EVE Search - Audits 001 - come and get it

All Channels

Market Discussions

Audits 001 - come and get it

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.13 16:38:00 - [31] Quote: I would always poke through one, if people wanted. Also, with this caveat. Originally by: Dzil Please note I reserve the right to turn down requests if I don't see myself able to turn them around in a timely manner. RL comes first and all that. Ditto if anyone is interested.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.11.13 16:41:00 - [32] Originally by: Cista2 Edit: PS Things like character / corp history, forum posting history, contract history, those elements are public and can be looked into by the investors themselves if they are sceptical. No need to burden a 0.01 auditor with that. That's a really good point. A lot of the valid concern with auditing has been about investors using them as an approval without even reading the contents. I'm all for restricting a standard audit to that which an investor cannot do on their own. Of course, you are welcome to do more if you want.
Andron Blaxcor	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:02:00 - [33] I'm willing to put in time for a small commitment each month. I have no experience of actually performing an audit. I mean this more in a technical sense of using the API OOG programs and the like, I feel confident I could make sense of someone's trading habits and checking someone's skills on EVEmon is incredibly straight forward. Again, as stated by others, I reserve the right to refuse to start an audit I don't think I could make a decent job of in a reasonable time. Given the fact that this is designed to attract new auditors, would working in pairs be a reasonable thing to do? It would give everyone somebody else to directly compare their results to and discuss if/why they missed anything, making learning the trade a lot quicker. Also, two auditors in parallel are less likely to miss stuff and so should be more reliable. With regards to what the audits should contain, I agree with those pushing for an audit-lite. Key points I feel are: 1) Has the skills claimed 2) Appears to performing the activities stated in a way that looks plausibly profitable 3) No suspicious money transfers to/from undeclared alts. 4) Mains and alts don't appear to have been used in scams previously. Other aspects like whether the character s bought and corp history is available publicly and, as these audits are designed to be bare-bones I don't think the auditors should make up for any laziness on the part of the investor. Btw, I think this a great idea and a brilliant way of dealing with the influx of loans too small for a full-blown audit we've been seeing. Good work.
Varo Jan Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:06:00 - [34] Originally by: Cista2 You are pushing in the direction that every audit should be a full audit, and this is a discussion we have had before here. You are welcome to offer investee's to do a full audit after your own principles, but you cannot demand that from other volunteers. No, I am not. Please don¦t put words into my mouth. I am saying there are areas that could be simplified, areas that would not be covered 100% - and those shortcuts would be disclosed to investors, obviously. However, there are certain fundamental areas that you cannot afford to compromise on. Quote: Things like character / corp history, forum posting history, contract history, those elements are public and can be looked into by the investors themselves if they are sceptical. No need to burden a 0.01 auditor with that. True for the main, not true if any alts are not disclosed publically, which can be acceptable. In those cases, the auditor would have to do the work.
Tylwyth Teg Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:20:00 - [35] Originally by: Andron Blaxcor Given the fact that this is designed to attract new auditors, would working in pairs be a reasonable thing to do? It would give everyone somebody else to directly compare their results to and discuss if/why they missed anything, making learning the trade a lot quicker. Also, two auditors in parallel are less likely to miss stuff and so should be more reliable. I think that this is a bad idea. Audits should always be independent. If you have 2 auditors working together, there is a lessened chance of missing something, however this also heightens the chance of collusion, whether accidental or voluntary. This also heightens the chance of both auditors making the same mistakes especially if they vet their official audit responses against each other. In my opinion, both of the .01 ISK auditors should be unaware of the other's presence. That is to say until they see each other's posts they should not know who the other auditor is.
Cista2 Jita Direct Sale	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:44:00 - [36] Originally by: Tylwyth Teg Audits should always be independent. If you have 2 auditors working together, there is a lessened chance of missing something, however this also heightens the chance of collusion, whether accidental or voluntary. I rather like that idea though. If we are accepting even quite new players as one of the 2, then it might be good for the 2 to have a chat before the results are published. The object is also to train the auditor, so a new auditor should not fear discredit. Also, investors must never forget that the audits, however perfunctory, are not an endorsement of the project.
