| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
jongalt
   |
Posted - 2007.12.22 22:13:00 -
[1]
Edited by: jongalt on 22/12/2007 22:15:05
riethe,
the MD forum has its own "norms". claiming ignorance of those "norms" does not excuse responsibility. those "norms" include what it means when somebody "vouches" for somebody else.
shadarle's opinion of what it means to "vouch" for somebody is one that i agree with completely. anything less is "semantics" being used to disavow agency or efficacy.
given that, the value of "The Vouch" is only as strong as the consequences for its compromise. since eve is a virtual world, shadarle cant hire ezoran to visit wylker (and all the people who "vouched" for him) with a baseball bat to break some kneecaps in order to enforce the importance of concept. the threat of personal harm goes a long way towards enforcing "norms" and "values" that a society tacityl agrees to. i see it in brooklyn all the time..
there are no reprisals for betraying or manipulating The Vouch in eve - not unless you value your vanity, buffing your MD rep to a nice sheen. but thats different. trusting somebody elses vanity in not compromising their "rep" is just as foolish. (at least, i think so.)
-jg.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.22 22:18:00 -
[2]
of course it doesnt exist.
if it did, id be able to come over with some of my buddies to break your kneecaps when you broke The Vouch. as well as break the kneecaps of your friends who vouched for you.
as such, the discussion is academic in its worse sense. there is no "real-world" application of this concept in eve without some kind of recourse for consequences. currently, there are no consequences.
-jg.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.22 22:38:00 -
[3]
i know you are not wylker.
however, i can still use you as an example, yah? since i was speaking to you? :P
appealing to "semiotics", or using "semantics" to disavow agency in knowing what it means to "vouch" for somebody is a valid debate tactic - but its still an evasion since there is no effort to bridge the gap between the meaning[s] that results in their disparity.
as a result, the "Golden Bridge" isnt built and it becomes a circle jerk about linguistic gymnastics.
playing devil's advocate is a noble effort - if it results in a mutual understanding. currently, im only seeing a critical stance for the sake of a critical stance.
ever since r. barthes, that position has been "proven" to be provincial at best; naive, at worst.
The Vouch doesnt exist unless there ae consequences for its breach. since eve doesnt provide those consequences, we are left with a tacit agreement (provided we can agree on its definition) to "honor" the concept. which is great - however, not realistic.
-jg.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 01:57:00 -
[4]
as an interesting side-topic - not meant to derail the thread, but only to consider within the context of the "discussion":
would you allow ricdic to "vouch" for you?
-jg.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 05:17:00 -
[5]
if "we" are attempting to establish "norms" for the MD regarding the word "vouch" and its definition, then id like to vote on shadarles meaning of it a few posts up. its the one that hews closest to mine.
-jg.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 21:39:00 -
[6]
Edited by: jongalt on 23/12/2007 21:39:47
relying on the "vanity" of somebody to keep their MD reputation "clean" in order to underwrite "trust" is just as foolish as relying on a Vouch that has no recourse to consequences.
personally, i think the concept of the "vouch" in eve is a straw man that creates an "opportunity" to disavow responsibility for the investor to do their research, and for the IPO entrepreneur to escape responsibility for due dilligence.
the IPO should always be "judged" on the quality of the business plan. if - in addition - it starts to be "judged" by other factors such as "MD rep" or "age of character", then you are close to creating a certain kind of "good ole boys" star chamber. perhaps thats how things should evolve in the absence of vouch consequences - but it still doesnt make it "right".
-jg.
-jg.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 05:23:00 -
[7]
Edited by: jongalt on 24/12/2007 05:24:20
to quote jake in the sun also rises, "it would be pretty to think so."
but without recourse to effective, ccp-sanctioned consequences, even a "grass-roots" securities commission would have as much leverage as the thinnest of "vouches" by the strongest of "MD reps".
i dont see how it could work. but im open to being surprised.
in any case, "security" and "trust" are straw men when it comes to "investments" in eve online. what one is basically asking for is an absolving of responsibility by the investor to conduct their own research and make an educated guess based on the evidence; as well as a shortcut for the IPO entrepreneur to conduct due dilligence with regard to the quality of the business plan by leveraging the "reputation" (however tenuous its power, however squeeky clean) of specific individuals in the MD forum.
i am certain there are a few individuals - who, if they decided to launch an IPO - would find it insulting if certain other people "vouched" for it (whatever that means) because it would detract from the merit (and ultimately the pleasure of its success) of the IPO in and of itself.
but that is perhaps a topic for another discussion.
-jg.
|
| |
|