I traded a Carcass Jack today and did not get scammed

You forgot to mention she has to sign that she has read it, before ignoring it and throwing it away, thats why i added the yes/no verification.

At this point his argument holds up if he wants to move from the premise that the entire PoE community is visually impaired.

Which is amusing, i wouldn't mind him giving it a shot.

Peace,

-Boem-

Again, the note/sign doesn't exist because a note would represent what I'm advocating, i.e. better visual security. You guys are all-in against this, remember?

"

censored_by_support wrote:

No, because that would actually represent an improvement in the system. Something that you are so desperately against. There is no drug detection in play here. There is only a led on glass which lights up for two seconds when someone touches the glass and nothing else. So again, it's 100% her fault if she got drugged?

Your telling me the glass has the same name/attributes/links/visual identification after it blinked.

That makes no sense, you just said drugs where added.

Your argument with that sentence is that a scam is an action where an item is replaced with the exact same replica without visual or attribute differentiation.

That would be what we call a succesfull trade not a scam.

Give it another go, im sure eventually you will come up with a good analogy or a fair representation of reality.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : nope, the note represents the trade window and the "confirm item before pressing accept" functionality.

It sounds to me like you are okay with better visuals and even support the idea as long as the said system is not POE because then nothing needs improvements and everything is perfect (aka white knighting).

"

censored_by_support wrote:

It sounds to me like you are okay with better visuals and even support the idea as long as the said system is not POE because then nothing needs improvements and everything is perfect (aka white knighting).

It's funny how much harder you try when you get to be anonymous.

Peace,

-reprot9x-

Edit: Haha, Boem, you remember, man? He kept doing your thing and just saying "no" basically.

So now I'm other people lol? And the white knights wonder why no one takes them seriously lol.

"

censored_by_support wrote:

So now I'm other people lol? And the white knights wonder why no one takes them seriously lol.

Lol, you've been the only person on here arguing this that's gotten banned. But I'm sure you're just a new guy, that happened to join right after he got put on probation, and is doing exactly what he was before that happened.

lol you can think I'm hitler for all I care, it doesn't make your argument any better, or boems.

"

censored_by_support wrote:

I think it's pretty early but when someone says that my example is not usable because no one is FORCING you to watch your drink, I've already proved my point that it can even go higher.

The sheer amount of ignorance and assumptions required to arrive at the conclusion that this analogy of yours is even remotely accurate, is mindboggling at best and here's why:

Trading an item is done in one shot, one opportunity, in which you can seize everything you ever wanted, or let it slip. You're only doing one thing at that time, trading, and only with one other person involved, the seller/buyer. The game FORCES you to mouse over ALL items, clearly revealing ALL of their attributes. In order for you to get scammed, you'd have to CHOOSE (because you're forced to check) to ignore all of that and accept regardless.

In your example, the drink is there for the entire time that you haven't finished it. It could be away from you on a table somewhere, or not. You're pre-occupied dancing, talking, whatever you do at a party, or not. There are also tons of people present that could all potentially be a threat, or not. This makes the window or opportunity for someone to spike your drink absolutely massive and removes almost all of the control you have over the situation, OR NOT.

You see the amount of difference between the two, the amount of things required to be ignorant to and the amount of things you'd need to just assume to be true in order to come to any kind of conclusion? I really hope you do.