| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ricdic
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2009.03.03 01:47:00 -
[1]
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. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 06:14:00 -
[2]
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 -
[3]
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. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 03:06:00 -
[4]
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.
In all cases the loanee has not defaulted or scammed. In all of those cases I would have otherwise not provided them the loan had it not had an extra level of security in play.
It's impossible for CCP to monitor or track. These are agreements being made between two parties in private. I haven't spammed availability of loans, and the recipient of loan hasnt spammed Jita local offering "Will pay RL money for ISK".
Most of the people in this thread have automatically assumed the worst case scenarios and ignored how beneficial these agreements can be. Now, the agreements scan well beyond monetary exchange.
Many Alliance forums require ones personal RL information including email address and full name in order to allow these people to register. Could this RL information not also be used in ways unintended by CCP?
We here at MD occasionally see people offering their RL addresses, full names and employment positions as securities for bonds/ipo's. Should these people also be banned for attempting to trade RL information for ingame monetary gain (or a loan basically).
CCP aren't interested in micro-managing these thngs hence they offer no support for it. Use at your own risk. Makes sense to me. As to RMT well it's not related. Currently a few people do this RL assets backing up ingame loans and they only do it with trustworthy people.
Is Chribba not using his RL assets to secure loans? He hosts and provides the eve-search and eve-files websites and in return he was able to have a bond filled without question. Surely one could possibly say that if Chribba had never provided those sites he may not have been as well known and therefore would not have recieved funding.
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 |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 12:49:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Shar Tegral
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?
If it's used for RMT yes. But if it's used with the correct intentions in mind (as per the OP and all of my deals with others in the past) then it's not RMT. Its only RMT when its used by both parties with the express desire to convert their funds from one medium to another.
Quote:
PS: Yes, I know. You accuse me of thinking I'm god's greatest gift. Using the eve forums to continue this bicker is pathetic even for you.
I don't actually remember saying your name when I wrote that post. It was actually more directed at LV who tends to let his CSM status make him feel empowered  . Don't flatter yourself. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 18:46:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Liisa
I am sure that you will argue "intent" is important, however intent does not enter here. If I take a loan from you and secure it with cash and then default, do you keep the money? If you do then you have just taken part in RMT.
My plan if anyone defaulted with me was to simply reinject the cash back into Eve via GTC. That's why the costs were generally comparable. As far as I am concerned my main requirement is to do everything within my power and the rules of the game to secure my investment and minimise risk. Some people may feel it's wrong as it can be abused but that's not my concern. It wasn't abused, and it wouldn't have been abused, and I know that my ISK was safe as a result of the security measures adopted.
Same can be said for Eve accounts. Someone wants a loan using their second account as security. I never actually log into the account therefore it's within the terms of the EULA. All I do is accept the loan, change the password, and then change it back whenever the persons loan is repaid.
It all comes down to the same point. This isn't me trolling, it's me showing that just because a method can be abused doesn't mean it will be. People advising that this is RMT should also agree that we need to remove mining from the game as its being used by macro miners for RMT. All I ever care about is securing my investments to the best of my abilities. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.07 04:19:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Liisa
So if somebody defaulted you would have given isk, gotten cash and it is okay because you would have used the cash to buy GTCs?
Exactly, in turn those GTC's would be converted back to ISK and everyone is happy. I get my ISK investment back (in the form of ISK), and there has been no RMT trade. In the event the person doesn't default they simply get their cash back upon loan completion. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.07 05:21:00 -
[8]
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. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.07 15:59:00 -
[9]
So you are saying you actively break the EULA but think it's ok because CCP doesn't know about it. Good to know Shar.
What I have done is not breaking the EULA, it's protecting my own investment. I do the same with DBANK, in case you didn't notice I have been invested there for about 6 months now. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.07 16:09:00 -
[10]
Anyway my opinion has been said on the matter. I have my methods, you guys have yours. My methods are proven and have saved a considerable potential loss. If the EULA changes as a result so too will my methods. If you guys check the assembly hall thread Shar has tried to tell people that I run EBANK this way. I have stated here repeatedly that this has absolutely nothing to do with EBANK, it's just Shar lying to suit his cause.
Anyway you guys talk amongst yourselves. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.07 16:25:00 -
[11]
honestly Shar, you just aren't worth my time. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:36:00 -
[12]
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.
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.
* 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?
* How many of you have sold an account for isk (with 1 toon on it) to avoid the character transfer fee?
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.
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.
Direct player to player agreements are always occuring. Anyone who can say they have never experienced or seen the above points occur on at least one occasion is lying. At least 4 people who have posted in this very thread I first handedly know have done so.
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. Before you reply I want you to stop, consider how you have breached the EULA in the past and then post accordingly. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:12:00 -
[13]
I don't believe anyone is yet to be banned for a statement made on the forums |
| |
|