• You've discovered EC Tunnel 💵🫱🏻‍🫲🏾 a marketplace for EverQuest players, not farmers or dealers. This site is ad-free and there are no selling fees, because we're 100% funded by our awesome community 😇 If you're looking to buy someone's beloved main character 🧙‍♂️ you'll find it here. Join up and say hello! 👋

  • Thaw the grind. A new TLP without Truebox restrictions:
    Frostreaver

Dispute Should this feedback AmazonWorker left for Gascan be removed?

Should this feedback AmazonWorker left for Gascan be removed?

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Redbot

Redbot

Staff member
Premium
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
2,639
Pronouns
He/Him
Rating - 94.5%
51   3   1
Username(s) of the accused
AmazonWorker
⚖️ This is an official feedback dispute, sponsored by the Ducat shop. After 7 days the votes will be tallied and the most popular judgement upheld. Official feedback rules are found here. 🧑‍⚖️

@Gascan is disputing feedback left by @Amazonworker. Here is a link to the feedback. Note that this link may not work for non-moderators due to the user's privacy settings.

It reads: "Horrible - never do business with"

If you are a moderator or staff please do not vote or comment.
 
Mind you there was NO deal made. I merely asked what was for sale and was only told a price. NO items ever mentioned and yet feedback was left. I will also mention someone came to me with a list of items worth about 4 million plat and they received almost almost $2000 from me. If the seller would have just told me what was for sale we could have made a deal but I'm not going to put $3000 down on a McDonald's happy meal toy of his choice.
 
Last edited:
Focus on why feedback was left: Most individuals who sell and buy P99 accounts or items do not understand the proactive approach of P99 Blue/Red/Green GMs / Moderators take to ban sellers or buyers.

How has this happened: GMs Moderators from P99 Blue/RED/Green have been known to get access to ECTunnel and get “lists of items being sold” by sellers to narrow down accounts to proactively ban sellers or buyers. There is a history of this occurring and actually landing bans from specific trades being made that they could verify. That was my concern with Gascan, I needed to ensure when I provided the items, that he was a serious buyer. Aka confirming he could afford sed buget.

If you read the downloaded conversation, I never requested funds from Gascan. I never spoke about payment or provided any of my personal information for a payment to be received. The statement that Gascan has been providing is not true (read for yourself). This leads to why my feedback was made on Gascan.

Continue targeting of me: After I denied Gascan further information on a sale, he then blew up my for sale post up with screen shots of our conversation and similiar feedback on me being "shady", after I left feedback on his profile, he then left feedback on myself (I have not requested its removal but provided a link to the dialog). I believe based on his conversation and aggressive actions towards me, he is an unsafe member of ECTunnel to buy from or sell to.

Ownership: I was heated in my conversation with Gascan. He was very aggressive in his approach and threw the first stone. But I responded in kind and should not of. So, I apologize for my actions and tone.

Conclusion: Gascan interactions with me should be represented or buyers or sellers will not have a full understanding of the individual and his historical actions on this server.
 
@Redbot - Please provide the messages from myself and Gascan to provide a clear picture of what was actually said for a proper vote to occur on feedback. I was reading the rules and am not sure if I am allowed to download and provide the context. If you can not provide this link or download then members can view my feedback on my account that has a link to the conversation.
 
"I never asked for money"
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220802-214441_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20220802-214441_Samsung Internet.jpg
    476.7 KB · Views: 10
Continued about the 3k if I'm in or not.. that to me sounds like your asking if I have 3k to give you and you then tell me what I get? Am I wrong here lol no items ever mentioned.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220802-214658_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20220802-214658_Samsung Internet.jpg
    482.3 KB · Views: 6
How you justify a deal was attempted if I never knew what I was buying. If this were the case I could message Mr perfect feedback @diamondkrono and say hey I've got 3k worth of Kronos for cheap and he says how many and I say you can't afford it and then leave negative feedback..
 
I believe I provided the full conversation. Segmented screen shots are a interesting way to explain a situation without proper context. If any voter has additional questions or context please let me know.
 
Again, if a voter reads the actual messages no amount was requested, no billing information traded. Only confirmation he could afford and would accept the 3 dollars per k price models. Context is everything my friend.
 
Apologies for your inability to process information. I was a serious seller attempting to make a sell. Unfortunately, you could not answer a simple question and perceived my request as a shady move. The context of the situation via previously listed full convo downloads explains and represents the situation.
 
By the rules of the server this was a failed transaction.
Feedback

Feedback must be honest, and may cover transactions as well as failed transactions.
Feedback may otherwise be removed by moderators under these conditions:
Both parties agree to removal.
A "dispute feedback" community vote is purchased in the Ducat shop, and won.
The feedback is from an account that's no longer in good standing.
You may not take any action that may undermine the feedback or ratings systems (such as leaving frequent dishonest feedback, displaying, importing or exporting feedback information off of ECTunnel.com or for using it for purposes unrelated to ECTunnel.com
 
I appreciate you displaying in full your ability to work with your peers while jeopardizing a significant amount of sellers and buyers on the p99 playing platform. For context please see my above post regarding P99 staff motive and ability to access ECTunnel forums.
 
Can someone please clarify:

*Gascan says*
"Wasn't willing to FnF $3,000 for a P99 item worth 1 million plat that couldn't be disclosed what it was."

Is this literally, send me $3,000 and I will send you a random item? I mean actually literally. Is he drawing out of a hat or something, I don't understand.

I can tell you one thing, if I was in Amazon's position, I must 100% ask the same question. What is your budget.
He cannot list off all of his items due to the dangers to one or both parties ( including gascan ) being banned.

If you know anything about p99, the gms are aggressive and extremely diligent with bans. You simply cannot ask him to
"Just tell me all the items you have and I'll choose" I feel that if you had experience with p99 you would not have jumped to the assumption that "something is fishy"
simply because this question is asked. It in fact must be asked.

What I believe is occurring, is your being asked your budget so he can list a few items that fall within that price range to avoid an event where he leaks to many of his owned items,
resulting in distinction pointing directly at his account.

Listing all the items would look like this:
I have a bone chip, bronze star, battle staff, x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x, and x. That is certainly far to pointed and could easily lead to a ban.
It's financial suicide.

Please clear up the folowing:

*Gascan says*
"Wasn't willing to FnF $3,000 for a P99 item worth 1 million plat that couldn't be disclosed what it was."
 
Last edited:
FreEQ2Play said:
If you weren't aware of the item, then I vote to remove it... lol even the lottery, at least you know what you're gambling for *shrug*
Click to expand...
I need to know why this is being quantified as "Gambling"
Could you clarify @FreEQ2PlaySalesServices, you seem to have an opinion and understanding about the situation. is your interpretation that Amazon is literally saying, send me $3,000 and I'll send you a random item?
 
Last edited:
Gascan said:
Continued about the 3k if I'm in or not.. that to me sounds like your asking if I have 3k to give you and you then tell me what I get? Am I wrong here lol no items ever mentioned.
Click to expand...

What he is trying to do is gauge what you can afford so he doesn't disclose every single item he has, thus avoid getting banned. This is standard practice.
Amazon states it to you directly "The first question is what is the budget you are working with. Reason I ask is those are the items I will let you know I have within that price range."
 
Last edited:
Gascan said:
" No amount was requested"

3k starting bid are you in or out.. try again dude
Click to expand...
My interpretation of this was he was not asking you to send him $3,000, he is telling you his minimum as to not waste his and your time. The more of this I read the more I am finding in favor of Amazon.
I'd like to hear Gascan's explanation for the assumptions. If I hear a good reason perhaps I can be persuaded. Until then I lean toward Amazon being in the right here, and will vote as such until I have more information.

So far, I know where teh paladin guild is.
 
Last edited:
I would like to add that unless you are familiar with the intricacies of p99, votes may be skewed due to the misinterpretation of the messages between the two parties.
The messages between the two parties could be interpreted differently if we were dealing with Daybreak.
 
Last edited:
From a logical standpoint:

Here’s my take. From first glance I agree, that Gascan’s Feedback should be removed. I’m not exactly sure who left feedback first, but I don’t care because the flip side is I think that Amazonworker’s should be as well.

Honestly, I don’t know the details (as @Diamond Krono has mentioned) of P99; but what I do know Is, this entire interaction was completely childish.

Do I see Gascan’s point of view? Sure, no way in hell I’m going to explain how much money I’m willing to send to a stranger before you tell me the item.

I also (somewhat) understand Amazon’s stance, of shit, I have multiple products worth $3k, I’m not discussing my stash until I know I have a deal.

Essentially, what should have been a 5 minute conversation has turned into a hot minute’s worth of nonsensical drama. We’re all adults here, just agree to remove each other’s feedback and it’s done.
 
bractos45 said:
Do I see Gascan’s point of view? Sure, no way in hell I’m going to explain how much money I’m willing to send to a stranger before you tell me the item.
Click to expand...
Why is it dangerous to let someone know you have money. He is there to buy, he’s the customer.

On p99, you cannot disclose items frivolously.
Unless you have 3 grand sitting around there is no reason to spend time talking if all my items cost 3 grand or more.
It seems aggressive to say “no way in hell would I ever say I have money to spend”

Hi I have 3k + only items to sell. Do you have 3k to spend?
Response: no way in hell am I telling you that
🤷‍♂️

The items can’t be disclosed until the budget is known, that is what is wrong with this thread. If you don’t understand p99 intimately ( and you may very well ) than having an opinion on it may very possibly be skewed.

I agree with bractos the feedback from both parties should probably be removed. Reason being - There is no benefit to them having feedback that would just say:

“Two people have different interpretations of the dangers of p99 transactions, and resulted in some name calling”

When I think of why feedback should stick, I think of it assisting a customer in the future making a decision or opening a transaction with them and being prepared with caution for a similar experience.

If I were to guess what is going on, I’d say gascan has limited experience with p99, resulting in the assumption that Amazon was trying to rip him off, then throwing around some words.

While the entire time Amazon understands from experience the risk involved, though taking proper precautions, inadvertently made gascan feel off. Amazon threw back some words and here we are, here I am, laying in bed watching Step Brothers for the tenth time thinking maybe I want to buy a drum set.
 
Last edited:
Gamble - definition
2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

If this entire situation for @Gascan isn't gambling for a p99 item, then I don't know what is LOL...

Anyhow, I've casted my vote, everything that has been posted so far only speaks to @Gascan having his feedback removed, which is the topic of discussion here... And as I read and reread the material, I simply feel like @Amazonworker was fishing for $... call whatever you want... but that's what it looks like...

I wish the very best for the parties involved...
 
Last edited:
The whole tell me how much you have to spend thing is beyond stupid.

It does absolutely nothing to stop anything.

Seller: tell me how much money you have so I can tell you what items you can afford.

Real person: I don't know. Seems sketchy.

P99 GM: I have $3,000 to spend. Tell me your items for sale.

Remind me again why this approach isn't stupid?
 
Ctalbus said:
The whole tell me how much you have to spend thing is beyond stupid. ( avoid disclosing all items and being banned is smart )

It does absolutely nothing to stop anything. ( it avoids disclosing all items and being banned )

Seller: tell me how much money you have so I can tell you what items you can afford. ( whats wrong with that )

Real person: I don't know. Seems sketchy.

P99 GM: I have $3,000 to spend. Tell me your items for sale. ( has happened before and resulted in bans )

Remind me again why this approach isn't stupid? ( because listing all your items can result in a ban )
Click to expand...

How many years have you been playing on p99?
 
FreEQ2Play said:
Gamble - definition
2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

If this entire situation for @Gascan isn't gambling for a p99 item, then I don't know what is LOL...

Anyhow, I've casted my vote, everything that has been posted so far only speaks to @Gascan having his feedback removed, which is the topic of discussion here... And as I read and reread the material, I simply feel like @Amazonworker was fishing for $... call whatever you want... but that's what it looks like...

I wish the very best for the parties involved...
Click to expand...
I asked a direct question, why is it a gamble. You did not answer the question. Could you state an example.

You: It's a gamble
Me: How is it a gamble
You: It's a gamble

I'm trying to understand If my vote may be changed here, would appreciate your opinion.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I lean towards having both feedbacks removed, but would like to understand the reasoning behind what some of you are stating, that is why I'm asking questions.
Saying something is "stupid" doesn't tell me or anyone anything.
 
Diamond Krono said:
I asked a direct question, why is it a gamble. You did not answer the question. Could you state an example.

You: It's a gamble
Me: How is it a gamble
You: It's a gamble

I'm trying to understand If my vote may be changed here, would appreciate your opinion.
Click to expand...
My point is that a GM just... lies and says he has whatever budget he wants to say.

He isn't "shaking out GMs" by doing this strategy. I understand the concept... but like my example says... a GM will just play along whereas a real customer might be sketched out.
 
Diamond Krono said:
"Just tell me all the items you have and I'll choose" I feel that if you had experience with p99 you would not have jumped to the assumption that "something is fishy"
simply because this question is asked. It in fact must be asked.

What I believe is occurring, is your being asked your budget so he can list a few items that fall within that price range to avoid an event where he leaks to many of his owned items,
resulting in distinction pointing directly at his account
Click to expand...
I'm just not understanding how this strategy "protects himself from GMs". Literally anyone could message him and lie about their budget to get him to list his big items to them.

Like I said, I understand why you would want to ask someone their budget, but I think saying "it protects me from p99 GMs" is a bit much. Because a p99 gm could get that list of items just by saying he has x amount of money... or am I wrong here???
 
Thank you for clarifying, I am trying to understand where everyone is coming from and I appreciate you breaking it down ct.

This is how I viewed it -
If amazon has up to $9,000 priced items, say each item is

1k
2k
3k
4k
5k
6k
7k
8k
9k

Gascan "My budget is 3k"

Amazon can now list items

1k
2k
3k

P99 runs the items through their database, lets say 100 accounts on p99 all own these 3 items. This makes is difficult to be singled out by a GM. The shady part to me is asking someone on p99 to list ALL their items, that can certainly be construed as shady especially if you know how active GMs are in assailing singular accounts. That particular strategy is one of many tactics still being used to ban accounts, if you have played on p99 enough, you know this is standard practice for them, they act like FBI it's pretty savage.

I am coming at all this as non bias as possible - I am not taking into account how old their accounts are here on ectunnel.

I understand what you are saying ct, a GM could certainly respond with "I have $9,000 to spend" and not say "I am sketched out"
I am not sure if I have a response to this, I think Amazon would need to answer this question, it is a good point.

He does not necessarily need to be a GM to get him banned. There may be alternate reasoning as to why he wants him banned. Many people do not like RMTers for example.

If Amazons past experiences have been tarnished by similar outcomes, I can easily see him justifying his beliefs that this strategy would prevent further issues.
This would coincide with when you state "I understand the concept."
For that reason I would not be able to label his thought process as "Stupid" since it is impossible for us to know his past experience.


I think the more we talk about this it is to conflated. There are to many ways the situation can be interpreted depending on your prior experience with p99.

Both parties may very well be validated in their thinking. I am changing my vote to remove red feedback from both parties as requested by
the 5 above traders.

The situation is just not clear cut enough to determine malice. Both sides can be completely justified in their thinking, after that it's a name calling war.

If there is another trial for Amazons feedback I would not be voting against him for the reasons I stated above.
in my experienced opinion, It is perfectly reasonable why he would assume he is being safe.

I think the gambling thing mentioned actually put me more on amazon's side, stating its gambling doesn't appear to make any sense. And since no clarity could be brought forth by either EqPlaySales or Gascan on why that was stated in the first place. Once you state how much you can spend it's not as if you must now send Fnf $3,000 for a random item or some madness like that. That would in fact be gambling.

I appreciate all the input from all traders in this conversation, you have aided in my becoming more skilled in my future though process.

~Diamond
 
Last edited:
Tunnelguy said:
My question is, are there really P99 GMs that have been on this site that are Verified and Premium since 2016 like Gascan? That’s really playing the long game if so.
Click to expand...
Valid point. though he doesn't need to be a GM to have malice. I'd still say your ideal here is much more reasonable than some random guy who hates RMTers, being that he is a 2016 account. I really think outside the box 🤣 I want to show 99% before I make a judgment. If there is even a chance that Amazon felt justified in his reasoning than it's just not fair to punish him for it.

Let's view the other side as well-
What would the bonus be to asking how much money someone had to spend IF theoretically Amazon was a scammer let's say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top