mis-pricing lies solely on the seller. mistakes happen, but that's how it goes. maybe buying and reselling it will make them double check next time.
Doesn't matter. Mistakes will still happen.
In the "real world" there are all kinds of disclaimers, and their is legal recourse. Sure the grocery store usually honors a mis-price in the customers favor. But if they listed 6packs of Coke for.29 instead of 2.29 and you tried to buy all 1200 they have in stock, they won't, and you really can't make them.
If I see an ad on ebay motors for a 1999 Porsche 911 in excellent condition with 22k miles on it for $71 and I try and buy it,... the owner is going to apologize for the mistake and advise me it should have been $71,000.. I can't force the deal, even if I've already paypal'd the $71 to him. He'll just send it back. He's just not going to turn the car over to me. And even if I tried suing no court in the land is going to force someone to part with their $71,000 car for $71 due to a typo.
Personally I think Warcraft should institute some automated seller protections, and if people hate them they can opt out. Or even let them define their own rules. Like if I list item X for 1/4th the average selling price of X over the last week, and that price is over 100gold than flag it and don't auction it until I explicitly override the rule.
For me, that would be perfect. If I blow out some 50g herbs for 1silver I don't care, and I'm not worried about it. I just want them out of my inventory, and that amount of money is irrelevant to me. But if I try and blow out a 50k item for 5k it will warn me.
For someone much richer than me the threshold might be 1000gold instea of 100. For someone much more anal than me the ratio might be 3/4 instead of 1/4 and 10gold insteadd of 100.
Well, that's fine, and I understand your position. But that makes it unethical for you.
No. Its simply unethical.
Condemning other people for not seeing it your way doesn't make any sense, though.
Seeing what 'my way' exactly?
Someone selling a significant and obviously powerful item for 1/1000th its price is -VERY probably- a mistake. The circumstances under which a normal person would do this are VERY unusual. Further, in the big scheme of things, its a BIG mistake. It doesn't take a lot of empathy to see that will -VERY probably- affect the other player significantly.
That's not seeing things 'my way'; its an objective truth.
I agree you can't KNOW for sure that its a mistake, or how its going to affect the other person. But we should be able to objectively agree that you do know its VERY probably a big mistake, and that its VERY probably going to significantly negatively affect the other person if it is.
Its not ethical to do something 'to significantly negatively affect someone else'. The fact that its only VERY probable instead of absolute certainty doesn't make it ok. Arguing that 'maybe he's doing it on purpose' is rationalizing. If he's doing it on purpose, buy it, and then ask him to confirm everything is ok. If it is, great, if not, unwind the transaction.
Here's another example. Say you bought the Insane Sword of Awesomeness for 1k, knowing you could resell for one hundred times that. Then an hour later, before you've relisted it on the auction house, the original seller sends you a message that says "Oh man, I messed up and meant to list that sword for 100k! Any chance I can buy it back from you? I'll give you your gold back plus an extra 1k for your trouble!"
Ideally, you really should have confirmed the transaction yourself, rather than waiting for him to discover his mistake and freak out. But sure lets run with it...
What's the ethical thing to do here? I'm guessing (and this is just a guess, of course, since I don't know you from Adam) that you'd say the ethical thing to do here is to give him his sword back. Maybe you'd even go so far as to refuse the extra 1k gold and just take only what you paid back.
I'd say that would be about right. As for the extra gold, that could go either way. I'd say it would be crass to demand it, but offered as a reward like that... it would be fine either way.
You could even look at it this way: He's ripping YOU off!
Sure, if your a sociopath.
You bought a sword you know you can resell for 100k for 1k, fair and square
Taking advantage of someone the way you did is an unusual description of 'fair and square'.
you are under no obligation to "do the right thing"
Yeah. Ethics aren't Laws. People are free to be asshats.
and return it, even at a 100% profit. He's trying to get you to sell something for 1/500th market value!
Well that's a narrow view of it. He's trying to get you to sell an item to him for 1/500th value that he mistakenly sold to you for 1/1000th value immediately prior.
He's the asshat here, not you!
Not if you look at the whole picture. In the big picture, if you don't sell the item you have made a massive gain at his direct massive expense. If you do sell him back the item, you've made a minor gain, at his minor expense -- however he did make the mistake is happy to eat a minor expense to fix things. There is no way you can legitimately argue that both parties have been objectively fairly treated if you take advantage of his mistake and don't sell the item back.
My point is, calling one unethical and the other ethical as if those are the only interpretations of "ethical" is disingenuous.
Ok. I agree one should be able defend the logic of the ethics. In this case I was appealing to the moral principle that 'it is good to minimize harm', and pointing out that you need empathy in order to be able to make a reasonable evalution of what harm is caused in the
Explain why your first situation is "unethical" and the second one is not.
Sure. In the first situation I feel like I'm taking advantage of him, I believe he made a mistake, and I believe he would be upset when he realizes it. In the second I feel I'm not, I don't believe it was an error, and that he will be happy with the price.
Avoid....
Sorry.
Ethics often hinges on empathy.
The wikipedia definition of empathy is adequate: "Empathy is the capability to share and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling."
In order to determine whether it is ethical to take advantage of the deal, empathy is required. (Along with a bit of common sense.)
Of course, using empathy doesn't mean you are always right. Suppose the seller really did mean to sell the item for 1/1000th its going rate... perhaps he's wealthy beyond caring, perhaps he's quitting the game...and felt like giving a few people a lucky break. In this case my suggestion of an ehtical course of action was to buy it and then offer to return it for the same low price. If he really did mean to sell it at that price, he would simply reply with a thank you, and assure you that he is happy with the deal, and that you are free to keep or resell the item. So even if you are wrong, there is no harm.
For some reason you seem to want to characterize it as 'rationalize' or 'assuming you know...' in a perjorative way, and I'm really not sure why you did that. Ethics and empathy go hand in hand. Having a sense of how your actions will impact others is crucial to making ethical choices.
Well if they didn't want 1k or they pushed the wrong button then they can easily cancel the auction and re-list it. WoW has always given you that ability.
You still have to -notice- you made a mistake in order to cancel the auction and relist it.
Plus there is also the possibility that someone will 'snipe' the item the moment you list it, before you can revoke it. And if you list something for a fraction of its value, it will go almost instantly. Hell... in some games people use auction bots precisely for this reason. (well not specifically to ripoff people, but to try and score any deals that come along.
It also assumes that "buying something that was listed below market price and reselling it for a more appropriate price based on prevailing market conditions" is the same as "taking advantage of someone's weakness," which is rather a big stretch - I don't actually see the two as being connected in any way.
