Scammers Continue to Wreak Havoc in MMO's 330
eldavojohn writes "We're all well aware of the scams that sometimes happen in online games like Eve Online. But despite this looking primarily like a problem with Eve Online, the MIT Technology Review brings us stories from Second Life and the very real $700,000 (USD) in Linden Dollars that has recently disappeared in what is appearing to be a classic ponzi scheme by a company named Ginko Banking. Unbelievably high interest rates coupled with some shady withdrawal limits leads to classic epic losses to investors. Eve Online was merely virtual currency but Second Life has a real monetary value associated with Linden Dollars & therefore is certain to see more and more scams pop up like this. How can Linden Labs set up a safety net to catch things like this?"
Re:EVE Online is a different monster (Score:3, Interesting)
That game attracts more pricks than a porcupine petting zoo.
Legality in Second Life (Score:3, Interesting)
RuneScape vs. Real-world Trading (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.runescape.com/kbase/view.ws?guid=diary06 [runescape.com]
Excerpts:
The majority of bots that we ban from members have been paid for with stolen credit card numbers.
Such accounts don't earn us money, they cost us money in bank refund charges.
During 2006, we banned bot and real-world trader accounts carrying RuneScape gold and items worth over 200 billion gp. During 2007, so far, we've banned over 525 billion, which has a real-world value of over $2.6 million US - that's an increase of over 250%.
Re:They shouldn't (Score:3, Interesting)
That'd be nice and all... But in 1st life, people are losing homes for being caught up in schemes, not being "smart" about their purchases, etc. and real action is being taken to punish those who defrauded such "rubes". For some reason or other the Gov't and people in general frown on swindling.
They are losing homes that they can't afford, never could afford, and never should have bought.
Now, losing a home is sad and all, and the lenders are scum, villains and crooks who should be punished, but I find it hard to see folks who never could afford the home that they bought as victims.
More like co-conspirators.
Re:One really obvious way (Score:3, Interesting)
Parallels to real-world economies, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
--
Our microcontroller kit. Your gcc compiler. Learn digital electronics. [nerdkits.com]
Stupid should hurt (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, as many have said there and elsewhere, when you participate in one of these "banks", you give your money to someone. That's how LL sees it. You are GIVING your money to someone. Whether they give it back or not, let alone pay you any extra for the privilege, is gratis, and they have no intention of doing anything about it if the owner of bank X up and disappears with the money. ANYone can set up ATM machines anywhere and do what Ginko did. Well, they can't any more, as people have already been burned and are wary, but there are still many naive people out there who will blithely go up to an ATM, see flowery words and fabulous interest rates, and deposit every L$ in their account, never suspecting that it isn't a "real" bank.
Yes, it is only "virtual money". Any real world value it holds is subject to change at any time. Most cases, it isn't a lot of money that is lost in these scams. It's an expensive lesson to learn, but it is far from life-breaking for anyone.
What is kind of telling is that LL does stop pyramid schemes and other such money scams, but does nothing to stop Ponzi schemes, like Ginko's (not-so-affectionately called the "Porto-Ponzi" in the SL forums). Ponzi schemes are a variation on pyramid schemes and, if one is regulated, the other should be as well. It is left as an exercise to the reader why LL can't seem to fathom this concept and put an end to SL "banks".
In the end, though, it is and should remain caveat emptor. In some ways, I think it is a good training ground for RL. The money involved is often nothing more than discretionary income for most folks, so losing it shouldn't hurt any more than losing it in a poker game. There's more than enough wisdom out there for people to obtain and investigate before giving their money to anyone. Whether they choose to ignore it falls squarely on their shoulders and no one else's.
Re:Laws should not reward the stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
I totally disagree with that viewpoint. Do you have any reference material (books, essays) to support that viewpoint?
I have no reference material to support my viewpoint, but having read your comment i am inclined to research this.
My viewpoint is that civilization is a side effect of selfishness. I want to be fitter, stronger, faster. I can be more successful if i cooperate with other people. I can be even more successful if i can control other people, and have them follow my rules.
Civilization has a track record of treating the weak and the poor very badly.
If you are infact correct that civilization was 'designed' for the explicit 'purpose' of protecting the weak and the dumb, i would love to see the proof.
No sympathy for Eve Online scam victims (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I'm all for IN GAME solutions to the problems like having scammers arrested or have bounties on their heads or something, but there's no need to take it to RL and make it a legal issue.
-matthew
Re:something similar in World of Warcraft.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They shouldn't (Score:5, Interesting)
The guy hadn't even tried to do a basic reality check. There are a lot of people in the US who would be caught up in a scheme like that if the situation were right. Is he culpable for taking a package shipped to him and shipping it out again on his own dime, trying to help someone? Now we're sort of full circle. Do we nail this guy for what is essentially a crime of being ignorant or trusting? Do we try to educate him? His face just went blank when he learned the truth. He didn't know all this internet stuff. Just that wendy lied about loving him. How could we best prevent him from falling for a similar scam in the future?
In the end, there has to be some effort to be informed and realistic about online transactions on a personal level. Those that can't be, should in all seriousness avoid online transactions. This is no different that investing. If you're uneducated, you really shouldn't go investing large amounts of money.
There will always be scams that slip through the cracks. There will always be people who fall for them.
Re:They shouldn't (Score:5, Interesting)
They rarely do. I live in a relatively poor country, and all the time I see tourists come here and "fall in love" with a local girl. They buy furniture, rent an apartment for her, and when they go back home they keep sending money. In the mean time her real boyfriend has moved into the apartment with her and sleeping in the bed that he bought.
Once just by chance I happened to be talking to one of these tourist "boyfriends," and told him what was happening. What a mistake. Not only did he not believe me, he actually threatened me for "telling these vicious lies."
When the illusion is sufficiently compelling the desire to believe trumps rational thought.
Re:They shouldn't (Score:1, Interesting)
Again, Social Security is not an investment. It does not promise a return. It promises a stipend, and it is perfectly equipped to deliver on that promise assuming that all involved parties do their parts to keep the machine working properly. You do not need new suckers to make social security work in the future, you only need the existing participants to do their part in the present. This is the weak point.
Nobody disappeared with anything. The Social Security system works fine; what doesn't work is the idiots who repeatedly vote for the politicians who have not just dipped their hands in the cookie jar over the years, but smashed it to pieces, took all the money, then used the sharp shards to rob the voters of even more (boy is it great to watch the politicians who drained the coffers thump their fists on the podium about how SS needs to be fixed, and how they can do it if you just vote for them one more time... the epitome of the wolf guarding the hen house, as it were).
Social Security doesn't need to change at all, the morons who refuse to partake in our representative democracy in anything approaching an informed or intelligent manner do. In fact, this is true of most of the problems in the U.S. right now. In fact, my main exception with people who whine about Social Security insolvency is that, for the most part, they're trying to shift the blame away from where it is most deserved: the people who refuse to inform themselves about candidates before voting.
Fix that problem first and let's see what happens. If it still has trouble, then we can work out the other kinks.