Originally by: HippoKing

---

Edited by: HippoKing on 15/06/2006 19:01:51
oh yeah, good decision. I like how it went, but I'd rather you left the forums de-restricted too

edit: wait, you doubled the ISK involved? I don't like that. The victims lost it fair and square Still, i can understand the problems that would occur from removing it now. Don't like it though

---

Originally by: HippoKing

---

edit: wait, you doubled the ISK involved? I don't like that. The victims lost it fair and square Still, i can understand the problems that would occur from removing it now. Don't like it though

---

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

Edited by: Dark Shikari on 15/06/2006 19:03:10

First \o/

I hope this settles the issue... though I'm not sure it will. You never know, in EVE...

Speaking of which, Kieron, if you can answer a question: Does the upcoming Contracts system include ways to limit the possibility of IPO scams through contracts?

And a second question: EMFI, the mutual fund, has not been reimbursed yet due to the fact that it used the corporate wallet to pay for the shares. Does this mean that EMFI will not ever be reimbursed? This would not at all be fair, as most investors have been. Do I assume rightly that EMFI will get reimbursed along with everyone else, even though the petition hasn't been responded to yet?

---

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: HippoKing

---

edit: wait, you doubled the ISK involved? I don't like that. The victims lost it fair and square Still, i can understand the problems that would occur from removing it now. Don't like it though

---

Actually, you are right.
It isn't like people haven't ended up with negative wallets before.

Yup, cop out.

---

Not really. I think this is a fine solution: it keeps the precent proper for the future without going back on their decision.

This is a very minor incident compared to the ramifications a precedent in either direction would have.

---

Originally by: Rthor

---

Good job. I think that it was established before that you cannot take ISK back because that would put wallets into negative. Good job.

---

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Rthor

---

Good job. I think that it was established before that you cannot take ISK back because that would put wallets into negative. Good job.

---

It has been done before.

---

The only time I believe it has been done is when the person who was put into the negative was the person who scammed/etc.

For example, there was a scam a while back that earned a guy 5 billion and then turned out to have blatantly violated the rules in one way or another, and the guy ended up like -4billion and whined all over the forums about it.

---

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Nope. The money should be taken from the scam victims, simple as.

---

So clearly you should spam the thread whining about it, rather than accepting the fact that CCP made a decision (which they have stated is final) that you disagree with?

---

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

roll:]

I purposely avoided discussion of this issue for the whole time it took CCP to make a statement on it. The decision was made in spite of me, not because of me.

---

Originally by: kieron

---

We made what we feel is the best decision based on the options available to us.

---

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

Actually, I don't believe I lost it fair and square at all--I completely disagree with CCP's handling of the IPO system as it exists, and hope that Kali's contract system will resolve it. However, because I'm not a total jackass, I have accepted CCP's decision as it is and stopped whining about it. I think everyone else in this thread should do the same, and stop complaining. The topic has been beaten to death, and whining isn't going to do anything at all.

This is not a topic for discussion, however, and I will ignore any post no matter how inflammatory which attempts to start a flamewar on this particular issue.

---

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

Please shut up about my opinion, because it has nothing to do with this thread. I thought you would be respectful enough to listen to the simplest of requests like this one without flaming and trolling like you are now

---

Originally by: shwarzkauph

---

people with low moral character 4tw! Just like real life.

---

Originally by: HippoKing

---

Originally by: Reia Nym

---

So now the Sell Forum is going to be the new Escrow? What will be the point of the Sell forum if I have to wade through all the scams?

---

There has been no change from what the rules were before SVE hit the fan. It will be no worse than it was then.

---

Originally by: Gully Smit

---

O man........... this basically means scammers win and you can't do a thing about it. So to truley make it big in EVE...

1) create a scammer.
2) make an alt.
3) scam people.

how easy!

---

Originally by: stingy CEO

---

I feel cheated by CCP

---

Originally by: Ariu Devine

---

I HONESTLY can not believe you posted that! After you were one of the ones, as stingy put it, that invaded the Market Discussion forums to start blasting what happened. We DID have threads going about what can be done, BEFORE the first reimbursement. Then when that happened, we had to give up on talking about it because of every flame that was coming in, we could not constructively discuss anything at all.

---

Originally by: stingy CEO

---

Edited by: stingy CEO on 16/06/2006 10:32:24

Quote:

---

just a suggestion, might those investors in sve that got reimbursed want to donate that money to some kind of community event

---

?


You can be sure as hell, that after hundreds of idiots coming into MD to spam and spam and spam, making any type of constructive discussion impossible and drowning excellent game develomment arguments in a sea of flames,
I will spend every single isk of my refund to grief/pod as many of said idiots as possible.


2 bil : 10 vagabonds, i'm starting hunting soon (tm)

---

Originally by: stingy CEO

---

Community and devs didn't exactly do anything for me or listen to us did they ? Community preferred to whine and flame instead of doing something constructive didn't they?

---

Originally by: stingy CEO

---

How can I pod you if you stay docked btw ? ^^ assuming I make it through the B(l)OB ?

---

Originally by: stingy CEO

---

Quote:

---

Work 4tl.

---

same. but I have a long memory, and you aren't first on my list.

---

Originally by: G'veth

---

So in an attempt to emulate real life in some way CCP has said that a scam was legitimate and that the buyers should have performed due diligence. I work for a large accountancy firm regularly involved in performing due diligence in a variety of transactions - although not my specific area of expertise.

Normally the buyer will engage us to assess the validity of the claims made by the seller and provide an opinion on the business or the product as a whole. As a firm we stand to get sued if we make a flawed assessment, however in the case where we ourselves were extensively lied to and were presented with falsified evidence we can pass the buck along.

You see in real life there are these things called laws, they prevent people from stealing and defrauding in many ways. For example the directors of the selling company and the agents of it have a legal duty to tell the truth, they can conceal things if they like and are able but if they are found to have lied on a point of fact that formed a basis of the opinion that is fraudulent and illegal.

I would rather suspect that the seller in this case quite simply lied in some way and in real life I have little doubt he would either be prosecuted under criminal law (CCP invoked action, bans and redistribution of misappropriated assets) or civil law (User petitions on the specific lies leading to some level of reimbursement)

Another point is corp theft: In real life if I steal 10 computers from my office I'll quite likely find I get a visit from the police. My company on the other hand will make a claim on its insurance policy (should it care enough about the loss of 10 computers) and get a substantial amount of its loss back. I get punished, my company gets refunded in part.

Its all well and good allowing thievery and scamming as an ingame mechanic but there is a huge gaping hole where law and insurance and all those other crappy boring RL things go which means one random dude can't just come along and steal everything you have.

I've never been the victim of an IPO scam - or indeed ever participated in an IPO, I foresaw this long ago - my corp has never been the victim of a significant corp theft. I pity the people who are foolish enough to fall foul of these things but CCP can't claim any of this is a valid game mechanic till valid game mechanisms are introduced to counter or mitigate it.

I'd hope CCP has also taken appropriate legal advice on some of these issues, I don't know the circumstances of the IPO scam but I'd think there would be some potential for the losing party to consider this a real life loss (even despite the fact that the EULA states all ingame assets are CCP Property) and could were they sufficiently interested pursue a real life legal case - except it would be against CCP rather than the scammer. Probably corp thefts and the like are a greyer area. Law is not a favourite area of mine though. I think CCP are great and I'd hate to see them in trouble because they think its fun to let people steal - at best its completely immoral to take that stance. Every time I hear publicly of your (lack of) reaction to such scams as this it hurts that respect and love.

I'm sure were there real life employees, customers, insurers and shareholders to take similar views on stealing life wouldn't be so fun for CCP. Oh noes, Mr Policeman TomB just stole Tranquility, help us all. Did you give him the keys? Well of course he's a Dev he needs access to TQ. Tough luck then, we're not going to investigate further. Mr insurance man help me out. No, your policy expired 2 months ago but since you've not tried to speak to me since I thought I'd not warn you. Mr Shareholder can I have some more money to buy a new TQ. No, the scam was legitimate we aren't going to assist, time to work your way up from scratch again.

---