open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Anti-Money Laundering Laws
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.16 04:25:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 11/05/2011 04:34:03
Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 16/04/2011 14:17:29
Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 16/04/2011 04:29:27
The biggest problem that plagues New Eden is the use of Alts which are bankrolled by their primary characters which are then used to gank or do other non-savory things. The flip-side is also true, funds that are acquired doing illegal activity (according to CONCORD laws) can be washed clean and passed to other characters, or alts.

Why not make a penalty for transferring funds to characters of opposite security status? (positive<->negative) by penalizing the status of the transferring character? Characters of the same security status can move money between themselves of course (unless CCP wants to make a new ISK item that is a physical cash representation that can be moved/passed)

Maybe Even ban the interstellar transfer of credits to those with EXTREME sec status altogether (-5) from opposite ends? They are outlaws after all, why make it easy for them to move money around to throw away alts to continue their operations?

They are laws against this in real life (and shady ways and black markets to get around them, ask your local mafia) there should be laws in New Eden, especially since ISK transfer is so simple to regulate, and the mechanics are already there to do the sec status penalties.

Say no to good citizens funding piracy, or legitimate businesses using dirty money.

Adding the below (which is from later on in this thread) to summarize the high level reasons behind this (proposed) solution. It may not be the best solution to the problem, but I believe the problem exists and is worth discussion.

Quote:
Bottom line, every ecosystem (and economy) needs a balance of all participants. If one side out weighs another, the system eventually dies. Predators like lions survive because they only kill what they can eat, and only when they are good enough hunters to do so. Prey like antelope survive as a species because they have the numbers to do so. If you allow PvPers open season on haulers and indies, then you risk killing them all off, starving yourselves of a steady income and living. Now this eventually forces everyone in this game to have both a pvp alt, AND a carebear alt in order to 'survive' as a team (metagaming!) which some on this thread argue is the POINT of EVE. But I don't think it needs to be. I think that CCP can get a LOT more players into this game if you allow people the freedom to (economically, viably) choose to play completely in the space of "farming" or "rogues", without mixing the two in order to survive. Why do you think there are so few girls in this game? Because this forced economic necessity to be a fighter in an alt is a turn off for us. Free the people from the burden of having to defend themselves if they just want to play a business mogul, or a hauler, or a ratter. Yes, this opens up the game to "farmville" players, and I'm sure our 'manly man' CSMs won't have any of that. But I think if they really *thought* about it, adding more people in EVE only helps the game, lines CCPs pockets and makes one of the best virtual micro-economies even better by ensuring future sustained growth. And there will still be plenty of places in the universe to 'be a guy'. Wink




The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.16 04:27:00 - [2]
 

Yeah, no.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.16 04:31:00 - [3]
 

Would you have an explanation for your summary judgement?

Ganthrithor
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.16 04:33:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Ganthrithor on 16/04/2011 04:34:21
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
:words:



I went to my local mafia to ask them about money laundering and they were extremely unhelpful.

Thanks a lot for this great idea.

e: below the "Check here if you want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on" checkbox, there should be a "Check here to vote for this person to be set read-only" box.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.16 04:35:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Ganthrithor
Edited by: Ganthrithor on 16/04/2011 04:34:21
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
:words:



I went to my local mafia to ask them about money laundering and they were extremely unhelpful.

Thanks a lot for this great idea.

e: below the "Check here if you want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on" checkbox, there should be a "Check here to vote for this person to be set read-only" box.


I knew that you would appreciate the humour :)

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.16 07:10:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 16/04/2011 07:26:41
Allow me to further explain the proposal:

Good standing character transfers isk to negative sec status character, works but the good sec standing character takes a penalty to his sec status

Neg standing char to another neg standing character works no penalties.

Neg standing char sending isk to high standing char must be manually accepted ( acknowledged ) by the good standing char. If accepted, positive sec standing takes a penalty.

Add new skills like money laundering that will reduce or eliminate the penalty.

This should prevent rich players from funding new skilless Alts
for the sake of ganking for fun.

Hieronimus Rex
Minmatar
Infinitus Sapientia
Hav0k.
Posted - 2011.04.16 09:05:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 16/04/2011 07:26:41
Allow me to further explain the proposal:



Could you first explain why the "problem" is actually a problem?

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.16 10:43:00 - [8]
 

Good question. I'm glad you asked. (as opposed to summarily dismissing the notion)

So the reasoning I believe this is because it is consistent with having security ratings and penalties for shooting somebody in the first place. Why do you get a penalty to attacking somebody in empire space? To protect the innocent, to keep the peace, etc etc. To make it clear that if you choose the dark side then there are consequences, (namely, people know you are an outlaw) and your standing reflects that behavior (good or bad). I'm not advocating one side is better, just that the sec rating system should reflect this behavioral choice.

Now, there are different professions in EVE, and all are legitimate. Pirates are just as necessary to the world of EVE as are miners. We all should be able to agree that what makes EVE a great free market meritocracy is that you are responsible for your actions. You are accountable for them, insofar as your characters reputation (manifested in standings) goes. If you choose to live a life of a crime boss, then that is great, if you want to work the mines, great too. What keeps everyone honest and coming back to EVE is the sense of reputation accountability.

What is broken in the "reputation accounting" system is that money transfers are allowed free without audit.
Why is this a problem? Well, say you have a reputable CEO of a trustworthy corporation. His reputation means more to him than ISK as he has plenty of cash and material things. If somebody ****es him off, he could just make a new alt, send him 500mil isk, and have that alt suicide gank his enemies. Now this by itself is hard to stop, as nothing should really prevent anyone from just doing this.

But, what most people do is create a ganking alt, with trained skills to be good at one thing.... killing people and doing the dirty work. (which is fine... many people make a living in this profession) but now, the same CEO can just have his 'personal' assassin kill and gank to his hearts content. This assassin alt is different from other players who happen to be pirates or pvp'ers for a living.
He:
Doesn't care about money
Doesn't care about standings (reputation)
Has no personal capital invested into his character. (doesn't care whether he lives or dies.)

Why should we allow this behavior without penalty? Should CONCORD be turning a blind eye to sanctioned terrorism? How is it different from allowing the said good CEO to start ganking and killing at leisure without any sec status penalty?

PS You should still be able to hire bounties on people without sec penalty. That is fine. I don't see that as the same because their is a 3rd party involved (the bounty hunter) so this is a positive thing for the economy (it gives bounty hunters jobs). Plus, it is not the same because somebody who is making it their primary profession is now given a job to gank somebody, and he will take a sec standing hit for it (part of the service you are 'paying' for). Not a temp alt created just for the purpose of delivering a plasma bomb to Jita4-4, with free access to your Corp CEO's wallet.

I hope that makes sense. It's just an idea at this point, but one I though would be worth discussion.

Lord Zim
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.16 11:27:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Ganthrithor
there should be a "Check here to vote for this person to be set read-only" box.

I support this message.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.22 13:13:00 - [10]
 

Does nobody think this isn't a 'cheat' to the sec status system? If you think that people should not be able to suicide gank others without some sec penalty, then in theory you should be in support of this proposal. Basically pirates who earn their hard earned cash ganking should be allowed to use that money to increase their ganking skills. But people who have squeaky clean day jobs earning cash on the right side of the law should not be able to just dump that cash to an alt who ganks.

Its just cheating the sec status system. If you break the concord laws and gank, then you need to get a sec penalty. Money laundering and free transfers allows people to commit crimes without paying any sec penalty.
If the income from ganking isn't enough to cover the costs, then it should be allowed to die off as a profession, not be artificially propped up by alt accounts.

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.22 15:14:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: J Kunjeh on 22/04/2011 15:17:06
Originally by: The Mittani
Yeah, no.


Gotta say, it's a little disheartening to see the CSM chairman give such a useless response to a thread in the Assembly Hall. Could you maybe expound on why "yeah, no"? Or maybe just not post in the thread at all if you aren't going to be constructive about it?

But back to the topic. I think the OP has an interesting idea and some valid arguments to back it up. Based on initial impression, I would support at least a good discussion on the matter.

Della Monk
Broski Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.22 15:17:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Della Monk on 22/04/2011 15:17:20
In or out of universe, the ability to monitor every financial transaction ever seems a bit of a drastic increase of CONCORD's power.

And besides, this is a game where betraying the trust of hundreds of people and taking their stuff is not only condoned, but a key point in its marketing. A little dirty laundry is par for the course

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.22 16:19:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 22/04/2011 16:19:11
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Does nobody think this isn't a 'cheat' to the sec status system? If you think that people should not be able to suicide gank others without some sec penalty, then in theory you should be in support of this proposal. Basically pirates who earn their hard earned cash ganking should be allowed to use that money to increase their ganking skills. But people who have squeaky clean day jobs earning cash on the right side of the law should not be able to just dump that cash to an alt who ganks.

Its just cheating the sec status system. If you break the concord laws and gank, then you need to get a sec penalty. Money laundering and free transfers allows people to commit crimes without paying any sec penalty.
If the income from ganking isn't enough to cover the costs, then it should be allowed to die off as a profession, not be artificially propped up by alt accounts.


exactly. as far as i know, u're probably the first person to make a thread about this because the -10s don't want to face the consequnces of their actions and everyone knows it. and the funny thing is there's another thread in this same board that wanted to nerf sec gains, talking about consequences of crime. i asked them about the same problem u're bringing up and they're like "oh we're not gonna do anything about that because we -10s should be above the law while anyone attacking us should not be". the -10s just want their high sec alts to be safer with a suicide ganking nerf because they're too scared to use the same space they farm killmails in--they're the real carebears, plain and simple. Laughing

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.22 17:12:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 22/04/2011 17:13:50
1. You may notice that CONCORD does not have sov anywhere.

2. You may notice that ganking someone in high sec does not impact your standing with any space holding entity.

3. You may notice that people in the real world with a lot of money are allowed to do stuff that other people aren't allowed to do.

4. You may notice that the bank corporations in the game are Caldari, so it would seem logical that players do not use them, as a chunk of players actively shoot Caldari Navy ships (something I would think would anger the Caldari Banks).

5. If you've been paying attention to the RL news of late, you will be aware that BoA received a slap on the wrist for being involved in laundering billions of dollars for S American drug lords and no one got in trouble. If that's how it works in the real world, with fairly unified government opposition to such activities, I would imagine such corruption absolutely belongs in Eve.

So, no, your proposal doesn't make sense from a game mechanics standpoint, a real world standpoint, nor a game RP standpoint.

Corina's Bodyguard
Posted - 2011.04.22 17:13:00 - [15]
 

The thing is, Concord doesn't care two hoots about money. They only care about "security".

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.04.22 17:27:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 22/04/2011 17:27:00
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 16/04/2011 14:17:29
Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 16/04/2011 04:29:27
The biggest problem that plagues New Eden is the use of Alts which are bankrolled by their primary characters which are then used to gank or do other non-savory things. The flip-side is also true, funds that are acquired doing illegal activity (according to CONCORD laws) can be washed clean and passed to other characters, or alts.

Why not make a penalty for transferring funds to characters of opposite security status? (positive<->negative) by penalizing the status of the transferring character? Characters of the same security status can move money between themselves of course (unless CCP wants to make a new ISK item that is a physical cash representation that can be moved/passed)

Maybe Even ban the interstellar transfer of credits to those with EXTREME sec status altogether (-5) from opposite ends? They are outlaws after all, why make it easy for them to move money around to throw away alts to continue their operations?

They are laws against this in real life (and shady ways and black markets to get around them, ask your local mafia) there should be laws in New Eden, especially since ISK transfer is so simple to regulate, and the mechanics are already there to do the sec status penalties.

Say no to good citizens funding piracy, or legitimate businesses using dirty money.



Nope...
First it's a crap idea that serves no purpose. What perceived problem is it supposed to solve?

Second it's easy to circumvent (ooh, look, I contract 1 unit of tritanium for 1 billion ISK. Surprise, my alt buys it), or I trade him an item in station. Or I trade him MONEY in station. You don't want to tax trade by sec status right?

Third, it's a crap idea that serves no purpose.

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.22 17:29:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Third, it's a crap idea that serves no purpose.


Boy, is this what everyone voted for? Snarky comments by the CSM in the Assembly Hall, where presumably these kinds of ideas are to be discussed? Do we really have to put up with this from them for another year? And just when they were starting to win me over...

Jengi Gotsen
Gallente
BlackSite Prophecy
Posted - 2011.04.22 17:38:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: J Kunjeh
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Third, it's a crap idea that serves no purpose.


Boy, is this what everyone voted for? Snarky comments by the CSM in the Assembly Hall, where presumably these kinds of ideas are to be discussed? Do we really have to put up with this from them for another year? And just when they were starting to win me over...


It really is a dumb idea, though. What's next? I can't contract ships to my pirate alt because he's got negative sec status? My pirate alt can't dock up in stations? My pirate alt can't purchase ships and modules? My pirate alt can't receive bounties?

This is a poorly thought out idea that would only introduce a very slippery slope. It's easy to circumvent through any number of channels (as exampled above) and would not introduce any new or interesting gameplay.

No. Not supported.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.04.22 18:14:00 - [19]
 

yeah remove pirates pls
all are nabs anyway

Rika Jones
Amarr
Warp Storm Industries
Posted - 2011.04.22 18:28:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Edited by: Bagehi on 22/04/2011 17:13:50
1. You may notice that CONCORD does not have sov anywhere.



Is it ignorant NC mouthpiece day? I must have missed the memo.

Concord DOES hold sovereignty. The Sanctum Constellation in the Genesis Region is mostly held by Concord. 1 system there is held by Interbus.

Originally by: Bagehi

2. You may notice that ganking someone in high sec does not impact your standing with any space holding entity.



See above.

Originally by: Bagehi

3. You may notice that people in the real world with a lot of money are allowed to do stuff that other people aren't allowed to do.



This has exactly _what_ to do with internet spaceships?


Originally by: Bagehi


:more useless RL comparisons:

So, no, your proposal doesn't make sense from a game mechanics standpoint, a real world standpoint, nor a game RP standpoint.



It makes complete sense. I don't support it, but that doesn't automatically make it nonsensible.

Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
Posted - 2011.04.22 20:34:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
1. You may notice that CONCORD does not have sov anywhere.





You may notice that Pakshi, Tar and other systems might disagree with you

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.04.22 21:00:00 - [22]
 

Here, have a hypothetical.

I am in deep nullsec. I am 30 jumps from the nearest CONCORD ship. I have not been to highsec in a year.

Why would CONCORD be watching my bank balance?

Also, as Meissa said, it's so easy to get around with contracts and the trade window that there is no point in even considering this. Nerfing jita alts is just stupid.

EVE is a sandbox. not everyone wants to play like you do. Pointless changes like this aren't going to force people to play your way, there is always a way around it.

andeira
Posted - 2011.04.23 00:17:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Edited by: Bagehi on 22/04/2011 17:13:50
1. You may notice that CONCORD does not have sov anywhere.



last time I checked they did own space and there HQ is in yulai wich is suprisingly owned by gues what CONCORD

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.04.23 14:08:00 - [24]
 

In my assessment

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
it's a crap idea that serves no purpose.


So I have to echo the sentiment of

Originally by: The Mittani
Yeah, no.


Sorry. Sad

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.23 18:41:00 - [25]
 


Buy stuff. Direct trade. Sell. TADA, new mechanics avoided. At the mere cost of sales tax and broker fee.
Hmm, so you now want to make it a crime to trade via direct trades too ? What if you just fail to notice the guy's sec-status before engaging in absolutely legitimate trade ? Last time I checked, not even in RL would the police/justice system be so incredibly stupid as to arrest you for buying a used car from a registered sex offender (since, hey, you could have checked) or something like that.
So, ok, direct trade out of the question then ?
Well, how about replace "direct trade" with : Undock, warp to random bookmark. Jettison. Scoop up with alt.
Too complicated and risky you say ? Or maybe ALSO penalize people for looting wrecks of outlaws ? COME ON...
Well, how about selling 1 trit for 1 bil ISK then ?
Wait, what, now you ALSO want to deny people trading on the market with people of opposing status ? Or maybe make it so that only outlaws can trade in lowsec while only positives can deal in highsec ? What about 0.0 then, how do you handle it ? Or maybe you just mean penalize them randomly since they can't see who's selling/buying stuff ? Waaaait a minute, now you're proposing people to see WHO is the issuer of the order ? What about the fact you can't select the best order and you end up buying from the best priced one anyway and you STILL end up buying from or selling to an outlaw if you're an honest citizen ? The HELL ? Now you want us to be able to select the order too ?
What if I have two guys, one outlaw and one honest citizen, each with their own corp, and each has the share for the OTHER guy's corp. Just pay anything you want as dividends. Wait, what ? You want to make it a penalty to simply receive dividends from that ? Well, HOW ABOUT THE GREAT NEW GRIEFING METHOD you just introduced, destroying any target's sec status down to at least zero ?
Seriously, stop now before you end up having to change JUST ABOUT EVERY IMAGINABLE MECHANIC that can be used to exchange goods and/or funds.

