Is abusing negative money on hand a fair mechanic?

Win $3B incorrectly and know it's going to be reverted.

 

Buy 20 items for $3B so you'll be a negative balance when Ched reverts it.

Sounds like hindsight bias.  IIUC, having -$3B balance means the player cannot have any cash on hand (or it will go straight to paying down the debt) to buy anything nor trade for cash; if you think about it, it's fairly inconvenient.  You can't buy/sell stocks, collect any cash based stock BB, collect bank investments, can't move money in and out of vaults, etc.  All that hassle to make 5% profit or less if no one takes the bait?

More likely scenario is they thought they can make a quick $3B on a sports bet and ended up getting Cheded so they tried to make lemonade out of lemon.

In any case, say what you want about the player, I am fairly certain if they are aware of this thread, they are ROTFL all the way.

It's baffling to see people who think the man who dumbly wasted 420m to "ragebait" a buymugger is a profit. It's baffling to see those same people who see two people do something stupid then say one is an abuser when negative money didn't give the guy an advantage. It's really rare, and the "imaginary profit" only happens if the player was prepared enough. Except to even get negative cash meant staff likely already are on their ass if they actually do have big enough profits and are consistent enough. 

They even have the gall to say "I'm smart and the ones who are against my point are stupid." Like I've seen multiple snobbish comments like this.

Edit: lmao I triggered someone enough to bounty me 200k.

I think I can do a TLDR of all with 1 gif

[image: media1.tenor.com]

A lot of people are argueing over the wrong thing here.

The issue is that negative cash on hands of this scale is created by manual intervention by staff. And instead of doing it properly, they do it in a manner that can give a player abusable means to recover the money and even make a decent profit on top of that. This thread is more so pointing fingers at staff for their shitty work rather than wanting sqall to be punished.

They dont call it illegal abuse because THEY created it.

For staff it is basically a push of a button(change number in database) to do... but instead clicking the correct button they click the one that if abused - f**ks over 3rd person in the process...

Again, they should either put the negative balance on bookies which you have to pay off before having access to it again... OR make it duke loan that if not paid within a week - normal duke loans mechanics apply.

3rd option is... just remove the value away from stocks/any source of cash the player has...

Always worth to fix the root problem too - why is the faulty bookie odds even happening?

There are two main parties here in the thread, those who understand what's happening and are confidently correct, and those who don't understand what's happening and are confidently incorrect. It's been eye opening tbh the amount of people in this thread who have been so confidently and vocally incorrect. 

reAlity: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=2&t=16546574&b=0&a=0&start=240&to=27102619
Overseer: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=2&t=16546574&b=0&a=0&start=160&to=27101145 

These players have explained it nicely.

I'll explain again the scenario, since I don't blame you for not understanding. These kinds of amounts of money are beyond what many players feel realistic to play around with, which is probably why a lot of people misunderstand that Sqall was dead broke after having -3.4b on hand. That's not the case here.

I don't know exactly the circumstances how this arose, but I could give you a potential scenario:

1. I am sqall, I have 200b networth.

2. I make a 1b bet

3. I win 3.4b. I am now in 2.4b profit.

4. The bet is reversed by staff for some reason. The 1b I initially bet is credited back to bookies in form of a cashier cheque. My money on hand is reduced to -3.4b. I still have 200b networth.

5. I could withdraw from stocks or faction vault to clear my negative cash on hand. I cannot buy anything since I have negative cash on hand.

6. I ask my friend to send me 7 parachutes so that I can sell for 20m above market price each in order to take advantage of my negative cash on hand.

7. 7 parachutes sell for 20m more than my friend paid for them. Fishyfox tries to mug me and gets 0 due to my negative cash on hand balance.  I return 7 x 450m to my friend, and I keep the 140m profit. Now I have 200b + 140m networth.

The Story: (I'll try my best) Lust made bets on the bookie on a CS game that was identified by another torn player, who continues to play till this day, to have odds that did not match some bookie website's odds. Lust used several players to "mule" for him since the limit at the bookie for bets is 1b per person. I do not know the total bet made. Only staff and Lust know. I assume it was large. Maybe 5b or 20b. I have no idea.

The CS match barely won and every player in Torn received the payout, who made those bets, including lust and his group of friends who muled for him.

A nobody came on the forum and made a post that the odds on the bet were flipped and he was mad that he lost his bet. Something like this. The community all jumped on this new player as the community does. After this was done, torn staff reversed the bookie winnings. Lust and all of his friends who made bets on this bookie match had all of their winnings reversed as is done in these cases historically. This resulted in a net balance of 1-2b for everyone who had 0 balance at that time for thousands of players across torn. In that same forum thread, it was noted that everyone would be negative balance and that would mean they could sell things mug free at fair market prices or slightly elevated.

At this point in the story, Lust's total earning from this situation: 0. All winnings removed from every player in torn who bet on this match. Net zero gain for anyone.

Lust returned the winnings to all of his friends who made bets for him who requested money except at least two. And maybe himself. I'm unsure. To those two, who are the only important ones in the story, they remained with a 1b negative balance so Lust could coordinate with the three of them on discord voice chat to sell high priced alcohol to the public at or slightly above market value. I'm again not sure what prices they used to attempt to sell this alcohol. Either way, they were unmuggable, which bogie, as per above, says is ok, and in the previous mentioned forum post said was ok. "The cost of doing business" I believe were his words. apology to bogie if he said some other bullshit that ultimately would be decided by PJ was untrue..

The difference in the market value of the alcohol and the amount mugged amount was the total money that lust made off with from the entire scenario. That should be noted to be the only "Damage". By my dumb calculations, if there were 3 of them with a negative balance of say -2b each or whatever the winnings were, then the total unmuggable income potential would be 2b x 3players = 6b, of which 20% would have been muggable. If he sold at say 5% over mv, on 6b of assets, he would have gained 285m profit. (6b - (6b/1.05)). But this amount along with the 6b would have been able to have been mugged so total amount muggable: 6.26b x 20% = 1.252b total muggable amount.  Lust's total NW on hand was approximately 80-90b. His total real NW was estimated 600b-700b when calculating controlled assets held by other players, rw gear, etc. His profit which he would have been safe from mugging was 285m out of a 600b NW. 

Staff began to investigate all the mules Lust trusted money with. In doing so, they discovered one of our faction members had occasionally coordinated with a US Navy lieutenant serving overseas in Japan who did not actively play torn. I think saying the name we knew him by is illlegal(doxing?) so I'll call him D. D was a person that all of us spoke with semi-frequently on discord - but did not actively play Torn. The RL friend of D who cooridinated torn activity with who was also our faction mate, who we will call H, was temporarily banned and accused of having multi accounts. The US navy lieutenant was permanently banned from Torn despite being willing to provide any evidence necessary to prove that he was a real person. Staff refused to communicate with D and allow him to prove he was a regular guy who played when H called him up to play.

At this point
H - temp banned and accused of having multi accounts
D - perma banned and accused of being the multi account of H

Lust - temp banned and accused of using D as a means of illegal gains through use of said multi account
Lust - accused of abetting because he "knew" D was a multi account, which he was not because D is a real person we all interacted with semi-frequently.

Lust - accused of bug abuse because the torn staff odds did not match real life odds and even though thousands of other players made this bet, potentially knowing the same odds discrepency, they did not chat about it ingame. Lust in the fedding conversation with bogie admitted that he knew the odds were flipped. He apologized, saying he would never have done it if he knew it was a bannable offense to bet on good odds. Staff (I assume bogie, because the only condescending unprofessional staff I've dealt with) insulted him in his fedded chat and said he's only sorry because he got caught. An odd thing to say if he admitted it outright. 

Torn forum throws a tantrum and says perma ban for anyone who abuses bugs - no second chances. burn them all

PrincessJulie comes online and says due to the severity and scale of the exploit (either the 285m profit gained from selling alcohol, or the 1.2b that was not able to be mugged, staff did not clarify), Lust's ban should go to permanent. 
bogie immediately updates Lust's ban to permanent citing all of the violations above, only one of which was true by the advertised rules. 

D continues to appeal

H continues to appeal

Staff ignore all appeals and uphold the temp ban on H, permanent ban on D and permanent ban on Lust

250 pages or something of fedded archives later, everyone is sick of it and we move on to the next bans. Injustice is forgotten. Lust goes to TornCon UK and explains in person to the people attending what happened. Everyone looks at the fedded convo between bogie and himself, unanimously everyone is unsatisfied with bogie administration of the ban. Plans are made for Lust to go to TornCon amsterdam to plead his case with Ched, not that that would matter because bogie has complete authority over community issues. The other players involved remain available to prove they are separate entities but later, it is stated by PrincessJulie that it doesn't matter that D is a real person because he did not actively play Torn so he would be treated as a multi for H regardless of his being a real player because he only logged in when H called him up to do so, rather importantly expanding the definition of what a multi is. A multi account is not only one person controlling multiple accounts. It can apparently be two friends from across the planet playing torn with each other if one party does not regularly play. So sucks to be a veteran playing with your friends back home. Add that to the many unspoken unwritten Torn rules that result in bans.

There was briefly some contreversy about D's login since he used a VPN to connect to Torn at work, on a warship, surprise surprise.  I also have to occasionally cocnnect to VPNs on warships when I deploy on military owned vessels as their emcon does not typically allow us to play games and definitely not by directly connecting to the unclassified internet. How he was connecting or why he even bothered is beyond my knowledge. For all we know, he could have been at the dock and used an MWR connection with an inherent US route to play. I don't know or care. It wouldn't matter. 


Bottom line. Three truths and a lie: 

• it's ok to have friends who play torn sometimes. Sometimes it's not.
• 285m is a threshold of "massive scale", on someone with a NW of over 85b and true NW of over 500b. No other gains were achieved as all winnings were removed from every player in torn who bet on that match, win or loss. Enough scale to justify deleting someone's Torn experience instead of removing the money.
• Staff are sure to always treat you fairly and respectfully. 
• It's ok to do this like many thousands of other players did, including the one that turned Lust on to the bet, as long as you don't speak about it ingame as evidenced by no other related bans.

This is all the knowledge I have of the ban. Any additional evidence that staff have was withheld as is their right and we players will never know. I must assume that there must be more concrete than that discussed with all three players. Actually scratch that. I don't assume that. I assume that once they decide something, incredibly quantities of counter evidence is irrelevent.

RIP Lust

RIP to the other 25 players who quit torn in the months following the Lust ban due to staff behavior in his banning including 2 more who are quitting soon because of further staff negligence in other bannings. The only way you win torn is to stop playing so enjoy life on the outside, Lust, D, and all the others I won't mention.

On the plus side, we who are all friends with Lust and D and H, still speak regularly and Lust is doing well in his RL. D stopped responding to my messages a few months ago and H is back and enjoying his time in Torn still. 


To staff: If any details here are wrong, feel free to dispute them. We welcome transparancy, professionalism and honesty. None are expected.

Or alternatively.

1. I'm a nobody degenerate with a $1b networth

2. I put it all on a bookie bet and win $3b, buying and upgrading a PI

3. The bookie bet is reversed

4. I'm now stuck because in this world I'm not allowed to do anything otherwise a mugger on autopilot might whinge

5. I quit the game because I am literally railroaded into not being able to do anything to clear my debt

I am always baffled by the capacity of the "mugger lyf4style" to bitch and moan about every little inconvenience and rare situation they hit.

This thread was never a well thought-out discussion on how the mechanism of rolled-back debt could change. It was just 99% "I MUG AND DIDN'T GET MY MONEY ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE".
Your poll wasn't even framed any other way, it was just seeking validation about your outrage at the situation.

Game mechanics don't change on a per-player basis. If you want wanted a discussion around the game mechanic, you should've started a discussion about the game mechanic.

Small addition, staff took issue with delays in getting D his balance back "quickly", even though reasons included the fact they weren't a very active or caring player and that wouldn't mind waiting (cash moves quickly and 1b is no small chunk even for the rich), this was considered bug exploiting. Someone else had to be reimbursed, (was halting edu times and they had needs and investment in the game) but since D had no such obligations apparently it proved they weren't real, eh.. imo I think it was because they weren't subscribed to Torn

If anyones worried about your account or your less active friends being called multis, get your credit cards linked to Torn, it was proven to be an indicator of being real and seperate people

Reminds me of skjold and SHAT case. Im curious to know if bans are really that inconsistant or  is there something that we dont know. Anyway, my personal opinion is that 1st time offence shouldnt get you perma fed. Torn is not just any mmorpg, people play that for decades. Perma banning someone over 1 offence seems a bit extreme. Id suggest 1-2 year ban for severe cases and if they come back and continue abusing rules, then perma ban.

Not reading 14 pages of this, but in case it hasn't come up yet: 

You could have the debt be kept on the bank investment (I think regardless playstyle we all play with a maxed 2b investment) so having it there avoids the mug problem while also reallistically hampering the debtor still.

(Assumed he got them chute for 445m)

Load image

Yes, but its not exactly replicable on demand, is it?

I'm not insinuating that the person is intentionally gaining a negative balance, I'm outright stating that this is the case. They have done this in the past, and their actions are repeating that same behaviour. Do you really think the player organically had 13 parachutes in their inventory just waiting to sell them in case they happened to fall into debt? Of course not, they bought the parachutes after this situation occurred in order to bait muggers.

In any event, if the situation (i.e. the bookie winnings reversion) had already occured, no way to BUY SEs.

You should. I relied on the words in your post. Which is all I have to go on in an online forum where we use words. 

Probably with a healthy dose of good luck and positive RNG.

First, I take a slight issue with the phrasing of your question. Using “abusing” guides voters towards the concept that it it unfair. Perhaps rephrasing to “Is negative money on hand to prevent buy-mugging a fair use of game mechanics?” would yield a result that is more aligned with players’ opinions without being propagandized.

Second, buy-mugging is ethically dubious. It’s a strategy that’s not simply allowed in Torn but one that has become commonly accepted as a part of the game, even if those who do it garner a lesser reputation for themselves.

At the end of the day, you used a strategy that’s is exploitative of players who aren’t online, and someone who went offline had a strategy in place to defend themselves against it. People get mugged for $0 all the time.

Yes, it’s fair. Too bad, so sad. I wish you better luck (not really) in your mugging endeavors.

Why would you admit to buy mugging? 😂

Thank you for explaining this to me.

At least I know understand what all the fuss is about. At the same time, every answer begs for another question. 

And finally, is it just me or is this way too much work to launder money in an online game? 

Anything that screws over a buy mugger is Ok with me lol

This all happened last year, if the player in question is trying to profit from exploiting a game mechanic over several months, as some alluded to, how is it profitable if they can't collect and reinvest any passive investments with cash payouts from bank interests and stock BBs?  If someone intentionally gets themselves in a negative cash so they can profit from ripping off buy-muggers, wouldn't it make sense to do it and pay off their debts in days not months?

The other players involved remain available to prove they are separate entities but later, it is stated by PrincessJulie that it doesn't matter that D is a real person because he did not actively play Torn so he would be treated as a multi for H regardless of his being a real player because he only logged in when H called him up to do so, rather importantly expanding the definition of what a multi is. A multi account is not only one person controlling multiple accounts. It can apparently be two friends from across the planet playing torn with each other if one party does not regularly play. So sucks to be a veteran playing with your friends back home. Add that to the many unspoken unwritten Torn rules that result in bans.

This is not new at all? If I get my partner/friend/whatever to create an account purely so they can feed my account, it falls under multis. It has always been this way and is widely discussed, including every time that someone asks about inviting someone who they live with (can my wife play? etc etc)

Plans are made for Lust to go to TornCon amsterdam to plead his case with Ched

This is just straight up weird. It's a f**king game, don't hunt down the owner at a con to try and beg for your account back. 

This isn't a situation of two people being treated differently, bogie literally specified that baiting buymugs whilst negative balance was not bug abuse when first talking about LD. This is just mental gymnastics to try and defend your friend's account, as it feels like half the f**king fedded thread is these days.