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 : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:19:00 - [91]
 

I'm totally going to run my next IPO by recieving investments, and rather than payout dividends, just keep track of it as interest. Once the dust settles a few months later after people sink their money in, I'll say "Give me your API keys and EVEMail me every 6 months or I run off with your money!" Very Happy

Brilliant!

SentryRaven
KIA Corporation
Zenith Affinity
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:22:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Kylar Renpurs

Brilliant!


Thank you!

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:27:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: TornSoul


Someone using two (or more) different accounts won't be "cought out" with an API key check anyhow (different keys for each account).

I think this is a very ill-adviced idea and in the long run will actually hurt EBANK more than anything else that have been going on.




Has BMBE ever had problems with RMT? Maybe issue with depositors that has defaulted loans on alts, yet gains interest on the ISK in their account?

While you point out an inherent flaw, the flaw doesn't mean that we shouldn't take every precaution possible. You'll find that a lot of people create EBANK accounts with alts on a single account in order to over-come the 6bill limit we had.

As for the "fact" that it will hurt EBANK, people seem to miss that this is done in order to recover sooner rather than later. It does mean that we have to require cooperation from customers, and it might be equal to taking people's isk "hostage". But it comes down to perspective. From our perspective, we make sure that we can confirm that people are in good standing with CCP and are able to use the ISK.

Say that we have 100bill worth of ISK that was owned by people who's banned, who will never withdraw their ISK? We'd have to make 100bill EXTRA before people could get their ISK back. That takes time.

The API is simply the easiest option. There's very little information worth anything. And people can monitor what data EBANK pulls(Just find the IP of the EANK server and match against that).

The suggestion of a channel is more labour intensive than taking an API key. And so is doing it manually through evemail, for instance.

Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:30:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 23/11/2009 10:31:09
Originally by: SentryRaven
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs

Brilliant!


Thank you!


Serious! If EBank pulls this off, given it's size and notoriety, and retains enough support from the MD notables, it'll change the face of investments, and legitimise changing business rules on the fly to essentially ransom customers/investors and play them against each other. People throw money at someone, who then lays out some ground rules, and is the judge of who wins and who loses.

I honestly can't think of anything more fantastic and simultaneously hilarious at the same time.

SentryRaven
KIA Corporation
Zenith Affinity
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:34:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Kylar Renpurs

I honestly can't think of anything more fantastic and simultaneously hilarious at the same time.


We aim to please.

Aerilis
Gallente
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:44:00 - [96]
 

As a depositor with a significant amount of isk in ebank, I would just like to take a moment to thank Ray and all current board members for doing what they can. I may not agree with all the policy changes/the way they're doing things, but they deserve a lot more than the **** they're getting for the work they're doing.

At the end of the day, its just pixels.

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:04:00 - [97]
 

Please stop talking about "voiding", "suspending" or "writing off" the isk in people's accounts. Any account that is closed has had its isk stolen. Period. I have a bond going at the moment. If I were to change the terms and conditions for any reason at all, impose new requirements on my investors, and then keep the isk of anyone who refused to fall into line, I would have stolen this isk. The fact that EBank calls itself a bank and likes to use semi-technical terms does not change the facts of what it is trying to do here, which is taking other people's isk without their permission so as to make their own balance sheet look better.

The idea that this helps customers because the remaining customers will get their isk back sooner is completely fallacious and based on a distinction between two classes of customer. The first class can have all their isk expropriated in order to help the second class. The strategy is not one aimed at helping customers - it is one aimed at keeping some ebank customers happy by scamming the account contents from others. There is no possible way in which the expropriation of account balances can be thought of as anything other than a scam on those account holders.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:16:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 23/11/2009 11:26:48
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 23/11/2009 11:16:48
Quote:

Has BMBE ever had problems with RMT? Maybe issue with depositors that has defaulted loans on alts, yet gains interest on the ISK in their account?



1) I missed the CCP ultimatum to EBANK about sorting out their RMT depositors or forced closure.

So, unless it's your unilateral decision for some commendable-yet-not essential "catch the farmer" operation *now*, the RMT is an excuse.

Better would be to be just honest and say: "we are going to leverage on RMTs with their huge wallets not to dare to feed us their API key so we have some serious big amounts of "free" money we know they will never claim back with this "give API" entry barrier.
The "timeout" also smoothly plugs in, to catch money off now banned people.


2) I missed how by giving an API, the same guys who were smart enough to create fake alt games were not smart enough to
create them off multiple separate accounts.