Dretzle Omega Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:59:00 - [37] Originally by: Cista2 Originally by: Tylwyth Teg Audits should always be independent. If you have 2 auditors working together, there is a lessened chance of missing something, however this also heightens the chance of collusion, whether accidental or voluntary. I rather like that idea though. If we are accepting even quite new players as one of the 2, then it might be good for the 2 to have a chat before the results are published. The object is also to train the auditor, so a new auditor should not fear discredit. Also, investors must never forget that the audits, however perfunctory, are not an endorsement of the project. I agree that the auditors should work independently. The point of having 2 is to limit the problems with trust. 2 independent audits by relative unknowns like myself is a lot more trustworthy than 1. The whole point is that is lessens the possibility of collaberating for scams, or either just to miss something important. If there needs to be any training, a third person could act in an advisory role only (no need for the API keys, just advising on what to look for).
Charles Swann	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:12:00 - [38] people are actually taking this thread seriously?!? omfg... at least we now have a complete list of MD wannabes perhaps I should biomass this character, my concept of "educated trolling" does not work out at all (and I really dislike the in-your-face version) ... writing a guide for clueless auditors/scammers was meant to be an effing threat to MD - if you seriously need a guide you should not do audits in the first place/are an incompetent scammer that would have deserved to get caught, anyways. ... and apparently not even Cista2 got why I was talking about 720 flashbacks the other day (that idea surfaces every few months, linking to the posting history of 720 was just my way of saying "I, too, don't like the ways of Cista2, be careful") /facepalm nervous breakdown ... yes, you can have my stuff - but it's only one Impairor located in pr-8
Dretzle Omega Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:37:00 - [39] Originally by: Charles Swann people are actually taking this thread seriously?!? There's really no harm in saying "sure, I'll audit if I'm wanted". If investees and/or investors don't want said auditors (me, Ji Sama, Roguehalo, etc and so forth) then we don't audit and go about our happy lives. Originally by: Charles Swann omfg... at least we now have a complete list of MD wannabes For goodness sakes, no!
Cista2 Jita Direct Sale	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:44:00 - [40] Edited by: Cista2 on 13/11/2009 18:45:46 Originally by: Charles Swann my concept of "educated trolling" does not work out at all (and I really dislike the in-your-face version) ... Yeah you are really much too nice a person to be trolling.
Cheeba Don Fusion Enterprises Ltd Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.13 19:02:00 - [41] I like this idea, good move to get secure auditing procedures rolling again. Recently MD has been a mess of unchecked mini ipos etc etc. Been a while since Ive seen a large and well audited proposal to be proposed on these forums. --------- oOk!
Drab Cane Carbenadium Industries	Posted - 2009.11.13 19:48:00 - [42] Cista2, good luck with this. Having a standard template is a fantastic idea. It would be a huge benefit for both your auditors and the IPO/bond managers. Such a template should list the minimum items that every audit will cover. Make it available publicly so everyone knows what is expected from the audit and what isn't included in the audit. As you said, it shouldn't limit the auditor, but serve as a starting point. ----------------------------------------------- - Who Dares, Wins
Mikael Genexi Gallente Product Number 3	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:00:00 - [43] I'm going to take my name off the list for now until I feel I have a better grasp of the programs that use APIs. While I think getting more people to do audits is a good idea, I also think that unless controls are in place, the whole concept of an audit could become easily tainted through abuse.
Fleshbot	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:14:00 - [44] I haven't gone though all the comments but I see and issue right now. 1) I put up two alts who volunteer to do audits 2) A third alt puts up a bond 3) The third alt ask for an a audit from the first two alts 4) Scam, burn all three, and repeat. I'd suggest that the new auditors are randomly selected from the available pool. Maybe someone requests an audit and you (Cista2) randomly select two of the auditors?* In either case add me to the list. Also what happens in one declines or just doesn't do it? Is a third asked?
Andron Blaxcor	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:15:00 - [45] Originally by: Tylwyth Teg Originally by: Andron Blaxcor Given the fact that this is designed to attract new auditors, would working in pairs be a reasonable thing to do? It would give everyone somebody else to directly compare their results to and discuss if/why they missed anything, making learning the trade a lot quicker. Also, two auditors in parallel are less likely to miss stuff and so should be more reliable. I think that this is a bad idea. Audits should always be independent. If you have 2 auditors working together, there is a lessened chance of missing something, however this also heightens the chance of collusion, whether accidental or voluntary. This also heightens the chance of both auditors making the same mistakes especially if they vet their official audit responses against each other. In my opinion, both of the .01 ISK auditors should be unaware of the other's presence. That is to say until they see each other's posts they should not know who the other auditor is. Ah, sorry, I may not have made myself clear. I meant two auditors working in parallel, as in, moving in the same direction but isolated. I was envisaging them working separately but then comparing results at the end when they post. This would allow for learning after the event. Making sure auditors don't know each other has some advantages and disadvantages, but I was thinking they should be independent. Originally by: Charles Swann people are actually taking this thread seriously?!? Shocked omfg... at least we now have a complete list of MD wannabes perhaps I should biomass this character, my concept of "educated trolling" does not work out at all (and I really dislike the in-your-face version) ... writing a guide for clueless auditors/scammers was meant to be an effing threat to MD - if you seriously need a guide you should not do audits in the first place/are an incompetent scammer that would have deserved to get caught, anyways. Well, that's an interesting tirade. Personally, I've seen MD struggling for weeks under a raft of new proposals and a lack of auditors. The ideas seen in this post have limitations but it seems to be one of the better solutions and, more to the point, actually looks like it might be put into practice. So, speaking personally, felt it was worth a shot to improve the community. If you have a better suggestion please let us know. And your first post was a poor attempt at trolling, I take it you were being sarcastic in it? But when it's indistinguishable from an opinion someone might genuinely hold, nobody notices the sarcasm.
Dretzle Omega Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:46:00 - [46] Originally by: Fleshbot I haven't gone though all the comments but I see and issue right now. 1) I put up two alts who volunteer to do audits 2) A third alt puts up a bond 3) The third alt ask for an a audit from the first two alts 4) Scam, burn all three, and repeat. I'd suggest that the new auditors are randomly selected from the available pool. Maybe someone requests an audit and you (Cista2) randomly select two of the auditors?* In either case add me to the list. Also what happens in one declines or just doesn't do it? Is a third asked? That's a very real threat, and I personally wouldn't put trust in the auditors if I've never seen a post or anything from them before. I think this would be more for the "knowns" to "relatively unknown", but not for the "completely unknowns", if that makes any sense. Originally by: Andron Blaxcor I was envisaging them working separately but then comparing results at the end when they post. This would allow for learning after the event. After the the final results, and the two have made their posts, then they can look back and compare results. This would be in the interest of learning for future audits. Collaborating for the current audit before you present your final results wouldn't be good, though.
Fleshbot	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:49:00 - [47] Originally by: Dretzle Omega Very good point. I mentioned this to Cista, as well. I believe that's why there is to be two of these auditors on any bond/IPO requested. Again with the clearing house idea, maybe the auditors should not be releasing the reports on the forums but first send a copy to someone (Cista2?) who than approves them for posting? This would prevent lazy/scammy auditor A from just waiting until auditor B posts and then coping what was said. As another deterrent to scammers how about a holding fee for the service. $50 million isk to request an audit and if there are no red flags (undeclared alts, known scammers, etc.) you get the money back. If there are you forfeit the isk. As an aside when I audit I usually ask for certain things, alts, area of trade/manufacturing, when they started playing, etc. This puts the pressure on them to be honest up front lest I find something they were trying to hide, rather than making me hunt for it. And if they blatantly lie about it that sends up a flag. (mistakes are okay, "1/2009 vs 12/2008" but lies are not, "10/2009 vs 8/2006"). Lastly, I've had some luck in picking up investments by simply asking to do the audit myself. If you see a 500M bond and are interested, ask if you can do the audit. If it looks good, buy out as much as you can/want. Since many of these bonds are being unfilled, honest IPO/Bond managers will be willing to trust you for the ISK.
Cista2 Jita Direct Sale	Posted - 2009.11.13 21:10:00 - [48] Originally by: Fleshbot 1) I put up two alts who volunteer to do audits 2) A third alt puts up a bond 3) The third alt ask for an a audit from the first two alts 4) Scam, burn all three, and repeat. I'd suggest that the new auditors are randomly selected from the available pool. Maybe someone requests an audit and you (Cista2) randomly select two of the auditors?* In either case add me to the list. Also what happens in one declines or just doesn't do it? Is a third asked? I don't see a big problem. (Almost) all the names on the list are known from the forum. If an unknown person were to be audited by two completely unknowns, I don't think it would help the investee much. I would like to leave the decisions up to the investee. After all, it's their bond. What will happen is that when the small bond is announced, people will now ask them to get a 001 audit. If they have some sense they will try to get auditors that are already known. If one fails, they will get another. That is, if they see any benefit from it. And I would leave that to the investee, rather than us establishing some intricate scheme for how everything must be done.
Vasta Magna	Posted - 2009.11.13 22:54:00 - [49] I think the need for limited audit function and for a few new auditors is clear. To that extent I hope you are successful. Now let me say a bunch of negative stuff Because trust is the whole purpose of an audit, if you are using (relative) unknowns you are handicapped from the start. I think it would need to be very, very limited. The most basic of fact checking. Even things you have included as basic aren't necessarily. * NAV (as precisely as relevant) * Trade activities I'm sure many who've used the programs available (EMMA, jeve, Income Analyzer, etc) will agree they are finicky creatures. Determining NAV can be more art than science. With trade activities, some are straightforward, but some schemes may require significant player skill to provide so much as simple verification. Even answering the question "do they have the skills to do it?" could potentially require a lot from new-ish players (or old players new to the market, to industry, whatever). If you haven't done it yourself, do you really know what's involved? There are many different types of trust all in play at once. Trust in a basic sense, trust in technical competence, trust in the player's level of knowledge. Even when you get past all that, you're left with the fact that it's only useful for small bonds. Just personal opinion, but I think they're mostly rubbish. 90% of them are either pointless because the debtor could do it almost as fast the hard way, or because the numbers are so small that even an insane interest rate offers nothing of value to the investor in absolute terms. My .02 ISK.
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.13 23:03:00 - [50] Originally by: Vasta Magna Because trust is the whole purpose of an audit, if you are using (relative) unknowns you are handicapped from the start. I think it would need to be very, very limited. The most basic of fact checking. Well even with just the limited API you can check skills, characters on that account, and ISK on the personal wallet. That information along with checking EVE Search and the contract history against those characters will reveal quite a bit of info. Now if someone is looking to expand their capital production then the full API is needed to verify that they have the BPOs they state to have, or a trader wanting to expand would need a Full API to verify that they have been trading.
Dagny Bronstein	Posted - 2009.11.13 23:19:00 - [51] Originally by: Breaker77 Now if someone is looking to expand their capital production then the full API is needed to verify that they have the BPOs they state to have that's exactly one of the things a full API key won't show you You would have to use screenshots or when talking about serious stuff like Capital BPOs better contracts to verify that this someone actually does possess BPOs and not just BPCs; please read up on limitations like this before actually accepting to do audits, mk?
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.13 23:24:00 - [52] Edited by: Breaker77 on 13/11/2009 23:25:36 Originally by: Dagny Bronstein Originally by: Breaker77 Now if someone is looking to expand their capital production then the full API is needed to verify that they have the BPOs they state to have that's exactly one of the things a full API key won't show you Been a long day at work You can always create a contract with an absurd price on it so it can be declined Which of course would then mean you wouldn't need a full API key. edit: Not to mention that the full API also shows the running S&I jobs so if it's in research then it will show up there and you would know it's a BPO since BPCs can't be researched.
Cista2 Jita Direct Sale	Posted - 2009.11.14 06:35:00 - [53] Originally by: Vasta Magna Because trust is the whole purpose of an audit, if you are using (relative) unknowns you are handicapped from the start. I think it would need to be very, very limited. I agree on most your points. This project is merely an attempt of starting some people on the path of auditing. What they can do will be very limited, but at least they can expose a throwaway alt created for the occasion, with no trades logged etc. I see others here discuss more advanced audits on larger bonds, but that is not what I brought to the table - I clearly stated those are for VV and Kazuo. For a new auditor that is uncertain about the tools and methods, Kazuo has offered to be contacted for advise. I am certainly not the expert here.
Brock Nelson Caldari Flux Technologies Inc	Posted - 2009.11.14 19:31:00 - [54] Step 1: Create alt Step 2: Create 2nd alt Step 3: Both alts audit your main Step 4: Scam! Yeah, why don't you setup this whole thing like it was a year ago? New Auditor pair up with Trusted auditor? Tools for Research Business
Tylwyth Teg Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.14 20:32:00 - [55] Originally by: Brock Nelson Step 1: Create alt Step 2: Create 2nd alt Step 3: Both alts audit your main Step 4: Scam! Yeah, why don't you setup this whole thing like it was a year ago? New Auditor pair up with Trusted auditor? Yeah for this to work we need to take the selection process out of the hands of the people asking for ISK. Not sure how to do this in a trustworthy way......maybe instead of the person pitching the bond/ipo/whatever choosing the auditors, one of the potential investors should pick 1 and another potential investor pick another. Thus getting around the easy collusion scenario above.
cosmoray Bella Vista Holdings Corp	Posted - 2009.11.14 20:34:00 - [56] From an investor standpoint I am going to throw a couple of caveats in here. These are MY opinions, and it will effect my investing. Qualifications To be an auditor (even small scale), you must have had (at least 1 to qualify): 1. Successfully run an IPO or bond (successful means closed without default) 2. Made a significant contribution to the MD forum (approximately 100+ posts minimum), to the point people recognise you easily. 3. At least 6 months old 4. Have holdings in MD IPO's/bonds totalling over 1B ISK. Audit Size First audits have to be completed under 3B size. Audit is successful if bond launches & closes successfully. Second & Third audits under 5B. Open after that. That being said, these two people don't qualify as they are both new: InUrJita CheckinUrPrice Tylwyth Teg
Breaker77 Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.14 23:28:00 - [57] Originally by: cosmoray Qualifications To be an auditor (even small scale), you must have had (at least 1 to qualify): 1. Successfully run an IPO or bond (successful means closed without default) 2. Made a significant contribution to the MD forum (approximately 100+ posts minimum), to the point people recognise you easily. 3. At least 6 months old 4. Have holdings in MD IPO's/bonds totalling over 1B ISK. Well I pass all 4 of those Well at least more than 100 posts in MD, now as to the usefulness of them, I can't say. Originally by: Brock Nelson Yeah, why don't you setup this whole thing like it was a year ago? New Auditor pair up with Trusted auditor? So you are going to start auditing again to help follow up on us?? VV will suffer burnout if he doesn't get help and Kazzac seems to be busy with other things for the time being.
Brock Nelson Caldari Flux Technologies Inc	Posted - 2009.11.15 01:19:00 - [58] Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Brock Nelson Yeah, why don't you setup this whole thing like it was a year ago? New Auditor pair up with Trusted auditor? So you are going to start auditing again to help follow up on us?? VV will suffer burnout if he doesn't get help and Kazzac seems to be busy with other things for the time being. v0v I'm just saying how it was done when VV and I became an auditor. There was only one available auditor at the time as well. Tools for Research Business
Dethmourne Silvermane Gallente Silvermane Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.15 01:36:00 - [59] Now I'm vaguely tempted to start up a trading bond for my lazy trading strategy
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.11.15 10:38:00 - [60] Originally by: cosmoray From an investor standpoint I am going to throw a couple of caveats in here. These are MY opinions, and it will effect my investing. Qualifications To be an auditor (even small scale), you must have had (at least 1 to qualify): 1. Successfully run an IPO or bond (successful means closed without default) 2. Made a significant contribution to the MD forum (approximately 100+ posts minimum), to the point people recognise you easily. 3. At least 6 months old 4. Have holdings in MD IPO's/bonds totalling over 1B ISK. I never actually did #1, but I did spend a while renting out corp divisions on a private basis before I began auditing. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.