I think i got the concepts, I also agree that hanging solemly to the admin could be lets say. “not efficient enough” hey who could deny that another eyes can’t help. there could be the judgement problem but yeah.
There may be a technical break through so I’ll keep in mind how to use the user pool as supporting this work.
I need hive mind or something. 
shouldnt the policy be effective from now-onwards and not just until:
“itms sold via Market from the date of this announcement until July 31, 2018.”
Or is this to say that imc will only begin with this and will continue to implement this after july 31st if they feel like they need to?
Continue of course, this is not a short-term event. this will be implemented as new procedure.
If there is trading theres 100% exploiting it. why not just make a rule that if you didnt sell/trade for a week/month you will surely have +1 on the next enhancement. This method leaves us all happy.
Coz really you cant remove the rmt. Costumes can be a part of rmt. Ex. hair1 cos with average stat can sell around 200m.When silver selling guy gets the costume, then they just trade back then do 2nd round.
I make an image as quick as possibl luckly I found a character screen image
sorry about the potential creeper part is a puyo puyo tetris joke
but something similar to it, something that can be counted and examined by staff…
And what about these guys?
A lot of them are still playing with impunity after having RMT’d billions of silver.
Meh, if there weren’t trolls I would agree.
On Archeage people abused the function to report bots in order to force unliked/enemy players to spend “labor points” (imagine it as “stamina”, but used to craft, open “cubes”) to clean their status.
It could easily get out of hands (it could become a stigma used to troll players)…
Well can’t regressively apply newly updated policy by going back to the past but, like people says, a leopard can’t change its spot. If they keep doing it, eventually they’ll meet me in the end. or Much faster, depending how much they do that.
Edit - My second post: Policy Update Regarding RMT
Right. From experience in multiple (at this point, its going on over 20 years, f you youngins) online games.
@STAFF_Yuri
People will want to ‘buy’ silver, regardless. Whether its through IMC (tokens, cubes) or through 3rd party ‘RMT’. It is better to encourage those with real life money, and TONS of it, to spend it with IMC.
Announcing IMC’s official stance is a good thing, BUT, IMC has to solve (or, crack down hard enough on the RMT’ers so that their prices go up high enough) the following:
Simply put, encourage those with money to spend through IMC instead of 3rd party sellers for the best results. Referring to EVE-Online as an example - PLEX (Their version of TP) can be directly traded for ISK (silver), and also used to exchange for cosmetics, character redesign vouchers, etc.
Implementing enforcement without improving IMC’s own products (Leticia, Goddess, TP store) isn’t very efficient.
Edit: I had to post the above first, since the thread is moving too fast.
@STAFF_Yuri Please tell the devs to consider something like https://www.pathofexile.com/shop Path of Exile’s cosmetics. They have just added a pair of wings that cost US$ 64. AND PEOPLE BUY THEM.
I want premium CASH ONLY (TP ONLY) cosmetics. 1000 TP each? Sure, why not? Make sure they’re nice, have effects, look blingy as f, my wallet is open.
i guess we could go for the “good reputation” thing first i guess? ‘w’
though, the evaluation of another will also depend on how peeps evaluate them as well
if they are notorious for trolling, it would reflect how much weight their evaluation on others as well
That’s why it cant be vague,obvious to the person receiving it (take screenshot/ask for removal) and like the “Likes” it should not be rewarded…
and is something to aid the staff into a more precise spotting of bots…
To put it simple “The community is the Scope that the Staff Sniper needs”
make it uninteresting for people to exploit, but interesting enough for community wellfare, yes?
I have a question Yuri
Why is that the report player as bot and report market transaction are not doing their job effectively?
Both are actually great features in theory, yet they seem to do very little in practice.
Is it not possibly for your team to revise how they work and get them to do their job as intended.
This is indeed good enlightenment to me, thank you veldt, I’ll also look the circumstances around.
About the costumes… its kind of out of my hands, but in a line of this RMT operation, I would like to address some reports to higher up about what we lack and in need to stabilize the situations.
I understand your point, but now imagine the guy from our server that got temp banned for purposely afk on dungeon runs going around with his 30+ alts per account giving that “unlike” to the players that reported him.
I understand that a GM will review it, but the players looking at the “character info” will only see a ton of “unlikes”.
it’s probably not being reported enough to hold as much weight as video evidences, as @TheAlleyCats mentioned how it can be abused, not to mention the bots may have been discarded and created a new one before it accumulated the required reports for observation
Good question, hmm… it makes me to think that RMT guys could watch this thread to take information from me but I could tell you not specifics, much like vague but limits I could.
There we’re some technical difficulties around this issues, things are getting updated.
That was one of my concerns, align with past GTW updates and the casual contents works.
few more reporting methods are being analyzed and got some work,
This, short term is announced to gather up more parts what I need to see, and patch up for better efficiencies possible.
That’s why it cant be vague like “unlike” but I agree that jerks will be jerks and try to exploit…
a good way of correcting it would be to also track sender and compare the info…
or something like that…
The more weapons on a staff arsenal the better… [why am I making guns analogies ]…
but then, it would also show anomalies that may lead to indicate someone has 30+ alts if the said person has been using these same alts to get back on others
though, i really think, rather than as a direct basis, the like/dislike mechanics serves as a supplement for admins to check out suspicious accounts
but yeh, the more elaborate it is, the complicated it becomes. which is why we could initially go for “positive reviews” mechanic to test how effective it can be
Yes, I’m not very much concerned by the GM reviews (in Archeage it was automatic, you had to go in one place to remove the debuff), altho sometimes they fall into it, but by the stigma that could come when a player is seen with many “unlikes” (or whatever you want to call it) by others.
In a small server it probably would do nothing, but in a server with many players that do not know each other, you’d have to explain that a jerk did that on purpose.
It would become really frustrating.
