Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Elias Riikonen
Bacon Bacon Bacon Bacon and Co
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 07:08:00 -
[1]
Watching the ever-present MD discussions of scams and possible scams, it occurs to me: Why aren't people using RL collateral?
Say someone wants to raise 10B. He could paypal/whatever something like $400 to a trusted community member. Then he'd get the money back if he doesn't scam.
Why aren't people doing this? The $$$ involved probably isn't infeasibly much for a large portion of players (perhaps even a majority of those that are interested in raising isk on MD).
Abuse of this system for RMT shouldn't be a problem, because (1) the "price" of isk could be set higher than in regular RMT, perhaps even higher than in the CCP-approved PLEX trade, and (2) scamming would equal "proof of RMT" with evidence and toon names that could be given to CCP.
Also, besides $$$, it would sometimes be good if people staked their RL reputations on not scamming. They wouldn't even have to give their RL identity to everyone, just to a trusted community member (who would release it in case of scam). I'm sure some people have sufficiently valuable RL reputations that their RL promises are worth something (and some might also have RL identities that just seem particularly trustworthy).
|
Nikolai Kondratiev
Sphere Design Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 08:14:00 -
[2]
So, assuming CCP approves a method that would give some individual the power of setting up RMT ops at will, what happens to the money when someone fails to return loan money ?
And about giving out RL identities, I hardly see how internet thefts could affect someone's "reputation" outside of Eve Community, unless you start a "MD Vengeance Squad" and start "stalking" scammers in real life _ Ore Table | PI Profits |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 08:15:00 -
[3]
The number of potential EULA breaches just waiting to happen in spite of your flimsy excuses of "but it wouldn't really be considered RMT if you do it this way" without thinking of the obvious abuse possibilities and those of "it's ok to give RL info even if you have reason to believe it might end up being broadcasted in some cases" involved in the implied name-and-shame approach (to name just the most obvious problems caught at first glance) are giving me a headache. I would also strongly advise anybody against even becoming a "3rd party" in any such dealings, and everybody with a shred of common sense would refuse to participate in any of it anyway. So... no... just no.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Elias Riikonen
Bacon Bacon Bacon Bacon and Co
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:49:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Elias Riikonen on 11/01/2011 09:52:45
Originally by: Nikolai Kondratiev So, assuming CCP approves a method that would give some individual the power of setting up RMT ops at will, what happens to the money when someone fails to return loan money ?
The solution that would minimize potential problems is then buying PLEX with the money, and trashing the PLEX. This would equal giving the money to CCP.
Then, if the "price" of isk was set higher than the CCP-approved method of buying isk via PLEX, it would be true that the person requesting the isk loan could in *no circumstance* abuse the system for RMT.
The remaining problem would be, who could be trusted to hold the $$$ collateral. This problem would be made easier, if the trashing of PLEXes in the aforementioned contingency was made a publicly observable process (or if a CCP employee was willing to verify that the person indeed trashes as many PLEXes as he/she claims, OR if instead of being trashed they're handed to a CCP guy, who would publicly note if a person lies in his claim of handing PLEXes to CCP). This would mean that the only abuse possible would be a one-off running off with the collateral, and getting caught doing so. This would equal real-life stealing, and I think it's perfectly possible to find people who are sufficiently trustworthy to not want to do so. Real-life legal trouble would be a real possibility in such a scam.
Originally by: Nikolai Kondratiev
And about giving out RL identities, I hardly see how internet thefts could affect someone's "reputation" outside of Eve Community, unless you start a "MD Vengeance Squad" and start "stalking" scammers in real life
If you give a real-life promise as your actual real-life self to not cheat in a game, then it does affect your real-life reputation if you break that promise. Of course, in the case of most people, it wouldn't be a big loss, but there are people to whom avoiding all instances of getting caught straight-up lying is valuable.
But I think I won't talk more in this thread of this separate issue of giving RL promises as collateral, as that was more an afterthought I don't want to mess with how people understand the main idea I presented, and as it indeed might be more of an exception than a rule among EVE players that their RL promises are worth something
Originally by: Akita T The number of potential EULA breaches just waiting to happen in spite of your flimsy excuses of "but it wouldn't really be considered RMT if you do it this way" without thinking of the obvious abuse possibilities and those of "it's ok to give RL info even if you have reason to believe it might end up being broadcasted in some cases" involved in the implied name-and-shame approach (to name just the most obvious problems caught at first glance) are giving me a headache. I would also strongly advise anybody against even becoming a "3rd party" in any such dealings, and everybody with a shred of common sense would refuse to participate in any of it anyway. So... no... just no.
Actually, it seems you didn't really manage to grasp the matter on your first glance.
Or would you be able to put me to shame by noting a specific scenario how the more detailed proposal I presented above could be abused?
|
Dr Nefarius
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:10:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen Then, if the "price" of isk was set higher than the CCP-approved method of buying isk via PLEX, it would be true that the person requesting the isk loan could in *no circumstance* abuse the system for RMT.
Originally by: Akita T
stuff
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
Actually, it seems you didn't really manage to grasp the matter on your first glance.
Or would you be able to put me to shame by noting a specific scenario how the more detailed proposal I presented above could be abused?
"Innocent player", let's call him Riikonen Elias, puts in 500$ as collateral to a trusted third party for a loan he gets from the player T0tallyN0tiskTrader111!!!!1. Riikonen then defaults on the loan keeping the isk but loosing his $. Yes, the $/isk would have to be higher then for ingame PLEX to try and prevent this. But, after the loan has been defaulted and T0tallyN0tiskTrader111!!!!1 get's his $ from the collateral from the third party, he sends back 75% of the sum to the innocent Riikonen (not to be confused with the OP with similar name). Washed RMT isk ready to use.
|
Cyaxares II
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:24:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Cyaxares II on 11/01/2011 10:24:04
hmm... let's see who championed this idea last time it was discussed on MD
|
|
CCP Spitfire
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:25:00 -
[7]
To start with, that would be a breach of the Paragraph 10 of the Terms of Service: "You may not market, sell, advertise, promote, solicit or otherwise arrange for the exchange or transfer of items in the game or other game services unless it is for in-game sales of in-game services or items."
So I'm afraid any such scheme would be just against the rules.
Spitfire Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online |
|
Elias Riikonen
Bacon Bacon Bacon Bacon and Co
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 10:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dr Nefarius
"Innocent player", let's call him Riikonen Elias, puts in 500$ as collateral to a trusted third party for a loan he gets from the player T0tallyN0tiskTrader111!!!!1. Riikonen then defaults on the loan keeping the isk but loosing his $. Yes, the $/isk would have to be higher then for ingame PLEX to try and prevent this. But, after the loan has been defaulted and T0tallyN0tiskTrader111!!!!1 get's his $ from the collateral from the third party, he sends back 75% of the sum to the innocent Riikonen (not to be confused with the OP with similar name). Washed RMT isk ready to use.
No, since according to my proposal T0tallyN0tiskTrader111!!!!1 would get nothing back from the collateral. The $$$ collateral would be turned into PLEXes and deleted, i.e. handed to CCP.
So what you have demonstrated is that my proposal would allow "Riikonen Elias" to make T0tallyN0tiskTrader111!!!!1 lose his isk and get nothing back. "Riikonen Elias" however would achieve no extra monetary gain; he would essentially just have "bought PLEXes" with the money going to CCP and received isk in return, except at a *higher price* than would happen via the already available system.
But your failed example when corrected does lead to demonstrating the different actually possible abuse of essentially paying extra money for PLEXes to achieve the joy of watching others lose their isk. This was a good addition, thanks. It means that while my proposed system would indeed eliminate all scams that monetarily benefit the scammer, it would make possible a new way to pay real money to make the assets of silly people vanish to thin air.
This, however, does not make the system useless, since there are a lot of people who can be predicted to not want to pay real money for such a thing, at least not if they get caught (as they in this system would). Many of the major MD players, for example, quite probably don't want to ruin their reputations with such no-real-gain griefing.
|
Elias Riikonen
Bacon Bacon Bacon Bacon and Co
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 11:04:00 -
[9]
Originally by: CCP Spitfire To start with, that would be a breach of the Paragraph 10 of the Terms of Service: "You may not market, sell, advertise, promote, solicit or otherwise arrange for the exchange or transfer of items in the game or other game services unless it is for in-game sales of in-game services or items."
So I'm afraid any such scheme would be just against the rules.
Thanks, that wording of the rules indeed prohibits the proposal I floated.
I am however unsure whether CCP actually has a good business motive to keep this exact wording of the rules, or whether such a system as proposed would actually benefit you.
But then again, if you'd consider such a system useful, you could just keep the current rules and create a "CCP Bank" to carry out the function that players would have done in the floated proposal. That would probably be simpler at least in a legal-technical sense.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 11:40:00 -
[10]
The problem is that CCP have created a broken system where people are allowed to scam, and where good players become tired, cynical, minimise their contribution and leave.
Bad players, however, are encouraged to join, to stay, to prosper at the expense of productive players. We are moving towards a self-selecting group of people with anti-social tendencies.
So introducing real money into that is not going to fix it, even if it was allowed. It's the game system that is broke and we may as well face it, there is no chance of it recovering with the current rules in place.
|
|
Elias Riikonen
Bacon Bacon Bacon Bacon and Co
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 11:57:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
So introducing real money into that is not going to fix it, even if it was allowed. It's the game system that is broke and we may as well face it, there is no chance of it recovering with the current rules in place.
Well, I do continue to think that the part of the game system that is about being able to loan isk to productive players without getting scammed with a high probability *would* recover, if CCP took the role of the $$$ collateral holder in my proposal. (This would be the variation permitted by the current wording of the rules.)
(Though as was realized, the system would not actually eliminate pure griefing-scamming, where the scammer doesn't actually monetarily benefit, but instead pays money himself too just for seeing tears.)
|
Tasko Pal
Spallated Garniferous Schist
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 13:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
Thanks, that wording of the rules indeed prohibits the proposal I floated.
I am however unsure whether CCP actually has a good business motive to keep this exact wording of the rules, or whether such a system as proposed would actually benefit you.
Let me assist your certainty. Any overt linkage to real money assets instantly makes CCP subject to a variety of regulations and legal liability. I could launder money through the system or gamble with real money (illegal in a number of locations). I could lose money (perhaps deliberately) and sue CCP for assisting in theft of my assets.
It's one thing to lose a T2 BPO that I dropped a few years of isk making (or the proceeds from a sale of a few hundred plexes). It's another if that BPO was my daughter's college money "invested" in a get rich quick scheme that worked out in the usual way. Given the lack of enforcement mechanisms for handling Eve fraud, it'd be a pretty easy argument that they were enabling fraud. I mean they are, but it's currently play money without consequence, aside from the tears.
Real money activities in a game open up Pandora's box. Everybody with the ability to tax will want a piece of the action. Law enforcement will be worried about assets moving through the system or illegal activities conducted under cover of the game. Idiots will lose valuable assets in the game. And CCP will be the bull's eye for all this nonsense.
So does CCP have a "good business motive" for that phrase in the terms of service? Yes.
|
Rikki Sals
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 14:40:00 -
[13]
You put up PLEX, effectively using the $$s one would have used for their subscription time as the collateral. This would not be quite the same, as the dollars spent could never be retrieved in the form of dollars again, BUT it would get around that EULA language as PLEX is an in-game item. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 14:41:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen Actually, it seems you didn't really manage to grasp the matter on your first glance. Or would you be able to put me to shame by noting a specific scenario how the more detailed proposal I presented above could be abused?
As you have noticed from the dev reply, the mere exchange of RL cash is already against the EULA even without ISK involved, but let's for a second assume that particular rule would not exist and your system goes through.
So how do you abuse this to do quasi-legal RMT in quite public view ? First off, you'd have to agree, very little of the "EVE personalities" would ever get involved in "holding RL$" for people they only know via the internet (not to speak of actual RL$ losses via fund transfers, the mere inconvenience of having to involve bank statements into all of this is annoying enough), so you WILL get to a point where people you never heard of WILL become nominated as 3rd party sooner rather than later. Second, CCP has absolutely NO WAY of tracking RL$ transfers, so whatever CCP knows about what RL$ changes hands has to be reported by the players, and there are plenty of ways to fake cash transfer evidence if the one that checks has no kind of involvement with the actual banks the money changed hands through. So... you get party A to loan ISK to party B via a third person we'll call X. Party B should send RL$ to party X, and upon confirmation, party A sends the ISK to party B.
Scenario 1: Secretly, party A is party X. Party B defaults officially, leaving party B with the ISK and party A+X with the RL$.
Scenario 2: Secretly, party B is party X. Instead of party B sending RL$ to party X, it is party A that sends it, even if the official logs say otherwise. Soon, party B returns the ISK with heavy-duty interest, leaving party A with the extra ISK the interest represents, and party B+X with the RL$.
Scenario 3: Secretly, party A is party B. All goes exactly as expected officially, and party X is "rewarded" with a certain amount of ISK for his troubles, as it is customary. In reality, party B never paid party X any RL$, and whatever RL$ is "returned" to party B is actually the payment for the so-called 3rd party reward. Party X gets the ISK, party A+B gets the RL$.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 14:57:00 -
[15]
Quote:
The problem is that CCP have created a broken system where people are allowed to scam, and where good players become tired, cynical, minimise their contribution and leave.
I agree with you.
EvE has an huge flaw that also prevents an healthy secondary market. As I stated several times (EvE Search for refs, on General forum), EvE is a biased sandbox, i.e. if you want to be a scammer you can, you are given all the tools, the EULA is allowing for this and so on.
But what about someone who - in the spirit of a true neutral sandbox - wants tools to NOT scam, to execute something that forcibly and accountably makes you do stuff honestly? I.e. someone should be able to play honest, prove to be so to third parties, be given tools for it.
Otherwise it's a weighted dice sandbox with no chance to take off the trite "will he scam toda or tomorrow?" innuendo, even if the investee was freely ready to forfeit some of his freedom to prove to be accountably honest.
Quote:
Say someone wants to raise 10B. He could paypal/whatever something like $400 to a trusted community member. Then he'd get the money back if he doesn't scam.
Bad idea. CCP are already threading on a very, very thin line with this supported quasi-RMT of theirs. Such practices would be fresh blood thrown at the hungry piranhas tax officers, lawyers and similar opportunistic bloodsucking huge trains that infests hour era.
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Mas Cream
Monetary Allocation Certified Securities Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 15:07:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen Watching the ever-present MD discussions of scams and possible scams, it occurs to me: Why aren't people using RL collateral?
You have been voted off the island. Good day sir.
|
Dr Nefarius
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 09:00:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
No, since according to my proposal T0tallyN0tiskTrader111!!!!1 would get nothing back from the collateral. The $$$ collateral would be turned into PLEXes and deleted, i.e. handed to CCP.
......
So what you have demonstrated is that my proposal would allow "Riikonen Elias" to make T0tallyN0tiskTrader111!!!!1 lose his isk and get nothing back.
But your failed example.....
Ah, yes I failed totally. Very logical that the collateral is NOT collateral. Now it all makes sense to me
To put it bluntly you want to have the option to lend people in eve isk, and if they fail to pay back CCP will fine them RL cash. Why didn't you just say so?
|
Clementina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 17:00:00 -
[18]
If Eve is so thick with scammers that you need Real life money to back Eve isk denominated investments. Then Eve is so thick with scammers that using real life money as collateral is a very, very bad idea.
Remember, nothing at all prevents the collateral holder from keeping your cash, spending it, and giving the finger when anyone asks for an accounting.
|
Cergorach
Amarr The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 17:14:00 -
[19]
Quote: Wouldn't it be useful to use RL collateral?
Absolutely not! Eve should stay an Internet spaceship game and not an actual financial investment, with all the RL risks and liabilities. And if you think that RL collateral is save, think about all the succesful RL scams and scammers who do get away with it.
|
Darth Anonymous
Amarr GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 23:20:00 -
[20]
More important than what's against the rules and what's not is the potential abuse of real life assets. A lot of people who are space rich are poor in real life, and vice versa. Just because there's some space rich guy that has scrupulously managed trillions of space gold doesn't mean he wouldn't appreciate burning that record and buying himself a new car.
|
|
Reaze Quendar
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 06:37:00 -
[21]
Lol. Yes, let's send real money to a 'trusted' person. Cue the laundry list of 'trusted' people who have stolen hundreds of billions of isk.
Sounds like Elias wants to pay for rent via EVE.
|
Elias Riikonen
Ex Machina Libertas
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 08:39:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Reaze Quendar Lol. Yes, let's send real money to a 'trusted' person. Cue the laundry list of 'trusted' people who have stolen hundreds of billions of isk.
Sounds like Elias wants to pay for rent via EVE.
No need for me to make money here, thank you. Even less need to get caught stealing a small sum from gamers, as in my proposal would happen to the kind of scammer you suppose.
In general, if you've never met anyone who you'd trust to hold some real money for you, quite a sad life you must have While there may be valid criticisms of my proposal, even among what has been said here, "It's impossible to find a single real-life person who could be trusted!!" is not of the brighter kind.
But I think I'll let your kind have the rest of this thread now. Hope writing things like that makes you feel a bit better.
|
Gillaboo
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 11:28:00 -
[23]
Sounds to me like someone is just a little too far down the rabbit hole.
-------------------------------------------------------- This space For Rent. |
Fred Barbossa
Free Mineral Collective
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 15:40:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Reaze Quendar
Sounds like Elias wants to pay for rent via EVE.
Hopefully he speaks russian
|
Darth Anonymous
Amarr GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 15:41:00 -
[25]
I will gladly sell you USP 45's sister in exchange for a researched Nyx BPO.
|
slipperywhenhappy
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 20:53:00 -
[26]
Is it just me or does it look like he is trying to figure out a way to buy money from rmt's by trying to get a new system up and running.
|
Cyaxares II
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:20:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Cyaxares II on 13/01/2011 21:22:52
as nobody could be bothered to pick up on my comment above:
topic has been discussed before on MD - Linkage
If you don't recall that thread I would advise to read it again (also interesting how CCP has changed policy on this matter).
The quote I was fishing for was of course
Originally by: Ricdic It's all trivial. I have done it before with other players and I will do it again if it's found to be mutually beneficial. I have had about 8 different loan related agreements with others where RL assets or RL information/agreements were made to cover ingame debt/trust issues.
followed by:
Originally by: Ricdics I must have missed the part where I said I have dealt in RMT? Care to find linkage? Please don't make things up, you make yourself look more stupid.
(at that point he probably hadn't dealt in RMT but nevertheless an interesting read in hindsight)
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:34:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen In general, if you've never met anyone who you'd trust to hold some real money for you, quite a sad life you must have
Don't forget to clarify : somebody you never met in real-life, and have very little interaction with to begin with, only in an online world, you mean ? Yeah, no thanks, but I don't consider any of that sad. I do consider the opposite as totally gullible though. The former headmaster of a bank in Nigeria would want a word with you. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
PinkFish
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 21:35:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal The problem is that CCP have created a broken system where people are allowed to scam, and where good players become tired, cynical, minimise their contribution and leave.
Bad players, however, are encouraged to join, to stay, to prosper at the expense of productive players. We are moving towards a self-selecting group of people with anti-social tendencies.
So introducing real money into that is not going to fix it, even if it was allowed. It's the game system that is broke and we may as well face it, there is no chance of it recovering with the current rules in place.
So you are saying that EVE is pretty much the opposite of Barbie Online? The EVE economy only works because people are all out trying to destroy the work of others over and over. If EVE were built to encourage greater cooperation and accountability it would be a very boring place.
|
Cyaxares II
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 22:08:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Cyaxares II also interesting how CCP has changed policy on this matter
Actually, they wouldn't have had to. The only dev reply was from a community representative (not exactly the guy with the final say-so), the reply was at best ambiguous, and no follow-up on the subject nor clarification of the issues raised was posted by any dev in that same thread. Not exactly a policy statement by any reasonable criteria.
... and I believed for a short moment that CCP might have drawn a lesson from the general consensus in the old thread and decided to switch from "don't come to us when things go wrong" position to an explicit "we don't want this to happen".
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |