| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
LaVista Vista
   |
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:17:00 -
[1]
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.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 19:53:00 -
[2]
 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?
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 09:24:00 -
[3]
There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this?
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 09:39:00 -
[4]
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  .
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 10:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
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.
It's the case atm that CCP doesn't care.
However CCP will listen to us and quite possibly take a firm stance if we raise it as an issue, which it is.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 11:18:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Joss Sparq
Son of a ***** - I had a post all written up, then I killed the tab it was in when someone walked into the room because I thought it was one of the tabs full of ****ography and I didn't pay attention to the header.
I'm going to go get a soda, then try and write something out again 
Quoting for lulz.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 10:12:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Mr Horizontal
/me looks down the road and just sees the day someone decides to sue RL based on the fact that a deal involving RL collateral wasn't honoured, and then requiring players and CCP to testify with evidence based on a virtual world in court. Good luck finding anyone willing to testify... Welcome to the world's most ridiculous potential court case.
It will happen, and I'm already /facepalm. But by then I'll be lmao.
I covered the most obvious impact that now disallowing it might have right here.
Please go and support the thread.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 10:13:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Phoenix Pryde
Uuumm, actually i d think CCP's EULA covers that perfectly, no?
The CCP EULA doesn't. The first dev in here suggested so and I checked with CCP.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 09:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Ricdic
Now people can say whatever they want. I am not here to suck up anyones arse or try to make myself look like gods greatest gift. I'm just doing what I can within the confines of Eve to enrich my own and others play styles at minimum risk. Sue me 
No one is accusing you of either (Though you seem to suddenly like making this accusation lately - if you got something to say, man up & say it. Don't be a douche.) in this thread. The only thing being said is that it looks like Real Money Trading, sounds like Real Money Trading, and is Real Money Trading. Now, is CCP able to enforce it - probably not. Doesn't exclude it from being a bit on the dodgy side of things now does it? That's the simple point. It's a little dodgy and for some of us that's an issue.
This...
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.03.07 10:55:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Ricdic
Like I said though, I will do anything within the guidelines of the EULA to protect my investments. Some may not approve but it has thus far achieved a 100% success rate.
PS: Sorry Ric, this was pure humor.
I laughed 
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 06:55:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Business Ethics
Ok so how meta can this get before CCP flips out and bans everyone involved?
Could someone start a website designed to facilitate real $ "loans" between the guys with the isk and the guy with the $20?
You'd have someone with 20 billion on the block "I will loan you this 20 billion for $500 and if you don't pay the isk back in 30 days I'll be forced to default you " and what could CCP ever really do here? I'm afraid to even speculate how big a mess this could make.
Due all respect, while you make a good point, you are asking the wrong question:
How meta can this get before governments flips out and tries to regulate virtual worlds like EVE?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 14:06:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 24/03/2009 13:42:09
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Due all respect, while you make a good point, you are asking the wrong question:
How meta can this get before governments flips out and tries to regulate virtual worlds like EVE?
Already tried. Old article I know, but yet another reason why I pretty much despise any conversion system for RL dollars to ingame items/currency.
On a complete aside, I wonder what would happen if one of the great unwashed so to speak noticed this thread and posted in GD "EBank Runner deals in RMT".
Enough of a ****-storm started when an Ebank ad was on the login screen.
Well. It's probably just question of time really.
EBANK is obviously in a tight spot when it comes to this kind of thing. That's why we take it seriously and get in touch with CCP when we notice any kind of questionable behavior.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:36:00 -
[13]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 25/03/2009 06:47:54
Quote:
CCP should remove mining because it's exploited by macro miners
That's basically what people are saying here. Because the system can be abused by some it should be removed in it's entirety.
Fundamentally flawed argument. Everything can be abused in some way or another. The ramifications that abuse of the system could have in this case(EDIT: Spelling  ), are just much grander than that of it's sum.
Quote:
The interesting fact here is that virtually every person here has been involved in something that has skirted on the EULA or broken it in the past. Most haven't been RMT but they would have been considered unsavoury by some.
I don't think so at all.
Quote:
* How many of you have logged onto a friends account to change his skill at his request, to move some funds, sell a bpo etc?
No.
Quote:
* How many of you have sold an account for isk (with 1 toon on it) to avoid the character transfer fee?
No.
Quote:
None of these are RMT. The reason they are against the EULA is they are a pain in the ass for CCP to govern. Now I do agree 100% that backing ingame isk with RL funds/assets can be abused. It definitely can. But realistically how could CCP stop it even if they wanted too? They could add a clause to the EULA. Would that really stop it from happening? Of course not. It just means CCP is not liable for any fallout that occurs as a result of the change-over.
CCP needs to take distance from such behavior in order to cover their ass and prevent any outside sources of trouble from getting to them. As already pointed out, governments and the like HAS been trying to do that to other, high-profile games.
Quote:
Point is, people are breaking the EULA daily. CCP don't care unless it's RMT as its not bothering them. The only way CCP could combat this would be to screen every chat conversation, install trojans in the Eve client to also monitor email and communications software. CCP choose not to cover this because they have already covered their asses saying if anything outside the realms of Eve occurs it is out of their hands.
Stop using the logic, that because others break the EULA it's fine to do. Just because CCP can't police it doesn't mean that it can't get them in trouble.
Quote:
This may very well inject new life into this thread or cause one of the EBANK staff to say OMFG in EBANK forums but I am saying this right now as a standard player.
A standard player who has built the greatest financial systems in EVE, and is thus expected to stay clear of any EULA violations due to the huge impact a ban on your butt would have.
EVeconomics |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:55:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ricdic
I don't believe anyone is yet to be banned for a statement made on the forums 
I know of quite a few cases, actually.
So you just laugh
EVeconomics |
| |
|