Gohei27, on 23 November 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:
The bottom line is this, duping is a real thing, the method used and arguing about it is pointless.
I disagree about the importance of the method. Understanding the 'how' is paramount. We all know why, it's the 'how' that is important.
For those people claiming that recent dupes floating around are from rollbacks, you should not argue with such conviction.
Until I have reason to believe otherwise, it seems logical to presume the most likely scenario. Should I leave my mind open to other possibilities? Yes, and I have. However, my argument here has been from a position of observation. All I have is what I can observe.
Using logic that rollbacks and the amount of dupes are the clear answer, you then ask for proof to the contrary. However your argument doesn't prove anything either, and asking for people to show you a dupe method is absurd.
The presence of one thing and the absence of another allows for me to not require proof of that which is absent here. Also; I never asked for proof of a viable dupe method. Some genius posted a few well-known fake/edited vids supposedly showing an active dupe method, both gleamed from Gold Seller sites which either want to sell you gold or simply rob you. Nobody asked him to do so.
There have been other dupe methods that have been patched in the past, so rollbacks aren't the only method.
When Where Who What? Since you're going all Mr Spock up in this mothafucka, I would expect the logical thing to do would be to prove this assertion. You can't just state that as fact and leave it at that.
Rollbacks aren't a new method of duping, Blizzard and others have known about it for months.
OK? Soooo....? What do we do with this information, as in, how does this change anything?
The only thing that that the RMAH/GAH aren't flooded with dupes proves, is that the dupe isn't public.
It proves that dupes aren't "rampant", as was suggested by the OP in one of his many threads about this exact same topic. We know what happens when people discover a dupe method, we've seen it in action before. So why is restraint all of the sudden a key attribute of the nefarious duper? Because real money has now entered the equation? Hasn't real money always been a part of this equation?
The rollback method is public, and if you do manage to pull it off, I doubt you could do it a third time.
Hence the limited amounts we've seen documented, all very much isolated. Do you see?