| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ricdic
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2009.02.03 04:35:00 -
[1]
Hey guys,
As a result of the cosmoray drama thread and also some inner talks on our personal board forums I want to see people's opinions on this idea I (and to a far lesser extent Hexxx) had.
Form a jury of respected persons. They should all have their own opinions and viewpoints, they shouldn't just be part of the "MD Elite", basically a mixture of regular players.
Give them a private forum, have them completely separated from any entity (including EBANK).
Anyway in the event that a dispute arises this party plays judge and jury. They take on the facts and information provided by both parties and make a determination. Their determination is final and ultimately they become the standard in dispute resolution intermediaries.
They of course charge a fee for utilisation of their service.
Anyway for example this group cannot be formed by EBANK or any other institution that deals with any form of public funding. Some of the individuals could but I would recommend (for example) that none of the staff on this panel are EBANK/DBANK.
The group would deal with issues such as Cosmoray, someone claiming Mothership scam etc or even say an IPO scam whereby EBANK or DBANK have some of the persons funds on hand.
Our discussion internally was that basically if someone steals directly from us we can use any means necessary to recoup our investment from the perpetrator. However if someone was to say do an IPO scam where EBANK was invested, and EBANK could recover some of the funds it wouldn't be fair for us to simply recover our own debt and ignore everyone else.
Anyway that's a very generalised idea. The above would be determined (both guilt and resolution) by the panel and I think it opens up a law related profession in Eve as well for people interested.
Again, this should be comprised of completely individual players and not governed in any way by other corpoations etc.
Discuss? |
Nemi Lethal
Gallente
DarkStar Armada
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 04:50:00 -
[2]
Sounds like a great idea so long as the larger entities abide by what ever decision was made by the "jury".
That would be the only way it would work.
I'd beable to put forth some time when ever it would be needed, you should put together a jury pool listing and draw names at random during the casees, and allow each side the ability to object to a potential jury member etc etc.
|
Viper ShizzIe
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 04:51:00 -
[3]
I think this could be a worthwhile addition as long as the correct people were involved. |
Cierejai
Caldari
BlackSite Prophecy
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 04:53:00 -
[4]
I may be a forum novice but I look at this as a good idea, but overall pointless.
This is the court of public opinion.
Cosmoray was justified in scamming a scammer, but the information came out on it's own. A jury of "enlightened" (no disrespect) wouldn't make much of a difference in the matter. Imo, most people wouldn't want to spend more ISK after being scammed to confirm they were scammed.
Sorry I have nothing constructive to add, I do like the idea. |
Forceflow
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 04:54:00 -
[5]
Judgement might be handled easily but enforcement is going to be very tricky.
Basically, we're gonna need a standing army fleet for this or some bounty corp that we can give contracts to for enforcement.
And then it brings up the money to be paid to the mercs (if so), will it come from the plaintiffs or from a kitty that resides with the body (maybe placed in an ebank acct)? Should the body then charge fees from business IPOs inorder to held fund such an occurance?
Maybe things to work out but its a good idea. |
Brock Nelson
Caldari
Flux Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 04:58:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Brock Nelson on 03/02/2009 04:58:06
Ricdic, what would juries decide in situations like what happen with cosmoary? That he's guilty? That he's innocent? What would be different in either case? He's eve version of robin hood.
When someone claims scam like mothership scam, how do we verify this claim? Provide API? Why would either party provide API to 12 people? (assuming you're going with standard 12 member jury)
When an IPO results in a scam and the bank has some of the scammer's money, its not up to the jury determine the course of action that the bank needs to take. In cases like that, the bank needs to set a policy regarding situations like that.
I'm for jury or judge but really, they hold no real power and its up to both party to uphold the judgment passed. In RL, becoming a judge is extremely difficult, as a judge, you need to be impartial and have a through understanding of the law. There is no law in eve. |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 04:58:00 -
[7]
People are going to kick and scream anyways  |
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:04:00 -
[8]
I see all sorts of thorny issues depending on how kangaroos for this court are selected.
Also, forum denizens here can't agree on the color of the sky. Never mind any issue more complex than nose picking. There is a real potential for jury deadlock.
Still, the idea has potential. If the problems of enforcement can be overcome that is. |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:09:00 -
[9]
I would abstain.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:13:00 -
[10]
 Originally by: Clair Bear
Also, forum denizens here can't agree on the color of the sky.
Are you telling me it's not pink? 
|
Kitchie
Gallente
Kitchie's Logistics and Marketing Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:19:00 -
[11]
The idea is nice in principle but would seem to only be of use if both sides agree to arbitration by this Jury. How often would that happen and otherwise, what does it achieve?
The only time that I can think of where it could be useful is when someone has been accused of being a scammer and wants to clear their name. e.g. if Hapenburg really had not been evn, as he originally claimed (falsely), this jury system would have allowed his claims to be independantly verified.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:20:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Clair Bear
Also, forum denizens here can't agree on the color of the sky.
The pen is blue!
... on a more serious note, I think the idea has merit and is worth of further debate. Although I think instead of a regular tribunal we should more or less debate the ethics, rules, etc.. and let the participants be more or less ad hoc with verification of non involvement through audit checks.
I mean, if we are to use our most recent Robin Hood example, the supposed 'victim' has/had at least 8 alts at his disposal. |
Pink Kiwi
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:26:00 -
[13]
It sounds like a means of trying to escape responsibility for actions you want to take. This 'Jury' said it was ok for us to do this, so don't blame us. We had 'permission' to take this persons ISK.
|
ksc1226
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:35:00 -
[14]
Seeing as how there is no form of justice in eve. The only people who would follow the rules of this jury are those who would not scam in the first place. Thus in my opinion the only service such a jury would provide would be to create a set of rules for the fine line situations. For example, they could rule on what would be the proper action in situations such as Cosmoray's, or the Small Gods IPO. As for actual day to day rulings...I don't see many coming up. I think the few occurrences that have happened recently are coincidental and will not happen often.
|
Joss Sparq
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:39:00 -
[15]
Originally by: He whose second name is automatically censored by CCP on the forums ...
I think this could be a worthwhile addition as long as the correct people were involved.
And as an Australian, I think it only natural that I be included on the bench of any Kangaroo Court, to add authenticity to the proceedings.
Which reminds me, Viper: are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
...
On a slightly more serious note I can see there being some utility in such an organization being formed. Maybe not such a great deal as a traditional judicial body itself but certainly as a think tank to examine certain issues when they arise. If people abide by their ultimate recommendations then that is an added bonus.
|
Truely Altish
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:39:00 -
[16]
All hail e-bank and ricdic our new moral compass........
what a bunch of pompus fools  |
Tasko Pal
Heron Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:54:00 -
[17]
I would call it more an arbitration panel. After all, the judgment isn't binding (unless the parties put some assets in escrow pending a decision). |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 06:03:00 -
[18]
Without the means to enforce any rulings it amounts to shoving a eunuch into a *****house.
|
J Carreg
Royal industry and research
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 06:11:00 -
[19]
This to me sounds like ebank is trying to get justification on taking peoples money(for clarifiction, I am of the school of thought that what cosmoray did was a scam). Also there is no way this 'jury' would be able to enforce its decision as any actions it can take will have to be publisised before they make those actions and thus any scammer with half a brain would be able to get around it.
Nice idea but can't work. |
Brock Nelson
Caldari
Flux Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 06:14:00 -
[20]
"Chief Justice of Eve Supreme Court Brock Nelson"
I like the sound of that |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 06:31:00 -
[21]
The thing about this idea is that it's moral bureaucracy. It's just not going to work. But it creates a social structure, which is good for the elite but bad for the average citizen.
I'm really not sure what I think of this. I don't see it adding much value though. |
Viper ShizzIe
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 06:33:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Without the means to enforce any rulings it amounts to shoving a eunuch into a *****house.
:csm: |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 06:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Viper ****zIe
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Without the means to enforce any rulings it amounts to shoving a eunuch into a *****house.
:csm:
I see what you did there.
|
Ambo
EMMA Test Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 07:05:00 -
[24]
I really can't see the point.
There is no way to enforce any decisions. If I do what I think is right then I'll stand by that no matter what any random group of people says.
Just seems like a complete waste of time and effort tbh. |
Ricdic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 07:09:00 -
[25]
Originally by: J Carreg
This to me sounds like ebank is trying to get justification on taking peoples money(for clarifiction, I am of the school of thought that what cosmoray did was a scam). Also there is no way this 'jury' would be able to enforce its decision as any actions it can take will have to be publisised before they make those actions and thus any scammer with half a brain would be able to get around it.
Well it's not so much in that respect but you have the right idea.
A couple of real examples that I believe would suit this situation:
1) cosmoray situation where cosmo got the funds off the guy for the transfer of shares and then disputed the payment. The jury themselves make their determination based on the evidence at hand. In this case Evn didn't provide his API key to the jury so it would be almost an admission of guilt where he could have been easily cleared.
