Or maybe Sam just doesn't know all of the rules? Because scamming has always been legal. Or, maybe he's trying to change the rules, and maybe that could be a problem?

Sure, we don't see anyone else doing it, but does that mean that just because he's coming up with a bunch of rules that they would work out or that they are just in any way?


I take it you have not played much of graal lately. If so, you'd know that some players just play to make the game for others a living hell. Players will always abuse systems and find loop holes around things. If scammers were punished for scamming, I could easily accuse you of scamming me, even if you didn't, and I would end up gaining a free item. I mean, if it's going to be nearly impossible to actually get your items back because of someone ACTUALLY scamming you, then what's the point? I mean, there is not many ways to prove that you were scammed anyways.

Why should the administration act upon scammers anyways? As far as I'm concerned, scamming could be considered an act of role playing. Is that not what GK was designed for....Role Playing? I mean, there is always the 'thief' class that could try to scam players and they would be role playing on their character. You can't punish someone for scamming. THERE ARE ALREADY MANY WAYS TO PREVENT SCAMMING, and if you are too foolish to prevent yourself from being scammed, well, then tough luck. There are a lot of players on GK that have never been scammed before, and that's because they are smart and they don't loan their items to anyone, and they use the trade tables to trade. I mean, it's practically common sense on what you should do to NOT be at risk of being scammed.

Indeed? On which authority? Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim?

What part of "we only intervene when there is evidence" didn't you understand?

Because it increases the net happiness. I'm still waiting for your answer. Specify the criteria that an administrative action needs to meet in order for you to classify it as 'good'.

Yes, yes, getting scammed is the user's fault. Why are you telling me this? We already agreed on it.

Read all of the other threads on scamming and see for yourself. Don't ask me to get the links for you, because if you don't go about finding them yourself, well, I guess that shows your interest in the claim.

Evidence? How in the world will someone find evidence that they were scammed?

What does my criteria on a good administrative action have to do with this situation? Absolutely nothing. I'm not saying the administration should do anything about scammers, in fact, they shouldn't do anything.

If you agree on it, then why the big deal on wanting the administration to act upon scammers? Do you want the administration to pamper the players?

I've seen them before. All the 'proof' I've seen is people like you yelling that it's legal.

Irrelevant. If people can't find evidence then people won't be punished for scamming. If you believe that this is the case then why would you oppose Sam's ruling?

You're saying that this action would not be good. I'm asking for the criteria used in this assessment.

I've already explained this. Now specify your criteria.

Players have scammed others since GK started. They have never been punished, and it's also been said by staff that scamming is legal.



Until you can support your statement, my ruling stands. You want a rule to be put in effect that clearly has no way of prooving that you were indeed scammed. So, basically, it's just another rule to add to the 'rule book' that clearly is useless.

Besides, EVEN IF THERE WAS SOMEWAY TO PROVE THAT YOU WERE SCAMMED, why would it be illegal? It's in no way the fault of the administration. The past/present GK developers did a great job on making ways to prevent scamming. The rest is up to the players. Unless, of course, you want the administration to pamper the players, then by all means, go ahead.


Once again, read what I've been saying. I don't want the administration to do anything on this case, so why would I have criteria on a good action? You can't have criteria on a good action if you don't want an action to be done.

Read what I said above.

This was said by Stefan in the Soul-Blade vs. me fight. It was said 2 years ago, but I'm assuming the same rule still applies.

I don't disagree with players being punished, but I do disagree with them being permanently banned. I'm not sure if that was what Sam meant or not, but that is way too harsh. I think a few days without Graal will prevent most of the players from scamming again.

The only problem I see with having a punishment is people making false accusations. I have already received a couple complaints claiming that others framed the so-called scammers. This could become a big problem, unless we require a ton of proof for a ban.

The solution is quite simple: use trading tables. Perhaps someone should create a NPC in the Newbie Tutorial that talks about scamming and how to prevent it.

The supermods never enforce 80% of the rules, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. As for the testaments of staff: What staff? How is it that their claims mean more than Sam's?

Which statement?

You're saying it can never be proven beyond reasonable doubt that somebody was scammed?

I already explained this. Specify your criteria.

Ugh, so dense. You could maybe show that this doesn't meet those criteria?

Yes, I recall him saying that not too long ago - although I do not specifically recall which thread it was said in.

Stefan indicates it is legal in these threads:

http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...light=scamming
http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...light=scamming

although I think it should not be

Scamming has never been punishable or illegal. It's always been said to not lend your items out to anyone, and if you must, then request some collateral. The staff cannot punish people for scamming, and a good reason, is what I mentioned about role playing. All the staff can do is make more ways to prevent scamming. I thought my idea on those special trading tables where you can lend out items and after X amount of time the item(s) are automatically returned was a great idea, but I guess it wasnt noticed. Instead of trying to punish those that scam, try to develop more ways of preventing it.

Not only are those threads pretty old, but Stefan never says scamming is legal in either of those threads.

Someone doesn't have to directly say something to mean it.

That wasn't my interpretation.

That's not a good reason at all. Should sexual harassment be allowed because some players might want to play foul-mouthed idiots?

Specify your criteria.

Yeah, and what's your point?

Sexual harassment is illegal. The fact that scamming is legal, gives you right to make your character a scammer. If it were to be illegal, then I guess you wouldn't be allowed to.

Come on now, Kai. Use some common sense. Stop giving stupid examples to back up your statements. A player can role play as whatever they want so as long as it's legal/within the rules of the server. Sexual harassment isi llegal on every server, so please, use more appropriate examples to disprove my reasons.

You are free to do as you please so as long as what you do obides to the rules. I thought this would be fairly clear, but I guess I have to remind you about the morals of common sense.