Scamming doesn't have much roleplay relevence, since you use the "trust" of the person IRL of you to scam items; which if implimented into roleplay would be considered metagaming.

If you played off of their stupidity, then you also are playing off of an aspect of their RL traits (though it may be IC as well), which would be considered metagaming as well.

It doesn't work. Sorry. :/

I really don't know how that logic is supposed to work. Either way, the current state is irrelevant to determining the ideal state. You are not permitted to use circular reasoning.

So what's your point? If you're not trying to argue that scamming should be legal then what are you doing?

We are not arguing over whether scamming should be legal or illegal. We are arguing over whether scamming should be illegal, since it currently is legal. I have quite a feeling that all of our posts probably wouldn't influence the decision at all, but oh well.


It already is legal. I don't like scamming, but I'm looking at things from both sides. I'm just waiting for valid reasoning as to why it should be made illegal.

Same thing.

'Should be legal' is not the same as 'should be changed so that it is legal'. If you are opposing the illegalisation of scamming then you are saying that it should be legal.

No. What are your arguments supposed to achieve? You observe that scamming can be prevented and that it can form part of somebody's character. What are these observations meant to prove?

'Should' and 'is' are completely different.

It is legal for crying out loud.

Nothing, yet. I'm just stating a few reasons to support why it should remain legal.

What's your point? Saying that X should be Y is not the same as saying that X currently isn't Y.

Except that you're not. How do your observations imply that it should be legal? Scamming can be avoided, I'll grant you that. But how does that support your claim that it should be legal?

How many times have I said that I'm not trying to say that scamming should be legal? IT ALREADY IS LEGAL, so, why would I fight that it should be what it already is? If anything, I would be fighting to keep it legal, but it's not the case.


Once again, it is legal. It justs supports one point for why it should remain legal. Now, we just need more points as to why it should be illegal, and then from there we can discuss.

STOP
and
THINK

I already explained: 'X should be Y' does not imply that X isn't currently Y. You're apparently confused as to the meaning of 'should'.

You are arguing that scamming should be legal. Other people are arguing that scamming should not be legal. None of these are statements about its current legality.

You completely failed to answer my question. How do those observations support the claim that scamming should be legal?

My comment on this:
Scamming is illegal, but can't be proved by any other way then by the trade tables. Therefore, any other trading is at the risk of the trader itself. -- That's my interpretion.

What are you saying? That just because something is legal, it should always remain legal no matter what?

No? Where the heck did you get this from? I didn't even say that scamming is currently legal because of that.

He doesn't understand what the word 'should' means. I tried to address this on AIM, but I couldn't get much sense out of him. He told me that I must be wrong, since VT disagrees with me :)

Don't put words in my mouth.

He's gonna ask VT which one of us he hates more. Apparently he thinks this will decide who won the argument.

Wrong. Not anything can happen. I can't kill you and take my items back, now can I?