Idiot pays £450 for a photo of an Xbox on Ebay.

Flyonthewall

Principia wrote: »

It's hard to make laws that are useful to protect people who don't even know they needed protecting

Yep. There are many things that should be law that never will and many stupid laws that will never change (although some are very very old and ignored lol).Either way it's impossible to protect everyone.

And that is a huge shame, it means people continually get away with what is actually the morally reprehensible act of conning people. Maybe if society was more supportive of victims instead of blaming them or saying they deserved it, more might come forward.

Although victims, not all of them were doing lawful things when they were conned.

The quote "you can't cheat an honest man" comes to mind.

Most are just greedy but not all are totally innocent. Not that that makes it right, but just an interesting point I think.

Not on ebay and if it's a foreign Lottery type fraud then the more publicity these frauds get, the harder it is for people to defraud other people. Again victims should be thanked for coming forward, they've already been defrauded, they feel shame but they are still able to come out and warn the rest of us, often in spite of the reaction they know they will get - now that is a nobility of spirit where for example an older woman groomed by a younger foreign man. She knows she is going to look a fool (and face harsh criticism for her trust) but is still willing to remind everyone that this kind of thing still goes on.

Yeah, but I did say overall, not just ebay scams.

I think conning someone out of their money under false pretences is stealing:eek:

Technically it can be seen as stealing. However, when someone steals something they take it without permission. With cons the mark happily hands over the money. You can't steal what you have been given - that is the loophole with cons and that's why many are never charged with anything.

The seller was not altogether clear in his item description. It could easily have been that the photo was newly taken in 2013. It is deliberately ambiguous. If you are not alert to a scam, most people's instinct is one of trust. A sad thing for everyone that this can be a wrong decision. Particularly sad when someone really does need help and no one will help them because they fear it is just a scam.

I'd say overall most people are rather untrusting of others apart from situations where they believe they are getting something they want.

True, there are those that need help and won't get it as people believe it's a scam. Sadly there is usually a far high chance of it being a scam though

Flyonthewall

Principia wrote: »

Because small time con artists who only take a few hundred knowing that they are probably only spoiling someone else's christmas wouldn't take a chance of a big con?

There's no lovely rogues in my worldview - you either respect other people or you don't.

I read about a con in the guardian recently where someone phones you to tell you that your credit card has been used fraudulently and to phone the fraud number on the back of the card.

You phone the number, enter your pin 'for security' reasons on the keypad and after a time they say they will send a new card to you and get your old card from you by courier so they can destroy it. The courier then picks up your card.

All a big con but if you weren't aware that phones in this country only disconnect from the person who made the call then you'd swallow the whole thing with nery a murmur. You may think some of the information requests were a bit strange - inputting the pin for example but because you have never had your suspicions nudged you just follow it through.

I probably would have been taken in by this one due to my ignorance of how the phone system works.

Anyone who thinks they can't be conned probably can be.

Anyone who genuinely can't be conned is probably the most miserly unhelpful person you could possibly meet, how could they not be, they would have to view every interaction with another person with suspicion.

People generally either do short cons or long cons. Those that do short cons probably aren't smart enough (or don't have the means) to carry out a long con. That's not to say a short con couldn't get them a pretty large amount of money, but long cons are where the big money is.

There are so many obvious faults with that scam without even considering how it works (with the diconnecting). Can't understand with some cons why so many fall for them.

Principia_2

Flyonthewall wrote: »

There are so many obvious faults with that scam without even considering how it works (with the diconnecting). Can't understand with some cons why so many fall for them.

The point of a scam is not to tip the person off that it is a scam. If you can keep them trusting they'll believe all sort of rubbish. Once you believe you have phoned the genuine number of the fraud office for your credit card, shown on the back of your actual credit card, why would you be suspicious of anything they ask - you might think it weird, but suspicious? I doubt it.

There are known psychological reasons for this and conning people is basically abusing normal human traits.

I think an honest man is probably the easiest to con - he's not suspicious enough. Apparently smart people are good marks too - if you reel them in then they don't want to admit to themselves that they've been had, so stay with the con for a lot longer than most people.

Principia_2

Most are just greedy but not all are totally innocent. Not that that makes it
right, but just an interesting point I think.

Interesting interpretation but I don't think people who act with stupidity, idleness or carelessness or senility for example, can be seen as guilty of anything except the same kind of character traits that any of us have. In general, they are not trying to con anyone and so are not culpable in any way.

Previously you said that being young was not an excuse. My answer would be that being young (and thus inexperienced) is a reason for being easier to con. It's not an excuse because someone who has been conned does not need to excuse their own behaviour.

Everyone has human weaknesses, what is inexcusable is to think that those weaknesses deserve to exploited and then to do so and somehow claim the victim is the one at fault either wholly or partially.

aimingforadebtfreelife

Back in the days when the Xbox was first launched there was also people selling personalised email addresses. I decided to jump onto the bandwagon as a hard up student and listed an email address something like xboxgamer@- - - - . It was listed on Ebay under the right section for selling websites/domains etc and I included a stock picture of the Xbox logo and listed it starting off with the Xbox just released it was the hottest console etc etc and for sale was the email address etc etc.

Was hoping for a fiver and then checked when ended to see it went for £502 and the payment was waiting in Paypal. (42 bids later). I emailed the winning bidder to double check it was the email address he had bid for and said "no, its the console"?????

Needless to say I refunded the monies.

Even if I did have a new Xbox for sale I wouldn't sell it on Ebay - its all geared up for the consumer. Ebay guarantees to get the buyer what they wanted or their money back. After selling on Ebay for a number of years I have stopped as the amount of non receipt claims were beyond a joke.

Irony

I did see another one today on ebay. It was someone in NI selling a photo of the man who bought that photo.

Flyonthewall

Principia wrote: »

The point of a scam is not to tip the person off that it is a scam. If you can keep them trusting they'll believe all sort of rubbish. Once you believe you have phoned the genuine number of the fraud office for your credit card, shown on the back of your actual credit card, why would you be suspicious of anything they ask - you might think it weird, but suspicious? I doubt it.

There are known psychological reasons for this and conning people is basically abusing normal human traits.

I think an honest man is probably the easiest to con - he's not suspicious enough. Apparently smart people are good marks too - if you reel them in then they don't want to admit to themselves that they've been had, so stay with the con for a lot longer than most people.

I highly doubt that they'd know the information that a legit person would such as name, address and bank/card details. I bet with half of them if you asked them what bank you belong to they couldn't tell you and half of them would then put the phone down rather than guess. For something so important you'd think people would ask more questions - it wouldn't take much to trip the scammers up. A legit person would have no problems answering.

The meaning of you cannot cheat an honest man is that an honest man is not greedy or selfish and conning is based on the person being greedy and wanting more money.

To a point you're right about a smart person, they will not wish to admit they've been had. But too smart and they'll see through the con from the start and walk away.

Irony

See earlier post.
That listing must've been spotted & removed. It now in the photo section. Not in NI & is 331083935994. Do NOT click on the (contemporary 1991-now) as pics are even more naughty

Flyonthewall

Principia wrote: »

Interesting interpretation but I don't think people who act with stupidity, idleness or carelessness or senility for example, can be seen as guilty of anything except the same kind of character traits that any of us have. In general, they are not trying to con anyone and so are not culpable in any way.

Previously you said that being young was not an excuse. My answer would be that being young (and thus inexperienced) is a reason for being easier to con. It's not an excuse because someone who has been conned does not need to excuse their own behaviour.

Everyone has human weaknesses, what is inexcusable is to think that those weaknesses deserve to exploited and then to do so and somehow claim the victim is the one at fault either wholly or partially.

Yeah well the keywords there were most and not all.

Young doesn't always mean inexperienced. I knew loads about cons before the age of 18. It might be easier to con some younger people but there's no reason why they should be easier to con, especially now with all the stuff that travels around the social media sites.

Whether the conned need to excuse their own behaviour depends on whether they were doing something illegal/morally wrong.

gunsandbanjos

Simmysim wrote: »

A Metallica fan with a Bon Jovi avatar? :rotfl: and you have the cheek to call somebody else gormless.

Oh no, you cut me really deep insulting my music tastes:eek: how ever will I get over it?

Gormless? Hmm, we'll just ignore my first class degree shall we and focus on my taste in music, yup that sounds sensible:rotfl: