open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Titans For You IPO
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 ... : last (75)

Author Topic

Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.04.27 13:28:00 - [1531]
 

Originally by: CrazyArsed Monkey
I will take the remaining shares,
Thank you
CAM

Ok, that's the lot sold then.

I'm waiting on isk from:

500 Promethian Child
500 Dafydd ab'Rhys
500 Psy Te'r
1000 Tre Circuit
900 CrazyArsed Monkey

I'll be buying the ME2 Avatar BPO as soon as the seller puts up the contract.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2010.04.27 13:57:00 - [1532]
 

Uh...how isn't Ray 100% correct here?

"I will be CEO of an additional corp whose identity will remain a secret for security reasons. This additional corp will be monitored by four trusteess:

These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp."

This implies that at least 1 person with shares in the hidden corp is online to stop unauthorized unlocks. Why have have the shares to stop an unlock but not have it arranged properly?

More importantly, why trust someone with X00b ISK when there are simple ways to avoid the situation using game-mechanics?


Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:10:00 - [1533]
 

Originally by: SetrakDark
Uh...how isn't Ray 100% correct here?

"I will be CEO of an additional corp whose identity will remain a secret for security reasons. This additional corp will be monitored by four trusteess:

These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp."

This implies that at least 1 person with shares in the hidden corp is online to stop unauthorized unlocks. Why have have the shares to stop an unlock but not have it arranged properly?

More importantly, why trust someone with X00b ISK when there are simple ways to avoid the situation using game-mechanics?

I'm not sure I understand you.

What isn't arranged properly?

What situation should we be avoiding?

What are the game mechanics you suggest to avoid it?

RAW23
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:23:00 - [1534]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 27/04/2010 14:27:21
Originally by: SetrakDark
Uh...how isn't Ray 100% correct here?

"I will be CEO of an additional corp whose identity will remain a secret for security reasons. This additional corp will be monitored by four trusteess:

These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp."

This implies that at least 1 person with shares in the hidden corp is online to stop unauthorized unlocks. Why have have the shares to stop an unlock but not have it arranged properly?

More importantly, why trust someone with X00b ISK when there are simple ways to avoid the situation using game-mechanics?




If the accounts were always going to be unsubbed then I don't see the issue. Unsubbed accounts were never going to provide a safety net against Bobby scamming. Their only real role can be in the hit by a bus scenario.

Edit
So, I guess this might seem a little misleading (from the OP):

"There is a risk that I, or the trustees, will scam in one way or another. Obviously the trustees and the methods we are using have been devised to reduce the risks and impact of such an occurance but there is nothing we can do to completely eliminate this risk."

But if, as Dzil says, there was a long public discussion on the topic ...

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:24:00 - [1535]
 

Originally by: SetrakDark
Uh...how isn't Ray 100% correct here?

"I will be CEO of an additional corp whose identity will remain a secret for security reasons. This additional corp will be monitored by four trusteess:

These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp."

This implies that at least 1 person with shares in the hidden corp is online to stop unauthorized unlocks. Why have have the shares to stop an unlock but not have it arranged properly?

More importantly, why trust someone with X00b ISK when there are simple ways to avoid the situation using game-mechanics?




To be fair to BB, there was an at length discussion regarding the best way to secure a Titan BPC copy business, and the model T4U follows derived directly from this discussion.

If you have suggestions for a better way to secure the investment (bear in mind the obscurity of the POS location is in the investors' best interests), please put them forward. It would be helpful not only here, but to investments in general, to have solid methods of securing investments.



Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:35:00 - [1536]
 

Originally by: RAW23
If the accounts were always going to be unsubbed then I don't see the issue. Unsubbed accounts were never going to provide a safety net against Bobby scamming. Their only real role can be in the hit by a bus scenario.

Yes, the unsubbed trial account director alts are there to allow the trustees to liquidate the operation should I go missing for any reason. They are not there to prevent me from scamming and were never intended for that or advertised as that. They are unsubbed to save isk, they are trial accounts to save isk, they are directors to allow them to liquidate the operation.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:41:00 - [1537]
 

Ok, here's what I understood:

Hidden corp made up of trustees with unsubbed alts as directors and shares held by mains.

Therefore, in the event of an unauthorized unlock of BPOs, someone will vote it down. In the event of a liquidation, alt accounts are subbed. This is what is possible with the current arrangement.

However, there are legitimate concerns that the current trustees are not able to perform the first task adequately. Therefore, investors need to weigh the risk of having 1 or more new trustees know the corp name, pos locations, etc, against the fact that Bobby can walk away with he BPOs at any time. If it was always intended to be merely for liquidation, then the aforementioned area of the plan needs to be rewritten because it is extremely misleading.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:05:00 - [1538]
 

Originally by: Titans 4U

Yes, the unsubbed trial account director alts are there to allow the trustees to liquidate the operation should I go missing for any reason. They are not there to prevent me from scamming and were never intended for that or advertised as that. They are unsubbed to save isk, they are trial accounts to save isk, they are directors to allow them to liquidate the operation.


Quote:
Chapter 6 - Disclosure of Risks

...
...
There is a risk that I, or the trustees, will scam in one way or another. Obviously the trustees and the methods we are using have been devised to reduce the risks and impact of such an occurance but there is nothing we can do to completely eliminate this risk.


This chapter, in particular, does not align with your above statement, BB.


Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:11:00 - [1539]
 

Originally by: SetrakDark
Ok, here's what I understood:

Hidden corp made up of trustees with unsubbed alts as directors and shares held by mains.

Therefore, in the event of an unauthorized unlock of BPOs, someone will vote it down. In the event of a liquidation, alt accounts are subbed. This is what is possible with the current arrangement.

This is correct. This is what we discussed and this is what we implemented.
Originally by: SetrakDark
However, there are legitimate concerns that the current trustees are not able to perform the first task adequately.

Ok, what are those concerns?
Originally by: SetrakDark
Therefore, investors need to weigh the risk of having 1 or more new trustees know the corp name, pos locations, etc, against the fact that Bobby can walk away with he BPOs at any time.

Yes, it's a balancing act. Adding more trustees increases the risk of a "bad apple" and increases the chance that a "bad apple" will be detected.
Originally by: SetrakDark
If it was always intended to be merely for liquidation, then the aforementioned area of the plan needs to be rewritten because it is extremely misleading.

No, it's not just for liquidation. It is also there for security, but that security is limited.

No matter how many trustees we have we cannot guarentee that an unlock vote will not get through.

No matter how many trustees we have we cannot prevent me from stripping the trial directors of their roles and holding the BPOs hostage.

In fact increasing the number of trustees increases the risks to the operation due to the secret information being more widely shared. It also increases the chance that trustees will be added that are scammers, alts of scammers, alts of mine, alts of other trustees or whatever. This can make it so that scamming unlock votes can be supported by scamming trustees.

This and all the related details were discussed previously and we came up with the current approach as the best balance.

If you have concerns, please explain them. If you have suggestions for improvements, please explain them. Simply saying that I have misslead investors with regards to security is not only unhelpful but, I feel, it is also quite wrong!

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:14:00 - [1540]
 

Originally by: Titans 4U
If you have concerns, please explain them. If you have suggestions for improvements, please explain them. Simply saying that I have misslead investors with regards to security is not only unhelpful but, I feel, it is also quite wrong!


I want to make it abundantly clear right now that I am not accusing anyone of anything; I'm merely seeking clarification on a confusing issue.

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:15:00 - [1541]
 

security/directors/trustees what it provides:

1. There are 5 trustees in the ALT corp (Proton Power, Kazzac, Shar Tegral, AC155 and Cosmoray) all with director roles. I joined primarily as Kazzac hasn't been around much.
2. Primary responsibility it to liquidate corp if anything happens to BB.
3. Shares are provided to trustees (I don't have any) to allow votes on lockdown/unlock of BPO's
4. The ALT directors forward those shares to the ALT players main
5. When there is a vote (lock/unlock) the players main can vote on it

Risks:

1. At anytime Bobby could try to unlock BPO's but would need more people to vote yes than no. If no main is online for 24 hr period he could get a lucky vote unlock.

2. Bobby could run with the cash he is receiving from expansion. That ISK is not secure until he has purchased BPO and requested lockdown vote.

3. Bobby or ANY director could run with the BPC's or any corp assets not locked down. Includes corp master wallet, POS, fuel, labs etc.. .

4. Any director could cancel a corp job, which would wipe a copy run, possibly costing investors 5-10B ISK.


There are risks, but this setup is the best protection that can be found using CURRENT game mechanics.


Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:17:00 - [1542]
 

Originally by: Dzil
Originally by: Titans 4U

Yes, the unsubbed trial account director alts are there to allow the trustees to liquidate the operation should I go missing for any reason. They are not there to prevent me from scamming and were never intended for that or advertised as that. They are unsubbed to save isk, they are trial accounts to save isk, they are directors to allow them to liquidate the operation.


Quote:
Chapter 6 - Disclosure of Risks

...
...
There is a risk that I, or the trustees, will scam in one way or another. Obviously the trustees and the methods we are using have been devised to reduce the risks and impact of such an occurance but there is nothing we can do to completely eliminate this risk.


This chapter, in particular, does not align with your above statement, BB.


I'll try large type again:

The trial account directors are not there to prevent me from scamming. They are there to allow for liquidation.

The shares that the trustees hold on their mains are there to prevent me from scamming.

These are two entirely seperate aspects of the operation that people seem to be getting confused between.

In any case, none of these provisions are perfect. Nothing can make this 100% secure. Hence my statements to that effect.

If you do not trust me with your isk, do not invest.

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:47:00 - [1543]
 

Bobby ignore the troll :)

All investors knew what they went into, and as someone else said already; the securities where implemented because of the discussion we had before the launch.

We always knew that you could scam, we wanted securities in case you went awol, or died.

Any investor not knowing this, have only themselves to blame

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:57:00 - [1544]
 

I'm sorry you're getting frustrated, and this once again seems like a situation where busybodies are getting up in some manager's **** while actual investors could not care less. I was confused by your conversation with Ray and was seeking clarification from conflicting statements.

However, the effectiveness of the trustees is a reasonable question. If this investment is based on complete trust, fine; if it is based on active trustees securing the titan bpos, fine; if it is based on liquidation security but questionable unlock security (which seems to be the present case), fine; but the current state of the actual security is a reasonable and legitimate topic.

Once again, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, nor do I necessarily think changes should be made. However, I saw someone who was asking a perfectly legitimate question being shot down with both ad homs (not by you) and "if you don't like it, don't invest". That's the kind of reaction that leads time and again to the disasters and months of bitter recrimination. People taking the time to hash this out leaves a clear record of the exact state of this investment, something that there was not before.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:58:00 - [1545]
 

It's quite obvious where everything started going wrong here...
Originally by: SetrakDark
Uh...how isn't Ray 100% correct here?

...someone started paying attention to Ray.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2010.04.27 16:07:00 - [1546]
 

Originally by: Titans 4U
The shares that the trustees hold on their mains are there to prevent me from scamming.

**** me, two pages to get clarification on what was quite a simple question. I think you took my current public image to heart when reacting to the questions, quite a shame considering my vested interest in this expansion.

So only PP responded to the share vote (regardless if it was from T4U or the actual corp). AC155 and Shar were warned prior or during the vote and their reaction cannot be measured. cosmo doesn't have any shares and Kazzac is AWOL, hence cosmo's presence. Maybe you need to see to it that cosmo has shares, considering it is a part of his duties to react to any votes on them?

And excuse me for having an interest in the security of one of the largest public ventures in MD.

RAW23
Posted - 2010.04.27 16:14:00 - [1547]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
I think you took my current public image to heart when reacting to the questions, quite a shame considering my vested interest in this expansion.





You might want to work a bit on that image then if you recognise it gets in the way of communication. You created it, you can destroy it (maybe ...). You might also want to try answering questions directed at you in the same way you would like others to answer those that you pose.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2010.04.27 16:16:00 - [1548]
 

Originally by: RAW23
You might want to work a bit on that image then if you recognise it gets in the way of communication. You created it, you can destroy it (maybe ...). You might also want to try answering questions directed at you in the same way you would like others to answer those that you pose.

Thanks for the tip Robin; but remember I'm an old hand at this game, I've been involved in more controversies than your grandma can shake her fist at. Batman out.

/cape flourish.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2010.04.27 16:51:00 - [1549]
 

Originally by: Titans 4U
Originally by: Dzil
Originally by: Titans 4U

Yes, the unsubbed trial account director alts are there to allow the trustees to liquidate the operation should I go missing for any reason. They are not there to prevent me from scamming and were never intended for that or advertised as that. They are unsubbed to save isk, they are trial accounts to save isk, they are directors to allow them to liquidate the operation.


Quote:
Chapter 6 - Disclosure of Risks

...
...
There is a risk that I, or the trustees, will scam in one way or another. Obviously the trustees and the methods we are using have been devised to reduce the risks and impact of such an occurance but there is nothing we can do to completely eliminate this risk.


This chapter, in particular, does not align with your above statement, BB.


I'll try large type again:

The trial account directors are not there to prevent me from scamming. They are there to allow for liquidation.

The shares that the trustees hold on their mains are there to prevent me from scamming.

These are two entirely seperate aspects of the operation that people seem to be getting confused between.

In any case, none of these provisions are perfect. Nothing can make this 100% secure. Hence my statements to that effect.

If you do not trust me with your isk, do not invest.



Well there we go, all back to our original understanding of the plan then.
In hindsight I think I read your statement out of context of the entire thread. No trolling intended, I just read it suddenly as the trustees aren't here to provide any security against a scam, wherein said security is what interests me most about this business model.




Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.04.27 17:10:00 - [1550]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Titans 4U
The shares that the trustees hold on their mains are there to prevent me from scamming.

**** me, two pages to get clarification on what was quite a simple question. I think you took my current public image to heart when reacting to the questions, quite a shame considering my vested interest in this expansion.

So only PP responded to the share vote (regardless if it was from T4U or the actual corp). AC155 and Shar were warned prior or during the vote and their reaction cannot be measured. cosmo doesn't have any shares and Kazzac is AWOL, hence cosmo's presence. Maybe you need to see to it that cosmo has shares, considering it is a part of his duties to react to any votes on them?

And excuse me for having an interest in the security of one of the largest public ventures in MD.


Ray, I think you and I just have difficulty communicating effectively with eachother. Don't make it into anything more than that.

Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.04.27 17:16:00 - [1551]
 

I'm still waiting on isk from:

500 Promethian Child
500 Dafydd ab'Rhys
500 Psy Te'r
1000 Tre Circuit
900 CrazyArsed Monkey

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2010.04.27 17:43:00 - [1552]
 

Edited by: Claire Voyant on 27/04/2010 18:24:36
I would agree that the current security methods are about as good as you could get working within the current ingame system. I have thought quite a bit about security for locking down BPOs and aside from issuing another block of shares to Cosmo, the only other thing I would recommend would be an out-of-game system to notify directors of upcoming votes. Basically a "heads-up" e-mail 24 or 48 hours before the start of a vote to notify them that the vote is coming and why. If a vote was started without the prior e-mail, red flags would be raised and the directors could at least contact each other to find out what was up and take the necessary action.

Edit: Based on my experience on RL boards, I would say it is primarily the responsibility of the directors to determine if voting procedures need to be clarified since they are the ones staking their reputations on their roles as directors, although the investors and/or the manager could nudge them in that direction. Since I am neither a director, an investor, nor the manager, I fall into the category of "busybody" so take that for what it is worth.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.04.27 18:27:00 - [1553]
 

Originally by: Claire Voyant
I would agree that the current security methods are about as good as you could get working within the current ingame system. I have thought quite a bit about security for locking down BPOs and aside from issuing another block of shares to Cosmo, the only other thing I would recommend would be an out-of-game system to notify directors of upcoming votes. Basically a "heads-up" e-mail 24 or 48 hours before the start of a vote to notify them that the vote is coming and why. If a vote was started without the prior e-mail, red flags would be raised and the directors could at least contact each other to find out what was up and take the necessary action.

In the case of T4U, any vote will be a lockdown vote which can be ingored by the trustees. When the time comes to sell the BPOs they will get a lot more than 48 hours warning of the unlock vote.

In a different operation that carried out more regular unlock votes I can see a heads-up system of some sort being viable.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2010.04.27 18:35:00 - [1554]
 

Originally by: Claire Voyant
I would agree that the current security methods are about as good as you could get working within the current ingame system. I have thought quite a bit about security for locking down BPOs and aside from issuing another block of shares to Cosmo, the only other thing I would recommend would be an out-of-game system to notify directors of upcoming votes. Basically a "heads-up" e-mail 24 or 48 hours before the start of a vote to notify them that the vote is coming and why. If a vote was started without the prior e-mail, red flags would be raised and the directors could at least contact each other to find out what was up and take the necessary action.


Agreed. AC155 seems active and has already demonstrated his willingness to act when something fishy is going on, and cosmoray is of course competent, trustworthy, and seems like he at least checks in once a day, so I think between just the two of them having shares the bpos will be reasonably secure. Furthermore, I can't think of anyone who the huge and diverse investor population would agree is trustworthy enough (considering the damage a trustee could do) to bring in to help control for a theft by one of the most trusted people in MD.

Along with Claire's suggestion, at 1-stop I've committed to letting the other trustees know in advance when I will not access my character for more than a day or two, so we don't have a security breach that could be easily avoided.

Lastly I'd like to apologize for my initial post on this subject, as it was hastily done and caused more confusion, which quickly breeds acrimony, than was necessary. Just because we can say whatever we want, doesn't mean we don't have to consider what we're posting or be empathetic to someone who's "on the spot".

Psy Te'r
Amarr
Posted - 2010.04.27 20:43:00 - [1555]
 

Sent ISK, thx

Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.04.27 20:49:00 - [1556]
 

Originally by: Titans 4U
I'm still waiting on isk from:

500 Dafydd ab'Rhys
1000 Tre Circuit
900 CrazyArsed Monkey

Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2010.04.27 21:27:00 - [1557]
 

Edited by: Amarr Citizen 155 on 27/04/2010 21:31:59
Lot's of people saying lots of nonsense. Some of you should let the adults talk.

Edit: Oh and just for the record, my un-subbed director is actually a subbed director. I log in and check it once a day or so. I prefer a more active approach to being a trustee (although it was not required that I do this as a trustee of T4U).

/finger

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2010.04.27 21:34:00 - [1558]
 

Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155

Lot's of people saying lots of nonsense. Some of you should let the adults talk.



/finger

thats not even a rhetorical question.

Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
Posted - 2010.04.27 22:28:00 - [1559]
 

What are people trying to say? Is there more discussion to be had for something that is already filled?

/donut

Oxigun
Posted - 2010.04.27 22:44:00 - [1560]
 

Originally by: Titans 4U
Originally by: Titans 4U
I'm still waiting on isk from:

500 Dafydd ab'Rhys
1000 Tre Circuit
900 CrazyArsed Monkey



Can I have their stuffs, er, shares? Just say when...


Pages: first : previous : ... 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 ... : last (75)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only