open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked [EBANK] Not The Announcement - A Tim Burton Film
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:01:00 - [331]
 

Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone.


gives ac155 the /finger

Phoebe Halliwel
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:02:00 - [332]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Frances Victoria
Assuming that is correct, do you have a list of such characters you wish to blacklist?

The list of defaulters listed in the OP, plus Mr Horizontal and his horde of alts (mentioned in a previous announcement) along with Anastasia Heron.



When you originally "outed" all of Mr H's alts, it was confirmed by LVV somewhere in here that IP addresses were used to identify and link the accounts (in addition to the unusual transactions which had been flagged). Have you not repeated this process for all former directors and loan defaulters? If so you should have a smaller pool of accounts flagged for inspection. Request API keys from those accounts rather than the majority is one suggestion.

Regarding the RMT issue; provisioning for any losses due to this should have always been part of Ebank's financial policy, in addition to Loan defaults. It shouldn't be too late to institute an RMT-related bad debt provision now, if you have records and can make an estimate on the ratio of reversed transactions. Another way to handle these; if for example, Ebank has 20b next month which can be processed for withdrawls, and account holders are contacted and set a limit they can withdraw, as a test amount, if GM's remove the ISK after the fact, it may catch and eliminate a chunk of RMTers early on without a massive hit for the bank (I am assuming here that GMs will only remove the withdrawn ISK, or do they withdraw all the ISK Ebank currently holds for that character/reverse the original deposit?).

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Frances Victoria
Does this satisfy every requirement you have for wanting your customer's API keys? If not, what else do you need?

No, because that would set a precedent of us requiring third-party intervention for everything we should (ideally) be trusted for, such as loan collateral, ISK in accounts, etc. Not much point in a bank in EVE without trust (and yes, I'm aware of the irony there).



It's not so much irony as unrealistic. You appear to be talking about Ebank as an ongoing financial service, where the consensus of opinion is the reverse. You're not in the "ideal" position to expect trust at the moment. Investors aren't particularly interested in whether a 3rd party damages Ebank's integrity, they just want their ISK back as fast as possible and their information to be kept private. You appear to be placing Ebank concerns over those of your customers, which only makes the situation worse. If the API info was sent to a trusted 3rd party, and tbh there's really only Chribba who could be classed as trustworthy enough for something this size, this may be unpalatable to Ebank but could calm some of the investors down.

jna
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:08:00 - [333]
 

Originally by: SencneS
You see the problem. I admit 0.10 ISK is not much, but in a crowd of people all hanging out to slam EBANK against the wall, even the littlest pebble of information is all that is needed to warrant a flame suit :)

I realise that I'm not everyone, but I certainly gave vocal support to the 0.1 isk transfer a few pages back. No problem with that at all. It's what I had already agreed to and done simply by opening an EBANK account, which required an isk transfer to an EBANK clearing character. It's called Business As Usual, and I'm surprised you can't see the difference.

Originally by: SencneS
If you can't get past the need to keep your Characters private, and you have not stolen from EBANK, won't give into blackmail then I'm sorry, I guess it's a lost cause.. we've stolen your money.

Fixed it for you.

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:12:00 - [334]
 

Edited by: Tesal on 24/11/2009 19:16:40
Whats with all the middle fingers? Its like you are intentionally trying to make people mad.

*edit
Stuff like this:
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone.

Seriously, if you want to have a business out of this debacle, stop. Why would I give this person my API keys? There is no respect for the customer there.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:23:00 - [335]
 

Originally by: Tesal
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone.

Seriously, if you want to have a business out of this debacle, stop. Why would I give this person my API keys? There is no respect for the customer there.

I know, what a bastard. AC you should be ashamed. Next time knock.

Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:00:00 - [336]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Wyehr
I wish you well, but I don't see any point in pretending that I would be a useful contributor to an organization that behaves without reason.

Just because those reasons don't match your own doesn't mean we are without. There is more to operating as part of a team than wanting only your reasons at the fore.


I don't mean "reason" as "motivation". I mean "reason" as "logic". My condition wasn't that my reasons be foremost, my condition was that the organization's reasoning be robust.

I will use the unambiguous synonyms for the rest of this post, just to be clear.

It is very clear that you have some motivation for requesting this information. You are sticking to your motivations in the face of a great public unhappiness, which shows strong conviction.

What isn't clear to me is what your motivation is. There have been many publicly stated motivations for this requirement, but none have survived even trivial scrutiny. So either you have a motivation that hasn't been stated, or you are standing by an illogical decision.

Out of pod, I work for an organization large enough to have policy committees. We have pages and pages of policies that I disagree with. While I often lose the debates on what the goals should be, I never let them implement a policy that doesn't logically advance those goals.

Katiana Swan
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:05:00 - [337]
 

I can see both sides of the argument here. Why not a very simple compromise with the exact same end result?

Ok, so it appears to have been confirmed that a handful of people don't want to provide their API to the EBANK corporation as a whole however would be happy to provide it to a trusted 3rd party. This appears to be stemmed off the possibility that they believe one or more current staff may still be corrupt etc.

These people have shown willingness to provide the API, just not to the collective EBANK. The solution should be dead obvious here.



1) Keep your standard API requirement as Option 1. You will find that 90-95% of your customers will utilise it.

2) For those not wanting everyone at EBANK to see their API they have the option of private verification. A small list of EBANK employees who have put their hands up to do manual verification. This only needs to be 3 or 4 people (I would suggest those who shouldn't have existing trust related concerns from previous administration such as: Ray, Athre, Omber Zombie).

Anyone wanting to request manual verification by one of the listed staff WILL be required to pay a premium (makes sense, want manual additional work done, you pay for it). The price can be determined by EBANK but I would probably charge somewhere in the order of 15m-25m per manual verification.

This money should go directly (or at least a portion of it) to the staff members making these manual activations.



I believe a very very small percentage of the customers at EBANK will request this option however it will be found suitable for a few. While I can't speak for Leneera, her main concern was providing the information to a pile of people however she may find it suitable to provide the API to a single entity such as Omber Zombie.


It should be a really simple solution. When setting up API verification in EBANK customers web interfaces, include an administrator ability to "verify" an account.


----------
The only way this wouldn't work would be if EBANK wanted to store this API data long term for uses such as future data extraction, future loan requests or linking of accounts together which has not been requested here and would definitely not be accepted by those entering their API data.
----------



TLDR : Manual activation ability with customer choice of which EBANK staff member processes API check. Fee payable for manual verification.



This simple solution should be in EVERYONE'S best interests and resolve every problem mentioned in the past 11 pages.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:08:00 - [338]
 

Quote:

If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active.



What about you EBANK (collectively) start putting yourselves in your customers shoes?
You should raise golden bridges to keep the most of them, not to dismiss ideas a la "no luck sorry".

You state you are doing all of this for the best of the depositors... then do it for the most of them as possile.

If sending API keys is ok but sending 0.01 ISK is also ok and so is joining a chat and talking, try ease those 9000 guys a bit and let *them* choose.

Is it more work? Sure!
Does it answer to your depositors so that many more are covered and not blackmailed about either giving their API key or GTFO? Sure it does!

I really don't get this continuous "we are doing this for the best of the depositors" when one second later you slam their face with an API hammer, and API hammer which is *not* the one way to do the job.

That is, you are alienating people that you did not need to.

SentryRaven
KIA Corporation
Zenith Affinity
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:10:00 - [339]
 

*eats some popcorn*

So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....

Katiana Swan
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:15:00 - [340]
 

Originally by: SentryRaven
So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....

I recommend you never start a business in real life or even work in any customer/client facing environment.

SentryRaven
KIA Corporation
Zenith Affinity
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:18:00 - [341]
 

Originally by: Katiana Swan
Originally by: SentryRaven
So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....

I recommend you never start a business in real life or even work in any customer/client facing environment.


Nah, it's fine. I am a BofH in RL. No problem whatsoever... :)

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:25:00 - [342]
 

Originally by: SentryRaven
Originally by: Katiana Swan
Originally by: SentryRaven
So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....

I recommend you never start a business in real life or even work in any customer/client facing environment.


Nah, it's fine. I am a BofH in RL. No problem whatsoever... :)


Ha, i am a HotBL IRL, and normally i play scout/rikki and pawn pubs!

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:28:00 - [343]
 

A good PR man would probably tell you guys to stop debating the other side. Make a statement along the "we appreciate your concerns and input, but firmly believe that our policy is necessary and correct." Then close with a "we encourage people to post their comments and opinions, but we will no longer be responding to this specific issue".

If you're acting unilaterally, then just state your position and walk away.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:29:00 - [344]
 

Originally by: Katiana Swan
Originally by: SentryRaven
So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....

I recommend you never start a business in real life or even work in any customer/client facing environment.


Since the bank is different, people are different but the sarcasm-superior attitude remains the same, I suggest to everyone to stop trying giving suggestions or anything and let them go boil in their own brood.

After all who are we to them if only an useless inconvenience to joke about?
Let it go and sink in peace.
It's not even logic to post a "our way or the highway" in a public facility called "forum" maybe because it's made for dialogue.
Should just display a link to their own web site official announcement, of course with no feedback link or anything. Not needed, not wanted anyway.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:35:00 - [345]
 

Originally by: SentryRaven
*eats some popcorn*

So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....


Really at the point ebank has a client's money in an uncollateralized contract, nothing is negotiable.

I hope future clients remember that.





Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:35:00 - [346]
 


Bluebeard
Minmatar
LoneStar Industries
Comatose Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.24 21:11:00 - [347]
 

Originally by: Dzil
Originally by: SentryRaven
So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....


Really at the point ebank has a client's money in an uncollateralized contract, nothing is negotiable.
I hope future clients remember that.


The biggest problem I can see is the scaring away of the people that might want to take out loans from Ebank.

With the unilateral changes and the Bank staffs refusal to consider any other options, I cannot see anybody in their right mind, wanting to take out a decent sized loan, say 40bil, with 60bil of collateral, as there is a definite risk of that collateral being locked (due to another non negotiable change), despite the loan being paid off.

If Ebank is going to survive, then it needs the account holders to have faith that they will get their isk back, but even more, it needs people trusting enough to take out loans and pay interest.

If the account holders have no trust, then the Bank will die when accounts are fully reopened.
If people are afraid to take out loans, then the Bank will never recover, to be able to reopen.

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.24 21:34:00 - [348]
 

Still waiting for at least one member of the EBank staff to attempt to differentiate their plan to expropriate account balances from a simple act of theft/scam.

LVV said she could make that distinction in the SCC Lounge earlier today but then chose not to actually give her reasoning. Is there anyone who will even try to make the case that you are not outright stealing from depositors if you wipe their accounts?

Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Posted - 2009.11.24 22:03:00 - [349]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
I'm sorry some of you dislike me so much, I really do. /me hangs his head in shame.



Ray, I like you bro. I would gladly give you some pancakes. I understand you are put into a bad situation and are trying to make the best of it. But this doesnít excuse this garbage proposal.

Originally by: SencneS

remaining staff and BOD have proven their loyalty to EBANK



Thatís funny and it probably points to the decisions made over the past months. Their loyalties should be with their DEPOSITORS and not to the bank institution itself.

To the proposal in general:

Retroactive application of a vastly different Terms of Service to depositors so that they may recover a hugely discounted amount of ISK that you owe them due to blatant incompetence is wrong. Period. This is WITHOUT the carrot and stick you attach; which make it worse.

Forcing depositors to give personal information in order to have the chance at recovery, maybe sometime eventually, of ISK they entrusted to you is extortion.

If they choose to not give you information, they forfeit their account balances. This amounts to blatant theft.

You effectively give depositors the choices of being extorted or being stolen from. Bravo. I cannot imagine an actual reason why this would seem appropriate to anyone, for any reason.

Your incompetence, at best, caused the loss of 70% of the value of money. If someone wants to get the remaining 30%, they will be charged a ridiculous fee on top of being forced to provide API information. And they are only given this option when you have enough funds to do it. Please tell me how this is anyway, shape or form better than simply liquidating all assets and giving everyone, without information, their ISK back. Given your suspect policies and procedures that have caused this mess, it is a joke for you to now put the burden on depositors.

-GV

Kushan
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
Posted - 2009.11.24 23:27:00 - [350]
 

Thanks for the update, Ray.

<insert salacious remark>

Out of curiosity, did the investigations into additional revenue streams bear any fruit? It still looks like that is going to be one of your major stumbling blocks.

Remus Kurgan
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.24 23:29:00 - [351]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Virtus

To the proposal in general:

Retroactive application of a vastly different Terms of Service to depositors so that they may recover a hugely discounted amount of ISK that you owe them due to blatant incompetence is wrong. Period. This is WITHOUT the carrot and stick you attach; which make it worse.

Forcing depositors to give personal information in order to have the chance at recovery, maybe sometime eventually, of ISK they entrusted to you is extortion.


First of all, it's not personal information, it's basic information on the characters on your account. There is a BIG difference. Second, extortion is threatening someone to obtain money. As your money is already gone, I don't think your definition qualifies.

Originally by: Gabriel Virtus

If they choose to not give you information, they forfeit their account balances. This amounts to blatant theft.



The blatent theft was Ricdic. This has already happened, so how can they steal our money again?

Originally by: Gabriel Virtus

You effectively give depositors the choices of being extorted or being stolen from. Bravo. I cannot imagine an actual reason why this would seem appropriate to anyone, for any reason.


Again, not extortion. Ray is asking for basic account information which most players feel completely safe punching into computer programs. Why is everyone freaking out about their limited APIs?

Originally by: Gabriel Virtus

Your incompetence, at best, caused the loss of 70% of the value of money. If someone wants to get the remaining 30%, they will be charged a ridiculous fee on top of being forced to provide API information. And they are only given this option when you have enough funds to do it. Please tell me how this is anyway, shape or form better than simply liquidating all assets and giving everyone, without information, their ISK back. Given your suspect policies and procedures that have caused this mess, it is a joke for you to now put the burden on depositors.

-GV




It is not the policies of Ray that have caused this mess. It is quite unfair to accuse him of being the reason that EBANK is not solvent just because he discovered the problem. I for one am completely in favor of this system since it does the best to ensure that the right people get their deposits paid back, if not in full then as much as possible. I think that the proposals Ray has put forward are extreme, but required in this situation to ensure that people who have screwed the system and caused this problem don't see a cent of ISK back in their wallets. I would rather send my API through a secure website to an institution I've already used than bring in some type of 3rd party for approval.

And if people don't want to lift a finger to get their money back, they should've considered the risks they take using EBANK in the first place. I have no sympathy for them.

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.24 23:47:00 - [352]
 

Application for the post of Social Responsibility Officer submitted.

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:00:00 - [353]
 

Conclusion:

So EBANK turns out to be one of the biggest scams in EVE rivaling the accomplishments of GHSC.
Though, the goal of this scam is not directly aimed at ISK but API information which makes it quite unique and a first in trying to achieve API information on a greater level.

We need ISD to step in to cover the success of your scam. Awesome guys, awesome.

petra piper
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:05:00 - [354]
 

Originally by: Remus Kurgan
First of all, it's not personal information, it's basic information on the characters on your account. There is a BIG difference.


Originally by: Remus Kurgan
Again, not extortion. Ray is asking for basic account information which most players feel completely safe punching into computer programs. Why is everyone freaking out about their limited APIs?


You, surely, play a different Eve from me and many others.

In my Eve, allowing someone to know (ie):

a) The name of an alt with freighter skills and a highsec research POS (wardec and take out the POS),
b) That I have a lot more skillpoints than my current med clone and should be suicided on sight next time I'm seen in a shuttle,
c) That I've just fitted a decent Crystal set in my head,
d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD),
e) That I'm an amazing Leadership skill tree pilot with Fleet Command V, and use of a locator agent might tell you where the fleet is,
f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to,
g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv)
... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.

And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.

You're either very uninvolved in some of the "endgame" (meta, political etc) content of Eve, or you're incredibly uninformed.

Given:
Originally by: Remus Kurgan
The blatent theft was Ricdic. This has already happened, so how can they steal our money again?

I go for "uninformed".


Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:21:00 - [355]
 

Here's a riddle:

How many members of the EBank staff (BoD, etc) are full time employees of EBank?

Answer: None

The EBank staff that people are verbally abusing are essentially part-time volunteers at this point. They are giving their personal time to get EBank back on its feet

Ray has already explained that the Limited API is the quickest method they could implement to verify live accounts.

This will allow the bank to clear bank accounts for those people who have been banned or have left the game. In turn, knowing how much ISK sits in active accounts will help the bank know when it has reached viability again, so it can give people their money back.

As long as there is a method where absent account holders can reactivate their account, that should be good enough for most people.

EBank's money is gone, most of it anyway. Their operation was unsustainable, and now most of our ISK is gone. If EBank tried to hew to its existing policies, it would never be revived.

Ray and associates are trying to get our funds back, while reworking the EBank operation. They're not trying to rescue a sinking ship - they are trying to raise one from the bottom of the sea. Any and all promises made by EBank were broken by the previous managers.

I'm glad that Ray (and staff) have come to the conclusion that he can't conceivably rescue everyone's ISK. Instead he's put in place policies to drop inactive accounts, allow early withdrawals at a discounted rate, and allow users to sell their accounts to speculators. These were all things that customers asked for on this forum.

It seems like half the posts here are just people who enjoy kicking a sick dog. Those same people are the ones surprised when the dog snarls and bites back.

/wall_of_text

Kapila Parthalan
Posted - 2009.11.25 02:29:00 - [356]
 

Originally by: Wyehr
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
They wouldn't have any motivation, but the point is that checking that the account is active prevents them from withdrawing their ISK. Because the check is there, they won't bother to attempt a withdrawal.
Edit: By withdrawal, I mean a transfer to another EBANK account, followed by a withdrawal. Obviously, if you are banned, a withdrawal doesn't help you. This is why it is sufficient to check that the account is active for transfers only.


So, if we can see that the API isn't more useful than any other form of verification, why not pick one of the many options that is less repugnant?

Yes, this is exactly my argument. See post #236.

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Katiana Swan
I think Ray was saying that in jest.
I also thought so, but it is unclear.

I wasn't.


In that case, can you answer my previous question: Why does EBANK need information on personal standings? In addition, can you answer my other questions from post #238?

Originally by: LaVista Vista
That's still more work than pulling the Characters.xml.aspx and checking that the character exists on the account.

It also requires people to log in-game. The API doesn't require that.

It isn't that much more work. If you are unwilling to write the code to do this, why should we trust that you are willing to write the code to keep our API data secure?
Also, I have already addressed the argument that an in-game log in is required: "You don't need to make a withdrawal if you are not able to log in."

Originally by: Ray McCormack
The argument that those responsible are too intelligent to fall into such a simple trap doesn't hold water with me.


I think you are overestimating their stupidity. It really doesn't take that much thought to realize that EBANK will know your alt is blacklisted and to take the necessary precautions.

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: TornSoul
It has repeatedly been demonstrated here that the goal you are trying to achieve, *can not* (to it's fullest) be achieved with the chosen method (API key)

Then it will be achieved to it's least.

TS, you're aware of how much your opinion and respect means to me, I'm sure others do. So let this be an indication of the conviction I have in supporting this and the other decisions that the Board has made.

We will not get everything right, and perhaps this is one of those decisions we'll look back on in the future with some regret. But for now we are united in our belief that this is the best solution possible in the circumstances.


I would very much appreciate if you told us what makes you so convinced that this is the best decision. Your arguments so far are unsatisfactory.

Originally by: SencneS
You know I think sometime people like to argue about anything that is outside the range of normal operation anyway.

If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active.


Even if I had to transfer 0.1 ISK to verify my account every day, and I planned to continue for 100 years, it adds up to the tiny sum of 3650 ISK. Your argument is invalid. The extra bit of work that would be required of the customer is a much bigger problem with this idea than the ISK itself.


I think it is very important that EBANK clearly states its policy on what information will be accessed or stored and how that information will be used. I actually think that the API key check is ok, as long as it is reasonably justified and you do not access or store data that should be kept private or that is unnecessary for bank operations. So far, however, your posts have not indicated that this is true.

Remus Kurgan
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.25 04:18:00 - [357]
 

Originally by: petra piper
Originally by: Remus Kurgan
First of all, it's not personal information, it's basic information on the characters on your account. There is a BIG difference.


Originally by: Remus Kurgan
Again, not extortion. Ray is asking for basic account information which most players feel completely safe punching into computer programs. Why is everyone freaking out about their limited APIs?


You, surely, play a different Eve from me and many others.

In my Eve, allowing someone to know (ie):

a) The name of an alt with freighter skills and a highsec research POS (wardec and take out the POS),
b) That I have a lot more skillpoints than my current med clone and should be suicided on sight next time I'm seen in a shuttle,
c) That I've just fitted a decent Crystal set in my head,
d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD),
e) That I'm an amazing Leadership skill tree pilot with Fleet Command V, and use of a locator agent might tell you where the fleet is,
f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to,
g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv)
... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.

And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.

You're either very uninvolved in some of the "endgame" (meta, political etc) content of Eve, or you're incredibly uninformed.

Given:
Originally by: Remus Kurgan
The blatent theft was Ricdic. This has already happened, so how can they steal our money again?

I go for "uninformed".




What's a bigger risk for you, providing a small group of people with details about your characters or transferring billions of ISK to an organization that will hold it and pay you more later?

I'm not saying the data isn't important, but I doubt any of the above mentioned items are going to occur and ruin the game for you. Ultimately, it's each depositors decision whether or not to go ahead with providing their API.

Perhaps I don't take the "game" quite as seriously as you do. Very Happy
I'm also choosing to trust Ray, I'm sure many will not.

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.25 05:20:00 - [358]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Tesal
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone.

Seriously, if you want to have a business out of this debacle, stop. Why would I give this person my API keys? There is no respect for the customer there.

I know, what a bastard. AC you should be ashamed. Next time knock.



And this. What. Why?

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.25 05:55:00 - [359]
 

Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Why does EBANK need information on personal standings?

Think of it as us creating a "known accomplices" list.

Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Considering the low profit EBANK is making on its 700B ISK, why do you think it is the amount the bank can handle most effectively?

Because with our current members it is possible to run a profitable venture of 200b ISK. Add that to our Fixed Assets and Loan Portfolio and you will get close enough to 700b for it to be used as a nice, round figure.

Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
I would very much appreciate if you told us what makes you so convinced that this is the best decision. Your arguments so far are unsatisfactory.

The reasons already stated are what have convinced me. If those don't satisfy you then we'll need to agree to disagree, I can't exactly invent reasons to satisfy you and it's not my responsibility to satisfactorily justify each and every bank decision to every single customer.

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2009.11.25 06:01:00 - [360]
 

Since no one answered my previous question, I'll ask it again

If someone has an outstanding loan of several billion ISK and they transfer the depositor character to a new account the API is useless. How do plan on accounting for that??


Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (35)

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