EVE Search - Announcement:Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Announcement:Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension

» 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 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5351	Posted - 2016.10.13 17:41:19 - [451] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Querns wrote: This is a very poor analogy. A banker, in this scenario, is analogous to the drug dealer's courier. They directly aid and abet the RMT machine. Courier? Maybe driver? Or a gardener? Or maybe just a neighbor still? I dont know how much bankers were involved in RMT, and I dont think you do either. I mean it's pretty obvious you dont know each and every banker. Yet, you assume they are all ~criminals~. Presumption of innocence and personal responsibility are two major cornerstones of justice and you just deny them. Look, if I knew my neighbor was a drug dealer and did nothing about it that is not really a crime. Now, if I was laundering his money for him...well, now I'm in the soup too. And spare us this "presumption of innocence" that is something for criminal offenses, not something like this. CCP is well within their rights via their EULA which you signed. At best this would be a civil issue where the standards of "guilt" are much lower. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1325	Posted - 2016.10.13 17:42:32 - [452] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? They weren't punished. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5351	Posted - 2016.10.13 17:43:33 - [453] - Quote Areen Sassel wrote: Aelavaine wrote: Well maybe it's because of some laws in the UK and US. I don't live there so I don't care. Unfortunately the US has rather a habit of assuming its jurisdiction extends outside its own borders. I've no idea how credible a threat this is, but _if_ CCP think the US might decide EVE is gambling-by-proxy, they would have to take that seriously. They might be in Iceland (although they're not entirely, anyway) but their customers aren't. CCP has U.S. based officers. CCP uses/relies on U.S. based credit cards. So the threat is not that the U.S. is going to invade Iceland, but that they might do something like stop CCP from processing U.S. based credit cards--i.e. cut off the U.S. player base. Seriously, why is this hard to figure out? "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1327	Posted - 2016.10.13 17:50:43 - [454] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Look, if I knew my neighbor was a drug dealer and did nothing about it that is not really a crime. That may not be technically true. In some jurisdictions (and it seems to vary by crime as well) you can be charged with aiding and abetting if you have material knowledge of a crime or a plan to commit a crime and you fail to report it. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5352	Posted - 2016.10.13 17:51:27 - [455] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved. Seriously, go read the stuff about Valve/Steam and the skins gambling. So there is a RISK with leaving other gambling sites active. You never know if or when they'll go RMT. Monitoring that has costs. If CCP does not want to incur those costs to avoid that risk....that is not necessarily unreasonable. Especially if these cases start to build up and then they impose various regulatory requirements on companies that allow gambling of their game currencies and items. And those can be costly. I know I work in the utility business and regulations make us do things no other company ever does. We spend quite a bit of time and resources trying to figure out our marginal cost. No unregulated company in the country does that ever. We have dozens of people who work on it to varying degrees. People who have pretty high salaries, pension/retirement and health benefits. It probably costs a couple of million dollars. Since it is a regulatory requirement and since we are regulated monopoly it isn't so bad for us. But for a smaller company that faces competition.... "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1327	Posted - 2016.10.13 17:52:26 - [456] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Seriously, why is this hard to figure out? It's not. It's just easier to run around in a panic flapping your arms like a deranged chicken and slinging poop in random directions. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5353	Posted - 2016.10.13 18:11:40 - [457] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: I didn't say they were all banned. But some were and those that were it was related to RMT, Teckos Pech wrote: Stop talking out of ignorance you do not know who was banned or precisely what was taken from whom. Neither do I. 2 posts on the same page contradicting yourself? We know bans were issued. We don't know exactly who was banned. That implies we don't know who was involved and not banned as well. Same thing for the ISK. Both of my statements are consistent with this. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2567	Posted - 2016.10.13 18:18:49 - [458] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? CCP wouldn't have, if they had a choice. Gambling provided CCP with a nontrivial boost to their bottom line. This whole shebang is pretty much CCP sawing off their foot to get out of the way of the industry-wide gambling backlash freight train coming their way. Shame that eve-bet got caught up in it, but so it goes. In the future, I'd recommend that you and yours display some adaptability, and learn proper risk assessment. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Dornier Pfeil Caldari Provisions Caldari State 19	Posted - 2016.10.13 18:53:55 - [459] - Quote Toobo wrote: Making example by punishing the innocent? You think that's good management? You are not innocent. If you sleep with dogs you get fleas. None of the rest of us want your fleas in the game. Good riddance.
Nomistrav Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative 334	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:05:24 - [460] - Quote Having been on the CPM for Dust 514, I know that a lot of backend considerations are made that are never revealed to the public. I know that it's important not to jump the gun with assumptions and try to read between the lines. I try not to make assumptions without facts, and I don't take baseless accusations lightly. That being said, I'm not going to lie, a cursory look at these new EULA changes cropping up after The Imperium gets roflstomped and The Mittani makes a complaint - even going so far as to use "the children" as an appeal to emotion - reeks of suspicion. Flashbacks to the War Dec Alliance changes, actually. Third Place Winner Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2862	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:13:20 - [461] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved. So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that? Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere. So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules. You know, like a normal sane person would do. EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5354	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:23:01 - [462] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved. So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that? Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere. So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules. You know, like a normal sane person would do. EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here. Well technically these days lots of RL money is just 0's and 1's too. But putting that aside... Did you not read anything about the problems with just going after the ones engaged in RMT? Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around. And you know very damn well that governments do not always do the sensible and/or sane thing. The government (State and/or Federal) could decide that instead of going after every gambling site it is easier to go after the common denominator that is facilitating the gambling. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Urziel99 Unified Research and Industrial 175	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:27:04 - [463] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved. So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that? Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere. So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules. You know, like a normal sane person would do. EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here. Well technically these days lots of RL money is just 0's and 1's too. But putting that aside... Did you not read anything about the problems with just going after the ones engaged in RMT? Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around. And you know very damn well that governments do not always do the sensible and/or sane thing. The government (State and/or Federal) could decide that instead of going after every gambling site it is easier to go after the common denominator that is facilitating the gambling. With the Valve cases ongoing from CS:GO and the UK going after the FIFA gambling sites. I am not surprised that CCP is trying to kill it before they get dragged into a court somewhere.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2569	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:29:58 - [464] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved. So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that? Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere. So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules. You know, like a normal sane person would do. EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here. Honestly, what either you or I want doesn't matter, here. CCP isn't going to allow gambling sites to continue to exist, because they value their ability to do business in the United States more than whatever bullshit justifications you're spewing. Please, for your own sake, move on. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5354	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:30:45 - [465] - Quote Urziel99 wrote: With the Valve cases ongoing from CS:GO and the UK going after the FIFA gambling sites. I am not surprised that CCP is trying to kill it before they get dragged into a court somewhere. Exactly. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2863	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:39:09 - [466] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around. Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing. I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%. I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way. That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board') Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2005	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:41:48 - [467] - Quote Nomistrav wrote: Having been on the CPM for Dust 514, I know that a lot of backend considerations are made that are never revealed to the public. I know that it's important not to jump the gun with assumptions and try to read between the lines. I try not to make assumptions without facts, and I don't take baseless accusations lightly. That being said, I'm not going to lie, a cursory look at these new EULA changes cropping up after The Imperium gets roflstomped and The Mittani makes a complaint - even going so far as to use "the children" as an appeal to emotion - reeks of suspicion. Flashbacks to the War Dec Alliance changes, actually. EDIT: Lemme clarify something - I try not to get wrapped up in the whole "Goon-illuminati" thing too much, because the very notion is, frankly, laughable. But it does seem that CCP makes a lot of changes after something happens to them. Maybe they're a bit more vocal about it, maybe their notoriety grants them a bit more attention; I dunno, I won't speculate. I just think it's interesting - beyond reasonable coincidence - that IWantISK, which has been around as early as 2013, is now getting this sort of controversy so soon after the events mentioned above. Yet it's entirely possible to read between the lines and come to an entirely different conclusion. We all know IWI had an influence in the war but now that the bulk of it is over we see CCP take action. Given that there was prior trouble with IWI I have no issue believing there was actionable evidence found before things came to where they are for imperium. Yet only after the dust largely settled does this get acted on. This is NOT the first time IWI had trouble, if it were I could see your line of thinking. But it isn't. And the timing is such that it occurred after the evicting forces have inevitably dissolved into their own political squabbles, independent of IWI funding and direction. You can argue retaliation, but then it's on you to prove that they were not involved in RMT because regardless of where the accusation came from, if it's proven true it's actionable, and if it's common in a single space of activity like 3rd party gambling, cutting it off becomes a consideration (more than that, cutting off legitimate betting sites not related to the conflict weakens the argument of goon influence rather than strengthen it unless you further subscribe to a more global anti-goon conspiracy from all the major gambling players).
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5355	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:52:49 - [468] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around. Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing. I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%. I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way. That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board') These are not "weird spaces". That is exactly one reason why CCP says you don't own your in game StuffGäó. Also why it has not value. It also avoids legal problems regarding scamming and even blowing up ships. And it sets aside banking regulations too. It may sound absurd to you (and in some sense I agree) but we are talking the U.S. Government here which has done absurd things quite often. FYI The IRS on virtual economies and incomes. Quote: Tax Consequences of Virtual World Transactions Online games create computer-generated settings for multiple users to interact as characters called avatars. These avatars frequently exchange goods and services in both the real and virtual worlds. Cyber-economic activities in the online world may have tax consequences that real world avatar counterparts need to consider. The IRS has provided guidance on the tax treatment of bartering, gambling, business and hobby income - issues that are similar to activities in online gaming worlds. In general, you can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. If you receive more income from the virtual world than you spend, you may be required to report the gain as taxable income. IRS guidance also applies when you spend more in a virtual world than you receive, you generally cannot claim a loss on an income tax return. In addition, the IRS issued guidance on the tax consequences of various activities that apply to Internet-based activities and online businesses. This guidance can help answer questions about the tax consequences of your online virtual world activities. More guidance related to Online Auctions and Bartering is available on IRS.gov. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Cara Forelli Better Off Red 2093	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:54:30 - [469] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around. I'm not 100% sure about you...let's get that ban rolling. Want to talk? Join my channel in game: *House Forelli* Titan's Lament
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5355	Posted - 2016.10.13 19:59:21 - [470] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around. Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing. I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%. I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way. That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board') Okay, so...what is my birthday? Serious question. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 270	Posted - 2016.10.13 20:12:24 - [471] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved. So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that? Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere. So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules. You know, like a normal sane person would do. EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here. The issue remains though that if someone has a gambling problem, lose a few billion ISK in poker, they drop Real money to buy plex, cash in the plex for ISK and continue to play poker. That is the problem that is now being axed with preventative measures such as this new EULA, and imo it is for the better.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2005	Posted - 2016.10.13 20:16:16 - [472] - Quote Cara Forelli wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around. I'm not 100% sure about you...let's get that ban rolling. Is he running a gambling site? I mean sure we could just ban everyone on potential or address a specific activity prone to it while acknowledging that some innocents get shut down. Also the players in Eve bet aren't being banned from eve so there's not a shred of parity there to begin with. @Grath: At no time did making anything against the EULA make people stop doing it. But when one activity which is within the EULA is used to hide another which isn't within the rules of the EULA, banning the former removes a means of hiding the latter. And finding someone running a gambling site is likely easier that investigating a gambling operation for hidden RMT so here we are.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2863	Posted - 2016.10.13 20:19:22 - [473] - Quote Max Deveron wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved. So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that? Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere. So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules. You know, like a normal sane person would do. EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here. The issue remains though that if someone has a gambling problem, lose a few billion ISK in poker, they drop Real money to buy plex, cash in the plex for ISK and continue to play poker. That is the problem that is now being axed with preventative measures such as this new EULA, and imo it is for the better. This doesn't fix that, people will still gamble, prohibition doesn't work. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2863	Posted - 2016.10.13 20:20:59 - [474] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around. Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing. I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%. I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way. That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board') Okay, so...what is my birthday? Serious question. Doesn't matter: Teckos Pech wrote: These are not "weird spaces". That is exactly one reason why CCP says you don't own your in game StuffGäó. Also why it has no value. You're not really gambling, everything in use is actually CCP's. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Urziel99 Unified Research and Industrial 177	Posted - 2016.10.13 20:30:41 - [475] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: You're not really gambling, everything in use is actually CCP's. I'm sure Valve has similar terminology in their ToS, and I am sure EA did with FIFA '16. It hasn't kept the regulators away. So, yeah it sucks that there is some collateral damage with more reputable groups and a big source of isk funding for events and media is going away. But it's either that or risk CCP getting sued into bankruptcy. For all it's flaws I'll take a diminished Eve over no Eve any day.
Ruddger Hmmzor. Muffins of Mayhem 12	Posted - 2016.10.13 20:32:34 - [476] - Quote Max Deveron wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of. So why punish them? Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved. So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that? Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere. So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules. You know, like a normal sane person would do. EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here. The issue remains though that if someone has a gambling problem, lose a few billion ISK in poker, they drop Real money to buy plex, cash in the plex for ISK and continue to play poker. That is the problem that is now being axed with preventative measures such as this new EULA, and imo it is for the better. How is that different from someone that has a problem buying plexes and then losing them on jita undock over and over cause they want to buy their skill at the game? and they spend thousands on plex for bling... how is it any different? EVE IS A GAMBLE
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2005	Posted - 2016.10.13 20:38:49 - [477] - Quote Ruddger wrote: How is that different from someone that has a problem buying plexes and then losing them on jita undock over and over cause they want to buy their skill at the game? and they spend thousands on plex for bling... how is it any different? EVE IS A GAMBLE It's different because CCP hasn't at any time ruled out giving you a service for money even if consuming that product isn't in your best financial interest. Combine that with the fact that paying into a game of chance and unwise use of a paid product aren't the same thing. One explicitly pays into a chance based outcome with no guarantee of any return, the other you have a guaranteed return (the PLEX) but no control by the seller over whether you chose to set it on fire or allow someone else to do so once you've relinquished it's monetary value by redeeming it in game.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 270	Posted - 2016.10.13 21:19:29 - [478] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: This doesn't fix that, people will still gamble, prohibition doesn't work. Its the question of legality, thats what it is, CCP needs to protect its interests and can not be seen openly supporting a gambling scheme. So quit being hard up about it, or stupid take your pick
Nomistrav Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative 334	Posted - 2016.10.13 21:30:19 - [479] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Nomistrav wrote: Having been on the CPM for Dust 514, I know that a lot of backend considerations are made that are never revealed to the public. I know that it's important not to jump the gun with assumptions and try to read between the lines. I try not to make assumptions without facts, and I don't take baseless accusations lightly. That being said, I'm not going to lie, a cursory look at these new EULA changes cropping up after The Imperium gets roflstomped and The Mittani makes a complaint - even going so far as to use "the children" as an appeal to emotion - reeks of suspicion. Flashbacks to the War Dec Alliance changes, actually. EDIT: Lemme clarify something - I try not to get wrapped up in the whole "Goon-illuminati" thing too much, because the very notion is, frankly, laughable. But it does seem that CCP makes a lot of changes after something happens to them. Maybe they're a bit more vocal about it, maybe their notoriety grants them a bit more attention; I dunno, I won't speculate. I just think it's interesting - beyond reasonable coincidence - that IWantISK, which has been around as early as 2013, is now getting this sort of controversy so soon after the events mentioned above. Yet it's entirely possible to read between the lines and come to an entirely different conclusion. We all know IWI had an influence in the war but now that the bulk of it is over we see CCP take action. Given that there was prior trouble with IWI I have no issue believing there was actionable evidence found before things came to where they are for imperium. Yet only after the dust largely settled does this get acted on. This is NOT the first time IWI had trouble, if it were I could see your line of thinking. But it isn't. And the timing is such that it occurred after the evicting forces have inevitably dissolved into their own political squabbles, independent of IWI funding and direction. You can argue retaliation, but then it's on you to prove that they were not involved in RMT because regardless of where the accusation came from, if it's proven true it's actionable, and if it's common in a single space of activity like 3rd party gambling, cutting it off becomes a consideration (more than that, cutting off legitimate betting sites not related to the conflict weakens the argument of goon influence rather than strengthen it unless you further subscribe to a more global anti-goon conspiracy from all the major gambling players). I suppose that's a fair point. I didn't know about IWI's previous affairs. Do you have links to the specific events so I don't get trash from google? Third Place Winner Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5355	Posted - 2016.10.13 21:32:24 - [480] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Okay, your obstinate refusal to try an even try apprehend why this change was made makes further discussion with you pointless. I have already shown that in certain cases game income can be taxed, the IRS even covers this in their publications. Feel free to continue to wallow in you ignorance and put it on stunning display for everyone to see. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: 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.