What happens when "(purely fictional) Mr Vertical"
claims ISK back with 10 different APIs that you did not previously catch?


3) Another obvious thing I miss: it's laughably easy to figure out how the "no ones" won't have a problem giving you their API to get back their 200M they mined in so many hours.

At the same time, conversely, it's totally predictable to figure out how the "fat wallets" won't want to give you out their privacy because they value it more than the (now theoretical, hence easier to part off) 5B they have in your coffers.


Net result: wealthy people will basically gift EBANK some solid billions and this cannot be something random, I figured it out in 3 minutes that it'd end up like that.


Grand total result: unclaimable billions off RMT farmers plus "refuse to be ransomed" billions off wealthy players.

Ultimately it kinda works to move equity into usable funds. The result is a much quicker bank recover, but then, it shows that the bank did not change that much in their ways of conducting business.

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:42:00 - [99]
 

They may call it gift, but that is not how I will label it.
My thoughts are more in line with raw23's post

Besides, they will only refund isk if they get their assets above 700B, something they have not been able to do for 3 months now.
Every tme they have a an increase in asset value there is always an equal or bigger devaluation,
so this whole liquidation discusion seems pretty moot anyway.

The biggest net profit you list over the last month is in the theoretical value of unsold titan bpc's.
the biggest asset you have is a titan bpo.
The biggest percentage profit you score is in shares you hold as some kind of mutual fund.
You do not do deposits, and write of the deposits if people do not adhere to tos changes you publish after the deposits were made
you do not do withdrawals.
Even after 3 months you are still unable to determine if and how much isk your bank backed ventures made
Why do you still call yourself a bank?

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:47:00 - [100]
 

So did skillrulz provide collateral? If not, I'd like a loan for 90 bil please. I promise to pay.

Luv,

Jovial

Utemetsu
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:49:00 - [101]
 

I think, mind you thats 'think', that the reason behind the massive number of defaulted loans is the complete lack of a debtor agency. There's really no consequence having your loan default, aside from a credability hit. What I think would behoove EBANK is a collection arm -- a group of PvP folks who would chase after those that ran away with their money and get it back or cause some kind of ruccus with the debtor. If there's consequence, then they'll pay their loans. Just a thought.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2009.11.23 13:00:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 23/11/2009 13:00:04
Quote:

I think, mind you thats 'think', that the reason behind the massive number of defaulted loans is the complete lack of a debtor agency. There's really no consequence having your loan default, aside from a credability hit.



Actually you should exactly turn the reasonment 180:

Since it's well known there's no consequence at defaulting a loan, precautions should be taken not to end up in the situation of needing a debtor agency.


Quote:

What I think would behoove EBANK is a collection arm -- a group of PvP folks who would chase after those that ran away with their money and get it back or cause some kind of ruccus with the debtor. If there's consequence, then they'll pay their loans. Just a thought.



Alts (like for the pluri-defaulted General Newbold) and station hugging alts are never going to suffer off any retaliation. And biomass is the quick solution to credibility hits.

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.23 13:06:00 - [103]
 

Should such an agency excist I may have a debt I want them to collect for me Twisted Evil
What kind of fee on successful reclaiming would be accepeble?

Katiana Swan
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:04:00 - [104]
 

Well the biggest default by far is the KIA one (Exernastia) and to the best of my knowledge that pilot, her corporation and alliance are all flying around like nothing has changed (other than their increased wallet balances).

EBANK should have hired mercenary forces against them but also now that details and information has been public for months you would think that ebank customers would also be interested in damaging their operations in the hopes to reclaim some of their funds back.

I was reading the last ebank forum thread and the last week or so comprising of about 2-3 pages of haikus would have seemed to indicate most people dont actually care about getting their money back.

That or the people on the market discussion forum mostly didnt have a large investment into ebank in the first place (players who reside in alternate areas of the game?)

I think ebank could just about turn on ability to withdraw entirely with the exchange rate set at 30% and they would still easily be able to hold things running without issue. I think a lot of the money in ebank now is from characters who either no longer play, gave up on ebank after hearing about the thefts or forget they have money there.

My belief is that in 6 months we will see ebank write off debt to the tune of at least 500 billion isk due to people not meeting the requirements (entering API keys or logging in within 3 months).

That is precisely why I think ebank is doing things this way. Make it hard to keep your money accessible so it is far easier to recover from the deficit. I guess it's a valid tactic but in my opinion it still amounts to theft.

Had the terms been set this way before someone signed an account, then it would be their own fault, but they weren't. I hope at the absolute least, all ebank customers are being emailed and/or evemailed with a copy of the statement on page 1.

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:14:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: TornSoul


Someone using two (or more) different accounts won't be "cought out" with an API key check anyhow (different keys for each account).

I think this is a very ill-adviced idea and in the long run will actually hurt EBANK more than anything else that have been going on.




Has BMBE ever had problems with RMT? Maybe issue with depositors that has defaulted loans on alts, yet gains interest on the ISK in their account?

While you point out an inherent flaw, the flaw doesn't mean that we shouldn't take every precaution possible. You'll find that a lot of people create EBANK accounts with alts on a single account in order to over-come the 6bill limit we had.

As for the "fact" that it will hurt EBANK, people seem to miss that this is done in order to recover sooner rather than later. It does mean that we have to require cooperation from customers, and it might be equal to taking people's isk "hostage". But it comes down to perspective. From our perspective, we make sure that we can confirm that people are in good standing with CCP and are able to use the ISK.

Say that we have 100bill worth of ISK that was owned by people who's banned, who will never withdraw their ISK? We'd have to make 100bill EXTRA before people could get their ISK back. That takes time.

The API is simply the easiest option. There's very little information worth anything. And people can monitor what data EBANK pulls(Just find the IP of the EANK server and match against that).

The suggestion of a channel is more labour intensive than taking an API key. And so is doing it manually through evemail, for instance.



Few categories of people unfairly affected:


1. What about the depositors who may now be on active service. They will not be able to access their account during the six month period.

2. People who invested in EBANK while they took a break from the game



EBANK made a big deal about how it would be a HUGE benefit to people leaving the game for extended periods of time knowing that their ISK would be available when they returned to the game.

I know EBANK has to make changes to run the bank, but I don't like this measure of enforced API handover, nor do many of your customers.

Dasola
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:24:00 - [106]
 

Just wondering if ebanks board would be willing to publish their own limited apikeys so we (customers) can verify that their accounts are active and ho we are really dealing with.

After all they demand our apikeys for "verification" purposes, so surely we have right to demand same.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:26:00 - [107]
 

I'm also starting to see some serious problems arising between buyouts and liquidations. I could buyout 40b worth of discounted deposits at say 20-25% of face value then clean out the liquidations at the start of the next month. Then I can buy up more for 20-25% from everyone who thought they could liquidate at 35%+, rinse and repeat.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:03:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Lubomir Penev on 23/11/2009 15:10:50
Originally by: LaVista Vista

First of all, our old "customers" also include people involved with RMT. That's a fact. In order to cover our ass, using the API key is a must. I really think that's all there is to it. It's a necessary evil.



Nope. Sending 0.01 ISK is as good as a method to check that an account is still active.

And yes many people alts, skillpoints and wallet balance are confidential.

Originally by: Ray McCormack
The Limited API Key requirement is not negotiable, we will not use alternative methods to verify your account status. Failure to provide your Limited API Key will result in your ISK remaining in your Suspense Account for the next few months until it is considered dormant and written off (pending final decisions on that process). I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not change our stance on this.

I will reply to the other questions and suggestions later this evening.



Ah, you're entering the intel selling business then? If not why do you want to gather so much information?

Originally by: Omber Zombie

While the posting/0.1 isk transfer/whatever to say you are active suggestions are nice (and partially helpful), not everyone is able to log in at required time nor choose to post on forums, API was the easiest, had the best coverage and most automatic way we could do it.



The 0.01 ISK transfer authentication method is perfectly doable automatically.

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:21:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Katiana Swan
I was reading the last ebank forum thread and the last week or so comprising of about 2-3 pages of haikus would have seemed to indicate most people dont actually care about getting their money back.
That only means that Ray's strategy on being an ***hole was starting to be successful, just look at the 40 previous pages.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:30:00 - [110]
 

Quote:
We would like to take this opportunity to state that the current Board is in no way responsible for the financial position the bank finds itself in. Those remaining on the Board have had their roles and activities under the previous management thoroughly reviewed and have been cleared in full of any wrong doing.


Can we get more information around this piece, or consolidate the conclusions? Bits of information have been scattered across many threads. In ebank customers really don't have a say in who is running this show. However, ebank employees' involvement in other projects and future launches could be suspect without a very clear picture of their innocence in this matter.

My point of view is that the order of blame looks something like this:

[Tier 1]First, there are the theives/issuers of defaulted loans which may be called out. These are the folks that directly lost customer's money, and in most cases profited from it.

[Tier 2]Once this isk is accounted for (not necessarily recovered, but at least the gap explained) - what is left? Here there is an opportunity for senior management to step up and take accountability for losing the remaining funds. Senior management/BoD members may not have been directly responsible for losing the funds, but had the most say in placing those thieves in their positions without enough oversight to stop/contain them.

[Tier 3]Finally, if there are remaining unaccounted funds that no one is willing to be responsible for, responsibility should be shared by all involved parties. Obviously this is not the same as someone stealing the money, but they are still tainted by the fiasco.



Now - it would be ideal that all funds could be accounted in tier 1 - that is that ebank could identify at least where every missing penny went, and who authorized or left the barn door open to allow it to happen. It would be acceptable if we had more folks like Hexxx that stood up and took blame for what happened. It would be a shame to see all of ebank's former employees, many who really are innocent of any wrongdoing, misconduct or irresponsibility, to be tainted by their involvement with the bank.


Ideally, I would like to see an itemized list by who would fall in each category, and what isk they would be accountable for in that category.

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:31:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: RAW23

The idea that this helps customers because the remaining customers will get their isk back sooner is completely fallacious and based on a distinction between two classes of customer. The first class can have all their isk expropriated in order to help the second class. The strategy is not one aimed at helping customers - it is one aimed at keeping some ebank customers happy by scamming the account contents from others. There is no possible way in which the expropriation of account balances can be thought of as anything other than a scam on those account holders.



Could not have put this better myself.

Accounts, bonds and investments remain the property of the investor and can NEVER be legally or morally expropriated without permission.

All "locked" ebank accounts are STOLEN PROPERTY which the directors have no right to dispose of without the express permission of the property holders. Ebank continues to violate the principles of private property rights whilst pretending to be some kind of capitalist institution. It is not. Anyone using, disposing of, expropriating or otherwise modifying or taking it upon themselves to use the property of others without their express permission is a thief, engaged in a criminal act.

Ebank is a criminal/anti-capitalist institution that doesn't understand the basic principles of property and contract rights that a bank is supposed to be founded upon.

EBANK SencneS
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:35:00 - [112]
 

This thread is also being used to collect opinions and options for :Account Closings:

The Issue:-
As LVV has said there is a good chance EBANK holds ISK from accounts that have been banned for RMT. Where does this come from? After EBANK announced that it is freezing accounts, we got word that RTM forums where lighting up with EBANK Threads about frozen accounts. While this is not "Great" evidence, we can't ignore that what got a good amount of ISK locked away on Ricdic it's possible when Ricdic's RMT activity uncovered a massive RMT ring, all because we petitioned a questionable withdrawal, days later massive amounts of banning took place. (The last line was my opinion of observed events). Logic would conclude that EBANK does hold ISK that came from RMT accounts being banned.

Every time we collect 1 user with 1 ISK that was banned, verified by API, that's 1 ISK is removed from the deficit.

So... we have the Issue and the reasons why API was inacted. While there are other ways to show accounts are active, you have to keep in mind one simple thing..

There are 9000+ Characters registered with accounts in EBANK. A forum post for verification proves you're active and not banned, and while I would personally monitor a thread about it, I'm not sure CCP would like it. Everyone needs to consider that anything to verify account HAS to come from EVE some how. Because of the 9000+ accounts any way we do this we have to consider that CCP might not like it at all. You HAVE to remember that, you HAVE to consider this when posting "Other ways" to verify active status.

Think of the load on the CCPs server for a forum post.
For me, I would need to post 3 times to verify my three characters on ONE account. A lot of user have 3 characters all registered I would wager. Where do we post this "Verification" thread? "Hey CCP We're going to post a thread for pure verification of account activation, where do we put this?" You see the problems.

We can't and people forget this all the time. EBANK suffers from one thing. SHEER SIZE, it limits us in what we can do, period.

Account closing:-
This one of the things I pushed back on, One of EBANK's big sales points was "Store your ISK if you plan on leaving EVE for a while." I like that selling point and I want to keep it. So I'm going to post what I proposed on, with a few things added.

1) Accounts inactive time goes from 3 months to 6 months. So you can be idle for 6 months before ISK is moved into a Suspend account, which has not interest.
2) An option is added to every account "Hold my account" The user checks this option to prevent the account from closing, 3 months after being moved into suspended status. There is a monthly fee for this, 1% per month. Meaning every 30 days from 9 Months of inactive status, 1% of your account is removed from you balance until you have nothing left. Users that do not check this option will get the account balance cleared after 9 months.
3) EBANK Archives the account rather then closes it down, IT removes the liabilities from it's list, closes the account but archives the balance. It stores that balance for 6 additional months. After the 6 months are up it removes the archive and the ISK is totally written-off.
4) EBANK includes a minimal account balance. 5,000 ISK in Homage of the 5,000 starting ISK. Once your account balance is below 5,000 ISK after it reaches a suspended status it closes the account and writes-off. Yes, this would also include the "Hold my account" option, if you account balance is 5,000 or below it gets written off and closed.

This is my proposal, however I would greatly like public opinion of this and any ideas or consideration with any plan.

If you like what I proposed simply post "I like SencneS Idea" or "I like it but it needs to be...." etc.

Be honest and clear, this policy is not set in stone, and it have been voted to collect public opinion before finalization.

Now is your time to help form EBANK policy, use it wisely :)

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:49:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: Ray McCormack
The Limited API Key requirement is not negotiable, we will not use alternative methods to verify your account status. Failure to provide your Limited API Key will result in your ISK remaining in your Suspense Account for the next few months until it is considered dormant and written off (pending final decisions on that process). I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not change our stance on this.

I will reply to the other questions and suggestions later this evening.



Ah, you're entering the intel selling business then? If not why do you want to gather so much information?




That's my takeaway too. Classic EVEconomics: whoever's holding the isk gets to make the rules.

This feels like a scam: you're ransoming your customers for information with their account balances they trusted you with. I don't think the onus is on the customer to prove anything, at this point.



Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:50:00 - [114]
 

As it is unlikely that anyone will be able to get any money out anytime soon (except those that deposited after the account freeze, about 104 billion ISK* of them - and they jump through the hoops) why not wait for Dominion/Moondoggie and use CCP's IGB trusted/verification system?

I do not understand how a limited API can be used to track RMT (surely CCP's job) as it does not give wallet access and at least one (ex?) EBANK employee HAS RMT'd so where is our reciprocal improved safety? Afterall, anyone of the past or present (and the past but still present) Board of EBANK could be a Ricdic alt unless you all give us your limited APIs.

    * Strange figures
    Total deposits 2009.08.28; 9,963,023,961,104.58
    Total deposits 2009.11.19; 10,067,160,342,355.50
    BUT
    Total deposits 2009.11.22; 9,953,856,206,012.77



LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:56:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Marcus Baltar
As it is unlikely that anyone will be able to get any money out anytime soon (except those that deposited after the account freeze, about 104 billion ISK* of them - and they jump through the hoops) why not wait for Dominion/Moondoggie and use CCP's IGB trusted/verification system?



That system is really damn easy to spoof.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:57:00 - [116]
 

Quote:
Every time we collect 1 user with 1 ISK that was banned, verified by API, that's 1 ISK is removed from the deficit.


This doesn't make sense. If your bank is holding assets associated with RMT, are those assets not liable to be wiped out? Do you have a clear record how much isk was lost by either Ricdic's character or GMs zapping isk? What gives you confidence that further ISK won't be zapped?

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:09:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 23/11/2009 16:26:21
Notice how the communist Ebank claim a spurious "but this is backed by CCP" by saying things like -
"I'm not sure CCP would like it" and
"We have to consider that CCP might not like it at all"

No actual quotes, statements, policies or facts backing up this position though is there? You are trying to give the impression your position has been forced on you by CCP, but has it really?

Also, regarding the API key collection, don't you have a Data Protection Act in your country?

Edit: And if CCP are involved in this, why do they need you to collect API keys for them? And why do they not want you to give isk back, but do want you to collect API keys?

This whole thing is getting stranger and stranger...


Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:19:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Omber Zombie

Basically it comes down to trusting us not to misuse that data


Do you know how much intel is worth?

Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:30:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

Also, regarding the API key collection, don't you have a Data Protection Act in your country?


The Data Protection Act applies to in game information?

Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:32:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Marcus Baltar
As it is unlikely that anyone will be able to get any money out anytime soon (except those that deposited after the account freeze, about 104 billion ISK* of them - and they jump through the hoops) why not wait for Dominion/Moondoggie and use CCP's IGB trusted/verification system?



That system is really damn easy to spoof.


He doesn't mean the current system which is, as you point out, really damn easy to spoof. He is talking about a new validation system that lets a webserver verify through some method that the headers from the IGB are legit. Last I heard, the initial release of the new IGB will not include validation, but the devs know how useful it would be and hope to add it in the future.

While I really do hope that the ebank folks come up with a less invasive procedure, it sounds like they are pretty much set on this course.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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