Posted - 2010.06.08 07:30:00 - [92]

 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 08/06/2010 07:32:01

Quote:

---

I also don't expect my EVE corp to pay me my RL reservation wage

---

You willingly accept and submit yourself to that kind of exercises for free.
A professional being called to do accounting work would generally accept because he's paid.

If there are professionals willing to do work for free, they are welcome and only in that case your example fits.

Quote:

---

The central question is "Do we have someone certified in RL auditing who is willing to do that job for a nominal fee?" and the answer to that question is not as obviously "no" as you seem to think

---

"Given the small chance of free accountant RL" <> "No".

If the small chance happens... bonus for those benefitting of it.

Posted - 2010.06.08 09:29:00 - [94]

 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

---

Quote:

---

Have him prepare your accounts.
Appoint an auditor (RL qualified - not an MD style auditor) to audit the accounts prepared by your accountant.

---

Given the small chance of free accountant RL work (even as friend), did you figure out how much of EBANK's (illiquid) billions would go in smoke to pay a RL qualified auditor consultancy?
They could as well convert the equivalent in PLEXEs and refill liquidity with them.

---

Magnu is auditing One Stop. He is more than qualified to do that.
I am preparing One Stop accounts. I am more than qualified to do that.
Phoebe Halliwel is also providing input. He too is more than qualified to do so.
There are others in EVE with the necessary qualifications and knowledge.
Water under the bridge perhaps, but none of the people previously or currently associated with EBank had/have the necessary qualifications.

Bottom line - you're wrong.

Posted - 2010.06.08 10:59:00 - [96]

 

Edited by: RAW23 on 08/06/2010 10:59:21

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: Varo Jan

---

Water under the bridge perhaps, but none of the people previously or currently associated with EBank had/have the necessary qualifications. Bottom line - you're wrong.

---

"Bottom line - you're wrong." The irony there is delicious.

Mind you I've been quite open about my unsympathetic position to depositors. The depositors were brainless lemmings, who continued to fund the wild ravings of an erratic egoist "eve rock star", that are still whining about the money going up his nose.

If you invest in stupidity... what do you think the interest payment is on that? Thus moral argument went out the window once people continued funding Ricdic after the red flag(s) went up.

Might I also point out that when you deposited into eBank you were agreeing to eBank's terms of service. Just because you don't read the fine print does not mean you aren't going to be held to it.

So, whine away.
I'm still laughing at the squealing.

PS: BTW in case you are not clear, there were people involved with qualifications. Public ignored their warnings.

---

Shar - please take these kinds of comments to the morality thread. The idea for this one is to keep it as offence-free as is possible, on both sides of the argument.

Posted - 2010.06.08 12:21:00 - [98]

 

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

Shar - please take these kinds of comments to the morality thread. The idea for this one is to keep it as offence-free as is possible, on both sides of the argument.

---

Raw, I respect what you are trying to do however Varo's statement, "Bottom Line Wrong", was patently .... wrong. Normally I'd not worry about it but this level of rhetorical diatribe does require an honest response.

The added parts after that, you are right. But unfortunately I simply did not feel like waiting 5 minutes to segment it over to another thread. Especially since it would be an almost non-sequitor post.

In a debate, it is good to try to keep things in line however it can not be 100% in line due to the very nature of debate. Or, better put, it is easy to review comments made for topic worthiness. Not so easy before they are made though.

(I.e. So many different eBank segment threads you've created hard to follow which one is which when you are responding to someone else's off topic posting.)

---

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've posted questions in this thread that should really go in the questions thread because they felt like a natural continuation of the discussion going on here. I know it's not possible to rigorously separate out all the different strands but I'm just trying to throw in the occassional nudge if there seems to be a danger of things departing too much from the topic. The main objective is to keep the anger suppressed (repressed?) on all sides.

Posted - 2010.06.08 12:39:00 - [100]

 

That discussion a few posts up appeared to be purely about qualified accountants with RL experience. Not sure why you appear to be offended by this remark Shar, I've read pretty much every Ebank thread back to pre-launch and never seen reference to a RL accountant on board, or did I overlook someone? That's not a troll dressed in sheeps clothing, genuinely curious. We can get into a debate over how relevant and useful that would have been retrospectively, but I'd prefer not to. The single, most glaring piece of evidence to suggest there was not anyone financially qualified involved is the lack of financial reporting, which when corrected by Ray, uncovered a multitude of problems. I find it hard to believe any accountant would have been content to be involved in Ebank pre-freeze without rigorous reporting.

Not sure why there is an objection to the suggestion to get a qualified accountant/auditor in based on the grounds of cost. Ray has been producing financials for free has he not, for close to a year? It's probably a redundant argument if the BoD dismisses it out of hand, but it should not be overlooked that accountants work to produce information for internal management to make informed decisions, not just public stats. I have no idea what Ray's qualifications in RL and it's not a criticism of his efforts, but there are clearly holes in his reporting, whether intentional or not. Seems sensible that his time might be better freed up ongoing to deal with recovery efforts as opposed to debating the financials.

Posted - 2010.06.08 12:53:00 - [102]

 

Edited by: RAW23 on 08/06/2010 13:10:34

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

The main objective is to keep the anger suppressed (repressed?) on all sides.

---

That's disingenuous there mate. Firstly, I'm not angry. Secondly, eBank people are not angry either. So there's only one side to worry about: Those who are still stinging from the stupidity of their own actions.

---

You're welcome to take that view but personally, I think there has been a great deal of posting driven by anger on both sides of the discussion and I think this is clearly borne out in the EBANK threads over the past 9 months (indeed, I hope some of the things that have been said, on both sides, have been said in anger). I didn't mean to imply that you were angry just that making posts that are likely to anger other people is precisely what this thread is aimed at avoiding.

And for what it's worth, I believe that with the exception of Leneera few, if any, of the people posting here had funds in EBANK at the time of its failure (I wasn't even an EVE subscriber at the time). In most cases peoples' anger cannot be traced back to their "stupidity" in handing money over to ricdic. It has, rather, arisen during the subsequent discussions, which is why it's important to try to minimise elements within these discussions that might lead to more anger and get in the way of communication.

Posted - 2010.06.08 13:20:00 - [104]

 

Posted - 2010.06.08 13:31:00 - [106]

 

Originally by: Varo Jan

---

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

I've readily admitted, I'm not a CPA because going that route was unnecessary for where my life went.

---

This coming from someone who doesn't understand the going concern basis. Maybe going the CPA route would have been a good idea.

---

Varo, please try to avoid this kind of thing.

Shar - thanks for you constructive suggestion that there should be no public dialogue.

Could you both leave it at that please.

Posted - 2010.06.08 13:38:00 - [108]

 

Edited by: RAW23 on 08/06/2010 13:38:00
FFS!

Shar - did you actually read the EBANK threads that ran whilst you were out of the game. This type of posting is exactly why they ended up as they did. If you want to cast aspersions on people there is a thread specifically for that. If you are intent on screwing up the possibility of dialogue in this thread, then carry on. But please don't then complain about the level the conversation will inevitably descend to if this continues.

Posted - 2010.06.08 14:03:00 - [110]

 

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: Varo Jan

---

Oh, I'm very clear. So far only you have claimed to have been suitably qualified. Hexxx wasn't. Selene wasn't. Did I miss any? People is a plural noun.

---

Again, intellectual dishonesty even in responding to your own statements. You could've just said, "Ooops, my bad" but no you had to lie yet again.

Or was there something unclear about the words:

Originally by: Varo Jan

---

but none of the people previously or currently associated with EBank had/have the necessary qualifications.

---

Yes, I'm a jerk, an ass, an uncouth bastard on many occasions. However I never ever lie even in the face of my own mistakes. You, however, are a malcontented troll who is using rhetoric to wage some sort of war. Badly I might add.

PS: You've now lied, your word is **** in the wind. Not that some of us did not already know that.

---

Are you done spewing bile? If you'd like to continue this discussion elsewhere, that's fine by me. Some rules first, son: Learn some manners, don't swear, don't play word games with me - it doesn't work, and don't lie.

@RAW23: Sorry, had to be done.

Posted - 2010.06.08 14:13:00 - [112]

 

Just talk to AC imo, that was what i did, he personally refunded me what eve bank owed me.
He is an honest guy.

/fingers AC

Posted - 2010.06.08 16:13:00 - [114]

 

Shar,

You mentioned people leaving isk in their ebank account as beeing foolish for missing clear warnings.

I admit I could have made a wiser choice once the theft was made public and there was a run on the bank.
There were even some warnings about liquidity beforehand (the refinancing I participated in for instance).
However I choose to believe the placating answers by the then current ebank board, as well as the fund manger I was dealing with at the time.
Partly because I am appearently gullible (see below), and partly becaue I wanted to support ebank to succeed.
This was at a time where the main culprit appointed for ebanks trouble was no longer active and the ebank board claimed they would be able to recover.
This is therefore clearly after the warnings you seem to refer to.

So I wonder what should have been the missed warnings you were refering to.
Because in my mind only a few things stand out before that time.
One of them is the failed internal audit (I sure missed the relevance of that at the time).
Another was Proton power quitting just after he started (I thought it was about RL stuff at the time).
I guess the first one should have been your departure from ebanks ranks even though you claimed at the time ebank was fine, it was just personal differences.

Did I miss any more warnings?
Should I have refused the placating answers by people I respect(ed?) and withdrawn my isk during or before the great bankrun?
With hindsight I will most certainly say yes. Ah well it is only 4B (and part of that is intrest ebank (has not) awarded me anyway).

---
To all,

I guess what is frustrating me about the isk is them telling me it is mine and then refusing me to use it as I wish.
It is like a trust fund that only draws intrest/income for the manager and none for the intended benefactor of the fund.

I think more people posting here have isks in ebank account(s).
I just do not think they want those accounts accociated with all the mud slinging just in case ebank decides to penalize them for it, so they use alts.
If ebank was willing to host this kind of discussion on their own boards they could exclude people not having a vested intrest from the discussion
(I would reccomend using beeped api's to make this kind of account verification).
There would still be the option to include people that try to participate in a meaningfull way.

My opinion on the requests for participation as presented by the board,
You are so far very upfront on what you offer:
Little or no financial compensation.
No say in the actual management of the bank, nor the direction in which the bank will be developed.
Association with a toxic entity.
Succes within the perimiters, as stated by the board, unattaineble within 4 years (as based on publicized financial records).
Regular hazings by the general public on any issue you are even slightly involved with.
Maybe you should include a whipping every morning just to make sure you are not swamped with offers.

Posted - 2010.06.08 23:22:00 - [116]

 

@ Shar and Varo

Get a room you two.


Constructive Suggestions to EBANK

Forgive me for repeating what over 9000 people have already said in different ways, shapes, or forms, but this my concise list of suggestions for reasonable courses of action.

1. Bleeped api verification. No point returning isk to people who aren't ingame or who don't want to put in a little effort to recover their accounts. Set a date, September 1st maybe, for individuals to submit a bleeped api. After September 1st, all unclaimed accounts are zeroed.

2. Set a date for opening up withdrawals. Something reasonable, like twelve months. Possible variations include keeping a minimum threshold of assets/liquid isk.

Or

2.1 Convert accounts to shares. In order for this to be fair to depositiors (assuming we still care about this) I believe it would behoove EBANK to set a corporate share buyback rate based on the ratio of assets/liabilities they retain after the non api-verified accounts are zeroed.

3. Liquidate severely underperforming assets over time and reinvest in higher performing assets/activities (market daytrading..?)

4. Review EBANK's solvency in a year.

Posted - 2010.06.09 08:05:00 - [118]

 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

---

Being "qualified" does not say anything.

---

You are more than qualified to do MD audits. In fact, you're better qualified than I am because of your wider experience in-game.
Reading your posts I have no doubt you have far more RL experience in the I.T. field, whereas I'm a complete amateur. So you could if you wished bring that experience to bear to develop in-game applications. I could not.
I and others have RL experience and qualifications to prepare in-game accounts and/or audit them in accordance with accepted standards. You could not.
So being qualified does say something - use the right people for the job. That applies in-game and out.

My contention is that EBank would benefit from having accounts and audits prepared by suitably qualified people, who are available in-game, probably in larger numbers than we think. Ray sees some merit in that suggestion, but not now. That is his/the bank's choice. All we can do here is make suggestions. It's up to the bank whether they choose to make use of those suggestions or not.

Posted - 2010.06.09 10:05:00 - [120]

 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

---

Finally, I have written some accounting softwares and kept the accounting for 1 RL company, so while I have no claim nor desire to claim for 3), you automatically discounted me having 2) as well, which is a position I don't agree with.

---

I've written programs in Algol, PHP and others. I've been responsible for corporate IT functions. I've specced and/or managed major IT projects. But I still discount myself from writing apps in EVE. There are people far better qualified to do that.

Yes, I still discount you from accounting and/or auditing. It's nothing personal, VV. We all have our strengths and areas of expertise.