Would it be morally fair of Nexon to ban buyers/sellers of NX? I think not.

Ethics come from morals. Morals are not ethics. I've done enough organizational behaviour to know.

Dictionary states otherwise but I see your point. They have more in common with each other than not though so I think using them both interchangeably in this regard does not change semantics within my argument.

Entrapment applies to agents of law enforcement.

Only real world law enforcement? If Nexon is the only person(s) that can enforce their rules and monitor this game and they put you in a situation where you are more likely to be persuaded to break the ToS, that seems pretty flawed to me.

holy pomegranate i don't even know why i bothered to read through all of that...

If you want to debate "morals" and "ethics" in a game where the ToS is the law, I don't know what you're doing with your time...Nexon tells you not to do it, you shouldn't do it. It's like your parents telling you that lying is wrong. If your "morals" tell you that lying is okay, go ahead and follow that. But you'll undoubtedly be punished by your parents. Who cares what your individual morals and ethics are in a society or game where the law is supreme? If you don't like it, you might as well just switch to a different game.

Dictionary states otherwise but I see your point. They have more in common with each other than not though so I think using them both interchangeably in this regard does not change semantics within my argument.

Actually, it could change our answers, like Heero already pointed out.
If we were to talk just from what we think, you're right and everyone's right. Morals are almost like opinions.
To answer if it's ethically right we would need more context to decide whether it's fair or not.

Is it morally right for them to ban? Yes.

They set up rules for their service and if you decide to break rules then it's morally acceptable for them to punish you with a ban. You agreed to the fact that they can ban you or even terminate your account completely if they see fit. Is this morally right? Yes. You agreed to that.

This isn't hard to understand in the slightest. There's nothing left to argue. If you disagreed and said what they were doing wasn't morally correct then DON'T PLAY THE GAME. However, by playing the game, again, you AGREE to THEIR terms, regardless of what the terms are.

You don't think that if they have so many signs about it, maybe they take it really seriously?

If they indeed took it seriously, it would've been heavily enforced from the get-go. But it hasn't been.

Anyway, sorry you had such a bad scare with the recent accidental(?) billingpp bans. However, convincing yourself it's "immoral" to ban for NX selling is not going to do you any good, nor protect you if Nexon decides to ban. (It may well be that they never will because it makes no business sense, and the rule is only there to absolve them of responsibility for scams. That's their choice, though). Even if every single player agreed with you.

I understand that rules are rules, yet even the grandest of rules have their quirks.

edit: Anyway, I'm done having arguments (especially those filled with unnecessary vitriol). Peace out.

The ToS must be considered when we talk about ethics in this case though. There is no such thing as unconditional ethics that can be applied universally.

Of course there is. All of Lincoln-Douglas debate theory is built specifically on this concept. There's tons of philosophical papers on this very discussion, certainly enough to warrant the possibility of universal morality.

I think we can loosely agree that Nexon America subscribes to this theorybusiness ethics as do most American corporations. From their point of few, The selling of NX for virtual currency represents a loss or at least potential loss of profit.

There are two possible out comes of a such a transaction in the games current state.
1. A successful trade of mesos to NX for a market determined exchange rate
2. Someone scams

The 2nd scenario may be briefly addressed. The person scammed, frequently the NX purchaser, becomes upset. They get angry and post on Nexon's forum or log a ticket. Nexon, unable/unwilling to do anything about it, then becomes the target of the customer's frustration making them much less likely to purchase NX in the future. The loose profits.

The first scenario is much more complicated. To understand how it affects Nexon's profits and their obligation to share holders we must determine two things.
1. Would the NX seller have bought NX for alternative purposes when unable to sell directly for mesos?
2. Would the NX purchaser have bought NX if unable to purchase for mesos?

From personal experience, I am inclined to believe that most NX sellers would continue buying NX even if unable to sell and use the less reliable means of conversion such as Cash Shop Surprise boxes, Gachapon, Meso sack, or even cubes. Perhaps the more relevant question is, would the quantity of NX purchased remain constant? This is a much more difficult question to answer. Nexon's officially sponsored methods rely on gambling and offer a lower average rate of return (or else NX price rises to compensate). Does a lower rate of return incentivize consumer spending? The answer is usually no. That's why corporations invented sales. It would take some significant research to determine the exact reaction, but I would personally guess Nexon loses some profit since people are more inclined to spend for a flat rate of return than gamble.

While there are definitely a subset of the population that absolutely refuses to buy NX, myself included, for various reasons, experience tells me the majority of people do purchase NX when frustrated by the lack of availability in NX sellers or when the rate rises beyond reasonable. By prohibiting in game purchase of NX, Nexon increases the number of purchasers.

So which wins out? Do the frustrated people buying NX balance out the frequent sellers who now purchase less? I have no idea! I'm not sure Nexon does either.

From their perspective, it's a moral gray area of undetermined profit margins. I suspect this is why we see key differences between Nexon Korea's corporate strategy and Nexon America's. We have long had a bastardized version of KMS' Cash Trading system. All the necessary components are there and we're long over due for it based on the usual localization schedule. We can obviously conclude that GMS has deliberately chosen to forgo the only safe way to convert NX purchases to mesos.

I'd like to hope this is because Nexon America has done effective research on the idea and concluded it would be unprofitable. This may be a bit optimistic given Nexon's business practice history, but we're no privy to their internal research.

From a consumer point of view, trading NX for mesos via "trust" or Cash Trade can only be a good thing. It's another option and allows the game to truly be free to play.

To conclude:
Is is wrong to trade NX for mesos?
From Nexon's point of view, probably.
From player point of view, of course not.

This was a really long explanation of the obvious...

I buy NX for mesos and I will continue to do so regardless of the current bannings. Why? Because I refuse to pay for this shitty service, because I have no money, and because I find it the game more challenging/fun without buying my way to high damage. Am I hurting Nexons profits? No. I wouldn't buy NX for $ even if they were banning every time I bought NX for mesos. Is this true for the majority of people buying Nx for mesos? Probably not.

I'm pretty sure this thread is going to go in an endless cycle of "is it morally right for nexon to do dis??" to "nexon has the power ofc" to "but is it morally right".

edit: Anyway, I'm done having arguments (especially those filled with unnecessary vitriol). Peace out.

Also the only OP was the only one who really had an opposite side of the argument anyways.

Dictionary states otherwise but I see your point. They have more in common with each other than not though so I think using them both interchangeably in this regard does not change semantics within my argument.

Except it does, ethics of a person or group of persons reflects the moral values of the person or group of persons. You making this thread about "ethics" reflects your "morals".

Only real world law enforcement? If Nexon is the only person(s) that can enforce their rules and monitor this game and they put you in a situation where you are more likely to be persuaded to break the ToS, that seems pretty flawed to me.

I'm not entirely sure how this applies to non-governmental entities that have jurisdiction to make laws. Nexon makes the laws of MS, I'm not sure how that applies here.

edit: Anyway, I'm done having arguments (especially those filled with unnecessary vitriol). Peace out.

ok, everyone go home, op gives up again