| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
RAW23
   |
Posted - 2010.09.06 17:53:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: cosmo
The only 2 proposals left on the table are to pay everyone out at a percentage of account value equivalent to capital base, or verify accounts and then payout.
...
I personally think it is now better to go through account verfication. This means those players still in the game get the money rather than scammers, old BOD ALTS, or people out of the game.
I must have missed the post where they accepted either of these two options. Could you direct me to it please? As far as IÆm aware, they still have no intention of liquidating the business. If they did, then this plan might have some merit from a purely practical perspective. However, since they intend to keep the bank going and return it to profitability this action will have absolutely NO benefit for those account holders still in the game, as opposed to the alternative option of moving non-verified accounts off the books and keeping them on a separate suspense account ledger (as suggested by Mme Pinkerton nearly a year ago). Return to the black will still happen at exactly the same time. The only difference will be that they will refuse to pay out to anyone who returns to the game in more than three months time. If they return the bank to profitability then the only beneficiaries of writing off these accounts will be the owners of the bank. To reiterate: this will NOT speed up the recovery or increase the payouts in any way that would not also be effected by the suspense ledger approach.
Quote:
If players are still unwilling to verify their accounts they are writing off their account value and that is their choice.
This is entirely specious reasoning. If you refuse to pay a ransom to hostage takers this does not shift the responsibility for the well-being of the hostages away from them and on to you. However, with BLEEP finally implemented this is less of an issue. The issue is not so much with those who still refuse to verify their accounts as with those who will not be in the game for the three month window they have set. RayÆs response above about people having had a year to verify their accounts is also bull, as he well knows. Anyone who has been waiting for BLEEP has only just begun to have this opportunity
Originally by: cosmoray
After a year most posts are still aimed at the EBANK BOD as a bunch of scammers/idiots/incompotent/....../etc.
The fact that time has passed makes no difference. I was unaware that there was a statute of limitations on scamming. How long does Bobby have to wait before we canÆt call him a thief anymore. If it was theft when it was first suggested, then it is still theft.
Quote:
I haven't seen any decent proposals in months, the only 1 being the use of BLEEP KEY, and this has been implemented.
There have actually been quite a few suggestions. Some were even taken up by the board, such as liquidation of (some) of the poorly performing assets. However, whatÆs the point engaging with them when nothing they say can be taken at face value. This particular plan was previously set aside in favour of the suspense account approach, as far as I recall (might withdraw this comment if I canÆt find the link). It has now been reinstituted without any attempt at public consultation. Promises have repeatedly been made and deadlines set. They have almost universally been broken. What, for instance, happened to the plan to allow depositors to nominate the Chair? We never heard about that sop to public opinion again. So, there is simply no point engaging with them anymore. Time to call a spade something other than a manually operated ditch digging implement.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 18:17:00 -
[32]
From various unofficial comments by ray and ac155, I am under the impression that this is in preparation for closing the bank down; I doubt they will confirm or deny this at this point.
If this is part of the final closure, then I have no problems with them using verified accounts. Honestly, similar to Cosmo, as long as somebody gets some money out of this before every depositor leaves the game, I'll be happy.
However, if they intend to stay open, then I'll unleash my usual bile and vitriol.
|
Business Classy
Business Class Investments
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 18:18:00 -
[33]
Just getting in on an early page, I never do manage to get into these 'naughts ahead of the game...
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 18:22:00 -
[34]
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2010 18:25:16
Originally by: SetrakDark
From various unofficial comments by ray and ac155, I am under the impression that this is in preparation for closing the bank down; I doubt they will confirm or deny this at this point.
If this is part of the final closure, then I have no problems with them using verified accounts. Honestly, similar to Cosmo, as long as somebody gets some money out of this before every depositor leaves the game, I'll be happy.
However, if they intend to stay open, then I'll unleash my usual bile and vitriol.
Well, if that's the case I'll throw them a party in Jita (cheap domestic sparkling wine only, though, I'm afraid; and I'm from England so that's more a threat than a promise). If they are going to shut up shop then this does need to be done as a suspense ledger would be meaningless without an institution to hold it. But if not ... not. |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 20:22:00 -
[35]
Linkage 31st of December 2009
Originally by: Ray
Originally by: RAW23
But since the possibility of zeroing these accounts is still, apparently, on the table, can you explain how it differs from theft.
It's no longer on the table. We'll never write off account balances for inactivity or failure to provide an API key. As you state, we're finalising the entire policy surrounding Suspense Accounts, but that much I can guarantee now.
|
Helen Hunts
Gallente
Red Dragon Mining inc
Red Dragon Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 20:44:00 -
[36]
Ray, On the EBank site, you might want to eyeball those links in the announcement. Copy-paste from the EVE forum posts leaves in little redirects.
_______________________________
Mine da rocks, make more ships.
Pop da rats, make more rigs.
Sell da gear, make more money.
Any Questions? |
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 20:57:00 -
[37]
Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2010 20:32:17
Linkage 31st of December 2009
Originally by: Ray
Originally by: RAW23
But since the possibility of zeroing these accounts is still, apparently, on the table, can you explain how it differs from theft.
It's no longer on the table. We'll never write off account balances for inactivity or failure to provide an API key. As you state, we're finalising the entire policy surrounding Suspense Accounts, but that much I can guarantee now.
Congrats, you've caught Ray lieing as usual. What will this change? Nothing at all. Why? Because Ray (and the EBank staff) consider themselves above everyone else in EVE.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 21:07:00 -
[38]
You guys really should wait until the 19th to get a solid answer. 
Speculate all you like, but the only real answers will come on the 19th.
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 21:09:00 -
[39]
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2010 21:10:35
Originally by: SencneS
You guys really should wait until the 19th to get a solid answer.
Speculate all you like, but the only real answers will come on the 19th.
So, we should make a note in our diaries for sometime next year? Or do you actually intend to stick to this deadline?
Edit - As to real answers, whatever you post will be valueless as there is no way it can be trusted. There will be no real answers until you DO something.
|
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 21:11:00 -
[40]
Originally by: SencneS
You guys really should wait until the 19th to get a solid answer.
Speculate all you like, but the only real answers will come on the 19th.
The 19th of when? 2019??? Seriously. None of the EBank staff has held to a deadline. Why in the hell would we believe you now?
|
EBANK SencneS
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 21:20:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
A subsequent announcement will be made on the 19th of Septemeber.
Confirming an announcement will be made on the 19th of September, 2010.
Is this official enough for you? Remember what I say I mean, and this is my EBANK character, so you don't get confused about the intentions of this particular post.
SencneS
Board of Directors EBANK |
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 21:25:00 -
[42]
Originally by: EBANK SencneS
Originally by: Ray McCormack
A subsequent announcement will be made on the 19th of Septemeber.
Confirming an announcement will be made on the 19th of September, 2010.
Is this official enough for you? Remember what I say I mean, and this is my EBANK character, so you don't get confused about the intentions of this particular post.
You have until 23:59:59 September 19th to make the announcement.
After that it's pitchforks, torches, and being listed as liars again.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 22:52:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Breaker77
You have until 23:59:59 September 19th to make the announcement.
Well that happen to be a 25 hour spread of passing time so I'm going to use.... GMT -12 International Dateline West as the Timezone. 
Amarr for Life |
Amaarrah
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 21:09:00 -
[44]
Ray.
You have asked this before. You did recieve my limited API key. No problem. My patience has been showed for over 1 year, but...
Please explain why you need it AGAIN.
Now, I assume the limited API key I provided is not sufficient. Why? Can third parties abuse it or what?
p.s. Your style of addressing your clients leave room for improvement as well an explanation for the why.
|
Shazwa
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 21:38:00 -
[45]
yeah you owe me 1bil when I log into ebank it says zero, my patience is running out will even accept 500m but you guys are taking the mic!
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 01:42:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 12/09/2010 01:42:34
I think zero-ing out based on inactivity is acceptable if, and only if, you simultaneously provide a cash-out/liquidation option for current shareholders/depositors.
Zeroing people out is a big deal (assuming you care about scamming/honoring your commitments).
I think you can justify it as part of a workout/reorg that involves permitting anyone who wants out to get out, and those who do not respond get zero'd out.
Otherwise, its just theft.
My 2 cents. YMMV.
|
foxische
Caldari
Stone Circle
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 08:49:00 -
[47]
already added my limited key a year ago, shall I renew it or just do nothing ?
[Service]Personal standing increase (UNIQUE!) + Setting a corporation
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 09:21:00 -
[48]
Originally by: foxische
already added my limited key a year ago, shall I renew it or just do nothing ?
Just do nothing, your account is validated if you have already supplied your key.
|
Netherfiend
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 16:46:00 -
[49]
Could you add that to the website ?
Something like : Your API key Status: verfied / not verfied
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 17:16:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Netherfiend
Something like : Your API key Status: verfied / not verfied
If you can see your accounts you are verified, if you can't you are not (and will only see the profile page).
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 17:26:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23
If you don't consider this to be outright theft, please explain why not.
A year and some is not enough time to verify you want your ISK?
When the original agreement is open ended, and you reduce it, yes. Its absolutely a scam at this point.
You should be ashamed of yourself and your parents are.
When you say "fanboi" try to picture a fat man doing burlesque with 2 big ass fans that say CCP on one and HTFU on the other. Because that dude is me. |
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 18:12:00 -
[52]
Looks like another EBank investment went bad
It's a good strat to become solvent. Simply make ppl jump through hoops in order to maybe sort of have a chance of getting their isk back. Then put a time-limit on it, and then ban them from selling out their account to another.
You guys do realize that this is just stealing after a while, no? Maybe you should force them to give you their credit card info and billing address.
-GV
|
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 18:19:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 12/09/2010 18:23:34
Originally by: cosmoray
After a year most posts are still aimed at the EBANK BOD as a bunch of scammers/idiots/incompotent/....../etc.
Maybe because... everything they do looks strikingly similar to scamming?
Originally by: cosmoray
I haven't seen any decent proposals in months, the only 1 being the use of BLEEP KEY, and this has been implemented.
Liquidate the bank and give everytone their current valued isk without API verification. Giving scammers or inactive players some isk is a far better choice than stealing the isk from players that you promised it would be there for.
Originally by: cosmoray
The only 2 proposals left on the table are to pay everyone out at a percentage of account value equivalent to capital base, or verify accounts and then payout.
I personally think it is now better to go through account verfication. This means those players still in the game get the money rather than scammers, old BOD ALTS, or people out of the game.
If players are still unwilling to verify their accounts they are writing off their account value and that is their choice.
If Person A puts a gun to Person B's head and tells you to empty their savings and give them all of their money and Person B does it. Oh well, it was Person B's choice? You do realize how ridiculous that statement is, no?
-GV
|
Netherfiend
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 09:13:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Netherfiend on 16/09/2010 09:13:02
If the bank becomes Solvent due to writing of an large sum of isk from unverfied accounts, will you allow withdrawes from verfied accounts without restrictions ?
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 14:38:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
If Person A puts a gun to Person B's head and tells you to empty their savings and give them all of their money and Person B does it. Oh well, it was Person B's choice? You do realize how ridiculous that statement is...
Sure if that was the case... In reality it's more like...
Person B gives Person A some money, Person B walks away. Person A does everything in their power to contact Person B, Person B is not found, Person A sends out notices, fliers, and announces it on a public stage where they meet Person B. Person A gives Person B over a years to come forth, Person B still doesn't show up. Person A WANTS to give Person B the money but Person B is unreachable, and hasn't come forth, or doesn't want the money back, or wants to contribute in a contribution to a bailout effort..
While you can attempt to criminalize the actions by obviously missing the effort, it's just not a nice thing to do..
Good day sir, have a wonderful life viewing everyones actions as criminal, as sad as that appears to me.
Amarr for Life |
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 16:10:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 16/09/2010 16:12:36
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
The truth
Person B gives Person A some money because Person A promises to return that money at any time, with interest, Person B walks away. Person A does everything in their power to contact Person B, Person B is not found, Person A sends out notices, fliers, and announces it on a public stage where they met Person B. Person A gives Person B over a years to come forth, and requires that person B give them extra information not previously required, Person B still doesn't show up. Person A WANTS to give Person B the money and Person B is completely reachable because they know the Person BÆs name and their exact mailing address in order to give them their money back.
I fixed it for you. You can easily send them their isk back back by clicking give money with the character name, which you have.
Originally by: SencneS
While you can attempt to criminalize the actions by obviously missing the effort, it's just not a nice thing to do..
Good day sir, have a wonderful life viewing everyones actions as criminal, as sad as that appears to me.
Just because you are trying to do the right thing, doesnÆt make it A) the right thing or B) righteous. A simple breakdown of what you are doing is blackmailing depositors into giving you information about their accounts in order to receive a small portion of their isk back (after you take out fees of course). If they do not give you this information, you will simply void their account.
The simple truth is that you made a promise to depositors to be a steward of their money, which you failed miserably at, and now you are simply writing off these promises in order to make yourselves think you somehow saved EBank. I think it is your version of reality that is quite suspect, sir.
Furthermore, you do see the irony in you accusing me of viewing everyoneÆs actions are criminal when you make the assumption that anyone that has given you isk to hold in deposits is a scammer unless they prove otherwise? Lol.
-GV
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 16:18:00 -
[57]
poaned
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 16:29:00 -
[58]
Originally by: SetrakDark
poaned
Haha, yeah, in yo face! Oh wait...
|
Belloche
Caldari
Heaven's Avatars
Without Remorse.
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 17:16:00 -
[59]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
If Person A puts a gun to Person B's head and tells you to empty their savings and give them all of their money and Person B does it. Oh well, it was Person B's choice? You do realize how ridiculous that statement is...
Sure if that was the case... In reality it's more like...
Person B gives Person A some money, Person B walks away. Person A does everything in their power to contact Person B, Person B is not found, Person A sends out notices, fliers, and announces it on a public stage where they meet Person B. Person A gives Person B over a years to come forth, Person B still doesn't show up. Person A WANTS to give Person B the money but Person B is unreachable, and hasn't come forth, or doesn't want the money back, or wants to contribute in a contribution to a bailout effort..
While you can attempt to criminalize the actions by obviously missing the effort, it's just not a nice thing to do..
Good day sir, have a wonderful life viewing everyones actions as criminal, as sad as that appears to me.
Why cant you just right click the persons name and select give isk? Is that just too hard? Even if they are not playing, you can still give them their isk. So your attempts to reach them mean NOTHING. If person A wants to give the isk back person A simply GIVES the isk back. CCP never deletes any characters from the game unless they have been biomassed and even then their contract history still exists. I could see a case for where "we tried to give isk to xxxx but the character does not exist" but anything less then that the game has a mechanic for.
Players are losing faith and loyalty in CCP due previous expansions not living up to player expectations. The CSM and CCP agreed that expectation management can be improved |
Steve Thomas
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 18:43:00 -
[60]
Ray I hate to say it but you guys probably would have had a lot more respect from the rest of the playerbase if you had just said "were pocketing the money, so long and thanks for all the fish!" instead of draging this out this long.
honestly right now you guys come acrost as some of the lamest scam artists in EVE history.
seriously you wait a year for most of your account holders to cancle accounts and try to guess when the low period of subscribers is so thoes who simply left on vacation cant get there money or whatever from you?
lame.
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
a (Long) Guide to Pi
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |