EVE Search - Help With IPO Scammer Names Needed

All Channels

Market Discussions

Help With IPO Scammer Names Needed

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. United Connection's	Posted - 2007.10.17 23:02:00 - [1] Those of you who have been around a while and have this information I would like to include the names of past Corp IPO scammers in my Thieves Of EvE link. Yes a link to the post showing the proof would be great... but if not just mention the names of the scammers you know and I will try finding those posts. (And if there is disagreement about a name point that out too)
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation	Posted - 2007.10.17 23:04:00 - [2] Edited by: Minerva Vulcan on 17/10/2007 23:04:10 General Starscream AKA Miss Fiona would be one! As seen here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=613264
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.10.17 23:15:00 - [3] Originally by: Minerva Vulcan General Starscream AKA Miss Fiona would be one! This is unfair. Like most alt situations in eve, we suspect but there is little proof. Which is why such a website is a hard sell. I know, I did it for a time. It's A GIRL!!!!!
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation	Posted - 2007.10.17 23:27:00 - [4] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Minerva Vulcan General Starscream AKA Miss Fiona would be one! This is unfair. Like most alt situations in eve, we suspect but there is little proof. Which is why such a website is a hard sell. I know, I did it for a time. IP addresses and an increasing web of alts related to him are fairly convincing, however. Either way, even by some change if Miss Fiona isn't General Starscream, given 'her' conduct on this forum, I'd consider that character to be nothing but a common scammer. I've seen nothing that would make me trust it with a fraction of an ISK.
Hanoi Hana Mitsubishi Group	Posted - 2007.10.17 23:42:00 - [5] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Minerva Vulcan General Starscream AKA Miss Fiona would be one! This is unfair. Like most alt situations in eve, we suspect but there is little proof. Which is why such a website is a hard sell. I know, I did it for a time. I was also a little worried that people were taking the General Starscream = Miss Fiona to a far extreme. However, after Curzon Dax was brought to the thread and stated that they had the same IP on the Poker server AND in combination with Miss Fiona's unique speech style, I have lost any doubt about the matter.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.18 00:08:00 - [6] Originally by: Minerva Vulcan Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Minerva Vulcan General Starscream AKA Miss Fiona would be one! This is unfair. Like most alt situations in eve, we suspect but there is little proof. Which is why such a website is a hard sell. I know, I did it for a time. IP addresses and an increasing web of alts related to him are fairly convincing, however. Either way, even by some change if Miss Fiona isn't General Starscream, given 'her' conduct on this forum, I'd consider that character to be nothing but a common scammer. I've seen nothing that would make me trust it with a fraction of an ISK. I wouldn't trust Miss Fiona with any of my ISK - but that's because I think his/her posts demonstrate incompetence, not because I think he/she is a scammer. I'm VERY wary of any website which claims to somehow identify who is/isn't a scammer - as tht site is claiming some unique ability to deteremine what people's intent is. I don't personally have any knowledge that General Starscream is a scammer. I wouldn't invest in anyone with that name even if I felt they were genuine. Neither of those statements (whilst both 100% true) has any probative value to anyone else. A website claiming they can judge right from wrong is dangerous - as it leads people to believe that there's some independent third party with some better perspective than everyone else (either that, or it's a waste of time). By all means produce a website reporting on the market - and report on who will answer questions and who won't. But don't approach it from a perspective of assumptions about who's right and who's wrong based on forum posts. And don't assume you can somehow appoint yourself as the arbiter of all that's good/bad in Eve: we have enough people trying to set themselves up in that role already. For all I know Miss Fiona could be semi-literate but the best business person since sliced bread. If so, I'll be missing out on a great opportunity. And I couldn't give a **** whether he/she does well. But I DO care if people get black-balled just because a vocal minority oppose them - and I'd hate to see a website backing that perspective.
Digital Nightfall	Posted - 2007.10.18 02:32:00 - [7] Originally by: FastLearner Originally by: Minerva Vulcan Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Minerva Vulcan General Starscream AKA Miss Fiona would be one! This is unfair. Like most alt situations in eve, we suspect but there is little proof. Which is why such a website is a hard sell. I know, I did it for a time. IP addresses and an increasing web of alts related to him are fairly convincing, however. Either way, even by some change if Miss Fiona isn't General Starscream, given 'her' conduct on this forum, I'd consider that character to be nothing but a common scammer. I've seen nothing that would make me trust it with a fraction of an ISK. I wouldn't trust Miss Fiona with any of my ISK - but that's because I think his/her posts demonstrate incompetence, not because I think he/she is a scammer. I'm VERY wary of any website which claims to somehow identify who is/isn't a scammer - as tht site is claiming some unique ability to deteremine what people's intent is. I don't personally have any knowledge that General Starscream is a scammer. I wouldn't invest in anyone with that name even if I felt they were genuine. Neither of those statements (whilst both 100% true) has any probative value to anyone else. A website claiming they can judge right from wrong is dangerous - as it leads people to believe that there's some independent third party with some better perspective than everyone else (either that, or it's a waste of time). By all means produce a website reporting on the market - and report on who will answer questions and who won't. But don't approach it from a perspective of assumptions about who's right and who's wrong based on forum posts. And don't assume you can somehow appoint yourself as the arbiter of all that's good/bad in Eve: we have enough people trying to set themselves up in that role already. For all I know Miss Fiona could be semi-literate but the best business person since sliced bread. If so, I'll be missing out on a great opportunity. And I couldn't give a **** whether he/she does well. But I DO care if people get black-balled just because a vocal minority oppose them - and I'd hate to see a website backing that perspective. big freaking quote there :) but I agree with the last poster above. I dont know that Im convinced Fiona is Starscam, but going on her posts in general, I dont think she demonstrates the competence or knowledge Id prefer in the ceo of a multi billion IPO. I also dont allways understand her posts or ideas, so I never even considered investing. I think it would be unfair to add fionas list to some kind of scam wanted poster out there. I think as a requirement for such a thing, you'd need people to actually come forward and state clearly that they were scammed by the individual. We have left the dark ages afterall.
Miss Fiona Gallente Nexus Trading guild	Posted - 2007.10.18 03:04:00 - [8] Thats just baseless info. im not the same as Starscam, im not the same gender nor do i live in the same land as him. i proved my ip was diffrent, and i did even go so far to prove im a girl. this is just a bad mistake, and peopel should let this go by now.if they have any selfrespect for them self, trolling people whom havent done anything is bad.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.18 04:48:00 - [9] Edited by: Shadarle on 18/10/2007 04:48:53 Originally by: Miss Fiona Thats just baseless info. im not the same as Starscam, im not the same gender nor do i live in the same land as him. i proved my ip was diffrent, and i did even go so far to prove im a girl. this is just a bad mistake, and peopel should let this go by now.if they have any selfrespect for them self, trolling people whom havent done anything is bad. You proved you were a girl? You proved you had a different IP? You can prove you live in a different "land"? How exactly do you know where General Starscream lives to know you don't live right next door to him? It seems impossible to know you don't live in the same place without knowing him personally... and if you do that is the end of it. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Ambo 2nd Outcasters	Posted - 2007.10.18 07:43:00 - [10] Back on topic - I also consider this sort of website rather dangerous. Firstly because, depending upon your criteria you could list chars that have not actually scammed anyone (that we know of), like Fiona. Secondly, because many scammers will have multiple old and seemingly unconnected alts. Thirdly, because I (or anyone else) could decide tomorrow that they are going to run a scam IPO. I am also unsure what a site like this would actually be used for. The investment market is pretty good these days, the market forums do a great job of flushing out scam/bad IPOs. It only takes a few minutes usually to search around and find if a character has a slightly dodgy history.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.18 11:59:00 - [11] What I could potentially see this being useful for is Jita morons. People who, while in Jita, read local and see someone like Fiona/Starscream, etc advertising shares. They could look these people up and see the bad rep they have. The site would have to be VERY clear that it is not the final source on anyone and it could be wrong. But then go ahead and point to the proof, multiple threads if needed, so people can make up their own minds. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Sphynx Stormlord Gallente Anqara Tech	Posted - 2007.10.18 12:45:00 - [12] Originally by: Shadarle What I could potentially see this being useful for is Jita morons. Sadly anything designed to help morons is fundementally flawed. Morons are not going to check, and will be easily parted from their isk.
Setana Manoro Gallente Firefly Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.18 14:41:00 - [13] Edited by: Setana Manoro on 18/10/2007 14:42:10 I'll have to say this again, I don't care if she is a scammer or not, and untill she runs off with the money she cannot be judged as such, to each his own interpretation. I had little respect for Curzon Dax, but when i saw that he used out of game resources to "prove" what is otherwise a player, playing the game in a way that CCP condones, i have lost all little respect i had. Curzon, you are a piece of **. Replace ** with whatever you want. Good thing you had the brains not to publish his/her IP or i would be have been the first to petition your ass. Failgeddon wrecks CCP for XXX annoyed customers !
LaVista Vista Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.10.18 14:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Setana Manoro Care to link Curzon's post ? http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=612192&page=3#83 Proud nublet of more public ISK than * CAP4U - The Plan
Motivated Prophet Zerodot Schools Power Corrupts Industry's	Posted - 2007.10.18 15:29:00 - [15] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Setana Manoro Care to link Curzon's post ? http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=612192&page=3#83 To be fair, in that post, Curzon says he matched "MAC Addresses", which would be impossible, as they are a layer-2 address and aren't carried anywhere in the packet that arrives at the Poker Mavens server (the frame and its associated sender MAC address, of course, never having exiting the LAN). Then again, he might have meant "PC ID", which is a Poker Mavens-specific identifier consisting of the HDD serial number (trivially forgeable, but it would largely discount the possibility that they merely have the same ISP). MP -- Proud steward of 47 billion isk in public money, and counting. Ask me about mineral compression!
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.18 16:07:00 - [16] Originally by: Motivated Prophet Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Setana Manoro Care to link Curzon's post ? http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=612192&page=3#83 To be fair, in that post, Curzon says he matched "MAC Addresses", which would be impossible, as they are a layer-2 address and aren't carried anywhere in the packet that arrives at the Poker Mavens server (the frame and its associated sender MAC address, of course, never having exiting the LAN). Then again, he might have meant "PC ID", which is a Poker Mavens-specific identifier consisting of the HDD serial number (trivially forgeable, but it would largely discount the possibility that they merely have the same ISP). MP If he matched a # derived from a HDD serial number that is far more conclusive than even an IP is... but an IP is pretty damn conclusive as it is. I wouldn't kill anyone over an IP match, but I sure as hell wouldn't give the person my money either. I have no sympathy for scammers... and even if the person in question is not a scammer she deserves what she gets because she is acting like a baby. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Robacz Essence Trade Essence Enterprises	Posted - 2007.10.18 16:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Motivated Prophet To be fair, in that post, Curzon says he matched "MAC Addresses", which would be impossible, as they are a layer-2 address and aren't carried anywhere in the packet that arrives at the Poker Mavens server (the frame and its associated sender MAC address, of course, never having exiting the LAN). Then again, he might have meant "PC ID", which is a Poker Mavens-specific identifier consisting of the HDD serial number (trivially forgeable, but it would largely discount the possibility that they merely have the same ISP). MP I don't know what exactly is "Poker Mavens server", but if there is a custom client software run on client computer, it is possible to get MAC addresses (client software can read it locally and send it to server at login as part of login data). If it was web based client, there is a way how to read MAC via Java applet and log it on server side. MAC can be faked though. However we used MACs to ban a lot of cheaters in another online game, becouse they thought IP is the only thing our cheat protection could see.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.18 16:51:00 - [18] Originally by: Robacz Edited by: Robacz on 18/10/2007 16:47:47 Originally by: Motivated Prophet To be fair, in that post, Curzon says he matched "MAC Addresses", which would be impossible, as they are a layer-2 address and aren't carried anywhere in the packet that arrives at the Poker Mavens server (the frame and its associated sender MAC address, of course, never having exiting the LAN). Then again, he might have meant "PC ID", which is a Poker Mavens-specific identifier consisting of the HDD serial number (trivially forgeable, but it would largely discount the possibility that they merely have the same ISP). MP I don't know what exactly is "Poker Mavens server", but if there is a custom client software run on client computer, it is possible to get MAC addresses (client software can read it locally and send it to server at login as part of login data). MAC can be faked though. However we used MACs to ban a lot of cheaters in another online game, becouse they thought IP is the only thing our cheat protection could see. While a MAC can be faked it is very rarely faked, especially because most people don't think they need to. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. United Connection's	Posted - 2007.10.18 17:35:00 - [19] Edited by: Fitz VonHeise on 18/10/2007 17:37:30 Originally by: Shadarle The site would have to be VERY clear that it is not the final source on anyone and it could be wrong. But then go ahead and point to the proof, multiple threads if needed, so people can make up their own minds. This is exactly what I have done. And if the person mentioned questions being one I even put up that comment with "disputed" next to their name. People can then read and make up their own mind about the veracity and trustworthiness of the person mentioned and those who make statments against them. (And I fixed the link above to go to correct one)
Oron	Posted - 2007.10.18 18:07:00 - [20] witch-hunt.
bluejeansandpudding	Posted - 2007.10.18 18:26:00 - [21] I looked at the list and there was a fair amount of universally recognized scammers. However you also placed many innocent people there with the only proof being a link to a thread in which they posted with no hint of any scamming. Do you ever remove names from your questionable list?
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. United Connection's	Posted - 2007.10.18 21:22:00 - [22] Originally by: bluejeansandpudding you also placed many innocent people there with the only proof being a link to a thread in which they posted with no hint of any scamming. Do you ever remove names from your questionable list. The list is now made up of mostly Corp Thieves... not scammers. And if someone disputes their name being there I list it as being disputed and people can read both sides of the argument to determine whether they should deal with them. Now if I had people with great reps in Eve vouch for them I would include that as well. Proving beyond a shadow of doubt guilt or innocence is about impossible in Eve. So people will have to make up there own mind about an accusation.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.18 21:26:00 - [23] Originally by: Oron witch-hunt. Burn the witch! Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Oron	Posted - 2007.10.18 22:09:00 - [24] Edited by: Oron on 18/10/2007 22:09:30 Originally by: Shadarle Originally by: Oron witch-hunt. Burn the witch! Come on, Shadarle. Our recent conflict must not lead into general trollage. That would be market discuession unworthy, would you agree? :) On the other side, there is no way to rescue this thread anyway....
bluejeansandpudding	Posted - 2007.10.18 22:33:00 - [25] Originally by: Fitz VonHeise Originally by: bluejeansandpudding you also placed many innocent people there with the only proof being a link to a thread in which they posted with no hint of any scamming. Do you ever remove names from your questionable list. The list is now made up of mostly Corp Thieves... not scammers. And if someone disputes their name being there I list it as being disputed and people can read both sides of the argument to determine whether they should deal with them. Now if I had people with great reps in Eve vouch for them I would include that as well. Proving beyond a shadow of doubt guilt or innocence is about impossible in Eve. So people will have to make up there own mind about an accusation. I see several names there and I know why. None of it has anything to do with corp thievery.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.18 22:49:00 - [26] Originally by: Oron Edited by: Oron on 18/10/2007 22:09:30 Originally by: Shadarle Originally by: Oron witch-hunt. Burn the witch! Come on, Shadarle. Our recent conflict must not lead into general trollage. That would be market discuession unworthy, would you agree? :) On the other side, there is no way to rescue this thread anyway.... 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. Especially if it allows people to post comments and such. Sure it could be abused... but the fact that it could be doesn't mean it will be. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Pang Grohl Gallente Sudo Corp	Posted - 2007.10.18 22:58:00 - [27] I'll say no thanks to McCarthyism. Si non adjuvas, noces (If you're not helping, you're hurting)
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.18 23:27:00 - [28] Originally by: Pang Grohl I'll say no thanks to McCarthyism. Witch hunt, McCarthyism, what other names can we think up for this? This is nothing like McCarthyism and likening it to McCarthyism is making light of McCarthyism. There is no one "in power" here who holds the final sway on anything. Anyone can post in that thread and can post in the threads linked in that thread. I really get annoyed when people compare things to historical events or people when they do not even come close in their severity. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Pang Grohl Gallente Sudo Corp	Posted - 2007.10.19 00:18:00 - [29] Originally by: Shadarle Originally by: Pang Grohl I'll say no thanks to McCarthyism. Witch hunt, McCarthyism, what other names can we think up for this? This is nothing like McCarthyism and likening it to McCarthyism is making light of McCarthyism. There is no one "in power" here who holds the final sway on anything. Anyone can post in that thread and can post in the threads linked in that thread. I really get annoyed when people compare things to historical events or people when they do not even come close in their severity. It's funny how these kinds of things get softened by the same kinds of arguments. By comparison to witch trials and the Inquisition the McCarthy hearings weren't so bad. People weren't burned to death after all. Do you see where that kind of thinking gets you? In both witch hunts and the McCarthy hearings being accused was the equivalent of condemnation in the eyes of your neighbors. Regardless of the veracity of the claim, if you're accused of witchery, communism or scamming, you still bear the stigma of wrong doing. This is particularly true when the accusers and condemners get to be associated with positive concepts like patriotism, piousness, and security. The damage of the McCarthy hearings wasn't caused by a senator on a power trip, it was caused by average citizens using the commission to pursue their personal grudges and rivalries. So it will go with a name and shame website. Creating such a website creates the "authority". The "authority" gains credibility when ever the real thing is caught, which makes it that much harder for the wrongly accused to defend themselves. So, yes this is McCarthyism a la internet spaceships. Si non adjuvas, noces (If you're not helping, you're hurting)
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.19 01:54:00 - [30] 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. 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. 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. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
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]

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.