Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Damien Jax
Industrial Research College Ltd
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 16:48:00 -
[61]
F-that, Xabier has no honor, why should we honor his wishes? Take it, distribute it. Xabier should appreciate it, afterall, he'd so the same thing. Screw "the right thing." Afterall, that 100mil is probably a fraction of someone else's investment that was lost in Xabier. It's just redistributing the wealth back to the scammed.
|
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 19:46:00 -
[62]
So you also think Ebank should redistribute scammers ISK among legit players also?
|
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:18:00 -
[63]
Your options are:
1. Treat him like any other investor. 2. Return his investment to him and offer his place to another investor.
Stealing/redistributing his isk is not acceptable. |
Thoraemond
Minmatar Far Ranger
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 23:47:00 -
[64]
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you wanted to have more control over your investors' ISK, you could have put prospective terms in your original offering, e.g. something like, "If you invest in my venture and I decide at my sole discretion that you are a scammer, your shares will revert to the corporation." You could also put other terms in there, e.g., "If you show up in an API-verified kill as the aggressor against the investment corporation, your investment is forfeit to the corporation."
(Of course, to make such terms enforceable, you would not be able to use the in-game share mechanism to track investments.)
Spelled out in advance, such terms would be fair warning to all potential investors about what they are investing in, and maybe you'd still be able to raise as much ISK. Doing this retroactively is not the same.
|
Astarte Nosferatu
Abrivianius Manufacturing Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 10:40:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Damien Jax F-that, Xabier has no honor, why should we honor his wishes? Take it, distribute it. Xabier should appreciate it, afterall, he'd so the same thing. Screw "the right thing." Afterall, that 100mil is probably a fraction of someone else's investment that was lost in Xabier. It's just redistributing the wealth back to the scammed.
The people that got scammed by Xabier knew the full risk when they gave him their ISK. They gave him ISK fully knowing he could simply run with it.
Also, this isn't about honour, this is about running a business. If you run an IPO, and start defaulting peoples investment for the sole reason you don't like your investors legal (as in not violating EULA) business enterprises, without making a clear statement regarding it before you start the IPO, you have effectively just killed your IPO and possibly your reputation. Eventhough Xabier is a scammer, he still is an investor like the rest of us and should be treated accordingly.
Yes, I'm selling some of my shares |
engimonger
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 11:24:00 -
[66]
As the first 'reserve' on this bond, I am still interested and would like the opportunity to 'replace' Xabier's investment should you decide to refund it to him.
|
Damien Jax
Industrial Research College Ltd
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 14:20:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Dawts So you also think Ebank should redistribute scammers ISK among legit players also?
Yes.
I don't get it, if Xabier's "investment" in this IPO was paid for by tainted (scammed) isk, then why shouldn't we take it? It's not Xabier's isk, it's the community's isk. 2 wrongs do make a right, I don't care what that cliche says. Xabier screwed his investors over, he should be screwed over as well. If the IPO admin's reputation is tarnished because he decided to take the scammed isk and redistribute it, then you're saying Xabier's reputation is better than the IPO admin's. As an investor, why would you not want to take the opportunity to earn a greater return this way? Is it your morals or ethics? bah, Xabier has shown he has none, so why should we oblige him?
Basically, you're defending Xabier here when he should be the one being attacked. So lets say Small Gods put in a disclaimer that they'd take the isk of scammers or pirates against the IPO. What would you do? Would you still invest? I sure as hell would because I know I'm not a scammer. I would feel better knowing that if there's a scammer investor, I have a chance to take a portion of his seized investment. So there's no disclaimer like this in this IPO, if you're worried about "legalities" (if there is such a thing in EVE) then I'd say no, don't take Xabier's isk.
If there was a disclaimer saying the IPO admin has the right to take your isk if you're a scammer and they take my isk (even though I'm not a scammer), well then, that'd be the same thing as scamming anyway and the community will call them out. Therefore, by putting in some clause like that or just doing it, the admin would be subject to public scrutiny which is fine if it was done justly. If it was done justly (as per the clause or whatever), then the IPO admin should suffer no negative repercussions for doing what was right per their disclaimer. However, if it was done injustly as per my example above, then the IPO admin would be considered a scammer. This would cause the IPO admin to think hard about whether or not someone truly is a scammer before making that decision.
Essentially what you're suggesting is that we treat Xabier with respect and we should do this with all scammers. I'm saying, we should show Xabier and all scammers the level of respect they've shown us which is zero. Why is it so hard to understand? Send Xabier, Endureth, evn, Reithe or any other scammer an email asking for your isk back - they'll probably send you 1 isk or just laugh. So, if they dont' care about you and your isk, why should we care about theirs? Take the isk, redistribute it.
</rant>
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 14:38:00 -
[68]
Unfortunately in this situation there are no provisions for this type of situation.
Anyone who has Xabier's investment capital SHOULD carry on treating him as a normal investor.
If there are caveats in the IPO document saying that if a scammer is 'outed' on the forums you have the right to take their ISK then fine you can do it.
Even if you keep the money Xabier invested, it accounts for what 0.08% of total SCAM proceeds. How do you go about distributing that new found wealth? Do you have Xabier's investor list?
There is no fair way of using the cash. Yes, you want to keep it, but you should take the high road and run your business. If you want investors, you have the right to refuse them but if you accept the capital you have to treat them all as equal.
|
ksc1226
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 14:41:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Damien Jax
Originally by: Dawts So you also think Ebank should redistribute scammers ISK among legit players also?
Yes.
I don't get it, if Xabier's "investment" in this IPO was paid for by tainted (scammed) isk, then why shouldn't we take it? It's not Xabier's isk, it's the community's isk. 2 wrongs do make a right, I don't care what that cliche says. Xabier screwed his investors over, he should be screwed over as well. If the IPO admin's reputation is tarnished because he decided to take the scammed isk and redistribute it, then you're saying Xabier's reputation is better than the IPO admin's. As an investor, why would you not want to take the opportunity to earn a greater return this way? Is it your morals or ethics? bah, Xabier has shown he has none, so why should we oblige him?
Basically, you're defending Xabier here when he should be the one being attacked. So lets say Small Gods put in a disclaimer that they'd take the isk of scammers or pirates against the IPO. What would you do? Would you still invest? I sure as hell would because I know I'm not a scammer. I would feel better knowing that if there's a scammer investor, I have a chance to take a portion of his seized investment. So there's no disclaimer like this in this IPO, if you're worried about "legalities" (if there is such a thing in EVE) then I'd say no, don't take Xabier's isk.
If there was a disclaimer saying the IPO admin has the right to take your isk if you're a scammer and they take my isk (even though I'm not a scammer), well then, that'd be the same thing as scamming anyway and the community will call them out. Therefore, by putting in some clause like that or just doing it, the admin would be subject to public scrutiny which is fine if it was done justly. If it was done justly (as per the clause or whatever), then the IPO admin should suffer no negative repercussions for doing what was right per their disclaimer. However, if it was done injustly as per my example above, then the IPO admin would be considered a scammer. This would cause the IPO admin to think hard about whether or not someone truly is a scammer before making that decision.
Essentially what you're suggesting is that we treat Xabier with respect and we should do this with all scammers. I'm saying, we should show Xabier and all scammers the level of respect they've shown us which is zero. Why is it so hard to understand? Send Xabier, Endureth, evn, Reithe or any other scammer an email asking for your isk back - they'll probably send you 1 isk or just laugh. So, if they dont' care about you and your isk, why should we care about theirs? Take the isk, redistribute it.
</rant>
I would have to agree with Bad Bobby on this subject. We do not have the right to take justice into our own hands. Although I would go further to say that Xabier should be treated as any other investor. Should there have been a clause stating that a scammer's isk would be confiscated, then all would be fine and well. But the terms of the ipo cannot be changed mid way. This is my opinions and I understand that there are others. Thus I think this issue should be put to a vote among the investors. |
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 14:56:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Damien Jax
Originally by: Dawts So you also think Ebank should redistribute scammers ISK among legit players also?
Big reply about taking peoples money.
In that case I'm reporting you as a scammer and your ISK will be seized immediatly. cwutididthere?
If this opens up, than anyone who is on bad terms will start to accuse everyone hoping to either. A) Damage some via isk loss through a bank/investment B) Hope to gain a portion of the ISK throught the bank/investment
I don't scam, nor do I want to be scammed. Take this scenario into consideration, I invested in an IPO/Bond and someone comes across this thread and goes "He must be a scammer to support that idea" and boom I lose my isk because he thinks I'm a scammer. Not to mention the fact that an investor can say he knows I'm a scammer just to "legally" steal my money.
Bottom line, these people may have scammed, but they are giving you money to help your business venture, you can stoop down to their level and take their isk and in my views ruin your rep to a lot of people, or you can make your payments and everyone walks away happy.
Investing is already hard enough, if you start taking justice into your own hands you are only hurting yourself by closing off investors that don't want to risk losing ISK they scammed or don't trust the fact that you can take peoples ISK of an accusation. |
|
MinmatarCitizen100223041
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 16:23:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Dawts
In that case I'm reporting you as a scammer and your ISK will be seized immediatly. cwutididthere?
If this opens up, than anyone who is on bad terms will start to accuse everyone hoping to either. A) Damage some via isk loss through a bank/investment B) Hope to gain a portion of the ISK throught the bank/investment
There is a very wide margin between an admitted IPO scammer and some accusations.
|
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 16:37:00 -
[72]
Originally by: MinmatarCitizen100223041
Originally by: Dawts
In that case I'm reporting you as a scammer and your ISK will be seized immediatly. cwutididthere?
If this opens up, than anyone who is on bad terms will start to accuse everyone hoping to either. A) Damage some via isk loss through a bank/investment B) Hope to gain a portion of the ISK throught the bank/investment
There is a very wide margin between an admitted IPO scammer and some accusations.
I missed the post where Xabier admitted his scam. Can you link that please?
|
MinmatarCitizen100223041
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 18:45:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Dawts
I missed the post where Xabier admitted his scam. Can you link that please?
Not paying a dividend, changing the profile to read "Thanks for all the fish", and not responding to anything on the forum from which he gathered so much isk while logging in several times is the same. Unless you believe that this involves selective amnesia.
|
nether void
Caldari Shrapnel Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 18:47:00 -
[74]
Originally by: ksc1226 I would have to agree with Bad Bobby on this subject. We do not have the right to take justice into our own hands.
In RL I would agree that there's a fine line on vigilante justice, but in EVE there are no laws, so the only justice IS vigilante justice.
I'm still on the fence, though, whether or not his investment should be confiscated. I see positives on both sides of the argument. --------------------
|
Golanbat
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 19:42:00 -
[75]
Originally by: nether void
Originally by: ksc1226 I would have to agree with Bad Bobby on this subject. We do not have the right to take justice into our own hands.
In RL I would agree that there's a fine line on vigilante justice, but in EVE there are no laws, so the only justice IS vigilante justice.
I'm still on the fence, though, whether or not his investment should be confiscated. I see positives on both sides of the argument.
Nether Void makes an excellent point here, and it reflects my opinion on the matter.
The very reason why "vigilante" justice is frowned upon in most statist societies in because the monopoly on force is held by those who are mandated to uphold justice ("justice" being defined by the state). Because Eve lacks any such state-sanctioned justice system capable of removing the responsibility of justice from the hands of the victimized individuals and place it in the hands of a state capable of enforcing justice, justice MUST be defined by each individual, making the enforcement of the justice, by default, considered "vigilante".
So, in my eyes, and I would hope many others as well, Xabier and his type can only be seen as punishable because of his deeds. Because the only justice available to this community is of the "vigilante" kind, those with the ability to perform such justice MUST do so (as far as they are willing to considering their own reputation). One of the ONLY punishments this community is able to use on one such as Xabier is to freeze and confiscate all possible assets that belonged to him. Those assets/funds should be distributed to those who lost isk in the scam, or, if such a list is not available, distributed to those who, in the eyes of the one in control of the assets, most deserve them.
To address the "honorability" of such an action, I submit that when one betrays the trust of another in a free and consensual bargain, it is stealing. The thief forfeits all honor and must be pursued in any reasonable way to replace what was stolen.
I suggest that the manager of this fund keep the isk invested by Xabier and pay out the interest that Xabier would have received to the victims of the scam or to a charitable organization. Similarly, when the time comes to pay the bond proceeds back to the investors, pay the isk that would have gone to Xabier to the victims of the scam or a charitable organization.
|
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 19:45:00 -
[76]
Originally by: MinmatarCitizen100223041
Originally by: Dawts
I missed the post where Xabier admitted his scam. Can you link that please?
Not paying a dividend, changing the profile to read "Thanks for all the fish", and not responding to anything on the forum from which he gathered so much isk while logging in several times is the same. Unless you believe that this involves selective amnesia.
I appreciate you completely avoiding my question.
|
nether void
Caldari Shrapnel Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 20:07:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Dawts
Originally by: MinmatarCitizen100223041
Originally by: Dawts
I missed the post where Xabier admitted his scam. Can you link that please?
Not paying a dividend, changing the profile to read "Thanks for all the fish", and not responding to anything on the forum from which he gathered so much isk while logging in several times is the same. Unless you believe that this involves selective amnesia.
I appreciate you completely avoiding my question.
Clearly all criminals must confess, else there was no crime. --------------------
|
Fleshbot
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 20:22:00 -
[78]
I am not proposing this but a nefarious option would have been to take the money and not say anything. When Xabier starts to whine about not being paid you could claim you DID send the isk.
Who are they going to believe? You with 9 other people verifying that they received payments or Xabier, a known scammer?
Just saying. |
ksc1226
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 20:56:00 -
[79]
Originally by: nether void
Originally by: ksc1226 I would have to agree with Bad Bobby on this subject. We do not have the right to take justice into our own hands.
In RL I would agree that there's a fine line on vigilante justice, but in EVE there are no laws, so the only justice IS vigilante justice.
I'm still on the fence, though, whether or not his investment should be confiscated. I see positives on both sides of the argument.
I see your point. In my opinion the only way to solve this problem would be to set up some sort of "justice system". Such as a board of the most prominent and trusted MD members which could decide on matters such as these. Although I don't see this approach as very practical, as this is not a common occurrence.
Thus to avoid vigilante justice, and since there is no "justice system", the solution to the problem at hand should be the "default" solution which is to do nothing and simply treat him Xabier as a normal investor.
|
Damien Jax
Industrial Research College Ltd
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 21:45:00 -
[80]
Yeah, well Xabier would have been considered in that MD group, so there's flaws with that plan.
Two ways of handling this:
1.) Take his isk. 2.) Give it back to him when the IPO is done like normal.
Since people are upset about changing the IPO midway, I guess number 2 is ok for now. However, I'd like to see future IPO's with that clause in them. I agree with vigilante justice is all we have at this point (that's what bounties are for anyway).
|
|
ksc1226
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:24:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Damien Jax Yeah, well Xabier would have been considered in that MD group, so there's flaws with that plan.
Well simple problems like this are easily fixed. The MD group could just vote a person out.
There may be problems in setting up a "justice system" but this clearly is not one of them. |
MailDeadDrop
Globaltech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:32:00 -
[82]
Edited by: MailDeadDrop on 22/01/2009 22:33:35 Funny, seems like I was recently talking about a civil justice system in Eve in another MD thread about the scam.
Damien, I believe that something like this would work:
XI. Investor malfeasance In the event of allegation of investor malfeasance, at the sole discretion of the issuer, a board of inquiry shall be assembled to decide, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the merit of the allegation. If the board finds that the allegation is most likely true, then all funds due the investor may be redistributed as the board sees fit. The board shall be made up of no less than 3 members, and selected from the pool of presumably knowledgeable and independent characters listed below:
Hexxx Shar Tegral Ricdic Manalapan Kazzac Elentria Kazuo Ishiguro Brock Nelson (any other character acceptable to the above group)
Compensation of the board inquiry might be an issue. Who pays?
MDD
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:06:00 -
[83]
no one will bother.
investors job to avoid scam, not a police force |
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:09:00 -
[84]
Originally by: MailDeadDrop Edited by: MailDeadDrop on 22/01/2009 22:33:35 Funny, seems like I was recently talking about a civil justice system in Eve in another MD thread about the scam.
Damien, I believe that something like this would work:
XI. Investor malfeasance In the event of allegation of investor malfeasance, at the sole discretion of the issuer, a board of inquiry shall be assembled to decide, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the merit of the allegation. If the board finds that the allegation is most likely true, then all funds due the investor may be redistributed as the board sees fit. The board shall be made up of no less than 3 members, and selected from the pool of presumably knowledgeable and independent characters listed below:
Hexxx Shar Tegral Ricdic Manalapan Kazzac Elentria Kazuo Ishiguro Brock Nelson (any other character acceptable to the above group)
Compensation of the board inquiry might be an issue. Who pays?
MDD
And that board decides what kind of scams are a breach of the orignal agreement? Would this only apply to IPO/Bond scammers, or would it apply to people who setup fake contracts, courier missions, dishonor ransoms and 1v1s? Where is the line drawn? I think these decisions should be made before you accept someones funding, if you accept their investment you are obligated to pay them back. I don't care if Mitnal came down here and said "hey, that guy was part of the POS exploit" he still invested in your business and should be compensated. |
nether void
Caldari Shrapnel Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:37:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Dawts I think these decisions should be made before you accept someones funding, if you accept their investment you are obligated to pay them back.
Xabier disagrees with you. --------------------
|
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 04:27:00 -
[86]
Originally by: nether void
Originally by: Dawts I think these decisions should be made before you accept someones funding, if you accept their investment you are obligated to pay them back.
Xabier disagrees with you.
And if you don't pay someone that invested in your company how are you any different than him?
|
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 05:38:00 -
[87]
It appears that I have to clarify my position on this matter:
I am holding the collateral for ALL investors, Xabier included. |
BeBop Lula
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 11:04:00 -
[88]
One thought that did occur to me was on the issue of D-Bank's involvement in this. As I understand, D-Bank had employed Xavier to invest 50B isk on their behalf. Does anyone from D-Bank have information that might suggest that Xavier invested with Small Gods on behalf of D-Bank.
If this could be proven then D-Bank is the real owner of Xavier's bond and, IMO, I would be justified in switching the ownership to another D-Bank employee.
Xavier's investment in me less than a week before he vanished is an odd behavior if he planned to run off.
|
Xarkon
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 00:46:00 -
[89]
Any more spots left in this one? |
Charles Viran
Caldari J0urneys End Journeys End Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 05:47:00 -
[90]
why not give Xabier's share to someone who bought a share in Xabier's IPO? that way, the money would still be going to Xabier, but to pay off Xabiers debt to that person when they invested? after all, that 100million really belongs to the people who gave Xabier the money in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |