Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 02:07:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Tivern Maniva on 22/09/2007 02:14:53 on the point of being blunt as can be get this back on topic or gtfoomd k ?
see being direct and to the point has alot of advantages i dont have to come up with sly under hand descriptions to tell you exactly what i think :)
EDIT: rather than trying to hide what i had posted previous i shall leave it here. But issue a statement thanking him on actually getting close to being on topic, and yes maby i was a little to hostile in my response. Ive spent the 2 days debating the same facts over and over again in both my ipo thread and this one and im lacking sleep. Now while a debate would normally keep me entertained and happy given its course was one of use and not completely sidetracked, This coin debate was a total waste of time.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 02:10:00 -
[62]
Edited by: FastLearner on 22/09/2007 02:10:06
Originally by: Tivern Maniva so in other words u want to point out that because we haven't had a scam in a while. you think theres a larger chance of one happening. see was that hard to say ?
Nope, I wasn't commenting at all on the likelihood of a scam happening or not. I was trying to point out that drawing a conclusion based on unstated assumptions is a bad idea. In the coin example the unstated assumption was that the coin was an unbiased coin with one head and one tail. When applying that analgoy to IPOs there's similarly an unstated assumption (for it to be relevant) that the circumstances now are the same as they were when recent non-scam IPOs were launched. I believe that assumption to be fundamentally flawed - as it's based on some assumption that scam attempts will be made irrelevant of what the history of recent scams/successes it.
Unfortunately, my point appeared to be a bit too subtle.
|
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 02:12:00 -
[63]
Originally by: FastLearner Edited by: FastLearner on 22/09/2007 02:10:06
Originally by: Tivern Maniva so in other words u want to point out that because we haven't had a scam in a while. you think theres a larger chance of one happening. see was that hard to say ?
Nope, I wasn't commenting at all on the likelihood of a scam happening or not. I was trying to point out that drawing a conclusion based on unstated assumptions is a bad idea. In the coin example the unstated assumption was that the coin was an unbiased coin with one head and one tail. When applying that analgoy to IPOs there's similarly an unstated assumption (for it to be relevant) that the circumstances now are the same as they were when recent non-scam IPOs were launched. I believe that assumption to be fundamentally flawed - as it's based on some assumption that scam attempts will be made irrelevant of what the history of recent scams/successes it.
Unfortunately, my point appeared to be a bit too subtle.
Well thanks for at least getting it back on topic while i havent minded spending all day debating in this thread the converstion was getting pointless.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 03:11:00 -
[64]
Originally by: FastLearner
Originally by: Hexxx Perhaps you were implying that the coin was "fixed" but there are much clearer ways of making that point.
How much clearer than "maybe it's got two heads" can you get?
The reason everyone seems to be staring at you in disbelief because of your statement is because you took a given condition, that the coin was indeed real (this the 50/50 comment I made) and you acted as if it was false. The reason for bringing up a coin in the first place was because people seem to be implying that a lack of scams implies a higher chance of scams happening now. This simply isn't the case and I explained how everyone should examine every single offer critically, no matter how many scams have occurred recently. You seem to somewhat agree with me... yet you made a very mathematically incorrect statement and thus you got pounded by a lot of people for it. You can argue that the suppositions were wrong... but instead you started by saying the math itself was wrong. I understood what you were saying, but you were not clear at all. I think we can end the discussion about coin flips if you will kindly admit that given the conditions I set forth (a fair coin) the chance is always 50/50, even if you had 100 heads in a row before the current flip.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 03:58:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: FastLearner
Originally by: Hexxx Perhaps you were implying that the coin was "fixed" but there are much clearer ways of making that point.
How much clearer than "maybe it's got two heads" can you get?
The reason everyone seems to be staring at you in disbelief because of your statement is because you took a given condition, that the coin was indeed real (this the 50/50 comment I made) and you acted as if it was false. The reason for bringing up a coin in the first place was because people seem to be implying that a lack of scams implies a higher chance of scams happening now. This simply isn't the case and I explained how everyone should examine every single offer critically, no matter how many scams have occurred recently. You seem to somewhat agree with me... yet you made a very mathematically incorrect statement and thus you got pounded by a lot of people for it. You can argue that the suppositions were wrong... but instead you started by saying the math itself was wrong. I understood what you were saying, but you were not clear at all. I think we can end the discussion about coin flips if you will kindly admit that given the conditions I set forth (a fair coin) the chance is always 50/50, even if you had 100 heads in a row before the current flip.
With a fair coin (one with one head, one tail and an equal chance of either landing upwards) then the odds of getting a head (or a tail) is always the same irrespective of any previous history. As I said earlier - had it been defined as a fair coin then the side-track would never have happened.
Moving on from that, however, I still disagree in principle with your point. You were saying (or at least implying) that an IPO being a scam/genuine is a similar situation to a coin landing heads/tails - i.e. the likelihood is unaffected by previous history and is the same each time. I disagree with you on this on a few points:
1. The assumption that attempts to scam are unaffected by history. You apparently preclude possibilities such as scammers being more likely to try after a string of successful IPOs for camouflage - with no other rationale than a coin-flip analogy.
2. It's not the same odds each time. Given suitable definitions, I'd agree that changing coins in the middle of a sequence of flips has no effect on the likelihood of a head/tail the next flip. The same can't be said for people launching IPOs. It's possible that the people trying IPOs now are from a different "group" than those doing them a week ago, a month ago or a year ago - either because of factors such as coverage of the Eve market, or because of a change in the pool from which new Eve players are being recruited.
My original comment was referring to your post using an analogy based on an unstated assumption as somehow proving something where the assumption wasn't even valid. Once you accept that different individuals issuing IPOs have different likelihoods of being scammers then my initial point should suddenly make sense. Some have two heads (intend to scam), some have two tails (intend to be real) and some have one of each (haven't decided whether they'll scam or not). And the behaviour of them isn't necessarily independent of previous history - nor is the likelihood of which type a new IPO will be necessarily a constant over time.
None of which gets us too far. I don't think it's safe (or logical) to assume that the chance of an IPO being a scam now is necessarily the same as it was yesterday, last week, last month or year. But I don't know whether the likelihood is higher or lower. And if the last 10 were successes that COULD, of itself, make the next one more likely - or less likely - to be a scam: depending on whether scammers are attracted by an apparently soft target more ore less than potential business players are encouraged by previous successes to try their own hands.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 04:33:00 -
[66]
Wow... talk about taking a coin toss example for way more than it was meant for.
Obviously each IPO is different. Thus why I've said multiple times now that you must examine each and every IPO to see if it's a scam or not.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 04:56:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Shadarle Obviously each IPO is different. Thus why I've said multiple times now that you must examine each and every IPO to see if it's a scam or not.
On that point I'm totally in agreement. The main point my earlier posts were making (before the whole thread got derailed) was that the whole culture of "you must provide secured assets with a 'trusted' person for your IPO" is a bad direction to go in. One (if not the primary) reason being that it diverts scrutiny of IPOs from the competence of the author onto whether he can actually needs to run one or not - with only those who don't really need to run an IPO getting the thumbs-up.
On the plus side, such an approach DOES prevent short-term scams - but at the price of raising the entry barrier for genuine new IPOs (i.e. ones that actually NEED to raise funds for their business) and also at the potential long-term cost of forcing scammers to play a long game going for bigger bucks. The whole "secured assets" business relies on an assumption that, because someone hasn't scammed in the past, they won't in the future. Not only does that play into the hands of any long-term scammers (by setting a level above which you become above scrutiny) but it also ignores the possiblity that people with no intent to scam at the moment may become bored of the game later and either scam or just vanish.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 06:40:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Shadarle on 22/09/2007 06:40:45
Originally by: FastLearner On that point I'm totally in agreement. The main point my earlier posts were making (before the whole thread got derailed) was that the whole culture of "you must provide secured assets with a 'trusted' person for your IPO" is a bad direction to go in.
I completely agree. But as an investor I am much more likely to invest in an IPO that has it... as it's lower risk. But I personally would never issue my own IPO with such a guarantee... I want people to have to trust me. But I guess it means less coming from me because at least some of the people here know that I have absolutely 0 need to scam a few billion isk considering how much I have personally. So I guess its hard for me to relate to people who don't have much money and wanna build up a rep. I can definitely understand the reasons for having insured investments for totally unknown people... for a starter IPO, then they can try a slightly larger one without the insurance and see if they can pull in some investors.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:01:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Shadarle I can definitely understand the reasons for having insured investments for totally unknown people... for a starter IPO, then they can try a slightly larger one without the insurance and see if they can pull in some investors.
And that ladie, gentlemen and forum *****s. is the basis of my secured ipo
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 20:50:00 -
[70]
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
Originally by: Dr Slurm
I've already explained my doubt in your own IPO thread. The fact that you are secured with EBANK really doesn't make much of a difference to me. It just sets the bar for the scam higher.
A person scamming corporate dividends totalling maybe 100m when he could have scammed 1.8b when he had those funds... This makes no sense. The only way I could agree with you and Shar in a limited fashion would be in that the next IPO he does (if any) may be bigger and better, and lead to a scam. Having said that, he is well aware that he will need a whole new/updated business plan and probably more security protocols in play.
As soon as the the value of the business exceeds that of the secured amount by twice as much its moot.
Quote:
Frankly, I want to see these new guys get their feet wet. I want them to start small and work their way up the food chain. Sure, some may ultimately turn into a scam, but I feel for every scammer there are 5 other legitimate players trying to follow the same path. We need to guide these people, remove or limit the reasons or ways they may want or be inclined to scam. We cannot just ignore all the new blood as it does enhance our market sector. For every scam that has occured in these forums over the years, a new security protocol or requirement has been provided to try and limit the same thing happening again.
I want to see new guys invest (time, not isk) a little themselves in the community before they ask for hand outs. Its really just that simple. Instead we have nobodies asking for and receiving investment. Personally I've been mulling an IPO over for over a year now. I still haven't come to a conclusion because I can't think how to secure it such a manor that I can keep working. (Although with the advent of EBANK it gave me some ideas.)
Quote:
Quote:
@Hexxx: I fought against the Standards body because I didn't want it to be the cool kids club. It essentially came around anyways, but anyone can join in on the fun and not a select body. Although if any of the regulars here say don't invest I would be surprised if anyone did.
So you don't want new people or even existing ones without specific MD reputation to start ventures because of the inherent risks involved but you are also against a governing body in place to try and weed out the bad ones? Should all future IPO's etc be removed instead?
I've invested a significant amount of my time building a decent rep here. I feel that new people I've never even seen post in this forum before have no business releasing an IPO. And that is exactly why I don't welcome their IPO's with open arms. I don't support a governing body because it is open to abuse with no balance to counteract that. Instead the regulars on this forum pick apart an IPO and ask questions. The process that has evolved is very good. There isn't a specific body, but the community as a whole does a good job to weed out the bad IPO's. IPO's should absolutely not be removed (not that they could anyways). They are a key part to this market.
Quote:
Maybe you can advise who you believe fits the criteria of starting up a personal venture. I am very interested in hearing this.
Not to mince words, but this is about public ventures. I would say a good criteria for an IPO would be:
* Be ingame bare minimum of 3 months, preferably a year. This doesn't mean no alts, just playing Eve for at least that long. * Participate in this community, which means no lurking. Its a lot easier to judge people when you have a good sampling of how they interact with others. * Provide the identity of your main character to public or at least a secure third party.
continued...
<sig>
Tired of the inane ramblings of the incompetent? Click here </sig> |
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 21:07:00 -
[71]
Quote:
Quote: The thought did occur to me create an IPO with the intent of it being a fake scam. Like create an alt post a whine asking for ISK, get the investment, and then say hey you were just scammed. Then of course give the ISK back. Would be a bit of a wake up call to some.
The funny thing is, you probably wouldn't get any investors. Most new businesses that start up here for half decent amounts of isk (ie above 500m) are grilled pretty hard or required to undergo certain security mechanisms before the investors start looking twice at them. Quite possibly your post of a scam IPO would result in minimal or zero response from the public, and it may be you getting the wakeup call
No scams have happened in quite some time. I believe this has a lot to do with the firing squad and most scammers not being able to withstand it or *****ing under pressure, or not having the consistency to complete their business.
I am sure there are some ventures out there that have been legit and we have turned away, but the results are there. Zero succesful scams in our part of the forums for a good 5-10 months considering we quash approximately 1-5 businesses a week.
I think you seriously underestimate my ability. But if that were the result I would be happy with the effort put it into the attempt.
My point of this thread I guess was that it has become far too easy to get a couple of billion isk on a character that is otherwise unheard of. Which is really dangerous in my opinion. It will attract those who are lazy and want hand outs. Nothing good will come of that.
I'll back off from the assertion of these IPOs all being scammers, but I would like to know why there has been a sudden burst of people begging for ISK.
Originally by: LaVista Vista Lets see..
We got: *FUD? Check! *Paranoia? Theres enough for everybody here! *Conspiracy theories? I think this thread IS a conspiracy to get small guys out of business.
This is becomming the new CAOD
Conspiracies are covert. I've been upfront with all my viewpoints in this thread. I really don't believe someone deserves investment if they haven't put their time in here. But if that's the way you want to look at it, tough ****.
Originally by: Tivern Maniva
Originally by: Dr Slurm
I've already explained my doubt in your own IPO thread. The fact that you are secured with EBANK really doesn't make much of a difference to me. It just sets the bar for the scam higher.
Well thanks for the Response. Would u be willing to sit and chat with me ingame. Altho Your not an investor im still curious as to what exactly causes you to think my ipo is a scam. rather than spam the forums will more junk not really relevent to the topic at hand. Id quite like to know how u would suggest either 1. Improving the Quality of the ipo so as to reduce the chance of a scam. or 2. New methods of securing it so i cannot scam.
No, I'm not really interested. I've judged you to the point that I think it would just be helping do the opposite. I could be wrong, but once again, that's not really my problem.
I can't say I read much the coin flipping argument, but there is a large flaw in everyone who posted about thats theory. When you flip a coin there aren't just two results, you do have to account for the very slim chance that it will land on edge. Also each flip in itself can't be taken into consideration when calculating the chance of the next flip. They really have nothing to do with each other. Roulette works in the same principle.
Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I went out to the bar after work yesterday. <sig>
Tired of the inane ramblings of the incompetent? Click here </sig> |
Zolcan
Amarr Praetoria Shipyards
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 22:17:00 -
[72]
Quote: As soon as the the value of the business exceeds that of the secured amount by twice as much its moot.
The answer to that is a special dividend. I know I once paid $400m for Sovereign as a bonus dividend because I wanted to keep the corp value very close to the original starting value.
Zolcan
PRAETORIA WEBPAGE
|
343conspiracy43345
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 01:41:00 -
[73]
I don't see the trend. Taking a closer look at the dates I just see slurm being paranoid.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 03:59:00 -
[74]
Originally by: 343conspiracy43345 I don't see the trend. Taking a closer look at the dates I just see slurm being paranoid.
Nothing says definitive like a man with the face of an exclamation point!!!!!!! Slurm provided an array of examples with some opinions regarding the overall trend. Some of the examples were discussed within the limits of possible outcomes regarding their intent, design, and nebulous futures. Some of you need to sit back and stop displacing your own insecurities, guilts, and/or dramas where such things do not exist. (Cinderbrood: No one is saying you are a fraud. It is being said that you could be. So could Ricdic, Tornsoul, Ionia, and myself. Your name came up only as an example not as a judgment. Sheesh, Decaff for you!!!)
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Genbukan
Best Buy INC
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 08:18:00 -
[75]
So I was doing some reading... I noticed that there is someone close in name and avatar. However I don't know this person and just wanted to give some assurance. Yet I am new to Eve-Online but my inspiration comes from working at Best Buy. They are a strong company with great ideas and values. I did post BBY Stocks and attempted to sell some shares. I know I made a mistake now about posting something so soon and being so new to the game. Did I take the abuse well yep! Did I learn from the feedback yes. So I am taking a different route than what most people take, guess im used to fire, ready, and aim. I wanted to be able to give investors something to see what BBY is and also give updates and standings to them. This would help build a name for BBY and myself. So the new post is BBY Stock Revised! Based on the feedback I received and not having a my name out there yet or corp. I though wow what a better way to show that I am an honest and trusting person. Don't worry hit me up in game I want to build some relationships and enjoy the game for all the benifits. So all I ask is have a little faith in me and wish the forum had a spell checker hahahaha!!!
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 10:47:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Genbukan This would help build a name for BBY and myself. So the new post is BBY Stock Revised! Based on the feedback I received and not having a my name out there yet or corp. I though wow what a better way to show that I am an honest and trusting person.
And not just a little bit insane. That's the nicest word I could think of using for your "revision". Mind you, the name you are building for yourself isn't a good one. But at the end you can proudly say, and we will all proudly say it with you, "Genbukan did it his way... all the way to the silly bitter end." Originally by: Genbukan ... wish the forum had a spell checker hahahaha!!!
Use Firefox. Spell checker included minus all the invasive o/s access of IE.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Genbukan
Best Buy INC
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 17:18:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Genbukan on 23/09/2007 17:18:59
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Genbukan This would help build a name for BBY and myself. So the new post is BBY Stock Revised! Based on the feedback I received and not having a my name out there yet or corp. I though wow what a better way to show that I am an honest and trusting person.
And not just a little bit insane. That's the nicest word I could think of using for your "revision". Mind you, the name you are building for yourself isn't a good one. But at the end you can proudly say, and we will all proudly say it with you, "Genbukan did it his way... all the way to the silly bitter end." Originally by: Genbukan ... wish the forum had a spell checker hahahaha!!!
Use Firefox. Spell checker included minus all the invasive o/s access of IE.
Aleast people here are honest and I truly am trying to be as well. But im going to take a few months and research more better. Build up some more company value and list a clear plan.
Thanks for the support from everyone and though some might think your all just harsh. I think it has helped me see that I can do it better and the harsh feedback is truly worth reading and taking the beating. Time to download Firefox
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 17:42:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Hexxx on 23/09/2007 17:42:42 We're harsh, but we're honest.
A really good indicator of who you are is how you respond to criticism. You've handled it quite well so far. Take some time to better learn the game, the market, and how to run a business. It's not a race. You'll get to where you want to be eventually and the journey will shape you.
p.s. Even I was a market newbie, once upon a time.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Genbukan
Best Buy INC
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 18:36:00 -
[79]
Well the next release will be much better. I am going to take more time to do more in depth planing. When I get home from work I plan on getting firefox hahah.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 19:01:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Shadarle on 23/09/2007 19:01:02
Originally by: Genbukan But im going to take a few months and research more better.
You said it very well... you need a few months to research more better.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 19:18:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Shadarle
You said it very well... you need a few months to research more better.
If shar was the same sex as his avatar, you 2 would be a perfect match
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 19:22:00 -
[82]
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
Originally by: Shadarle
You said it very well... you need a few months to research more better.
If shar was the same sex as his avatar, you 2 would be a perfect match
It's a bit odd tho because lots of people I knew in other games called me Shar, because I guess Shadar would have just been WAY too long. Unfortunately Shadar was already taken when I started here in EVE. So whenever someone says "Shar" I have to see if Shar has posted in the thread before or if the person is actually talking to me, lol.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order. United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 00:42:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Fitz VonHeise on 26/09/2007 00:44:14
Originally by: Dr Slurm I really don't believe someone deserves investment if they haven't put their time in here.
Eve is all about trust... or more correctly who can you trust?
I dealt with R0me0 for 4 months and every interaction with him during that time showed him to be trustworthy. It was only at the end when he had 210m of mine which he was suppose to have paid back a week before and then asked for more isk for another business proposal that I got suspicious and told him to use half the isk he owed me for his proposal and give me the other half. (He never did) Then the rest came out. (And he would have continued to scam people if I hadnÆt told him I was going to out him in two days)
But to address the Op... I do think new people should be looked at very carefully. However there are people playing eve that in real life have MBAÆs and actually have created companies so they already know the biz process but might be new to Eve. They can still have great ideas and know how to accomplish themà but yes they still need to have their IPOÆs looked at to insure they are as safe for investors as possible.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |