| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
bluejeansandpudding
   |
Posted - 2007.10.19 03:13:00 -
[31]
The fact still is that many people are put on that list because they lack credibility and not because they were accused of scamming or corp thievery. Putting disputed when there is no proof or proof that it is not true is not a good idea instead they should be removed. I can name several people off that list right now that have never been accused of any scamming or thievery and the links that supposedly condemn them prove this.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 03:33:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: bluejeansandpudding
The fact still is that many people are put on that list because they lack credibility and not because they were accused of scamming or corp thievery. Putting disputed when there is no proof or proof that it is not true is not a good idea instead they should be removed. I can name several people off that list right now that have never been accused of any scamming or thievery and the links that supposedly condemn them prove this.
I'm not trying to bring up any old disputes that exist in my past but I've also accused people of malfeasance. Accusations that have been hotly disputed over time. I'm not saying that I was right or that they were right. The point is that when it is just a post on the EO Forums where the accused and their friends can stand up, freely and as unrestrained as I, to denounce the accusations... there it is. I still feel as strongly about any testimony I've given to this community. I am right but I'm also proud at those who have faced my accusation squarely and forcefully. I'm delighted that the forums allow them to do so even if I think the people in question are "bad" or "being silly" or "insert any position". The problem with this idea (and I actually did run such a site) is that there is no reasonably acceptable non-biased party to maintain such a site. Inadvertently you may be creating a perceived authority regarding such matters but in truth it has none. And, as my final nay say, this is exactly the same project that Cally started to get himself noticed. The past repeats itself... ...
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Matalino
Gallente
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 03:39:00 -
[33]
Originally by: bluejeansandpudding
The fact still is that many people are put on that list because they lack credibility and not because they were accused of scamming or corp thievery. Putting disputed when there is no proof or proof that it is not true is not a good idea instead they should be removed. I can name several people off that list right now that have never been accused of any scamming or thievery and the links that supposedly condemn them prove this.
I would have to agree with this.
Even with Miss Fiona, there is no PROOF that she is in fact a scammer. She may have systematically destroyed her credibility, but that does not make her a scammer.
Unless the list is cleaned up to only list verified scammers and thieves than it is comparable to a witch hunt in that we are finding things that aren't there, or at least like the inquisition where people are effectively executed based on circumstantial evidence.
**************************
Datacore Harvesting IPO |
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:52:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
creating a perceived authority regarding such matters but in truth it has none. [/justify]
The only "authority" is the comments both by the accusers and those accused and it is made in the minds of the readers.
Eve doesn't follow our rules that every one is "innocent until proven guilty": every one is guilty until proven innocent.
To quote Wrangler:
"EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world; it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world."
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 04:54:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
The only "authority" is the comments both by the accusers and those accused and it is made in the minds of the readers.
I agree that I would like to see such a place. I don't know you well enough to know if you are the person to do it. Not saying you aren't but something with the ability to so totally tar someone's image and/or game experience without any real ability to respond. It's dangerous. Here on the forums if "Shar Tegral" says something "Shar Tegral" is liable for it. Your site we have to take your word for each and every report or comment. A 3rd party site that we have no transparency with. It's like scrapheap. Just because everyone seems to go there doesn't mean it is a credible source. But that doesn't stop everyone from treating it like it is. Which is patently wrong but this community is perverse at times. Like, why would you believe the Scrapheap "Shar" or "Shar Tegral" would post such badly formed sentences? I don't know if there is those user names in use but I would not be surprised. It would not be the first 3rd party forum with a registered user nick stealing. (And me getting angry evemail's over it too.) This is but a couple of the many problems with 3rd party sites, identity, and accusations. So, I'll leave this thread with the obvious thought: Such a place would be nice not possible for it to be credible.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 05:42:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
... that Cally ...
