| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Daeva Vios
New Eden Credit Bureau
   |
Posted - 2009.07.21 18:02:00 -
[1]
This thread is trying so hard to be epic. Everyone gets so worked up about this subject. I love it. Financial soap opera in space. This is worth every isk I pay for my PLEXs.
What it boils down to is: There's a double standard. Like it or not, it exists and it won't stop existing just because you wish really hard that it would.
Proven capable managers are not subjected to scrutiny as intense as unproven newbies because unproven newbies are not proven.
Does this mean proven capable managers are given access to isk that may not be made available to others? Yes. Does this mean proven capable managers can take more liberties with their proposals? Yes. Their hard work has given them advantages.
It's terribly undemocratic and unfair. It may in fact open the way for abuse. It's also a fine example of a working meritocracy. You don't have to participate.
-------------------------------------
NECB |
Daeva Vios
New Eden Credit Bureau
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 22:12:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Tesal
Edited by: Tesal on 21/07/2009 18:41:06
And some people are proven capable managers until they get into a pinch and start stealing a bit. Then when they need to put out their financials they cook the books a bit, and when they run out of isk and need more they make excuses. This is so audrey bitoni I can't even describe it. I chafe at the idea of an aristocracy.
*edit
Looks like I made a spread sheet error on Amarr Citizens alts. Got one mixed up, my bad.
You might want to pick up some cream for that chafing.
It is an aristocracy in the classic sense of the term. Those who perform the best see an improvement in their reputations which allows their word to carry more weight. The system is inherently unstable, but barring meaningful enforcement there is no way to make it anything different. The fact is, the individuals upon whom the majority depend are depended on for their consistent and proven ability to perform at or above expectations. Is it incestuous? You bet. Are flagrant violations of basic policy overlooked for no reason other than reputation? Absolutely. Is it a perfect system? Not even close. Is it the best system? Probably not.
This is the only system thus far that works at all. Quite honestly, you've said nothing that hasn't been said a million times.
-------------------------------------
NECB |
Daeva Vios
New Eden Credit Bureau
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 22:29:00 -
[3]
Quote:
How can people perform when they arent trusted enough to recieve investment?
Use the methods that have been established to improve their reputation. There was a very nice thread posted by the OP on the subject.
It isn't some exclusive club. Many people who are now considered "MD elite" were relatively fresh meat a year ago.
-------------------------------------
NECB |
Daeva Vios
New Eden Credit Bureau
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 23:18:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Miraj Salah
Originally by: Daeva Vios
Quote:
How can people perform when they arent trusted enough to recieve investment?
Use the methods that have been established to improve their reputation. There was a very nice thread posted by the OP on the subject.
It isn't some exclusive club. Many people who are now considered "MD elite" were relatively fresh meat a year ago.
Oh ok then :S
My point was, the methods suggested in that thread were to provide a detailed, effective plan, make sure to get an audit done, provide collateral where possible and politely explain any questions. Admitedly most of the regulars can attract plently of funding without all that, they're a known quantity.
But by skipping the actual substance of the proposal we're not only encouraging crap offerings. That i could live with, since anyone truly worth having will do a good job anyway. But it is a very hostile environment for first time investors, they see some people just having money thrown at them, but they have to jump through hoops.
I don't disagree. It was a lackluster offering and not up to par with what the general public has come to expect. As AC has said the funding isn't absolutely necessary, I am guessing it was done in part to test the waters. Those who felt the information provided to be sufficient invested. Those who did not feel the information provided was sufficient did not invest. I feel like those who are complaining were either on the fence or have felt themselves to be victims of this double standard and therefore have a bone to pick with those who receive rewards for their hard work. Not defending AC here. I didn't invest.
Overall, the perceived hostile environment is part of what drives the machinery for this experiment. If people don't want to bother going through the gauntlet, they probably won't want to deal with investors or the hassle of being even slightly transparent. Regular reporting is tedious and exhausting, and no matter how good you are someone will always question your motives. If people can't weather the initial hostility, why on earth should they be expected to stick with such a project?
-------------------------------------
NECB |
| |
|