Whos MORE wrong in this?

Zulah

Subject A offers a credit payment over market for a players head

Subject B immediately kills that player and collects the head.

Subject B now sees they are being ignored by Subject A (Shouldn't have been able to see the market offer by Subject A but thats another issue)

Subject A refuses to pay Subject B and claims they went around ignore by offering the head.

Subject A refuses to pay Subject C, D, E who also offer the head stating "You're not someone I want to deal with"

So:
Did subject A break help scams as they clearly never intended to pay?
Did subject B break help ignore by doing a market job for someone who was ignoring them?


Its a pretty gray area and not SUPER important I agree. But it seems to me someone could just go around saying
MARKET Paying 100 credits for Mindshells head. -- Sorry I don't want to pay you bob.
MARKET Paying 100 credits for Skyes head. -- Sorry I don't want to pay you chris.
Etc etc.

Aegoth

Not sure that it falls under HELP SCAMS, but it sure does destroy their credibility as a buyer/seller. Doubt people will want to trade with subject A if they reneg on such things.

Kez

I think it sounds like A never intended to pay because they refused C, D, and E, but also that B circumvented ignore by getting C, D, and E to attempt the transaction. I wouldn't push it if I were B.

Zulah

Kez said:

I think it sounds like A never intended to pay because they refused C, D, and E, but also that B circumvented ignore by getting C, D, and E to attempt the transaction. I wouldn't push it if I were B.

B did not get C, D, or E to attempt. Was unrelated.

However B did circumvent ignore to offer the head.

I believe both B and A are guilty but I am curious if A qualifies as a scam? Or if it's just a playerbase credibility loss for A

Kez

In that case, push away.

Blujixapug

Subject A sounds like a cupcake. Subject B is stupid for 1. not recognising a cupcake when they saw it, and 2. not doing their homework. Bounty hunters don't get an ombudsman.

Cynlael

They all broke rules.

Subject A broke rules by offering credits for a head, rather than putting a bounty and letting whoever collect it. (Or even contacting a mark directly so they can collect it immediately when it's put up)

The others broke rules by taking the offer without a bounty. AKA they didn't actually have a valid reason for killing the person in question to get the head.

And now the person who was killed, has valid reasons to have all of them killed.

Zulah

Cynlael said:

They all broke rules.

Subject A broke rules by offering credits for a head, rather than putting a bounty and letting whoever collect it. (Or even contacting a mark directly so they can collect it immediately when it's put up)

The others broke rules by taking the offer without a bounty. AKA they didn't actually have a valid reason for killing the person in question to get the head.

Oh the kill took place in Annwyn so that doesn't come into play

Kez

And I just realised that means the poor guy got killed a lot over this. Crappy.

Zulah

Kez said:

And I just realised that means the poor guy got killed a lot over this. Crappy.

And subject A never paid anyone.

Kez

I think @Cynlael knows what he's talking about. That one bit can be countered with Annwyn but that wasn't given in the details!

Antonius

If they didn't accept the head then they have no obligation to pay. Whether or not they originally intended to pay is irrelevant. Don't take statements of the form "Paying X for Y." as an open offer or a guarantee of trading with absolutely anybody.

Cynlael

Probably should have included that in your initial post then.

Seems to me that would kinda fall under griefing if anything, then. (Yes, Griefing can still be applied to Open PK areas FYI.): Paying to have someone you don't like killed- (I get that they're in a open PK area, but that's not really the point of the argument)- Especially if it was multiple times as your original post implies, definitely falls under that area.

But, to give an actual answer. Nobody's really in the wrong, per se. Bounties exist for a reason: So that you get payment. However, Subject A is a dick though.

Zulah

Antonius said:

If they didn't accept the head then they have no obligation to pay. Whether or not they originally intended to pay is irrelevant. Don't take statements of the form "Paying X for Y." as an open offer or a guarantee of trading with absolutely anybody.

This seems logical. But opens the door to my first statement of:
MARKET Paying 100 credits for Antonius head. -- Sorry I don't want to pay you Zulah.

Which makes the offer on market false but still achieves it's task without holding the marketer responsible.

