignorance can not be used as a defense. Also, they are not being discriminated against because that means they did nothing wrong. All the people that were previously scammed, know I wasn't, have gotten their justice. They were targeted for thinking they could trust the system and help some one while helping themselves. That is unless you want to take it back that scammers were targeted. That is the same logic as "I was targeted by the cops for domestic violence or theft." Plus if you are a scammer, they most definitely want you to have warnings because they don't want you becoming an admin as that would mean you don't have the proper care about other people.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

[imaginary]

This isn't real life and even if it was, in real life ignorance can not be used as a defense. Also, they are not being discriminated against because that means they did nothing wrong. All the people that were previously scammed, know I wasn't, have gotten their justice. They were targeted for thinking they could trust the system and help some one while helping themselves. That is unless you want to take it back that scammers were targeted. That is the same logic as "I was targeted by the cops for domestic violence or theft." Plus if you are a scammer, they most definitely want you to have warnings because they don't want you becoming an admin as that would mean you don't have the proper care about other people.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

No it doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t want you to be an admin. It’s just a punishment.

[GrahfixCloud]

No it doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t want you to be an admin. It’s just a punishment.

Ok yeah, but you get the point??

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

[imaginary]

Ok yeah, but you get the point??

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

Sure but they should have cared about us in the first place and made scamming illegal /::::::::::

[GrahfixCloud]

Sure but they should have cared about us in the first place and made scamming illegal /::::::::::

You mean before recently??? ik

Sent from my LG-TP450 using Tapatalk

[BlackandWhite]

A lot of what you’re trying is quite disjointed and difficult to understand, but I will try my best to respond.

This isn't real life and even if it was, in real life ignorance can not be used as a defense.

What do you refer, “defense” as, it seems you are insinuating that I am justifying scamming when in fact I am not. I am not ‘defending’ scammers in these sense of stating scamming as good or right. I am simply trying to make the case that these scammers are the recipient of injustice. Lets understand the whole landscape, it has been made apparent that scamming is legal thus it would make logical sense gift scamming would be legal. This year admins go undercover and stealthily punish gift scammers exclusively. Only small number of admins choose to announce they would be doing so in their status (after), leaving many indivuduals unaware that what they were doing was wrong in the first place. No matter how you spin this, this sort of justice goes against the proper procedures of era. As I reinstate this is an (almost?) unprecedented move from any other instances and to see admins go out of their way to involve deceit and disorder to their authority is disheartening and disappointing. I don’t care what you morally or personally think about scammers, the fact is subjective feelings should not bleed into laws and into the subsequent enforcement of law. The rationalisation of malpractice baffles me.

Also, they are not being discriminated against because that means they did nothing wrong.

You’re moving the goalpost. Discrimination has no relevance to whether people do something wrong or not wrong. It is defined as the, “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people,” and this is the whole point of what I am saying. Admins are exploiting their position of power, to commit an act inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. This would be like police officers incriminating citizens for disobeying laws set in the future.

All the people that were previously scammed, know I wasn't, have gotten their justice. They were targeted for thinking they could trust the system and help some one while helping themselves. That is unless you want to take it back that scammers were targeted

How is this relevant?

That is the same logic as "I was targeted by the cops for domestic violence or theft."

I fail to understand what you are trying to say here

Plus if you are a scammer,

If you are trying to suggest I am a scammer, well I’m not?

they most definitely want you to have warnings because they don't want you becoming an admin

?

that would mean you don't have the proper care about other people.

This is quite the interesting statement. Personally, I beg to differ, what I said would be the testament to the universal compassion I have for people. I try my best to minimise any bias I have against people and don’t (try to) allow it to corrupt my judgement. If I sense injustice I’m going to point it out, indiscriminate to whether people are scammers or belonging to whatever group (if I am bothered to ofc).

- - - Updated - - -

I am also wondering how far does your philosophy go- Should players who cheat on others, in graal, be also punished as they are being selfish and are hurting others?

Also what do you mean by upperhand?

I am quite annoyed you have chosen to ignore my last two statements. This hasn't been there first time you picked and choosed what to respond to. It would be valuable to me if you answered my questions.