It really depends. If the vorpal sword of god slaying is "mispriced" where the owner was selling it for 1k instead of 1000k, its unethical to take advantage of it. (Although if you don't someone else surely will... so really the nicest thing you can do is buy it, and then offer to sell it back to him for the 1k error price -- and I've done this for people.)
However, if the vorpal sword of god slaying is listed at 900k when you know you can sell it for 1000k, its perfectly ethical to buy it and flip it. The original owner was happy with 900k, and perhaps he just wanted to get it out of his inventory quickly, while you may take a couple weeks to make the sale at 1000k.
Other times, you have players who accumulate random tradeskill stuff that they just dump on the market. And they'll end up selling a rare herb far below market value or something. Again, its not really unethical to take advantage of that. These players really have no interest in doing any of the work to sort out which herbs are valuable and which are trash, and they just throw them into the auction to unload them quickly. On some level you are taking advantage of their ignorance but they are willing partners. They know some herbs are more valuable than others, but they just blow them out because they can't be bothered to sort them, they've accepted that they are selling these below value.
You left your pogo stick on the street. I hopped up and down on it a couple of times and set it back down. Did I steal from you?
Its a fine line. Change it from pogo stick to car.
You left your car on the street. I hopped in and took it for a joyride. When I was done I left it on the street. Did I steal from you?
I think we can all agree that the moment you hopped in and started driving, no one would argue that it wasn't a 'stolen car'. If the police nabbed you while you were still in it, you certainly couldn't get away with 'I was just borrowing it'. And even if they didn't nab you on the spot, and you finished your ride and brought it back, you'd still be on the hook for theft if they knew it was you.
Why would a pogo stick really be different?
That's a better analogy for misusing a wiki site for me storing some data on it.
I disagree. I don't think your pogo stick or car, even when left in a public space are meant to be used by the public.
The best analogy I can come up with is homeless people setting up camp in a public building, plugging in their TV, and microwave. (Yeah, homeless people with electric appliances, I know, I know...)
ISPs just need to upgrade their backhauls to accommodate more traffic, they are selling people bandwidth that doesn't exist and hoping people don't use it
That's what they -were- doing. Now that they are switching to selling people a specific amount of bandwidth that does exist*, and charging people for how much they use, what exactly is your problem?
(* of course they are still 'overselling' bandwidth by a certain amount. It would just be stupid not to, because some people aren't going to use it, and it would be stupid not to capitalize on that fact. But with caps and tiers they =can= let people pay for what they need/use, and deliver more to high users, while maintaining a reliable and stable service.)
ISPs need to fess up about exactly how much bandwidth each customer will get.
If they change it people bitch: "I loved X, the changes in X-II make it completely different game!" If they don't change it people bitch: "Why should I pay $50 to play X with a new skin?"
However, you talk about the 'media' praising change and innovation. I disagree. The 'media' is as obnoxious as the fans. I think its actually more obnoxious. They love utter shit, they shit on true genius. Gaming media for the most part doesn't have an objective bone in their body, their just balancing the fans with the advertisers and they say whatever generates the most revenue. Whether its pooing on a triple-A title to generate a shitstorm (and boost ad impressions) or passing off poo as pure gold to appease their advertisers.
The developers themselves pretty much do a little of everything. Some innovate, some imitate, and the reality is that the market genuinely wants some of each, so its no real shock that we get just that.
Let's try 'the work they do is vastly more valuable'. God, you're an idiot.
Then the CEO should be fired immediately for not getting his thousands of wage slaves to do more valuable work. If this 'vastly more valuable work' isn't actually 'harder', then why aren't more people doing it?
I mean, if its not actually intrinsically harder (and it largely isn't), than supply and demand pressures should put massive downward price pressure on 'vastly more valuable work', as everyone would be stopping harder less valuable work to do this easier and 'vastly more valuable work'.
Is apple willing to pay the taxes on all that for you? Seriously that gotta be at least 13K in prizes for which the US gov will want ~ 50%.
Depends entirely on your tax bracket. And if your tax hit is going to be 50% you can probably afford it. If my brother won it (as a grad student he's got more deductions than income) he probably wouldn't pay a dime in tax.
Most companies offer people the prize or let then refuse it all together (this is what "The Price is Right" does). Most people end up turning down prizes because they can't afford to pay the taxes on them.
How can they not afford to pay the taxes on them? Taxes aren't usually due immediately, you usually pay them when you file your annual return. In the mean time, they can simply flip the prize on craigslist / ebay for 75-90% of retail, and keep the difference. (Or sell part of the prize to cover the taxes...)
Even if were due immediately, take out a line of credit, and when you sell, pay off the line. The interest cost will reduce your profit only slightly.
Even if the person has the cash on hand to pay the taxes who is going to fork over 5K just to get a prize. Basically they'd be getting everything at half price. Apple knows this and is using the "prize" as just a publicity stunt..
Duh. Of course its a publicity stunt. All prizes are.
That said, its not bogus. If you win, you win stuff. Its not like those ridiculous '2 year lease on a car' prizes which, for most people are more hassle than they are worth. (Its pretty bogus to win a nice car "for a while" and then have to give it back or buy it. And what are they supposed to do with their existing car in the meantime?)
I'm not saying that we are any better in how we conduct ourselves internationally than countries we've considered to be the "bad guys" in the not so distant past.
And I'm saying we should.
And don't get me started on "innocent combatants", read the Geneva Conventions sometime and see how they define an enemy combatant.
There's no reason we need to lock them up in secret prisons without trial or any sort of due process for years on end. Treating them as enemy combatants and rounding them up in the heat of battle is one thing... leaving them to rot in secret prisons for years on end is something else completely.... people fail to see that the people fighting us currently hide like cowards in civilian neighborhoods and wearing civilian clothing, how should we be expected to combat "fairly" these men that people are trying to define as "partisans" or "guerilla" fighters.
Same way we'd handle it at home. What would you do if the 'terrorists' were disaffected American's, who could blend in invisibly into the streets of New York or Kanas.
Would you level neighborhoods and kill innocent American's as 'collatoral damage' to try and root them out? Is that how the FBI and police forces operate -- these are the people tasked to combat local violent criminals, gangsters, killers, even terrorists.
I hate to break it to you, but we've been fighting violent political activists (or 'terrorists') in one form or another for over a hundred years. Its not a new phenomena.
Ask yourself if being on the 20th floor of the Trade Center on 9/11 made it somehow OK for us to not set an example that terrorism targeted at American Soil will not be tolerated.
Who are we to have the audacity to crucify our troops for fighting, or our leaders for planning and takig action, against a group of people that took 3 planes worth of hostages and crashed them into the symbolic hearts of our Nation.
If your sister were killed by a drug dealer, how many innocent bystanders is it ok to kill to get to that drug dealer? And in pursuing that fight, how many police officers should die?
For EACH person who died on 9/11: 2 american soldiers are dead 1 coalition soldier is dead 2.7 iraqi soldiers/security forces are dead 16 iraqi civilians are dead
20+ people dead for every single victim. And not one of them was involved in the death of the victim. Sure we got some al-qaida too. How is this justice?
Who are we to look at THOSE innocent citizens of America, and say, well because someone not responsible may get hurt, we won't seek justice for your tragic end.
Who looks at those innocent citizens of America, and says, well, we sacrificed 20 innocent people, including 2 american soldiers for you. Is it enough yet? Are you satisfied?
An example I always cite is the windows Control Panel. It's just a mess, because everything is a relic of older versions. Things like Font Smoothing could easily be moved under "Appearance" like ubuntu does.
Sorry. Linux does this even worse than Windows does. This is an area OSX does mostly right, and even OSX could use some improvement. But between Windows and Linux there's no way I could agree that Linux is more organized.
Network settings (hostname, ip configuration, dns, windows workgroup name (samba)... etc are all over the place.
Screen settings are all over the map too. Resolution, background, windows themes, widget behaviour, are all over the place... and some are even in multiple places.
A lot of useful applications are pre-installed. CD Burners, editors, graphics software, office apps, etc.
A good windows vendor takes care of all that too. Dell is a terrible vendor in that regard, since they load it up with crap you don't want. But I have a number of local OEMs that will pre-install almost anything you want, and only what you want. (And bill you for the paid stuff of course.)
I'm sure MS would be happy to bundle Microsoft Office with Windows 7. I seriously doubt they'd be allowed to do it though.
You don't find it a tad counfusing that people, (you included) have some sort of problem with turning over a notorious dictator to his own countrymen who he had been politically molesting for years?
No. Not at all.
Why are people sooooo concerned with the rights of people who would not extend us that same concern?
Does "Innocent until proven guilty" not ring a bell? How about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
What part are you having trouble with?
Hint: if you ignore proper due process when you pre-judge someone to be unworthy, you have nothing. Its "Innocent until proven guilty", not "Innocent until proven guilty, unless we already think your guilty, in which case to hell with you."
I'm not ignorant enough (like some of my fellow countrymen) to beleive that all people in Iraq hate us, or think we're infidels, but I'm pretty sure Sadam promoted a train of thought about Western Civilization that would have led to a LOT worse treatment by him if they had caught one of our political leaders.
So? We're not him. And if we disregard our own principles then we're no better than him.
Or has everyone soooo quickly forgot the poor journalists that were caught, and summarily be-headed on the internet?
We gave Manson and Bundy and other serial killers fairer trials.
It is NOT wrong to make someone face justice from his own people if he wronged them.
It would have been a mistrial by our standards. By our standards justice was not served. And we deliberately handed him over, knowing full well that by our standards he would not receive a fair trial.
And I don't see anyone screaming objections about what happened to Mussolini, which is the same thing, an ignorant dictator who was executed by his former subjects.
Its not the same thing at all. Mussolini was captured and executed by Italians. America didn't capture Mussolini and then hand him over to the Italians knowing he would be executed.
People need to get their head out of the behinds sometime soon and realize that in a modern world, Westernized morality, though "right" in our minds, is not an opinion that is shared by our "enemies" Regan was probably the last President who had the courage to stand up to what he thought was wrong in a nation and declare the USSR an "evil empire". Who would dare now?
Find the courage to call your own vision of how the US should be an "evil empire". For when it acts the way you are suggesting it should act, that's what it is. Torturing innocent combatants = evil empire. Invading under false pretenses = evil empire. Arranging for foreign heads of state to be executed by a kangaroo court = evil empire. etc etc etc.
Its not enough that America win. It has to keep its hands clean. If it can't do that, then there is no point in winning, because we're no better than the monsters we defeat.
How do you use chemical weapons without having chemical weapons?
A few years ago you used to wear diapers. If I searched your belongings today would I find any diapers? How could you use diapers without having diapers? Gee... I have a theory... maybe, you used to have diapers but don't have them anymore.
I know its a brilliant and subtle theory, and guess I understand why you couldn't come up with it yourself.
So, applied to Iraq; the fact that they had and used chemical weapons in the 80's has little or no bearing on the discussion of whether he still had chemical weapons a decade or so later. A lot of things had changed in the interim.
While there is no doubt he had them in 1988, both UN AND US intelligence had very little evidence he still had any WMDs in 2003.
Does invading them for something they had but of which there is no evidence they still have make sense? I'd say it makes as much sense as making fun of you for still wearing diapers.
Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up on his trial. He was tried by Iraqis, NOT by the US. He was executed BY Iraqis, not the US.
That's like throwing a bleeding man into shark infested waters and then claiming it wasn't murder. Its not your fault the sharks got him.
In other words, Saddam was tried by the Iraqis because the US chose that he would be tried by the Iraqis. And the US released him into Iraqi custody for his so-called trial knowing full well that it would be a kangaroo court, and what the outcome would be.
Frankly, I believe the US chose to have him tried by Iraqis precisely because they could have him convicted and executed for more expediently there than in the US.
His trial was a disgusting farce knowingly and deliberately perpetrated by the US. It was on the same level as sending prisoners to secret / foreign prisons for interrogation (torture) -- the US does it precisely to get away with stuff they wouldn't be allowed to do at home. The US is still morally responsible for what happens. They know what will happen. They even take advantage of it.
It's a "pushy upgrade" when you've been happy with XP, your new computer is capable of running XP, but you can't get anything but Vista on it. They're forcing an OS choice on you.
You must be outraged they won't sell you a copy of Office 2000 anymore either. And should Adobe have to still sell Photoshop 8?
Do you launch into a tirade about how how Coke / Perpsi is forcing soft-drink choices on you every time they change their product line up too?
And when your local pizza place discontinues a topping?
Service Pack 3 fixed many, many, many bugs that Microsoft itself called "critical". So the final, fully usable version of Windows XP...
Is still to come? Its not like SP3 has solved all the bugs. So its not 'final' yet.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the final usable version of Ubuntu come out too. They've been fixing critical bugs and releasing new alliterations every few months for years now.
