| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Shamis Orzoz
   |
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:13:00 -
[1]
Reimbursing people for their losses to an IPO scam is beyond lame.
You just lost most of the respect I had left for you. And I'm sure many of the other people in the eve community that enjoy the harsh realities of EVE feel the same way.
Shamis
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:14:00 -
[2]
Edited by: HippoKing on 13/06/2006 21:15:45
That should not have happened.
Linkage?
edit: i found it here
|
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:21:00 -
[3]
Selective reimbursment 4tw? Guess a dev or GM got scammed on his/her player char.
-----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:21:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Marcus Aurelius on 13/06/2006 21:21:11
It would seem this signals a new extension of the CCP "if posted on forums it's not allowed to scam" - policy.
Wonder what'll happen with the next new scam to work via the forums.
|
Meeko Gloom
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:21:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: HippoKing
Edited by: HippoKing on 13/06/2006 21:15:45
That should not have happened.
Linkage?
edit: i found it here
Hippoking to the rescue
--------------------------
Guns dont Kill People
Drones Do |
fairimear
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:24:00 -
[6]
well thats just freaking rong.
|
Hey You
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:24:00 -
[7]
I agree. Reimbursing for a scam, which was by game mechanics, is horribly lame, and not cool.
------------------------------
|
Emno
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:25:00 -
[8]
eve losing what makes it eve ftl 
|
Laura Esh
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:26:00 -
[9]
Weak, if true.
|
Toshiro Khan
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Hey You
I agree. Reimbursing for a scam, which was by game mechanics, is horribly lame, and not cool.
/agree, but this scam wasn't by game mechanics.. it was by forum mechanics which is something different.
|
|
|
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:36:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Emno
eve losing what makes it eve ftl
That is exactly it.
This is... Well, it is pathetic.
--------
|
Pepperami
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:39:00 -
[12]
lol, well then if this is being reimbursed then corp thieves who got recruited via the official forums need to have what they stolen reimbursed.
What a bad bad decision call by the GMs 
[Art of War][- V -] |
Amaarth
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:39:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Amaarth on 13/06/2006 21:39:12
Reimburse every corporate theft, every IPO scam, ANY scam for the last 3 years, now. or don't reimburse ANY! :@
|
Hey You
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Toshiro Khan
Originally by: Hey You
I agree. Reimbursing for a scam, which was by game mechanics, is horribly lame, and not cool.
/agree, but this scam wasn't by game mechanics.. it was by forum mechanics which is something different.
These people weren't smart. They lost their ISK because of, IMHO, stupidity. It's happened before, the difference now? More people got scammed then before, and CCP got more complaints, and they caved in. I don't see ANY other explantion for this.
------------------------------
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:42:00 -
[15]
It might just be that it's a new GM who is used to the way it works in other mmo:s and therefore didn't even consider to not refund.
If not it's a bit weird...
|
Peachy Peachpants
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:44:00 -
[16]
That's just weak. People set up traps on the sell forums too. Reimburse everyone who goes into low sec to buy that uber cheap officer mod? Reimburse every corp theft and escrow scam? Weee, welcome to sandbox-online, where the carebear-hotline is active 24/7 to compensate for all your stupidity. Nice job CCP.
|
Laura Esh
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:45:00 -
[17]
I sincerely doubt a large and 'publicity-potential' scam would've been handled by a new GM.
I think it's a silly attempt to make up for a lack of game mechanics involving shares.
|
Lori Carlyle
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:46:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Hey You
Originally by: Toshiro Khan
Originally by: Hey You
I agree. Reimbursing for a scam, which was by game mechanics, is horribly lame, and not cool.
/agree, but this scam wasn't by game mechanics.. it was by forum mechanics which is something different.
These people weren't smart. They lost their ISK because of, IMHO, stupidity. It's happened before, the difference now? More people got scammed then before, and CCP got more complaints, and they caved in. I don't see ANY other explantion for this.
Agreed.. I think CCP have been playing the black and white 2 EXP too much.
PINK PINK PINK PINK PINK ERISGREEN
|
Hey You
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:52:00 -
[19]
I'm posting alot, but it's because this gets to me so much, so yeah.
I'm honestly wondering if it's just a matter of how many people complain determines whether CCP does anything. Are we going to be seeing no escrow scams next, because what you put on escrow is automatically named that? Insurances on items? Sigh.
------------------------------
|
Tristan Acoma
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:52:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Tristan Acoma on 13/06/2006 21:54:49
Preface: CCP as a whole are a great group of designers - I have great respect for them and a majority of their decisions on things like this. They also have a stated policy that they won't discuss the results of a petition..... for good or ill.
That said:
I agree with OP - ffs, since when is "social engineering" a forum mechanic?
*edit*
I know it's the stated rules of the forum that auctions cannot be violated, but it should probably be clearly stated (if it is I'll shaddup ;) ) that -promoting- a business plan that results in a scam falls under this too. But then what happens when the people in the plan inevitably promote it on the forums? Surely a line needs to be drawn here - you may hate scams of this nature, you may love it, but in either case they add to the "wild" feeling in EVE.... to have good you must also have evil - yin and yang :)
At the same time, is not lying about an auction, pocketing the money and running -not- more or less the same thing (even if the people investing money were way too trusting)?
What we need is a real market, not the escrow system!
I know we'll not get any answers to why they refunded the money, and that lack of transparency is really where my personal lack of willingness to trust them on this comes from - once again, I respect most of their decisions, but they do not enable any form of trust from me or most of the gamers I know.
Doing things like that is a very slippery slope - too much GM interference in a "free will" world/economy and there will be no incentve for player driven content (read: drama!) - and the impact from that will far outweigh the impact from a few upset investors/corps.
I sure hope they know what they're doing.
|
|
|
Marnix
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:54:00 -
[21]
Pathetic.
Alt to avoid main bannage.
|
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:59:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Toshiro Khan
Originally by: Hey You
I agree. Reimbursing for a scam, which was by game mechanics, is horribly lame, and not cool.
/agree, but this scam wasn't by game mechanics.. it was by forum mechanics which is something different.
Not by game mechanics...lol.... welcome to eve. Hardly anything here goes by game mechanics.
If anything the forums makes it harder to scam, since you can actually talk with other people right there in the topic and you can go over the IPO a hundred times before sending money.
-----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Max Teranous
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 21:59:00 -
[23]
I have already said my piece in the first thread, this opens a giant pandoras box. Since when was scamming in eve against the rules?
I like eve because your actions matter, to yourself and others. If people give money to the wrong person who socially engineered the situation, it's their fault and not for CCP to pass it all back.
Max 
|
Emperor ChopSuey
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 22:00:00 -
[24]
Protecting/reimbursing the stupid people selectively is wrong.
They did something dumb and should have to live with it.
|
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 22:03:00 -
[25]
Does this mean that Ubiqua Seraph will be getting their stuff back?
Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori |
Bosie
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 22:03:00 -
[26]
Guess there goes more of the risk in Eve.
Sad day indeed.
Bosie.
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word,
which means more to me than any other.
That word is ENGLAND."
...Winston |
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 22:05:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Does this mean that Ubiqua Seraph will be getting their stuff back?
Nope because according to CCP and DS not recruiting any members is an excelent way of preventing corp theft. 
Though since members are recuited through forums, wouldnt this exclude them from robbing the corp, since the forums where used as the main tool?
-----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Menkaure
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 22:05:00 -
[28]
I actually agree with this reimbursement - although I didn't take part in the IPO. I'll leave Dark Shikari to explain why though, because I aint so good with words.
Really, *really* wanna see CCP's reasoning for this and explanations and stuff.
Where are they when you need them?
|
Hey You
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 22:06:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Does this mean that Ubiqua Seraph will be getting their stuff back?
Nope because according to CCP and DS not recruiting any members is an excelent way of preventing corp theft.
Though since members are recuited through forums, wouldnt this exclude them from robbing the corp, since the forums where used as the main tool?
Just wait. CCP hasn't got enough complaints yet.
------------------------------
|
Feterous Jolin
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 22:06:00 -
[30]
I agree that if CCP is going to do this, for this scam, then any corp who has been robbed and any player who has been scammed in the past 3 years deserves to be compensated as well. This was in poor taste CCP. It saddens me that this would be done, for any one or any reason.
--
My views do not represent my corporation nor my alliance. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |