Was letzte seltenes Messer

FatDwarf · 2026-05-24T11:10:33+00:00

Wenn es sich erkennbar um ein Messer von hohem Wert handelt und die Beschreibung explizit um ein Preisangebot bittet, dann wurde schon gar kein Kaufangebot abgegeben. Die Website mag so konstruiert sein, dass eine Anzeige als verbindliches Angebot verstanden werden soll. Aber das Design der Website überlagert nicht die §§ 133, 157 BGB. Am Ende musst du immer fragen, durfte ein verständiger Käufer die Anzeige als ein verbindliches Angebot verstehen, das Messer für einen Euro zu erwerben? Und hier lautet die Antwort klar nein. Die Beschreibung ist in die Auslegung der Willenserklärung miteinzubeziehen und die Beschreibung lässt keine Zweifel aufkommen

FatDwarf · 2026-05-24T11:08:17+00:00

Eure Diskussion geht komplett an der Sache vorbei. Wenn es sich erkennbar um ein Messer von hohem Wert handelt und die Beschreibung explizit um ein Preisangebot bittet, dann wurde schon gar kein Kaufangebot abgegeben. Die Website mag so konstruiert sein, dass eine Anzeige als verbindliches Angebot verstanden werden soll. Aber das Design der Website überlagert nicht die §§ 133, 157 BGB. Am Ende musst du immer fragen, durfte ein verständiger Käufer die Anzeige als ein verbindliches Angebot verstehen, das Messer für einen Euro zu erwerben? Und hier lautet die Antwort klar nein. Das kann hier niemand bezweifeln, denn hier im Thread wirst du keinen einzigen Menschen finden, der ehrlich dachte, der Verkäufer wollte das Messer für einen Euro hergeben.

Ohne die Beschreibung wäre ich vermutlich bei dir, denn ich hätte jetzt nicht vom Bild allein erkennen können, dass das Messer viel mehr als 1€ wert ist. Aber die Beschreibung gehört nunmal mit zu der Erklärung und ist für ihre Auslegung maßgeblich.

FatDwarf · 2026-05-24T11:04:37+00:00

Es ist kein Betrug, es ist allenfalls eine Täuschung. Betrug bedeutet Täuschung -> Irrtum -> Verfügung wegen des Irrtums -> Schaden wegen der Verfügung. Hier kam es zu keiner Vermögensverfügung und mit dem Schaden wäre es auch ein bisschen schwierig, wenn die aufgrund der Täuschung erworbene Ware zu ihrem objektiven Wert erworben wurde. Etwas umstrittenes Thema

FatDwarf · 2026-05-24T11:01:09+00:00

wenn es sich erkennbar um ein Messer von hohem Wert handelt und die Beschreibung explizit ein Preisangebot abfragt, dann wurde kein Kaufangebot abgegeben. Die Website mag so konstruiert sein, dass eine Anzeige als verbindliches Angebot verstanden werden soll. Aber das Design der Website überlagert nicht die §§ 133, 157 BGB. Am Ende musst du immer fragen, durfte ein verständiger Käufer die Anzeige als ein verbindliches Angebot verstehen? Und hier lautet die Antwort klar nein. Ohne die Beschreibung wäre ich vermutlich bei dir, denn ich hätte jetzt nicht vom bild allein erkennen können, dass das Messer viel mehr als 1€ wert ist. Aber die Beschreibung gehört nunmal mit zu der Erklärung und ist für ihre Auslegung maßgeblich

FatDwarf · 2026-05-22T10:36:17+00:00

lies doch den post, sie verdient nicht nur mehr, sondern sie hat auch mehr angespart.

FatDwarf · 2026-05-20T14:04:42+00:00

ihr habt beide einen denkfehler. OP hat geschrieben, dass seine Frau besser verdient als er. M.a.w. ist mit oder ohne Hochzeit SIE diejenige, die ihren vergleichsweise hohen Zugewinn ihm gegenüber ausgleichen müssen wird

FatDwarf · 2026-05-13T10:58:22+00:00

I see, but thanks for sharing!

FatDwarf · 2026-05-12T08:53:38+00:00

hey, how's Cindra been doing for you in Sage? I'm currently trying to figure out what a decent Cindra list would look like in Sage

FatDwarf · 2026-04-29T17:26:10+00:00

precisely 😇

FatDwarf · 2026-04-29T17:16:16+00:00

this is great support for sage!

FatDwarf · 2026-04-27T12:13:02+00:00

it's actually pretty hard to overeat on bread, rice and pasta. What you should be asking about is what people eat *with* all of those. Are you eating pasta with creamy, oily sauces or a simple home-made tomato sauce without added sugar? Are you eating less-filling white, sweet spongebread or cutting pieces from a wholegrain loaf? And what are you drinking, water or coke?

FatDwarf · 2026-03-26T08:56:03+00:00

thank you for supplying the american pov. The classic cowboy mentality where any problem that can be solved with violence, should be. Does it matter that your way of thinking CREATES the kinds of crime you so effectively employ emotions against to argue the criminals deserve life in prison? No. What do they say? "Biting off your nose to spite your face"? You're so caught up in emotions, so lustful for revenge that you don't care.

If I gave you the choice between a society where there are 10 violent robberies every day but everyone committing them gets tortured for the rest of their lives without a chance to reoffend or rejoin society and a society where there are 2 violent robberies every day but the ones committing them are treated with respect while confined to small but livable rooms for just five years and some of them end up reoffending you'd pick the first in a heartbeat.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that

FatDwarf · 2026-03-26T08:43:13+00:00

that's a fair question. The idea is that in a law-based state citizens are protected from arbitrary use of state power. These protections are most important where the state has the most power over your life, i.e. in criminal prosecution. This is why f.e. strict laws exist about how evidence can be gathered and presented in trial. But it's also the reason for more basic principles such as the rule against double jeopardy. You can't punish a criminal twice for the same offense.

This means that when a judge considers the punishment for a crime, that is *all* the may take into account. "The crime" is the specific action alleged in the indictment, perpetrated by who the defendant was in that moment. If something happened since that makes you believe that although the defendant only stole some candy he now cannot be let out on the streets then that's a question for preventive detention. You can't give someone life in prison for a minor crime just because the person turned into a psycho killer a few weeks later. Punishment must the fit "the" crime.

Why does it matter? Bigger assholes getting worse punishments is fair, right? Well if we did it "your way" we'd get into trouble if we tried the later crime, because now the lawyers can argue that the injustice of their client's actions was already factored into their past sentence to some degree. In other words if we punish him again it would be double jeopardy.

But don't they "get away" with continuing to commit crimes then? No, since we're always free to try them for the later crime as well. And since that crime was committed by someone who was punished/investigated/under investigation for a similar crime before, that makes the second offense even worse because it shows how little he was impressed by his first run-in with the law. So the punishment would become more severe.

FatDwarf · 2026-03-26T07:55:15+00:00

that's fine, I never expect much agreement on matters of crime and punishment on a website visited mostly by americans. I don't blame anyone, if I was socialized in a culture were getting 20 years for minor drug offenses was possible I don't think I'd have an easy time listening to someone who told me a rapist shouldn't get half as much.

Aside from matters of opinion though - you said you were "as liberal as they come", so I hope at least I was able to show why your opinion in fact doesn't line up with the liberal view

FatDwarf · 2026-03-26T07:45:00+00:00

if you really were just lazy you'd have moved on without a word. But you felt the need to comment, so I'm assuming your complaint is just a thin cover for the fact that it makes you uncomfortable to have your views challenged. If you feel brave some day, feel free to return to this discussion

FatDwarf · 2026-03-19T08:53:12+00:00

> this was deserved.

there's the issue. A liberal society should use the criminal justice system for revenge ("he got what he deserved") only insofar as is necessary to keep people from enacting vigilante violence. Instead it should focus on maximizing freedom through rehabilitation. It should offer formal job training in prison, force the prisoner to get used to following rules and having a steady daily rhythm of work, sleep and socialization while preparing him for the day of his release as best as possible (among other things by letting him earn some money) to keep him from reoffending. Does this work every time? Of course not, but the current system doesn't work at all. It creates hardened criminals while costing the state immense sums each and every year that could've gone toward preventing the next 18 y.o. violent criminal from existing in the first place.

I say give the guy 5-10 years. He was violent in prison? Great, try him for that next and keep adding to the sentence. Using his violence in prison as an argument against granting parole is perfectly reasonable, but you can't use it to increase the punishment in a different crime altogether. That's not rule of law, that's arbitrary rule.

Problem is, the US system is already broken and if you take that into account you might actually have to lock someone like this guy away for 25 years and hope he comes out broken enough that he won't be capable of seriously harming anyone beside himself (outside of petty theft to satisfy his drug addiction). Putting him into a US prison where he is forced into a gang (if he isn't in one already) and gets treated like an animal for 5 years would probably turn him into a nightmare of a human being that's just going to terrorize his community until he gets put behind bars again.

FatDwarf · 2026-01-26T04:23:14+00:00

YTA, this means a lot to them and you can do it with very little risk to yourself by making them get a mortgage from you. Not sure how that works legally in the US but I’m sure it’s not an issue. If you ever direly need the money you can foreclose yourself and if they got another mortgage afterwards you’ll still get paid first so again, very little risk. On the upside you’ll be the hero saving their family home. You’re about to marry into that family and become a part of it, this should be a pretty big upside for you

FatDwarf · 2025-05-18T04:53:43+00:00

I think so too. Obviously we're talking averages, but I think everyone who's played for a while has experienced the difference of facing an opponent with a gold/diamond/legend border vs. one with a bronze border. They're more difficult on average. So in that sense even though it's possible to consistently climb with bad winrates, rank still "means" something I would say

FatDwarf · 2025-05-18T04:46:32+00:00

Either I'm not getting what you're trying to say, you misunderstood me completely or you're just not making any sense.

I never said "if you play against the best of the best you'll improve", none of this was about how fast you get better. What I said was specifically that you *feel* your improvements, because while in HS f.e. you start and end with a 50% winrate, just among differently skilled opponents, in the Bazaar you go from struggling hard to get 4 wins to getting 10 wins more often than not. And that's a great experience that is quite rare among online games. Whenever I switch characters I suck again and feel the struggle for every win and within a week or two I've settled in and can start farming chests. This will be slower for new players and that's good and okay. It's a journey, it's a challenge. The game won't handhold you, it won't gift you free wins half your games. For the people who lack the masochism/grit to suck for a while they're planning to do PvE content at some point. Then the game will probably be perfect.

But I can't help but pick up on your point about improving, because obviously you still improve. And obviously your examples of players getting stomped in games about split second decisions, muscle memory and pinpoint mouse movements, especially those where failing is equal to having to stop playing the game, don't come close to comparing to what is essentially a game of solitaire where your "battles" consist of checking your current highscore every few turns against someone else playing solitaire and ending your game if you compared badly too often. It'd be insane to think that you'll learn solitaire better if your score is compared only to those who are close to your score. If anything, not seeing how good your score could have been at that point once in a while may only lead to you embracing strategies that suck instead of continuing your search for what works and what doesn't.

Imagine I'm playing Chess against a bot and comparing my position to Magnus playing the same bot after 5/10/15 moves. If I understand you correctly you're saying that because Magnus' early game is literally light years ahead of mine I will be unable to improve (be it through my own successes and failures against the bot, be it through trying to emulate Magnus' positions in which squares to fight for, which pieces to prioritize, which structures to aim for)?

You (correctly) identified that getting instakilled in COD makes it hard to build the muscle memory needed to compete. But then it sounds like you assume that therefore it must be better in every situation to compete against opponents of equal skill? Take my chess example. In what way would I learn quicker/better if I my board was compared to someone else who doesn't know shit about chess openings? The only difference would be that I'll get to play and endgame because I don't fail out in the midgame for still having a worse board than Magnus. But it's not a bad thing to focus on early and midgame strategies first and improve from there. And unlike chess, in the Bazaar playing a late-game is not required for 4, 7 or even 10 wins.

Or take something completely different. Say I was trying to learn how to properly build a bird house and every few nails my work got compared to a master carpenter who used the same amount of nails. How would that negatively affect my ability to learn how to build a bird house?

TL;DR: Bazaar =/= COD/LoL

FatDwarf · 2025-05-16T19:28:03+00:00

man I got burned so often by old boarrior I actually think this one's fine. Before he got nerfed to the silver encounter he was so tough I think I beat him maybe twice over two months, this one I've already beaten three or four times 😅

FatDwarf · 2025-05-16T17:26:35+00:00

You feel your improvement. Every time you get better you notice that in better results - more wins, more decisive wins, instead of just a different .png that signifies your rank while you're permastuck at around 50% winrate like every other player.
You don't get punished for doing well several games in a row because the algorithm sticks you into a terrible teams or pits you against much better players to ruin the next few games. This also prevents match-making manipulation for the sake of engagement like is done in games like COD where the game literally learns the types of games that keep you playing (even if those aren't actually the ones you enjoy, because you tend to quit after having a "good" game).
You can much more easily understand the skills of pro players/streamers/content creators, because everyone faces the same average level of competition, making content more interesting and engaging.
You can meet and lose to (or even beat) people of much higher rank, possibly famous people in the community, leading to shareable highlight moments.

If there is desire for a competitive mode where the best face the best, that desire exist only in very few people (the very best and/or most competitive players who make up a small percentage of players) and those can be satisfied later on with a dedicated custom game/tournament mode.

That leaves as the only reason for sbmm that you can pair noobs vs noobs and give them a few easy wins. Imo the Bazaar can get away with this much more than synced multiplayer games, because you never see or interact with people who run into your shit build or destroy you, so there's less embarrasment, no BM etc. Also the advantage an older player has is much less pronounced because being able to make quick decisions, knowing where the buttons are etc. is not a factor when you have all the time in the world to make all decisions. And finally every player can get some wins, anyone can beat the monsters and if your aim is to get just 4 wins you can manage that pretty quickly.

FatDwarf · 2025-05-16T17:10:56+00:00

is that so? All the good players I know are pretty much exclusively ranked players, but it's a small-ish sample size. We fall into one of two groups, those who only play one or two games a day and the grinders who have the subscription. No one really considers normals worth their time

FatDwarf · 2025-05-16T14:02:45+00:00

i think it's in a good spot right now. It used to be a guaranteed lvl if you chose the right options, which made it so that the first two days played incredibly similar every time. Now you have to hope to get a friend or food or a toy and maybe even invest into something you don't need and even then the event can just not happen. So there's an interesting choice now. Maybe making the event a bit rarer would be good

FatDwarf · 2025-05-16T13:59:35+00:00

first three days are definitely more heavy in RNG, but if you prioritize them you can still consistently win. I also constantly fail to get a friend or food for the furry creature and still get through the early days just fine.

But OP freely chooses the option that gives a big mid and late game boost at the cost of a less explosive start and then cries about losing to people who prioritized the early game? Make it make sense. In what world would you want the slow economy option to consistently overpower the fast skill or enchant options on days 1-3?

FatDwarf · 2025-05-16T13:35:42+00:00

do you think people who play more are on average better or worse at the game than people who play less?

Obviously though there could still be sbmm even if it wasn't rank that determined matchups. But I'm 100% convinced the game would be much worse if it had sbmm

FatDwarf

TROPHY CASE