EVE Search - Regarding IPOs, and Scams, Pt. II

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Regarding IPOs, and Scams, Pt. II

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

kieron	Posted - 2006.06.15 18:59:00 - [1] Recently, there was a large IPO scam perpetrated in-game that involved a lot of players, a lot of ISK and no small amount of emotion. Community reaction to the scam and subsequent reimbursement has been mixed, but heated none the less. It was the community response that prompted a closer look into the incident, how it was handled and what we are going to do to resolve the situation on our part. I am fully aware that the community reaction to our solution is going to be mixed, but we feel it is the most fair, equitable and keeping within the spirit of EVE. First off, the rules for the Sell forum are going to be amended. Since the forums are a mechanic of the game, but blur the lines, it is permissible to post scams with the following limitations: Scams involving the transaction of real world currency are not permitted. This includes character transfers, GTCs for ISK, and other services that involve the exchange of goods or services for real world currency. As with in-game, Caveat Emptor. If someone is offering a HAC BPO for 5M ISK, chances are it is a scam. It is up to the buyer to perform due dilligence before making a purchase, and as long as the scam does not involve the exchange of real world currency, exploits, or an out of game mechanic, it's fair game. Regarding the recent scam, reimbursement and actions taken, the scammer worked within the limitations laid out in the game rules and Reimbursement policy. The ISK he scammed has been returned to him and the detrimental marks on his account have been removed. The players that were scammed will keep the ISK they received from the GM reimbursement. Too much time has passed since the reimbursement, and to remove said ISK would have too large an impact on that portion of the community. I know there are going to be a number of opinions on this ranging from, "Good decision!" to "OMG, you b$@%$#)*s just ruined the game (or ecomony, my alliance, etc.)!!!111" We made what we feel is the best decision for the good of those involved and spirit of EVE. kieron Community Manager, EVE Online

Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:00:00 - [2] 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? --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:01:00 - [3] 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
Avon	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:01:00 - [4] Seems pretty pragmatic on the first read. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Tobizuru	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:01:00 - [5] Darkie: 1 Hippo: 0 -------------------- If I only had a Face... :'(
Scorpyn	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:02:00 - [6] Seems like you came up with the best solution imo.
Avon	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:02:00 - [7] 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 Er, they are. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Flyyn	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:03:00 - [8] hahahaha both of you cant be first!!! Good call on CCP's part... This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it.
Avon	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:03:00 - [9] 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. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:04:00 - [10] 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. --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:04:00 - [11] While I do disagree with the reimbursement, I must agree that taking the ISK back right now would create a problem. This rule change will make it different on the forums, the false sense of security involving scam prevention will be removed. My Guides (Recomended Reading)
Avon	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:04:00 - [12] 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? How about the investors make good the EMFI out of their duped ISK? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:04:00 - [13] Originally by: Avon 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 Er, they are. Oh bugger, misread that when it said "forum rules are being amended". thanks for the clarification. I really need to not post on important matters when England have football games. Beer 4tw
Jowen Datloran	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:05:00 - [14] Good decision CCP. Now I am looking forward to the new market tools hopefully added with Kali. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
Rthor	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:05:00 - [15] Good job. I think that it was established before that you cannot take ISK back because that would put wallets into negative. Good job.
Avon	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:05:00 - [16] 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. I like you DS, but you have a vested interest so I can't really accept your position. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:05:00 - [17] 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. well, its your ISK
Avon	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:06:00 - [18] 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 Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:06:00 - [19] Originally by: HippoKing well, its your ISK I actually lost more due to the drop in value of EMFI shares that I owned (due to the stock market panic following the scam) than I did to the scam itself. The ISK is not very important. --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-
Sangxianc	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:07:00 - [20] That was good until this sentence: "The players that were scammed will keep the ISK they received from the GM reimbursement." They got scammed, fair and square. That's weak. However, the rest of it sounds like it should have been all along in my opinion. ps you just ruined my alliance Do not deny yourself experience of that which lies beyond, behind the sun, in the world they call unpeopled.
Mag's	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:07:00 - [21] Edited by: Mag''s on 15/06/2006 19:07:09 Best way it could have gone, good decision CCP.
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:08:00 - [22] 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. yeah, its happened to a lot of people. Me included briefly (insurance payout removed during re-imbursement IIRC)
Havelcek	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:08:00 - [23] Interesting resolution.
Scorpyn	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:08:00 - [24] Originally by: Sangxianc ps you just ruined my alliance BOB is dead?
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:08:00 - [25] 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. --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-
Avon	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:09:00 - [26] 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. Nope. People can go -ve when they get a ship replaced and the insurance payout taken out of their wallets. Nope. The money should be taken from the scam victims, simple as. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
mazzilliu	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:09:00 - [27] the world is safe once again from carebears boo on doubling the isk though. "having too large of an impact" is the whole point. --------- keeng's sentry guns KNOW WHERE YOU ARE.
Kahlen Rahl	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:09:00 - [28] Edited by: Kahlen Rahl on 15/06/2006 19:12:50 Originally by: Scorpyn Originally by: Sangxianc ps you just ruined my alliance BOB is dead? It would be bloody time About the decision made by CCP tho, good call. As one of the peope who initially invested in SVE, I considered my ISK lost when I saw the update to the original IPO post. In my current monetary condition however I don't mind getting the ISK back, but as I and several others HAVE recieved the ISK invested, it's indeed only fair EMFi and people like Stingy CEO (who as far as I know hasn't even recieved 1 ISK back) also get the ISK returned then. That way, it'll all be balanced again ... Hats off to CCP for making the right choice.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:10:00 - [29] 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? --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.15 19:10:00 - [30] Originally by: Scorpyn Originally by: Sangxianc ps you just ruined my alliance BOB is dead? Someone scammed them out of their veldspar

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.