Using account recovery on an account that you sold

[Lucavi]

This is also why people feel like they can be complete assholes in a forum/ game/any anonymous situation when they're probably a little bitch in real life.

Not at all directed at you, Fottiti, just saying. :3

Yet the same people that can feel that way and act like assholes are also the same ones talking about how they can't wait to play the next game because of all of the "bonds and friendships I've developed over the game."

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that you don't care about any of this shit because its online, then claim to have online friends that you care about that you met through the same shit that you don't care about. Just like you can visit your online friend offline, someone with enough rage and anger because you fucked them over can pay YOU a visit offline.

Everyone clings to their own side of the fence - its absurd.

[Kaylia]

Well, boys will be boys, really. I know back when I was 11 or 12 years old, if I sold my account for a thousand dollars, and found out that I could steal it back and re-sell it, I probably would have, too. Do you know how many vidya games you can buy with a grand, man?! So many!!

If you sell a car but have a key double, are you going to steal it back?

The only reason why people are doing this is the lack of possible retaliation from the buyer. That and they never met him, so they don't care as much.


I agree this is tempting, but shit, people need to stop hypocrisis and double standard.

[Delirium]

Selling accounts is against EULA, so you shouldn't do it.
Buying accounts is against EULA, so you shouldn't do it.
Recalling an account you sold is deceitful. Deceit is immoral. You definitely shouldn't do it.

[Wrish]

Honestly, the best part of this thread is the people arguing over semantics. It's fucking hilarious. Beyond the "recalling of the account once you sold it" thing , people need to get off their fucking high horses already with RMT and botting.

Try again.

I read it as you separating the case of recalling accounts from botting and RMT. If that's not what you meant, don't take it personally (or write "as with" instead of "beyond"). All are just actions on a continuum from moral to immoral.

[BunkMonk]

Both are RMT, but it's less about that and more to do with the fact that someone comes out ahead. The ones who come out ahead are savvy entrepreneurs and the ones who come out behind are pathetic losers to be mocked and shunned. Welcome to capitalism.

If I sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, I'm a savvy entrepreneur, and the poor sap who bought it is a pathetic loser. Case closed.

Capitalism isn't based on scamming your local community. :/

[Chuburger]

People would care if it was suddenly turned off, so that's a stupid thing to say. Just because FFXI (or anything else that resides within a computer) isn't a tangible object that we can reach out and touch doesn't mean that it's not connected to people in a similar way that everything else we fill our lives is.

Your second paragraph is completely devoid of any logic, it's just more garbage. It's also somewhat ironic that you're implying people who played the game for enjoyment would care if the game vanished immediately after stating that the world wouldn't care if it did.

Any sort of declaration on how the game is closed based on the ToS is unrealistic, wishful thinking. Even without RMT, people with jobs are able to invest less of their time into the game, so it already transcends that border. Also, if you're assigning causality of "The Great Inflation" on RMT, then you know nothing about the history of this game. There were very specific reasons as to why that happened. RMT certainly exacerbated the situation but it would have occurred regardless.

I like how you say you enjoy a good discussion yet your way of refuting an opposing viewpoint is to just call every viewpoint different from yours as garbage and void of logic.

To me to appears that your views differ fundamentally from those who are trying to explain their point of view and they differ because people have different OPINIONS on how the gameplay should be and how the game should be valued. To you, "Any sort of declaration on how the game is closed based on the ToS is unrealistic, wishful thinking", but just because it is unrealistic to you, doesn't make their viewpoint garbage. It doesn't make it illogical. There ARE people who choose to follow the ToS and believe that the game under SE's original intents can and should be closed system. Just because you believe them to be in the minority and refuse to accept their RL analogies of what they feel like RMT activities are in relation to their experience of game does not mean that they or their examples are "wrong" or illogical. They are just different from the community of RMT and botters, a community which, in your opinion, means that the game is not a closed system and therefore is not morally wrong or unnatural.

Any ToS set forth a company is set in a way to encourage what they believe would foster an environment of maximum benefit, and the effectiveness of any ToS depends on the number of people who adhere to it. To say that this game in particular is not a closed system is fine, but to imply that the ToS is "wrong", logging in and clicking that "agree" button doesn't constitute a form of contract, and people who choose to follow and support it are retarded simply because the ToS is ineffective and dead game, RMT aren't really harmful, etc, just seems like denial.

[Spider-Dan]

Hacking is different. The legal aspect is intentional, unauthorized access of a secured system.

Unauthorized by whom?

If Person A sells their account to Person B, by any reasonable interpretation, Person B is now the "authorized" user of the account, in exactly the same sense that if I sold [email protected] to Sarah Palin, she would now be the "authorized" user of the account.

Furthermore, by your logic, wouldn't the Palin hacking be a crime committed against Yahoo and not Palin? They're the ones that own the accounts and the servers, just as Squenix owns FFXI accounts/servers.

Keep in mind that this entire scenario only exists because of Squenix's flawed policies, where original account information immediately overrides all concerns. If Squenix returned to the old (I think?) policy of "you need current billing information to reset password," this entire argument would be moot.

Additionally, I'm puzzled as to why you believe that an original account "owner" that has their account hacked is any more of a victim than an account buyer that has their account recalled. In both cases, neither victim "owns" anything. In both cases, Squenix hasn't suffered any loss (they are still getting the same $12.95 every month). If you can dismiss one, shouldn't you logically dismiss the other?

Oh, and one summer you invite 6 friends over to your house. Due to a lack of space, they start buying and selling rights as to who gets to sit where. Makes you think, huh?

Again, you are missing a critical component: if I'm charging my "friends" (and by "friends," I mean complete strangers) for seats and they arrange for seat upgrades between themselves, why the hell would I get involved?

You should probably stay away from analogies to the physical world, since it clearly leads to problems.

[Spider-Dan]

Both are RMT, but it's less about that and more to do with the fact that someone comes out ahead. The ones who come out ahead are savvy entrepreneurs and the ones who come out behind are pathetic losers to be mocked and shunned. Welcome to capitalism.

If I sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, I'm a savvy entrepreneur, and the poor sap who bought it is a pathetic loser. Case closed.

So fraud (as a crime) doesn't exist in your version of capitalism? Sweet.

[arus2001]

If anything, this thread has gotten me wondering how much my account's worth.

As is, I can apply a minimum value based on the purchase of the game, expansions, and monthly fees, but the personal progress is the intangible.

[Wrish]

Unauthorized by whom?

If Person A sells their account to Person B, by any reasonable interpretation, Person B is now the "authorized" user of the account, in exactly the same sense that if I sold [email protected] to Sarah Palin, she would now be the "authorized" user of the account.

Do you not read my posts fully or what? My whole point was that Seller/Buyer have nothing to do with hacking. You were the one who brought up hacking. Well, it could be hacking, but that's a stretch and a tangent.

Furthermore, by your logic, wouldn't the Palin hacking be a crime committed against Yahoo and not Palin?

It was a crime against Yahoo, but crimes are prosecuted by a government, regardless of victim. Anyone can be a victim when a public official is targeted, of course.

Keep in mind that this entire scenario only exists because of Squenix's flawed policies, where original account information immediately overrides all concerns. If Squenix returned to the old (I think?) policy of "you need current billing information to reset password," this entire argument would be moot.

SE has always required original account information. They also required current card information, but I believe they've changed that because some hackers were changing CCs.

That the original account registrant always has the master keys is something you need to keep in mind. If they lose all registration codes, they can still have their name/DOB/claim notarized and mailed to HQ, and SE will reset the PW for them.

Additionally, I'm puzzled as to why you believe that an original account "owner" that has their account hacked is any more of a victim than an account buyer that has their account recalled.

Because SE specifically ties the account with the original owner, not to the buyer. See, if you know SE won't protect you, and go on with the transaction, and come back crying, you're less a victim and more of an idiot. The hacking victim may be equally inept, but we don't know that; sometimes the hacker is actually smart.