At the end of the day, windows software has evolved over time, and the distinction between version numbers, which releases are paid vs free, and which versions are given new names vs service pack numbers is more marketing than anything else.
Maybe they should have followed OSX's paid point release cycle, instead of 7 years of free service packs. But at the end of the day it doesn't really make any difference.
Sooner or later the average buyer will realize that they don't need Microsoft's pushy "upgrades"
The average buyer hasn't paid for a Microsoft upgrade ever. He gets the new OS when he buys his new PC. How is that 'pushy upgrades'?
which all must use much more CPU power, because Microsoft's real customers, the big computer hardware manufacturers, want everyone to buy new hardware. Microsoft is trying to continue creating an artificial market, and the average buyer is becoming more aware of that.
So, you are putting all the blame on microsft for the entire industry wanting people to buy new hardware? That is absurd.
Average citizens would have more of their own money that isn't getting wasted on layer upon layer of bureaucracy...
Oh really? We had a government a fraction of the size of the current one 20, 40, 60, 80, or even 100 years ago, with the government getting smaller as you go back. When exactly were things ever really that much better? I don't see a period in time when "average American's" were flush with cash thanks to the smaller government? I don't see a society of philanthropists.
In fact I don't see a correlation between the systematic growth of government and a systematic decline in economic prosperity for the country at all. Its just not there.
But isn't that pretty much the entire Libertarian platform? Make government smaller and we'll be better off.
Your 'wild ass theory made of common sense' appears to be more 'wild ass' than 'common sense'. Common sense tells us that if Libertarians were right, then if we look at times when our own government was smaller we should see things were better. We don't see this. How about if we look at other countries where government is smaller per capita... we'll see that countries with small governments are doing better than countries with larger ones right? Well no... we don't really see a pattern of that either.
So, is there any real evidence for Libertarian theory at all?
That's why they push for government that is LIMITED in what it can do. Limit what government can do, and you limit what corruption is possible and probable.
Why should anyone expect a libertarian government actually achieve this especially if we agree they are corruptible. Once in power they will be corrupted. I expect that only part of government that they will limit is the part that limits what they can do with their new found power.
Libertarian government would definitely change a lot of lives. It would probably result in the deaths of literally millions of Americans.
Is this a reason for or against voting for them?
Take social security for example. The purpose was to be a retirement fund... to be an investment. A basic savings account is WAY better than the social security account. Why are we still doing it? It loses money like nothing else!
A basic savings account works great until its empty. Then what do you do? Roll over and die?
My favorite part of savings accounts is that they start out empty. So they are worthless until you are successful enough to have excess income to put into it. And if your working at Walmart you can be sure you won't have any excess income. So when you lose your walmart job, your savings account still has nothing in it.
What exactly is the libertarian solution? Oh right...millions of american's get to die.
If you want to end the corruption and game playing with business, you should too.
Well, I do want to end corruption and game playing with business.
But...
1) Libertarians are not somehow magically incorruptible.
2) Libertarians would make an even bigger mess, that would benefit a very very small segment of the population. And its a segment I and probably you aren't in. And the segment that is helped, that I'm not in... quite frankly doesn't fucking need any fucking help.
If I go to your house and decide to impound the car in your driveway, am I stealing it?
Pretty much.
The only reason people get to tow vehicles is because of that clearly marked sign. if it can make some kind of legal agreement, then why not say the car will be sold?
The sign doesn't 'make some kind of legal agreement'. It doesn't do anything of the sort. The sign merely advises you that the property owner is availing himself of an established legal right. Local law will specify something like this...
As you can see, the city has established that private parking lot owners can tow (note that it ONLY gives them the right to tow. They can't crush, or sell, or do something else to the car.) Then it goes on to prescribe under what situations you can tow..., and some of those circumstances require specific signage to be posted.
So when someone puts up a towing sign, they are not 'establishing a legal agreement' that can say anything they want, they are satisfying the existing regulations, in order to qualify for permission to tow under the circumstances specified in the regulations.
The regulations set out the maximum rates, the maximum distance the impound lot can be, it imposes limits on what the parking restrictions can be, it may even specify the wording and dimensions of the signs.
Its not like you can just post a sign and create a legal agreement. However, if you post a very specific sign, per existing regulations, you can avail yourself of the specific rights granted by those regulations. That's a LONG way away from the carte blanche you thought you could have.
You're car analogy is wrong. They didn't put the money into their account, they extended them a line of credit.
Same difference.
If I offered you a ten dollar line of credit to purchase stock with, you accepted and purchased said stock, I changed my mind, and sold the stock (which is your property) it seems to me that I would get in trouble for fraudulently selling your property.
First, Logging in one day and finding out that the bank had inexplicably granted you a million dollar line of credit is not "an offer of a line of credit", and your asking for trouble if you decide to go and use it. You should immediately be looking into why this happened. Perhaps there was a change in the maximum leverage, or some other ratio... but nobody just has a million dollars of credit granted to them without some sort of disclosure. Hell, even your credit card company proudly tells you each time they raise your limit... its not just a million dollars higher one day.
Second, when the line of credit was discovered and rectified, it effectively lowered the amount of credit you were allowed, which lowered your margin, which per your existing agreement, allowed them to forcibly sell your portfolio to bring it back to within your approved line of credit.
Thirdly, Zecco has already agreed to absorb the differences to ensure no ones account was impacted. From this it appears its keeping profits as well as absorbing losses from the mistake, as well as covering all fees. (Although profits, losses, and fee transaction records are being logged... and then reversed, which is as it should be in any sort of proper accounting model...) so the whole things is mostly a non-issue. And most of the 'excitement' is because not all the reversing transaction entries have been applied yet.
If it's clearly marked on signage that if you park in that spot your car will be impounded, sold etc. then, yeah, you fucked up, tough shit....
Good luck with that. Try selling the cars of the people who park in your spot and you'll end up on charges of auto theft. Pointing at your "clearly marked sign" isn't going get you very far.
If you transfer your money to my account, it's mine. Tough titty on you. If you didn't want me to have it, shouldn't of put it there....
Good luck with that too.
Its clearly marked in the account's terms that this isn't true. And they probably even have a copy on file with your signature on them. And quite unlike your "I will sell your car" sign, this will be legally binding.
Slashdot Mirror
mis-pricing lies solely on the seller. mistakes happen, but that's how it goes. maybe buying and reselling it will make them double check next time.
Doesn't matter. Mistakes will still happen.
In the "real world" there are all kinds of disclaimers, and their is legal recourse. Sure the grocery store usually honors a mis-price in the customers favor. But if they listed 6packs of Coke for .29 instead of 2.29 and you tried to buy all 1200 they have in stock, they won't, and you really can't make them.
If I see an ad on ebay motors for a 1999 Porsche 911 in excellent condition with 22k miles on it for $71 and I try and buy it,... the owner is going to apologize for the mistake and advise me it should have been $71,000.. I can't force the deal, even if I've already paypal'd the $71 to him. He'll just send it back. He's just not going to turn the car over to me. And even if I tried suing no court in the land is going to force someone to part with their $71,000 car for $71 due to a typo.
Personally I think Warcraft should institute some automated seller protections, and if people hate them they can opt out. Or even let them define their own rules. Like if I list item X for 1/4th the average selling price of X over the last week, and that price is over 100gold than flag it and don't auction it until I explicitly override the rule.
For me, that would be perfect. If I blow out some 50g herbs for 1silver I don't care, and I'm not worried about it. I just want them out of my inventory, and that amount of money is irrelevant to me. But if I try and blow out a 50k item for 5k it will warn me.
For someone much richer than me the threshold might be 1000gold instea of 100. For someone much more anal than me the ratio might be 3/4 instead of 1/4 and 10gold insteadd of 100.
Well, that's fine, and I understand your position. But that makes it unethical for you.
No. Its simply unethical.
Condemning other people for not seeing it your way doesn't make any sense, though.
Seeing what 'my way' exactly?
Someone selling a significant and obviously powerful item for 1/1000th its price is -VERY probably- a mistake. The circumstances under which a normal person would do this are VERY unusual. Further, in the big scheme of things, its a BIG mistake. It doesn't take a lot of empathy to see that will -VERY probably- affect the other player significantly.
That's not seeing things 'my way'; its an objective truth.
I agree you can't KNOW for sure that its a mistake, or how its going to affect the other person. But we should be able to objectively agree that you do know its VERY probably a big mistake, and that its VERY probably going to significantly negatively affect the other person if it is.
Its not ethical to do something 'to significantly negatively affect someone else'. The fact that its only VERY probable instead of absolute certainty doesn't make it ok. Arguing that 'maybe he's doing it on purpose' is rationalizing. If he's doing it on purpose, buy it, and then ask him to confirm everything is ok. If it is, great, if not, unwind the transaction.
Here's another example. Say you bought the Insane Sword of Awesomeness for 1k, knowing you could resell for one hundred times that. Then an hour later, before you've relisted it on the auction house, the original seller sends you a message that says "Oh man, I messed up and meant to list that sword for 100k! Any chance I can buy it back from you? I'll give you your gold back plus an extra 1k for your trouble!"
Ideally, you really should have confirmed the transaction yourself, rather than waiting for him to discover his mistake and freak out. But sure lets run with it...
What's the ethical thing to do here? I'm guessing (and this is just a guess, of course, since I don't know you from Adam) that you'd say the ethical thing to do here is to give him his sword back. Maybe you'd even go so far as to refuse the extra 1k gold and just take only what you paid back.
I'd say that would be about right. As for the extra gold, that could go either way. I'd say it would be crass to demand it, but offered as a reward like that... it would be fine either way.
You could even look at it this way: He's ripping YOU off!
Sure, if your a sociopath.
You bought a sword you know you can resell for 100k for 1k, fair and square
Taking advantage of someone the way you did is an unusual description of 'fair and square'.
you are under no obligation to "do the right thing"
Yeah. Ethics aren't Laws. People are free to be asshats.
and return it, even at a 100% profit. He's trying to get you to sell something for 1/500th market value!
Well that's a narrow view of it. He's trying to get you to sell an item to him for 1/500th value that he mistakenly sold to you for 1/1000th value immediately prior.
He's the asshat here, not you!
Not if you look at the whole picture. In the big picture, if you don't sell the item you have made a massive gain at his direct massive expense. If you do sell him back the item, you've made a minor gain, at his minor expense -- however he did make the mistake is happy to eat a minor expense to fix things. There is no way you can legitimately argue that both parties have been objectively fairly treated if you take advantage of his mistake and don't sell the item back.
My point is, calling one unethical and the other ethical as if those are the only interpretations of "ethical" is disingenuous.
Ok. I agree one should be able defend the logic of the ethics. In this case I was appealing to the moral principle that 'it is good to minimize harm', and pointing out that you need empathy in order to be able to make a reasonable evalution of what harm is caused in the
Explain why your first situation is "unethical" and the second one is not.
Sure. In the first situation I feel like I'm taking advantage of him, I believe he made a mistake, and I believe he would be upset when he realizes it. In the second I feel I'm not, I don't believe it was an error, and that he will be happy with the price.
Avoid....
Sorry.
Ethics often hinges on empathy.
The wikipedia definition of empathy is adequate: "Empathy is the capability to share and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling."
In order to determine whether it is ethical to take advantage of the deal, empathy is required. (Along with a bit of common sense.)
Of course, using empathy doesn't mean you are always right. Suppose the seller really did mean to sell the item for 1/1000th its going rate... perhaps he's wealthy beyond caring, perhaps he's quitting the game...and felt like giving a few people a lucky break. In this case my suggestion of an ehtical course of action was to buy it and then offer to return it for the same low price. If he really did mean to sell it at that price, he would simply reply with a thank you, and assure you that he is happy with the deal, and that you are free to keep or resell the item. So even if you are wrong, there is no harm.
For some reason you seem to want to characterize it as 'rationalize' or 'assuming you know...' in a perjorative way, and I'm really not sure why you did that. Ethics and empathy go hand in hand. Having a sense of how your actions will impact others is crucial to making ethical choices.
Well if they didn't want 1k or they pushed the wrong button then they can easily cancel the auction and re-list it. WoW has always given you that ability.
You still have to -notice- you made a mistake in order to cancel the auction and relist it.
Plus there is also the possibility that someone will 'snipe' the item the moment you list it, before you can revoke it. And if you list something for a fraction of its value, it will go almost instantly. Hell... in some games people use auction bots precisely for this reason. (well not specifically to ripoff people, but to try and score any deals that come along.
It also assumes that "buying something that was listed below market price and reselling it for a more appropriate price based on prevailing market conditions" is the same as "taking advantage of someone's weakness," which is rather a big stretch - I don't actually see the two as being connected in any way.
It really depends. If the vorpal sword of god slaying is "mispriced" where the owner was selling it for 1k instead of 1000k, its unethical to take advantage of it. (Although if you don't someone else surely will... so really the nicest thing you can do is buy it, and then offer to sell it back to him for the 1k error price -- and I've done this for people.)
However, if the vorpal sword of god slaying is listed at 900k when you know you can sell it for 1000k, its perfectly ethical to buy it and flip it. The original owner was happy with 900k, and perhaps he just wanted to get it out of his inventory quickly, while you may take a couple weeks to make the sale at 1000k.
Other times, you have players who accumulate random tradeskill stuff that they just dump on the market. And they'll end up selling a rare herb far below market value or something. Again, its not really unethical to take advantage of that. These players really have no interest in doing any of the work to sort out which herbs are valuable and which are trash, and they just throw them into the auction to unload them quickly. On some level you are taking advantage of their ignorance but they are willing partners. They know some herbs are more valuable than others, but they just blow them out because they can't be bothered to sort them, they've accepted that they are selling these below value.
You left your pogo stick on the street. I hopped up and down on it a couple of times and set it back down. Did I steal from you?
Its a fine line. Change it from pogo stick to car.
You left your car on the street. I hopped in and took it for a joyride. When I was done I left it on the street. Did I steal from you?
I think we can all agree that the moment you hopped in and started driving, no one would argue that it wasn't a 'stolen car'. If the police nabbed you while you were still in it, you certainly couldn't get away with 'I was just borrowing it'. And even if they didn't nab you on the spot, and you finished your ride and brought it back, you'd still be on the hook for theft if they knew it was you.
Why would a pogo stick really be different?
That's a better analogy for misusing a wiki site for me storing some data on it.
I disagree. I don't think your pogo stick or car, even when left in a public space are meant to be used by the public.
The best analogy I can come up with is homeless people setting up camp in a public building, plugging in their TV, and microwave. (Yeah, homeless people with electric appliances, I know, I know...)
ISPs just need to upgrade their backhauls to accommodate more traffic, they are selling people bandwidth that doesn't exist and hoping people don't use it
That's what they -were- doing. Now that they are switching to selling people a specific amount of bandwidth that does exist*, and charging people for how much they use, what exactly is your problem?
(* of course they are still 'overselling' bandwidth by a certain amount. It would just be stupid not to, because some people aren't going to use it, and it would be stupid not to capitalize on that fact. But with caps and tiers they =can= let people pay for what they need/use, and deliver more to high users, while maintaining a reliable and stable service.)
ISPs need to fess up about exactly how much bandwidth each customer will get.
That's exactly what the caps and tiers amount to.
Yes, it looks hideously long. It also works fine, it's clickable, I really don't get the big deal.
At least until they forward it and someone's mail client inserts line breaks and '>' marks etc into the middle of it.
Bingo, at least on your first point.
If they change it people bitch: "I loved X, the changes in X-II make it completely different game!" If they don't change it people bitch: "Why should I pay $50 to play X with a new skin?"
However, you talk about the 'media' praising change and innovation. I disagree. The 'media' is as obnoxious as the fans. I think its actually more obnoxious. They love utter shit, they shit on true genius. Gaming media for the most part doesn't have an objective bone in their body, their just balancing the fans with the advertisers and they say whatever generates the most revenue. Whether its pooing on a triple-A title to generate a shitstorm (and boost ad impressions) or passing off poo as pure gold to appease their advertisers.
The developers themselves pretty much do a little of everything. Some innovate, some imitate, and the reality is that the market genuinely wants some of each, so its no real shock that we get just that.
You are exactly right. But I'm not sure what your point is relative to the prize winnings.
Let's try 'the work they do is vastly more valuable'. God, you're an idiot.
Then the CEO should be fired immediately for not getting his thousands of wage slaves to do more valuable work.
If this 'vastly more valuable work' isn't actually 'harder', then why aren't more people doing it?
I mean, if its not actually intrinsically harder (and it largely isn't), than supply and demand pressures should put massive downward price pressure on 'vastly more valuable work', as everyone would be stopping harder less valuable work to do this easier and 'vastly more valuable work'.
God, you're an idiot.
Look in the mirror.
Is apple willing to pay the taxes on all that for you? Seriously that gotta be at least 13K in prizes for which the US gov will want ~ 50%.
Depends entirely on your tax bracket. And if your tax hit is going to be 50% you can probably afford it. If my brother won it (as a grad student he's got more deductions than income) he probably wouldn't pay a dime in tax.
Most companies offer people the prize or let then refuse it all together (this is what "The Price is Right" does). Most people end up turning down prizes because they can't afford to pay the taxes on them.
How can they not afford to pay the taxes on them? Taxes aren't usually due immediately, you usually pay them when you file your annual return.
In the mean time, they can simply flip the prize on craigslist / ebay for 75-90% of retail, and keep the difference. (Or sell part of the prize to cover the taxes...)
Even if were due immediately, take out a line of credit, and when you sell, pay off the line. The interest cost will reduce your profit only slightly.
Even if the person has the cash on hand to pay the taxes who is going to fork over 5K just to get a prize. Basically they'd be getting everything at half price. Apple knows this and is using the "prize" as just a publicity stunt..
Duh. Of course its a publicity stunt. All prizes are.
That said, its not bogus. If you win, you win stuff. Its not like those ridiculous '2 year lease on a car' prizes which, for most people are more hassle than they are worth. (Its pretty bogus to win a nice car "for a while" and then have to give it back or buy it. And what are they supposed to do with their existing car in the meantime?)
I'm not saying that we are any better in how we conduct ourselves internationally than countries we've considered to be the "bad guys" in the not so distant past.
And I'm saying we should.
And don't get me started on "innocent combatants", read the Geneva Conventions sometime and see how they define an enemy combatant.
There's no reason we need to lock them up in secret prisons without trial or any sort of due process for years on end. Treating them as enemy combatants and rounding them up in the heat of battle is one thing... leaving them to rot in secret prisons for years on end is something else completely. ... people fail to see that the people fighting us currently hide like cowards in civilian neighborhoods and wearing civilian clothing, how should we be expected to combat "fairly" these men that people are trying to define as "partisans" or "guerilla" fighters.
Same way we'd handle it at home. What would you do if the 'terrorists' were disaffected American's, who could blend in invisibly into the streets of New York or Kanas.
Would you level neighborhoods and kill innocent American's as 'collatoral damage' to try and root them out? Is that how the FBI and police forces operate -- these are the people tasked to combat local violent criminals, gangsters, killers, even terrorists.
I hate to break it to you, but we've been fighting violent political activists (or 'terrorists') in one form or another for over a hundred years. Its not a new phenomena.
Ask yourself if being on the 20th floor of the Trade Center on 9/11 made it somehow OK for us to not set an example that terrorism targeted at American Soil will not be tolerated.
Who are we to have the audacity to crucify our troops for fighting, or our leaders for planning and takig action, against a group of people that took 3 planes worth of hostages and crashed them into the symbolic hearts of our Nation.
If your sister were killed by a drug dealer, how many innocent bystanders is it ok to kill to get to that drug dealer? And in pursuing that fight, how many police officers should die?
For EACH person who died on 9/11:
2 american soldiers are dead
1 coalition soldier is dead
2.7 iraqi soldiers/security forces are dead
16 iraqi civilians are dead
20+ people dead for every single victim. And not one of them was involved in the death of the victim. Sure we got some al-qaida too. How is this justice?
Who are we to look at THOSE innocent citizens of America, and say, well because someone not responsible may get hurt, we won't seek justice for your tragic end.
Who looks at those innocent citizens of America, and says, well, we sacrificed 20 innocent people, including 2 american soldiers for you. Is it enough yet? Are you satisfied?
An example I always cite is the windows Control Panel. It's just a mess, because everything is a relic of older versions. Things like Font Smoothing could easily be moved under "Appearance" like ubuntu does.
Sorry. Linux does this even worse than Windows does.
This is an area OSX does mostly right, and even OSX could use some improvement.
But between Windows and Linux there's no way I could agree that Linux is more organized.
Network settings (hostname, ip configuration, dns, windows workgroup name (samba)... etc are all over the place.
Screen settings are all over the map too. Resolution, background, windows themes, widget behaviour, are all over the place... and some are even in multiple places.
A lot of useful applications are pre-installed. CD Burners, editors, graphics software, office apps, etc.
A good windows vendor takes care of all that too. Dell is a terrible vendor in that regard, since they load it up with crap you don't want. But I have a number of local OEMs that will pre-install almost anything you want, and only what you want. (And bill you for the paid stuff of course.)
I'm sure MS would be happy to bundle Microsoft Office with Windows 7. I seriously doubt they'd be allowed to do it though.
You don't find it a tad counfusing that people, (you included) have some sort of problem with turning over a notorious dictator to his own countrymen who he had been politically molesting for years?
No. Not at all.
Why are people sooooo concerned with the rights of people who would not extend us that same concern?
Does "Innocent until proven guilty" not ring a bell? How about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
What part are you having trouble with?
Hint: if you ignore proper due process when you pre-judge someone to be unworthy, you have nothing. Its "Innocent until proven guilty", not "Innocent until proven guilty, unless we already think your guilty, in which case to hell with you."
I'm not ignorant enough (like some of my fellow countrymen) to beleive that all people in Iraq hate us, or think we're infidels, but I'm pretty sure Sadam promoted a train of thought about Western Civilization that would have led to a LOT worse treatment by him if they had caught one of our political leaders.
So? We're not him. And if we disregard our own principles then we're no better than him.
Or has everyone soooo quickly forgot the poor journalists that were caught, and summarily be-headed on the internet?
We gave Manson and Bundy and other serial killers fairer trials.
It is NOT wrong to make someone face justice from his own people if he wronged them.
It would have been a mistrial by our standards. By our standards justice was not served. And we deliberately handed him over, knowing full well that by our standards he would not receive a fair trial.
And I don't see anyone screaming objections about what happened to Mussolini, which is the same thing, an ignorant dictator who was executed by his former subjects.
Its not the same thing at all. Mussolini was captured and executed by Italians. America didn't capture Mussolini and then hand him over to the Italians knowing he would be executed.
People need to get their head out of the behinds sometime soon and realize that in a modern world, Westernized morality, though "right" in our minds, is not an opinion that is shared by our "enemies" Regan was probably the last President who had the courage to stand up to what he thought was wrong in a nation and declare the USSR an "evil empire". Who would dare now?
Find the courage to call your own vision of how the US should be an "evil empire". For when it acts the way you are suggesting it should act, that's what it is. Torturing innocent combatants = evil empire. Invading under false pretenses = evil empire. Arranging for foreign heads of state to be executed by a kangaroo court = evil empire. etc etc etc.
Its not enough that America win. It has to keep its hands clean. If it can't do that, then there is no point in winning, because we're no better than the monsters we defeat.
How do you use chemical weapons without having chemical weapons?
A few years ago you used to wear diapers. If I searched your belongings today would I find any diapers? How could you use diapers without having diapers? Gee... I have a theory... maybe, you used to have diapers but don't have them anymore.
I know its a brilliant and subtle theory, and guess I understand why you couldn't come up with it yourself.
So, applied to Iraq; the fact that they had and used chemical weapons in the 80's has little or no bearing on the discussion of whether he still had chemical weapons a decade or so later. A lot of things had changed in the interim.
While there is no doubt he had them in 1988, both UN AND US intelligence had very little evidence he still had any WMDs in 2003.
Does invading them for something they had but of which there is no evidence they still have make sense? I'd say it makes as much sense as making fun of you for still wearing diapers.
Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up on his trial. He was tried by Iraqis, NOT by the US. He was executed BY Iraqis, not the US.
That's like throwing a bleeding man into shark infested waters and then claiming it wasn't murder. Its not your fault the sharks got him.
In other words, Saddam was tried by the Iraqis because the US chose that he would be tried by the Iraqis. And the US released him into Iraqi custody for his so-called trial knowing full well that it would be a kangaroo court, and what the outcome would be.
Frankly, I believe the US chose to have him tried by Iraqis precisely because they could have him convicted and executed for more expediently there than in the US.
His trial was a disgusting farce knowingly and deliberately perpetrated by the US. It was on the same level as sending prisoners to secret / foreign prisons for interrogation (torture) -- the US does it precisely to get away with stuff they wouldn't be allowed to do at home. The US is still morally responsible for what happens. They know what will happen. They even take advantage of it.
It's a "pushy upgrade" when you've been happy with XP, your new computer is capable of running XP, but you can't get anything but Vista on it. They're forcing an OS choice on you.
You must be outraged they won't sell you a copy of Office 2000 anymore either. And should Adobe have to still sell Photoshop 8?
Do you launch into a tirade about how how Coke / Perpsi is forcing soft-drink choices on you every time they change their product line up too?
And when your local pizza place discontinues a topping?
Sorry, these aren't "pushy upgrades".
Service Pack 3 fixed many, many, many bugs that Microsoft itself called "critical". So the final, fully usable version of Windows XP...
Is still to come? Its not like SP3 has solved all the bugs. So its not 'final' yet.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the final usable version of Ubuntu come out too. They've been fixing critical bugs and releasing new alliterations every few months for years now.
At the end of the day, windows software has evolved over time, and the distinction between version numbers, which releases are paid vs free, and which versions are given new names vs service pack numbers is more marketing than anything else.
Maybe they should have followed OSX's paid point release cycle, instead of 7 years of free service packs. But at the end of the day it doesn't really make any difference.
Sooner or later the average buyer will realize that they don't need Microsoft's pushy "upgrades"
The average buyer hasn't paid for a Microsoft upgrade ever. He gets the new OS when he buys his new PC. How is that 'pushy upgrades'?
which all must use much more CPU power, because Microsoft's real customers, the big computer hardware manufacturers, want everyone to buy new hardware. Microsoft is trying to continue creating an artificial market, and the average buyer is becoming more aware of that.
So, you are putting all the blame on microsft for the entire industry wanting people to buy new hardware? That is absurd.
Average citizens would have more of their own money that isn't getting wasted on layer upon layer of bureaucracy...
Oh really? We had a government a fraction of the size of the current one 20, 40, 60, 80, or even 100 years ago, with the government getting smaller as you go back. When exactly were things ever really that much better? I don't see a period in time when "average American's" were flush with cash thanks to the smaller government? I don't see a society of philanthropists.
In fact I don't see a correlation between the systematic growth of government and a systematic decline in economic prosperity for the country at all. Its just not there.
But isn't that pretty much the entire Libertarian platform? Make government smaller and we'll be better off.
Your 'wild ass theory made of common sense' appears to be more 'wild ass' than 'common sense'. Common sense tells us that if Libertarians were right, then if we look at times when our own government was smaller we should see things were better. We don't see this. How about if we look at other countries where government is smaller per capita... we'll see that countries with small governments are doing better than countries with larger ones right? Well no... we don't really see a pattern of that either.
So, is there any real evidence for Libertarian theory at all?
That's why they push for government that is LIMITED in what it can do. Limit what government can do, and you limit what corruption is possible and probable.
Why should anyone expect a libertarian government actually achieve this especially if we agree they are corruptible. Once in power they will be corrupted. I expect that only part of government that they will limit is the part that limits what they can do with their new found power.
Libertarian government would definitely change a lot of lives. It would probably result in the deaths of literally millions of Americans.
Is this a reason for or against voting for them?
Take social security for example. The purpose was to be a retirement fund... to be an investment. A basic savings account is WAY better than the social security account. Why are we still doing it? It loses money like nothing else!
A basic savings account works great until its empty. Then what do you do? Roll over and die?
My favorite part of savings accounts is that they start out empty. So they are worthless until you are successful enough to have excess income to put into it. And if your working at Walmart you can be sure you won't have any excess income. So when you lose your walmart job, your savings account still has nothing in it.
What exactly is the libertarian solution? Oh right...millions of american's get to die.
If you want to end the corruption and game playing with business, you should too.
Well, I do want to end corruption and game playing with business.
But...
1) Libertarians are not somehow magically incorruptible.
2) Libertarians would make an even bigger mess, that would benefit a very very small segment of the population. And its a segment I and probably you aren't in. And the segment that is helped, that I'm not in... quite frankly doesn't fucking need any fucking help.
If I go to your house and decide to impound the car in your driveway, am I stealing it?
Pretty much.
The only reason people get to tow vehicles is because of that clearly marked sign. if it can make some kind of legal agreement, then why not say the car will be sold?
The sign doesn't 'make some kind of legal agreement'. It doesn't do anything of the sort. The sign merely advises you that the property owner is availing himself of an established legal right. Local law will specify something like this...
http://www.richmond.ca/services/ttp/parktow/pregulations.htm
As you can see, the city has established that private parking lot owners can tow (note that it ONLY gives them the right to tow. They can't crush, or sell, or do something else to the car.) Then it goes on to prescribe under what situations you can tow..., and some of those circumstances require specific signage to be posted.
So when someone puts up a towing sign, they are not 'establishing a legal agreement' that can say anything they want, they are satisfying the existing regulations, in order to qualify for permission to tow under the circumstances specified in the regulations.
The regulations set out the maximum rates, the maximum distance the impound lot can be, it imposes limits on what the parking restrictions can be, it may even specify the wording and dimensions of the signs.
Its not like you can just post a sign and create a legal agreement. However, if you post a very specific sign, per existing regulations, you can avail yourself of the specific rights granted by those regulations. That's a LONG way away from the carte blanche you thought you could have.
You're car analogy is wrong. They didn't put the money into their account, they extended them a line of credit.
Same difference.
If I offered you a ten dollar line of credit to purchase stock with, you accepted and purchased said stock, I changed my mind, and sold the stock (which is your property) it seems to me that I would get in trouble for fraudulently selling your property.
First, Logging in one day and finding out that the bank had inexplicably granted you a million dollar line of credit is not "an offer of a line of credit", and your asking for trouble if you decide to go and use it. You should immediately be looking into why this happened. Perhaps there was a change in the maximum leverage, or some other ratio... but nobody just has a million dollars of credit granted to them without some sort of disclosure. Hell, even your credit card company proudly tells you each time they raise your limit... its not just a million dollars higher one day.
Second, when the line of credit was discovered and rectified, it effectively lowered the amount of credit you were allowed, which lowered your margin, which per your existing agreement, allowed them to forcibly sell your portfolio to bring it back to within your approved line of credit.
Thirdly, Zecco has already agreed to absorb the differences to ensure no ones account was impacted. From this it appears its keeping profits as well as absorbing losses from the mistake, as well as covering all fees. (Although profits, losses, and fee transaction records are being logged... and then reversed, which is as it should be in any sort of proper accounting model...) so the whole things is mostly a non-issue. And most of the 'excitement' is because not all the reversing transaction entries have been applied yet.
If it's clearly marked on signage that if you park in that spot your car will be impounded, sold etc. then, yeah, you fucked up, tough shit....
Good luck with that. Try selling the cars of the people who park in your spot and you'll end up on charges of auto theft. Pointing at your "clearly marked sign" isn't going get you very far.
If you transfer your money to my account, it's mine. Tough titty on you. If you didn't want me to have it, shouldn't of put it there....
Good luck with that too.
Its clearly marked in the account's terms that this isn't true. And they probably even have a copy on file with your signature on them. And quite unlike your "I will sell your car" sign, this will be legally binding.