| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Zachastoi Zagamnu
   |
Posted - 2009.03.02 21:58:00 -
[1]
Hi,
do you think it would be against the EULA to secure a loan by out-of-game items? It could be viewed as buying isk with ÇÇÇ and then later reversing that transaction (and thus buying and selling isk). But is it really? Would you give or take a loan under these terms?
Just curious,
ZZ
|
destinationunreachable
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 22:08:00 -
[2]
A load security (correct me, if I'm wrong , I don't know the terms in English) are being used, if the debtor fails to pay back the loan, ie. the ownership is being transferred to the debtee...
So we have the situation, that the debtor receives ISK (in-game goods) and the debtee hard cash.
So either you would not get your load back or you act against the EULA *, either way a clear fail
*) I'd guess it is a act against the EULA either way
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
CCP
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 01:33:00 -
[3]
We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game.
Mitnal
Community Representative
CCP Hf, EVE Online
Email |
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 01:44:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: CCP Mitnal
We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game.
Mitnal,
I think that's fair enough, but there is a problem here. If the loan is created with the intention of defaulting, then you all of the sudden you have a way to exchange in-game ISK for a RL item. It wouldn't take long for people to offer RL cash as collateral (after all, you don't have to pay anything for shipping).
So, let's get right to it;
Person A asks for a loan.
Person A sends RL collateral (in this case RL cash) to Person B (who holds it in escrow).
Person C sends Person A the ISK desired for the loan.
Person A defaults on the loan.
Person B sends the RL cash collateral to Person C.
Let's add one more thing into this scenario. Let's say that Person A and Person C knew all along that the loan would default.
Now...is THIS against the EULA?  Further, by introducing a third-party into the whole ISK for cash problem, have we found a loophole in the EULA?
EBANK - Chairman of the Board | www.eve-bank.net
|
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 01:47:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Ricdic on 03/03/2009 01:47:41
Pretty much what Mitnal has advised. I have given loans with out of game securities provided before but always ensure both parties understand it is entirely unsupported by CCP. Having said that, pretty much all loan mechanisms are unsupported by CCP anyway so it's a moot point.
For example, someone wanting a 5b loan and sending me X amount of RL cash via paypal to secure the loan. Once loan is repaid the funds are returned. It's not selling ISK, simply securing ones investment. Others do this in the form of information, for example requiring ones RL address or in some cases actually signing and sending official documentation (Statutory Declaration and identification proof in the case of Australia) stating that you are liable for a specific amount of RL funds in the event of a default/scam. |
destinationunreachable
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 01:53:00 -
[6]
So when I go and ask you for a loan, already in mind of not paying it back - isn't it a loophole in the EULA as Hexx has stated ?
If I were a ISK trader I would claim officially to give out loans for cash security and be fully EULA compliant ...
|
Khrillian
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 02:02:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Khrillian on 03/03/2009 02:03:10
Originally by: Hexxx
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game.
Mitnal,
I think that's fair enough, but there is a problem here. If the loan is created with the intention of defaulting, then you all of the sudden you have a way to exchange in-game ISK for a RL item. It wouldn't take long for people to offer RL cash as collateral (after all, you don't have to pay anything for shipping).
So, let's get right to it;
Person A asks for a loan.
Person A sends RL collateral (in this case RL cash) to Person B (who holds it in escrow).
Person C sends Person A the ISK desired for the loan.
Person A defaults on the loan.
Person B sends the RL cash collateral to Person C.
Let's add one more thing into this scenario. Let's say that Person A and Person C knew all along that the loan would default.
Now...is THIS against the EULA? Further, by introducing a third-party into the whole ISK for cash problem, have we found a loophole in the EULA?
I believe there is a EULA loophole that is quite similar to this one. Of course it's largely academic, since CCP would probably ban you just on a whim...but:
**Player A rents a massive vent server to player B for 10bil. (EULA Legal, they allow sale of "EVE related" services for ISK)
**Player B re-rents the same server to player C for $100. (EULA Legal, both items are OOG)
**Player C returns the vent server to player A for 10bil. (EULA Legal, same sale of "EVE related" services for ISK)
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 04:35:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Khrillian
I believe there is a EULA loophole that is quite similar to this one. Of course it's largely academic, since CCP would probably ban you just on a whim...but:
**Player A rents a massive vent server to player B for 10bil. (EULA Legal, they allow sale of "EVE related" services for ISK)
**Player B re-rents the same server to player C for $100. (EULA Legal, both items are OOG)
**Player C returns the vent server to player A for 10bil. (EULA Legal, same sale of "EVE related" services for ISK)
You've just described how much of the exploited and RMT crap gets laundered through the game. Almost impossible to enforce and detect.
Unless there actually is a job at CCP to which all they do all day every day is log forensics... I wouldn't even wish that on Taikun |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 06:01:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ricdic
For example, someone wanting a 5b loan and sending me X amount of RL cash via paypal to secure the loan. Once loan is repaid the funds are returned. It's not selling ISK, simply securing ones investment.
You are right, it is not one sale of isk for cash. It is two sales. You sell him isk and he agrees to sell you isk back at the same rate of exchange. Calling it "loan" only tries to obfuscate the matter. Furthermore, I'm surprised I have to point something out to some of you but the EULA is not some hard coded document subject to fanciful interpretation to bypass. Dance with it if you dare but don't be surprised if you find yourself hammered. Breach activity is like computer viruses, the known list is not an exclusive list. You can be found to be in breach and no amount of facile quick talking is going to save you after the fact. PS: Perhaps not your wisest statement. I can only suspect that Ricdic, his accounts, and eBank might now be under sudden critical review for RMT-like activities.
My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free? |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 06:14:00 -
[10]
As if EBANK wasn't under scrutiny already. They can go crazy checking all my accounts 
Its all good  |
|
|
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 06:39:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Ricdic on 03/03/2009 06:43:53
Hexxx and myself have come to an agreement whereby I will advise the public that EBANK haven't done any loans with out of game securities, those I advised of above were personal loans I made.
It was a good deal, sorry guys
Edit: Reading it back it looks forced, it's not. I made my first post specifying I (and not EBANK). I knew some of my biggest fans like Shar were sure to kick up a stink without reading properly and was hoping to enjoy a couple of days drama before telling people they are idiots and L2R. Anyway, Hexxx's acceptance of my out of game trade was far too good to give up so I decided to come clean early. |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 08:15:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Hexxx on 03/03/2009 08:16:26
Originally by: Ricdic
Edited by: Ricdic on 03/03/2009 06:43:53
Hexxx and myself have come to an agreement whereby I will advise the public that EBANK haven't done any loans with out of game securities, those I advised of above were personal loans I made.
It was a good deal, sorry guys
Edit: Reading it back it looks forced, it's not. I made my first post specifying I (and not EBANK). I knew some of my biggest fans like Shar were sure to kick up a stink without reading properly and was hoping to enjoy a couple of days drama before telling people they are idiots and L2R. Anyway, Hexxx's acceptance of my out of game trade was far too good to give up so I decided to come clean early.
Per the terms of the agreement between Ricdic and I devised; I agreed to allow him to friend me on Facebook and accept his Mafia Wars invite and to send him an "Energy Pak" to refill his energy in the game in exchange for him "coming clean".
Yes, I'm serious.
Really.
EBANK - Chairman of the Board | www.eve-bank.net
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:17:00 -
[13]
In my role of elected official, I would quite appreciate if we had a frank discussion about this subject. I'm interested in getting a sense of what people think in order to bring it to the attention of CCP trough official CSM channels.
I see this very discussion as a result of evolution which has happened inside EVE as a world. I think we can all agree that this is a very gray area. However if CCP tries to control it, we might see that evolution stops happening and innovation stops as well.
We have to remember that EVE prides itself by having an advanced financial system. While I can identify several risks of this being a legal and eventually an widely accepted concept as we have seen with GTC trading. Do you guys think that it's something we should welcome?
What do you guys think? I'm going to ask you to tell me your honest opinion and if you have any thing you want to say to CCP directly on this topic, I'm happy to bring that to them as well. Once we have a good basis for approaching CCP on this I'm going to bring it to the Assembly hall and subsequently to the attention of the CSM to raise it to CCP.
|
SencneS
Amarr
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:37:00 -
[14]
I think the issue is pretty clear here. You're using real world items which has real world value to secure something in a virtual environment.
