EVE Search - [EBANK] Hit By A Bus Strategy Proposal

All Channels

Market Discussions

[EBANK] Hit By A Bus Strategy Proposal

» 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)
Motivated Prophet Zerodot Schools Power Corrupts Industry's	Posted - 2008.01.04 23:49:00 - [1] Pulling this out of the doomed thread.... Originally by: Hexxx All liquid EBANK cash is split between three people; Ricdic, myself, and Shar Tegal. Not all EBANK cash are in the wallets of tellers, we do quite a bit in loans and for the moment, the range of isk that sits in any single persons wallet is around 10 to 20 billion. In some cases this will spike to 30 billion for Ricdic since all deposits go through him, before being routed to Shar or myself. Recently we've been discussing the "hit by a bus" scenario, which basically has the assumption that any one of us may just disappear one day (hence, hit by a bus) and what to do in this event. I can't really say more than this other than that we do keep these things in mind. Have OZ (or other similarly-trusted character) create a character and with it, create a corp. He lets each of you (-r alts) into the corp, and issues each of you 1/3 of the corp's shares, then allows the account's subscription to lapse and asks CCP to ban that account (seems nicer than doing something banworthy with the account, so I'd hope CCP would honor the request). OZ must be trusted to guarantee that the account is actually banned, unless there's some way of checking that without violating the EULA. Hopefully, again, as the alternative is to do something highly visible and banworthy, I'd hope CCP would indulge us by confirming the banning of the account (hey, it's free money for them, right?). Each of you gets access to one wallet division, and all of you get access to the main wallet division for inter-account transfers and "general fund"-type business. You also get grantable roles to allow you to pass along access to "your" wallet, the master wallet, and the three unused wallets (for future expansion), so you can appoint a successor without having to activate the "hit by a bus" strategy. You also get roles and grantable roles for all other access types (factory manager and personnel manager being the only ones likely to be important). In the event that one of you is hit by a bus, the other two can conspire to vote in a new CEO (created on a fresh account), who can then create new shares to reactivate the whole process all over again (you have to increase the number of shares from x to y, such that 2(y-(x/3))/3 > y/2), and give you access to the divisions out of which you are locked. Does that make sense? Did I miss anything? Does it work? MP -- Proud steward of 47 billion isk in public money, and counting. Ask me about mineral ~~compression~~expansion! WTF?*
SencneS Amarr Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.05 00:02:00 - [2] I like the idea of locking out divisional wallets but really having grantable roles is no different then have director access. If you can give yourself access to someone Else's division and you do turn into a bad apple there is no difference to this then director access. Just give yourself access to the other wallets, withdraw all the ISK. I've been thinking of a way to have this on a corporate level but the problem is Eve's role management doesn't allow for overrides. For example, if case of a death of the CEO, and the CEO has all the shares there is no way to claim CEO. Ever since Keepers of the Holy Bagel incidence this has been in my mind for a while. Amarr for Life
Ki Tarra Caldari Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.01.05 00:46:00 - [3] With this system there is a risk of total loss. A majority of the share holders would need to check for votes daily. If one of the tellers could predict a 24 hour window where the other shareholders were not checking for votes, they could initate a vote to become CEO, which would allow them to take all of the funds if it were sucessfully passed with just their own vote. Because of this it would probably work best if the shareholders were independant from the tellers, and there were sufficient shareholders to assure adequit daily monitoring.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.01.05 00:59:00 - [4] I have thought on this topic myself long and hard MP, not only because of EBANK but for other reasons in the past aswell. I have become convinced that there is no FOOLPROOF way within CCP mechanics and the EULA that anything will work and contain the proper ammount of compartmentization that is desired. --
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2008.01.05 01:06:00 - [5] Originally by: Treelox I have become convinced that there is no FOOLPROOF way within CCP mechanics and the EULA that anything will work and contain the proper ammount of compartmentization that is desired. Well, ricdic's solution for himself is unique (to say the least). As for my own, teller funds are held in trust within a divisional wallet of the corp I am in. There are two others with director access to the funds - real life people who would know of my sudden demise. They are also backup for RDIR (which has suffered some due to my absence) in the case of inappropriate contact with a bus issues. I would say such matters are not exclusive to Eve, the game, and thus CCP has done a stellar job handling this. Things get even murkier in real life so all things considered... ... "Be all you can be" is a motto even idiots and jerks live up to... all to often.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.01.05 01:27:00 - [6] Originally by: Shar Tegral I would say such matters are not exclusive to Eve, the game, and thus CCP has done a stellar job handling this. Things get even murkier in real life so all things considered... I would agree. Honestly I think that the plans that are currently in place for the holders of EBANK isk, are as good as it gets. The only way I can see any improvements to the current plan(s) would be if there were changes to CCP's in game mechanics or changes in the EULA. Which was what I was alluding to in my first post. --
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2008.01.05 02:57:00 - [7] For a few very good reasons I can not tell you what our current "hit by a bus" strategy is. We do have one though and right now it's been put into place for Ricdic who is on holiday right now (back in 2 days). Hopefully he won't get hit by a bus over his holiday, but given that it IS the holiday he may be delayed or complications may arise. In order to execute on this, it requires three different people working together. Myself, Shar Tegal, and Mr. Horizontal. The strategy can not be executed with any two; it requires all three in order to work. Will we use this same strategy for all tellers? Not sure yet; the Board needs to discuss this further. In the mean time, please discuss your own ideas for this. Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
SencneS Amarr Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.05 04:26:00 - [8] Originally by: Hexxx For a few very good reasons I can not tell you what our current "hit by a bus" strategy is. We do have one though and right now it's been put into place for Ricdic who is on holiday right now (back in 2 days). Hopefully he won't get hit by a bus over his holiday, but given that it IS the holiday he may be delayed or complications may arise. In order to execute on this, it requires three different people working together. Myself, Shar Tegal, and Mr. Horizontal. The strategy can not be executed with any two; it requires all three in order to work. Will we use this same strategy for all tellers? Not sure yet; the Board needs to discuss this further. In the mean time, please discuss your own ideas for this. I would also like to add that given the current plan in it's current state doesn't violate the EULA in it's current form. EBank has yet to break the EULA and will continue follow that lead. Amarr for Life
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2008.01.05 04:32:00 - [9] Originally by: SencneS Originally by: Hexxx For a few very good reasons I can not tell you what our current "hit by a bus" strategy is. We do have one though and right now it's been put into place for Ricdic who is on holiday right now (back in 2 days). Hopefully he won't get hit by a bus over his holiday, but given that it IS the holiday he may be delayed or complications may arise. In order to execute on this, it requires three different people working together. Myself, Shar Tegal, and Mr. Horizontal. The strategy can not be executed with any two; it requires all three in order to work. Will we use this same strategy for all tellers? Not sure yet; the Board needs to discuss this further. In the mean time, please discuss your own ideas for this. I would also like to add that given the current plan in it's current state doesn't violate the EULA in it's current form. EBank has yet to break the EULA and will continue follow that lead. Just to add on that, the Board has had discussions on the EULA before. The Board considers violating the EULA a huge risk to the operation of EBANK and will be avoided. The first discussion the Board ever had on the EULA came right at the beginning of EBANK; when the question of "money laundering" by isk farmers came up. We ended up contacting CCP and got an official answer on the subject; we wouldn't get in trouble if that sort of thing happened. Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
Havok Pierce Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.05 04:39:00 - [10] So driving the rogue bus is out, then? stares over at the collectible plaques one would get for hitting certain celebrities with said bus Shazbot. Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's a Community petition category??
SencneS Amarr Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.05 04:47:00 - [11] Edited by: SencneS on 05/01/2008 04:48:25 Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: SencneS Originally by: Hexxx For a few very good reasons I can not tell you what our current "hit by a bus" strategy is. We do have one though and right now it's been put into place for Ricdic who is on holiday right now (back in 2 days). Hopefully he won't get hit by a bus over his holiday, but given that it IS the holiday he may be delayed or complications may arise. In order to execute on this, it requires three different people working together. Myself, Shar Tegal, and Mr. Horizontal. The strategy can not be executed with any two; it requires all three in order to work. Will we use this same strategy for all tellers? Not sure yet; the Board needs to discuss this further. In the mean time, please discuss your own ideas for this. I would also like to add that given the current plan in it's current state doesn't violate the EULA in it's current form. EBank has yet to break the EULA and will continue follow that lead. Just to add on that, the Board has had discussions on the EULA before. The Board considers violating the EULA a huge risk to the operation of EBANK and will be avoided. The first discussion the Board ever had on the EULA came right at the beginning of EBANK; when the question of "money laundering" by isk farmers came up. We ended up contacting CCP and got an official answer on the subject; we wouldn't get in trouble if that sort of thing happened. Hexxx get back to programming Yes, ISK laundering has been talked about several time, we have even taken the steps in EBank to prevent ISK launder ourselves. So we not only consider the EULA in any features or policies we create. We develop them in a way to make sure CCP doesn't need to get involved if something happened like, ISK Laundering or "Hit by a bus." I told everyone in another thread - We're sticklers for details and processes, very little has escapes our radars. Put bluntly we're all too nit picky to let anything escape, no matter how small or insignificant it may be. Amarr for Life
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.05 04:52:00 - [12] Originally by: SencneS Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: SencneS Originally by: Hexxx For a few very good reasons I can not tell you what our current "hit by a bus" strategy is. We do have one though and right now it's been put into place for Ricdic who is on holiday right now (back in 2 days). Hopefully he won't get hit by a bus over his holiday, but given that it IS the holiday he may be delayed or complications may arise. In order to execute on this, it requires three different people working together. Myself, Shar Tegal, and Mr. Horizontal. The strategy can not be executed with any two; it requires all three in order to work. Will we use this same strategy for all tellers? Not sure yet; the Board needs to discuss this further. In the mean time, please discuss your own ideas for this. I would also like to add that given the current plan in it's current state doesn't violate the EULA in it's current form. EBank has yet to break the EULA and will continue follow that lead. Just to add on that, the Board has had discussions on the EULA before. The Board considers violating the EULA a huge risk to the operation of EBANK and will be avoided. The first discussion the Board ever had on the EULA came right at the beginning of EBANK; when the question of "money laundering" by isk farmers came up. We ended up contacting CCP and got an official answer on the subject; we wouldn't get in trouble if that sort of thing happened. Hexxx get back to programming Yes, ISK laundering has been talked about several time, we have even taken the steps in EBank to prevent ISK launder ourself. So we not only consider the EULA in any features or policies we create. We develop them in a way to make sure CCP doesn't need to get involved if something happened like, ISK Laundering or "Hit by a bus." I told everyone in another thread - We're sticklers for details and processes, very little has escapes our radars. Put bluntly we're all too nit picky to let anything escape, no matter how small or insignificant it may be. I;m a bit intersted in your policy on that. One issue whic hhas concerned me is what if CCp took away X billion ISK from me - claiming it was money obtained by buying ISK or whatever. How would I tie that in to a specific deposit to debit the amount form the individual responsible? It's a fair bet that Fury Banker has had close scruitny on him by CCP - and the same for EBank Ricic (both being fairly new charcters who have had hundreds of billions of ISK pass through their hands). My undertanding (luckily not first hand) is that when CCP remove bought ISK they don't infomr the person from who it's removed of any details of the (aleged) offender. Are you claiming that yioou can somehow identify who the culprit is? Or are you just referring to some general policy of how to recover from any such losses imposed by CCP? I'll confess that I'm not quite sure how I'd handle it - with no other info I;d just have to take the hit on Fury Holdings and honour all deposits.
SencneS Amarr Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.05 05:24:00 - [13] Originally by: FastLearner Said stuff Fortunately thanks to Hexxx and the boards unending need to know every nook and cranny about EBank. I can actually answer this one even though it's more of a back end question for Hexxx. We all know EBank uses the API system to track deposits into EBank Ricdic's account. The API information shows, who deposited it, when, how much, etc. We log that information, from my understanding the entire API entry is logged. Everything anyone does in EBank is also logged. You want transfer the ISK to someone, you want to withdraw it, everything. It's all logged. Those logs have trends, what would happen if someone started using EBank for ISK Laundering we'd know about it pretty quick. It also involves Teller approvals, not only is the withdrawal request required the approval of a Teller or Director even before one of the tellers transfers the ISK to the player in EVE. Put simply if EBank suspects someone of ISK laundering we can put a stop to it right there without CCP intervention. We don't have to approve the withdraw request, and we've said if we find someone using us in this manner the CCP and EVE's EULA dictates us to inform CCP about it. As for the issue if CCP up and took ISK from EBank Ricdic because it was purchased, it's nothing more then a transaction to EBank. We would just manually update the account's value. We also find it hard people would use EBank for laundering as well. For a start it's another stop gap the ISK sellers have to deal with. There is also a more focused set of eyes in a much smaller bucket then CCP and every one accounts. There are also fees involved, ISK the seller and buyer would be paying EBank just to make the transaction. I honestly can't see someone using EBank for this, it would add complexity to their process. Would be MUCH easier to spot, and would be losing ISK just for using us. Remember the ISK Seller doesn't give back the Money to their customer just because CCP took it out of their account. The Seller doesn't care about the customer, and they have their money already. Amarr for Life
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.05 05:33:00 - [14] Originally by: SencneS Originally by: FastLearner Said stuff Fortunately thanks to Hexxx and the boards unending need to know every nook and cranny about EBank. I can actually answer this one even though it's more of a back end question for Hexxx. We all know EBank uses the API system to track deposits into EBank Ricdic's account. The API information shows, who deposited it, when, how much, etc. We log that information, from my understanding the entire API entry is logged. Everything anyone does in EBank is also logged. You want transfer the ISK to someone, you want to withdraw it, everything. It's all logged. Those logs have trends, what would happen if someone started using EBank for ISK Laundering we'd know about it pretty quick. It also involves Teller approvals, not only is the withdrawal request required the approval of a Teller or Director even before one of the tellers transfers the ISK to the player in EVE. Put simply if EBank suspects someone of ISK laundering we can put a stop to it right there without CCP intervention. We don't have to approve the withdraw request, and we've said if we find someone using us in this manner the CCP and EVE's EULA dictates us to inform CCP about it. As for the issue if CCP up and took ISK from EBank Ricdic because it was purchased, it's nothing more then a transaction to EBank. We would just manually update the account's value. We also find it hard people would use EBank for laundering as well. For a start it's another stop gap the ISK sellers have to deal with. There is also a more focused set of eyes in a much smaller bucket then CCP and every one accounts. There are also fees involved, ISK the seller and buyer would be paying EBank just to make the transaction. I honestly can't see someone using EBank for this, it would add complexity to their process. Would be MUCH easier to spot, and would be losing ISK just for using us. Remember the ISK Seller doesn't give back the Money to their customer just because CCP took it out of their account. The Seller doesn't care about the customer, and they have their money already. Ah, I was hoping you'd gotten some clue from the GMs or something. I track all depsoits - my concern isn't someone trying to regularly deposit/withdraw to launder ()that would be picked up immediately_ it's someone who bough ISK as a one-off and deposited in the bank, leaving it there for few moths to wash the trail clean a bit: knowing that I wouldn't be able to tell it was their ISK which was confiscated due to CCP's no-disclosure policy. The actual ISK farmers don't bother me (from a banking perspective) as there's no way they could deposit and withdraw the ISK regularly enough to launder any significant amount. It's people who made a one-off ISK purchase that concern me - but I'd guess (and hope) most of them do it for a specific purchase, not to deposit it in a bank.
Dr Slurm General Commodities	Posted - 2008.01.05 06:15:00 - [15] Say for instance you want to split the security of a corporation three ways (i.e. Hexxx, Ricdic, Shar Tegral) make 3 corporations one for each security holder. Each Corp starts with 1000 shares. Run a vote to create 1 share. Split the shares for each corp 500/500 between the other two security holders and 1 share for the holder of the company. Each security holder would probably have to join an alt to the other two corporations so that they could perform the take over if needed. This way each character has a foot (character) in the other characters corps. It takes two characters to preform a hostile takeover of the third persons company. The third person (corp holder) would hold the last vote to break tie votes that might be proposed. I'm not sure that covers all problems, but it does take up 3 characters corp membership, which isn't that desirable. On the other hand its pretty secure. It's better then Quafe!
Motivated Prophet Zerodot Schools Power Corrupts Industry's	Posted - 2008.01.05 08:21:00 - [16] Originally by: SencneS I like the idea of locking out divisional wallets but really having grantable roles is no different then have director access. If you can give yourself access to someone Else's division and you do turn into a bad apple there is no difference to this then director access. Just give yourself access to the other wallets, withdraw all the ISK. I've been thinking of a way to have this on a corporate level but the problem is Eve's role management doesn't allow for overrides. For example, if case of a death of the CEO, and the CEO has all the shares there is no way to claim CEO. Ever since Keepers of the Holy Bagel incidence this has been in my mind for a while. The granularity of grantable roles is far more than just "director" vs. "peon". Take a closer look at the corp interface. I wasn't suggesting that Shad hold grantable role access for Ricdic's wallet, I was suggesting that Shad would hold grantable role access for Shad's wallet. As the board members are also personnel managers, this also means that they could appoint a successor by inviting someone new in and granting them the same roles they currently hold, without ever needing to involve the (banned) CEO. As to the issue of a vote getting run, simply divide the shares up further. If the minimum percentage of shares to propose a change in CEO is 34% or higher, we're already golden. If it's 33%, just increase the board size to four, and then you'd have to have two directors conspiring in order to make this happen, and so on down the line. And if you were about to pull off a heist for 100b+, and someone else was willing to help you out, given that you'd have to give them your shares in order to make it happen, would you really be confident that they wouldn't screw you over, too? In this way, the system is self-reinforcing for good behavior; even assuming an outright malicious member of the Board, the most he or she could reasonably scam would be the contents of his or her own wallet division. I'm not really seeing the shortcomings of the system I've proposed yet, given these further clarifications. MP -- Proud steward of 47 billion isk in public money, and counting. Ask me about mineral ~~compression~~expansion! WTF?
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2008.01.05 09:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Motivated Prophet I wasn't suggesting that Shad hold grantable role access for Ricdic's wallet, I was suggesting that Shad would hold grantable role access for *Shad's* wallet. In the word of Rodney Dangerfield, "No respect I tell you!!" "Be all you can be" is a motto even idiots and jerks live up to... all to often.
Trilori Caldari GearBox Fleet Svcs	Posted - 2008.01.05 12:14:00 - [18] Originally by: Hexxx For a few very good reasons I can not tell you what our current "hit by a bus" strategy is. We do have one though and right now it's been put into place for Ricdic who is on holiday right now (back in 2 days). Hopefully he won't get hit by a bus over his holiday, but given that it IS the holiday he may be delayed or complications may arise. In order to execute on this, it requires three different people working together. Myself, Shar Tegal, and Mr. Horizontal. The strategy can not be executed with any two; it requires all three in order to work. This is a good system, but lets say one of you three somehow run into complications if/when ricdic doesn't return perhaps? Now what do you do? You said you can't do it without 3, so obviously 2 won't work and 1 definetely won't work either so I guess its back to getting CCP involved? Has CCP ever had to get involved in a similar theory situation that actually did happen? And if they did, what did they do or was it successful?
Jade Grimpkin Grimpkin Independent Traders	Posted - 2008.01.05 12:20:00 - [19] what happens if everyone gets hit by various buses? contingencies?
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2008.01.05 12:40:00 - [20] Originally by: Jade Grimpkin what happens if everyone gets hit by various buses? contingencies? Then RL wins and we all go home. _______________________________ I need new voices in my head, To speak my secret evils with. I need new lovers in my bed, To be my friends and special pets.
Jade Grimpkin Grimpkin Independent Traders	Posted - 2008.01.05 12:46:00 - [21] ...or hospital. i'm bored.
Motivated Prophet Zerodot Schools Power Corrupts Industry's	Posted - 2008.01.05 16:37:00 - [22] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Motivated Prophet I wasn't suggesting that Shad hold grantable role access for Ricdic's wallet, I was suggesting that Shad would hold grantable role access for *Shad's* wallet. In the word of Rodney Dangerfield, "No respect I tell you!!" Er... right. It was very late, and I was tired, and I was young, stupid, and in love! And she told me she was 18. Sorry. MP -- Proud steward of 47 billion isk in public money, and counting. Ask me about mineral ~~compression~~expansion! WTF?
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.01.06 08:03:00 - [23] Originally by: Trilori This is a good system, but lets say one of you three somehow run into complications if/when ricdic doesn't return perhaps? Now what do you do? You said you can't do it without 3, so obviously 2 won't work and 1 definetely won't work either so I guess its back to getting CCP involved. The safety precaution I put in place before my holiday required all three people in order to action it. Think of it as a key being broken into 3 parts and 1 part provided to each person. So I can say, if something happened to myself AND one of the three, then the safety precaution wouldn't work. But there are only so many securities we can work with. I figured the chances of this happening were slim enough to disregard. Anyway I got back from my holiday an hour ago and no buses came anywhere near me. I can see there has been some pretty insane EBANK discussions I have missed over the last few days (I am disapointed I couldn't join in on them), but I urge anyone with any EBANK queries to contact me in-game over the next few hours. I will likely be a little busy but happy to have a chat anyway. Cheers.
Trilori Caldari GearBox Fleet Svcs	Posted - 2008.01.06 10:04:00 - [24] True while it is unlikely one of the 3 and you would have problems doesn't eliminate the fact that it could happen and it should be more randomized :D
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.01.06 12:06:00 - [25] Problem with ban is, that CCP does not ban accounts, they ban people. So if you manage to do something that gets this char banned CCP will be banning all your other accounts also they can track back to same person.
Motivated Prophet Zerodot Schools Power Corrupts Industry's	Posted - 2008.01.06 13:03:00 - [26] Originally by: Carniflex Problem with ban is, that CCP does not ban accounts, they ban people. So if you manage to do something that gets this char banned CCP will be banning all your other accounts also they can track back to same person. Point taken, but I'd hope that CCP could be convinced to make an exception here. To do so would: Be in their best monetary interest, as it generates revenue from an account that they wouldn't otherwise be receiving and for whose support they don't have to spend a dime on server upgrades. Prevent metagaming bull** (in this case, paying some third party who would never otherwise want to play Eve in the first place to create an account, create a corp according to our specifications, then do something banworthy). Support the robust in-game economy and IPO's, for which CCP has a (justifiable!) permanent hard-on. MP -- Proud steward of 47 billion isk in public money, and counting. Ask me about mineral ~~compression~~expansion! WTF?**
Kribu Minmatar Enterprise Estonia	Posted - 2008.01.06 14:24:00 - [27] Edited by: Kribu on 06/01/2008 14:24:11 Has anyone ever tried passing the character or account on with a last will? I mean from what i gather that would solve this particular problem quite nicely. Does anyone know a precedent on this or maybe someone from the CCP can clarify whether they would honor the person's will or not. Originally written by Vincenzo Delloro: It's a proper EVE-O tutorial mission in that it introduces you to the wonderful world of incomplete missions, bugged spawns and GM petitions!
Robacz Essence Trade Essence Enterprises	Posted - 2008.01.06 14:44:00 - [28] Originally by: Kribu Edited by: Kribu on 06/01/2008 14:24:11 Has anyone ever tried passing the character or account on with a last will? I mean from what i gather that would solve this particular problem quite nicely. Does anyone know a precedent on this or maybe someone from the CCP can clarify whether they would honor the person's will or not. You can't pass something you don't own. However CCP said family members are not subject of "account sharing" EULA violation, so within family, account can be used by more people.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.01.06 15:13:00 - [29] Originally by: Robacz You can't pass something you don't own. However CCP said family members are not subject of "account sharing" EULA violation, so within family, account can be used by more people. I thought the other qualifier for that was that they live in the same dwelling. That said, there are no explict provisions in the EULA for account sharing at any level, except where a minor's(defined in the EULA as someone aged under 13) guardian may access the account. --
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.01.06 15:45:00 - [30] It's one of those situations where CCP basically stresses that you are responsible for your details. If you give them to someone willingly and they screw you over CCP wants nothing to do with it. They don't want to waste their time fixing your ownership issues. I know a LOT of people who change skills for their mates when on holidays, deployed in the army etc. All of these people know that in the event their trust is misplaced, their account is gone. CCP have no responsibility to resolve the situation. Anyway, the point is moot, EBANK aren't going to risk anything that may cause CCP Intervention / Banning and the likes. We may seek CCP clarification on the sharing of a specific account with a very clear waiver on said account that theft etc is our responsibility (however I don't see CCP allowing such an option). Anyway ,our hit by a bus scenario will work. As for scam/theft etc all we can do is keep limiting physical assets in our reach. Being that I hold most of EBANK loan securities/stocks etc I will always have the power to do more damage in the event of a scam but it is still being limited in that EBANK will survive even if I do scam.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.