Thanks for that name.... I was able to find two more names looking through threads about him dealing with other IPO scammers. I expect to find other names as I sift more threads.
|
Digital Nightfall
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 06:11:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Digital Nightfall on 20/10/2007 06:13:48
Originally by: bluejeansandpudding
The fact still is that many people are put on that list because they lack credibility and not because they were accused of scamming or corp thievery. Putting disputed when there is no proof or proof that it is not true is not a good idea instead they should be removed. I can name several people off that list right now that have never been accused of any scamming or thievery and the links that supposedly condemn them prove this.
Agree.
I think you lost me when you went from verified scammers to also include those suspected, critised and otherwise lacking wouldbe CEO's of dodgy IPOs.
There are so many reasons why its unethical to put names down on a list where they cant engage in any kind of debate to argue their own case. If you'd stick with actual scammers, those who have been found to be scammers, who have been outed here, by those from whom they stole, then I'd say whatever floats your boat, sure, make a list of it.
You have to have a pretty unfailable ethical compass yourself, before you start labelling others for their lack thereof. - Knowing that your current criteria is flawed would have been good. That you dont see that, makes me wonder if youre throwing stones while cribbing in a glasshouse.
I wont be using your list, mostly because I dont need it, and secondly because I dont support your view of what it takes to get on that list. I think it can and is being abused while you dont stick with the straight and narrow, proved scammers only.
|
Rhiraven
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 06:38:00 -
[38]
Recently someone posted an IPO (here) that earned big red SCAM signs on every page of every IPO the guy ever made, just because his proposal read like a Pfeizer advertisement. I was right there with everyone else laughing at the scammer.
I am no longer so sure that guy is actually scamming, and people have actually invested with him and I've yet to see them hoot and holler about not getting their isk. Depending on what I hear, he might even get some of mine to work with sometime.
I do know that I'll never post that big red gif in anyone's thread, and I won't be calling anyone a scammer ever again without a lot of thought beforehand and almost certain evidence.
Your idea is badly thought-out and I dislike it.
|
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 06:44:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Digital Nightfall
There are so many reasons why its unethical to put names down on a list where they cant engage in any kind of debate to argue their own case.
As I have already said about twenty times they CAN come and argue their case.
Your logic is flawed.
|
Digital Nightfall
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 06:48:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Digital Nightfall on 20/10/2007 06:48:28
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Digital Nightfall
There are so many reasons why its unethical to put names down on a list where they cant engage in any kind of debate to argue their own case.
As I have already said about twenty times they CAN come and argue their case.
Your logic is flawed.
Semantics. You only have to do a search on the forums, which you already have done, to see how those debates go. Once you label someone you have done damage. Its slightly unerving that you refuse to acknowledge this.
Anyways, Im out of this thread, I dont have any confidence in your judgement at this point, so, I'll leave your list and you alone.
|
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 07:05:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Rhiraven
I am no longer so sure that guy is actually scamming,
Okay I think I know which two characters people are concerned with.... so I've created a special place for them. This should fix that problem.
|
McRuder
Gallente
Magnets and Duct Tape
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 10:45:00 -
[42]
Edited by: McRuder on 20/10/2007 10:46:11
It is out of my place to argue or contest for others without being asked or given permission. However, after all the recent events in this forum I have gone back and read through many threads in their entirety - word for word. I have also used eve-search to find as much as possible.
The result is a simple request: Please do not add names to your list where there is no proof of wrongdoing. A person's literacy, and intellectual capabilities, have nothing to do with their intentions. It is extremely rude and abusive to even imply such.
The risk of this thread is that it is used in such a manner as now, to discredit certain people based on opinions of another. This can only get worse in time, if you allow it to happen now.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 11:07:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Digital Nightfall
There are so many reasons why its unethical to put names down on a list where they cant engage in any kind of debate to argue their own case.
As I have already said about twenty times they CAN come and argue their case.
Your logic is flawed.
The problem is, that doesn't address the underlieing problem with such a list. Either there's a set of criteria to be listed as a "possible/likely/whatever" scammer or there isn't.
If there's no such set of criteria then obviously the website just becomes full of baseless accusations - and the signal:noise ratio becomes so low as to remove any utility from it.
If there IS a set of criteria then being listed carries with it some degree of stigma - and the assumption that being on the list makes you more likely to be a scammer than those not on it. And therein lies a two-fold problem:
1. That whoever runs the site is unbiased, diligent in research and totally fair.
2. That the degree of evidence necessary to be put on the list is clearly defined and focussed purely on issues which point towards being a scammer, rather than towards other factors. It's very hard to tell the difference between a bad attempt scamming and a genuine attempt by someone of low competence. Whilst a case COULD be made that weeding out incompetents isn't a bad thing, I'd contend that IS a bad thing if the way it's done is by branding someone as a scammer.
Ultimately I can see a lot of names on the list being people who most likely weren't scammers - they were some combination of naive, illiterate (or using a language not their primary one) and incompetent. Some of those could go on to brush their act up and, with assistance, become valuable members of the trading community. If they get tarred with the "scammer" brush (even if with a side-note of "alleged") then they lose that opportunity. Getting on the list could easily end up having far more to do with the relative literacy of the defendant and the accuser(s) than with the extent of any existent evidence demonstrating an intent to defraud.
|
Shin Ra
Origin Unknown.
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 12:03:00 -
[44]
Guilty until proven innocent is the only way it can work, bearing in mind current game mechanics.
That being said, I didn't make the list 
|
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 13:15:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Shin Ra
Guilty until proven innocent is the only way it can work, bearing in mind current game mechanics.
Exactly!
How many times have you read "They got what they deserved when they trusted a (insert xx day/week old) toon." You know people are guilty intill they prove by their actions in game that they are innocent (trustworthy). How do you think Chribba got the name he has? He was trusted with small transactions and did them well and people gave him larger and larger items to transfer till he proved he could be trusted in game.
|
Oron
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 17:37:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Oron on 20/10/2007 17:42:39
Originally by: Shadarle
Sorry, what is your problem exactly? I don't see anything wrong with a website trying to create a system for people to call out scammers/thieves.
My problem is abuse. Because there can be no proofs, its just a matter of how many ppl someone is able to mobilize.
Eve do not need a platform for witch hunt, because, Eve already has its way for building trust. Its called "independent overview". While there is no reason to belive it is realy independent, it worked pretty well in the past and I see no reason to change that.
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
How do you think Chribba got the name he has? He was trusted with small transactions and did them well and people gave him larger and larger items to transfer till he proved he could be trusted in game.
Excaly this is the way to gain trust and it works fine because there can be a proof for honesty. Your way, not rewarding honesty but to punish beguilement will not work because there can be no proof for scamming.
|
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 20:10:00 -
[47]
Well... I disagree.
Those people who want to can use it and if not then don't.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 20:47:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Shin Ra
Guilty until proven innocent is the only way it can work, bearing in mind current game mechanics.
Exactly!
I'm just wondering... if this list pretty much applies to literally 100% of the entire player base would it not be wiser to aim for something effective instead of something broadly generic? Why don't you expend your effort in creating a list about people that are the exception to the rule? A list about people trustworthy. I think that you are doing a list on scammers because it is easy to do. It requires little credibility and/or research. Anyone who finds them self on the list is free to protest but we all know it's just lying "after getting caught" right? Everyone is guilty until proven innocent after all.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Pang Grohl
Gallente
Sudo Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 20:56:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Pang Grohl
So, yes this is McCarthyism a la internet spaceships.
You can try to spin your comment any way you wish, it wasn't as bad to be labeled a communist as it was to be labeled a witch. Being shunned is not as bad as being burned alive or drowned or stoned or some other such horrible death.
I think it's an even greater insult to allow this kind of behavior to go unchallenged. The problem isn't that people had their lives ruined. The problem is that they had their lives ruined as the result of false accusations.
Mark my words, people will use this to pursue personal vendettas. People will abuse it. Every verified scammer reported will make it that much easier to abuse. People will have their internet spaceship lives ruined on the back of this website. Is it as severe as the results of McCarthy hearings? No, but that doesn't make it OK!
Originally by: Shadarle
This is a member of the community making a collection of names of people who have scammed or stolen stuff. He even puts disputed next to any name in which someone disputes. And there is a link to the post explaining how the person stole or scammed.
Do I see there being plenty of room for abuse in this? Yes. Do I think it is McCarthyism or Witch Hunting? No. First off, Witch Hunting was looking for something that wasn't even real. McCarthyism was looking for communists, which we now realize isn't such a big deal. In this case it is people who have actually done something specific which is not accepted by 99% of the community (namely stealing and/or scamming). It can be conclusively proven that someone has scammed or stolen something in at least some cases. In 10 years if people still play EVE they will not look back and say "those silly people, they didn't like scammers or thieves back then, how unenlightened they were". They will still hate scammers and thieves.
How do you prove that someone is not a scammer after they've been accused? It's the accused's word against the accuser's. Who do you trust?
Do you see where this goes? If you assume trust of the accusers, the accused never get a fair shake. If you assume trust of the accused, you don't get justice for the victims of real scammers.
Originally by: Shadarle
It's apples and oranges and no matter how you spin it, calling this McCarthyism is merely an insult to anyone who was labeled a communist in that era and actually had to undergo real problems.
You don't get it. False accusation is false accusation. If you believe that it's acceptable behavior to bear false witness against someone, you're about as low on my trustworthiness scale as an admitted scammer.
Si non adjuvas, noces
(If you're not helping, you're hurting) |
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 21:14:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
A list about people trustworthy.
I think it is a wonderful idea actually. And you are correct it would be much harder to put together.
How would you suggest it be done?
Originally by: Shar Tegral
I think that you are doing a list on scammers because it is easy to do.
No actually I'm doing this because I was one of the many burned by R0me0 and once you know how it feels you don't wany anyone else to have to experience it.
As an aside.... R0me0 told me that he would have gone on being able to scam a lot more people because till he did me the other he scammed wouldn't say anything about it! (For fear of admitting to being stupid maybe?) He said he wished he had left me alone as he would have gotten more billion before others found out about him. He had to move faster then he wanted when I gave him two days to do the right thing or I would expose him. (I probably should have just done it that day instead) I feel good about stopping him from scamming more people and hope to stop others from having to experience the feeling of being scammed with this list.
|
3535325385hdgsbndgsdjg
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 21:52:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Shar Tegral
A list about people trustworthy.
I think it is a wonderful idea actually. And you are correct it would be much harder to put together.
How would you suggest it be done?
Originally by: Shar Tegral
I think that you are doing a list on scammers because it is easy to do.
No actually I'm doing this because I was one of the many burned by R0me0 and once you know how it feels you don't wany anyone else to have to experience it.
As an aside.... R0me0 told me that he would have gone on being able to scam a lot more people because till he did me the other he scammed wouldn't say anything about it! (For fear of admitting to being stupid maybe?) He said he wished he had left me alone as he would have gotten more billion before others found out about him. He had to move faster then he wanted when I gave him two days to do the right thing or I would expose him. (I probably should have just done it that day instead) I feel good about stopping him from scamming more people and hope to stop others from having to experience the feeling of being scammed with this list.
Then be more careful about who you put on your list. No one deserves to be on the list unless they either scammed or were proven to be alts of scammers.
|
Pang Grohl
Gallente
Sudo Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 21:54:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
No actually I'm doing this because I was one of the many burned by R0me0 and once you know how it feels you don't wany anyone else to have to experience it.
Your intentions may be noble, but the method you choose will harm more than it helps.
Si non adjuvas, noces
(If you're not helping, you're hurting) |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 22:00:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Shar Tegral on 20/10/2007 22:01:17
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Shar Tegral
A list about people trustworthy.
I think it is a wonderful idea actually. And you are correct it would be much harder to put together.
How would you suggest it be done?
Do it like you are doing the scammer list. If someone gets pointed to you as being trustworthy require back up evidence and allow credible comments to be added. It is by no means more secure than doing scammers but it is less likely to be a form of unanswerable griefing then the original plan. Credibility still becomes an issue as it only takes one fail on your list to ruin you. However with the opposite you can repeatedly fail and people still think you credible regardless. Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Shar Tegral
I think that you are doing a list on scammers because it is easy to do.
No actually I'm doing this because I was one of the many burned by R0me0 and once you know how it feels you don't wany anyone else to have to experience it.
LOL, why does everyone presume to think I don't know what it feels like? Ironically enough Eve Guardian was the first eve community website that gained unsolicited mention in a published gaming magazine. Why? Mostly because of my constant uncovering of scams being run by Zeepo. It was interesting as Zeepo would make alt after alt after alt running a variety of scams again and again and again. Nothing really could be done much about it except for looking for telltales, which I did, and bringing them to light. (The irritation is that the article pointed out Eve Guardian's efforts but made Zeepo more famous than anything else - I hate such glorification of fraud and deceit.) I understand your drive for a better way. But, as in the case of Rome0, once the scam has ballooned there wasn't crap you could do about it. And ironically enough I'm sure many people would've said that Rome0 was trustworthy. Whistle blowing in Eve is often enough Smoke blowing... how does one tell the difference? While you may feel some personal drive to find ways to prevent this from happening again, in some future, the irony is that until alts are findable, until some form of personal responsibility is injected into the game, until multiple account holders can be connected together.... there are just way too many ways for people to expend 1 year's effort of trust gaining for a 48B isk pay out at the end of it. And these days we are seeing people with even less time in Eve asking for almost as much... and getting ****y when they don't get it. (Nothing says failed scam to me as that.)
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Oron
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 22:05:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
I'm just wondering... if this list pretty much applies to literally 100% of the entire player base would it not be wiser to aim for something effective instead of something broadly generic? Why don't you expend your effort in creating a list about people that are the exception to the rule?
A list about people trustworthy.
That is a good idea, but also quite hard to do it in a generic way - applying to every aspect of eve. What would be possible, is a list of ppl who have the turst of the market community and are willing to act as "independant reviewer" of IPOs.
|
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 01:31:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
LOL, why does everyone presume to think I don't know what it feels like?
Never meant to say you or others haven't felt what it is like... just, that is my motivation.
Thanks for another name.
|
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 01:43:00 -
[56]
And what do I find when I look up Zeepo? Link
Originally by: Sassinak
Ok so you got scammed by one of the most well known scammers in eve
gg
You really must read forum more....
I've been reading these forums for a year and had no clue about him. And there are a lot of other people that have less time then me to read the forums. This just reinforces me to continue with this list even more. People can read and make up their own minds about those listed from the mouths of each party.
|
Fitz VonHeise
The New Order.
United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:53:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise
Originally by: Shar Tegral
A list about people [who are] trustworthy.
How would you suggest it be done?
Do it like you are doing the scammer list.
I've been thinking about how this could be done. It would take a bit of time a trouble but I think I came up with a way to make it possible.
Since most people who are concerned about a good rep have a business we could do it this way. Ask people to post in the thread this info:
1. Name of Business alt
2. Name of main
3. Description of Business
4. Link to business.
5. How long in business.
Now if they do not have a business but want to be listed anyway then they would have to have others recommend them that do have a good rep and have already demonstrated that to the eve community. (Those who recommend others are putting their rep on the line)
I would make the thread based here in this forum but would have another link in the Sales forum under ôServiceö as in I am providing this service and this will be a 2nd way to gain publicity for people to add their names to the list.
What do you think?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |