|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
   |
Posted - 2010.06.07 00:02:00 -
[1]
Heh I'll start this one of.
I'm fairly sure I'll ruffle a few feathers with my opinion as well.
But each to his - Right?
-----
I don't wan't to touch on the specifics of liquidation or not as such.
As I simply don't have the data of the time to determine whether trying to recover was a realistic goal or not.
However, what I wan't to touch on is the fact that once it *was* decided to try and recover, is the decision of freezing accounts.
I for one support that move.
The sole reason being, that that would be the best way of securing enough working capital to *do* a recovery.
Mind you, I'm not addressing the issue of a hybrid solution that later have been brought up (i.e. liquidating some accounts on a first-come-first-serve basis or whatever, using a given percentage of working capital for that purpose).
Please keep that in mind.
I'm purely addressing the issue of freezing the accounts in the first place, after the decision to try and recover was made.
Took guts imo.
/puts on the asbestos suit 
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 10:15:00 -
[2]
Edited by: TornSoul on 07/06/2010 10:23:21
I think you put a bit more into my words than they where intended as (i.e. drawing up the lines a wee bit harder than I did)
But fair enough - I kind of expected that
And it makes for an interesting argument.
---
Let me try and see if I can explain my position a bit better in this particular regard:
(Hypothetical stuff and numbers pulled out of ass below)
EBANK gives a estimate for when they will be solvent again.
Say 2 years.
Player A then says, give me my ISK *now* - I most likely won't even be *playing* EVE by that time.
Perfectly understandable reaction, that I can't fault.
Now EBANK has to think - Do I wan't to please this player (and others like him), but by doing so, making it harder/impossible to try and get the ISK back to those (player B's) that *are* going to be around in 2 years time.
In 2 years time EBANK will wan't to have some happy Player B types, as they are potential clients at that time.
Player A types - Not so. They're gone.
In 2 years time, who cares about Player A types? They're gone.
Right here and now they *do* matter of course (public opinion and what not) - But *not* in 2 years time.
So from a business point of view EBANK should rather cater to player B types than Player A types.
This does indeed involve "ignoring" Player A types, or at least not abiding them 100% (with a liquidation here and now).
A morally sound view-point?
What are the alternatives?
Doing a liquidation, and then p.issing of all those that *do* want to wait and get *all* their ISK back (and by virtue of being the ones wanting to wait for it - being the potential future clients as well)
EBANK will p.iss of a bunch of people regardless which option they choose.
And either option can be argued as being morally wrong.
So - Left with two (for EBANK) equally impossible ways of satisfying everyone - The sound choice is to pick the one that offers the best chance of pleasing future clients (as the intention is to recover EBANK).
And that's the one "ignoring" the liquidating demand people.
Which by far belongs to the Player A type (yes there will be exceptions, there always is)
I hope that better explains my position.
(And no - The above can not be extrapolated to how I think CCP should run their business - or if Player A types and Player B types should be treated differently in general. My point are made with regards to this particular situation and that one only.)
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 10:42:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: SetrakDark
Edited by: SetrakDark on 07/06/2010 10:34:28
Really? You think a bank that runs on a deposit model will be better served by burning their short-term player customers who make up 2/3 of their depositors (edit:deposits)?
No I don't.
As my "disclaimer" said - It's with regards to this *particular* situation and not a bank running as it should.
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 11:11:00 -
[4]
Originally by: RAW23
Liquidating the less good assets to allow people that want to take their money out to do so leaves those who want to stay in with the best assets and makes the recovery faster for those people. As far as I know, no case has been made to explain how the B's would be disadvantaged by letting the A's out.
Agreed.
I made my point with regards to the situation EBANK found them self in at the time of freezing the accounts.
AFAIK at the time this "hybrid solution" (as I refer to it) wasn't "invented"/thought of.
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: TS
In 2 years time EBANK will wan't to have some happy Player B types, as they are potential clients at that time.
Player A types - Not so. They're gone.
In 2 years time, who cares about Player A types? They're gone.
Right here and now they *do* matter of course (public opinion and what not) - But *not* in 2 years time.
So from a business point of view EBANK should rather cater to player B types than Player A types.
This is the bit that really worries me though. You're saying that EBANK can legitimately act against their creditors interests if it will help their own business operations at some point in the future. The principle you seem to be applying is that the test for judging their actions should be maximum self-interest. It doesn't matter if their course of action means a lot of people will lose all their money so long as it provides the bank with some happy future customers. Now, I do understand that you are saying this test should only apply as a tie-breaker, as it were, in the case of having to choose between two options, either of which would be against the interests of one of the two groups. But this makes the assumption that the harms to each group are roughly equal. Personally, I think the harm to group A (losing all their money) is greater than the harm that would accrue to group B in the event of total liquidation (losing 2/3 of their money).
As a tiebreaker only yes.
Where exactly that tie-breaker actually falls - depends on ones view of the balance between group A and group B people.
EBANK really is the only people with the data (of accounts) to make an *educated* guess at that (can never be more than a guess. But the rest of us are only guessing, we don't have the raw account data to make an *educated* guess)
"You're saying that EBANK can legitimately act against their creditors interests if it will help their own business operations at some point in the future."
No - Not as a general rule. Never. You should know me better than that.
But given two options that each would act against parts of their creditors (and assuming it's estimated each is about equal), then - only then.
- and FWIW I'm also looking forward to the actual actuation of the "hybrid plan" (whatever version), as that will hopefully soothe/help some of the type A players.
I'm *not* saying "to hell with type A players" as a *general rule* (as several here seems to mis-read me as saying)
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 11:59:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Leneerra
Looking at your explenation TS I have one question for you,
How would you rate the importance of a customer that will be around in 2 years time and still wants his/hers isk's (well whatever is left of them) back now?
You are then one of the exceptions I referred to.
Sadly, as an exception, you would rate rather low (Compared to all the rest - They would weigh in heavier imo).
It's of course up for debate if you *are* indeed an exception.
But I think you are. Just my opinion of course (which is pure guesswork without the raw data from EBANK)
Originally by: Leneerra
However ebank has repeatedly broken promises made by their own ceo and or spokesperson ever since this theft occurred.
They have repeatedly treated their customers rudely and kept them ill informed (I Know their customers were rude to them too, but that is no excuse).
They have not been able to meet even a single deadline they set themselves, nor posted about those delays before those deadlines were long past due.
Agreed.
(Not sure about *every* deadline - I haven't followed it *that* closely - I'll take your word for it however until proven otherwise)
Originally by: RAW23
@TS As you note, one of the major problems is the information void we are speculating in.
<snip>
I think many possible complaints could be resolved by publicly stating the precise rationales for the actions EBANK is taking.
<snip>
what is needed is a full explanation of exactly how the current approach is best for creditors, not just a statement that it is.
<snip>
If a statement is made making clear that the creditors are the over-riding priority and that all other considerations will be taken as secondary to the creditors interests, followed by an explanation of how the current plans are in their best interests, then discussion can move away from the questions of moral/ethical right and on to the question of whether the current plans do provide the best possible way to serve the creditors. That is, we can move from morality to practicality.
Agreed.
---
And in general EBANK needs to work on their communication...
Both the what and the how of it...
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:16:00 -
[6]
Ah but that raises another interesting question.
Which is perfect for this "morality" thread.
2 creditors vote.
Creditor A has 100 times more ISK in EBANK than Creditor B.
Are their votes equal - or should it be weighed proportional to their accounts?
I'm honestly torn on this one myself.
And.. It might come down to "What is the particular vote about"... or something...
BIG Lottery |
|
|
| |
|