Selene D'Celeste
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
322
   |
Posted - 2012.04.05 01:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Chribba wrote:This is an interesting topic and something that has been on my mind for years when it comes to my 3rd party business.
I have no way of knowing where ISK orginates from, and is also the reason why I don't ask because I would simply be lied to anyway. I however do practise caution and avoid assisting if I feel things are dodgy or I suspect RMT.
Another practise I take is to always try keep a record of buyer and seller and who ISK is being sent to.
For example ISK flows buyer->me->seller, rather than buyer->me->random alt created 2 days ago - that (I think) makes it easier for CCP to trace the flow as well, plus hopefully it keeps me out of trouble.
I also do report suspicious transfers as I don't wish to be banned myself and I do not support RMT. I do see the problems with loans that VV is talking about as that is a somewhat different thing compared to my 3rd party service.
I'd be happy to support CCP in any way I can and hope that they continue on discussing this with us should there be issues with how me and others provide services to help making it harder to RMT.
/c
Agreed! (Quoting so I don't have to paraphrase this since I'm typing too much below as is)
It hasn't been said particularly well in this thread, but I think most of the nervousness of players who have built something "unsupported" in the sandbox is that future methods for security or whatnot are going to trample over everyone in a "**** everyone who isn't using hard coded game features" way. I doubt this would happen in an extreme way, but most of the early replies in the thread did nothing to allay this concern, and plenty to aggravate it. Which is probably why there is so much in the way of OH GOD MY LOANS comments at this point.
Waiting until real scenarios exist and handling them and making policy off of those is fine if not a better way to deal with these situations than trying to guess beforehand. However, making comments to the effect of "our methods can do no wrong" or "there are no false positives" is not helpful, and are recognizable for the bluffs that they are. The very definition of a false positive is a mistaken classification. If the mistake is never recognized, the false positive is never identified, but it does not mean it does not exist.
Anyway, the security situation is complex, and there are going to be complex cases, as there have been complex cases before. Mistakes are made, it happens. Downplaying that comes off as indifference though, which is very, very bad. Any time a developer or someone in a position of power displays an attitude that can be taken as "there is no collateral damage / I don't care about collateral damage" that undermines said power and causes fear and distrust. It's not really security's problem that support isn't consistent with its handling of cases, but it needs to be CCP's problem. This just happens to be one of the first or only sane places where the fear of this problem can be expressed properly.
Please be aware of this.
As an aside, it looks like security has been stepped up a level, which is great, and I really like the effort put into getting feedback and reporting general information that has happened in the last week or so. Keep up the good work there.
Visit www.eohpoker.com and enjoy EVE's oldest ISK gaming service! |