Jump to content

Karl

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Karl last won the day on November 12 2020

Karl had the most liked content!

About Karl

Personal Information

  • xat Username
    Karl

Recent Profile Visitors

7,290 profile views

Karl's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Dedicated
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

323

Reputation

  1. Sorry, but this to me is an easy cop out of making you staff. A living wage provides 1) a wage so you can dedicate MORE time and effort into xat, 2) stops impersonators cus u can have ur snazzy staff pawn and 3) a living wage, an even better incentive to do your JOB.
  2. Karl

    Games and Gamebans

    I have to agree that it is absolutely absurd that people are being charged for powers, which frankly do not work. Per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, digital content is data produced and supplied in digital form. Xats in that regard, are digital content. Considering these are paid for, and for free, there's also the monetary value to the products. Digital content has three specific factures which they must adhere to; Satisfactory quality Fit for purpose, and as describe by the seller. APPLYING THIS TEST, THESE PRODUCTS ARE NOT FIT FOR SALE. The problem here lies with the fact that the gamebans are not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose, not as described by the seller (as they do not work). The law clearly states that digital products MUST be all three. xat, being the retailer of the digital content, have the opportunity to replace (not possible in this case) or repair the fault products (the only option with powers). They've been given a fairly substantial period of time to fix the issue, and for that reason I don't think it is unreasonable that customers are beginning to raising public concerns. The customer decides if they want the product repaired or replaced, and as we've already established the only option the customer has is for it to be repaired. Then, per EU law (even though the UK has left the EU, EU law was still implemented domestically), if the goods are sold are do not work, or look as advertised, the seller must repair or replace free of charge, or give a price reduction or a full refunds. So this does not apply to everyone, although, it *could* apply to some. At the bare minimum, any powers which do not work should be removed from the store so no other user falls into the potential trap of buying a power which is not fit for purpose. It's utterly disgusting that a company continues to mislead users and sell products which 1) are not of a satisfactory quality, 2) fit for purpose, and 3) as described by the seller and sheer lack of communication on when these powers WILL have a date of working is also less than satisfactory.
  3. Since Techrax (if you can even call him an "influencer") I'd like to gamble that number being zero, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Are you now officially endorsing resellers as official vendors of xats? I, and the reasonable person, would take this as a yes. So just clarify. By also stating this, I expect that means that anyone who doesn't buy from xat, but do resell are not official endorsed? The issue here is it's stated numerous times throughout the website they're not endorsed, and by giving them a pawn for reselling, they now are. Clarity, please. Also, it comes back down to the mentality that people have on xat, because it's not a position earnt on merit on an application basis, but more so on who you know and how long you spend on xat. - People will want to become volunteer for the pawn, to show off on xat, because the volunteers are from the xat userbase. Simple. Here's an idea, make the volunteers staff, give them a snazzy pawn and a living wage and that seems a useful way to utilise this pawn.
  4. The shortname Help was owned by Spell, he also owned the ID 1111 and 111. Both IDs show the shortname Help because the shortname has been transferred between them. No idea about either Ajuda or Ayuda though.
  5. If volunteers are actively engaging in a discussion, why cannot we discuss the matter? They enforce the rules or am I wrong?? Waits for my mobile bug buster title - https://xat.wiki/Special_Thanks "1. Each chat has its own rules which is to allow or deny the sale of xats for money. This is said by xat terms (main owners are responsible for their chats)" I'll break it down for you - Individuals (NOT THE MAIN OWNER) responsible for what THEY post, but moderators (NOT THE MAIN OWNER) should do WHAT THEY CAN to ensure terms are not broken. At no point do xat terms ever state what you are attempting to tell me they do. Wrong (You'll get bored of hearing this, trust me). Remove all volunteer recognition from the forum and the wiki (who uses that anyway), admins take an ACTIVE role in ensuring that volunteers don't communicate via xat and also no one tells anyone they're a volunteer. It's really not hard. Also, I'll go back over the Mens Rea and the Acteus Reus of theft because you clearly missed it the first time - "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" - YOU CANNOT PERFORM THEFT ON xat. Wrong. If they are neither official nor verified, then why are xat endorsing them? If they're not official nor verified why do they warrant a wiki page? I'm also a reseller if we apply your logic, the page also becomes redundant if we use your logic. Wrong. Volunteers are normal users, they are not "considered above" anyone, so for a reseller to be considered above a volunteer would also be highly odd because again, as we pointed out, resellers are not official nor verified. Surprisingly, the only person who's ever assumed that this change puts resellers above volunteers is you. Also, volunteers do NOT deal with the transfer of monies, in relation to the transfer of money, anyone who is "endorsed" - lightly using the term because for some reason you're adamant they don't endorse them, reality check THE WIKI IS WRONG -. I'd rather ensure the person I'm spending REAL LIFE MONEY with is official and verified. Wrong. Sometimes its great to use words like theft, but when you don't understand the concept it really becomes evident. AGAIN YOU CANNOT COMMIMT THEFT ON xat. Wrong. Not theft, for the 3rd time this post. No doubt I'll be explaining this again. You're absolutely correct, it would cause a lot of problems. Volunteers cannot use their power for their