Nexon deleting enhance hacked weapons?

...is it too much to ask for Nexon to ban anyone who'd holding a +300 atk/matk hacked weapon, whether they made it or bought it?

Deletions are nice, but more needs to be done.

I have to say that you have incorrectly applied "appeal to probability".
The fallacy is fallacious because one says the thing will happen (high probability, or 100% probability), when the actual probability is far lower. The gambler example on your link is a good example of a valid (as in fallacious) application of the fallacy.

The gambler example was an example of appealing to probability.
If the gambler example fits the described scenario, then the scenario in question qualifies as an appeal to probability via the transitive property.

I have to say, your logic is pomegranate.

Since your first paragraph was so pineappleed, I'm assuming the rest of what you wrote will be equally stupid so I refuse to waste my time reading it.

I have to say that you have incorrectly applied "appeal to probability".
The fallacy is fallacious because one says the thing will happen (high probability, or 100% probability), when the actual probability is far lower. The gambler example on your link is a good example of a valid (as in fallacious) application of the fallacy.

The quote on your post, however, stated that it COULD be the case, and that there is a probability of that happening. The quote did not mention anything about the probability being high, or that he was saying that the vss was legitly made.

In fact, I have personally seen a wwg being scrolled to 5 pass with 10% in 2005-era GMS (pre MSEA). The probability is low (0.001%), but it happened. You cannot deny that it is infact possible for 27att vss to be scrolled with a nonzero probability. By definition, something with nonzero probability could happen, so there is nothing fallacious about that post you quoted. I personally believe that these shoes were hacked, but you cannot deny the probability that they could have been legitly created.

Here we have demonstrated a nice little logical fallacy.
Basically "I can make up a ridiculous scenario that would make X happen that could never actually happen, therefore my idea is valid."
I therefore contend that you are actually the reincarnated spirit of Jackie Chan and have come to save the Martians from the menace known as Morgan Freeman.

I have to say that you have incorrectly applied "appeal to probability".
The fallacy is fallacious because one says the thing will happen (high probability, or 100% probability), when the actual probability is far lower. The gambler example on your link is a good example of a valid (as in fallacious) application of the fallacy.

The quote on your post, however, stated that it COULD be the case, and that there is a probability of that happening. The quote did not mention anything about the probability being high, or that he was saying that the vss was legitly made.

In fact, I have personally seen a wwg being scrolled to 5 pass with 10% in 2005-era GMS (pre MSEA). The probability is low (0.001%), but it happened. You cannot deny that it is infact possible for 27att vss to be scrolled with a nonzero probability. By definition, something with nonzero probability could happen, so there is nothing fallacious about that post you quoted. I personally believe that these shoes were hacked, but you cannot deny the probability that they could have been legitly created.

Seriously dude? I mean like I'm asking seriously are you like, trying to pull this off? It's a lot easier to scroll a wwg with 10%'s if there are 10,000 scrolls in circulation. I mean what you people don't get is the limited supply makes it completely improbable, there shouldn't be anymore than what? 80 shoe attack scrolls? But people sell them by the hundreds. If they were never duped you'd never see a perfect 27 attack shoe, ever. Statistically out of the very limited supply only a dozen would have passed and that's extremely optimistic.

I have to say that you have incorrectly applied "appeal to probability".
The fallacy is fallacious because one says the thing will happen (high probability, or 100% probability), when the actual probability is far lower. The gambler example on your link is a good example of a valid (as in fallacious) application of the fallacy.

The quote on your post, however, stated that it COULD be the case, and that there is a probability of that happening. The quote did not mention anything about the probability being high, or that he was saying that the vss was legitly made.

In fact, I have personally seen a wwg being scrolled to 5 pass with 10% in 2005-era GMS (pre MSEA). The probability is low (0.001%), but it happened. You cannot deny that it is infact possible for 27att vss to be scrolled with a nonzero probability. By definition, something with nonzero probability could happen, so there is nothing fallacious about that post you quoted. I personally believe that these shoes were hacked, but you cannot deny the probability that they could have been legitly created.

3 people beat me to saying youre full of pomegranate

@idea that no one will risk buying EE hacked weapons: People on my BL are still looking to buy 301's that have no stars.

With the 301 unenhanced ones cheaper than ever(20-30k NX), most people are happy to buy them so cheaply with the risk of deletion.

Seriously dude? I mean like I'm asking seriously are you like, trying to pull this off? It's a lot easier to scroll a wwg with 10%'s if there are 10,000 scrolls in circulation. I mean what you people don't get is the limited supply makes it completely improbable, there shouldn't be anymore than what? 80 shoe attack scrolls? But people sell them by the hundreds. If they were never duped you'd never see a perfect 27 attack shoe, ever. Statistically out of the very limited supply only a dozen would have passed and that's extremely optimistic.

Only replying to the one comment which seems to make sense and give reasons instead of simply name-calling and trying to be funny.

My argument can be condensed thus: It is NOT a fallacy to say that there is a possibility that chaos scrolls were used to make the 27att vss.
Note no mention on whether the chaos scrolls are legit or not, the 10% scrolls are legit or not, or whether any duping was involved.
Two examples each from maple and rl to better illustrate my argument:

1: It is possible to pass 10 enhances legitly without using any cash items. - not fallacious imo
2: It is possible to flip 20 coins and have them all land head up. - not fallacious imo
3: You should go enhance your item to 10 star without using wards, since it is possible. - fallacious imo
4: I will flip 20 coins and have them all land heads up, because it is possible - fallacious imo

I can be certain to a large extent that the scrolls (10%, chaos) used in the making of the vss were duped, since the supply contributed by duping far exceeds the legit supply. I can also be certain in the same way that the 27 att vss, once made, and during their making, were also duped. The likelihoods of these being done legitly without duping is infinitesimal.

If you will please, argue with logic, instead of juvenile name-calling.

I always thought SP was largely made up of people who use logical reasoning to argue their comments, based on cursory readings of some posts. The sample of responses to my post (2/3 being ad hominem, and 1 apparently agreeing with the others' basically contentless posts) argues otherwise.

Oh, and @Viaje, regarding your poorly made point about transitivity, you did not show any link between the gambler example and your comment.
A proper transitive argument would have been:
1: You agree that the gambler example is fallacious.
2: You show how the quote is equivalent to the gambler example, in that it states that one should gamble, since there is always a nonzero probability of winning back the profit no matter how small it is.
3: Hence, you conclude that the quote is actually fallacious.

You did not do step 2, making your argument invalid, and your use of the word "transitive" is made to have no meaning whatsoever.

This sure is getting derailed. It seems pretty obvious to me that VSS were created using duped Shoe Attack 10% scrolls and duped White Scrolls, if only because the attack value divided by the number of upgrades is exactly 3. Not only that, but the cost associated with collecting enough 10% shoe scrolls and white scrolls to accompany them would be absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention that I doubt any one player had that many legitimate shoe scrolls at one point in time.

Even so, even if one or two people made a legitimate pair of them, there's no way that that number is even close to the total number of 27 attack VSS's floating around and that's not what the thread is about, anyway.

Back on topic, I'm not convinced these things are going anywhere considering EVERY hero and almost every paladin I've run into at LHC is using one of these now and MTS is flooded with them still.

Only replying to the one comment which seems to make sense and give reasons instead of simply name-calling and trying to be funny.

My argument can be condensed thus: It is NOT a fallacy to say that there is a possibility that chaos scrolls were used to make the 27att vss.

No one is arguing the possibility does or does not exist. You talk about logic but your entire arguement is completely off topic. The point is whether a chaos scroll was used or not doesn't suddenly make it a legitimate item, whether the scrolls were duped or not, the 10% shoe attack with white scrolls, sold in bundles of 100's would gurrantee an increase and a set increase. Chaos scrolls have 10 possibilities, you think anyone suddenly though "well I should just risk the chance! Hopefully I'll get 3+ attack!". No that's stupid, that's illogical and no one would have done that with oppurtunities like duped scrolls existed. On the off chance someone miraculously pulled it off, it doesn't make the item anymore or anyless bannable. It's gurranteed more than half the scrolls were shoe attack scrolls that shouldn't have existed. It's like saying those 301 cravens are acceptable because 3-4 enhances may have been legit.

People are treating your inquiry like this because if you post ridiculous things you'll get ridiculous answers with a slap of ridicule.

These items should not exist, that is the argument and was always the argument. Chaos scrolls do not, will not, and do not justify the existance of the shoes.

Only replying to the one comment which seems to make sense and give reasons instead of simply name-calling and trying to be funny.

My argument can be condensed thus: It is NOT a fallacy to say that there is a possibility that chaos scrolls were used to make the 27att vss.
Note no mention on whether the chaos scrolls are legit or not, the 10% scrolls are legit or not, or whether any duping was involved.
Two examples each from maple and rl to better illustrate my argument:

1: It is possible to pass 10 enhances legitly without using any cash items. - not fallacious imo
2: It is possible to flip 20 coins and have them all land head up. - not fallacious imo
3: You should go enhance your item to 10 star without using wards, since it is possible. - fallacious imo
4: I will flip 20 coins and have them all land heads up, because it is possible - fallacious imo

I can be certain to a large extent that the scrolls (10%, chaos) used in the making of the vss were duped, since the supply contributed by duping far exceeds the legit supply. I can also be certain in the same way that the 27 att vss, once made, and during their making, were also duped. The likelihoods of these being done legitly without duping is infinitesimal.

If you will please, argue with logic, instead of juvenile name-calling.

I always thought SP was largely made up of people who use logical reasoning to argue their comments, based on cursory readings of some posts. The sample of responses to my post (2/3 being ad hominem, and 1 apparently agreeing with the others' basically contentless posts) argues otherwise.

Oh, and @Viaje, regarding your poorly made point about transitivity, you did not show any link between the gambler example and your comment.
A proper transitive argument would have been:
1: You agree that the gambler example is fallacious.
2: You show how the quote is equivalent to the gambler example, in that it states that one should gamble, since there is always a nonzero probability of winning back the profit no matter how small it is.
3: Hence, you conclude that the quote is actually fallacious.

You did not do step 2, making your argument invalid, and your use of the word "transitive" is made to have no meaning whatsoever.

except... you use all these big words and your post still leaves me devoid of any new thought. if anyone ever needed a tl;dr its you.

the only thing worth reading is you arguing that the vss's couldve been chaosed (and actually, not sure its really worth it). and to that i say pineapple no, not without dupes or hacks. there have never been enough shoe att scrolls in circulation to legitimately support scrolling that many standard deviations outside of average. theres your logic. now stop trying to legitimize the goddamn hackers.

and yes, i read the whole post and ignored you saying what you believe about the shoe legitimacy, because youre trying to push the idea that "it couldve been done" when it most certainly couldnt.

No one is arguing the possibility does or does not exist. You talk about logic but your entire arguement is completely off topic.

Viaje said that it was fallacious to say that the possibility exists, when it in fact does. I am countering that point, and I am making no comments on whether the vss are legitly made or not. I believe they were made using hacks.
If arguing thus is considered OT, then I apologise for my mistake.

Viaje said that it was fallacious to say that the possibility exists, when it in fact does. I am countering that point, and I am making no comments on whether the vss are legitly made or not. I believe they were made using hacks.
If arguing thus is considered OT, then I apologise for my mistake.

You should keep that conversation with him then otherwise you confuse a lot of inviduals because in all fairness he's the only one saying that

calmeth thine chesticles, this thread is about deleting hacked equips not the probability and morality of them

Just get rid of all:
27att VSS
280+ ATT weapons
Tradable protection scrolls (seriously what were you thinking nexon..)

Just get rid of all:
27att VSS
280+ ATT weapons
Tradable protection scrolls (seriously what were you thinking nexon.)

How to make bank clearly!

Just get rid of all:
27att VSS
280+ ATT weapons
Tradable protection scrolls (seriously what were you thinking nexon..)

Hell, I would make White Scrolls, Protection Scrolls, and GM Scrolls untradeable. Make Safety Scrolls and the other new special scroll a permanent option in cash shop, or Pam Song. But these need to be repriced to something more affordable.

It will take a while for people to get used to these game balancing changes but it's necessary.

It seems that Nexon is dealing with the MTSable 301/596/608 weapons by deleting the accounts of low level mules who are mass MTSing said weapons. Though it's clearly much more effective to simply wipe all weapons with 255+ attack aside from Lv. 140 and 163 ones.

Let's hope this server check did something about those weapons.

...is it too much to ask for Nexon to ban anyone who'd holding a +300 atk/matk hacked weapon, whether they made it or bought it?

Deletions are nice, but more needs to be done.

I'd love if they did that. Just perma ban all those fuckers.