| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
|
kieron
   |
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:25:00 -
[1]
There has been a lot of discussion about the recent IPO scam, what happened, and how the GM team responded to the number of petitions that resulted from the reimbursement. Suffice it to say, there has been some internal discussion as well.
Instead of posting to one of the threads about the incident and having the community go through a number of pages looking for a Dev post, I'm starting this thread. I apologize for not offering more than "We are discussing this", but at this time, that is all I can offer. I did want to pass along that CCP is aware of the community unrest and is not ignoring the situation.
Please keep replies to this thread polite and constructive.
kieron
Community Manager,
EVE Online |
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:26:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Avon on 14/06/2006 18:26:53
/me looks at his watch...
Go!
Seriously though, let's hope the masses of other discussions can get summed up nicely here.
My thoughts?
The GM's dropped the ball badly here.
(Risk vs Reward) - Risk = ?
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:26:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Sir Juri on 14/06/2006 18:31:47
 Originally by: kieron
There has been a lot of discussion about the recent IPO scam, what happened, and how the GM team responded to the number of petitions that resulted from the reimbursement. Suffice it to say, there has been some internal discussion as well.
Instead of posting to one of the threads about the incident and having the community go through a number of pages looking for a Dev post, I'm starting this thread. I apologize for not offering more than "We are discussing this", but at this time, that is all I can offer. I did want to pass along that CCP is aware of the community unrest and is not ignoring the situation.
Please keep replies to this thread polite and constructive.
thanks for the post.
damn to late... (yeah hippo constructive for the lame.)
Anyway as covered in other threads, most views has been put forward. I hope you read into everything that has been talked about in the other threads. Cause I hate to repeat myself "too much".
damn need to make a new sig... |
Pepperami
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:27:00 -
[4]
can we speculate which dev is on which side?
[Art of War][- V -] |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:28:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Pepperami
can we speculate which dev is on which side?
At a guess:
tomB is on the scammer's side, Zrakor is on the investor's side, Hammer is on boobies' side
|
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:29:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Exelsior
Perhaps this should be in the Market Discussions forums?
no, this I think qualifies as a general discussion about many fundamental things of EVE.
damn need to make a new sig... |
Didly PooBear
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:30:00 -
[7]
Personally, i think the fact you need to discuss this really tells the tale. It means your stance might change, where it shouldn't. Your stance has been clear since forever, and now it changes. It shouldn't need discussion, it should require inmediate action.
|
|
Suvetar
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:32:00 -
[8]
Folks, please stay on-topic pending an official post, don't make this thread hard to read. Thanks.
forum rules | [email protected] | Our new Website! |
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:32:00 -
[9]
Originally by: HippoKing
tomB is on the scammer's side, Zrakor is on the investor's side, Hammer is on boobies' side
Hammer seems to always get the most fun... 
---
The Eve Wiki Project |
Jacob Majestic
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:34:00 -
[10]
I think what needs to happen is that we need to have a ingame mechanic for IPOs and reintroduce the EVE stock market.
However, IPOs are and will remain a trust-based transaction, whether or not they are supported by ingame tools.
|
Mag's
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:34:00 -
[11]
Lets hope you understand the floodgates that have been opened.
The changing of rules to fit the actions taken, were I believe, the worse part.
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:35:00 -
[12]
I'll eagerly await the response.
A win-win really. Either you save the intergrity of eve, or Snigg gets a mothership.
Shamis
|
Kylania
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:35:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Avon
(Risk vs Reward) - Risk = ?
There's Risk for Investors in a real IPO. Will it make money? Will it tank? Will you make your investment back? There's reward for Investors and CEOs in a real IPO as well. So there's your Risk Vs Reward.
There's nothing but Risk for Investors in a scam IPO. There's no reward for Investors and only reward for the CEO. There's also no risk for the CEO if there's no chance a GM will stop the scam.
Using "Risk vs Reward" to jutify scamming is wrong.
--
Lil Miner
Newbie Skills Roadmap | Visual Building Guide (Both work in game too!) |
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:35:00 -
[14]
yeah you should give the ISK back to the scammer, then take it away from the ppl you refunded. Then remove the new forum rules, the "may rule" that exists. Then you can have a discussion about the whole thing about scams, using forums refunds etc.
First you have to take immediate action against the fact you changed a rule after one broke it. Before that happens its hard to have a legit discussion.
damn need to make a new sig... |
SolApathy
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:36:00 -
[15]
Edited by: SolApathy on 14/06/2006 18:37:01
damm kylania u beat me to it :)
Originally by: Avon
(Risk vs Reward) - Risk = ?
thats not the point, the only risk in IPO's should be a failed business not the business owner skips town and runs off.
my thoughts on this subject are that i agree that risk is part of the game however further safety tools should be implimented and so congratulate ccp and further encourage them to keep up the good work.
|
Max Teranous
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:37:00 -
[16]
Thanks for the response Kieron, I await the results of your discussions with interest.
Max 
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:37:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Kylania
Originally by: Avon
(Risk vs Reward) - Risk = ?
There's Risk for Investors in a real IPO. Will it make money? Will it tank? Will you make your investment back? There's reward for Investors and CEOs in a real IPO as well. So there's your Risk Vs Reward.
There's nothing but Risk for Investors in a scam IPO. There's no reward for Investors and only reward for the CEO. There's also no risk for the CEO if there's no chance a GM will stop the scam.
Using "Risk vs Reward" to jutify scamming is wrong.
Your reply is only true if all IPOs are scams.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Requiem XIII
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:38:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Requiem XIII on 14/06/2006 18:40:24
Originally by: Kylania
Originally by: Avon
(Risk vs Reward) - Risk = ?
There's Risk for Investors in a real IPO. Will it make money? Will it tank? Will you make your investment back? There's reward for Investors and CEOs in a real IPO as well. So there's your Risk Vs Reward.
There's nothing but Risk for Investors in a scam IPO. There's no reward for Investors and only reward for the CEO. There's also no risk for the CEO if there's no chance a GM will stop the scam.
Using "Risk vs Reward" to jutify scamming is wrong.
To me, thats the absolute crux of the problem here - Thanks Kylania.
I don't like the reimbursment, but People shouldn't be left high and dry with no recourse against the perpertrator.
If there was a revenge system in the game, none of this would have been needed :\
Can you hear me now ?
Can you *feel* ? |
Jowen Datloran
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:38:00 -
[19]
As I've already stated, I'm very glad that CCP takes discussions internally and not rushing out an answer.
While I really don't like the concept reinbusing players who are at own fault for their situation I do like the idea of keeping the integrity of the Sale Orders forum at a certain level.
The scammer should have been perma banned from the forums on all characters and it should have ended there.
----------------
Mr. Science & Trade Institute |
Pepperami
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:39:00 -
[20]
So if we're allowed to speculate;
I reckon tuxford instinctively went with the initial outrage that scam ipos = bad, and then disliked the secondry forum distaste of not liking the action taken, so he's for reimbursement.
I reckon T20 doesn't want that junk on his forums, so is for reimbursement & bans.
I reckon kieron doesn't want people being upset on forums, so no reimbursement & bans.
And I reckon Oveur, TomB, Wrangler and LeMonde reckon that they should get rid of all safety labels and hope the problem solves itself 
[Art of War][- V -] |
Naphtalia
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:39:00 -
[21]
o/ Kieron
I just wanted to mention that you have my support whichever way you go.
Firstly I hope that the GM team responds to each petition in a similar fashion for this instance of the IPO scam. (I know some have been reimbursed and some haven't been reimbursed (yet)).
Secondly, I do see the can of worms here, however in this case the issue was very blatant. What to do about the past and the future... good luck on that one.
I can see why you (maybe) did this, I mean it is a very strong and positive force in eve, and the destruction/tainting of it is close to griefing. It affects a lot of peoples gameplay.
While discussing this though, could you at least do the response in a consequent matter and reimburse everyone :P
EMFI General IPO is Closed! |
Mag's
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:41:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Mag''s on 14/06/2006 18:41:49
Originally by: Requiem XIII
Originally by: Kylania
Originally by: Avon
(Risk vs Reward) - Risk = ?
There's Risk for Investors in a real IPO. Will it make money? Will it tank? Will you make your investment back? There's reward for Investors and CEOs in a real IPO as well. So there's your Risk Vs Reward.
There's nothing but Risk for Investors in a scam IPO. There's no reward for Investors and only reward for the CEO. There's also no risk for the CEO if there's no chance a GM will stop the scam.
Using "Risk vs Reward" to jutify scamming is wrong.
To me, thats the absolute crux of the problem here - Thanks Kylania.
I don't like the reimbursment, but People shouldn't be left high and dry with no recourse.
So where do you draw the line?
And what kind of recourse could CCP possibly give the scammees?
|
Blind Man
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:42:00 -
[23]
Originally by: HippoKing
Originally by: Pepperami
can we speculate which dev is on which side?
At a guess:
tomB is on the scammer's side, Zrakor is on the investor's side, Hammer is on boobies' side
and tux is finding a way to add missile hardpoints to all ships in eve while they are busy talking about it
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:43:00 -
[24]
My guess would be not wether CCP are discussing the general 'live and let die' attitude towards Eve as a sandbox environment (for evil as well as good), but are rather discussing wether or not the market forums specifically as a CCP-run platform/service should allow people to act out their social engineering for scams.
As in: "can we let scammers use our forums to perpetrate their acts or not".
Seeing as how previously nearly all if not all scams took place ingame (understanding that term to exclude the official forums), with maybe some sideways action that did use the forums (confirmation of trustworthyness, machinations with alts etc), I can understand how these IPO scams of rather large scope that more or less take place on the forums exclusively, with some sideways action ingame (transfer of shares and isk and maybe a chat or two) make for a discussion point in that regard.
However, in my opinion these forums can not be seen as seperate from the game. They have become a tool much like the ingame market, ingame chat channels and other mechanics that as only distinction have that they are part of the Eve-Online client software.
So, again in my opinion, there is no need to have GM's (as opposed to forum mods) police things they would not police ingame (scams and such involving real value transactions, scams using exploits etc.).
I can also imagine however, that CCP do want to discuss this well, since it does take their 'laissez faire' attitude one further step. I simply don't see any alternative tho, it's far too easy to simply circumvent this policing so that every subsequent GM intervention on the subject becomes a new subject for heated discussion at CCP HQ. Not very productive that.
Old blog |
Gunstar Zero
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:44:00 -
[25]
cheers for the update Kieron.
|
Naphtalia
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:44:00 -
[26]
Oh, Kieron, please don't listen to the loudmouths on either side of the argument (especially not who mouths the loudest) but do what is right and will make the game the best. (as always I guess)
EMFI General IPO is Closed! |
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:45:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Mag's
Edited by: Mag''s on 14/06/2006 18:41:49
Originally by: Requiem XIII
Originally by: Kylania
Originally by: Avon
(Risk vs Reward) - Risk = ?
There's Risk for Investors in a real IPO. Will it make money? Will it tank? Will you make your investment back? There's reward for Investors and CEOs in a real IPO as well. So there's your Risk Vs Reward.
There's nothing but Risk for Investors in a scam IPO. There's no reward for Investors and only reward for the CEO. There's also no risk for the CEO if there's no chance a GM will stop the scam.
Using "Risk vs Reward" to jutify scamming is wrong.
To me, thats the absolute crux of the problem here - Thanks Kylania.
I don't like the reimbursment, but People shouldn't be left high and dry with no recourse.
So where do you draw the line?
And what kind of recourse could CCP possibly give the scammees?
if they get their way, it would be phone tab's surveilance credit checks and hiring of private investigators not to mention GM support consisting of the FBI.
damn need to make a new sig... |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:46:00 -
[28]
Quote:
If there was a revenge system in the game, none of this would have been needed :\
Oh, adn to add to my above post. I'm sure that the above-quoted truism probably plays a major role as well.
It's another inevtiable recurring problem however. Unless CCP finally make the big leap and deal with the alt-acountability problem.
Old blog |
Pepperami
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:47:00 -
[29]
Well perhaps the fix is a wiser forum audience and if someone's kind enough they can write a guide to stick in the market forum.
Scams could happen, but so long as people are wise and don't put too much isk into one IPO run by an unknown (lost 2billion? WTF? You deserve it!). They will still happen, but at least people go in with their eyes open realising they take a risk, so don't spend money they can't lose.
[Art of War][- V -] |
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 18:47:00 -
[30]
I will repeat - is that it 
I am entitled to my opinion and to ask this question so why it should be edited out or deleted is beyond comprehension ..  
MOOCIFER  Emerald/Alpha Oldtimer |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |