EVE Search - Etiquette issue when using a Trusted Third-Party. [Discussion]

All Channels

Market Discussions

Etiquette issue when using a Trusted Third-Party. [Discussion]

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Solisk Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.10.15 00:36:00 - [1] A discussion in scc-lounge today brought an interesting question to mind. When using a "trusted third-party" to hold collateral (a BPO to be exact), is it considered a breach of etiquette if that trusted person uses the collateralized BPO for production/copying? I don't believe this scenario has been discussed in MD to date (to my knowledge at least), but appears to be a question that needs to be addressed. If it is indeed bad form to do so, then there is only one option available to us currently that could guarantee that the BPO's aren't being used and that is API monitoring for the trusted third-party. What are you guys' thoughts?
Kalrand Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.15 00:39:00 - [2] Originally by: Solisk A discussion in scc-lounge today brought an interesting question to mind. When using a "trusted third-party" to hold collateral (a BPO to be exact), is it considered a breach of etiquette if that trusted person uses the collateralized BPO for production/copying? I don't believe this scenario has been discussed in MD to date (to my knowledge at least), but appears to be a question that needs to be addressed. If it is indeed bad form to do so, then there is only one option available to us currently that could guarantee that the BPO's aren't being used and that is API monitoring for the trusted third-party. What are you guys' thoughts? I would think that it is assumed that an unused BPO would be copied while its sitting in the third parties possession. And that the charge the third party was charging to hold it would reflect the value of them copying it, even if they aren't.
Brock Nelson Caldari Flux Technologies Inc	Posted - 2009.10.15 00:39:00 - [3] There's a couple of known third party (BIG comes to mind) that would put BPOs to use and share the profit with the owner. This method; is probably the best use of BPOs that are used as collateral and is good form. On the other hand, if the third party uses the blueprint for its own gains, then that would be bad form.
Solisk Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.10.15 00:48:00 - [4] I think assuming that you can just copy collateralized BPO's without permission is assuming too much. Most third-party's don't charge, or charge very little, to hold collateral. I think in this case, the third-party should be allowed to make copies, but only if they have an agreement with the owner. I really liked the method Brock brought up. Utilizing the BPO's and splitting any profits would be beneficial to both parties and may even provide an avenue for people asking for public funds to provide BPO collateral without having to take a profit hit because they can't produce from it.
Kalrand Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.15 00:51:00 - [5] Originally by: Solisk I think assuming that you can just copy collateralized BPO's without permission is assuming too much. Most third-party's don't charge, or charge very little, to hold collateral. I think in this case, the third-party should be allowed to make copies, but only if they have an agreement with the owner. I really liked the method Brock brought up. Utilizing the BPO's and splitting any profits would be beneficial to both parties and may even provide an avenue for people asking for public funds to provide BPO collateral without having to take a profit hit because they can't produce from it. I don't see what's taken away by copying the BPO so long as its returned when it is supposed to be. I also think BIG's BPO policy is one of the things that really sets them apart from the normal "I'll hold it". Now a lockdown in a corporate hanger is the best of both worlds.
Stardust CEO Stardust Manufacturing	Posted - 2009.10.15 01:01:00 - [6] The real question is, "What kind of person would care?" If you would be upset over someone copying or building off of your bpo while holding it as collateral, you're selfish. Furthermore, you're childish to the point of, "If I can't use it no one will!"
Lecherito	Posted - 2009.10.15 01:03:00 - [7] Originally by: Kalrand Originally by: Solisk I think assuming that you can just copy collateralized BPO's without permission is assuming too much. Most third-party's don't charge, or charge very little, to hold collateral. I think in this case, the third-party should be allowed to make copies, but only if they have an agreement with the owner. I really liked the method Brock brought up. Utilizing the BPO's and splitting any profits would be beneficial to both parties and may even provide an avenue for people asking for public funds to provide BPO collateral without having to take a profit hit because they can't produce from it. I don't see what's taken away by copying the BPO so long as its returned when it is supposed to be. I also think BIG's BPO policy is one of the things that really sets them apart from the normal "I'll hold it". Now a lockdown in a corporate hanger is the best of both worlds. Because it's not your property to benefit from. Certainly the amount of ISK to be gained from doing so isn't an inordinate sum, but to do so without first asking permission? Would be a massive faux pas in my book. -L
Solisk Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.10.15 01:03:00 - [8] Originally by: Kalrand I don't see what's taken away by copying the BPO so long as its returned when it is supposed to be. I also think BIG's BPO policy is one of the things that really sets them apart from the normal "I'll hold it". Now a lockdown in a corporate hanger is the best of both worlds. It's true that nothing is taken away by copying the BPO, which is why it's an etiquette issue instead of a straight scam issue. The problem is that the BPO would be used in a way that wasn't previously agreed upon and without the permission of the owner. A lockdown does provide a guarantee as long as the owner has an alt in the corp. (I'm actually not sure of the extent of the lockdown mechanics.)
Solisk Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.10.15 01:10:00 - [9] Originally by: Stardust CEO The real question is, "What kind of person would care?" If you would be upset over someone copying or building off of your bpo while holding it as collateral, you're selfish. Furthermore, you're childish to the point of, "If I can't use it no one will!" So by that reasoning, you would consider it ok for a developer to build on property he doesn't own and the landowner selfish for caring? You also cannot predict the long-term intentions of the owner. What if the BPO isn't in use because the market for it's module/ship is reaching/at saturation and he's waiting for demand to start climbing again? You'd effectively be screwing him out of future profit.
AmarrettoDiAmarr	Posted - 2009.10.15 01:10:00 - [10] Etiquette does not seem very EVE-like; isn't it really the responsibility of the "truster" to clarify their expectations, in advance, when negotiating with the "trusted third-party"? If the truster did not care enough to specify in advance, it seems inefficient to let it lie fallow.
SetrakDark	Posted - 2009.10.15 01:22:00 - [11] If the business arrangement is for the securing of some object, and said act of securing entails some additional quantifiable benefit to the holder, then that benefit should be factored into the payment for holding. The real issue is whether the holder has a duty to inform a customer that he can and intends to make use of this benefit. Although I would go with buyer beware and let the market punish those who aren't up front, there is definitely an argument to be made for professional duty and the potential information advantage of an experienced holder over an inexperienced customer.
cosmoray Bella Vista Holdings Corp	Posted - 2009.10.15 02:06:00 - [12] When I do lockdowns, I offer free research on BPO's if I have available slots I currently have about 35B in lockdown for loans and third party holding going up to 49B in next few days. If my ME/PE slots are full I may do copies but I will come to an arrangement with the person handing the BPO's to me. I do charge a fee for lockdown though. No fee for holding collateral for private loans BPO lockdown is a 50M one time fee (regardless of number of BPO's) Just to hold collateral is a 20M one time fee (regardless of amount).
Stardust CEO Stardust Manufacturing	Posted - 2009.10.15 02:21:00 - [13] Originally by: Solisk So by that reasoning, you would consider it ok for a developer to build on property he doesn't own and the landowner selfish for caring? Take some kind of logic class, or critical thinking class, or debate class... then get back to me with an apology, and your admission that the above applies in no way.
Solisk Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.10.15 02:27:00 - [14] Originally by: Stardust CEO Originally by: Solisk So by that reasoning, you would consider it ok for a developer to build on property he doesn't own and the landowner selfish for caring? Take some kind of logic class, or critical thinking class, or debate class... then get back to me with an apology, and your admission that the above applies in no way. Whoa, slow down there. Why are you taking offense and attacking me? My intention wasn't to offend. I looked in the phone book and didn't see anyone advertising a logic/critical thinking/debate class, so I think I'll need you to explain why my admission doesn't apply here. I thought, after all, that it was an issue of property being used without owner consent.
Kalrand Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.15 02:39:00 - [15] Originally by: Solisk Originally by: Stardust CEO Originally by: Solisk So by that reasoning, you would consider it ok for a developer to build on property he doesn't own and the landowner selfish for caring? Take some kind of logic class, or critical thinking class, or debate class... then get back to me with an apology, and your admission that the above applies in no way. Whoa, slow down there. Why are you taking offense and attacking me? My intention wasn't to offend. I looked in the phone book and didn't see anyone advertising a logic/critical thinking/debate class, so I think I'll need you to explain why my admission doesn't apply here. I thought, after all, that it was an issue of property being used without owner consent. I agree with stardust. Your comparison is stupid at best.
Solisk Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.10.15 02:42:00 - [16] Edited by: Solisk on 15/10/2009 02:42:45 Well then, let it be known throughout the Eve universe that my comparison was stupid. However, if we could get back on topic?
Manu Hermanus FaDoyToy	Posted - 2009.10.15 02:45:00 - [17] well I think there are 2 cases that should be looked at (at least 2) 1) the third party is holding the bpos as collateral only 2) the third party is holding the bpos as collateral, and the bpos are being used for the IPO in the case of the first then who really cares as long as the bpos are returned at the end of the investment in the case of the 2nd well then the third party is screwing everyone over because whoever is running the ipo should be using the bpo to profit. see titan bpo copying, or a manufacturing ipo. You're posting again!? Has it really been 5 mins?
Solisk Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.10.15 03:03:00 - [18] Oh hey, I just got why my comparison was stupid. You're right Kalrand, it was kinda stupid.
Stardust CEO Stardust Manufacturing	Posted - 2009.10.15 03:11:00 - [19] Edited by: Stardust CEO on 15/10/2009 03:15:03 Originally by: Solisk Originally by: Stardust CEO Originally by: Solisk So by that reasoning, you would consider it ok for a developer to build on property he doesn't own and the landowner selfish for caring? Take some kind of logic class, or critical thinking class, or debate class... then get back to me with an apology, and your admission that the above applies in no way. I think I'll need you to explain why my admission doesn't apply here. I thought, after all, that it was an issue of property being used without owner consent. A more appropriate example would be something along the lines of: Person A puts land they cannot use under the supervision of person B, and person B decides to graze cattle upon said land. When a rl developer builds upon property there are legal issues, tax issues, insurance issues, and permanent change accorded to the property, which might or might not be seen as negative. What we were discussing was the use of a bpo in possession of said Person B, unable to be used by Person A, in a manner that changes the bpo in no way. Edit - Sorry for getting testy. I get that way when I feel like someone is twisting my words, or trying to make me look foolish by putting words in my mouth.
Claire Voyant	Posted - 2009.10.15 04:00:00 - [20] Is this a real incident or a hypothetical example? It find it hard to believe that an owner of an expensive BPO would have it locked down without considering the potential use of it beforehand and discussing the terms with the third party. On the other hand, I remember another scc-lounge discussion where someone was offering a BS BPO for sale with 3-months of research. When I pointed out that the ME level was less than a month's worth of lab time, he swore up and down about how his third party holder was supposed to have researched it. Let that be a lesson to you. Many BPOs are too expensive to be left sitting around unused and unresearched. Make sure you agree on the terms ahead of time. Remember though that labs are not free and characters have a limited number of jobs. I would think for research and copying a fixed monthly fee would be appropriate (assuming the copies went to the BPO owner) in addition to any holding fees. Production would be more complicated, depending on the profitability of the BPO. But you could have the holder pay to use the BPO or just reduce his fees, or you could have the owner supply the raw materials and the holder could run production jobs giving the finished goods to the owner (for an additional fee, of course.) Splitting profits is easy to say, but harder to implement, and potentially divisive unless one party is unusually trusting.
Solisk Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.10.15 04:08:00 - [21] Originally by: Claire Voyant Is this a real incident or a hypothetical example? Let that be a lesson to you. Many BPOs are too expensive to be left sitting around unused and unresearched. Make sure you agree on the terms ahead of time. Remember though that labs are not free and characters have a limited number of jobs. I would think for research and copying a fixed monthly fee would be appropriate (assuming the copies went to the BPO owner) in addition to any holding fees. That's actually not a bad idea for a business.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.15 07:19:00 - [22] Excuse me, but what this "issue" sounds more like an exercise at finding issues than a real problem. Those who hold collateral might or might not offer to research the BPO and might or might not offer to let the investee access to it thru a lockdown. Now, both of the above are a plus. The collateral holder has only an obligation to keep collateral, not to invest into it / make it better. When provided, it's a plus (possibly costing the holder POS slot / a researcher slot) that may be given away to make the holder's service more competitive or can be factored in the holding fee. If there's no arrangement, the holder is in the position to potentially take a benefit whilst not deteriorating the investee possession. In this case it should be the holder interest to come to terms with the investee about the BPO. If the holder will just copy the stuff, the investee just chose someone who is not really competent or even much "trusted" but there's no "legal claim" because there was no pre-arrangement on a denial of resource. It's just one of the many cases (like IRL) where a grey area surfaces and can only potentially cause more harm than good. Said that, the only issue is - of course - the one that has not been mentioned at all (ie.: way to miss what matters). Public copy slots tend to be perma-clogged. Collateral tend to be a mix of stuff (at least in my holdings) that resides in some 15-20 jumps away off the nearest holder POS. The problem is: the holder may decide to play smart and move the BPO at his POS system. But collateralized BPOs often are quite expensive and so there's an appreciable risk when moving them. The holder could say nothing to the investee, try move the BPO to sgnatch the rogue copy and see his ship suicide ganked. Then it is when sh!t happens. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll	Posted - 2009.10.15 08:03:00 - [23] Originally by: Kalrand Originally by: Solisk Originally by: Stardust CEO Originally by: Solisk So by that reasoning, you would consider it ok for a developer to build on property he doesn't own and the landowner selfish for caring? Take some kind of logic class, or critical thinking class, or debate class... then get back to me with an apology, and your admission that the above applies in no way. Whoa, slow down there. Why are you taking offense and attacking me? My intention wasn't to offend. I looked in the phone book and didn't see anyone advertising a logic/critical thinking/debate class, so I think I'll need you to explain why my admission doesn't apply here. I thought, after all, that it was an issue of property being used without owner consent. I agree with stardust. Your comparison is stupid at best. ¿ HAHA THATS JUST A STUPID COMPARISONSON, FAIL!

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2009.10.15 08:07:00 - [24] I don't use the collateral I hold for a customer unless I asked for permission first, that's just my view of how I run my business. For a real life comparison (yeah I know stupid since this is a game) - but if I hand my car to my bank as collateral, I sure as hell wouldn't want the bank guy to drive it around. But I do see the point in using an otherwise unused blueprint for example, guess it comes down to how you want to run your business and how you would like others to treat you if you hand away your things as collateral. Win a Cap Recharger II BPO for 10M ISK

Kalrand Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.15 13:48:00 - [25] Originally by: Chribba I don't use the collateral I hold for a customer unless I asked for permission first, that's just my view of how I run my business. For a real life comparison (yeah I know stupid since this is a game) - but if I hand my car to my bank as collateral, I sure as hell wouldn't want the bank guy to drive it around. But I do see the point in using an otherwise unused blueprint for example, guess it comes down to how you want to run your business and how you would like others to treat you if you hand away your things as collateral. The main difference I see between using a BPO when it's being held as collateral, and driving a car, is that the wear and tear and mileage on the car change the nature of the product. The BPO will be in exactly the same condition when it's returned to its owner. I'm curious, how much you charge to hold collateral for third party loans?
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.15 16:16:00 - [26] Quote: The main difference I see between using a BPO when it's being held as collateral, and driving a car, is that the wear and tear and mileage on the car change the nature of the product The main difference is subtler - Chribba got it of course, other don't. It's about being an "opportunist inside" or not. This regardless about the consequences on the affected person. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Dzil Caldari Sausage Banking	Posted - 2009.10.15 18:02:00 - [27] Originally by: Kalrand Originally by: Chribba I don't use the collateral I hold for a customer unless I asked for permission first, that's just my view of how I run my business. For a real life comparison (yeah I know stupid since this is a game) - but if I hand my car to my bank as collateral, I sure as hell wouldn't want the bank guy to drive it around. The main difference I see between using a BPO when it's being held as collateral, and driving a car, is that the wear and tear and mileage on the car change the nature of the product. The BPO will be in exactly the same condition when it's returned to its owner. I think as long as no added risk is associated (IE, the BPO has to be moved around, or additional people have access to it that could run off with it), there's no issue here. However, it's really something that the borrowed should discuss with the escrow/collateral holder. The main advantage of using BPOs as collateral is that they can be developed or continue to produce profit while in someone else's care: you couldn't do that with minerals or spaceships without praying for market fluctuations to appreciate your capital. To not take advantage of that opportunity by striking some kind of research, copying or manufacturing deal with the collateral holder would be... wasteful. Therefore of the third party is doing this without the original owner's knowledge, I think it's a little dishonest that they are not disclosing this opportunity to their client: likewise if the original owner is upset about it, they clearly didn't do their homework on securing loans effectively. Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.10.15 18:07:00 - [28] Originally by: Brock Nelson There's a couple of known third party (BIG comes to mind) that would put BPOs to use and share the profit with the owner. Just for the record : The owner get's all profit - And we in fact pay for the slots as well. Originally by: Claire Voyant <snip>I would think for research and copying a fixed monthly fee would be appropriate (assuming the copies went to the BPO owner) in addition to any holding fees. Production would be more complicated, depending on the profitability of the BPO. But you could have the holder pay to use the BPO or just reduce his fees, or you could have the owner supply the raw materials and the holder could run production jobs giving the finished goods to the owner (for an additional fee, of course.) Splitting profits is easy to say, but harder to implement, and potentially divisive unless one party is unusually trusting. This is pretty much what we do (except for the fees) - But again, all profit is given to the owner (regardless if copy/research/production), and we pay for the slots. BIG Lottery
Krathos Morpheus Gallente Legion Infernal	Posted - 2009.10.15 18:20:00 - [29] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: The main difference I see between using a BPO when it's being held as collateral, and driving a car, is that the wear and tear and mileage on the car change the nature of the product The main difference is subtler - Chribba got it of course, other don't. It's about being an "opportunist inside" or not. This regardless about the consequences on the affected person. Is the opportunist inside the BPO or the car? I don't get it. I would like to ask your opinions on another more real thing and similar concept. Has BIG the right to use the money raised from his lotto until all the tickets has been sold?
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.10.15 18:38:00 - [30] Nice one - and a good question. But let me quickly add that the ISK is not being used. But the academica of the question is valid regardless. BIG Lottery

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.