Application for the return of item left in house trust

[Malong]

Regardless of the ruling, I wanted to bring to light your incredibly dishonest representation of events.

Seeing what people want is different from giving it.

It is indisputable that on 2018-02-25 you admitted a de[b]t was owed, and that it's "all good" to try to make something right here. Then today (2018-03-28), you post "I'm not sure you own it" in direct contradiction.

I'm not replying to you about this matter anymore.

[Coconut]

<00:41:14> Woody: madjosh wanted to give you dur but we dont have it
<00:41:30> Woody: blame coco for selling it
<00:41:45> Woody: what do you value dur

<00:42:21> Woody: well idk care about paying a det

This is inference of VLKA/Bank/Woody owing a Durendal to PCK.

How can Woody or I infer that if we weren't around when that trade happened 2 years ago with 0 tradebacks.

also Madjosh you didn't Leave an item in an item in a house that you trust. LatinaHeat/Murrow gave it/loaned it to VLKA 2 years ago.

[Malong]

<00:41:14> Woody: madjosh wanted to give you dur but we dont have it
<00:41:30> Woody: blame coco for selling it
<00:41:45> Woody: what do you value dur

<00:42:21> Woody: well idk care about paying a det

This is inference of VLKA/Bank/Woody owing a Durendal to PCK.

How can Woody or I infer that if we weren't around when that trade happened 2 years ago with 0 tradebacks.

also Madjosh you didn't Leave an item in an item in a house that you trust. LatinaHeat/Murrow gave it/loaned it to VLKA 2 years ago.

What? The conversation is the implication...

[Irolltwenties]

<00:41:14> Woody: madjosh wanted to give you dur but we dont have it
<00:41:30> Woody: blame coco for selling it
<00:41:45> Woody: what do you value dur

<00:42:21> Woody: well idk care about paying a det

This is inference of VLKA/Bank/Woody owing a Durendal to PCK.

How can Woody or I infer that if we weren't around when that trade happened 2 years ago with 0 tradebacks.

also Madjosh you didn't Leave an item in an item in a house that you trust. LatinaHeat/Murrow gave it/loaned it to VLKA 2 years ago.

<00:41:14> Woody: madjosh wanted to give you dur but we dont have it

Direct inference that Madjosh was the sole owner of Durendal and left it in trust to be given to PCK.  Woody is implicating you, not me.

<00:41:45> Woody: what do you value dur

Requesting opinion of value due to previous inference which reinforces both that VLKA/Bank/Woody owe PCK a durendal and that he is making an attempt to rectify the situation.

<00:42:21> Woody: well idk care about paying a det

This.

[DR.]

<00:41:14> Woody: madjosh wanted to give you dur but we dont have it
<00:41:30> Woody: blame coco for selling it
<00:41:45> Woody: what do you value dur

<00:42:21> Woody: well idk care about paying a det

This is inference of VLKA/Bank/Woody owing a Durendal to PCK.

How can Woody or I infer that if we weren't around when that trade happened 2 years ago with 0 tradebacks.

also Madjosh you didn't Leave an item in an item in a house that you trust. LatinaHeat/Murrow gave it/loaned it to VLKA 2 years ago.

<00:41:14> Woody: madjosh wanted to give you dur but we dont have it

Direct inference that Madjosh was the sole owner of Durendal and left it in trust to be given to PCK.  Woody is implicating you, not me.

<00:41:45> Woody: what do you value dur

Requesting opinion of value due to previous inference which reinforces both that VLKA/Bank/Woody owe PCK a durendal and that he is making an attempt to rectify the situation.

<00:42:21> Woody: well idk care about paying a det

This.

saying what people want to here can be quite amusing

at the time I was speaking like it was his to see what he would want. 


If you ask why do that? My answer will be why not? I can also wast peoples time, not just you adding it can be very interesting to see what people do give they think they have the high ground on a trade or just an argument.



This is my last post thx for the entertainment but ye you have failed to prove to Winter let alone me

[Madjosh]

Firstly, The item never belonged to Murrow, it didn't belong to the bank, it didn't belong to Woody.

The item was purchased by myself for the following items on March 28th 2015 in the early AM:

Fiendish bow

Sok
Barrel
5m

The Shield of Kings and gold coming from myself, the fiendish bow and barrel from Brennanx.

Trade backs were in place but failed at the time I left the house. Brennanx was able to retrieve my Mjolnir (which i note i was reported for) but could not retrieve the durendal as i recall his trade-back also failed. Trade-backs existed between my accounts and Benschie's/VLKA bank.

During my time in VLKA I had provided very generous gold and material donations and never tried to rip them off. In the time that I frequented this game, I was not, to the best of my recollection, a dishonest player. I did not make unjust/dishonest reports, requests or trades and I had reported any game bugs i came across immediately without attempting to make any personal gain from them. I would hope this quality would afford me some credibility in relation to the question on ownership.

Had Ragnash made a return to the game i would anticipate that he would be met by all gear belonging to him. I am asking for the same, as would any player who might have left an item within a house as large and reputable as VLKA.

Naturally, I respect any decision that may have come from the development team. From my discussions with PCK, I was given to understand winter's remark was provided in light of the fact that little evidence towards ownership existed and the mess of trade logs in the house made it a brothel to go through.

I would hope that upon the receipt of more solid evidence, that decision could be repealed in light of what the writer perceives to be a juster outcome on the face of facts at his disposable.

[Malong]

at the time I was speaking like it was his to see what he would want. 

I'm glad you know the difference between "would," which expresses a conditional, and "will," which expresses future tense. Before it was "you will be getting" now it's "you would want." Now that it's established you know the difference, you are caught in another lie. If you indeed meant the conditional, you would (see?) have typed "so far[, it] looks like you would get" instead of "so far[, it] looks like you will be getting."

This is my last post thx for the entertainment but ye you have failed to prove to Winter let alone me

Not to put words in others' posts, but proof of ownership isn't the issue. Stop protecting the "value" of the bank and do the right thing:

Had Ragnash made a return to the game i would anticipate that he would be met by all gear belonging to him. I am asking for the same, as would any player who might have left an item within a house as large and reputable as VLKA.

[[ASSASSINE]]

Since when is a house allowed to sell or trade stuff loaned from individuel players to the house, without their permission?
I would think it is common sense not to trade gear for something else, if you dont have the permission for it. 
If nothing like that is already in the rules, it should be added.

[Soviet]

If nothing like that is already in the rules, it should be added.

Well, here's someone getting (at least temporarily) banned for selling someone else's stuff.

Should be a testament to the legality of it.

[Kaasovic]

I would like to start with saying that I am not involved in the outcome of this matter in any way.

I have been watching this thread for a while now and the main problem I am seeing is trying to figure out whether the item, the Durendal afaik, was actually an item of Madjosh and whether this item was gifted or loaned to the bank.

I have seen OP delivering evidence of the purchase of the Durendal, 28th of March 2015, which I can confirm.

However I think it is more OPs problem for not providing evidence whether the Durendal was gifted to the bank or if it was loaned. Anyone could say a gifted item was once a loan to undo a donation.

Now I see that compensation for the lost item has been offered, yet has been refused. The value of the compensation compared to the value of a Durendal back in the day (March 2016) seems okayish to me, possibly more compensation has been offered then necessary, but whatever, you can't expect to get a compensation that matches the current value of a Durendal.

So did the bank did nothing wrong? Well, they could of course keep some administration, assuming they don't have it, seeing no evidence was provided regarding this matter. This way if one of the parties provided this evidence then this matter could be closed way sooner, but seeing no one is able to provide evidence about the cause of the item I will stand by; it's the problem of OP.

While selling stuff of others without their permission is forbidden, the example provided by Soviet actually contains evidence that the items provided to the player were indeed loaned, which I am failing to see in this thread.

Once again, this was posted as a spectators view and I am not involved in the outcome of this matter. It's just my concerns about this matter.