Originally by: Takemikazuki

---

It would be a smoother launch if ye arranged an audit before presenting the IPO to the public.

---

Originally by: Ji Sama

---

i actually never planned on doing this without an audit. i have contacted an auditor that has worked for me in the past.

---

I've done some auditing for Ji Sama before so I'll go ahead and dip into this one again. The delay was purely my own as Ji did try contacting me prior to the posting. I can see why people may think that waiting for the audit results might be wise but the flipside not waiting shows a mark of confidence in the results. (I've been busy the past couple of days - Ooops)

Please allow 24 - 48 hours for me to do this. Also we haven't discussed any compensation (though in the past Ji has, imho, overcompensated me for work done) so I'd like to say, "Don't count your reservations as firm until I've had a chance to argue payroll with Ji."

Originally by: flakeys

---

I can see how the other poster would find this odd and in contradiciton with the OP's previous words.

I am sure with you backing him up on the fact he asked for it prior to the offering it will assure people of his intentions.

---

IMHO, grill the hell out of him. Just because I'm doing an audit doens't mean he gets a pass on the usual roasting. I just can't do it (though I'd like to) as my position is a bit ambiguous at this point.

Originally by: Viktor Raybach

---

As I said, it's a minor point, but it's inconsistent.

---

If this is as bad as the critique of this IPO is going to get, Ji's got this one in the bag even without an audit. (I.e. Tempest in a teapot it seems)

Couple of things:

1 - 7 Accounts to Audit. Gonna take a bit longer than expected.

2 - Smooth one Bobby. Bring up all the vulnerabilities that push this IPO into providing you with a client and security holding. (Just so you know that you did not get that one past unnoticed.)

Originally by: Bad Bobby

---

In any case, I think you have to agree that some level of security is needed on something of this size. If it wasn't me, it would be someone else, I just got up earlier than the competition.

---

There's a time for self interest to be involved and then there's self promotional. I agree that some form of security and service would make this IPO more attractive but I see it as a conflict of interest the way your promoted vulnerabilities that dovetail with your own services.

Understandable, yes.

Commendable, no.

Originally by: Bad Bobby

---

I saw the vulnerability and I saw the oppertunity, I took it.

---

Please don't mistake me. I'm not saying you were wrong. I'll leave this alone now though.

Not a drama bomb but I'm pulling out of doing this audit.

8 accounts to audit takes more than just a few days and I don't take to kindly to being pressured for faster turn around. Actually I think I got fired so screw it.

Originally by: Taram Caldar

---

After all is said and done, this is a game.

---

I'll lay odds that you would not invest in someone who said this regarding your isk.

But let's get right into the grit of the matter: If it is a game then there are rules. Being that there are rules people who start breaking them draw fouls. In the case, cries of "foul".

TBH I find that people who point out that it is "just a game" are in fact the ones taking things too seriously. You see people saying something and you read extremis into their expression of your own creation. Then to cure your own discomfort the mantra comes out "Just a game, need a life, just a game".

The simple point is this: There's rational ways to do things and then there is irrational. When it is your own money, you are eccentric. When it is the public's money, you are scrutinized. (Not much else can be done, sadly.)

Burying your head in the sand is irrational even for lemmings. However there is the cliff, have it.