Again, you are missing a critical component: if I'm charging my "friends" (and by "friends," I mean complete strangers) for seats and they arrange for seat upgrades between themselves, why the hell would I get involved?

I said nothing about you charging them for seats. The point of the analogy is that no one complains if there are no disputes in the informal black market, but as soon as a dispute crops up, it's a royal headache. You didn't charge them anything, and now you're forced to deal with this mess. Governments don't get taxes from such activity, so the courts may be reluctant to hear these equitably.

If I sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, I'm a savvy entrepreneur, and the poor sap who bought it is a pathetic loser. Case closed

It's quite obvious with such an extreme example, but if I try to sell you a computer that isn't mine, you'd have a hard time realizing that. That's called fraud because capitalism is not about the best con men profiting off everyone else.

[_chuchu]

It's quite obvious with such an extreme example, but if I try to sell you a computer that isn't mine, you'd have a hard time realizing that. That's called fraud because capitalism is not about the best con men profiting off everyone else.

You sure about that?

[Wrish]

Absolutely - throughout legal policy (in the U.S.) there's this "reasonable person" consideration. If a "reasonable person" would fall into a trap, then you need a law to prevent that from happening. Doesn't mean it'll work without fail (certainly there are "unreasonable" people), but jurists always aim for that.

So in the computer analogy, it's not a competition between my acting and your detective skills. If I know it not to be mine, then I'm committing fraud by not disclosing that prior to sale. There cannot be expectation on an average person to be a supreme detective.

[HKR]

This is why I bought my secondary account on PA. They have a feature where you can pay for insurance against banning/account stealing where you get full credit on their site should anything happen to the account.

Of course, I have yet to test this and if the guy I got the account from ever wanted the character back...well I already sold everything of worth, dumped all the rare/ex gear I didn't want to use and changed servers. If he gets stolen or banned I get $380 worth of credit to get another character. I win either way.

[BunkMonk]

This is why I bought my secondary account on PA. They have a feature where you can pay for insurance against banning/account stealing where you get full credit on their site should anything happen to the account.

Of course, I have yet to test this and if the guy I got the account from ever wanted the character back...well I already sold everything of worth, dumped all the rare/ex gear I didn't want to use and changed servers. If he gets stolen or banned I get $380 worth of credit to get another character. I win either way.

Pretty sure you're out almost $400.

[HKR]

Pretty sure you're out almost $400.

I won't ever see the actual money again, but these guys have been around since the UO days and I trust em to fully provide this service:

In addition, PlayerAuctions combats the small, but unavoidable, ”after-trade” risks associated with buying a game account with our 5-Layered After-Trade Security Program that provides a lifetime of protection and insurance to game accounts found nowhere else:

Prevention: PlayerGuardian technology verifies information provided by the game account seller to ensure that anyone selling a game account cannot commit fraud without legal recourse. In addition, once the seller provides the game account login information to PlayerAuctions, we conduct a brief and discrete inspection of the purchased game account before forwarding the game account information to the buyer. This is to further verify the authenticity of the game account seller and the game account.
Recovery: In the unlikely event that a game account purchased at PlayerAuctions is ever reclaimed or suspended due to the previous owner , PlayerAuctions will assist in recovering the game account, free of charge.

After Sale 100% Security Guarantee: If we are unable to completely restore the buyer’s access to the undamaged game account, we will award the buyer with PlayerAuctions Market Credit equal to the price of the purchased game account, which may then be used to purchase another game account or other products for sale at PlayerAuctions .

Retribution: In the unlikely event that a previous owner reclaims a game account, we will provide the game publisher with sufficient information to result in the reclaimed game account being quickly and permanently banned.

