EVE Search - [DATAC] Datacore Harvesting IPO

All Channels

Market Discussions

[DATAC] Datacore Harvesting IPO

» 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 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Raskor	Posted - 2007.12.30 20:51:00 - [271] Originally by: Matalino The petition for this issue was filed 3 weeks prior to the release of Trinity. A response was received from a GM approx 2 weeks after the original petition was filed. The responses of the two GMs that have looked at the issue were neither helpful nor informative. As such I requested that the issue be escalated to a Senior GM. It has now been a full month since I requested the issue be escalated and I have not recieved any further response. The reason that this issue was not previously revealed to investors was because CCP had previously resolved this issue many times before and had given me every reason to beleive that it would have been resolved again. I am most displeased with an as yet unexplained change in how CCP is handling this issue. So you are saying there was a problem with the datacore yields that had happened before and had been corrected, but this time you had to escalate the issue --- meaning something was different? And this escalation was at the same time as the latest share sale was pitched where you basically led everyone to believe all was rosy, ME sale prices notwithstanding? Am I the only one here that feels this should have been disclosed to prospective investors at the time of the latest sale? I can understand you not being able to disclose the details, but this was a definite risk and should have been communicated as such. I can't believe everyone is quite so optimistic that the GM's will always do the right thing when an issue occurs.
jongalt	Posted - 2007.12.30 21:29:00 - [272] negligence does not necessarily imply malicious intent. but rationalization might. -jg.
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2007.12.30 21:37:00 - [273] Originally by: Raskor Am I the only one here that feels this should have been disclosed to prospective investors at the time of the latest sale? I can understand you not being able to disclose the details, but this was a definite risk and should have been communicated as such. I can't believe everyone is quite so optimistic that the GM's will always do the right thing when an issue occurs. If I'm reading right then it's an issue that's happened a couple times before and CCP has always been quick on the draw to fix it, except this time quite a while has passed and now they're being less than helpful. If it's something that's historically been fixed quickly without issue then there's no reason to get everyone worked up over and potentially lose investors and therefor ISK to get more characters up and running, and slowing down profitability for existing investors. However, now that there's potentially billions lost if this issue isn't resolved, he's done the right thing by communicating with investors and telling what's happened, where things are at now, and an idea when we can be expected to know either all the details about what's occoured, or that the issue has been resolved. _______________________________ I need new voices in my head, To speak my secret evils with. I need new lovers in my bed, To be my friends and special pets.
Raskor	Posted - 2007.12.30 23:34:00 - [274] Edited by: Raskor on 30/12/2007 23:34:41 Originally by: Minerva Vulcan If I'm reading right then it's an issue that's happened a couple times before and CCP has always been quick on the draw to fix it, except this time quite a while has passed and now they're being less than helpful. If it's something that's historically been fixed quickly without issue then there's no reason to get everyone worked up over and potentially lose investors and therefor ISK to get more characters up and running, and slowing down profitability for existing investors. First off, I'm not implying anything malicious here. I'm not insinuating that Matalino is trying to scam; I'm just saying he should have given full disclosure when he came looking for additional funding. Yes, it had happened before and had been quickly addressed in the past without any need to notify shareholders. But that changed when they deviated from the norm, when he had to escalate to a senior GM for resolution. He chose a reverse auction format to maximize funding per share. I bought in at a higher price giving up future gain. I did that knowing the mech core market was on a down swing but believing he was hedged against that risk. There was an issue that he was not at full production due to a game bug. Even if the GM's ultimately restore the lost datacores, time will be against him; he will have to sell them at the then price and receiving a likely lower average price. This was most definitely a material risk to his business and should have been disclosed when he came looking for new funding. I'm not trying to crucify the OP here or asking for my isk back. The goal of this forum from what I have been reading is to improve this part of the game and identify best practices. Full disclosure is every bit as important as communication, in my opinion.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2007.12.30 23:37:00 - [275] Edited by: Matalino on 30/12/2007 23:41:36 Originally by: Minerva Vulcan If I'm reading right then it's an issue that's happened a couple times before and CCP has always been quick on the draw to fix it, except this time quite a while has passed and now they're being less than helpful. If it's something that's historically been fixed quickly without issue then there's no reason to get everyone worked up over and potentially lose investors and therefor ISK to get more characters up and running, and slowing down profitability for existing investors. However, now that there's potentially billions lost if this issue isn't resolved, he's done the right thing by communicating with investors and telling what's happened, where things are at now, and an idea when we can be expected to know either all the details about what's occoured, or that the issue has been resolved. Minerva's read is correct. The issue was small and had occured several times before. Each time the issue was quickly and promptly resolved. This last time it had taken much longer than expected. At the time that the previous batch of shares was released, I was still fully confident that CCP would respond in a reasonable time frame and it would be fully resolved. Up until about a week after the previous batch of shares was released, the lack of resolution for this issue had no direct impact on my operations. Had CCP resolved this issue anytime within a month of my filing the petition there would have been no ill effects. However, it has now been over 6 weeks since the petition was filed, and the side effects of this issue are now significant. As Minerva said, in a week or two I hope to be able to come back and state that everything has been fixed. If not I will detail exactly what has happened, and then we can discuss it in detail. If the forum moderators will permit us to discuss GM actions here then I will post a new thread to detail what has happened, if not there are other forums we can use. In the mean time this is simply an advisory that there may be an unpleasent announcement in the near future should the issue not be resolved, or in the very least a delay in the release of the quarterly report even if the issue is resolved. Until we know what CCP is going to do, there is little more to discuss on this issue. I believe that it is in the interest of investors to keep the details confidencial, in the hopes that by honoring CCP's policies regarding the discussion of GM actions we will encourage them to be reasonable in resolving the mess they have created. Should CCP choose not to resolve the issue, I will disclose every detail regarding the history of this issue, at which point I would invite critism of what has happened, both on how it was handled by CCP and my own counter response.
Guido Santorini	Posted - 2007.12.31 11:28:00 - [276] As one of Matalino's investors, I continue to be optimistic on the outcome of his ventures. I'm sure that all will be resolved favourably as this is the Holiday Season and CCP, like many companies, is down to a skeleton crew for at least another couple of days. Happy New Year to all, GS
Finedele Marquie-X Corp Majesta Empire	Posted - 2008.01.05 09:16:00 - [277] anything new about the petition?
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2008.01.05 12:00:00 - [278] Hasn't even been a week yet since he announced the problem. Give it a little more time. He said a week or two. _______________________________ I need new voices in my head, To speak my secret evils with. I need new lovers in my bed, To be my friends and special pets.
Finedele Marquie-X Corp Majesta Empire	Posted - 2008.01.05 15:17:00 - [279] My post wasnt meant to push Matalino, I am just curious, based on my recent experience with the customer support. And as he mentioned, the case was already petitioned a while ago. You see, no offense
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.05 20:46:00 - [280] No worries about pushing for an update. I was planning to post one today anyways. Still nothing new from CCP. If additional shares will need to be issues it will not be before Jan 19. As such I am giving CCP until Jan 16 to respond and resolve this issue. That will have given them 2 months from the date of the creation of this petition and 7 weeks since their last response.
Astorothe Aperture Science Industries	Posted - 2008.01.09 13:10:00 - [281] Originally by: Matalino As such I am giving CCP until Jan 16 to respond and resolve this issue. That will have given them 2 months from the date of the creation of this petition and 7 weeks since their last response. I can't believe they can take so long to answer a petition. It's a disgraceful example of customer service. Really. Eve Corp and Fansite Web design, development and hosting services
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.09 15:26:00 - [282] Originally by: Astorothe Originally by: Matalino As such I am giving CCP until Jan 16 to respond and resolve this issue. That will have given them 2 months from the date of the creation of this petition and 7 weeks since their last response. I can't believe they can take so long to answer a petition. It's a disgraceful example of customer service. Really. The delay is not the worst of it, but I will save that until they respond or we run out of time. So far there has still been no further response. Mean while, nothing will be changed by impatience. We can wait one or two more weeks before decisions need to be made.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.10 01:37:00 - [283] A responce has been received from a Senior GM. So far he has been no more helpful nor informative than the previous GM's that responded to this petition. It is still premature to disclose the history of this issue, but I now expect that the issue will be settled one way or the other in comparitively short order. As soon as all avenues of appeal are exhusted, I will publish a detailed history of the issue, estimations of its effects, and the plan/options for proceeding.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.01.10 01:49:00 - [284] Edited by: Treelox on 10/01/2008 01:50:32 I dont know if you noticed or not, but there was a server side hotfix deployed today on TQ during DT. The patch notes for it listed the follow line; Originally by: CCP Mindstar * Some R&D agent missions were not working properly due to a server-side error. This error has been resolved. OFC thats a pretty vague report by them on what exactly was fixed, but then again so far so has the description of your problem. Is it possible that this hotfix has fixed your problem for potential repeats of the issue you currently have under petition? If it has fixed this problem, maybe refering the senior gm to that patch note, will expedite then fixing your problem of the past that is what your current petition is about. ----edit added the last sentence --
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2008.01.10 02:09:00 - [285] That's about missions. I don't know if the problem is mission related. I wouldn't think that if it were just related to a mission it would be such a big deal, especially since I doubt he's flying 144 characters all over the place daily to do the agent mission. _______________________________ I need new voices in my head, To speak my secret evils with. I need new lovers in my bed, To be my friends and special pets.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.01.10 02:14:00 - [286] Originally by: Minerva Vulcan That's about missions. I don't know if the problem is mission related. I wouldn't think that if it were just related to a mission it would be such a big deal, especially since I doubt he's flying 144 characters all over the place daily to do the agent mission. Yeah I dont know if his issues are mission based or not either. I do know that I have seen his alts in space in groups of 5-8 on occasion. Not sure if they were running missions or what, but I figure it was possible. --
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2008.01.10 02:21:00 - [287] I suppose it's entirely possible then if he has the time or the desire to do that. It would be optimal for profits. If he is running missions on all of them then I'm wow'd... I couldn't see myself doing that. Of course I'm lazy, though. _______________________________ I need new voices in my head, To speak my secret evils with. I need new lovers in my bed, To be my friends and special pets.
Astorothe Aperture Science Industries	Posted - 2008.01.10 02:27:00 - [288] Originally by: Treelox Edited by: Treelox on 10/01/2008 01:50:32 I dont know if you noticed or not, but there was a server side hotfix deployed today on TQ during DT. The patch notes for it listed the follow line; Originally by: CCP Mindstar * Some R&D agent missions were not working properly due to a server-side error. This error has been resolved. OFC thats a pretty vague report by them on what exactly was fixed, but then again so far so has the description of your problem. Is it possible that this hotfix has fixed your problem for potential repeats of the issue you currently have under petition? If it has fixed this problem, maybe refering the senior gm to that patch note, will expedite then fixing your problem of the past that is what your current petition is about. ----edit added the last sentence yeh I noticed this aswell and immidiately thought about Mat's issues. I also don't know for sure if his issues are related directly, but from his most recent posts above it looks like we're close to a resolution. fingers crossed Eve Corp and Fansite Web design, development and hosting services
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.01.10 02:29:00 - [289] Originally by: Minerva Vulcan I suppose it's entirely possible then if he has the time or the desire to do that. It would be optimal for profits. If he is running missions on all of them then I'm wow'd... I couldn't see myself doing that. Of course I'm lazy, though. Well i assume he has to run missions with them sometime, to get their standings up the point they can employ the RnD agents in the first place. Then again I haven't paid too much attention to this plan, since it was not something I was intrested in investing from its onset. It had nothing to do with trust or anything sinister of the sort, just wasnt something I felt comfortable in investing in. --
Shadarle	Posted - 2008.01.10 02:42:00 - [290] Originally by: Treelox Originally by: Minerva Vulcan I suppose it's entirely possible then if he has the time or the desire to do that. It would be optimal for profits. If he is running missions on all of them then I'm wow'd... I couldn't see myself doing that. Of course I'm lazy, though. Well i assume he has to run missions with them sometime, to get their standings up the point they can employ the RnD agents in the first place. Then again I haven't paid too much attention to this plan, since it was not something I was intrested in investing from its onset. It had nothing to do with trust or anything sinister of the sort, just wasnt something I felt comfortable in investing in. He ran missions using the fleet sharing of standings that you get now as far as I could guess anyhow. But R&D agents would require a mission being run for every single character. I highly doubt he is doing that. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2008.01.10 02:47:00 - [291] Originally by: Treelox Well i assume he has to run missions with them sometime, to get their standings up the point they can employ the RnD agents in the first place. Then again I haven't paid too much attention to this plan, since it was not something I was intrested in investing from its onset. It had nothing to do with trust or anything sinister of the sort, just wasnt something I felt comfortable in investing in. I was refering to the optional R&D missions that characters can run once a day that double their RP gains for that day, not the regular agent missions that were of course necessary for standings. And I do have to say I'm impressed with Matalino. I had enough of an excruciating time doing it for two characters. I can't imagine doing it for 144. _______________________________ I need new voices in my head, To speak my secret evils with. I need new lovers in my bed, To be my friends and special pets.
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2008.01.10 05:11:00 - [292] It's not about missions. It's related to skills. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.10 05:58:00 - [293] Edited by: Matalino on 10/01/2008 06:00:23 Originally by: Ricdic It's not about missions. It's related to skills. Correct. Ricdic, as my Board of Directors, has been kept up to date on the progression of this issue, and is fully aware of what it is. For now, I am sticking with my policy of giving CCP the option of confidenciality provided that the final result is a full and complete resolution. As such I am not revealling the details at this time. Until I know the outcome of the petition, I do not wish to say more than absolutely nessisary. I have received a second response from the Senior GM. Now that my petition has made it to the top of the pile, it would appear that responses are timely enough that they could almost be concidered a dialog. If this pace of response continues, the petition should run its course quickly. Once the fate of the petition is certain, I will disclose those details that are appropreate. Should CCP choose to fully resolve this issue, I will leave it as such, and not needlessly disgrace them by publicly detailing how this issue has been mishandled. If investors will suffer in anyway as a result of this issue, I will disclose all of the details. You would then be free to evaluate the situation for yourselfs. In both cases, Ricdic will be fully informed, and will likely advise me as to the degree of disclosure that is appropreate based on the respnose that CCP reaches.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.12 22:03:00 - [294] I have not yet received another response from CCP regarding the petition. The petition status has reverted back to "Open". When I received the previous rapid response the status was "In-Action". This change in status would lead me to beleive that it might be a couple more days before I receive another response. CCP's responses have left much to be desired from their customer service, but we are still taking the stance of wait-and-see so that they can either resolve their misconduct, or once the petition has run its course, their misconduct can be reported in full, without taking things out of context. Ricdic has been and will continue to be fully informed of the progress of this issue. Until this issue is concluded, it is impractical to provide an appropreate report on the progress of this venture, but I can assure you that I am doing all that I can to ensure its success.
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.01.13 00:41:00 - [295] Yeh I have suggested a few ideas that may help this issue be resolved. A little different to the way Matalino was handling it. Whether it is sufficient or not is anyone's guess. Matalino, lets assume the petition goes badly and nothing is resolved. Can you give a rough estimate (I know you can't give accurate without doing a ton of number calculations) on what the investors will expect to occur with their investment. Basically just a rough worst case scenario if this doesn't work. I don't feel comfortable saying it as I don't know this industry anywhere near as detailed as you do.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.13 01:40:00 - [296] Originally by: EBANK Ricdic Matalino, lets assume the petition goes badly and nothing is resolved. Can you give a rough estimate (I know you can't give accurate without doing a ton of number calculations) on what the investors will expect to occur with their investment. Basically just a rough worst case scenario if this doesn't work. I don't feel comfortable saying it as I don't know this industry anywhere near as detailed as you do. At the end of this week, I will be running those projections. If CCP has not resolved the issue before then, those projections will assume that CCP will not resolve the issue. I do not want to run those projections twice if I can avoid the extra work. The results of those projections will not affect opperational plans for this week, but I will need those projections to make operations plans for next week and beyond. So the previously planned deadline for resolution remains: waiting one more week will not make things any worse. I will provide more information next weekend, provided that CCP does not give me more to report before then.
Motivated Prophet Zerodot Schools Power Corrupts Industry's	Posted - 2008.01.13 02:08:00 - [297] Originally by: Ricdic It's not about missions. It's related to skills. Ugh, don't tell me; did they break Connections again!? MP -- Proud steward of 47 billion isk in public money, and counting. Ask me about mineral ~~compression~~expansion! WTF?
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.01.13 02:26:00 - [298] Originally by: Motivated Prophet Originally by: Ricdic It's not about missions. It's related to skills. Ugh, don't tell me; did they break Connections again!? MP Ok, I won't
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.13 02:30:00 - [299] Originally by: Motivated Prophet Originally by: Ricdic It's not about missions. It's related to skills. Ugh, don't tell me; did they break Connections again!? MP Nope, something else entirely. At this point, the heart of the issue, is CCP saying one thing, doing it several times, being asked if they will do it again, given an opporunity to advise is anything has changed, giving me a go ahead to proceed, then refusing to follow through on their end. Had CCP pulled this stunt with someone who was less of a fanboy than I used to be, you would already have all of the details in a lengthy whine. As it is, I am giving CCP enough room to either recover some dignity, or kill any remain credibility their customer service might have.
Lieutenant Obvious Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.13 04:31:00 - [300] Wait, did you just say CCP had customer service?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: 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.