open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Trading of Kwint Industries Bonds Is Hence Forth Banned.
 
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 (11)

Author Topic

Cobalt Sixty
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2009.12.29 09:58:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
and everyone in the peanut gallery.

I think you mean waffle gallery.

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.12.29 10:04:00 - [272]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Kwint Sommer


Ray was attempting to sell the shares.


Have you been able to prove this?


Other than his own word, claiming to sell the shares?

RAW23
Posted - 2009.12.29 11:03:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 29/12/2009 11:26:10
Edited by: RAW23 on 29/12/2009 11:05:40
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: SetrakDark
I would like to see people with serious and well-presented concerns get invited to closed-access publicly-viewable threads on the EBank forums where the appropriate directors can address the issue in a non-hostile environment and in their own time.

We tried something similar a few weeks back with a live voice chat moderated by Utemetsu. No one bit.

However people are more than welcome to post there and we'll address any reasonable concerns. But you need to be aware that we're not going to rehash the same old arguments. That is a time-consuming road that we won't go down, we have better things to do.

I realise that some may see that as nullifying the whole exercise, but I'm not going to sit on forums the whole day continuing the same pointless dialogues when I could better spend that time hauling Tritanium from Jita in my shuttle.



Ray - as far as I'm aware these arguments have never been publicly engaged with or explained by EBANK before. I don't see how such an exercise as Setrak suggests could be taken as rehashing them. If there is already a thread in which EBANK addresses the various concerns that have been raised in an open and informative way, please direct me to it.

As to continuing the same pointless dialogues, as far as I can see there has not been any dialogue. Dialogue involves taking account of what the other party has said and responding to it. This has not yet happened and this is the reason for many people's frustration. You seem to be saying here that a) all your decisions are set in stone, no further discussion of them will be taken into account; and b) you have better things to do than ensuring that the public understands the thought processes and rationales behind your actions. To be honest, this strikes me as the line you've been pushing since I first started reading EBANK threads. I don't remember any earlier time when you did actively solicit public views, take them into account and engage with them (witht the possible exception of the account write offs for suspended accounts). But I've only been playing for about 5 months so it may have happened before my time. If so, please tell me where I can find these threads.

Btw - How do you determine whether people's concerns are "reasonable" and thus worthy of addressing? From a professional perspective, I would say that most of the questions and concerns that have been raised are reasonable. It is the responses that have rarely been so.

Skarii TuThess
East Aridia Trading Company
Posted - 2009.12.29 11:40:00 - [274]
 

AC155 - I disagree with you here that this is not a wider issue than just EBank and their depositors. If all was running smoothly or if there was any form of higher power regulating the secondary market then I would agree with you 100%; the rest of MD should just keep their noses out of someone else's business.

The problem here is that we don't have any higher form of regulation, the community has to regulate itself. We may look to RL law for guidance, but ultimately it comes down to ethics, and whether or not those who wish to be involved in this aspect of Eve can actually make it work. Now of course you are perfectly 'entitled' to freeze assets, or stop interest payment, or even keep all the ISK for yourself because there are no laws against it. All we have is your word that you won’t do it.

So when we hear that large groups are going against their word it actually does cause the rest of the community to speak up or even attack your position, because ultimately that is the only form of regulation that we can apply to another MD group. Yes, some of the responses are just trolls, but some are legitimate attacks against decisions you have made. You may not like them, but just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean you can just write it off as trolling. You may not appreciate their point of view – that too is fine as people have different world views on how things should be done – but again that doesn’t allow you to just write it off as trolling. (This last bit goes two ways – people attacking EBank’s decisions would make better progress if they tried to see it through their eyes too).

Ultimately ISK corrupts, and the viability of the secondary market comes down to one thing – when a group reaches a certain threshold of ISK can they still be trusted to act ethically? Freezing accounts is a necessity, and from what I have seen most people understand that. I have yet to see any proof that ceasing interest is a necessity – especially if Karp’s explanation of your plan is what you will implement.

If it is a necessity then prove it, and you will shut the trolls up.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.12.29 12:12:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: Skarii TuThess
If it is a necessity then prove it, and you will shut the trolls up.

Unfortunately that is where you are wrong.

Enabling interest is nothing more than a cosmetic effect and has no substance or purpose.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.12.29 12:24:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Ray - as far as I'm aware these arguments have never been publicly engaged with or explained by EBANK before.

Which arguments in particular?

jna
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.12.29 12:31:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: SetrakDark
I would like to see people with serious and well-presented concerns get invited to closed-access publicly-viewable threads on the EBank forums where the appropriate directors can address the issue in a non-hostile environment and in their own time.

We tried something similar a few weeks back with a live voice chat moderated by Utemetsu. No one bit.

However people are more than welcome to post there and we'll address any reasonable concerns. But you need to be aware that we're not going to rehash the same old arguments. That is a time-consuming road that we won't go down, we have better things to do.

I realise that some may see that as nullifying the whole exercise, but I'm not going to sit on forums the whole day continuing the same pointless dialogues when I could better spend that time hauling Tritanium from Jita in my shuttle.


The problem, though, is that it's impossible for anyone to tell what is and what isn't a "reasonable concern" in your textbook. I refer you to the whole discussion on Limited API keys. All the "API key? No way" crowd were dismissed as fear-mongers with "things to hide", and you made it perfectly and utterly clear that the discussion was closed and you weren't going to entertain any of our perfectly reasonable concerns. Until someone who you do respect actually joined in the discussion, repeating some previously mentioned things about "blackmail", and lo... the heavens opened, a solution is found and a "non-negotiable" policy is changed. (And then SencneS tries hilariously to explain how the whole thread and the EBANK decision was actually a social engineering troll-with-a-purpose attempt to get people to identify a solutionon EBANK's behalf - truly entertaining, but beside the point).

Fundamentally, it was only the X pages of "trolling" from the "nay-sayers-with-something-to-hide" that ultimately produced a result that appears reasonable to everyone. It was "rehashing the same old arguments" over many pages that produced the result. Whilst a lot of forum threads are full of *&^%, not everything is "pointless dialogue".

You guys really can't complain about being unable to deal with people's "reasonable concerns" in a "non-hostile environment", when it's impossible - partially through your own unreasonableness and hostility - to continue such dialogues.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.12.29 12:44:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Ji Sama

Other than his own word, claiming to sell the shares?


From Ray claiming to having sold the shares to Kwint banning all trade is a giant leap in logic.

So say that Ray had sold the shares. Banning trade would not stop EBANK from anything, because we'd already have cashed out.

Kwint must have known that Ray hadn't sold the shares, otherwise banning trades would be pointless.

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.12.29 12:55:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Ji Sama

Other than his own word, claiming to sell the shares?


From Ray claiming to having sold the shares to Kwint banning all trade is a giant leap in logic.

So say that Ray had sold the shares. Banning trade would not stop EBANK from anything, because we'd already have cashed out.

Kwint must have known that Ray hadn't sold the shares, otherwise banning trades would be pointless.


you are using flawed logic!

kwint has no way to know what ray is doing, other than he is being seriously trolled by him.

ray calls him a terrorist, and states that he is in the process of or have already sold his bonds.

kwint is forced to react, unless he wants some Yiddish jerk to buy Ebanks now worthless kwint bonds.

who is taking the unethical approach?
why are you defending rays threats and trolls?

i know for a fact you can think rationally, you seem convicted to defending ebank at any cost, and its starting to undermine your credibility.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:05:00 - [280]
 

Originally by: Ji Sama


you are using flawed logic!

kwint has no way to know what ray is doing

Yes he does. He just needs to check the shareholder list and check if EBANK had sold it's shares.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:09:00 - [281]
 

Once again, I get where Ray is coming from...or at least I think I do.

Moving the forum warrioring to another venue and limiting the participants won't stop the tiresome threadnaughts. I think Ray pictures page-long diatribes with "lofty" arguments and nauseating "huzzah!" rhetorical back-and-forths. I sympathize.

I picture someone doing most of the work on the MD forum: summarizing the issues involved, presenting the divergent arguments, analyzing the situation, and then presenting some core comments or questions that EBank can respond to. All the messy point-by-point rehashing can be done here with input from other interested members of MD.

When a subject has been suitably presented for a response, then it gets moved to the EBank forums and becomes a productive dialogue.

If all the forum warriors here can't get at the crux of a disagreement and create something satisfactory for you to respond to with reasonable amount of time, effort, and patience, then it all just is 5-minutes-of-efame grandstanding.

The other productive alternative is just to stop responding altogether. Just boycott EBank related subjects after official announcements. I know my only concerns come from EBank attempts to defend policy decisions. I would be happy to get my two cents in after an announcement, and then let the results speak for themselves whichever way they do.

Or we can continue with the status-quo...

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:13:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Ji Sama


you are using flawed logic!

kwint has no way to know what ray is doing

Yes he does. He just needs to check the shareholder list and check if EBANK had sold it's shares.


no he doesn't, he can only confirm that the shares haven't been transferred!
you are suggesting that he wait untill the actual transfer.

Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Global Economy Experts
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:13:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Ji Sama

Other than his own word, claiming to sell the shares?


From Ray claiming to having sold the shares to Kwint banning all trade is a giant leap in logic.

So say that Ray had sold the shares. Banning trade would not stop EBANK from anything, because we'd already have cashed out.

Kwint must have known that Ray hadn't sold the shares, otherwise banning trades would be pointless.


1. Ray claims to sell the shares.
2. Kwint sees that the shares are not yet sold.
3. Kwint bans trading of shares so that Ray cannot follow through on the threat.

Not really a giant leap in logic there.

Anyways, I think the other conversation between RAW and co. is much more valuable right now, but this was all I had time to point out.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:16:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Dretzle Omega


1. Ray claims to sell the shares.
2. Kwint sees that the shares are not yet sold.
3. Kwint bans trading of shares so that Ray cannot follow through on the threat.

Not really a giant leap in logic there.

Anyways, I think the other conversation between RAW and co. is much more valuable right now, but this was all I had time to point out.

Yes. The leap is in assuming that Ray is going to sell the shares.

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:17:00 - [285]
 

Edited by: Ji Sama on 29/12/2009 13:17:24
raw makes some nice arguments and present them in a good constructive way. I wouldn't mind a debate between him and Ebank, without the involvement of any outside trolls like myself!


Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Dretzle Omega


1. Ray claims to sell the shares.
2. Kwint sees that the shares are not yet sold.
3. Kwint bans trading of shares so that Ray cannot follow through on the threat.

Not really a giant leap in logic there.

Anyways, I think the other conversation between RAW and co. is much more valuable right now, but this was all I had time to point out.

Yes. The leap is in assuming that Ray is going to sell the shares.



I fail to see the leap, are you saying we cant trust ray?

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:17:00 - [286]
 

Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
It's when you start thinking its your way or no way that things turn ugly.


Pot calling the kettle black eh??

Ray started the whole problem with Ignoring his own deadlines with no explanation, changing the ToS, depanding API keys, and his Napoleon complex.

Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Global Economy Experts
Posted - 2009.12.29 14:33:00 - [287]
 

Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 29/12/2009 14:34:07
Originally by: SetrakDark
I picture someone doing most of the work on the MD forum: summarizing the issues involved, presenting the divergent arguments, analyzing the situation, and then presenting some core comments or questions that EBank can respond to. All the messy point-by-point rehashing can be done here with input from other interested members of MD.


That actually sounds like a sensible solution.

At least this threadnought came out with some productive points, with the EBank staff understanding that communication is lacking and possibly willing to pursue a reasonable venue? It's clear that there's hurt feelings from all sides. It would be most constructive to attempt to resolve those. Ignore the trolls, but communicate.

Would it make sense to appoint an arbitrator that EBank staff and MD community could respect to quiet the flames, analyze and summarize points, and so forth? Or does each side not believe a reasonable discussion can be had?

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Dretzle Omega


1. Ray claims to sell the shares.
2. Kwint sees that the shares are not yet sold.
3. Kwint bans trading of shares so that Ray cannot follow through on the threat.

Not really a giant leap in logic there.

Anyways, I think the other conversation between RAW and co. is much more valuable right now, but this was all I had time to point out.

Yes. The leap is in assuming that Ray is going to sell the shares.


Granted, I didn't show the assumptions.

1. Ray claims to sell the shares.
2. Kwint sees that the shares are not yet sold.
Assumptions:
1. EBank is a legitimate financial institution.
2. Ray is on the board of directors of EBank, therefore...
a. Ray is honest.
b. Ray is more than just a troll.
Assumptions lead to the logical conclusion that Ray is going to sell the shares. So 3. Kwint bans trading of shares so that Ray cannot follow through on threat.

If it is a leap assuming that Ray is going to sell the shares, you are claiming assumption 1, 2, a, or b is not true, which wouldn't be good for an institution that depends on the goodwill and trust of the community to survive legitimately. Note: I don't mean to defend or oppose Kwint's actions, but simply point out that you can't dismiss it as not a logical conclusion.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.12.29 14:43:00 - [288]
 

Edited by: SetrakDark on 29/12/2009 14:48:12
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Would it make sense to appoint an arbitrator that EBank staff and MD community could respect to quiet the flames, analyze and summarize points, and so forth?


I envisaged the "arbitrators" as being "self-appointed" yet confirmed through the quality of their work. If someone can summarize and present an issue in a way that satisfies a critical number of those who are interested, then he gets to present and argue that viewpoint.

The idea is to encourage people to bring thoughtful and broadly-representative arguments to the table.

Edit: ****, we're talking EBank policy in Kwint's thread and Kwint's issue in the EBank policy thread. I won't respond to this here anymore, but I will in the EBank announcement thread.

RAW23
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:12:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23
Ray - as far as I'm aware these arguments have never been publicly engaged with or explained by EBANK before.

Which arguments in particular?



I'll follow Setrak's example and move my response to the EBANK thread. See you there.

Dasola
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.12.29 17:19:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Ji Sama
Edited by: Ji Sama on 29/12/2009 13:17:24
raw makes some nice arguments and present them in a good constructive way. I wouldn't mind a debate between him and Ebank, without the involvement of any outside trolls like myself!


Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Dretzle Omega


1. Ray claims to sell the shares.
2. Kwint sees that the shares are not yet sold.
3. Kwint bans trading of shares so that Ray cannot follow through on the threat.

Not really a giant leap in logic there.

Anyways, I think the other conversation between RAW and co. is much more valuable right now, but this was all I had time to point out.

Yes. The leap is in assuming that Ray is going to sell the shares.



I fail to see the leap, are you saying we cant trust ray?


Funny i was just thinking same thing. Its clear that Ray is willing to lie in public, so how can he be trusted to lead ebank back to its feet, if thats is what hes trying to do in reality.

Skarii TuThess
East Aridia Trading Company
Posted - 2009.12.30 02:30:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Skarii TuThess
If it is a necessity then prove it, and you will shut the trolls up.

Unfortunately that is where you are wrong.

Enabling interest is nothing more than a cosmetic effect and has no substance or purpose.



So prove it.

Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Posted - 2009.12.30 06:20:00 - [292]
 

So after knowing the situation with the shares and that the EBANK shares were essentially worthless, Ray and Friends decided to sell them to some unsuspecting person probably for full price knowing that Kwint would probably not honor them after he shut down the IPO.

I guess add that scam to the growing list of EBANK scams?

-GV

Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.12.30 06:42:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
So after knowing the situation with the shares and that the EBANK shares were essentially worthless, Ray and Friends decided to sell them to some unsuspecting person probably for full price knowing that Kwint would probably not honor them after he shut down the IPO.

I guess add that scam to the growing list of EBANK scams?

-GV


You should try reading ALL the posts AND comprehending them before making your own post.... you'd look a bit less stupid that way. I'm not going to explain why your post is stupid, I'll let you read more and figure it out.

Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Posted - 2009.12.30 06:55:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
So after knowing the situation with the shares and that the EBANK shares were essentially worthless, Ray and Friends decided to sell them to some unsuspecting person probably for full price knowing that Kwint would probably not honor them after he shut down the IPO.

I guess add that scam to the growing list of EBANK scams?

-GV


You should try reading ALL the posts AND comprehending them before making your own post.... you'd look a bit less stupid that way. I'm not going to explain why your post is stupid, I'll let you read more and figure it out.


You might want to take your own advice. I am not going to take the time to explain to you why your post is stupid. Maybe you should be a big boy and think a while, come back, and explain to me why you made, yet another, ******ed post.

-GV

Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.12.30 07:01:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
So after knowing the situation with the shares and that the EBANK shares were essentially worthless, Ray and Friends decided to sell them to some unsuspecting person probably for full price knowing that Kwint would probably not honor them after he shut down the IPO.

I guess add that scam to the growing list of EBANK scams?


-GV


I've bolded the part you got wrong... notice how your initials are the only thing not bolded?

Inappropriate language removed.Applebabe

Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Posted - 2009.12.30 07:08:00 - [296]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 30/12/2009 07:08:51
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
So after knowing the situation with the shares and that the EBANK shares were essentially worthless, Ray and Friends decided to sell them to some unsuspecting person probably for full price knowing that Kwint would probably not honor them after he shut down the IPO.

I guess add that scam to the growing list of EBANK scams?


-GV


I've bolded the part you got wrong... notice how your initials are the only thing not bolded?

Inappropriate language removed.Applebabe


This gets funnier and funnier, please take your own advice. It is always funny to see blatant arrogance from a person that cannot figure out the simplest things. I love it. Please reread the thread like a big boy and come back and explain to me why you managed, yet another, ******ed post.

-GV

Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.12.30 07:12:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Virtus


This gets funnier and funnier, please take your own advice. It is always funny to see blatant arrogance from a person that cannot figure out the simplest things. I love it. Please reread the thread like a big boy and come back and explain to me why you managed, yet another, ******ed post.

-GV


I know you're just trolling but I'm really surprised at how bad you're doing. Let's start with a simple question because maybe there is a misunderstanding.

Do you believe EBANK sold the KWINT shares that it owned?

If you say yes, then you're wrong and your post is just what I said it was.
Inappropriate content removed.Applebabe

Either way, I win.

Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Posted - 2009.12.30 07:39:00 - [298]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 30/12/2009 07:39:52
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus

Inappropriate language removed.Applebabe
-GV



Awww, playing damage control to make yourself feel better. Trolling is not allowed.Applebabe My offer still stands - for now - but the price went up. You are a harder case than I first thought. It is now 2x nominal fees.

-GV

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.12.30 08:31:00 - [299]
 

The stupid forum ate my post .. twice..

Gabriel, if you are going to accuse ebank of scamming, at least get the reason right.

you are now leveling invalid accusations at them demanding they defend themselves, just because you are too lazy to scan a thread. Not a productive enviroment.

Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Posted - 2009.12.30 19:36:00 - [300]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 30/12/2009 19:38:10
Originally by: Leneerra
The stupid forum ate my post .. twice..

Gabriel, if you are going to accuse ebank of scamming, at least get the reason right.

you are now leveling invalid accusations at them demanding they defend themselves, just because you are too lazy to scan a thread. Not a productive enviroment.


Leneerra,

I am sorry, but given their current record, I think the burden of proof should be shifted to them. They freeze people's isk and refuse to pay them anything for it. If those people want to have a chance at receiving their isk back, they are blackmailed into providing personal information about their accounts. They have changed their ToS and retroactively applied it to customers. They have forced the public to shoulder losses after they have spent years claiming the bank to be a private institution.

They, apparently, think that paying depositors nothing for their isk is fine; but when someone who has their isk refuses to pay them for it... it is now a huge problem and they commence the whining and morality arguments.

And to top it off, they have current or former EBANK staff act like complete jack asses in customer threads. Their behavior is entirely unprofessional and deserves to be trolled. They are trolling themselves.

Unless they have changed their policies, the staff does continue to collect a salary ( it accrues and will be paid after they start turning a profit). This salary being on top of the 75B they have already collected to orchestrate the biggest scam in EVE history. Banks do not have a right to change their ToS and apply it retroactively. They do not have a right to change the interest on accounts without an option to withdraw. I am thoroughly amazed that people continue to defend their actions. Kwint had every right to do what he did and I would advocate others do it as well. Kwint is asking such a small thing and EBANK clearly does not want to compromise on any point.

Anyway, go Kwint!


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

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