| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
   |
Posted - 2007.12.24 15:52:00 -
[61]
Ok so to try and put a finalising touch on this. From this point on we should question each person's 'vouch' to determine precisely what they mean by it. Also a vouch has no real meaning (beyond character reference) if no further terms are clearly stated (ie, I say I vouch for CCMS, I will repay it's investors if CCMS turns scam), then that is a verbal contract with a penalty of failure always being a hit on the reputation (no matter who says it really)).
I am happy to go in this direction if everyone is. Simply put:
Vouch : Nothing more than a character reference, unless extended to include terms of reimbursement/repayment in the event of default/scam/loss/etc.
You guys all happy with that? All I wanted from the start was a universal way for us in these forums to percieve and clarify what the word means. As has been proven by the very varied responses in this thread there really are a lot of different contexts/interpretations that can muddy the waters.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043
Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE! |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 16:16:00 -
[62]
Nothing like three full pages in a thread, all argueing semantics. 
I like to see conversations like these pop up from time to time.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Sphynx Stormlord
Gallente
Anqara Tech
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 17:34:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Sphynx Stormlord on 24/12/2007 17:36:27
I guess the main question is:
Could you ever trust someone who vouched for a scammer?
What financial actions would they have had to take to regain that trust, after a scam (if any)?
And would you warn everyone about the previous scam in the IPO discussion thread if they started such a venture?
IMO: What they get when they multi-translate vouch is somewhat irrelevant; they are staking their reputation on that of the person for whome they are vouching. That is what vouch means (as do quite a lot of those other words which the translators produce, to some extent).
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 17:38:00 -
[64]
 Originally by: Sphynx Stormlord
And would you warn everyone about the previous scam in the IPO discussion thread if they started such a venture?
Of course you would.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Saphert Kronitius
|
Posted - 2007.12.26 19:52:00 -
[65]
So the argument against Ricdic is that if you vouch for someone you are not accountable for their actions in any way?
So why then, in the legal system (in the U.S.), if you vouch for someone's whereabouts (I.E. their alibi) and it turns out that they're lying, you also go to jail? You go to jail for lying under oath and then you're charged with being an accomplice to the crime, so you get nailed twice for vouching for someone.
I agree with Ricdic, if you vouch for someone you are responsible for their actions. The 3 people he specifically mentions in one of his posts are, and should be held accountable.
That's my $0.02.
|
Robacz
Essence Trade
Essence Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.12.26 21:02:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Saphert Kronitius
So why then, in the legal system (in the U.S.), if you vouch for someone's whereabouts (I.E. their alibi) and it turns out that they're lying, you also go to jail? You go to jail for lying under oath and then you're charged with being an accomplice to the crime, so you get nailed twice for vouching for someone.
I made the important part bold. This is not a court. 
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.12.26 21:10:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Robacz
Originally by: Saphert Kronitius
So why then, in the legal system (in the U.S.), if you vouch for someone's whereabouts (I.E. their alibi) and it turns out that they're lying, you also go to jail? You go to jail for lying under oath and then you're charged with being an accomplice to the crime, so you get nailed twice for vouching for someone.
I made the important part bold. This is not a court.
But it doesn't mean the community can't hold people to the same standards. Obviously CCP won't, but players can. Obviously if players don't want to it won't happen though.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Robacz
Essence Trade
Essence Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.12.26 21:29:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Robacz
Originally by: Saphert Kronitius
So why then, in the legal system (in the U.S.), if you vouch for someone's whereabouts (I.E. their alibi) and it turns out that they're lying, you also go to jail? You go to jail for lying under oath and then you're charged with being an accomplice to the crime, so you get nailed twice for vouching for someone.
I made the important part bold. This is not a court.
But it doesn't mean the community can't hold people to the same standards. Obviously CCP won't, but players can. Obviously if players don't want to it won't happen though.
Standards you can't enforce are meaningless. Besides, when you vouch for someone and this person scams, you lose part of your creditibility (or all of it). That is the price you pay and I don't think you should pay more. After all, it is investor's fault that he invested in someone based on recommendations of unknown people.
|
Pang Grohl
Gallente
Sudo Corp
|
Posted - 2007.12.27 00:46:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Robacz
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Robacz
Originally by: Saphert Kronitius
So why then, in the legal system (in the U.S.), if you vouch for someone's whereabouts (I.E. their alibi) and it turns out that they're lying, you also go to jail? You go to jail for lying under oath and then you're charged with being an accomplice to the crime, so you get nailed twice for vouching for someone.
I made the important part bold. This is not a court.
But it doesn't mean the community can't hold people to the same standards. Obviously CCP won't, but players can. Obviously if players don't want to it won't happen though.
Standards you can't enforce are meaningless. Besides, when you vouch for someone and this person scams, you lose part of your creditibility (or all of it). That is the price you pay and I don't think you should pay more. After all, it is investor's fault that he invested in someone based on recommendations of unknown people.
This is the crux of any discussion about setting a standard. Figure out a way to encourage adherence to the standard, and a way to punish deviance from the standard, then you can get serious about setting standards.
As long as there are ways to escape the reputation attached to a name, negative reputation will never be an effective deterrent against operations that are a scam from the get go, and in many cases against operations that turn sour. Work out other ways to cause pain to people who've scammed or committed fraud, or failed at publicly owned business, and you'll get most everyone outside the dedicated scammers to toe the line.
***
Si non adjuvas, noces
(If you're not helping, you're hurting)
Improve Share Transfers |
Coconut Joe
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.12.27 01:03:00 -
[70]
There's a major problem with both vouching and character reference, and that is that the person providing the vouch/character reference might not care that the person is really what they say they are.
Perhaps an authority like EBank could start maintaining something like a web of trust which would allow people to see if someone's character reference is worth much at all.
-
Eve IGB Store Template - The complete eve retail solution. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |