EVE Search - Securities. Vouching & Character References. What's the difference?

All Channels

Market Discussions

Securities. Vouching & Character References. What's the difference?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.22 11:04:00 - [1] Ok, this is something that does need clearing up. If there is no clear decision on the definition of each of these terms (in these forums) then we will run into nothing but problems. This has arisen based off the PSI thread and I feel it's a little off-topic there. This should be discussed by the people and those not following PSI should be reading and understanding the conclusion brought forth from this conversation. So, Dictionary Definitions: Vouch : 1.to support as being true, certain, reliable, etc. (usually fol. by for): Her record in office vouches for her integrity. 2.to attest; guarantee; certify (usually fol. by for): to vouch for someone in a business transaction. Character Reference : noun a formal recommendation by a former employer to a potential future employer describing the person's qualifications and dependability; "requests for character references are all too often answered evasively" My opinion is the following: Vouch : To vouch for someone means to guarantee their success or be responsible for their failure (ex: With CCMS I personally guaranteed/vouched that if Caroglac/Lacgorac failed/scammed I would repay his debts) Character Reference : To provide your exerpts from your dealings with the person in question. As per the definition it can be skewered as there are no liabilities in the event of a default etc. (ex: With RRRRT (rawcola) I said rawcola has a great service and achieves optimal profits!) I believe one is a statement of commitment whilst the other is a note of approval. I believe there is a phenomenal difference between the two. I would like this thread to provide a discussion on what you guys believe is the difference between the two, your personal definition on someone who 'vouches' for another compared to someone who provides a positive reference. It's a valid discussion and one that should be talked about, to ensure everyone is on the same page and hopefully come to a permanent conclusion that we (in the forums) can utilise in the future to ensure we aren't misled in upcoming investments. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.22 12:07:00 - [2] Originally by: Riethe but no one will go and say, "Hey! Ricdic put a ton of money into this, and that's why I did! I feel that he owes me some sort of repayment for my losses!" I agree with some of your post. This part stands out. In regards to your corp I simply said I was investing (i don't put the disclaimer there to deny accountability, I do it to make sure people are investing on their beliefs not mine). However in your thread I didn't "guarantee" I would pay out in the event of your scam, therefore I am not responsible for the end debt. However, with CCMS I did guarantee it, I vouched for the operation. In the event of it's default people have every right to hunt me down. Quote: But then you look at PSI, and everyone is saying, "let's take every single person that said Wylker is a stand up dude, and burn them all!" I don't agree with that. I agree that those who 'vouched' for him should be responsible not those who posted character references. I distinguished between the two in one of my posts and will show you here: Originally by: Ricdic Wylker Spanner Frew Researchi Isentro (said he vouches for Wylker) Aelena Thraant (CEO of Aftermath Alliance) Vladimir Yuchenko (promoted through prior business) Crovan (gave props to Wylker) Korasen Linachi (has 100% trust) Adam Weishaupt (gave props to Wylker) Vulture Virtue (director gave major props to Wylker) Jim Linger (said he vouches for Wylker) Admiral Fridge (another vouch for Wylker) Raquel Smith (knows where Wylker lives in RL) Tychus (gave Wylker props) Spanky McFarlan (gave Wylker props) Ender Darklight (gave Wylker props) Astro Teller (gave Wylker props) So of the above, the only ones I would say should be in some way liable are those who vouched. Isentro (said he vouches for Wylker) Jim Linger (said he vouches for Wylker) Admiral Fridge (another vouch for Wylker) The others only congratulated him and gave character references. These 3 went above and beyond. Anyway this thread isn't to out those people, it's to make a clear example on the true definition of a vouch so people don't throw it around so freely next time thinking it holds no responsibility. The PSI thing is done and dusted. I want to make sure this is clear for the future, not burn those from the past who may not have had a complete grasp on what they were signing on for (that can be done by others in the PSI thread) Hope this clears it up. To the other people listed who gave props I see nothing owing by them, they advised on their dealings and nothing more. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.22 14:18:00 - [3] Question; If under the term "vouch" that I mention in this thread someone were to start a new IPO and I were to "vouch" for them, would it sell out faster than if no-one was to vouch for them? Chances are they would. Obviously it's on a case by case basis though. If Riethe vouched for someone then no-one would give a toss. Someone vouching for the operation is completely pointless if the one vouching cannot be trusted. I guess the idea of this thread was to determine the difference between a vouch and a reference. If EBANK vouches for a corporation and says they have complete securities in place, saying they will liquidate and repay the investors if this person scams/defaults, then it will likely sell out on more than just the merits of the IPO. We see it quite often, where the merits of the IPO/Loan don't meet the MD forums seal of approval, however when it is recreated with a trusted voucher in place a whole new level of demand is added. * CAP4U sold out within days when C-R-A secured it * Cinderbrood's IPO instilled a larger level of trust when EBANK took in a trust (which was able to salvage the business when it went bust) * SHIKO is a high demand stock due to a partial EBANK security as well as fantastic returns etc. I see that there can be varying definitions to someone vouching for another. But should we not explore a standardised position on the matter. The next time someone 'vouches' for another in their IPO/Business Offering, we should point them to this thread, ask them what their definition of a vouch is. If a vouch means a promise to be called upon in the face of an unpaid debt, then it should be clear to the person doing the vouching. I don't necessarily think we need everyone vouching for everyone else. I just want: a) Vouching people to know exactly what they are promising/guaranteeing b) People reading the vouch to understand the true meaning of the word. c) To know the MD forums definition of a vouch http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.22 16:02:00 - [4] ok I see what your saying. So if I place a guarantee on a corporation and they scam, no-one would mind my not repaying the debt myself regardless of if they invested based on someone known and trusted in the market putting their seal on it. It's not just me. Hexxx, Shar, Shad, Proton, probably even you Daevos could put a guarantee down and people would trust it because they trust that you are guarantoring the project. You may do it because you know the person in RL, or you hold securities of theirs, or because you have a large internal history with the person and trust them unconditionally with your isk. A guarantee means nothing if it doesn't come from a person who themselves can/should be trusted. Anyway, the general consensus is we should stop securing projects and putting trust into people who guarantor for their friends. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.22 16:50:00 - [5] Edited by: Ricdic on 22/12/2007 16:51:47 Keep these comments up Shadarle and people will ~~find out~~ assume you are another Ricdic alt. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.23 02:39:00 - [6] Originally by: Riethe The difference between these two individuals? The first one had a different vocabulary, and used the word "VOUCH." Yet only one of them is on trial here? (Of Ricdic's grand list) This is stupid. Our vocabulary, the literal meanings, all of that crap, is SEMANTICS. What this argument is about is a couple people throwing a tissyfit over something that we have no control over. The way someone chooses to articulate themselves does not set them apart from anyone else, especially if the people we're comparing them to, set out the achieve the same thing. Which, in this case, was to generate support. Shad I can see where you're coming at this from, but I think it's important for you to comment on Ricdic's list and tell me the difference you see in all those people. If we're arguing about the usage of the word, I think we're looking at it wrong. Even though I have said it repeatedly I will try and explain this in ways you can understand. I do NOT want to put these specific people on a stand, I want A CLEAR DEFINITION of the word to ensure it cannot be used in a misleading way in the future. If to VOUCH means to take responsibility for one's debts, then so be it. When we see it thrown around we need to make sure people are aware of what they are saying. If VOUCH has no meaning other than a character reference we need to DEFINE it to ensure people don't invest unwittingly in operations. So stop your rubbish about me wanting to hurt a few individuals. I don't care about PSI, and the terms weren't clear to those 3 people. Their posts insinuate that they didn't mean "VOUCH" in my definition of the word, but let's DEFINE it once and for all. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.23 02:41:00 - [7] Originally by: Riethe And how do you know that these people understood the severity of their statements when they made them? We're arguing the value of a word that, for all we know, had different value to these individuals. How do you know that they meant these statements the way you're interpreting them? You seem to be able to read their minds from their posts. You're parsing what the meaning of 'is' is. EXACTLY. Let's clear up the DEFINITION so it doesn't happen AGAIN. Christ it's like explaining to a 2 year old how to eat candy. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.23 04:57:00 - [8] All I want in the end is the clarity on this word. If we assume vouch as a character reference with no responsibilities attached then I can accept that, but we need to come to agreement as to how we (in the MD forums) percieve this word. That's all it really comes down too. The PSI examples were simply showing how some people do have different definitions of the word. In the end we need to all accept one definition of the word otherwise both those saying it, and those investing based on it will have issues in the future if a similar situation arises. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.23 07:33:00 - [9] Perfectly valid comment Tom. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.12.24 15:52:00 - [10] 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!

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.