own personal gain, and we both know (and I'm more than willing to list) abuses of power in the past, it can happen again. The wiki article only works if people check it, and if people did they wouldn't get scammed by fake volunteers. Maybe as opposed to an in-chat indicator, the admins actively push agendas to promote understanding that volunteers WONT communicate with you on xat chats. That being "pop-up" windows, such as the one which says about collecting cookies and whatever google adsense wants from user data. Store the "Yes I accept" box or whatever for 30 days, or 15, and make people continuously acknowledge they've read it to ensure they know that. Admins also have a duty to do as much as possible to prevent scams, but they do not. Actively encourage volunteers to not talking about tickets, opening tickets, answering tickets or whatever else can be promoted in relation to tickets then. (The term "volunteer" and "staff" will mean the same thing for this next point, although they are NOT the same thing) One thing I think is vital to remember, xats volunteer team IS the only support system this website has. You do not go to twitter, and speak to twitter staff directly on twitter, you do it through the correct channels EG the support system they have in place. The site itself should not be used for issues relating to support and why its supported is something I cannot fathom.
  6. I disagree entirely. The best thing xat could do in relation to volunteers is making ALL volunteers unknown, just like people who delist chats and whatever else you want to group with them. Theres numerous reasons why I think this is the best cause of action but for time sake I'll only list a few. If no one is aware of who volunteers are, no volunteer related discussions can happen on xat, thus limiting the power and scope of people attempting to use the pretence they are "volunteers" as way to scam people. Means that information related to accounts, WHICH SHOULD ALWAYS BE DONE VIA TICKET, is only possible VIA TICKET. Limits volunteers being heckled on chats also. People can't use their volunteer status to attempt to intimidate anyone, and or, use it to look "cool" or act like they're important (reality check you're not!!!!!) IF you want to be a volunteer, you shouldn't need special recognition that you are. You do it because you want to, not for special treatment. The wiki is redundant, no one is going to actively check the wiki if someone IS or IS not a volunteer in the process of being scammed by a SAID volunteer. Something original that represents xat, like a coin with the xat logo, is far better than the generic tick. Whether or not volunteers, and admins, want to acknowledge the fact there are people endorsed by xat is some what redundant. Once you claim someone is "trusted" on an official part of the website, this case being the wiki, they are unfortunately endorsed by xat. If you want to endorse someone, then the least you can do is give them the ability to show they are endorsed by xat. This prevents scams, and also allows the people trusted enough to buy xats, directly from xat, to show they are trusted without need to navigate a yet again redundant wiki. Not sure what terms you are reading, but it most certainty does NOT say that. (xat.com/terms - please point out section number ty) No they do NOT. Monetary transactions are far more important than someone claiming they are or are not a volunteer. If you willfully give something over, its not theft or illegal in any stance, even if done on false pretenses. Dishonest - Appropriation - Of property - belonging to another - with the intent - of permanently depriving them of it. Issue here is "belonging to another" - doesn't belong to another if wilfully given, thus not stolen.
  7. Wrong. This is not the solution at all. This can be deemed as a reason as to why the subject request can be delayed. You are directly causing disruption to prompt a response. My issue here is the use of the word "bombard" by the way. I think everyone has an absolute right to know what information is being stored about them. Everyone who can, should request information using GDPR. "the request is malicious in intent and is being used to harass an organisation with no real purpose other than to cause disruption." as stated by the ICO. I acknowledge your point but encouraging this kind of action ultimately means admins can play 4d chess and delay your request by a further two months. This is where things get difficult, considering the information that is being discussed here is both protected by the GDPR and also the Data Protection Act 1998, they can only hand over information that they know is to the account owner. They realistically have no proof you are the owner of the account, purely because of issues within the registration page. Legal loophole to ensure that they do not have to give information out, as they have no proof of name which can be accurately and promptly checked via the use of a passport. The real issue here, and I'm not entirely sure how this works is that we leave the EU on the 31st December 2020. @Daniel placed his request in 5th December, the 30 day period actually comes after the day in which we leave all governance of the GDPR from an EU law standpoint, however the UK GDPR is apparently coming into play sometime soon, but there is very little details relating to it. The real issue here is, if they do not comply, which I do not think they will, what you can actually do after it. I'd like to think they can totally ignore your request, then reply on lets say the 2nd saying its too late (but this could be wrong and probably is). I'd also just like to say in relation to your request @Danielplease ensure it was formatted correctly, in terms of a GDPR request as that is another ground in which they can deny your request. I have further put in a GDPR request via email instead of ticket. Edit : I have further put in a GDPR request for a deleted account of mine (this can increase the time required to respond as I've made two seperate requests) purely to see which information is still stored from deleted accounts. For anyone interested in submitting a GDPR request please use the following document below as a guide to submitting such request (change the relevant parts for the data you wish to recieve):
  8. Flake

    hey sexy cant wait to see you in real life to stroke your bald head!!! :3

    1. Karl

      Karl

      im not bald.

  9. You're comparing the transaction of xats with being banned, which are unfortunately few and far between. Ban evasion is mainly a rule at official chats, and there is no monetary transaction on either behalf to ban or to be banned. Whereas an auction is entirely different, as xat is effectively removing X amount of xats from the market. I think you should make feasible comparisons that can then be analysed and a solution can potentially be devised from it. Right now you are using comparisons which are not valid to the topic of discussion, such Nvidia or being banned on a chat (not owned nor ran by xat staff whereas auction is).
  10. I'm going to simply rebut your claim with a fact also from Nvidia. The GPUs they have most recently released, 3070s - 3080s - 3090s, are of limited quantity and they are being released in batches. Every batch so far has had bots completing the order for said GPUs at a speed far greater than any human can. This causes price increases due to a high demand with a limited supply, directly relating to your point There is no way to actually stop that and it will continue to happen, with the current system they use. Supply and demand is the fundamental principle of all economies and with such principle if supply is low and demand is high, the price increases. Fundamentally you do not need a new ID and if you want a new ID. It is not a service expected to be utilised by everyone but instead, only utilised by the person(s) who has the possibility to buy an ID within the range of disposable xats. You want it you do not need it.
  11. You've got to understand one crucial factor here, xat is a business. It is absolutely not in the best interests of a business to ignore high spenders and cater to low spenders. Regardless of how rude or capitalism based that sounds, that is the harsh reality. If 1 person buys 500,000 xats, the chances are relatively high that they MAY be used on an auction. If 100 people buy 10000 xats however, there is almost no chance that they are going to be used for auctions because frankly, you're not winning anything with such a low amount of xats to spend, auctions cater to the highest bidder, that is the only criteria. If people choose to bid on numerous IDs with numerous accounts, that is their right to do so. I do not believe there is anything in the terms of service which states users can only bid on one ID per person (correct me if I am wrong). There's also the possibility of making it part of the conditions of an auction that you can only bid on one ID and if you bid on more than one then all bids are terminated and the bid value (in the form of xats/days or powers) is removed from the account, but again you'd have to be able to prove this which is hard, especially when people could lose monies with doing so. One of the major issues with auctions is the use of auction powers, however you can easily counter this argument by saying due to the sheer amount of unlimited powers on the market anyone can get a 50% markup on some unlimited powers giving them access to bid on IDs without needing the exact bid in xats. At that point, your 10,000 xats then becomes 20,000 xats (more spending power!) The main problem with auction powers is it does exactly what your attempting to stop, big spenders hoarding powers for super cheap early in the year then being able to utilise them later in the year in auctions. One answer to this would be either 1) Removing the ability to use powers at all 2) Removing the ability to use unlimited powers and limiting it only to limited powers or 3) Only allowing you to claim an ID with the exact xats (or days) in value for the bid that has been successfully accepted.
  12. The concept behind an auction is X bids on Ys product and if X doesn't bid high enough then Z wins. That's how all auctions work. Limiting who and who can't bid on an auction doesn't solve the problem, it just creates another one in a different area, in this case you could argue it would reduce sales of xats for xat. An auction isn't about being fair or allowing all to bid, it's about the seller getting as much as possible for the item being sold. The main discrepancy with the current system xat uses is the fact that is the company itself selling products which are not yet available for purchase, auction is the sole way for their purchase and eventual collection. This differs from regular online auctions such as eBay, where although the company itself does sell products these products are also available from other vendors. xat is the sole place to get IDs, there is no 3rd party selling them, unless you argue users. To expand on my last point about users, you could potentially allow users to list their own IDs up for auction which would allow everyone to have the ability to participate in an auction. Similar concept as the pre-established auction system, but for the first 24 hours people can list their IDs (IDs they own can only be done when on account with said id, no k2s) and people can bid then the last 8 go forward to phase 2. The problem here is, you either might not get anyone bidding (due to sheer lack of interest or quality of IDs listed) or the accepted bid could be lower than what the owner originally deemed the IDs value which could result in disputes, a reserve feature so the ID can not be sold below X price could potentially solve this problem.
  13. As I left prior to having my accounts deleted, seems fair.
  14. If Belgium come 2nd in group G then they will play the winner of group H, being Colmbia. Thus meaning 3rd and 4th are an impossible feat. sigh
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.