| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Riethe
   |
Posted - 2007.12.22 22:41:00 -
[31]
My mistake then, I misinterpreted your point originally.
At this point the only thing I am really curious about is why all these people that participated in the support of Wylker could not be treated equally.
I don't think it makes sense to separate them based on their choice of articulation, if any action is taken.
Since Ricdic expressed that he differentiates between these people, I'm sure he'll have something to say on it once he gets a chance to catch up with the thread.
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.12.22 22:44:00 -
[32]
TBH, if the argument here is about the intent of the people's statements, as Riethe is saying they meant the same thing, as Shadarle is saying they *didn't*, all I have to say is this.
If the first quote is saying "I will vouch for Wylker" and he didn't actually mean that he should go out and learn English again. I did a similar thing on a training course once. Had I done it in my actual job I'd have been charged with fraud and inevitably locked up.
Same goes for the other guy. His statement doesn't go as far as to say "I will vouch for Wylker", so the repercussions of a fraudulent statement aren't there. However, if he meant to say it, he should've said it.
Yeah, it IS semantics, but it's important semantics. If words didn't matter, only the context we said them in, then like I did when I was a little kid, I would still be calling microscopic insects "Orgasms" and in reference to things I despised, I would still be saying "I dislike that idea, and I completely and utterly condone it"
Improve Market Competition! |
Ion Halo
|
Posted - 2007.12.22 22:58:00 -
[33]
I think the main issue is as follows:
Do not, under any circumstances, vouch for people UNLESS:
1. You are willing to help support said person, i.e. share responsibility.
2. You feel that you know said person is above exceptional in their dealings with people, and you have witnessed to amazing displays of ethical behavior not normally shown. Be aware though, you are probably a pawn of power. The odds you have found someone with these true traits (especially someone who is trying to make a ton of money) is extremely low. This person is usually just trying to use you to increase the perception of their good intentions. (You are still not exempt from responsibility.)
3. You are part of the scam.
Here's a good example. I think Ricdic is one of the more honest and bright businessman this board has ever seen.***
I think he has a good understanding of in-game mechanics, and psychology of people. I would feel infinitely safer investing in something he has invested in, or better yet, audited.
However, I would not vouch for his credibility nor his sincerity because I also have a very good understanding of power, and how people can consciously, or unconsciously seek power, and all of the tools needed to secure power. Has Ricdic shown me personally he is above this? No.
In online games with a monetary system, in business, politics, and in social situations, money is power. Influence is power. Understanding how important perception truly is to securing power is the main weapon of those who have it.
Wylker understood this, and his money, influence, and control of how you perceived him won him the day. He also understood how vital people vouching for him was. These people that chose to vouch for him were unwilling tools to a below average scam. How much did he make off with anyway?
*** Personal opinion here. I think me and Ricdic share similar views on many things, and if you find this statement ridiculous, always remember, it's just an opinion. This opinion does not affect the point made in this post.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 01:57:00 -
[34]
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.
|
Ion Halo
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 01:58:00 -
[35]
 Originally by: jongalt
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.
Absolutely.
What a good way to promote me, my product, and my reputation at NO COST TO ME!
Who wouldn't?
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 02:39:00 -
[36]
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 -
[37]
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! |
Riethe
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 02:51:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Ricdic
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.
Other people DO want to, though.
And even though you said your list wasn't for the purpose of singling those people out, you made a clear cut separation of the individuals based on their choice of words.
In the example of PSI, there were a bunch of people that said "YAY WYLKER!" I do not believe that only the ones that expressed themselves in a stronger manner, with choice words such as "vouch" are really all that much different than the ones that used a different set of words to give their support.
Originally by: Ricdic
Christ it's like explaining to a 2 year old how to eat candy.
This is incredibly nice of you to say about me.
I wasn't aware that you found me to be so appropriate for this discussion.
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 04:57:00 -
[39]
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! |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 04:59:00 -
[40]
Ignorance is not a defense. Being too stupid to know what the words you use mean does not mean you can get away with saying anything you wish.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
|
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 05:17:00 -
[41]
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.
|
TomHorn
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 07:25:00 -
[42]
Things seem to be getting over complicated about this term.
if someone new comes to the md forum with a business plan who nobody knows, instead of using this word why not just spell it out very simply what you the trust worthy members of the communtiy want. ie wether;
i do you have somebody who will be responsible for the debt if it all goes wrong.
Let him answer the question, if he has someone let the person he says will be responsible for the debt if all goes wrong post on the thread saying exactly that
if you want a character ref also or only want a character ref rather than, someone responsible for the debt maybe its a small plan and you think character ref will do say as much.
ii character ref
everyone knows what this is. it is giving an opion on someone else for the time you have know the person in question to a future employer or investor in md forums case. it is not saying you will be responsible for any debt. Because it dosent matter how well you know somebody that person could always turn at anytime and maybe do something out of character.
So rather than get bogged down with this word VOUCH we should just simply clearly spell out what we want to the unkown entrepreneur;
i someone responsilbe for the debt if all goes wrong
ii character ref
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 07:33:00 -
[43]
Perfectly valid comment Tom.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043
Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE! |
Riethe
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 07:35:00 -
[44]
I can dig that.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 07:37:00 -
[45]
I hate that we have to dumb everything down because people don't know the meaning of the words they use. It's not like vouch is a complicated word. If you don't know what the word means then your word means nothing anyhow imo.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Assens Letta
Hunerian Science Institute
Pax Atlantis
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 08:14:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Shadarle
I hate that we have to dumb everything down because people don't know the meaning of the words they use. It's not like vouch is a complicated word. If you don't know what the word means then your word means nothing anyhow imo.
may i remind you that some users of this forum may not be native english speakers ? and even if so the word is easy, words do tend to carry a certain ammount of "conditions" and intentions in a given context, i believe that this might be the case, a certain degree of leverage should be taken into account over thi matter, some ppl may not be ussing what the ppl in this forum seem to be classifing as the "correct" term yet they will say just the same (just not using the exact word). in case that happens does anyone have an issue with that ? as long as securities (trust...liabilities etc etc) are in place i guess its all good ? isnt it ? |
TomHorn
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 08:24:00 -
[47]
Is it not better though Shadarle how ever much it may annoy you, to spell things out clearly and simply to the unknown entrepreneurs especially in very large business plans which i believe the one that has caused this thread was.
With some investors believing it to mean one thing and the VOUCHERS saying we didnt mean that.
At the end of the day the investors have alot to lose, but im not sure the VOUCHERS lose anything in this case by saying we didnt mean it in the same way you meant it.
do they lose any integrity?, its just a misunderstanding is what there saying,is this legitimate, were they involved or not nobody knows.
If its clearly spelt out or "dumbing down" whatever you want to call it, everyone knows where they stand.
Rather than well i didnt mean that!!! which leaves you in kind of no mans land with alot of lost investment.
|
Johnny ReeRee
The ReeRee Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 11:15:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Shadarle
I hate that we have to dumb everything down because people don't know the meaning of the words they use. It's not like vouch is a complicated word. If you don't know what the word means then your word means nothing anyhow imo.
Whenever I think you have written the stupidest post in the history of Eve-Online, you go and top it again! Congratulations!
I'm so glad you've become the Ree-Ree representative in the Market Discussion forum. You are pretty much the top of the heap as far as Ree-Rees go. Outstanding work.
|
Riethe
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 11:23:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Riethe on 23/12/2007 11:24:08
edit: quoting his post for posterity here.
Originally by: Johnny ReeRee
Originally by: Shadarle
I hate that we have to dumb everything down because people don't know the meaning of the words they use. It's not like vouch is a complicated word. If you don't know what the word means then your word means nothing anyhow imo.
Whenever I think you have written the stupidest post in the history of Eve-Online, you go and top it again! Congratulations!
I'm so glad you've become the Ree-Ree representative in the Market Discussion forum. You are pretty much the top of the heap as far as Ree-Rees go. Outstanding work.
Hey, I don't like it when Shadarle makes posts either, but, "Ree Ree?"
If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're expressing quite a bit of ignorance and it's entirely unacceptable behavior.
I'm just going to make use of the report button and say shame on you.
|
Cedart
Gallente
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 15:51:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Cedart on 23/12/2007 15:51:29
Ah, semantics. I generally support using precise and correct meanings for the words, but really, in a forum where not everyone uses their own language that is futile. For fun i translated "Vouch" to my native language with some online dictionaries.
Vouch -> Todistaa, Taata
And lets now see how these translate back to English:
Todistaa, Taata -> bear, prove, depose, confirm, substantiate, approve, aver, demonstrate, attest, certify, witness, endorse, justify, testify, take the stand, bear witness of, be committed, be responsible for, cover, ensure, guarantee, guard, sa***uard, vouch, warrant
I think that should make my point clear. 
|
|
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 16:04:00 -
[51]
Originally by: TomHorn
Is it not better though Shadarle how ever much it may annoy you, to spell things out clearly and simply to the unknown entrepreneurs especially in very large business plans which i believe the one that has caused this thread was.
Of course it is better to spell it out clearly. I just don't think it is an excuse to say you were too stupid to use words correctly or that you do not speak the language so your words don't mean anything. If you're not a native English speaker then you should be even more careful about the words you use. If you let someone off the hook because they don't speak the language then it is just a complete out for them. They can always just say "I didn't mean that, it was an error in translation" if the situation turns against them.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Daeva Vios
Ares Arms and Modules LLC
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 19:06:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 23/12/2007 19:12:33
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 23/12/2007 19:09:17
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 23/12/2007 19:05:55
Edit: Formatting issues. Damn you, Notepad!
The entire issue will always boil down to trust and reputation. Whether a general unknown here in MD says "vouch" or "guarantee" or whatever doesn't really matter. If they have a reputation to protect, that's when it becomes important.
In order for these differences to matter at all, there needs to be some form of retribution for the individuals using them. Since the only reprisals we have at our disposal that actually work come in the form of reputation losses, they don't work very well.
What is there to stop me from vouching for a friend of mine who wants to run an IPO scam? Well, I have my reputation to protect. I enjoy the (albeit small) amount of credibility I seem to have here, and have several friends in-game who read the forums who provide me with their own insights and feedback to my posts. A few people take my advice and see me as trustworthy.
That means a lot to me because trust is such a rare commodity here, but it may not mean as much to others who feel the desire to manipulate that trust. As we've seen time and again, scammers will go to great lengths to violate trust. I've come to believe that it isn't even about the isk, it's about grief.
This topic in itself makes me very nervous, for reasons that we've all seen. I feel obligated to speak on that. Words and money are really the only tools we have to manipulate the aspect of the world we've chosen to make our project. We know that CCP won't listen to our ideas or implement improvements on the scale we all desire, so the only route we have is to improve the tools we have through user cooperation. The flaw in this line of thinking is that we can't trust the users to cooperate unless it directly and immediately benefits everyone. "Everyone" here includes scammers.
I'm not trying to rain on any parades here, honestly. I just believe that this line of discussion is going to lead to problems further down the line. Giving words and reputations more weight than they naturally acquire through regular use might provide tools for MD regulars to use, but those same tools can be used by individuals who only want to cause grief.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 21:39:00 -
[53]
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.
|
Raskor
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 23:05:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Raskor on 23/12/2007 23:05:55
We can argue the meaning of the word "vouch" until we are blue in the face. At the end of the day, I don't consider someone who came here and "vouched" for an IPO as a guarantee against loss or scam. Not unless they came out and said so, ie: "I personally guarantee this IPO and will repay losses in the event of scam or failure".
We have a multi-national community here and I don't feel it is realistic or even reasonable to expect someone to check a dictionary every time they use a word to make sure it isn't being taken out of the intended context.
|
Daeva Vios
Ares Arms and Modules LLC
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 23:32:00 -
[55]
The difference between the words themselves are meaningless, in my eyes.
There is no security if the amount is large enough. Even idealists have a price. It may be very difficult or even impossible for a single individual to meet that price, but once the price is met the ideals can be cast aside like rotten leftovers.
All we have amounts to character references. You can vouch for someone, but all that means is you believe that they won't scam because you trust them. Maybe the trust is earned, maybe it's not. Maybe you'd even be willing to guarantee investor funds and put up your own money as a failsafe. That's all well and good, but if this person turns around and scams, the only thing standing in the way of you not following up on your side of the bargain is your reputation. A pretty word, and it counts for a lot here, to be sure, but again if the price is high enough...
Beyond even that, you can always work out a deal ahead of time with whoever is scamming. Agreeing to provide even a 50% security is great and tons of folks would jump in based on that alone. Of course, they may not be aware that you're getting a small cut of the profits from the scam. If you're providing a 50% security on 100b and the scammer agrees to give you 55b, well, you've made a clean haul of 5b isk, your reputation is sparkling, and the scammer made off with more isk than a lot of scammers who have passed through these forums.
Just some things to think about.
|
Benvie
Benvie Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 03:52:00 -
[56]
My problem with this whole discussion is that very few people can actually VOUCH that someone isn't going to be a scammer. People really don't know. They may know that the person was friendly, helpful, didn't steal XXX money over XXX period of time. They don't know said person won't steal 60 billion ISK given the chance. That's in part why the few people on here that public at large general trusts find it so easy to get money.
Let's face it, we're trying to do something very difficult with this experiment known as the Mark Discussion forum. This isn't how real life works. In real life if you steal lots of money then the government will come after you and if you're caught you will pay serious consequences. Trying to build a true market on top of thin air is very difficult and possibly a fool's errand.
|
Riethe
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 04:14:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Benvie
My problem with this whole discussion is that very few people can actually VOUCH that someone isn't going to be a scammer. People really don't know. They may know that the person was friendly, helpful, didn't steal XXX money over XXX period of time. They don't know said person won't steal 60 billion ISK given the chance. That's in part why the few people on here that public at large general trusts find it so easy to get money.
Let's face it, we're trying to do something very difficult with this experiment known as the Mark Discussion forum. This isn't how real life works. In real life if you steal lots of money then the government will come after you and if you're caught you will pay serious consequences. Trying to build a true market on top of thin air is very difficult and possibly a fool's errand.
Everything single letter of this pretty much reflects my feelings.
The only thing, though, that I may feel slightly different about, is that I think a securities commission (for exchange) could really be implemented and WORK if done right.
And all the uncontrolled market related activity could then be properly monitored and guarded and it would be leaps and bounds for MD to collaborate on something like that.
Then once you get to that point, all it boils down to is some guy named Wylker creating his IPO within the governed system, and all people that vouch will actually have virtual accounts within said system, which can be seized at any time.
I don't think anyone will be trying to pull anything if something like that is set in place.
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 05:23:00 -
[58]
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.
|
Miniturret
Amarr
Rum Runners Inc
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 08:25:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Miniturret on 24/12/2007 08:26:41
ok that was a long read considering the length of most posts.
Now my Two ISKs on this topic (yes I realize i'm a "small fish" and I don't post much at all other than in my service page and my compiled store info page.)
This basically comes down to you all assuming that everyone that plays this game speaks and understands english. - Which is false, let me explain a bit about my idea here. You can confirm all this by going to any free translation page. Convert the word Vouch from english to any language. I'll use Spanish, French, German and Russian
"vouch" translated into spanish than converted back into english is "verify"
"vouch" translated into french than converted back into english is "to carry itself guarantor"
"vouch" translated into german than converted back into english is "Vouch" (not surprising since english is a germanic language)
"vouch" translated into Russian than converted back into english is "Warrant"
I believe after four different languages my point is made. Out of the four languages only two came back resembling what the english word was. This is the main problem that I see with this whole problem. It has been stated before that we are a multi-national community. We cover the entire globe. Now think about learning each language which is not native to your own and think about the problems you have with sentence structure and grammer.
Onto the Trust issue. Because of the explanation above it's sad that we do have to "dumb" things down. But if you specifically state that you are going to back the person and if they scam/fail that you will repay than yes you should be held accountable. If that was not said than too bad there is no way for accountablity to be held.
-=NOTE=- Everything that I have written is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinions of my Corp or my Corp-mates. Also I realize there are some mis spellings but because it's 3:30am my time I don't much care right now to fix them. -=END NOTE=-
-=SECONDARY NOTE=- Due to forum rules for moderation I am unable to post the translated words on the forums. Originally by: CCP Mitnal
Please post in English to ensure effective moderation.
-=END NOTE=-
-----------------------------
Rum Runners Inc Transport Service for all your hauling needs
|
Sofitia Mourtos
GALAXIAN
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.24 15:27:00 -
[60]
to me if you put a "vouch" in without further clarifycation then you are only vouching with your reputation alone. (which is quite serious anyway imo)
However if you want to recover from any reputation loss in case of a "scam" then you might want to cover some of the loss for the investors (at your own discression)...
Personally I can see myself vouch for ppl (that I know) by staying "I vouch for X person to the extend of e.g. 5bisk".. or "I vouch for Y person" then its my reputation alone (I rather lose the isks than the reputation although).
----------------------------------------
WTB: Guardian BPO |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |