EVE Search - [EBANK] Not The Announcement

All Channels

Market Discussions

[EBANK] Not The Announcement - A Tim Burton Film

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Mephistocles Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:13:00 - [301] Originally by: Ray McCormack I am on the client side and I was the first person to provide my Limited API Key. Sorry, you are not on the client side. You might have an account, but handing over your api key to yourself is a bit different than what everyone else is being forced to do.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:14:00 - [302] Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Ji Sama Would you have stood for this, if you where on the client side? I am on the client side and I was the first person to provide my Limited API Key. Providing you API to yourself isnt the same. But fair enough, ill step down, and stop trolling.. Vote Z0D For CSM
Ray McCormack Kisoken Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:18:00 - [303] Providing it subjects me to the same perceived risks that everyone else is seeing. Unless the argument is directly against my personal trustworthiness, in which case there is nothing I can do. Titan BPC Auction \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
jna Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:20:00 - [304] You do, however, have slightly more control over who else gets to see the API data than I do. Or are you saying you don't have any control over staff recruitment, internal security procedures etc? ------------------------------------------------- Caeleste naves interretis res gravissimas sunt
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:23:00 - [305] The real question is : Would Ray stand for trying to be forced to do something he would not like to do. Answer (and I guarantee you this is correct) : No, he would most definitely not. Hence : A hypocrit. BIG Lottery
Ray McCormack Kisoken Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:24:00 - [306] Originally by: jna You do, however, have slightly more control over who else gets to see the API data than I do. Or are you saying you don't have any control over staff recruitment, internal security procedures etc? How does that protect me from those same risks though? Maybe it does assuage my fears some knowing that I have some actual control over who sees my information. But I don't think the argument here is over trust. Titan BPC Auction \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
jna Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:32:00 - [307] As far as I see it, the argument is twofold. Firstly (for me), it's a trust issue. Most everyone on MD trusted EBANK for a very long time, and I personally never thought I'd see that trust collapse so immensely, across so many people. "Once bitten, twice shy", "Fool me once, shame on you etc" and other useless homilies. Secondly, I resent - as I believe you would too - being strong-armed, with no other option presented, into doing something I don't want to do, to get access to what was mine in the first place. It's blackmail, pure and simple. ------------------------------------------------- Caeleste naves interretis res gravissimas sunt
Dzil Caldari Waffle Investment Fund	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:33:00 - [308] Originally by: Ray McCormack But I don't think the argument here is over trust. No, I'm pretty certain the argument over the past 10-11 pages is in fact, over trust. Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m
Ray McCormack Kisoken Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:34:00 - [309] Originally by: TornSoul The real question is : Would Ray stand for trying to be forced to do something he would not like to do. Answer (and I guarantee you this is correct) : No, he would most definitely not. Hence : A hypocrit. Forcing someone to do something they don't like isn't the issue here. I'm forcing account holders to have their ISK frozen within the bank, something I (as a customer) certainly don't like. Do I like all of the suggestions we're implementing at EBANK? No. Does it make me a hypocrite that I remain or merely a good team player? You can't go through life only implementing or abiding by rules you like, that's impossible. Titan BPC Auction \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Ray McCormack Kisoken Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:40:00 - [310] Originally by: jna Secondly, I resent - as I believe you would too - being strong-armed, with no other option presented, into doing something I don't want to do, to get access to what was mine in the first place. It's blackmail, pure and simple. Of course I would resent that, but needs must. Nothing will be palpable to everyone. The Board is in the proverbial space between a rock and a cricketer's box. We have to make the unpopular decisions we feel will benefit the whole. You can argue against our right to make those decisions, but we're mandated to make them. The alternatives are often worse, and whichever option we choose will never be perfect. Originally by: Dzil Originally by: Ray McCormack But I don't think the argument here is over trust. No, I'm pretty certain the argument over the past 10-11 pages is in fact, over trust. Then as stated I'm subject to the same risks associated with that trust now, having supplied my Limited API Key in the same way we're asking account holders to. Titan BPC Auction \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Wyehr Rage of Inferno	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:45:00 - [311] Originally by: Ray McCormack TS, I thought on all these points when the requirement was first mentioned a few months back. However I am happy with the reasons for its justification despite the arguments against them. You might as well delete my offer to volunteer as compliance officer. The one condition I had clearly cannot be met. Note: second person pronouns should be assumed as collective rather than personal. I know you are working to make the best of a bad situation that you did not cause, and I'm not going to pretend that I don't appreciate your efforts in all of this. On the other hand, several dozen people have already spoken out about the API key requirement, and to put it bluntly every alleged "reason" or "justification" you have offered for it has been soundly demolished, most of them several times over. It simply will not achieve any of the goals that you give as justification, except for those goals that can be achieved through far less intrusive and far less offensive means. I wish you well, but I don't see any point in pretending that I would be a useful contributor to an organization that behaves without reason.
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:56:00 - [312] With freezing the accounts you had no choice - In order to achive the goal you selected (we spoke about this remember...) You could have gone for another goal, but you chose this one (keeping EBANK alive), doing that you where left with no choice. --- In this case, the goal you have chosen, actually leaves you with choices. But for reason that defy logic, you have chosen to rule out all options except one (API key). It has repeatedly been demonstrated here that the goal you are trying to achieve, can not (to it's fullest) be achieved with the chosen method (API key) And alternative methods, that will allow you to achive just as much of the goal (as API key will), has been presented to you. You however refuse to include these. --- No Ray - The two situations are not similar. Not by a long shot. Blackmail, as mentioned, sadly fits the bill well. BIG Lottery
Ray McCormack Kisoken Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.24 17:56:00 - [313] Originally by: Wyehr I wish you well, but I don't see any point in pretending that I would be a useful contributor to an organization that behaves without reason. Just because those reasons don't match your own doesn't mean we are without. There is more to operating as part of a team than wanting only your reasons at the fore. Titan BPC Auction \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Ray McCormack Kisoken Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:02:00 - [314] Originally by: TornSoul It has repeatedly been demonstrated here that the goal you are trying to achieve, can not (to it's fullest) be achieved with the chosen method (API key) Then it will be achieved to it's least. TS, you're aware of how much your opinion and respect means to me, I'm sure others do. So let this be an indication of the conviction I have in supporting this and the other decisions that the Board has made. We will not get everything right, and perhaps this is one of those decisions we'll look back on in the future with some regret. But for now we are united in our belief that this is the best solution possible in the circumstances. Titan BPC Auction \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Frances Victoria	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:09:00 - [315] Two suggestions: * One The one reason for requiring a Limited API key is to check that a customer does not have any alts that have been known to scam/defraud/steal-from EBANK. Is that correct or not? Assuming that is correct, do you have a list of such characters you wish to blacklist? Assuming you do, how about you give that list to a trusted third-party. Customers can then supply their API keys to that same third-party. This person can then compare each customer's alts against your blacklist, and tell you that they are clean. Does this satisfy every requirement you have for wanting your customer's API keys? If not, what else do you need? (Let's drop the issue that this third-party might want paying, for now. If that would be the only reason not to do this, I'm sure suitable compensation could be arranged) (Incidentally, would you care to make this list public. After all, I'm sure we'd all like to avoid doing business with them) * Two How about you carry on as you are. At such as point in the future as you are in a position to offer a full withdrawal, only then do you request an API key, in order to authorise said withdrawal. Now, you might say "But then that means the time taken to achieve a healthy balance would be much longer, as we have to be able to cover potential withdrawals that would never happen". Fair point. But what if every customer came back with a clean API check? You'd be no better off anyway. You wouldn't be able to write off any liabilities. When you are in a position to give me back whatever money of mine you hold, I'll give you my API key so you can check I'm clean.
RAW23	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:09:00 - [316] Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: TornSoul It has repeatedly been demonstrated here that the goal you are trying to achieve, can not (to it's fullest) be achieved with the chosen method (API key) Then it will be achieved to it's least. So you're willing to admit that this won't be a very effective tactic for achieving your stated ends but you are still going to implement it despite the "collateral damage" it will cause in wiping out the account balances of many legitimate customers? In order to recover what will probably be a very limited amount of the isk stolen from the bank (the bank's customers really) you will, yourself, steal more isk from customers who have already suffered a great deal of loss. What will you do if the amount recovered is less than that which is wiped as collateral damage in the process?
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:09:00 - [317] I'm just curious, what is the projected revenue from sales of the api keys, or has this not been discussed yet internally. There is a very active and quite lucrative market for these, as you are probably aware. Full keys are nice yes, but the useful value of a limited key is these days far higher because of the lower entry level of use. If no projections or considerations were made and interest arises, please by all means evemail me for selection and batch quotes.
Ray McCormack Kisoken Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:17:00 - [318] Originally by: Frances Victoria Assuming that is correct, do you have a list of such characters you wish to blacklist? The list of defaulters listed in the OP, plus Mr Horizontal and his horde of alts (mentioned in a previous announcement) along with Anastasia Heron. Originally by: Frances Victoria Does this satisfy every requirement you have for wanting your customer's API keys? If not, what else do you need? No, because that would set a precedent of us requiring third-party intervention for everything we should (ideally) be trusted for, such as loan collateral, ISK in accounts, etc. Not much point in a bank in EVE without trust (and yes, I'm aware of the irony there). Originally by: Frances Victoria At such as point in the future as you are in a position to offer a full withdrawal, only then do you request an API key, in order to authorise said withdrawal. That's just a matter of timing. You could withhold your API Key for the next six months, provide it to us once to keep your account active and change it immediately after that. In another nine months you could do the same, by then we should be closer to having a clearer picture of when full withdrawals will be allowed if they aren't already by then. Titan BPC Auction \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Weltact INVICTUS.	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:18:00 - [319] Does this api thing of yours support api proxies?
Ray McCormack Kisoken Innovations	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:24:00 - [320] Originally by: Weltact Does this api thing of yours support api proxies? No, because a proxy could fake the results. Titan BPC Auction \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Kalrand Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:24:00 - [321] Originally by: iP0D I'm just curious, what is the projected revenue from sales of the api keys, or has this not been discussed yet internally. There is a very active and quite lucrative market for these, as you are probably aware. Full keys are nice yes, but the useful value of a limited key is these days far higher because of the lower entry level of use. If no projections or considerations were made and interest arises, please by all means evemail me for selection and batch quotes. This man who is named after a piece of consumer level personal electronics has something worthwhile to say!
Dzil Caldari Waffle Investment Fund	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:24:00 - [322] That's a fun catch 22. You need information on how many legit accounts you will payout under the new policy before you can offer any promises of withdrawls. Customers with corp alts/supercap holders/whatever other dirty secrets need those ETAs and estimate early withdrawl %s to determine whether it's financially worth transferring the character off the account to recover the isk in a bank balance. Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:37:00 - [323] You know I think sometime people like to argue about anything that is outside the range of normal operation anyway. If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active. If we had said "Post on our forums and use the API Forum Verification Software" which just does a single character check and doesn't store the data. We'd hear how "If it's already verified why do we need to re-verify" If we had said "The ISK is locked until we receive an EVE Mail stating you're active." We'd get people complaining that it will take too long because one person would have to handle all the evemails and that one person would be SO backlogged it could take weeks to get caught up. If we had said "Use a third party auditor, send them you API Key, and they will check to see if any characters are on the black list" we'd hear people say the same thing as they are here. "That's Private info, the Auditor could do x and y etc etc." Each and every one of those things could be called "Strong Arming" and every one of those things has limitations or some sort of discomfort to the customer. It really didn't matter what we suggested first, it would have been meet with LOADS AND LOADS of resistance. My Grandfather was too smart for his own good, Professor, Advance math and physics, but he lacks social interaction. Yet there is one thing he always said "If it's going to hurt no matter what happens, go with the one that will yield the biggest reward." Limited API give EBANK everything it needs without beating around the bush, no matter what we suggested or came up with people would have complained anyway. So the biggest reward should and will be the objective. People have already feed their APIs in, those people who realize the benefit of verified customers are sitting pretty good right now. If you can't get past the need to keep your Characters private, and you have not stolen from EBANK, then I'm sorry, I guess it's a lost cause.. Amarr for Life
Kalrand Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:40:00 - [324] Originally by: SencneS If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active. I think you are quite wrong about this.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:46:00 - [325] Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this. lol no kidding. The "everyone will complain no matter what, so all complaints are equally invalid" argument is stillborn.
RAW23	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:47:00 - [326] Originally by: SencneS You know I think sometime people like to argue about anything that is outside the range of normal operation anyway. If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active. If we had said "Post on our forums and use the API Forum Verification Software" which just does a single character check and doesn't store the data. We'd hear how "If it's already verified why do we need to re-verify" If we had said "The ISK is locked until we receive an EVE Mail stating you're active." We'd get people complaining that it will take too long because one person would have to handle all the evemails and that one person would be SO backlogged it could take weeks to get caught up. If we had said "Use a third party auditor, send them you API Key, and they will check to see if any characters are on the black list" we'd hear people say the same thing as they are here. "That's Private info, the Auditor could do x and y etc etc." Each and every one of those things could be called "Strong Arming" and every one of those things has limitations or some sort of discomfort to the customer. It really didn't matter what we suggested first, it would have been meet with LOADS AND LOADS of resistance. My Grandfather was too smart for his own good, Professor, Advance math and physics, but he lacks social interaction. Yet there is one thing he always said "If it's going to hurt no matter what happens, go with the one that will yield the biggest reward." Limited API give EBANK everything it needs without beating around the bush, no matter what we suggested or came up with people would have complained anyway. So the biggest reward should and will be the objective. People have already feed their APIs in, those people who realize the benefit of verified customers are sitting pretty good right now. If you can't get past the need to keep your Characters private, and you have not stolen from EBANK, then I'm sorry, I guess it's a lost cause.. The problem with this is that whilst some people may have complained a bit with regards to the other options, you have chosen the most intrusive and most complaint-worthy choice. As to your grandfather's little proverb, Professor or not, he has clearly failed to take into account the possibility of different degrees of hurt being balanced against a given reward. Once you factor in the hurt as a variable alongside the reward you will see that this claim can be used to justify any amount of hurt at all. The problem is not JUST the requirement for the api key but also, and more fundamentally, the threat to unilaterally expropriate other people's money if they refuse to do what you say. This is simply blackmail turning to theft if and when the blackmail fails. I accept that you have proposed an alternative to complete wiping of accounts and I strongly support something along these lines and/or the lines suggestede by Mme. Pinkerton. But, for the third or fourth time I'll ask, how does the EBank BoD distinguish technically between taking the contents of people's accounts and scamming those people. I would really like to know the theory behind the distinction. Or do you accept that it is just dressed up theft?
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:51:00 - [327] Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this. Small problem is we'll never know, but given the level of hostility people throw at EBANK, I would have taken a bet that if we had lead with that first it would have been 11 pages of whines and trolls as well. That post I just made wouldn't be that it would be "We could have asked for Limited API, but I'm sure everyone would feel that was too much as well!" You see the problem. I admit 0.10 ISK is not much, but in a crowd of people all hanging out to slam EBANK against the wall, even the littlest pebble of information is all that is needed to warrant a flame suit :) Amarr for Life
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:51:00 - [328] Edited by: Ji Sama on 24/11/2009 18:52:31 Originally by: SetrakDark Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this. lol no kidding. The "everyone will complain no matter what, so all complaints are equally invalid" argument is stillborn. This ^^ Originally by: SencneS Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this. Small problem is we'll never know, but given the level of hostility people throw at EBANK, I would have taken a bet that if we had lead with that first it would have been 11 pages of whines and trolls as well. That post I just made wouldn't be that it would be "We could have asked for Limited API, but I'm sure everyone would feel that was too much as well!" You see the problem. I admit 0.10 ISK is not much, but in a crowd of people all hanging out to slam EBANK against the wall, even the littlest pebble of information is all that is needed to warrant a flame suit :) Yea because we are all in here to see Ebank fail, that would really help us here in the secondary market.. I think you are tired... Step down for today, you did a good job! The best so far, from any ebank staff! Vote Z0D For CSM
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:55:00 - [329] Everyone who disagrees with extremely contentious policies and gets heated over weak or evasive responses is a troll.
Dzil Caldari Waffle Investment Fund	Posted - 2009.11.24 18:56:00 - [330] Originally by: SencneS Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this. Small problem is we'll never know, but given the level of hostility people throw at EBANK, I would have taken a bet that if we had lead with that first it would have been 11 pages of whines and trolls as well. That post I just made wouldn't be that it would be "We could have asked for Limited API, but I'm sure everyone would feel that was too much as well!" You see the problem. I admit 0.10 ISK is not much, but in a crowd of people all hanging out to slam EBANK against the wall, even the littlest pebble of information is all that is needed to warrant a flame suit :) Would it be that difficult to simply offer the choice? .10 isk, or your public API key? I mean hell, .10 ISK times 9000 accounts is 900 isk: I'll finance it. No no, keep your wallets in your pants guys, I got this. Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: 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.