I suppose it does come down to don't trust random market offers for credits in this case. Apparently they do fall outside the realm of scams. Live and learn!

As I said, not super important but it seems like it opens a window of legal scamming.

Borran

A person requesting a service is not bound to pay for said service just by advertising their requirement for those services. The bounty Hunter should have contacted the person to establish a verbal agreement before executing said services. However, to do so would be circumventing their ignore status, which is against game rules. In regards to said bounty Hunter, so they are not able to come to a verbal agreement by any means.  

Person A is not wrong.  Person B is wrong.

If I said "paying 50k for 50 moss" I am not bound to pay every person that brings me 50 moss. Nor am I bound to pay the first person.  I can choose with whom I choose to do business. 

Cynlael

I mean... If you want to get technical...

If Subject A refuses to pay the person after doing the task, especially when it involves killing someone, the person who was 'supposed to' get payment can just kill Subject A. 10/10 times Subject A won't win an issue, if they try and do that.

Chances are if you're all too willing to go and kill people for someone else, you'll just as willingly kill a person who tries to screw you out of payment.

Mishgul

nvmaaa

Borran

You're basically blacklisted for any business with that person, of course you cannot fulfill bounties with the said person.  That's common sense. And claiming you killed the person in their behalf cannot be true because you're blacklisted from any businesses with them, so your "bounty collection" was actually just a senseless killing, which in Annwyn is legal.

Zulah

Borran said:

You're basically blacklisted for any business with that person, of course you cannot fulfill bounties with the said person.  That's common sense. And claiming you killed the person in their behalf cannot be true because you're blacklisted from any businesses with them, so your "bounty collection" was actually just a senseless killing, which in Annwyn is legal.

Correct which is why subject B was in the wrong.

But subjects C,D,E fell for the "Just because a credit offer is made doesn't mean it has to be paid."

We've established the answers here. Offers over market (even credits) are general and at the offers discretion whom they pay. Even if the service can not be undone (As killing in this case)

The Rp answer is Subject A is now hunted by the ivory mark for trying to take over the business of paying for random bounties.

Klendathu

I've always considered the Market channel to be "invitation to treat", rather than a binding offer.

Korben

Zulah said:

Subject B now sees they are being ignored by Subject A (Shouldn't have been able to see the market offer by Subject A but thats another issue)

This is pretty much the entire issue between A and B. If B hadn't seen A's market offer, neither A nor B would have been wrong with regards to each other. My take is that A is not wrong in relation to B, and B is wrong in relation to A but was misled by the situation.

Regarding C, D and E, not enough information. It all comes down to how reasonable was A's refusal to deal with them, and how expected it was that C, D and E know this.

Jinsun

A is in the wrong, but probably didn't violate help scams as the person didn't contact them directly. TBH the admin are great about following up on scam issues, and I've been paid based on those transactions before.

I would say though, that A is in the wrong for offering bounties for heads if the person isn't open pk even if the person is in annwyn because they're soliciting an attack against someone without following the mark system or help pk, but again the kill would probably be OK.

In contracts, in the real world an ad is an invitation to make an offer, and the buyer's contacting the advertiser to make a contract constitutes the offer. It seems silly, but at the same time, holding someone to an ad that can expire or be fulfilled is pretty pointless to -every- person that sees the ad. 

B is in the wrong for circumventing ignore (Most egregious).

the rest, who gives a shit about.

I will say, I think these bounty outside the system offers should probably stop. That being said, Shecks totally paid me 10 credits per proficy head when he and I were both mark. That was pretty nifty.

Prythe

And never ever ever make a joke on Market about having a known sexually aggressive just this side of rapist dickhead killed.

Just saying.

Ryldagh

Prythe said:

And never ever ever make a joke on Market about having a known sexually aggressive just this side of rapist dickhead killed.

Just saying.

This.

Market isn't for jokes people.  Now buy my Cuprum!

Telinus

@cynlael how can it be constituted griefing if it happens in a treacherous plain (ie somewhere everyone knows they can be killed by anyone at any time for no reason)?

Griefing would be killing them on sight at all times, waiting outside their city to instantly attack them etc, no? Not just following them to Annwyn each time tehy go there to gank them.

Ahmet