UO Second Age

Kelektra wrote: Buying services with in game gold = not bannable
Buying In game gold/items with RL cash = bannable

Assuming there is an exception to the rule, is that a correct statement of the exception to the rule? If I paid someone to fix my car with gold, then would that be a service by your definition? What if someone paid me gold to research and argue in favour of a particular accuracy change, is that in-game or forums?

Or, is the rule that what occurs in the forums is considered 'in-game'? In which case the rule that you are allowed to scam in-game would extend to the forums, or alternatively the rule that you are not allowed to scam in the forums would extend to in-game?

Ever heard of legal precedence?

"Precedent" is the word you're looking for, the plural of that being "precedents".

There are many ways of applying it too.

For instance, do we limit the exception only to the creation of maps of UO in exchange for gold, or do we abstract it further out (as Kelektra has done) and say that services in exchange for gold is the allowable exception?

Just throwing out the idea that "precedent" should apply to Kelektra's service in exchange for gold does nothing to clear the ambiguity of the situation.

Mens Rea wrote:"Precedent" is the word you're looking for, the plural of that being "precedents".

Oop, Malaikat made a mistake. Everyone take a screenshot.

For instance, do we limit the exception only to the creation of maps of UO in exchange for gold, or do we abstract it further out (as Kelektra has done) and say that services in exchange for gold is the allowable exception?

Considering no one's been banned for trading forum art...I'd say you could make a strong case in defense of that particular service. And, considering you're not a staff member, I'd say you should stfu and let the shard's administration rule on the various other services that could be exchanged.

Actually I think Mens is taking this in an interesting direction and brings up some legitimate questions. Of course he does it in his special way where people instinctively want to bag on him, but give it a chance.

platy wrote:wat

fixed

applejack wrote:Actually I think Mens is taking this in an interesting direction and brings up some legitimate questions. Of course he does it in his special way where people instinctively want to bag on him, but give it a chance.

The problem is that Malaikat is more concerned with trying to gather the dregs of his computer-security-risk-analyst self esteem together in an attempt to belittle and insult me, as opposed to dealing with the facts and issues that I am discussing with the shard as a whole.

Malaikat wrote:Considering no one's been banned for trading forum art...I'd say you could make a strong case in defense of that particular service. And, considering you're not a staff member, I'd say you should stfu and let the shard's administration rule on the various other services that could be exchanged.

The problem is, Malaikat, it has now been established that there is an exception to in-game gold for out-of-game products or services.

The scope of this exception, and the reasoning behind it, is what I am trying to establish. If I advertised that I wanted my computer security analysed in exchange for gold, then would I be banned? If I was banned it is unclear whether I would be able to use the "service precedent" to say that I haven't breached the rules.

You're right, the admins can make this all clear. But if they did it would require them to acknowledge an exception to the general rule, or state that the forums are considered in game, or an exception in some other terms.

What I'm getting at is where the exception lies and to what extend it allows in-game gold to be exchange for things out of game. We wouldn't want the "shard's administration" to allow this ambiguity to result in people being banned when they thought they were inside the scope of the rules would we?

Debit Goodwill 10k
.......................Credit Gold 10k

I understand the issue in its entirety. Has it ever been the case that you can't exchange gold for irl services? From what I understand, the rules only state that you can't make exchanges for currency. If I want to exchange my time and effort for X amount of gold, I can't possibly see how anyone would care, considering that's precisely what I do every time I farm a dungeon or complete a t-map or craft some pixels.

I really don't see how or why admins would care.

Well in that case you are ignoring the monetary value of a service, and secondly if the rule only applies to currency then am I allowed to advertise wanting to buy a book voucher for in-game gold? A new computer? A stripper?

Mens Rea wrote:Well in that case you are ignoring the monetary value of a service

Then you've just made the game impossible to play. I trade my time for in game items each instance I log in.

secondly if the rule only applies to currency then am I allowed to advertise wanting to buy a book voucher for in-game gold? A new computer? A stripper?

I think you're making some unnecessary extensions. The forum and the game are closely related in terms of community and "in game" experience. If I want to exchange in game gold/items for something that will enhance my UOSA experience and ultimately remain under the care and administration of the UOSA staff/servers, that's entirely different than advertising and trading for items that have no bearing on the online experience of UOSA.

Perhaps, also, the rule simply applies to items with a direct monetary value - tangible physical assets - and time as well as intellectual property are free to be exchanged?

What's this all about, Mens? Why do you care?

Malaikat wrote:I understand the issue in its entirety. Has it ever been the case that you can't exchange gold for irl services? From what I understand, the rules only state that you can't make exchanges for currency. If I want to exchange my time and effort for X amount of gold, I can't possibly see how anyone would care, considering that's precisely what I do every time I farm a dungeon or complete a t-map or craft some pixels.

If I offer signature art services for 200k gold or $50 dollars, would it bother people? If it takes me two hours to do your art, I'm essentially saying my time is worth 100k gold an hour or $25 dollars an hour.

What if I said I'd like to pay you for your time to level animal taming for me on one of my characters? If I said I'd give you 500k to play my animal tamer from 90-100, I'm pretty sure nobody would care. But if I said I'd give you $125 dollars to do the same thing, it'd be some drama. People don't see how time in itself is a valuable currency, and whether you attach gold or money to it, its still the same in the end.

Spending cash for gold or other in-game services created by other individuals doesn't inflate the economy either. The only time inflation occurs is when items or services are created at no expense to other individuals (GM created, handouts.)

Hicha wrote:People don't see how time in itself is a valuable currency, and whether you attach gold or money to it, its still the same in the end.

Time has value, but not direct value. It isn't a tangible asset. Also, there's a rather large difference between gold and actual currency from a legal perspective. Basically, one is legal tender and another will get you laughed the hell out of a court room. I don't know what, if any, legal liability the UOSA staff would assume if they sanctioned cash transactions, but I'm pretty sure they're trying to avoid situations like the first time someone gets scammed out of real money and Derrick is served with a subpoena.

No one's getting sued over forum signatures...

Malaikat wrote:

Hicha wrote: No one's getting sued over forum signatures...

Yet.

Malaikat wrote:

Hicha wrote:People don't see how time in itself is a valuable currency, and whether you attach gold or money to it, its still the same in the end.

Time has value, but not direct value. It isn't a tangible asset. Also, there's a rather large difference between gold and actual currency from a legal perspective. Basically, one is legal tender and another will get you laughed the hell out of a court room.

I believe a Korean man sued some gaming company over an apparent loss of around $2,000 he suffered when they lost or banned his character and won. I can't find the article, but I'll continue to look.

The argument isn't about UOSA or Derrick suing, getting sued, etc; the argument Mens Rea is portraying is that if IRL cash for gold is a bannable offense, IRL services for gold should be fall under the same guidelines as well.