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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:40:00 - [181]
 

I really had faith in Ebank up untill this day :(
Accusing its clients of fraud and rmt, every single client is a suspect.

I agree with TS, its just an excuse to take peoples ISK.
Its obvious, what about people taking a break? Cosmo addressed this, but it was never answered.
People now have to prove to ebank that they arent rmting and commiting fraud....

GG....
I know it isnt so, but it just looks like an excuse to scam real clients, out of their hard earned ISK!

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:44:00 - [182]
 

Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 20:45:00
Originally by: Ji Sama
what about people taking a break? Cosmo addressed this, but it was never answered.


It was by me, check on the 4th page I think.

Edit:-
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1218519&page=4#112

Looking for input to prevent idle ISK from getting cleared off accounts..

Tsang Chou
Tsang Chou Bonds
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:44:00 - [183]
 

This thread is now official: Ji Sama has posted her speculation.

Rubber stamp it, folks!

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:48:00 - [184]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 20:45:00
Originally by: Ji Sama
what about people taking a break? Cosmo addressed this, but it was never answered.


It was by me, check on the 4th page I think.

Edit:-
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1218519&page=4#112

Looking for input to prevent idle ISK from getting cleared off accounts..


I read you attempt to answer this, and you have done the best job so far.
Though it is not your job to investigate RMT. period!
You reversed the burden of proof, people have to prove now that they arent rmting and defrauding you, it was never a problem before, you KNEW people opened more accounts to get around the 6B limit, even ebank staff used this "workaround"

General Wolfe
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:51:00 - [185]
 

Edited by: General Wolfe on 23/11/2009 20:51:33
What about withdrawals in the "pending" pile? I have checked my account and as described in your statement my checking balance has been moved to the suspended account but I also have 250,000,000isk which is pending withdrawal has not moved to the suspended account. Do you intend to pay this out or is it an oversight and these sums need to be transferred too?

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:56:00 - [186]
 

@SencneS

I understand the mechanism.

But I honestly hope you don't think that Mr. X and Ms. A would be on the same account.
That would kinda defeat the purpose of the ISK transfer in the first place.

Aka. API key check won't catch this in any way what so ever - and thus is an invalid (excuse?) reason for demanding the API key.

------------

Originally by: Ji Sama
I agree with TS, its just an excuse to take peoples ISK.

Ah - Let me just clarify what I'm saying (as the above "paraphrasing" isn't quite what I'm saying)

What I (among other things) are saying is that I *think* EBANK really want's to null *dead* accounts.
I personally think this is perfectly fine and justifiable - if the accounts are *truly* dead ofc.

What I *am* opposing is the way they intend to check if an account is dead or not (requireing API key)

EBANK don't even claim that an API key is necessary for this part of the process - Simply that it's "easiest".
This doesnt sit well with me.

I've always worked with : "Do what's right, not what is easiest"

Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:02:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
The new administration will no longer tolerate the salacious remarks attempting to besmirch their reputations and will retaliate by calling you names.



Lol, I love Ray. He makes this so much more fun.

-GV

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:03:00 - [188]
 

Originally by: Ji Sama
Though it is not your job to investigate RMT. period!


We're not investigating RMT that's the hurdle people are having problems on. Everyone needs to clear that thought from their mind, we are not running an RMT investigation here. We're running an account validity investigation, which just happens to be killing several birds with one stone.

The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn. Then at a later date when CCP catch up process the reversals and EBANK is out those billions of ISK. That is pretty much it. That's the extent of our so called RMT investigation. People who have already been caught by CCP and perma-banned. All we want to know is who they are, so when the GM's Reversal hammer hits EBANK we're not getting sucked into a deeper deficit.

I would hope EVERYONE would agree this is a worthy cause.

Torsten Hjaltland
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:05:00 - [189]
 

Edited by: Torsten Hjaltland on 23/11/2009 21:05:50
Originally by: General Wolfe
Edited by: General Wolfe on 23/11/2009 20:51:33
What about withdrawals in the "pending" pile? I have checked my account and as described in your statement my checking balance has been moved to the suspended account but I also have 250,000,000isk which is pending withdrawal has not moved to the suspended account. Do you intend to pay this out or is it an oversight and these sums need to be transferred too?


I have 500,000,000 isk in a pending withdrawal not moved to the suspense account is this ISK accounted for in your sums?

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:07:00 - [190]
 

Agreed and understandable SencneS.

But please see that those characters simply won't be on the same account.

Thus no need for API Key.


Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:08:00 - [191]
 

No matter how Ebank tries to spin it, by writing off accounts that refuse to provide it with their limited API key, ebank will NOT achieve its stated goal of returning customers account balances in full.

What's the difference between returning 50% to all customers, or 100% to half of your customers?

It just becomes a selective scam at that point, instead of a failed business. You're selecting to return money only to those that vouch faith for you. Sound familiar? It should: that's the exact play LRN/YGR used. Anyone here look back on that business thinking they should invest again?




Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:08:00 - [192]
 

sencnes, considering that isk laundring requires transfers within ebank, how about accounts that only have deposits and withdrawals to and from the originl account creator?

ah who am I kidding, veryfying that would be to much work. I mean an entire query to write that would list all untarnished accounts is far to much work. As you probebly havent run that query already, have you?

But you are not intrested in providing the best possible service to your customers.
You are trying to write off as many liabilities as you can while putting a nice pr spin on it.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:11:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 21:16:56
Originally by: TornSoul
But I honestly hope you don't think that Mr. X and Ms. A would be on the same account.


No... No no no no no.. LOL

Ok I'll give, maybe some, but given the HIGHLY illegal nature of RMT, I would bet more often then not, that people use alt, disposable accounts. People believe that if they use a alt on an alt account CCP will not catch them. So I would be really surprised if RMT happens on the "same" account.

Another edit coming.
Please hold.

While this may seem like a "Why use API since they will be on alt accounts" You must have read my post in which we found out that EBANK got word that RMT forums where HOT with threads about EBANK Account freezing. EBANK keeps awesome records, both where the ISK came from and where it went and even has little visual paths etc.

If an account is found to be Banned which API can reveal, and we find out that, account transfered ISK to another character, and that characters ISK was frozen, then guess what, We'll be reversing that transfer as well.

Just as CCP does Transfer withdrawals, any account that matches this will have the same thing. Lets say someone purchased 1B, deposited it, transfered it to an account which 2B in it. That character which is NOT banned will not get that 1B ISK, it will get removed because the banned account it came from is a 1B ISK liability to EBANK.

KapnKaboom
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:13:00 - [194]
 

Ha! The only thing that could possibly make this thread better would be if we could get a few folks on here to post some sob stories about how having their isk frozen has ruined them and their lives. Twisted Evil

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:17:00 - [195]
 

I personally don't think EBANK has the right to take investor funds.

I know that Block has funds that are relating to Furybank
BMBE probably has shareholders that are no longer around
I have at least 2 shareholders that I know of, don't play anymore.

It is not our business to appropriate the ISK or shares from Dormant/expired accounts.

The way I would deal with it if you really have to(if it could be coded).

1. Send an e-mail to each account holder giving a list of options for their accounts, that includes updating the account.
2. When logged in - give 3 options.
- Liquidate (under Ray's conditions),
- Keep long term (do nothing)
- Third option is non response.

If no response after six months then cancel.

This shows how many customers want out, want to stay and how many dormant.
No need for API.



Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:18:00 - [196]
 

We had that in the other thread, before it became a haiku contest. Flamewarrior I believe. It really didn't improve the thread quality, iirc.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:21:00 - [197]
 

Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 21:22:10
Originally by: Leneerra
sencnes, considering that isk laundring requires transfers within ebank, how about accounts that only have deposits and withdrawals to and from the originl account creator?

ah who am I kidding, veryfying that would be to much work. I mean an entire query to write that would list all untarnished accounts is far to much work. As you probebly havent run that query already, have you?


Actually it is already there, and anyone in EBANK* (Edit) can see it. It even has a nice little visual picture of it :)

These people have one thing to fear... If they have stolen/defaulted ISK from EBANK. That's it. If you where running an IPO and you found out someone who stole from you gave you x amount of ISK as an alt would YOU take it?

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:24:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Dzil
No matter how Ebank tries to spin it, by writing off accounts that refuse to provide it with their limited API key, ebank will NOT achieve its stated goal of returning customers account balances in full.

What's the difference between returning 50% to all customers, or 100% to half of your customers?

It just becomes a selective scam at that point, instead of a failed business. You're selecting to return money only to those that vouch faith for you. Sound familiar? It should: that's the exact play LRN/YGR used. Anyone here look back on that business thinking they should invest again?






This tbh.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:28:00 - [199]
 

@cosmoray

"BMBE probably has shareholders that are no longer around"
Most likely.
Not much I can do about that though as it's impossible to get back the shares.

However, The BIG Deal has a similar problem.
The way I deal with it there is that if a client repeatedly doesn't pick up their weekly BPC's, I mail them that I've suspended their "account" (and thus I don't pay out any more weekly BPC's)

Note that I *suspend*, not cancel, their account.

This means that they can come back later and "re-activate" their account, and they simply pick up where the left of (note : They don't get whatever prints they've missed out on in the mean time)
The "record" for re-activating is close to a year (ie. the client had been gone for nearly a year).

Now, I consider this an extreme service that I offer, and I'm not suggesting that EBANK does the same with their ISK accounts.

But.. It's an option Wink


Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:28:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: cosmoray
I personally don't think EBANK has the right to take investor funds.

I know that Block has funds that are relating to Furybank
BMBE probably has shareholders that are no longer around
I have at least 2 shareholders that I know of, don't play anymore.

It is not our business to appropriate the ISK or shares from Dormant/expired accounts.

The way I would deal with it if you really have to(if it could be coded).

1. Send an e-mail to each account holder giving a list of options for their accounts, that includes updating the account.
2. When logged in - give 3 options.
- Liquidate (under Ray's conditions),
- Keep long term (do nothing)
- Third option is non response.

If no response after six months then cancel.

This shows how many customers want out, want to stay and how many dormant.
No need for API.





I agree with this suggestion.

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:32:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: SencneS


The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn. Then at a later date when CCP catch up process the reversals and EBANK is out those billions of ISK. That is pretty much it. That's the extent of our so called RMT investigation. People who have already been caught by CCP and perma-banned. All we want to know is who they are, so when the GM's Reversal hammer hits EBANK we're not getting sucked into a deeper deficit.

I would hope EVERYONE would agree this is a worthy cause.


The worthiness of the cause has nothing to do with the means used to attain it. I asked before but didn't get a response. When the board did its projections on this, what figures did you come up with? What proportion of innocently placed isk do you expect to go up in flames as you seek to protect yourself against possible future actions from CCP and also take your own punitive action against defaulters?

And again, I would like to ask how the BoD would differentiate this theft of innocent customer's funds from a scam carried out on these customers, especially in light of the fact that customers were encouraged to put money in EBank accounts precisely so they could take time away from the game?


SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:36:00 - [202]
 

Originally by: cosmoray
I personally don't think EBANK has the right to take investor funds.

I know that Block has funds that are relating to Furybank
BMBE probably has shareholders that are no longer around
I have at least 2 shareholders that I know of, don't play anymore.

It is not our business to appropriate the ISK or shares from Dormant/expired accounts.

The way I would deal with it if you really have to(if it could be coded).

1. Send an e-mail to each account holder giving a list of options for their accounts, that includes updating the account.
2. When logged in - give 3 options.
- Liquidate (under Ray's conditions),
- Keep long term (do nothing)
- Third option is non response.

If no response after six months then cancel.

This shows how many customers want out, want to stay and how many dormant.
No need for API.





Block does have Furybank funds... Funds which he knows FuryBanker will probably never request. But BSA Still uses those funds, it's a little different here.
BMBE same goes for BMBE, the entity still holds the funds.
You still use those funds of those two people?
You want to be called a saint, Block, TS, and You should return those funds to the account and call it good, that way everyones dividends are effected for a positive change.

If you do, and I know this is slightly different. The ISK those funds where not done as a ISK Laundering event :( Sure it's similar, but not quiet the same. Which is why I want to get peoples opinions..

I would settle for permanent archiving, written off on EBANK's liabilities, and if at a later date the account becomes active again, the account is restored. I know others in EBANK don't want that. If that is what you think, then as I said in my EBANK SencneS post..

NOW IS THE TIME TO BE A PART OF EBANK POLICY CREATION USE IT WISELY

P.S. Emailing accounts is not an option, sure we could get a very very small handful of accounts that people gave their email address to. We could notify those that have their email address in EBANK, that'll only be a small sample of accounts though. Not enough people gave their email address, so it's not really a viable option.

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:39:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: SencneS



I would settle for permanent archiving, written off on EBANK's liabilities, and if at a later date the account becomes active again, the account is restored. I know others in EBANK don't want that.


DO THIS!!

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:40:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: cosmoray
I personally don't think EBANK has the right to take investor funds.

I know that Block has funds that are relating to Furybank
BMBE probably has shareholders that are no longer around
I have at least 2 shareholders that I know of, don't play anymore.

It is not our business to appropriate the ISK or shares from Dormant/expired accounts.

The way I would deal with it if you really have to(if it could be coded).

1. Send an e-mail to each account holder giving a list of options for their accounts, that includes updating the account.
2. When logged in - give 3 options.
- Liquidate (under Ray's conditions),
- Keep long term (do nothing)
- Third option is non response.

If no response after six months then cancel.

This shows how many customers want out, want to stay and how many dormant.
No need for API.





Block does have Furybank funds... Funds which he knows FuryBanker will probably never request. But BSA Still uses those funds, it's a little different here.
BMBE same goes for BMBE, the entity still holds the funds.
You still use those funds of those two people?
You want to be called a saint, Block, TS, and You should return those funds to the account and call it good, that way everyones dividends are effected for a positive change.

If you do, and I know this is slightly different. The ISK those funds where not done as a ISK Laundering event :( Sure it's similar, but not quiet the same. Which is why I want to get peoples opinions..

I would settle for permanent archiving, written off on EBANK's liabilities, and if at a later date the account becomes active again, the account is restored. I know others in EBANK don't want that. If that is what you think, then as I said in my EBANK SencneS post..

NOW IS THE TIME TO BE A PART OF EBANK POLICY CREATION USE IT WISELY

P.S. Emailing accounts is not an option, sure we could get a very very small handful of accounts that people gave their email address to. We could notify those that have their email address in EBANK, that'll only be a small sample of accounts though. Not enough people gave their email address, so it's not really a viable option.



Then how do people know to submit the API key.

If you can't gaurantee to contact ALL account holders how can you change policy on them.


If you think stating it on forums is valid then you can allow people to log in to their accounts with the options I stated.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:41:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: SencneS
If an account is found to be Banned which API can reveal, and we find out that, account transfered ISK to another character, and that characters ISK was frozen, then guess what, We'll be reversing that transfer as well.

Just as CCP does Transfer withdrawals, any account that matches this will have the same thing. Lets say someone purchased 1B, deposited it, transfered it to an account which 2B in it. That character which is NOT banned will not get that 1B ISK, it will get removed because the banned account it came from is a 1B ISK liability to EBANK.


Uhm...
An account can be temp banned... But nvm that for now.

I hope you are not saying that you are reversing transfers simply because the originator account got banned?

Unless EBANK has been deducted the amount deposited (thus indicating RMT or similar nefarious activity) by the originator acount EBANK has lost no ISK, and has no reason to reverse anything.


Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:42:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 21:16:56
Originally by: TornSoul
But I honestly hope you don't think that Mr. X and Ms. A would be on the same account.


No... No no no no no.. LOL

Ok I'll give, maybe some, but given the HIGHLY illegal nature of RMT, I would bet more often then not, that people use alt, disposable accounts. People believe that if they use a alt on an alt account CCP will not catch them. So I would be really surprised if RMT happens on the "same" account.

Another edit coming.
Please hold.

While this may seem like a "Why use API since they will be on alt accounts" You must have read my post in which we found out that EBANK got word that RMT forums where HOT with threads about EBANK Account freezing. EBANK keeps awesome records, both where the ISK came from and where it went and even has little visual paths etc.

If an account is found to be Banned which API can reveal, and we find out that, account transfered ISK to another character, and that characters ISK was frozen, then guess what, We'll be reversing that transfer as well.

Just as CCP does Transfer withdrawals, any account that matches this will have the same thing. Lets say someone purchased 1B, deposited it, transfered it to an account which 2B in it. That character which is NOT banned will not get that 1B ISK, it will get removed because the banned account it came from is a 1B ISK liability to EBANK.


Wait. What?

So, I give you the API key for my banned RMT alt account, and then you cancel all transfers from that account to other active accounts?

Anyone see the problem(s) here?

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:42:00 - [207]
 

Edited by: LaVista Vista on 23/11/2009 21:43:49
Originally by: SencneS

P.S. Emailing accounts is not an option, sure we could get a very very small handful of accounts that people gave their email address to. We could notify those that have their email address in EBANK, that'll only be a small sample of accounts though. Not enough people gave their email address, so it's not really a viable option.

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Jackie Fisher
Will ebank be mailing all account holders to warn them of this change of policy?

Yes, as will we in the future when their accounts are suspended after three months, and again before they are written off after six months. Email, not EVEMail.



Originally by: SencneS


If an account is found to be Banned which API can reveal, and we find out that, account transfered ISK to another character, and that characters ISK was frozen, then guess what, We'll be reversing that transfer as well.

No, the API sure can't reveal that. That would be a breach of CCP's Privacy Policy

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:48:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: Wyehr


Wait. What?

So, I give you the API key for my banned RMT alt account, and then you cancel all transfers from that account to other active accounts?

Anyone see the problem(s) here?


Heh, I like the way you think.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:48:00 - [209]
 

Originally by: RAW23
The worthiness of the cause has nothing to do with the means used to attain it. I asked before but didn't get a response. When the board did its projections on this, what figures did you come up with? What proportion of innocently placed isk do you expect to go up in flames as you seek to protect yourself against possible future actions from CCP and also take your own punitive action against defaulters?

And again, I would like to ask how the BoD would differentiate this theft of innocent customer's funds from a scam carried out on these customers, especially in light of the fact that customers were encouraged to put money in EBank accounts precisely so they could take time away from the game?



Some accounts can already be linked, as they have the same email address etc. Not 100% sure if we've cross checked this or not. I deliberately stayed out of it as I knew I was being investigated myself. I knew everything I had ever done was under the microscope and I didn't want to hinder or sway the investigation. Call it conflict of interest.

The issue is there is no current way to capture everyone that has a banned account. I don't see any "projections" at all. We just know people are banned and we expect some of those people have ISK in EBANK. We also KNOW people whom have defaulted loans in EBANK have alt accounts with ISK in them. But we don't know who.

I actually expect not much from banned accounts personally. What I do expect is a LOT of ISK from people who have stolen or defaulted a loan from EBANK. Now I could be wrong and it be the other way around, but I fully expect if those people have the integrity to put in the API, and let us capture the fraud/stolen/defaulted ISK they may have more then they realized.

We're not going to claim the ENTIRE account. If someone defaulted a 1.2B loan and they have 3B in an alt account, we're just going to take 1.2B out of their account, we're not going to take all 3B.

As for the "Long term thing" I'll say it again - Now is the time to effect EBANK policy, propose an alternative. Don't just say "Keep the ISK in suspended account, it has to remove from our liabilities. We can't have 500B ISK in accounts that just sits there as a liability.

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:51:00 - [210]
 

sences, I would love to take the money back from the people that stole from me. however I have no loan with ebank, let alone a loan with an undervalued or absents collateral.

As far as I know my account shows no transfers to any account not directly connected to me (only sweep to savings back to me again). I can also prove my eve account is active (my posts here for instance).
so why are you threatening to zero my account?

oh wait, if my alts had an ebank acount that might be a risk, I can see some validity there, but my alts are not banned either
an independant audit would easely verify they never ever even had an ebank account and exist to long for me to have had another alt there while ebank existed


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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