2) current situation with Block (I believe) currently holding 10b of FuryBank money. It's pretty obvious that Fury is dead in the water so the jury wouldn't so much be determining guilt, rather the outcome of those funds. Should block be able to just do a buyback later on and pocket that 10b? Should there be some decision made for example a lottery amongst fury customers or basically anything they can determine as a group to choose the best exit strategy.
3) Information. EBANK have a fair bit of information on the Xabier scam however our policies prevent us from divulging this information. If our T&C specify that XX jury can allow this information to be overturned where deemed necessary, then upon acceptance of jury it can be brought forth (we are talking main's name, main's production corporation etc etc). Whilst EBANK could make this determination internally it would need multiple conditions and extra specifications added to the T&C and even when done, release of said information would probably be met with drama galore. (example being the 1 isk loan default stupid issue I brought to light. A jury would have never approved such a thing to be released, and obviously in hindsight it was stupid of me to relase it in the first place).
This could also apply to auditors and basically any information, assets or funds in holding by another party. We have had quite a few issues where we have had a fair bit of information on scammers and all we can do is sit on it. It would be difficult for us to specify precise conditions that this information can be released hence the 3rd party being present to discuss and decide on a suitable form of resolution.
In answer to the quoted text, this isn't justification on taking peoples money.
I would more put it as looking for any way to bring scammer's to justice whether it be by release of information, share holdings, assets, funds etc. Judgement would determine guilt and punishment would determine the best way to reallocate those assets.
In regards to enforcing decisions this assumes that it is already enforced. The information is already on hand (point 3), the funds or assets are already on hand (points 1 and 2), etc. Whilst it probably won't be used all that often it will still help to not just make scammers pay for their actions but also allow victim compensation to be chosen by a third party rather than the one who stands the most to gain (recipient of funds, EBANK collateral in an IPO scam default etc)
Consider it a governing body for dispute resolution.
|
Pink Kiwi
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 07:42:00 -
[26]
So, EBank is trying to find a way to violate their policies without taking a hit to their reputation. If you want to do something, just do it and live with the consequences of your actions. Don't try and find a scape-goat. |
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 07:46:00 -
[27]
My problem with a criminal proceeding, is who judges the judges, and in EvE that could result in the biggest scam of all. I think what might be more useful than lawyers and a judge/jury, would be a credit rating agency and a form of bond/insurance, once you have that you can file a lien against someone which would affect his credit rating until the debt was paid. It would be nice to punish people, but there isn't really a way to do that when people send that alt to biomass. A credit rating agency would be way of controlling risk before things get out of control and a way of punishing people without having to resort to a criminal proceeding. It could even be partially automated, providing a history of market transactions over time to rate the character. In this way we don't have to rely on people's "reputations" which can be easily social engineered. The longer the credit history, the more you can make a determination. The nice thing about a credit rating agency, you can charge people for the service on one, or both ends of the transaction. A credit check and bond/insurance could look at the following.
1. API checks for small amounts of isk and Advanced API checks for large amounts of isk. Look at their entire history. If they don't provide that, there is no reason why people should give them billions of isk. A credit rating agency could be secure enough to hold that data.
2. Figure out the value of the character at sale, thats probably what most generic characters are worth and might act as a limit on what they can borrow. This could be automated from an API.
3. Research contract history and associations and if the char has been bought and sold. If it was bought and sold, then mark it down.
4. A reporting desk, that can report unpaid bills and theft against a character and file a lien requesting payment. This would be public record for everyone to see. Assign a minimum credit rating in order for a person to be able to file a lien to prevent lien spam.
5. References of people who will vouch for these characters, and agree to pay if the character defaults. This amounts to a form of primitive insurance, and if they refuse to pay, file a lien on them as well.
6. Find other risk indicators, like the number of systems they have visited, do they keep isk in their wallet, number of kills/losses, their standings with NPC corps and so on to determine a risk factor for them being an expendable alt.
The key would be keeping most of the data confidential, while making the process and key determinations public. |
The Scarred
Amarr
HOMELESS.
The Shelter
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 08:25:00 -
[28]
This is one of those things that is great on paper, and might be true of heart, however it will never work in EVE. For the simple yet amazingly complex reasons people have stated.
Ricdic, I will say this to you, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your reputation is all that is giving you this benefit. I'm presuming you have the good of the community in your goals. If that is so, then spend your time gathering a group of "individuals" to help create a player agency that researches IPO's. With the way EVE is heading we are seeing more and more scams. This however is punishing newer players. Use your influence to truly help the 'younger' eve crowd.
In today's economy everyone is so quick to point a finger and scream "that's a scam!" that a newer person that is unknown can't get a legit business off the ground. You personally, Ricdic, have the ability to change that if you want to. View it like Chribba. People trust him with billions upon billions of isk. Why? Because he's Chribba, he cares about the community of eve, of course he's paid a fee, however people pay it gladly because he provides an insurance that they won't get screwed. You can do the same for a different crowd, the small business owners that want to branch out and try something larger.
Notice that this concept is talked about a lot between people on MD however no one acts. I'll use myself as an example. MD is pretty much the only non sales related forum i read. If i were to make a post stating that i was going to make an agency that would investigate the legitimacy of new IPO's people would laugh me off the forums. I'm an unknown person and I wouldn't blame them for doing so. If you posted the same exact post word for word, people would take it seriously.
Of course, if I was wrong and you're not interested in the well being of the 'younger' eve goers, then please, disregard all I've said. Otherwise, I encourage you to step up and take this challenge head on to help people. I'll lend you my services for free if you need someone to write up procedures on how such an entity should function.
TS |
Mr Horizontal
Gallente
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 08:40:00 -
[29]
1. These are uncharted waters. You'd need to have a bulletproof charter for dealing with such eventualities and a ledger of precedents.
2. The reason why the Cosmoray dispute is being discussed is that the burden of proof for Hapenburg being a scammer is on Cosmoray, and it is arguable as to whether this is beyond reasonable doubt. To Cosmo's credit he has called him out, and asked him to prove his identity which he has refused, but to Hapenburg's credit, Cosmo does have the 500m. Strictly speaking this is a clear case for putting to arbitrage, and an Arbitration committee such as this one is kind of the only way to resolve such matters.
3. A lot of institutions like EBANK have a lot of data that is witheld from the community because they have no means to publish it without breaching customer confidentiality, but is of utmost importance to the community - for example EBANK's defaulters.
4. In the event that a case can't be settled beyond reasonable doubt cannot be reached, a clear idea as to what is done with any of the ISK (that'd be put into a 3rd party escrow), and any penalty fees needs to be put into the ledger of precedents.
5. I would absolutely vote against any decision for this to be wholly managed by EBANK. EBANK could administer such a thing by providing a secret forum for them to discuss and such like, but nothing beyond that. Instead I'd prefer that a selection of active auditors be voted in with an anonymous email form allowing people to pitch evidence to them, and all institutions, regardless of race colour or creed, such as EBANK or any IPO can lodge evidence to this tribunal. |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 08:49:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Mr Horizontal
1. These are uncharted waters. You'd need to have a bulletproof charter for dealing with such eventualities and a ledger of precedents.
2. The reason why the Cosmoray dispute is being discussed is that the burden of proof for Hapenburg being a scammer is on Cosmoray, and it is arguable as to whether this is beyond reasonable doubt. To Cosmo's credit he has called him out, and asked him to prove his identity which he has refused, but to Hapenburg's credit, Cosmo does have the 500m. Strictly speaking this is a clear case for putting to arbitrage, and an Arbitration committee such as this one is kind of the only way to resolve such matters.
3. A lot of institutions like EBANK have a lot of data that is witheld from the community because they have no means to publish it without breaching customer confidentiality, but is of utmost importance to the community - for example EBANK's defaulters.
4. In the event that a case can't be settled beyond reasonable doubt cannot be reached, a clear idea as to what is done with any of the ISK (that'd be put into a 3rd party escrow), and any penalty fees needs to be put into the ledger of precedents.
5. I would absolutely vote against any decision for this to be wholly managed by EBANK. EBANK could administer such a thing by providing a secret forum for them to discuss and such like, but nothing beyond that. Instead I'd prefer that a selection of active auditors be voted in with an anonymous email form allowing people to pitch evidence to them, and all institutions, regardless of race colour or creed, such as EBANK or any IPO can lodge evidence to this tribunal.
The problem comes down to following, I think:
How can we trust person x(Ricdic, yourself or myself for that matter), rather than Xabier? It takes years building up a reputation but it takes seconds ruining it. Is it easy to ruin? Yes.
The problem that eventually needs to be solved is how we can trust somebody entirely. It's all fine and dandy that Ricdic has a good reputation. That doesn't stop him from scamming.
How can we rely on one or more people without being at risk if they go rogue?
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |