Originally by: Ricdics

---

I have spent the past 4 years in Market Discussions doing the right thing, making sure all my posts were politically correct...

---

Now you are being disingenuous. You love starting trouble and everyone knows it. I'm not saying that you have never contributed mate, that would be a dishonest thing for me (or anyone) to say, however don't try to obfuscate your history.

I'm an *******, you are a troll.
We all know who we are.

Originally by: Ricdics

---

My family say I love to stir people, and I haven't been able to do it much with my wife of late (8.5 months pregnant) so maybe I used these forums as my outlet.

---

Used? How about always used and continuing to use. Hypocritically you've joined in my calling out Stapler Kid for his using the EO Forums as a cheap alternative to actual therapy. My suggestion, go get real help for working out your frustrations.

Now, to the point, these mock scams could've been useful but were not well executed. These are the things that I would have done to attempt to execute it better:

1 - Gather some of the MD regulars together.

2 - Work out the common points to look for.

3 - Put the "scam" isk amount requested into escrow with a 3rd party.

4 - API Key disclosure to an auditor for monitoring.

Work out before hand who the "anti-shills" would be and communicate only with them. Make the actual exercise like a dinner theatre experience. Occasionally include someone from the audience but work as a team. Do not try too hard to succeed (i.e. accept reservations & buy ins but once they are in, let them know what is happening [perhaps]).

The key concept is transparency. While you may not be transparent to everyone but you need to have a group of "trustworthy" individuals you are transparent with.

As you can see I've thought about this myself however I've always nixed the idea simply because doing so, no matter how thoroughly and transparently, still provides troll ammunition. Once you cross certain lines, make certain jokes, you sully your credibility. In Kazzac's case, people are looking at him a little askance. In Ric's people are just further annoyed with him and his eccentricity.

For Kaz, it might hurt him as he needs very good public image for many things. For Ric, he couldn't give a rat's ass. He's already at the top of the food chain and could care less what, or how much, **** rolls downhill.

My only disappointment is in Kaz. Not for the attempt but for the tunnel vision with which he viewed the aftermath.

Kaz: Your experiment failed to deliver the point/lesson you wanted to give. You also failed to recognize that point.

Ric: I keep trying to tell you mate. Sometimes you need to say "Mea Culpa". Correction, mean it if you ever say it. Your confidence is, far too often, on an out of body trip.

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz

---

Don't you all know the first rule of the long con? Be kind, courteous, helpful, honest, and charitable... right up until you steal everything.

---

I've been figured out. That's right folks, only been honest and trustworthy since beta because I'm waiting to rip you all off.

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz

---

All cons rely on trust and greed;

---

I've also found that scams are fostered in an environment where trust has been properly eroded as well. Discrediting, or driving away, voices of reason and caution has often been used to help foster scam-ability in the community.

The ironic thing is that Eve is art simulating life. Much of the negative being said is ultimately true in real life as well. Credit, banking, etc., etc. is all built upon "trust" and "reputation". Just because people have dedicated PHD's to the math of such things doesn't change the quicksand foundation of it all. (And you silly people want some developed solution from a game company?!?) The only difference is the kind of consequences. Good planning can eliminate many of those well!

Of course, alternately, these people who are saying "trust no one" and "I'll never invest" sure spend alot of time with their noses in investment threads. Guess even ignorant dogs need some place to rear back on their haunches and howl at their betters.

---

PS: I dare you to demonstrate the worthless of my reputation or "trustworthiness". Got 1 billion isk that is yours if you can do so.

Originally by: Kalrand

---

I like to think I add some value.

---

Well said.

Forum fu sometimes leads to bombastic and inflammatory statements. Especially on my part. My apologies if my statement caused you any pause. Please consider such statements as nothing more than the obligatory jab, not a specific attack.

Originally by: Aidan Brooder

---

A market that is relying or trusts "only the same people that have been on here for several years" is not a market - unless you mean a market plan or planned market in the soviet sense, IMHO.

(EDIT NOTE:
ADDED: No disrespect meant at all - but a vibrant market is a one including all steps on the ladder, right?)

---

Wow, talk about your misbegotten political theory being offered as an economic insight.

The only planning that brought about a "few" select individuals was when each one planned to do the right thing. The free market that exists here decided, in mass, to glorify and revel in deceit and theft. The market reflects that as scams are common and mostly of little value (due to oversupply) and trusted individuals are rare and can command large(r) values.

Trying to present the current state of affairs as some sort of communistic mold is either a patently (and knowingly) false statement or a delusional worldview of an idealistic tunnel rat.

The lack of scalability in offers is only in appearance. I've often funded 100M loans (though the return rate sucks on forum based small loans) as well as smaller 1 - 2 billion isk loans. They exist, just they don't often become "public" due to their smaller nature. The bigger ones do because the funding needs a wider investor base for which the forums excel.

Again, a case of believing your limited vision and scope is reality when that is farthest from the truth.

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz

---

(I have to give Hawk credit for burying a great bit of propaganda in his post: questioning the system undermines it. You know who else said that? A lot of dictators.)

---

You are correct in asserting that propaganda is a tool of dictators and such ilk. Your statement, itself, proves that you are of that group even though you artfully attempt to label me as such.

How many of you know who said the famous words "let the eat cake"? Well if you said Marie Antoinette you'd be wrong. Equally as much, no where is there any statement of mine, subtle or not, that questioning the system is "unpatriotic" or is "undermining". But why should we let something like facts or reality get in the way of a good slander.

Truth is I've been subject to more character assassination attempts then 99% of the player base will ever see. I have to tell you, you rank at the bottom of those who've attempted it. Equally I should point out: I'm still here and still respected. (Added that last part in case you want to keep wasting your time on this.)

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz

---

Rather that the current methodology is based on the premise that some people can be trusted in all circumstances. I would argue that the premise is flawed.

---

You would argue that... however you don't propose anything either. I would greatly enjoy some alternative to the way things "are". No one is more ceaseless a troublemaker, a rebel without a pause, the proverbial squeaky wheel, then I am.

However your entire argument, this whole dissertation thingey you are doing, is flawed from the very beginning. Not because of anything inherent about Eve, the internet, or any such thing. Simply because your argument automatically places anyone against in the position of "proving a negative". I tried to demonstrate the fallacy of your current approach by asking you to prove a negative about me. Instead you tossed a lot of existentialistic mumbo jumbo at it (Reductio ad absurdum) and proceed to continue with your intellectual dishonesty. To demonstrate my point by dissecting this mutlifactorial lie:

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz

---

Rather that the current methodology is based on the premise that some people can be trusted in all circumstances. I would argue that the premise is flawed.

---

In this statement you attribute "everyone" as having the same methodology (untrue). Furthermore you create a straw man ("in all circumstances") that no one can argue against because there is no argument that cover "all circumstances". By setting up a false argument as the argument and then call it flawed is just one your many intellectual lies.

The whole idea that I'm so damn good that I've been able to technologically bamboozle the hundreds of people who have scrutinized me (with good or ill intent) over the past near decade is ... not so much complimentary but frightening. Mostly due to the highly paranoid schizophrenic nature of your thought process. No one is that good and considering the copious amount of virtual fingerprints I leave... that I have left... in all that time, your premise is (of course) flawed. But you seem to do that a lot; present flawed statements for people to waste time arguing with. That being said, let me conclude this with yet another "straw man" statement of yours that ignores reality:

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz

---

EVE has a demonstrated history of long cons perpetrated by trusted individuals. In some cases, a year or more long.

---

Please, feel free to provide some examples of this demonstrated history? After all, you've obviously opened your mouth. Let us examine, in proper detail, the copious amount of manure that has come tumbling out.

Originally by: Jason Marshall

---

Your assuming that the person doesn't consider there trustworthiness a valuable commodity. Look at Chribba for example!

---

Originally by: Sola Veritas

---

It doesn't matter what the person considers their reputation to be worth. The investors' knowledge of that person's intention approaches nil, if that's how you want to gauge "trust". Are you inside Chribba's head?

---

Just pointing out a bit more of this ongoing existential straw man bull**** being peddled in this thread: Since no one can ever know what goes on in another person's head we should all trust no one, ever and/or at all.

In essence, this is the kind of "questioning the system" that I dispute. Man is flawed ergo anything man attempts is flawed ergo no man is trustworthy.

This is not questioning the system in place or even questioning any system whatsoever. It attempts to destroy what exists "now", via nihilism, is nothing more than the vandalistic pastime a few bored mushrooms. After years and years of being in the dark, and fed ****, they are sharing with us the only things they know.

Dark ****.

Originally by: Robert Kiyosaki

---

e-honor itt. internet spaceships obv is serious business.

---

You didn't sound so casual when your main was whining about getting scammed did you, jenius?