| Author |
Topic |
Jovialmadness |
Posted - 2010.09.07 13:34:00 - [ 91]
Edited by: Jovialmadness on 07/09/2010 13:36:04
Very true. I dont invest in anyone but myself anyway. Well i do give away quite a substantial amount of isk to friends and corp but i dont consider that true investing. But having said all that, Chribba is the only icon i feel is trustworthy. Other than myself. I know i would never scam but i also would never start a venture so it could never be tested. Besides, someone who gives away 20 or so bil a year to his bro's isnt exactly a poster child for scam artist.
Edit spelling. And to add i would scam a known scam artist who took me or a friend in a heartbeat. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 13:50:00 - [ 92]
 Quote:
There's "absolutely, guaranteed, fool-proof secure" (which is purely theoretical and does not exist in reality anywhere), then there's "secure" (as in, the one entity you invested your money in can't just run away with the money easily and with next to no consequences)...
It is not relevant that in RL there is "secure" (as in, the one entity you invested your money in can't just run away with the money easily and with next to no consequences). First of all there are ways to circumvent rules enough to run away with money, not all the investments are done to AAA institutions yielding zero dot something interest. Second, for all what matters, "paying consequences" is something not related with the "losing the money". How many investors really care (beyond an useless feeling of revenge) that the guy got in jail, since they still lost everything? The "still lost everything" is what matters and this is exactly all the part EvE simulates off RL. Quote:
Things like, say, altering the current corporate system so that the CEO/directors ...
Good ideas but still, irrelevant. Something like 95% of the investments are one man shops, all those counter-measures bounce against the single player in the corp who happens to be CEO and everything else all in one. What software company would alter their game code to accomodate the remaining 5% of a niche in a niche metaprofession? Expecially when leaving gaping holes is "drama maker" which keeps the game somewhat fluid and with drama etc. (all factors to advertise EvE more, see the last video). Quote:
You know, the same way Bill Gates (or now Balmer) couldn't possibly disband Microsoft and just take all its assets and account contents even if he wanted to (ignoring what would happen after the fact) unless he was backed up by a major-country-level firepower or somesuch... and much less so for a random VP... or an accountant, or somebody in procurement, or whatnot.
It has been done, even by banks. Do I have to remind that in this very century we had billions dollar banks creating a whole shadow banking system parallel to the official one, corrupted every obstacle etc. etc. with the known results of few years ago? Guess what, rating and auditng companies heads were all turned to the other side while those mass fraudsters were killing America (and more). Quote:
Well, how about granting multiple AND TRADEABLE killrights per share in case of scam
This is achieved with merc corps already but of course the characters used for scams tend to be thrashable alts or don't ever leave a station anyway. Quote:
What makes you think people would stop using (or even reduce usage levels of) sites like EVE-Agents/EVE-Search/etc if he ever DID decide to scam on a hugely valuable set of deals ?
He only needs to decide to quit his involvement as 3rd party in "3rd party needed" deals, not decide to quit the game... and even if he ever did scam, it would depend on WHO he scammed (there are other 3rd parties that scammed scammers and are still relatively trusted as 3rd party).
He has RL activities that benefit from the godlike support he has in game. It'd take quite some ISK to overcome the RL benefits. Quote:
I feel Grendel is a good guy but even still he doesnt have 100% of my trust. I would be crushed if Chribba ever scammed. Anyone else is a "well thats no surprise" situation.
EvE is in a sad state in this respect. I still recall when I played Istaria. Same possibilities to scam. Even less security. Yet it was a game where Community was sacred. We'd share epics, make free stuff each to the other, leave massively expensive items in public exchange places. There were some scammers, thieves etc. but they'd eventually get catched and ostracized by the community in block, so much that most of them had to quit the game or restart (which was painful). |
TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement |
Posted - 2010.09.07 14:25:00 - [ 93]
Originally by: Akita T
The more ISK a person stands to gain compared to his total wealth (be it current or personal historic maximum), the more likely it is he will succumb to the temptation of scamming.
<snip>
After a certain ISK value, it's all about the "percentage of ISK gained"/"reputation lost" ratio (and about how important that reputation is for the holder in the first place).
This is at best a generalization - and I'm sure it covers a rather scary high percentage of players. But it's still just a generalization - and not a "universal truth" (as presented) For some of us the act of scamming simply isn't an option. Regardless what might be involved. It's just not "done". There is no "temptation" *to* succumb to - Simple as that. I can of course only speak for myself, but I'm fairly sure I'm not a "unique snowflake" in this sandbox of ours called EVE. Personally the act of scamming someone, ie. doing (internetz) "harm" to someone who didn't seek it in the first place (as opposed to say consensual PvP) is basically repulsive (and yes this, personally, includes things as pirating as well) You seem to base your postulate on the (wrong) fact that everyone would *like/want to* scam - For some the bar to do so is just higher than for others. But as I said, some of us would very much like to *avoid* doing so, ie. scamming is a repulsive force, rather than an attractive one. It has nothing to do with the amount involved or not. So please, don't make such broad sweeping generalizations, there *is* more than one kind of people in EVE  (Sorry, but it just irks me when some say it's only a matter of the amount for *anyone* - It's just not true) /me steps of the soap box |
RAW23 |
Posted - 2010.09.07 14:41:00 - [ 94]
A few more reflections on Thrasymachus’ point above:
Given the T4U scam by itself in the 12 month period ending September, and EBANK’s scam/failure in the previous 12 month period, it seems clear, even without looking in detail at the figures, that scammed isk via public offerings must dwarf total interest paid in those periods. On the face of it these figures could be used to support the argument that investing is a fools game.
However, this will only be the case for one particular investment strategy, i.e. if you invested in ALL offerings with your investment amounts allocated in proportion to the size of the offerings. As VV has pointed out in her thread, this would be a terrible approach from the perspective of risk management. Now, let’s think about what would have happened if you invested in the whole basket of available investments, allocating an EQUAL investment to each, whether the offering size be 5 bil or 500bil (for instance, 1 bil in every offering). If an investor took this approach he would be no more damaged by Bobby’s scam than by the small scam of Commercant Epique (sp?) earlier in the year. Now, and I intend to gather the figures for this over the next few weeks but for the moment lets pull some out of the air, let’s say the average return on an investment was 5%/month across offers, calculated by averaging the number of offers (NOT their size) and factoring in the number of months each ran for. To break even you need to have 20 months of payouts across you portfolio to break even. I’m tempted to speculate that even if you did not discriminate at all between bonds that successfully launched, you would have either broken even or come close to. It will be very interesting to see if this would have been the case.
Applying various types of very basic discrimination, such as not investing in obviously poor offers (such as Lui Kai’s) or not investing in anyone who had publicly declared their admiration for successful scammers (such as Bobby) will have improved the portfolio returns quite dramatically, given the actually rather small numbers of scams that there have been. Applying more and higher standards (such as audited offerings only, or flakeys no big names rule, or minimum 5% returns etc) might have also caught a few extra rogues (such a Curzon Dax) and/or boosted the success failure ratio, although this may, interestingly, have also had some negative effect by limiting the number of successful investments and thus capping portfolio and profit sizes in return for reduced risk. Pending the results of gathering this data, I’ll stick my neck out and speculate that one could turn a profit on investing quite easily taking some version of this approach.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 14:47:00 - [ 95]
I agree with TornSoul. When I had about 1 cruiser (T1 fitted Rupture), 1 Rifter and 2 frigate BPOs and would show as "!" on the forum, a guy who helped me TONS against the first difficulties (ie can flippers  , so imagine the noobness), gave me about 43B worth of stuff and CEO role of his corp so that he would not have to close it down and lose all the players, while he was fixing some nasty RL issues of himself. Not for a nanosecond I even came close to take it away, when we got wardecced I took the POS down with tons of BPs. When he came back I handed most of the stuff back, some things that were gone scattered in the haste to save everything off the wardec I gave him back when he returned every some weeks. I feel much more "accomplished" at having done this than at having stolen that stuff and easily re-created a new character (hard to say it'd be an hard decision, I had like 1.6M SP). |
RAW23 |
Posted - 2010.09.07 14:52:00 - [ 96]
Now, this is all fine and dandy for someone with a limited investment fund (say 10-20bil). Things become much more difficult if you want to invest larger amounts. Let’s say you have an investment pool of 100 billion and, for the sake of the example, that the above approach can only absorb 30bil before you have exhausted all possibilities for investing in small offerings and medium sized offerings. You are then left with, effectively, a separate 70bil investment pool that can only be directed at larger offerings. So, for this type of investor the larger offerings will need to be treated as a separate category with the same basic analysis of returns : number : proportion of scams. But things will, at a glance, look very different for this category. The proportion of scams appears to be much higher and the rates of return much lower. I suspect, and again this is obviously pending collection and examination of the actual data, that an undiscriminated basket of successful launches would look to have a fatally poor performance record, although it is possible that the length of time that successful offering in this category tend to run might offset this somewhat by providing a multiplier compared to greater numbers of short running small and medium offers. But assuming something like an average 2.5% monthly return on these offers I doubt the multiplier will come close to balancing out the failure ratio.
So, this is what I intend to explore in the limited time I have available over the next weeks. If anyone with a finer appreciation of numbers can suggest additional features that will need to be borne in mind I would be very grateful for any input they could offer.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 16:02:00 - [ 97]
Edited by: Akita T on 07/09/2010 16:20:07 Originally by: TornSoul
For some of us the act of scamming simply isn't an option. Regardless what might be involved. There is no "temptation".
While the situations in which any one particular individual might be tempted to do it would most probably remain in the realm of the hypothetical, I wouldn't be so quick to claim what you just did. Here's a purely hypothetical (bordering on the absurd, actually, but hey) situation : you are acting as a main 3rd party in a deal involving eventually up to 20 trillion ISK, and you mention that to a guy you know in RL, which turns out to work for a RMT company, which offers you 100,000 USD (all official and honest in real-life, you'd have to pay taxes and stuff) if you scam and turn over your EVE account to his company.
Yeah, you'll get perma-banned from EVE on all traceable-to-you accounts when CCP finally finds out, but then again, unless you're already filthy rich in real-life, don't tell me you wouldn't be at least TEMPTED by this purely hypothetical scenario.
In EVE, everybody has his price, even if that price would have to involve the real world and stuff you'd get banned for. Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
There's "absolutely, guaranteed, fool-proof secure" (which is purely theoretical and does not exist in reality anywhere), then there's "secure" (as in, the one entity you invested your money in can't just run away with the money easily and with next to no consequences)...
It is not relevant that in RL there is "secure" (as in, the one entity you invested your money in can't just run away with the money easily and with next to no consequences).
But it is relevant that EVE has no such in-between thing. Or better said, what we have (BPO lockdown) is woefully inadequate//insufficient. Quote:
Second, for all what matters, "paying consequences" is something not related with the "losing the money". How many investors really care (beyond an useless feeling of revenge) that the guy got in jail, since they still lost everything?
The "still lost everything" is what matters and this is exactly all the part EvE simulates off RL.
Except that in RL you only really lose your stuff if either nobody can catch the guy that stole it, or if he already spent it in a non-refundable way. You can't do any of that in EVE either. You can't really hunt down and catch the scammer to recover any of your lost goods. The only thing you can do is try to exact revenge, but that's even less fiscally sound. Quote:
Quote:
Things like, say, altering the current corporate system so that the CEO/directors ...
Good ideas but still, irrelevant. Something like 95% of the investments are one man shops, all those counter-measures bounce against the single player in the corp who happens to be CEO and everything else all in one.
Not if most investments shift from bonds to actual IPOs, and start offering actual in-game shares instead of just promises, and if a shareholder (regardless of what corporation he's currently in) gets significant powers that can limit the CEO's abilities. ... ___ ... Anyway, I don't get it, why are we shifting so much into technicalities ? What exactly is it you are trying to say anyway ?Do you disagree with my main point, that in EVE right now the only relevant currency is trust ? And that all the audits and other such things really do is only raise the audited party's "trust score" (by proving they're not complete idiots, either incapable of doing what they promised to do or incapable of hiding past scams) ? Or that as long as trust is the only relevant factor, "vets" will keep getting off easy while newbies will suffer increased scrutiny ? Or maybe the fact the absolute and utter reliance on trust could be ever so slightly mitigated if some gameplay mechanics would exist that would make borderline less completely unsecure investments possible ? |
flakeys
The Great cornholio's
Paper Tiger Coalition |
Posted - 2010.09.07 16:05:00 - [ 98]
Originally by: RAW23
Given the T4U scam by itself in the 12 month period ending September, and EBANK’s scam/failure in the previous 12 month period, it seems clear, even without looking in detail at the figures, that scammed isk via public offerings must dwarf total interest paid in those periods.
Don't forget curzon Dax ... |
TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement |
Posted - 2010.09.07 17:08:00 - [ 99]
Edited by: TornSoul on 07/09/2010 17:10:37 Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: TornSoul
For some of us the act of scamming simply isn't an option. Regardless what might be involved. There is no "temptation".
While the situations in which any one particular individual might be tempted to do it would most probably remain in the realm of the hypothetical, I wouldn't be so quick to claim what you just did.
Here's a purely hypothetical (bordering on the absurd, actually, but hey) situation : you are acting as a main 3rd party in a deal involving eventually up to 20 trillion ISK, and you mention that to a guy you know in RL, which turns out to work for a RMT company, which offers you 100,000 USD (all official and honest in real-life, you'd have to pay taxes and stuff) if you scam and turn over your EVE account to his company.
Yeah, you'll get perma-banned from EVE on all traceable-to-you accounts when CCP finally finds out, but then again, unless you're already filthy rich in real-life, don't tell me you wouldn't be at least TEMPTED by this purely hypothetical scenario.
In EVE, everybody has his price, even if that price would have to involve the real world and stuff you'd get banned for.
I know you (and probably hordes others) won't believe me - and thats fine - but no, I wouldn't even be tempted (regardless the RL money reward) Screwing someone over to the tune of 20 trillion ISK - Sorry, not my cup of tea. It's (in my world) wrong. Thus - Not "done". Might make me poor (compared to pocketing the RL money) and, in some eyes, a fool. But poor and with my integrity intact. Which to me is worth much much more. 100K RL money won't last a lifetime (few years at best) - My (if I took the money) lack of integrity would. Sorry, but I'm old-fashioned that way... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 17:09:00 - [ 100]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 07/09/2010 17:12:14 Quote:
But it is relevant that EVE has no such in-between thing. Or better said, what we have (BPO lockdown) is woefully inadequate//insufficient.
Don't sway the reply. It's to the well worn argument that "oh noes EvE got no secure ways to do <stuff>" and that you and the others keep repeating. Maybe it's because I deal with some RL financial things but I see an amount of financial rubbish being done every day that talking about "secure" is just too gross. Quote:
Except that in RL you only really lose your stuff if either nobody can catch the guy that stole it, or if he already spent it in a non-refundable way.
Except in EvE we tend to catch the runners who in RL would be catched (ie the average delinquent), while like in RL we don't catch the smarter outliers who know how to use social engineering, connections and connivence. Quote:
Not if most investments shift from bonds to actual IPOs, and start offering actual in-game shares instead of just promises, and if a shareholder (regardless of what corporation he's currently in) gets significant powers that can limit the CEO's abilities.
And what forces an IPO manager to do that? What forces a guy to start an IPO at all? The huge majority are bonds, they won't switch to a more cumbersome management because you decree it. Quote:
Do you disagree with my main point, that in EVE right now the only relevant currency is trust ?
In my first posts, I said exactly that, in fact BB replied to me how he exactly cashed it in when it was ripe. Quote:
And that all the audits and other such things really do is only raise the audited party's "trust score" (by proving they're not complete idiots, either incapable of doing what they promised to do or incapable of hiding past scams) ?
They raise information about what an API key dump would say. The layers of imbecile trust people choose to add it's their self induced hype and mental projection. Audits can be affected by these hype behaviors like everything else in life. Now, investors are intended to know their JOB. If they don't, their bad. It's not because an API dump and four numbers in cross pumped them. As my Futures teacher said: "I suggested a trade but then it's YOU who decided to take it". Quote:
Or that as long as trust is the only relevant factor, "vets" will keep getting off easy while newbies will suffer increased scrutiny ?
Trust is the only relevant factor till the end of the world. How it's gained / projected / engineered it's not audit's business. In fact I suggest you to point out the last audit that warmly pushed investor tossing their money at it. Quote:
Or maybe the fact the absolute and utter reliance on trust could be ever so slightly mitigated if some gameplay mechanics would exist that would make borderline less completely unsecure investments possible ?
The day any mechanics are implemented, the outlier scammers will immediately find a workaround. The only cure is more brain. Those who can't fetch some, they become Darwinian fodder. As it should be. Just look at Europe and their trillion laws. People still make transatlantics sized tricks dodge them. Quote:
100K RL money won't last a lifetime (few years at best) - My (if I took the money) lack of integrity would.
I call this: "a modic um of self respect". WTF do I do with money once I realize I am a worthless corrupted piece of sh!t that does not deserve to exist? |
TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement |
Posted - 2010.09.07 17:16:00 - [ 101]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
WTF do I do with money once I realize I am a worthless corrupted piece of sh!t that does not deserve to exist?
Exactly. Guess I could have put it that way as well (it's shorter  ) |
Jovialmadness |
Posted - 2010.09.07 17:47:00 - [ 102]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
WTF do I do with money once I realize I am a worthless corrupted piece of sh!t that does not deserve to exist?
Exactly.
Guess I could have put it that way as well
(it's shorter )
Damn straight. It goes even deeper though. Thinking you can buy a new character only goes so far....bobby can never attempt anything valid again atleast anything valid where teamspeak is concerned. A new character is one thing, a new voice is another. Thats what really sucks for him and these other guys that cashed in their souls for a certain amount of isk. They wont be able to use voip ever again concerning legit enterprises. Naturally other things yes but not this stuff again. Hell that would be a good idear actually. Lets start keeping voice files on people and subject them to random voice testing on voip.... |
Berikath |
Posted - 2010.09.07 18:20:00 - [ 103]
Originally by: RAW23
First, a question for those with a deeper knowledge of MD history:
-What is the largest public offering (IPO or bond, secured or unsecured) that has closed without a scam?
This is, by nature, a loaded question. I'm sure there have been very large transactions which have been closed out honestly... however, I would say they aren't big, flashy IPOs; they're transactions between two people who know each other. Pretty much any public offering by nature is looking to raise more than you and your contacts can (or are willing to) put up yourselves. They are, by nature, shifting risk to people you don't know or care about. IMHO, that is the REAL problem involved; above a certain threshold, you aren't getting new people with new ideas (the people who make your money work hardest), you're getting old people who don't WANT to shoulder all the risk. That's a much different beast; If they thought something was going to be significantly profitable, why would they choose to share those profits with strangers? They likely either think there is a good chance of it losing money, the returns will be low (and their money would be better off somewhere else) but it's easy and low-maintenance so they can make significant maintenance fees with not a lot of work, or are looking to scam. None of these are situations where you as an investor would really want to get in on it, so large IPOs would seem to be doomed to fail. Originally by: RAW23
Now on to the main issue
There appears to be a serious sense of inverse proportionality on the MD board, both amongst posters and investors. As far as I can see, FAR FAR more isk has been scammed or lost by trustworthy big names than has been scammed or lost by the more numerous small offerings (indeed, I’m tempted to say more than has been returned by the small offerings combined either but I don’t have the figures to back that up). Despite this, small operators receive far more scrutiny than established figures. This seems to be the wrong way round. Although it is counter-intuitive, it seems clear that those who are most trusted are those who need the most scrutiny as they are the ones who are able to do the most damage.
There is a problem with this, though. The MD community is relatively small and, as such, incestuous. Many of the trusted, and vocal, figures know or have business dealings with each other and may be friends, or at least have a perception of a friendly relationship. They are thus inclined to support each other, with potentially disastrous consequences. We (and I certainly include myself in the vocal category) are highly inclined to let the most trustworthy and, thus, the most dangerous, take shortcuts that would never be condoned in the case of start-ups that might seem to offer a higher risk of scamming but actually offer a much lower risk of scam per isk. Newer posters that demand the same standards from established figures as from newcomers are almost always shouted down. Proton Power’s recent offering and AC155’s response to critics provide an excellent example of this (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1378678) but I’m sure most medium to long term forum dwellers are guilty of similarly dangerous mutual support (and I should also note that my own last offering was far from up to scratch technically). I expect Bobby would have been treated much the same as PP, or better, if he had tried to raise an extra 20bil or so in the same way a few days before he scammed.
The chances of a smaller offering being a scam are not less because it is "small" (only a few hundred million or a couple billion ISK). They are less because more stringent conditions are put in place and they are watched more closely. It's harder to put a scam together for 1 billion ISK than it is for 100 billion. Smaller IPOs shouldn't have an easier time getting money, larger ones should have a harder time (or it shouldn't happen at all). |
Victor Michaelle
Gallente |
Posted - 2010.09.07 18:39:00 - [ 104]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
WTF do I do with money once I realize I am a worthless corrupted piece of sh!t that does not deserve to exist?
It could be a sacrifice to achieve some form of greater good. It could be a political agenda, it could be getting somebody close out of some deep **** or anything else that one percieves as really important. There are things that people sacrifice their lives for, sacrificing one's concience seems to me like it would be a somewhat smaller step. Of course, the odds of such a circumstance happening in a game are freakishly small. |
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium |
Posted - 2010.09.07 19:02:00 - [ 105]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
WTF do I do with money once I realize I am a worthless corrupted piece of sh!t that does not deserve to exist?
Exactly.
Guess I could have put it that way as well
(it's shorter )
/signed Being able to look into the mirror each morning and not see a ******: priceless. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 19:31:00 - [ 106]
Edited by: Akita T on 07/09/2010 19:36:08 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Do you disagree with my main point, that in EVE right now the only relevant currency is trust ?
In my first posts, I said exactly that
Then why all the apparent overt hostility in your responses so far ? It's as if I somehow personally offended you instead of just saying pretty much the same things you keep on saying but from a different perspective, and partially reaching somewhat different conclusions. Quote:
Quote:
Or maybe the fact the absolute and utter reliance on trust could be ever so slightly mitigated if some gameplay mechanics would exist that would make borderline less completely unsecure investments possible ?
The day any mechanics are implemented, the outlier scammers will immediately find a workaround.[...]
There's next to no trust issue in the market system, because it's fully "automated". All you have to do is make sure you read the damn numbers correctly. You don't have to go out in a ship jettisoning cargo and ISK respectively hoping nothing bad happens. Because that's pretty much the extent of what happens when you loan ISK to somebody in EVE right now. I mean, sure, it would be so much "edgier" to go the other way around and kill the market altogether and even direct trades in station, but then again, would that be progress ? How about the opposite, having some system-enforceable actions available for certain types of loans ? How would that NOT be considered progress ? Yes, anything you put in place can probably be evaded by a sufficiently determined individual if the right set of circumstances presents itself, but then again that doesn't mean you should stop trying at all in the first place to put SOME measures in place that reduce the width of the "right set of circumstances". Quote:
Quote:
100K RL money won't last a lifetime (few years at best) - My (if I took the money) lack of integrity would.
I call this: "a modicum of self respect".
WTF do I do with money once I realize I am a worthless corrupted piece of sh!t that does not deserve to exist?
Wait... did you just equate "scamming in EVE" with "being a corrupted piece of crap that does not deserve to exist" ? In a GAME where one of the main selling points is the nasty things you can do to other players if you want to ? REALLY ? Whoa, people, seems like all this stuff turned to something way beyond just SRS-BZNZ really fast. I think somebody needs to get a reality check, pronto. Besides, yes, it's nice to think of yourself as incorruptible, but whether that stands the test of reality when push comes to shove, that's highly debatable. Anyway, it's not you that has to look at himself in the mirror, it's the guy (or girl) that took your ISK and ran away with it. What exactly makes anybody trust somebody you never met in real-life and only met in an online game to have nearly identical "moral standards" ? ESPECIALLY somebody you barely interacted with previously ? In fact, RMT motivated by a suddenly worse RL financial situation has been the officially given reason of at least one high-profile scam in the not-so-distant past (ebank/ricdic, if memory serves right). |
Berikath |
Posted - 2010.09.07 19:54:00 - [ 107]
Originally by: Akita T
Quote:
Quote:
100K RL money won't last a lifetime (few years at best) - My (if I took the money) lack of integrity would.
I call this: "a modicum of self respect".
WTF do I do with money once I realize I am a worthless corrupted piece of sh!t that does not deserve to exist?
Yes, it's nice to think of yourself as incorruptible, but whether that stands the test of reality when push comes to shove, that's highly debatable.
Anyway, it's not you that has to look at himself in the mirror, it's the guy (or girl) that took your ISK and ran away with it.
What exactly makes anybody trust somebody you never met in real-life and only met in an online game to have nearly identical "moral standards" ? ESPECIALLY somebody you barely interacted with previously ?
In fact, RMT motivated by a suddenly worse RL financial situation has been the officially given reason of at least one high-profile scam in the not-so-distant past (ebank/ricdic, if memory serves right).
To be fair, there is a significant difference between finding yourself unexpectedly in need of something and taking advantage of an opportunity and creating a situation from whole cloth, intentionally leaving an avenue open because "hey, I may want to scam this sometime and I want to make sure I can". Namely, premeditation. If someone takes advantage of an opportunity because they see no other choice, you can probably trust them (IN GENERAL) pretty safely. Also, there are almost certainly warning signs that the person is reaching the breaking point. If they are considering scamming from the start, you likely can't really TRUST them ever; whenever they feel the payoff is big enough and the consequences small enough, they'll take it without warning or second thought. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 20:05:00 - [ 108]
Quote:
It could be a sacrifice to achieve some form of greater good. It could be a political agenda, it could be getting somebody close out of some deep **** or anything else that one percieves as really important.
This is a "means justify the end" approach I always despised with passion. While I could be ready to sacrifice *my* things and myself for a "greater good", no way I'd use something stained with someone else's blood. Quote:
There are things that people sacrifice their lives for, sacrificing one's concience seems to me like it would be a somewhat smaller step
I can't appoint myself being a saint, there are many things I don't even notice that could harm someone or something else and I do them. But if I was made aware of such a major "trade" of conscience for something petty *done as choice*, well... death would be a minor nuisance compared to that. Quote:
Then why all the apparent overt hostility in your responses so far ?
Because you, which I consider intelligent above the norm, doubly surprise me by falling in the same discounted and trite half conclusions where i.e. audits are downplayed as some sort of gothic pointless accessory. This is not a "somewhat different conclusion". Quote:
Yes, anything you put in place can probably be evaded by a sufficiently determined individual if the right set of circumstances presents itself, but then again that doesn't mean you should stop trying at all in the first place to put SOME measures in place that reduce the width of the "right set of circumstances".
You push for more game mechanics, while voiding audits of signifiance. IE you ask for something we don't have (yet) while turning down something we have already... and both solutions can be well circumvented. Quote:
Wait... did you just equate "scamming in EVE" with "being a corrupted piece of crap that does not deserve to exist"
Did you just quote my reply with right above a 100k RL money specific example? Yes you did. Quote:
Besides, yes, it's nice to think of yourself as incorruptible, but whether that stands the test of reality when push comes to shove, that's highly debatable
Try me if you dare, I officially challenge you. Quote:
In fact, RMT motivated by a suddenly worse RL financial situation has been the officially given reason of at least one high-profile scam in the not-so-distant past (ebank/ricdic, if memory serves right).
Search ForexFactory for "Jacko", you'll see a guy who scammed hundreds of thousands RL money and then pretended lame excuses like Ricdic did. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 20:39:00 - [ 109]
Edited by: Akita T on 07/09/2010 20:54:07 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Then why all the apparent overt hostility in your responses so far ?
Because you, which I consider intelligent above the norm, doubly surprise me by falling in the same discounted and trite half conclusions where i.e. audits are downplayed as some sort of gothic pointless accessory.
This is not a "somewhat different conclusion".
[...a lot of snippage because I don't want to continue this line of discussion before resolving this particular matter first...]
Point to me where exactly have I said any of that. I merely said that in the end the only thing an audit (that does not turn up any/too many "red flags") actually does is "generate trust" for the people that have not accumulated any/enough trust so far, by at least proving they could theoretically manage to do what they promised they would do. I fail to see how that automatically implies they're pointless, if anything, it might suggest the exact opposite. I also said an audit does not make an investment more secure, to which you completely agreed in a roundabout and hostile fashion, by stating an audit is not meant to do that at all in the first place. Like, duuh ! We were only saying exactly the same thing. And finally, I said that the only thing that could make an investment MORE secure (keyword "more") would be something system-hardcoded. What exactly that would be was left wide open to possible interpretations, with a few examples which were by no means supposed to be exhaustive nor mandatory. Yes, no investment will ever be truly fully secure, but that's not the point. The point is that you need some SYSTEM tools that, if properly used, would have the POTENTIAL to make certain types of investments ever so slightly more secure. Yes, I also could have spelled out every nuance of everything I wanted to communicate as opposed to make it a "cliffnotes" version which I hoped would be clear enough to convey the main message, but sadly, I was not about to start writing a novel in a few minutes and fit it in 4k-sized bites. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 23:58:00 - [ 110]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 07/09/2010 23:59:09 Quote:
Point to me where exactly have I said any of that
Where you downplay audits etc? with the following well oiled "relativism" statements: Quote:
All it does is make the one being audited gain "trust", nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
And that all the audits and other such things really do is only raise the audited party's "trust score" (by proving they're not complete idiots, either incapable of doing what they promised to do or incapable of hiding past scams) ?
Which immediately springs random readers to mind: "well, then it's misleading in the "all it does" (one thing) it tries to cover". Which is a deformation and reduction of its roles, the 3 I posted above. Also, the "Is the "vetting process" of suffering an audit or anything like that" shows it in a light that looks like some bitter medicine - again a negative picture. Quote:
It's only about how much effort it would require to circumvent the pathetic security measures (in most cases, not much, and social engineering helps a lot) and if the ISK total is worth the "reputation damage".
Given that the context covered audits right before, and given that other previous posts depicted audits as "false security", it comes natural to figure out they are in the list of the "pathetic security measures". I agree they are limited but not that they are pathetic. Quote:
And finally, I said that the only thing that could make an investment MORE secure (keyword "more") would be something system-hardcoded
And I disagree with that as well. In this case this would be exactly the situation you depicted the audits to be: people would "know" that there are those hardcoded security measures in place and would grow complacent (example: a board of trustees, expecially when properly socially engineered) and eventually uncover a vulnerable corner that is not covered by said hardcoded mechanism. The intelligent outlier scammers do that. So, while you don't say drastically different things, you leave behind an influence of feelings about the topics that is almost 1:1 to the same subtle tactic of slow discredit Riethe and associates did in the previous scams iteration. Whether this is planned or not, I can't say and I'd prolly leave it "pass" in normal times. But now we are not, I am like alone against the usual tactics employed to take down the little we have. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 00:26:00 - [ 111]
Edited by: Akita T on 08/09/2010 00:53:21 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
It's only about how much effort it would require to circumvent the pathetic security measures (in most cases, not much, and social engineering helps a lot) and if the ISK total is worth the "reputation damage".
Given that the context covered audits right before, and given that other previous posts depicted audits as "false security", it comes natural to figure out they are in the list of the "pathetic security measures". I agree they are limited but not that they are pathetic.
I was not talking pre-investment, but post-investment and pre-scam, if that wasn't clear enough. I suppose it can be interpreted to mean what you seem to have understood. So just making it clear, yet again, that an audit is NOT a security measure (as you have said so yourself), so I was not talking about audits when I was calling anything "pathetic". Specific enough now ? The only thing that even passes as a security measure is BPO lockdown, and we all know how well that can go as long as the current CEO/vote mechanics are in place unaltered. Basically, you think I am considering audits worthless (I'm not, but then again you are correct, I am considering them to be in general overrated by the public, something you also don't exactly try to say is inaccurate, since you do talk about "layers of imbecile trust people choose to add" when you speak of audits), and since you are (or at least were) in the audit business, you take it as a personal affront or something like that. Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
And finally, I said that the only thing that could make an investment MORE secure (keyword "more") would be something system-hardcoded
And I disagree with that as well. In this case this would be exactly the situation you depicted the audits to be: people would "know" that there are those hardcoded security measures in place and would grow complacent (example: a board of trustees, expecially when properly socially engineered) and eventually uncover a vulnerable corner that is not covered by said hardcoded mechanism.
The intelligent outlier scammers do that.
Right. Because the "layers of imbecile trust people choose to add" [to audits being performed] (your words, not mine) don't make people grow more complacent at all (in spite of not having any reduced risks), but having some actual mechanic in place that would make it far more difficult to scam (and therefore objectively reducing risks) would be not just pointless, yet counter-productive since it would make people more complacent ? REALLY ? Let's have THIS hypothetical partial set of mechanics in place... "the only way to successfully lock/unlock a BPO or appoint/dismiss a director or accept/reject/expel a corpmember is if at least 2/3 (or 3/4) of shares vote for it and not a single share votes against it". That could as well be just the tip of the iceberg as far as corporation setups could possibly go, if only the system permitted them. Now on a scale of -10 to +10 compared to the current situation, how exactly would you rate the likelihood of a T4U-like scam happening with just that set of rules in place and enabled for the corporation handling the deal ? If you say anything above 0, you are so full of it it's not even worth talking about anything anymore. If you vote anything below 0, then what are we arguing about here other than maybe some misplaced hurt occupational pride ? ... TL;DR : You resent the fact I don't seem to hold audits in a high enough regard for your tastes (even if my perception of them is still mostly positive), in spite of you agreeing with my reservations about their usefulness (when compared to the general public perception of their usefulness anyway), at least from a technical/practical standpoint, while at the same time resenting the mere idea of introducing hard-coded measures that could (if properly used) make scamming much more difficult. Does that about cover it ? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 07:42:00 - [ 112]
Quote:
I was not talking pre-investment, but post-investment and pre-scam, if that wasn't clear enough
It was not, now it is. As I said above, in regular circumstances I'd not be so nitpicker but when these "MD meltdowns" happen, it's best to have everything stupidly clear and defined, to avoid snowball effects to demolish both the good (forever) and the bad (for two days). Quote:
Basically, you think I am considering audits worthless (I'm not, but then again you are correct, I am considering them to be in general overrated by the public,
Yeah and there should be efforts to educate the potential investors about what they are for and what it's hype. If I find some time I might start a thread of something, I don't really expect that anyone else cares. Quote:
Now on a scale of -10 to +10 compared to the current situation, how exactly would you rate the likelihood of a T4U-like scam happening with just that set of rules in place and enabled for the corporation handling the deal ?
If someone like BB decides to scam, he will. After all, as you well know, not a single RL security system is safe when the infiltrator just "buys / corrupts" someone inside the target corporation. It will provide for an higher entry barrier for other scammers, but those I call "outlier scammers" are bound to succeed. Period. If someone has the skill, the will and sees it as a challenge, he will work hard enough to succeed. Quote:
while at the same time resenting the mere idea of introducing hard-coded measures that could (if properly used) make scamming much more difficult.
I don't see how it's difficult seeing why. An audit has a chance of hitting random and unpredictable points, an hard coded measure is easy to learn and overcome it. It's mechanical after all. Just go for the extra mile and pronto you overcome it. Furthermore for its own nature of being mechanical, people will believe it predictably works as deterrent. I am not against these things but if people can mis-judge an audit so easily, how much more will they hype a fixed mechanic? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 11:17:00 - [ 113]
Edited by: Akita T on 08/09/2010 11:24:08 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
I don't see how it's difficult seeing why.
An audit has a chance of hitting random and unpredictable points, an hard coded measure is easy to learn and overcome it. It's mechanical after all. Just go for the extra mile and pronto you overcome it.
Furthermore for its own nature of being mechanical, people will believe it predictably works as deterrent.
I am not against these things but if people can mis-judge an audit so easily, how much more will they hype a fixed mechanic?
Well, the radical difference would be that an audit is something that happens before the investment is made, while those "fixed mechanics" are in place to help after the investment is made. If you want to compare it to a bank real-estate loan, the audit would be the credit check you go through before a loan is even given out, and the fixed mechanic would be the legal framework that allows the bank to hold the mortgage on your house until you paid off your loan. Not quite the same but similar - an audit proves you would be _capable_ of holding your end of the deal, the mechanics make it a bit more likely that you actually _will_ do it. As for the previous practical example, all you would have needed to do to prevent a T4U-like scam from happening would be to insist the corp is configured to use those rules (maybe also extend voting period to a week instead of 24h), and then a single attentive shareholder (doesn't matter who) would be enough to (repeatedly, if necessary) shoot down the changes that would have enabled the scam to actually happen (unlocking of BPOs, kicking of directors, etc). Sure, it still wouldn't be foolproof and some other problems could come out of it, but at least you would have the options there to make it happen that way (as opposed to having no options whatsoever). |
Cyaxares II |
Posted - 2010.09.08 11:40:00 - [ 114]
Originally by: Akita T
Not quite the same but similar - an audit proves you would be _capable_ of holding your end of the deal, the mechanics make it a bit more likely that you actually _will_ do it.
But what would be the value of being good if it's not much easier to be bad? and how could VV want to blur this difference? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 11:51:00 - [ 115]
Originally by: Cyaxares II
But what would be the value of being good if it's not much easier to be bad?
What would be the value of being bad is being bad would be so easy ?  |
AnakieNine |
Posted - 2010.09.08 12:30:00 - [ 116]
Edited by: AnakieNine on 08/09/2010 12:36:38The problem with rep is that the scammers are generally trying so hard to get it. I'll let you ponder that for a while.... Careful you might give yourselves away.  |
Lucyna
Interstellar Killer Bee Enterprises |
Posted - 2010.09.08 17:05:00 - [ 117]
Originally by: AnakieNine
Edited by: AnakieNine on 08/09/2010 12:36:38
The problem with rep is that the scammers are generally trying so hard to get it.
I'll let you ponder that for a while....
Careful you might give yourselves away.
So that means since Chribba got a Veldspar tattoo on his arm, he got it so he can pull of the biggest scam in history? |
|
All Channels
Market Discussions
