EVE Search - Trading of Kwint Industries Bonds Is Hence Forth Banned.

All Channels

Market Discussions

Trading of Kwint Industries Bonds Is Hence Forth Banned.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.25 06:30:00 - [1] Ok, I'm a little drunk, but I think I can bang out something useful here. You're right. You and EBank have debts with one another, and EBank has reneged on their end while you have not. You are fully justified in exchanging debt in your favor. You're right. If EBank is holding depositors' funds, then it should be recording interest owed. Furthermore, if this is too great a burden, then they should close. However, EBank is not closing. Your stand, however correct and justified, is just more fuel to the fire that is the ongoing EBank scandal. This scandal hurts the entire investment community by poisoning the forum for our interactions. If you believe that you can break EBank on this point or contribute significantly to its closing, then please continue your stand. In my mind, however, this issue represents yet another step back in the process of moving beyond this scandal. It is more fodder for the trolls who would just as happily see you fall as EBank has. It is more heated controversy that harms all efforts to build bigger and better things here. The unfortunate reality is that EBank still wields influence and power. If you cannot break this power through confrontation, then you must bend it through compromise. I doubt anyone would call you a scammer for getting your money out of EBank. However, I believe your stand on interest payments will yield nothing but more ill will and alienation between the community and EBank.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.25 16:24:00 - [2] Originally by: Ray McCormack Clearly. I suggest anyone wanting to take up any meaningful conversation with me do so in private. I'm sick of pandering to the trolling morons on this forum. To tie this little thread off; Kwint, if you want to discuss this further please contact Athre or myself directly. I've spoken with Ray through emails, and he was perfectly reasonable and polite. I think it's really unfortunate that everyone from EBank has basically decided that seriously engaging the community on this forum is a wasted effort. On the other hand, I can see where they're coming from, as even the most benign topic will become a pointless heated debate due to trolling and forum grandstanding. EBank desperately needs a PR officer to act as a mediator between the community and the directors. EBank shapes the discourse on MD as to what is possible and viable, while MD is where future EBank employees and directors will come from. There has to be a productive discourse between MD and EBank or we will end up with the same backroom elitism that caused the initial failure. As an aside, if anyone is crazy enough to apply for PR officer, I have a couple of ideas that I would be happy to share.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.25 16:46:00 - [3] Originally by: Angus McSpork You do realize the irony that ebank staff (Ray in particular) are the ones who engage in the trolling (usually unprovoked), right? The EBank trolling comes after the exasperation in most cases. Read the last 3 announcement threads with an eye to how the tone changes. The "unprovoked" trolling represents the disengagement I refer to, which is a product of the hostile discourse. I'm not defending EBank's inability or unwillingness to separate the valid from the troll, but I "get" it, I empathize.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.25 16:53:00 - [4] Originally by: Robacz Once you promise to pay an interest on your bonds, and fail to provide yourself with any tools to remove this obligation in the IPO, you have to pay this interest no matter what. That's reasonable, but I bet you're in a small minority with this position.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.26 03:53:00 - [5] I don't think anyone is suggesting actual monthly interest payments, just that interest continues to accrue to reflect the continued, forced use of depositors' funds.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.26 04:10:00 - [6] Edited by: SetrakDark on 26/12/2009 04:10:00 Oh, I see. Sorry, too much holiday fun. I think the whole continued interest argument only holds weight as a reason to just fold the whole thing. It's not that it should be paid so much as the fact that EBank can't pay it.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.27 22:02:00 - [7] Originally by: LaVista Vista good post This is good stuff, and I hope people respond respectfully. I think a lot of people don't differentiate between pre-scam EBank and post-scam EBank, and while I disagree, I don't blame them. I think that's where the big disconnect between what you're saying and what Kwint is saying. Despite the internal house-cleaning, for many people EBank remains the same institution that did defraud depositors. I will also add that there were alternatives to the locking of deposits, so I can't agree that EBank had no other choice and that this is the best of possible outcomes.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.27 22:43:00 - [8] Originally by: RAW23 Just saw Setrak's post... I won't disagree. My own view is based on a willingness to forgive the shortcomings of the current situation in an effort to see a quicker and quieter end to this issue. EBank's best option for the outcome they desire is to let time and silence eat away at the tarnish on their reputation and the hole in their books. And while this may be a deplorable outcome, it will remove the shadow that EBank casts over the entire investment community, thereby letting people build new and interesting institutions without the corrosive effect this issue has on almost everything. If I thought calling EBank on all of their shortcomings would make a positive impact I would, but it just keeps the issue festering without swaying EBank from their choices nor moving the issue to a quicker conclusion.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.28 02:32:00 - [9] Just because I've seen it come up a few times: Ray and co. have said unequivocally numerous times that they firmly believe that the liquidation and closing of EBank would be the end. There would be no new bank, perhaps no new community enterprises at all. To them, an admittance of failure on this point would result in irreparable damage to the investment community. Therefore, all the trouble, all the damage, all the grief, and so on is worth weathering to see EBank saved. I fundamentally disagree with this. However, I recognize that to think that I am 100% correct on such a massive and complex issue is ridiculous. I accept that I have approximately the same justification for my belief on the subject as they do theirs. Now, if you believe all this higher institution stuff is garbage, then none of this matters. However, if you are interested in such things, it is worth putting yourself in their shoes and offering input that doesn't fundamentally collide with their viewpoint and tempering your criticism of those issues that result from the different point of view.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.28 04:06:00 - [10] Ok, once I start down the EBank discussion path I invariably trend towards longer and more extensive comments and considerations. Therefore, I'm going to be concise as possible. Originally by: RAW23 My concern, though, is that if EBANK is given an easy ride by the community, we'll have a hard time justifying things next time we object to a unilateral change in terms of service or contractual obligations It is on this point and this point alone where the EBank exception comes in. We're not deciding whether tomorrow EBank should be exiled from MD or thrown a ticker-tape parade. EBank's day of reckoning is 1/2 a year to two years away, if ever. It is at this point that the totality of its actions will be judged and its future decided. The only precedents any of this sets are for other failed institutions that have large amounts of investors' money and who are beholden for little or nothing to the rest of the community. The only sway the community has over an institution is when that institution needs access to investors' funds, and EBank at present isn't looking for any. Any other institution who follows the precedent will be shut-off from investment. EBank isn't an exception because of some privileged position within the community; it is an exception because of the uniqueness of its present circumstance. This turns to the 2nd part of your post Originally by: RAW23 I also worry what kind of actions the current chair will feel able to take if no one attempts to hold EBANK responsible for its actions or, at a minimum, try to extract from them a justification for their actions. It is on these points that people need to make their stands. Issues that involve current and permanent losses of depositors' funds are the ones that matter right now. The fact that EBank doesn't feel that it can come here to explain its decisions satisfactorily and get constructive feedback on policy is unfortunate for everyone. I in no way condone EBank's behavior in MD, and especially not Ray's. However, I can identify with the frustration and exasperation when faced with thread after thread of messy debate mixed with trolling and grandstanding. A PR Officer needs to step-up and arrange for a more controlled and moderated forum for these discussions, as well as things like round tables, etc. Until that time though, we can pick our battles more judiciously and make some impact, as opposed to crapping down their necks at every opportunity and get stonewalled in turn.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.29 00:30:00 - [11] Holding the excess sets a confusing and harmful precedent. I understand the motivation, but I think the example set will be abused.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.29 02:00:00 - [12] Originally by: Kwint Sommer Regarding that, there are five justifications all with their own merits. I consider the the narrower third, fourth and fifth to be the most relevant... First thing, I wouldn't consider it as collateral because it wasn't collateral. This isn't a big deal, but I think it muddies the issue unnecessarily. Moving on, I think there are 3 ways you can and are justifying it. 1) Damages I have absolutely no problem with this. If you can catalogue and reasonably justify costs resulting from the default, then you should be able to recoup them. 2) Loss of all contractual obligations owed by you due to default against you My issue with this is where people will draw the line. Under this precedent, I could renege on 100b owed to you because you were 1 day late in repaying the 1 ISK you owed me. It is far too dangerous a precedent in my mind. 3) Loss of all contractual obligations owed by you due to default against others This, in my mind, is the most dangerous issue. Once we start down the path of enforcing agreements between other parties we open the possibility of a huge cascade of punitive contract breaking based the disputes of others. I am not trying to "call you out" here, and I know your intentions are good. However, I would consider the greater impact of this action, as I strongly believe that it will cause more harm than good.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.29 05:00:00 - [13] Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 post Calling Raw a troll is ridiculous. The rest is just the exact non-substantive issue-avoidance he's talking about. EBank fails time and again to satisfactorily explain their positions. However, instead of saying they don't have the time, inclination, ability, etc, they turn on those asking the questions with weak and logically-fallacious arguments. From now on, when EBank can't or doesn't want to follow the thread of a valid debate, they should just stop. Stating your position, acknowledging your disagreements, and refusing to continue is a perfectly reasonable course of action. Instead EBank retreats into textbook logical fallacies and name-calling.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.29 05:22:00 - [14] Ya, and like I've said numerous times this week, I get it. This is probably one of the worst mediums for productive debate. MD is good for casual discussions, but the subjects that some people get into here are too extensive. I would like to see people with serious and well-presented concerns get invited to closed-access publicly-viewable threads on the EBank forums where the appropriate directors can address the issue in a non-hostile environment and in their own time.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.29 13:09:00 - [15] Once again, I get where Ray is coming from...or at least I think I do. Moving the forum warrioring to another venue and limiting the participants won't stop the tiresome threadnaughts. I think Ray pictures page-long diatribes with "lofty" arguments and nauseating "huzzah!" rhetorical back-and-forths. I sympathize. I picture someone doing most of the work on the MD forum: summarizing the issues involved, presenting the divergent arguments, analyzing the situation, and then presenting some core comments or questions that EBank can respond to. All the messy point-by-point rehashing can be done here with input from other interested members of MD. When a subject has been suitably presented for a response, then it gets moved to the EBank forums and becomes a productive dialogue. If all the forum warriors here can't get at the crux of a disagreement and create something satisfactory for you to respond to with reasonable amount of time, effort, and patience, then it all just is 5-minutes-of-efame grandstanding. The other productive alternative is just to stop responding altogether. Just boycott EBank related subjects after official announcements. I know my only concerns come from EBank attempts to defend policy decisions. I would be happy to get my two cents in after an announcement, and then let the results speak for themselves whichever way they do. Or we can continue with the status-quo...
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2009.12.29 14:43:00 - [16] Originally by: Dretzle Omega Would it make sense to appoint an arbitrator that EBank staff and MD community could respect to quiet the flames, analyze and summarize points, and so forth? I envisaged the "arbitrators" as being "self-appointed" yet confirmed through the quality of their work. If someone can summarize and present an issue in a way that satisfies a critical number of those who are interested, then he gets to present and argue that viewpoint. The idea is to encourage people to bring thoughtful and broadly-representative arguments to the table.

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.