If we assume for a second that this was allowed to happen, we'd see Titans being traded for a Video **** collection. Or Real money traded for ISK.
While it does open up a very very large amount of posibilities, it starts to leave the players more vonderable to fraud..
Look at the evolutionary path for this for a minute.
1) CCP Allow this.
2) People not wanting to get busted for RMT trade real items for collateral or ISK.
2a) Some "shady" people start to use broken real items as collateral or ISK.
2b) Some "shady" people get real working items in real life and don't send any ISK, or give them a loan
3) People start to demand Money as collateral as the item has value, rather then taking the chance the requester is really just a "shady" person and send broken items.
4) People start to use trusted names like Chribba or EBANK, to hold the loan/isk and wait for confirmation of the items before the requester gets the ISK.
That's pretty much the evolutionary path in a nutshell. There will be more steps in each major one but I just don't see it happening.
It's a big can of worms for CCP even if they say "Sure do it at your own Risk" it's still leaves countless whines from the inept too challenged enough to recognize a scam before their very eyes. This forum is a testament to the fact these people exist. This forum is only a very small handful of the EVE's population which also is representative of the most intelligent of the same population.
If people fall for scams in this forum imagine if the general population got involved.
Amarr for Life |
Business Ethics
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:39:00 -
[15]
As it's basically unenforceable, I don't see it being worth a lot of consideration on CCPs part. Imagine some guy rips you off the PS3 you lent him for 40 billion isk. Is CCP going to come to Massachusetts and testify in court regarding the virtual goods used to back the real ones?
Of significantly greater interest to me here LaVista would be some kind of scheme for CCP to sell time codes directly to the players for ISK, which were sellable for cash via a CCP hosted system. Essentially CCP would be cutting the Shattered Crystals out of the GTC loop and passing the money directly along to the players. This might also act as a very real ISK sink. Not like I'm spending my billions on ships or anything like that.
Of course, CCP may prefer to externalize all these factors rather than allowing the players to profit directly from in-game activities, but I think it's a concept worth exploring.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:52:00 -
[16]
FWIW, metagaming is already a dark side to this game. Empowering more/other types of metagaming is simply not for me. Everything that I've accomplished I did it in game, not out of it. I think that keeping the boundaries stark and clear is best way to avoid confusion on these issues. Just because CCP can not police these activities is still no reason for them to say, "Sure, why not."
I've said as much many times before, I'll say it again and again. It makes no matter to me who brings it up or who is lightly/heavily involved.
My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free? |
SentryRaven
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:53:00 -
[17]
I do not like the idea of RL items being held as collateral for ingame trades. The scamming and/or RMT links are enough for me to say: NO.
There is a reason why GTC and PLEX are two different things, one being scammable ingame and the other not. Let's leave it at that.
--------
EBANK Forum Manager | KIA Recruiting Director |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Business Ethics
As it's basically unenforceable, I don't see it being worth a lot of consideration on CCPs part. Imagine some guy rips you off the PS3 you lent him for 40 billion isk. Is CCP going to come to Massachusetts and testify in court regarding the virtual goods used to back the real ones?
Of significantly greater interest to me here LaVista would be some kind of scheme for CCP to sell time codes directly to the players for ISK, which were sellable for cash via a CCP hosted system. Essentially CCP would be cutting the Shattered Crystals out of the GTC loop and passing the money directly along to the players. This might also act as a very real ISK sink. Not like I'm spending my billions on ships or anything like that.
Of course, CCP may prefer to externalize all these factors rather than allowing the players to profit directly from in-game activities, but I think it's a concept worth exploring.
CCP offers PLEXes now. I think that's just fine, since we have the ingame market.
Don't you think so?
|
Business Ethics
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:57:00 -
[19]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
CCP offers PLEXes now. I think that's just fine, since we have the ingame market.
Don't you think so?
Well sure I think it's fine, excellent even! But what I described was a potential CCP-hosted mechanism for the players to convert spare ISK to real life cash money.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 20:37:00 -
[20]
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game.
Mintal, mind poking someone in the citadel spires to come on down here and possibly straighten us all out since there is ab obvious loop hole here.
I'm in agreement with Shar, its RMT by another name and I feel that sometimes even things like vent servers, and web hosting crosses a line at times since the service is never technically "In Game" |
|
|
Stardust CEO
Stardust Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 21:34:00 -
[21]
Say it with me... Are Emm Tee.
|
Athre
Minmatar
The Higher Standard
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 23:01:00 -
[22]
If someone needs isk that bad they should go buy their own GTC/PLEX and do things legally. Everything else should be avoided at all cost.
Say No to RL loan securing.
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 23:12:00 -
[23]
While the idea of RL collateral for in-game loans is intriguing, it's also very disturbing. I've gone so far as to post on the EBANK forums about it.
But...since people like this sort of thing sometimes, let's give it a go...
Hypothetical
Person A loans, Person B ISK in exchange for cash collateral and a term of 3 months on the loan.
Person B sends Person A collateral.
Person A takes that collateral and buys an options spread (something to capitalize on RL market volatility, maybe a strangle, etc), gets a paper gain, liquidates position at a profit.
Person A hands Person B his cash collateral back at the end of the loan.
Person A keeps his RL trading profits.
This is ALSO disturbing because...well...it's horrifically risky, but I'm just pointing out a hypothetical.
EBANK - Chairman of the Board | www.eve-bank.net
|
Chaos Dreams
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 00:01:00 -
[24]
I'm against this, every time CCP loosens their regulations it opens up a new avenue for the RMT people.
Like, take PLEX's. I like PLEX's, I've been paying my subs by buying them with ISK. But, I've also started seeing spam in chat, and even received an evemail, offering PLEX for sale for RL money. Sometimes cheaper than an eve subscription would cost normally. Allowing ingame loans to incorporate real world items or cash will just give scammers and RMT people another way to operate.
But things like that are probably never going to stop. At least not unless CCP just gives up and opens up an official in-game store like some of those Korean MMO's do. Allowing them to make loans and such with RL items and money is just making things easy on them, though.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 09:24:00 -
[25]
There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this?
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 09:30:00 -
[26]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this?
There is far from consensus me thinks however if I had to pick where I stand: Not consensus on this topic but horror that we, the players, are even involved in this discussion.
My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free? |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 09:35:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: LaVista Vista
There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this?
There is far from consensus me thinks however if I had to pick where I stand: Not consensus on this topic but horror that we, the players, are even involved in this discussion.
I agree with Shar, this shouldn't be allowed. It's too much of a slippery slope and that's before we even touch the whole ethical and moral problems with it.
EBANK - Chairman of the Board | www.eve-bank.net
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 09:39:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Hexxx
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: LaVista Vista
There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this?
There is far from consensus me thinks however if I had to pick where I stand: Not consensus on this topic but horror that we, the players, are even involved in this discussion.
I agree with Shar, this shouldn't be allowed. It's too much of a slippery slope and that's before we even touch the whole ethical and moral problems with it.
So I asked if there's consensus that we should tell CCP that they should disallow this thing. Shar then says that there's far from consensus(Which I can't tell if he's being funny or serious). And you then agree with him that it shouldn't be allowed?
You guys are confusing me. Come on, I'm just a politician. Be easy on me  .
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 10:06:00 -
[29]
Sorry mate.
1 - I doubt that we few who have posted here could be considered a consensus.
2 - This topic should not be up for player debate. The slipperiest slope in Eve is when, or if, EULA interpretations are up for player debate.
Hope that clears things up.
My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free? |
SentryRaven
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 10:11:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Sorry mate.
1 - I doubt that we few who have posted here could be considered a consensus.
2 - This topic should not be up for player debate. The slipperiest slope in Eve is when, or if, EULA interpretations are up for player debate.
Hope that clears things up.
Welp, I'd look at this from this point of view:
LVV is my voted CSM and thus, I believe I can bring issues to his attention where I would want to have CCP know what we think. LVV now grabbed the issue and wants more input from his voters and supporters, which primarily were MD participants. I do not wish to have a direct say in the decision CCP will take, but I want CCP to know that we do have an opinions on this and what it is, when they make their decision ultimately.
I agree with Shar though, we cannot be called a consensus, unless you say: The consensus of those who posted and expressed their opinion on the topic. :D
--------
EBANK Forum Manager | KIA Recruiting Director |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |