Printable View
Not available anymore.
This is a value of $0.75 per million, probably the lowest you will get from anyone.
I don't exactly think I have to prove myself or anything, but I will not go first.
I will only take the money through a PayPal gift.
You also have to be willing to accept that in all cases of off site trading, there is always a likelihood of being banned, whether the account is legit or not. If you cannot accept that risk, then buying any accounts or items from anyone isn't for you.
Good luck Tree :D
oh man o Ao
Quick, someone send me 10$ usd to my paypal !
Why's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevik
PM'd definitely interested for the full $150.
First post ever made ~ o rep ~ seems legit.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoKingAndy
I'd rather we not turn this into a legit/unlegit flame war. I can decide who is legit and who isn't privately and on my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevik
I'll let my Paypal transactions do the talking. Lol.
http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2e0aa225.png
http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/...ps90bf4711.png
http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4f1d6840.png
Clean record since 2010. ~ No chargebacks dated since the creation of the PayPal account.
Locking thread, anyone interested in buying PM me.
Bumped.
Don't ask to do trades over PM. It looks sketchy -- like you're hiding something. If there are problematic posts, TU should be able to remove them from the topic for you.
I thought that's how trades are generally conducted.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMEchief
If there are fail-safes like middlemen in place and the member is proven to be reputable enough, then I don't see that as that big of a deal. Tree, as far as I know, is pretty trustworthy in terms of online transactions involving gaia.
I don't mind either way, I normally just do it this way to keep the buyer anonymous and decrease chance of ban.
A buyer is free to PM you and negotiate that way. It's not like we can enforce what happens in PMs anyway without breaking privacy.
It's just the asking for PMs that encourages scamming. Outside of asking not to discuss trades publicly, you're free to not discuss trades publicly.
doing stuff publicly is riskyQuote:
Originally Posted by GAMEchief
+50lggQuote:
Originally Posted by Butts
It's exponentially less risky when other users can point out scams and create hard evidence of attempted scams, permanently linked to the account in question. Which gives mods much more regulatory abilities over just taking a scammed member's word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butts
I'm not risking that crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMEchief
if you're selling one-to-one, use your bloody brain.
Any further details can be done via PM. If you believe that moderators know, of the millions of accounts on gaia, which one is the one YOU are selling, you're sadly misguided. Having people post public interest is entirely fine. Simply confer any confidential information via private message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butts
Make judgment calls.
Oh, you mean you'd risk the Gaia mods finding out?
No, obviously that information can be in PMs. Like usernames/passwords/Tekteks/whatever.
The agreements of the trade, like how much LGG -- or especially USD -- one member is supposed to donate, should be made public if you want a potential scammer to be punished for it.
You are free to do the entire trade over PM if you want. But if you get scammed, there is nothing I can do about it. You can leave a negative rep and hope others believe you, but there'd be no evidence for it, and the member would be free to do it again.
If you want them to be banned, you should make the necessary information that can be used against them public. For example, "You send the money first."
Hell, you can complain that he said for you to send the money first in PM, but we don't even know if you sent any money. Because we never saw the trade agreement.
So, yeah. It is beneficial to members against scammers for as much to be public as possible. You are free to make as much as you want private. There is no rule against that. Obviously this is a necessity for information that would risk the account security.
The rule is simply against requiring/telling to privatize information that would benefit an asking scammer but not both parties.