Prosecution: PlayerAuctions takes a firm stance against identity theft and fraud. Through PlayerGuardian, PlayerAuctions employs a variety of both orthodox and unorthodox measures to prevent, track, investigate and log fraudulent activity. As a policy, PlayerAuctions will aggressively pursue, to the fullest extent of the law, prosecution of any individuals or groups who engage in fraudulent activity on our Site. Learn more about how PlayerAuctions treats fraudulent activity.
PlayerAuctions has carefully considered all the unlikely cases that may occur during the game account trade process. We are well prepared to handle these exceptions, including:

If the seller does not deliver the game account;
If the seller does not deliver within the guaranteed time period;
If the game account is delivered without accurate information;
If the game account is delivered without play time;
If the game account is not delivered as described;
If the game account is reclaimed by the previous owner;
If the game account is disabled due to the previous owner.
PlayerGuardian provides protection in all of these scenarios, fully refunding the buyer’s payment or providing PlayerAuctions Market Credit equal to the price of the purchased game account accordingly. Please refer to any of the links above for more information on how PlayerAuctions handles these exceptions.

[Spider-Dan]

Do you not read my posts fully or what? My whole point was that Seller/Buyer have nothing to do with hacking.

They don't... until the seller reclaims the account that they sold. This is hacking (and I'm not talking about the legal definition of hacking in jurisdiction x). They are using privileged information to access an account that they have willingly sold their stake in.

It was a crime against Yahoo, but crimes are prosecuted by a government, regardless of victim.

So then, by your logic, since Palin's e-mail hacking was a "crime against Yahoo," Palin has no valid recourse in a civil court? After all, she "never owned the account" to begin with, right? (Keep in mind that this was her personal account, not a gov't account.)

That the original account registrant always has the master keys is something you need to keep in mind.

It's only something you need to keep in mind because of Squenix's current policies. It is, in no way, objectively a legal or ethical consideration. Squenix could just as easily require the name of the store you bought the game from, or the date the first character was activated, or the first POL e-mail password.

The point is: recovery of a sold account is not dangerous because Squenix owns the servers, or because fraud is not legally being committed, but because Squenix's policy allows for it.

See, if you know SE won't protect you, and go on with the transaction, and come back crying, you're less a victim and more of an idiot. The hacking victim may be equally inept, but we don't know that; sometimes the hacker is actually smart.

So, to recap:

- Account buyer is an idiot for knowing that SE won't protect them (how would they know this? unstated).
- Hacking victim is not an idiot for presuming that SE would protect them, even when they don't.

You might be inclined to say something along the lines of "well, of course a sold account is going to be at risk of a recall," but as I just explained, Squenix's recovery policies are far from objective. You'd have no way to know what they may require (and therefore, what to ask of the seller) until it happened. Similarly, a hacking victim (under the old policy) would have had virtually no way to know that current billing info was required to recover the account until it happened.

I said nothing about you charging them for seats.

Which was why your analogy is flawed. We are not Squenix's friends; they charge us to participate.

The point of the analogy is that no one complains if there are no disputes in the informal black market, but as soon as a dispute crops up, it's a royal headache. You didn't charge them anything, and now you're forced to deal with this mess.

See above. When you decide to charge people, you are forced to either deal with the mess or stop taking their money.

[Fottiti]

This is also why people feel like they can be complete assholes in a forum/ game/any anonymous situation when they're probably a little bitch in real life.

Not at all directed at you, Fottiti, just saying. :3

I agree with you 100%, I and the majority of other posters on this forum would be guilty of responding/behaving in a way that we wouldn't irl due to anonymity the internet provides.

If an otherwise perfectly nice person can turn into a complete asshole the second they sit behind a computer screen they can definitely be capable of things like stealing (or however you want to decribe it) when provided with an emotional/social barrier.

[Wrish]

They don't... until the seller reclaims the account that they sold. This is hacking (and I'm not talking about the legal definition of hacking in jurisdiction x). They are using privileged information to access an account that they have willingly sold their stake in.

Your own fingerprints are not privileged information to you. That is a great reason why no legal system calls it hacking, and neither should you. SE basically fingerprints you before recalling the account. How they fingerprint you... however imperfectly they do it (asking on the phone questions an original registrant may not know)... does not alter their clear-as-day intention (the notary public option).

So then, by your logic, since Palin's e-mail hacking was a "crime against Yahoo," Palin has no valid recourse in a civil court?

Right, Palin's civil damages are limited to events subsequent to the hacking. You can't sue purely for someone's having your password. You have to show what they did with it. And it's not my logic; seasoned minds have thought this over before committing it to paper.

You might be inclined to say something along the lines of "well, of course a sold account is going to be at risk of a recall," but as I just explained, Squenix's recovery policies are far from objective. You'd have no way to know what they may require

I think the word you seek is arbitrary. SE owns the servers; to a great extent they can set arbitrary conditions for player access and write arbitrary contracts you can accept or refuse in whole. I don't find objectivity lacking relative to other online contracts... not the right word there.

So, to recap:

- Account buyer is an idiot for knowing that SE won't protect them (how would they know this? unstated).
- Hacking victim is not an idiot for presuming that SE would protect them, even when they don't.

Account buyer chooses to buy. Hacking victim doesn't choose to get hacked. Account buyer sees the contract upon logging in. Hacking victim doesn't find a comprehensive security primer doing the same. Of course, for the latter we can spar over negligence, inattention, and "common sense" as possible conscious choices.

See above. When you decide to charge people, you are forced to either deal with the mess or stop taking their money.

SE charges you $12.95 a month, or $155.40 for a continuous year, about what a decent private lawyer makes every two hours. After paying for the servers, the bandwidth, and the programmers, do you honestly think they'll let anybody drag them into a lawsuit over a $500 account transaction?

If SE were to tax that $500 transaction, that would be a completely different story. But as I said, you didn't tax your "friends," either. They dealt among themselves, came to a disagreement, and now run over to you for arbitration. It is a headache, isn't it?

P.S. Friends to you, customers to SE. Can't just tell them to get lost.

[ramp]

Don't see how this is so hard; I thought it was common knowledge.

You knowingly make a trade, you can't, or shouldn't, go back on that unless the other party agrees.
If you decide to 'undo' the trade without the other party's consent/knowledge you're being at least an immoral bastard.

You don't get away with it real life transactions, with real tangable goods. It's a shame to see so many people simply have no morals when they can hide behind an alias online. It's not just in FFXI either, scamming such as these happen frequently with a large array of virtual/online goods.
Depending on your country (for example korea), legislation is already being worked on, or in effect, to regulate virtual goods such as these. I would not be suprised if within the next few years in most of the developed world the consequences of such actions will be facing the same penalties as with real life/tangable goods.

[Spider-Dan]

Your own fingerprints are not privileged information to you. That is a great reason why no legal system calls it hacking, and neither should you.

Again, a poor analogy to the physical world; you can't transfer ownership of your person (legally or otherwise), which necessarily means that you could never voluntarily give up access to your own fingerprints as a method of identification.

But ultimately, even your flawed analogy is irrelevant; you have already willingly transferred account access to another person, so whether the identifying information is your fingerprints, your mother's maiden name, your DOB, the color of your first car, or a word you invented, it makes no difference. Once you use it to access the account, you're hacking it. You gave up your interest in the account.

Right, Palin's civil damages are limited to events subsequent to the hacking. You can't sue purely for someone's having your password. You have to show what they did with it.

You're talking about determining the amount of the damages, which is a completely different issue. There can't be any damages at all if she was not wronged; using your logic, the only party that could claim civil damages would be Yahoo. Again, she "doesn't own the account."

I think the word you seek is arbitrary.

I think you need to look up what the word objective (as an adjective) means.

Account buyer chooses to buy. Hacking victim doesn't choose to get hacked. Account buyer sees the contract upon logging in. Hacking victim doesn't find a comprehensive security primer doing the same.

- Account buyer doesn't choose to have account recalled
- Nowhere in the contract does it discuss account recovery requirements

SE charges you $12.95 a month, or $155.40 for a continuous year, about what a decent private lawyer makes every two hours. After paying for the servers, the bandwidth, and the programmers, do you honestly think they'll let anybody drag them into a lawsuit over a $500 account transaction?

Try as I might, I cannot determine the point you are trying to make here. They don't make enough money off of you to care, or something?

And what lawsuit is there to be had? They own everything, remember?