| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Auctor
   |
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:13:00 -
[421]
I voted C with 50 shares.
|
Matalino
Gallente
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:16:00 -
[422]
 Originally by: Kitex
- Continue trying to make Carrier/MS production work. 83.0097491876 % (83.0097491876/100.0)
- Switch to T2 Freighters, Rorquals, and new T2 ship production. 5.84117990167 % (5.84117990167/100.0)
- Liquidate and return as much isk as possible. 11.1490709108 % (11.1490709108/100.0)
Originally by: FastLearner
Looks to me like two things are rather obvious:
1. Wylker voted with his own shares,
2. Even discounting his own shares, option A. won the vote.
If those are the actual results (screenshot please) then everyone voted, including Wylker and any shares held by the corp.
As for an obvious victory for continued persuit of capital ship production, I am not so sure on that one.
In my opinion, as an disinterested third party, this vote should have been a two not three option vote. By providing three options Wylker effectively split the opposition to coninuing cap production.
If those who voted to Switch to T2 Freighters, Rorquals, and new T2 ship production would have voted to liquidate in a two option vote and Wylker kept to his original position of nuetrality, then the vote would have been close, but would have been in favor of liquidation.
While I don't care one way or the other what happens here, I do feel strongly about Wylker's change of position regarding voting with the corp held controling stake. That is wrong. The corp has no voice on its future. The future of the corp should be detirmined by those who paid for its existance. I see no problem with Wylker voting with the shares he had purchased. However, to publicly state that he did not intend to vote, then change to voting without a public statement is dishonest.
I think that Wylker has enough problems with running a business in a competitive market, he doesn't need to make things worse by calling into question his honesty.
**************************
Datacore Harvesting IPO |
Zeromancer
Corp Zero
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:27:00 -
[423]
I voted C with 40 shares.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:28:00 -
[424]
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Kitex
- Continue trying to make Carrier/MS production work. 83.0097491876 % (83.0097491876/100.0)
- Switch to T2 Freighters, Rorquals, and new T2 ship production. 5.84117990167 % (5.84117990167/100.0)
- Liquidate and return as much isk as possible. 11.1490709108 % (11.1490709108/100.0)
Originally by: FastLearner
Looks to me like two things are rather obvious:
1. Wylker voted with his own shares,
2. Even discounting his own shares, option A. won the vote.
If those are the actual results (screenshot please) then everyone voted, including Wylker and any shares held by the corp.
As for an obvious victory for continued persuit of capital ship production, I am not so sure on that one.
In my opinion, as an disinterested third party, this vote should have been a two not three option vote. By providing three options Wylker effectively split the opposition to coninuing cap production.
If those who voted to Switch to T2 Freighters, Rorquals, and new T2 ship production would have voted to liquidate in a two option vote and Wylker kept to his original position of nuetrality, then the vote would have been close, but would have been in favor of liquidation.
While I don't care one way or the other what happens here, I do feel strongly about Wylker's change of position regarding voting with the corp held controling stake. That is wrong. The corp has no voice on its future. The future of the corp should be detirmined by those who paid for its existance. I see no problem with Wylker voting with the shares he had purchased. However, to publicly state that he did not intend to vote, then change to voting without a public statement is dishonest.
I think that Wylker has enough problems with running a business in a competitive market, he doesn't need to make things worse by calling into question his honesty.
Actually, you COULD look at the 3 options as splitting the vote for him to continue running ANYTHING.
Whilst he was perfectly entitled to vote with his own shares, there's two areas in which he's very badly at fault:
1. Voting after he said he wouldn't.
2. Voting with unallocated shares - which should never be voted with.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:28:00 -
[425]
Originally by: FastLearner
And that's the risk when people don't insist on strictly professional behaviour from their friends: they lose the moral right to insist on it from others. I half-expect another unfortunate precedent to be set by EBank this month, but I'll hold fire on that until/unless it happens.
I'd like to know what Ebank precedent you think has been set? If you are talking about some affair involving Ricdic and LaVista... that was their own business prior to Ebank opening at all. So, um, I'm unclear as to what you are talking about? BTW if this is going to have you and Ric start up that old (sh/p)outing match between the two of you, please consider my question withdrawn.
Taikun's Lost Bet |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:34:00 -
[426]
Originally by: Ricdic
If you feel jealous that EBANK's success far exceed's yours over a quarter of the lifespan I suggest you look into a stress ball.
But of course if you believe that random unfounded attacks are actually having a negative affect on EBANK, by all means keep it up. Obviously our statistics wouldn't show that even with interest free accounts we are growing on a daily basis. Obviously many people lack trust in my dealings, as can be seen by the 220 customers amassed over the past 60 days.
I don't epeen much but sometimes I like to put the little boys back in their place.
How is this success being measured? Number of customers? I'd prefer to use amount of ISK invested. No doubt if I allowed people to deposit 1 ISK and called them "customers" I'd have a ton of customers too. In fact I have way more than 220 customers - but I somehow doubt customers is even the correct term for what you were describing.
I haven't MADE an unfounded attack - I've just indicated that I think it likely I'll make a founded one later.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:39:00 -
[427]
Originally by: Ricdic
I am sure some people may find my above post unprofessional in some way to which they are most welcome to request a withdrawal from their EBANK account. Of course, EBANK have or had no ownership with PSI at any stage ever in it's lifespan, so it's mention in relation to this corporation is questionable at best.
I've never seen you shirk from mentioning EBank in threads relating to corporations it has no relevance to. Heck, you've even mentioned it in one of my threads if my memory serves me correctly.
My point was a perfectly valid one - that the current situation is not unique (in some respects) and that we should be wary of setting unprofessional precedents just because of who's involved.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:40:00 -
[428]
I think there should be a dedicated FL v Ricdic thread on the forum, so we can always look in the same place for the latest back and forth.
Is it time to take bets on if we'll see a return of Wylker to the thread or not? I'm thinking he will return... only because he's close to pulling off this little shindig of his. No reason for him to run away now when he almost has succeeded. But betting against his return may not be such a high-risk position...
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 18:41:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: FastLearner
And that's the risk when people don't insist on strictly professional behaviour from their friends: they lose the moral right to insist on it from others. I half-expect another unfortunate precedent to be set by EBank this month, but I'll hold fire on that until/unless it happens.
I'd like to know what Ebank precedent you think has been set? If you are talking about some affair involving Ricdic and LaVista... that was their own business prior to Ebank opening at all. So, um, I'm unclear as to what you are talking about? BTW if this is going to have you and Ric start up that old (sh/p)outing match between the two of you, please consider my question withdrawn.
Absolutely nothing to do with LaVista. And no precedent HAS been set.
|
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 22:04:00 -
[430]
Its fun. Anyone noticed how Vulture Virtue and Trixie Baggz always log in at the same time, and sometimes along with Wylker?
|
Wylker
Caldari
Pyrrhus Sicarii
The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 22:34:00 -
[431]
So I learned the result of this vote by proxying on to eve-o just now from work. I haven't even been online beyond delegating fighters for 20 minutes the other day. I have no idea who voted with what, but I'll be happy to take a screenie of the vote results. I can also tell you that besides my holding of 2000 voting shares, the next largest shareholder has around 300 iirc. Anyway. Off to home to produce screenies (which I'm sure will get accused of being shopped but  )
We'll have some more information in a few hours.
Portsmouth Shipyards IPO Sales
Portsmouth Shipyards IPO Discussion
|
Shiva Shakti
Gallente
Hi-Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 23:42:00 -
[432]
I voted C with 100 shares although I would consider investing again if another plan comes up and funds are returned this time around..GL whatever the plan
Visit EvE Galactic Stock Exchange and Real-time Eve Stock Exchange (in game or out, but trades in game) |
Ghost Emperor
Amarr
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.26 23:56:00 -
[433]
Hi Wylker,
I think I have a duty to be clear how I vote with other people shares, the shareholders in EMFI should know that we voted for liquidation with our 300 shares, option C I seem to remember (If I had more time I would have polled them on vote options as well).
We will be happy to follow the voter power, although I have my doubts that CCP have a functioning voting system (apart from the fact that unlock votes don't seem to work too often and there is a bit of an major counting glitch as well). It is a bit like their total share count which doesn't show total shares, but just the last number released...not a lot of use if you want to work out the value of investment clearly.
Anyways...I had/have high hopes that Researchii/Wylker can run a good business from this investment, or after a wee break, and I hope they don't add to the investment scam sadness which has gripped the markets after a good run. I voted C as I though it was the best way of recouping investors isk for other higher yield operations.
Either way GL and we hope to see some success in your projects.
Visit EvE Galactic Stock Exchange and Real-time Eve Stock Exchange (in game or out, but trades in game). For E |
Wylker
Caldari
Pyrrhus Sicarii
The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 00:21:00 -
[434]
Welp, I went to see how the vote went, and I just have the same information as everyone else, anyone know a top secret way to get the # of votes instead of the percentage?
Portsmouth Shipyards IPO Sales
Portsmouth Shipyards IPO Discussion
|
Matalino
Gallente
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 01:10:00 -
[435]
Edited by: Matalino on 27/11/2007 01:11:05
Originally by: Wylker
Welp, I went to see how the vote went, and I just have the same information as everyone else, anyone know a top secret way to get the # of votes instead of the percentage?
The results are displayed as dual percentages, both percentage that voted and percentage of votes cast for that options.
So if you see 83.0097491876 % (83.0097491876/100.0) that means that 100% of shareholders voted, 83% of shares voted for that option.
Had there been share holders that did not vote, you would have seen a result such as 87.2027180068 % (8.02083333333/9.19791666667), thus indicating that 8% of shareholders voted for that option, but only 9.2% of shareholders voted at all, meaning that 87% of voters voted for that option.
**************************
Datacore Harvesting IPO |
Wylker
Caldari
Pyrrhus Sicarii
The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 02:26:00 -
[436]
Originally by: Matalino
Edited by: Matalino on 27/11/2007 01:11:05
Originally by: Wylker
Welp, I went to see how the vote went, and I just have the same information as everyone else, anyone know a top secret way to get the # of votes instead of the percentage?
The results are displayed as dual percentages, both percentage that voted and percentage of votes cast for that options.
So if you see 83.0097491876 % (83.0097491876/100.0) that means that 100% of shareholders voted, 83% of shares voted for that option.
Had there been share holders that did not vote, you would have seen a result such as 87.2027180068 % (8.02083333333/9.19791666667), thus indicating that 8% of shareholders voted for that option, but only 9.2% of shareholders voted at all, meaning that 87% of voters voted for that option.
I'd like to believe this was true, except that I hold 2000 shares on Wylker and the corp holds 6001 shares, none of which were used to vote. Any other explanations?
Portsmouth Shipyards IPO Sales
Portsmouth Shipyards IPO Discussion
|
Ryveth
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 02:28:00 -
[437]
I voted for liquidation with my 5 shares.
|
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 03:00:00 -
[438]
Originally by: Wylker
I'd like to believe this was true, except that I hold 2000 shares on Wylker and the corp holds 6001 shares, none of which were used to vote. Any other explanations?
Folks claim to have voted for option C with 573 shares (just the ones that have posted here thus far).
573 is 11% of 5209 shares. That means one of the following is true:
1. A minimum of 5209 shares were used to vote. You could safely assume the actual number of shares were a much larger number, as not everyone who voted would be posting in this thread.
2. Those who claim to have voted for option C are lying. I can't help but wonder what reason they'd have to do that.
Either way, the vote is quite suspect.
As for if there is a way to verify it precisely in game, I don't know the answer to that.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 03:18:00 -
[439]
Quote:
I'd like to believe this was true, except that I hold 2000 shares on Wylker and the corp holds 6001 shares, none of which were used to vote. Any other explanations?
Were you not the CEO of the corp?
If memory serves, the vote of the CEO represents the vote of the corp. Therefore if you voted you would've voted with both your shares AND the corp shares. I only remember because when holding the vote to create shares for Dusk Blade, no shares were actually distributed, and Taila's "yes" vote represented 100% contribution of the vote.
Improve Market Competition!
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 03:19:00 -
[440]
Originally by: Shadarle
I think there should be a dedicated FL v Ricdic thread on the forum, so we can always look in the same place for the latest back and forth
I actually personally like Fury Bank for the record.
I also steer clear of the whole FL vs. Ricdic thing.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Kesslan Osefice
Lyrix Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 03:33:00 -
[441]
Hmm well I voted B with a total of 6 shares.
Mostly because I was hoping this would turn out better but to be honest I've been glad for a long time now that I did not purchase more than 6 shares.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 03:47:00 -
[442]
Edited by: Shadarle on 27/11/2007 03:48:50
Why not just offer a buyback to anyone who wants it right now. Have people send you eve-mails with their # of shares and then once you've added up all the shares that are to be bought back you can liquidate enough to cover it and leave yourself with the rest of your BPO's to continue on. This way all people who want out can get out. You can then put the shares up for sale for anyone who wishes to jump in now.
I don't see any reason this shouldn't be possible. Plus your IPO specifically said you would offer a buyback now. It seems you should be offering it and if you refuse to offer the buyback you're only going to have even more disgruntled investors. For your own sake it is easier to get rid of the disgruntled investors, gets them out of your hair, lets you continue on with the others.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Meleil
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 03:56:00 -
[443]
If wylker doesn't see the voice of reason after reading Shadarles post he'll fry himself. Nuff said.
~Mel
|
cosmoray
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 04:26:00 -
[444]
Edited by: cosmoray on 27/11/2007 04:28:02
Edited by: cosmoray on 27/11/2007 04:27:14
Edited by: cosmoray on 27/11/2007 04:26:11
Some more AMAZING maths, to counter Wylker's statement that he didn't vote.
Scenario 1. If Wylker didn't vote his 8001 shares, so 4000 shares voted:
1. 83.0097491876% means that 3320.39 shares voted for option A
2. 5.84117990167% means that 233.6472 shares voted for option B
3. 11.1490709108% means that 445.9628 shares voted for option C
OK who has been voting with SHARE FRACTIONS.
Scenario 2. If Wylker did vote his 8001 shares.
1. 83.0097491876% means that 9962 shares voted for option A
2. 5.84117990167% means that 701 shares voted for option B
3. 11.1490709108% means that 1338 shares voted for option C
Now seeing as you can't vote with share fractions, and scenario 2 has nice round share votes, me thinks Wylker is telling a slight mis-truth on his non voting.
The vote fractions show pretty clearly he must have voted.
The problem is if the 8001 votes are removed it looks like Option A still wins.
Seeing as Wylker said he wouldn't vote, and it clearly looks like he did, isn't it time he starts talking the truth and either re-vote or buyback.
|
Karella Morana
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 06:24:00 -
[445]
o/
This is the thread that keeps on giving. I've just read all 15 pages, and it's fantastic.
I have not invested in this, and I have no connections with anyone involved - (or their alts.  )
cosmoray's post ftw, except this....
Originally by: cosmoray
The problem is if the 8001 votes are removed it looks like Option A still wins.
Would the remaining votes include any Wylker 'alts' that may hold shares? 
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 06:28:00 -
[446]
Originally by: cosmoray
Scenario 1. If Wylker didn't vote his 8001 shares, so 4000 shares voted:
1. 83.0097491876% means that 3320.39 shares voted for option A
2. 5.84117990167% means that 233.6472 shares voted for option B
3. 11.1490709108% means that 445.9628 shares voted for option C
OK who has been voting with SHARE FRACTIONS.
Scenario 2. If Wylker did vote his 8001 shares.
1. 83.0097491876% means that 9962 shares voted for option A
2. 5.84117990167% means that 701 shares voted for option B
3. 11.1490709108% means that 1338 shares voted for option C
This actually seems like a very good method of detecting how many shares voted...
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! (updated) |
Riethe
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 06:55:00 -
[447]
Seems like Wylker is dragging you folks through the dirt here.
Playing with your emotions and what not, creating false hope. But for what reason, I wonder? What part of dragging this on any longer is going to provide him more profit? Unless it's just personal kicks, which I can see.
There shouldn't have even been a vote, it's clear no one wants to participate in this bullstuff anymore. How's it feel to be mistreated twice in one month?
So how about them market regulations? Securities? Commissions? Committees? Sounding real good right now.
This is epic.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 07:29:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: cosmoray
Scenario 1. If Wylker didn't vote his 8001 shares, so 4000 shares voted:
1. 83.0097491876% means that 3320.39 shares voted for option A
2. 5.84117990167% means that 233.6472 shares voted for option B
3. 11.1490709108% means that 445.9628 shares voted for option C
OK who has been voting with SHARE FRACTIONS.
Scenario 2. If Wylker did vote his 8001 shares.
1. 83.0097491876% means that 9962 shares voted for option A
2. 5.84117990167% means that 701 shares voted for option B
3. 11.1490709108% means that 1338 shares voted for option C
This actually seems like a very good method of detecting how many shares voted...
It is actually quite interesting that no one else thought this up previously. It's quite obvious and seems to make mathematical sense. Time to go back through some old threads to check some votes I think.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Riethe
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 07:35:00 -
[449]
I haven't really been paying attention, but doesn't that assume every single share was voted with? (minus Wylker's?)
If a single individual did not vote, would that not offset the method use to determine this?
|
Trading Bunnz
ElArms International
|
Posted - 2007.11.27 07:56:00 -
[450]
The math looks funny, but frankly, I cannot remember a single corporate vote ever that had 100% voter turnout. That looks just as funny as your math. Test your numbers, there are bound to be points between the extreme's that lead to whole numbers. I'm too tired and brain dead and can't immediately work out how to make excel dance to seek those numbers, but I'm fairly confident they exist.
As for the results of the vote, i'm very surprised.
Wylker, did you vote your personal shares? That is, the 2000 odd shares you own personally, invested on the same terms as the rest of us? That could account for some of the issues, particularly with that corp voting bug, that votes master wallet shares sometimes too. I believe your ALT is the CEO, she should have proper access to the full voting record, which "should" clearly indicate the number of shares that voted. Silence your critics, post those screenshots. Any kind of evasion or suspicion of doubt at this stage is going to be used as further ammunition from parties to attempt to damage your reputation.
I'll just reiterate a point made by FL above. Even if, intentionally or accidentally, the 8001 shares owned by corp and Wylker were voted in favour of the option to continue, removing those votes leaves us with the following:
1861 (9962-8001)
701
1338
: which is clear direction to the manager, from his investors, that he is to continue.
Wylker did what any competent manager should do. Eventually. Sure, it took him too long, and that fact is clouding many judgements, but he has sought, and obtained, investor direction to continue. As an investor, you are ALL only 1 of many.
Am I unhappy about the lack of communication? Yes. Am I prepared to accept the decision of the other investors in how to move forward? Yes. Do I think this vote is legit? Possibly not. I think Wylker you should consider ways that you can conduct a vote that everyone will accept the outcome of, in advance. Maybe drop your shares in escrow somewhere (Chribba would hold em, he hasn't been bad mouthing you in here and he has heaps of trust), and conduct another vote and post a screenshot of the results as soon as they happen.
For those screaming for a buyback, yes it was part of his plan. As he explains upchannel however, limited buybacks are not available from CORP FUNDS. Maybe Wylker you can raise some additional money from corpmates or alliance friends or people who still have explicit faith in hisability to deliver results and offer a limited buyback.
I would suggest Wylker, you tap your friends and find out how much you could raise, offer that as the "buyback pool", divide it by the number of shares that you get offered for buyback and then distribute those shares to the people who fund the buyback. If lots bail, they get not much per share and those funding it get a big increase in their stake.
Its not "ideal", but it allows you to part company with your unhappy investors without having to do the "all or nothing" liquidation scenario you raised. It allows investors that have "written off" their investment and no longer care to see you succeed to get lost with some money back and it allows those friends/colleagues who do still trust you to potentially snap up bargain shares. It allows those investors who do want to see you succeed the options to do the same.
A pool of 2b would be a target I suspect, which if everyone who voted for liquidation took, would return nearly 1.5m per share. Far less than list price, horrible return, but an immediate out for those who no longer care. The less than cashed out, the higher the per share return.
Wylker, you are getting a very hostile reaction on the boards. A large part of that is you simply do not post enough. You need to be vocal. Respond to posts here. Don't get into shouting matches, but address questions when they are raised.
Cheers
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |