Theft from SG.. Tale of Woe
By
ajax_cat,
Posted on: 2008-08-04 18:10 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Question:
If the thief had stuck the expensive items on WC and they sold should they have to have that item taken off the buyer who has legit payed for it?
Whilst I feel for the OP - InnerCircle Mr ?'s SG had this happen once and now all storage permissions are set to only the most trusted of long term players - if someone would like something they can ask. Unfortunately it has come to that, but until something better comes along thats what we have to work with.
Also, I am a firm believer in cosmic justice, what goes around will come around. Put another way what this @X has done will happen to him in some form or another - just give it time...
... either in game or in RL.
and I am sure there are enough good people here to help you get at least some of your stuff back, just gimme a shout @Mr ? and if I am online I will help as much as I can 
[ QUOTE ]
Im sorry for your loss, this might make you feel better
http://eve.klaki.net/heist/
Think their loss is a tad more than yours, but it proves a point in mmo games.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was so very mean - but also slightly awesome the way they did it as a roleplay the whole time 
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Happened to my villain group aswell, had a chap that was with us for a time and decided one day he needed our stuff and left the group without a word. I personaly did not contact customer support as i knew they could do nothing, instead i used word of mouth to my globals and coaltion members of the person that stole from us.
Three days later he returned all our goods as he was no longer able to team or join a supergroup/villain group.
It truly sucks i know how it felt and so do many others, all i can say is don't give up cause of one loser.
One of the leaders of the Harlequins villain group and currently on defiant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im sorry for your loss, this might make you feel better
http://eve.klaki.net/heist/
Think their loss is a tad more than yours, but it proves a point in mmo games.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was so very mean - but also slightly awesome the way they did it as a roleplay the whole time
[/ QUOTE ]but that Guiding Hand Social Club does that near every other month because the GM there say "it withing Game mechicans and if you don't like there are other mmorpg out there if you don't like the rule". plus i think Guiding Hand Social Club either got ther own like thread or they post alot of these tactics on poor Victim they smash or rune.
the only rule here that i can suggest is to lock it up tight anddon't let anyone bully you around with i wnt to do this this and this. Set up rule and if hey don't like tell them to go seek employment else where
[ QUOTE ]
The whole issue is about taking one's words against another. (sorry if that's not proper english - but I think you got my point)
There is always 2 sides of a story. We have no way to verify the exactitude of one's side. Sure we can check logs and use whatever tools we have at our disposal, but not only this would take a considerable amount of time, the logs don't always tell the truth. What if they made some kind of arrangement IRL or on MSN, that would completly spin the whole story? We will never know about that.
If we were to set a precedent for a case like this, this would be open doors to all kind of abuse, and would eat up a huge amount of customer support's ressources.
I am not on anyone's side, just looking at things from a neutral perspective. I have seen such ugly things during my long time playing MMOs, sometimes so tricky that you can't tell who is wrong and who is right.
Not saying this is the case here (and obviously it isn't), but we cannot verify the claims as they exactly happened. Hence the answer you got from our customer support.
[/ QUOTE ]
With all due respect Palladium, if this had been someone I knew in RL..this wouldnt have been an issue as a) none of my RL friends would EVER do such a thing to me and more importantly b) if they did, I would ALREADY have sorted the issue myself and in person such that I would never need to come to customer support in the first place.
As ive said though the main crux for me of this is not so much what was taken, although I would certainly have expected the thieved items to be removed from him even if they werent returned.. as I see no reason why he should be allowed to propser for his theft.
But the main issue for me is that as things stand he has essentially been protected by the current rules and policies in place, such that he could essentially freely make a living joining and robbing SG's and nothing will ever be done about it except by us the players and purely by word of mouth.. in what UNIVERSE does that seem even remotely acceptable? Whatever spin is put on that, the fact remains it is is just plainly and morally wrong. We have rules for code of conduct yet apparently theft is not included.
As ive said previously in earlier posts there is a principal at stake here, and I am not one to compromise my own principals simply because others cannot or will not abide by them, themselves.
Hello - couldn't resist throwing my two pence in. Before I start I'm on the side of the folks above who have summed it up as "take it as a lesson, don't let it spoil your game"
[ QUOTE ]
although I would certainly have expected the thieved items to be removed from him even if they werent returned..
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? No-one is saying that the actions taken have broken the game rules in any way and I'm sure you have said as much yourself. (I refer to rules, not moral obligations or expectations)
[ QUOTE ]
in what UNIVERSE does that seem even remotely acceptable? Whatever spin is put on that, the fact remains it is is just plainly and morally wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I post we're onto the 11th page of posts. It is not plainly anything as you have noticed it has generated debate and opinions. I dispute that you can say its a fact that its morally wrong - surely this depends on whose morals?
As you can see by my post count I'm a lurker rather than a poster but I've found this an interesting thread to read. Hope everyone has benefited a little from this cautionary tale.
[ QUOTE ]
We have rules for code of conduct yet apparently theft is not included.
[/ QUOTE ]Theft would be against the rules, a breach of trust however isn't.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im sorry for your loss, this might make you feel better
http://eve.klaki.net/heist/
Think their loss is a tad more than yours, but it proves a point in mmo games.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was so very mean - but also slightly awesome the way they did it as a roleplay the whole time
[/ QUOTE ]but that Guiding Hand Social Club does that near every other month because the GM there say "it withing Game mechicans and if you don't like there are other mmorpg out there if you don't like the rule". plus i think Guiding Hand Social Club either got ther own like thread or they post alot of these tactics on poor Victim they smash or rune.
the only rule here that i can suggest is to lock it up tight anddon't let anyone bully you around with i wnt to do this this and this. Set up rule and if hey don't like tell them to go seek employment else where
[/ QUOTE ]
Comparing EvE with CoH is pointless, in terms of method or application EvE is far superior to anything CoH will ever be... luckily CoH wins hands down for pure fun.
[ QUOTE ]
Hello - couldn't resist throwing my two pence in. Before I start I'm on the side of the folks above who have summed it up as "take it as a lesson, don't let it spoil your game"
[/ QUOTE ]
You see the problem I have with the few people who have responded in that way is two-fold.
Firstly its apparent that those who have said such a stance have not suffered such an occurence themselves, and as such do not have the benefit of personal perspective of how it feels to have such a thing happen. As a result what people say their stance would be, does not necessarily equate to what it "Would" be, were the shoe on the other foot as it were.
And secondly, because maybe I could have put it down to experience if at least there was a reason or valid explanation for it..be it a real argument, precipitating factors, or even roleplay.. but their was none. This was betrayal with the motivation of "because I could", which im afraid simply does not equate to anything in my way of thinking I can console myself with. It was an act of spite. a betrayal of trust and everything I abbhor in ANY individual who would claim to have been my friend.
So im afraid for me, no it isnt something I can put down to experience.. it was wrong and my sense of justice says wrong things should be made right and those who do wrong thigs should be answerable for them.
[ QUOTE ]
Why? No-one is saying that the actions taken have broken the game rules in any way and I'm sure you have said as much yourself. (I refer to rules, not moral obligations or expectations)
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, im afriad nothing in how I think or what I was brought up to believe, or was told and have learnt/know to be right or wrong allows me to excuse theft simply because "technically" the rules as laid out presently do not dissallow it.
Whether it is not prevented by a rule or not, at the end of the day you have to apply common sense.. and when a rule does not prevent a theft or circumstances where thefts can continue then blatantly something is not quit being adequately covered as far as the rules or facilities for us to provide ourselves in game security is concerned.
If nothing else comes out of the discussion I would expect at the very least NCoft sees that the current permissions system is blatantly inadequate for the security they expect us to provide ourselves and to DO something about fixing the problem.
[ QUOTE ]
I dispute that you can say its a fact that its morally wrong - surely this depends on whose morals?
[/ QUOTE ]
And im sure the thief found some way to rationalise his act to himself to make it excusable too..but it doesnt mean it was and it doesnt make it right.
There are fundamental things in all societies that are not accepted and theft is one of them. A couple of people here, could and have argued the semantics and permissability of what he did but thankfully almost everyone else has erred on the side of reason and agreed that such actions are wrong.
At the end of the day he took something he knew he should not have, without my permission.. He KNEW it was wrong and that is why he ran (left the Sg and set me to global ignore and then later tried to deny and excuse it). If he had genuinely thought it was okay to help himself he would never have had any need to hide or do those things.. but he did bcause he knew it was a betrayal.
And although he didnt know it then and potentially still may not, due to the way things are currently set up he has actually been allowed to get away with it, under the rationale of "well the rules dont actually prevent it so it must be okay and therefore acceptable"... its a reach by any standards.
I think the main problem here is that you want to apply what you call "common sense" to the situation. Where rules like this exist there is no "but it's common sense/its obvious what I meant" argument. The rules are there. The indivdual acted within the rules. Whatever your feelings on the morality of it I don't see the problem based on logic.
I would disagree that [ QUOTE ]
its apparent that those who have said such a stance have no suffered such an occurence themselves
[/ QUOTE ].
Hopefully most people will have not suffered a situation the same as yours - but I think its overly optimistic to assume that no-one else has ever suffered a betrayl of trust. Of course people understand betrayl and its an injustice to suggest otherwise.
[ QUOTE ]
If nothing else comes out of the discussion I would expect at the very least NCoft sees that the current permissions system is blatantly iadequate for the security they expect us to provide ourselves and to DO something bout fixing the problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the main point of the discussion and indeed the very reason customer support directed you here. Everyone (i think) agrees that the current system needs more flexibility. So the discussion is good to bring this awareness to more people - but unless i'm mis-reading your posts you still expect this person to be answerable to their perceived crime while its clear that even if anything were to be done, you would not be notified. I an unsure what you hope to obtain.
[ QUOTE ]
The rules are there. The indivdual acted within the rules. Whatever your feelings on the morality of it I don't see the problem based on logic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually no he didnt.. he acted on his own, he had and likely still doesnt, as Ive already said know that the rules actually protect him from having to answer for what he did by making it effectively permissable. So im afraid what you quote as being logical is a little off.
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully most people will have not suffered a situation the same as yours - but I think its overly optimistic to assume that no-one else has ever suffered a betrayl of trust
[/ QUOTE ].
you need to re-read my point you quoted, as nowhere in it did I state "noone" else had ever suffered a betrayal. Those are your words not mine.
My statement was effectively that it is apparent that those who took the stance of "put it down to experience and move on" obviously had not experienced a betrayal like this because if they had, they would have the benefit of personal perspective of what it feels like, and under those circumstances I would be beyond amazed if those same people maintained the same stance on how to deal with it.. because in all likelihood they wouldnt imo.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course people understand betrayl and its an injustice to suggest otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
And herein lies the hippocrisy of the above stance.. if you understand betrayal and its injustice in this regard then for it to be such, you have to also understand that it is wrong. And if something is wrong then obviously it cannot BE acceptable.
[ QUOTE ]
This is the main point of the discussion and indeed the very reason customer support directed you here. Everyone (i think) agrees that the current system needs more flexibility. So the discussion is good to bring this awareness to more people - but unless i'm mis-reading your posts you still expect this person to be answerable to their perceived crime while its clear that even if anything were to be done, you would not be notified. I an unsure what you hope to obtain.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sort of, yes.. I would "like and expect" that something should be done in such instances, but I also think its blatantly apparent that the individual in question is and has and no doubt will get away with it.
But if the result of highlighting this flaw in the permissions system at its ability to be abused actually enacts some change for the better so we who run these player run organisations can protect ourselves from such abuses in the future, then to a point I will be happy with the outcome... but whether that comes to pass or not remains to be seen.
In all honesty I have absolutely no idea what half of those responses meant. But its late and I'm more than likely being dim. Will read again in the morning and see if I can make any more of it then. But good-night in the meantime.
Atlas picking fights with people who don't entirely agree with your opinion ain't really gonna help anything now is it mate.
[ QUOTE ]
In all honesty I have absolutely no idea what half of those responses meant. But its late and I'm more than likely being dim. Will read again in the morning and see if I can make any more of it then. But good-night in the meantime.
[/ QUOTE ]
lol, night Oracle
[ QUOTE ]
Atlas picking fights with people who don't entirely agree with your opinion ain't really gonna help anything now is it mate.
[/ QUOTE ]
It wasnt picking a fight alphane, but as text is effectively emotionless for the most part, it is fairly easy to misread the intent of a response, where no intent may have existed. As such I can see how you may easily mistake my response whcih was actually pointing out the flaw in his argument as I percieve it to Oracle as an attack, which I assure you it was not in any way, shape or form.
trust me if I was attacking people (unlikely anyway) their would be expletives, bold, and large text-a-plenty lol and there hasnt been.. well not from me anyway
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atlas picking fights with people who don't entirely agree with your opinion ain't really gonna help anything now is it mate.
[/ QUOTE ]
as text is effectively emotionless for the most part
[/ QUOTE ]
I would kinda disagree with this as I certainly feel some emphatic response to the 'tone' of peoples posts, especially if I know them well.
[ QUOTE ]
Firstly its apparent that those who have said such a stance have not suffered such an occurence themselves
[/ QUOTE ]Possibly because we do not put ourself in the risk of such an occurrence happening in the first place?
Not that I'd be fussed if somebody stole some base salvage, that stuff is practically worthless anyways.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, im afriad nothing in how I think or what I was brought up to believe, or was told and have learnt/know to be right or wrong allows me to excuse theft simply because "technically" the rules as laid out presently do not dissallow it.
Whether it is not prevented by a rule or not, at the end of the day you have to apply common sense.. and when a rule does not prevent a theft or circumstances where thefts can continue then blatantly something is not quit being adequately covered as far as the rules or facilities for us to provide ourselves in game security is concerned.
[/ QUOTE ]Yet you yourself agree to those rules every time you start up the game (Well, most likely, although it's circumventable).
[ QUOTE ]
If nothing else comes out of the discussion I would expect at the very least NCoft sees that the current permissions system is blatantly inadequate for the security they expect us to provide ourselves and to DO something about fixing the problem.
[/ QUOTE ]There have been several similiar cases in the past, so this thread, especially seeing as it's on the european boards (yes, I'm aware that the devs supposedly visit here now and then), is unlikely to have any effect. I wouldn't be suprised if the permission system was revamped in the upcoming base update though.
[ QUOTE ]
There are fundamental things in all societies that are not accepted and theft is one of them.
[/ QUOTE ]The concept of theft only comes with the concept of ownership, which is hardly present in all societies. (Although admittedly does exist in most modern ones)
[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day he took something he knew he should not have, without my permission.. He KNEW it was wrong and that is why he ran (left the Sg and set me to global ignore and then later tried to deny and excuse it). If he had genuinely thought it was okay to help himself he would never have had any need to hide or do those things.. but he did bcause he knew it was a betrayal.
[/ QUOTE ]Or he might simply have severed ties with you because he had nothing further to gain.
Play nice now kids or there will be tears before bedtime again.
[ QUOTE ]
I would kinda disagree with this as I certainly feel some emphatic response to the 'tone' of peoples posts, especially if I know them well.
[/ QUOTE ]
which just reinforces the point ive made. You dont know me and so obviously arent able to read the tone of my post because you thought I was attacking the guy when I wasnt.
to be honest im a little confused as to what you took to be an attack as I can see nothing that is obviously standout in my response to him that could be construed as such???
At any rate, as I have said, I ASSURE you there was no attack. And as this particular issue is fairly off topic ill leave it there, but if you want to dicsuss it further we can do so via tell and you can let me know what it was you thought was an attack.
thanks for the heads up though, as I certainly didnt mean my response to him to come across that way. I guess its all a matter of perspective and how someone chooses to read it.
[ QUOTE ]
And if something is wrong then obviously it cannot BE acceptable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely it's morally wrong that defence lawyers can help people who have committed RL crime avoid being found guilty?
Whilst the outcome of the guilty being found not-guilty isn't ideal, surely the system of legal representation being available to all is acceptable. The modern legal system used in the west can lead to 'wrong' results, but it is generally acceptable and most restrictions of rights based upon presumption of guilt are clearly unacceptable to many people.
I don't think anyone on this thread has argued a case for the person who took the (virtual) items appearing to be morally wrong given your version of events.
But there is probably no clear case for punishment/retribution either:
You gave the person total access to stores.
They used the total access that you had given them.
You are now upset by how they used the permissions that you gave them.
If your version of events is complete, true and unbiased then it looks clear that the other party has acted wrongly and could be seen to be in breach of the EULA... but that is only if your version is complete, true and unbiased - and that is nigh on impossible for NC GMs to ascertain.
I think that this is why customer support suggested you take it to the boards - they're probably frustrated at one of the clearest cases of this sort of breach of trust, but are practically unable to do anything without setting a dangerous precedent.
They have this right in my opinion.
On the plus side:
* Every community has it's bad apple or two - but whenever this happens you generally see a good response from the community. Don't let the one pillock put you off a game you obviously enjoyed and that still has more helpful upstanding community members than greedy ne'er-do-wells.
* It does look likely that the upcoming base-love that we should be getting will include better control of access to base storage (assumption on my part as it's one of the oft-repeated functional complaints about bases).
By my mohawk shall ye know me!
my toons
Funny: Ee-Ai-Ee-Ai-Oh! #3662 * The foul-mouthed Handyman! #1076 * City of Norms #132944
Serious: To Save A Single World (#83744) * Marketing Opportunity (#83747)
When all's said and done, it's a game and it's all just monopoly money. Bad gamesmanship is rude and seriously annoying, but it is not illegal or against the rules as such.
Think of the NCSoft support team as the gophers or staff at a gaming convention. They'll throw out people who are belligerent or harasses other visitors, but they won't throw someone out because his paladin stole your fighter's magic ring or because he helped himself to the bank while playing Monopoly.
[ QUOTE ]
but they won't throw someone out because his paladin stole your fighter's magic ring
[/ QUOTE ]
Damn they should do, A Theiving Paladin, this guy doesn't deserve to be at a gaming convention.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are fundamental things in all societies that are not accepted and theft is one of them.
[/ QUOTE ]The concept of theft only comes with the concept of ownership, which is hardly present in all societies. (Although admittedly does exist in most modern ones)
[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day he took something he knew he should not have, without my permission.. He KNEW it was wrong and that is why he ran (left the Sg and set me to global ignore and then later tried to deny and excuse it). If he had genuinely thought it was okay to help himself he would never have had any need to hide or do those things.. but he did bcause he knew it was a betrayal.
[/ QUOTE ]Or he might simply have severed ties with you because he had nothing further to gain.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be pedantic, it's not theft anyway. We do not own any of the items in-game, NCSoft do. The salvage has not left the game (even if it could), NCSoft have lost none of it. No theft has taken place.
I've done this kind of 'job', all-be-it on a private Neverwinter Nights server. I had way less people to deal with and it was still enormously frustrating. You can never have enough information to determine who is right and who is wrong. I seriously considered bugging all player communication to deal with conflicts between players, but the loss of trust had anyone found out, plus the sheer storage requirements made it inviable. On an MMO the problem is not loss of trust, we all know all our communication is recorded (or should), it's that there is a huge volume of data there and trawling it takes significant time. Even then, it cannot account for out-of-game communications, such as MSN. The GMs cannot know that the OP did not give him permission to do this and then changed his mind. They are caught in the cleft stick with no way to do 'the right thing.' The best they can do is to warn other people to try to reduce the chances of this happening to others. I think they chose the wrong way to do that, but hey ho.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
that is no reason for us as the players not to express our disatisfaction that there are not currently viable systems in place to prevent just this sort of action.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think too many people are disputing that. >_>