Unenforceable things (or extremely hard to enforce, or unfair to even think of enforcing without regards to circumstances) should never go past initial hasty proposal status.

I'm going to just echo the "yeah, no" sentiment here.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.23 20:28:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 23/04/2011 20:42:11
Originally by: Akita T

Buy stuff. Direct trade. Sell. TADA, new mechanics avoided. At the mere cost of sales tax and broker fee.
Hmm, so you now want to make it a crime to trade via direct trades too ? What if you just fail to notice the guy's sec-status before engaging in absolutely legitimate trade ? Last time I checked, not even in RL would the police/justice system be so incredibly stupid as to arrest you for buying a used car from a registered sex offender (since, hey, you could have checked) or something like that.
So, ok, direct trade out of the question then ?
Well, how about replace "direct trade" with : Undock, warp to random bookmark. Jettison. Scoop up with alt.
Too complicated and risky you say ? Or maybe ALSO penalize people for looting wrecks of outlaws ? COME ON...
Well, how about selling 1 trit for 1 bil ISK then ?
Wait, what, now you ALSO want to deny people trading on the market with people of opposing status ? Or maybe make it so that only outlaws can trade in lowsec while only positives can deal in highsec ? What about 0.0 then, how do you handle it ? Or maybe you just mean penalize them randomly since they can't see who's selling/buying stuff ? Waaaait a minute, now you're proposing people to see WHO is the issuer of the order ? What about the fact you can't select the best order and you end up buying from the best priced one anyway and you STILL end up buying from or selling to an outlaw if you're an honest citizen ? The HELL ? Now you want us to be able to select the order too ?
What if I have two guys, one outlaw and one honest citizen, each with their own corp, and each has the share for the OTHER guy's corp. Just pay anything you want as dividends. Wait, what ? You want to make it a penalty to simply receive dividends from that ? Well, HOW ABOUT THE GREAT NEW GRIEFING METHOD you just introduced, destroying any target's sec status down to at least zero ?
Seriously, stop now before you end up having to change JUST ABOUT EVERY IMAGINABLE MECHANIC that can be used to exchange goods and/or funds.

Unenforceable things (or extremely hard to enforce, or unfair to even think of enforcing without regards to circumstances) should never go past initial hasty proposal status.

I'm going to just echo the "yeah, no" sentiment here.



to plug in the loopholes:
1. all sec status drops in this way will come with a warning so newbies won't be tricked into it.
2. all of these sec status drops will penalize both parties by reducing sec status all the way down to the exact amount of whoever's lower, including direct trades.
3. knowing that the criminal is an outlaw on the run and intentionally buying the car off of him to throw off the trail or aiding and abetting him in any other way is still a crime.
4. ejecting/jettisoning will also have the same sec status drop as a trade since that is aiding and abetting as well.
5. accepting a contract from an outlaw will have the same penalty.
6. if an outlaw attempts to accept a contract, a mail will be notified to whoever made the contract, asking if he is willing to accept the consequences of aiding an outlaw. if so, same sec status penalty applies to the contract maker.
7. make no mistake, u can still market trade--u just have to accept the consequences for doing business with criminals.
8. all market orders can be arranged with the option of sec status factored in. and all outlaw orders will be highlighted in red.
9. if even 1 corp share is owned by an outlaw, the corp's ceo will be penalized the same way the instant he starts paying dividends.
10. once again, all of these sec status drops come with a warning.
11. all of the above is void if both parties r above -5.

no more loopholes, no more risk-aversion behind high sec anonymity, circumventing sec status and not having to earn back your high sec access.

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.04.23 20:48:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 23/04/2011 20:42:11
Originally by: Akita T

Buy stuff. Direct trade. Sell. TADA, new mechanics avoided. At the mere cost of sales tax and broker fee.
Hmm, so you now want to make it a crime to trade via direct trades too ? What if you just fail to notice the guy's sec-status before engaging in absolutely legitimate trade ? Last time I checked, not even in RL would the police/justice system be so incredibly stupid as to arrest you for buying a used car from a registered sex offender (since, hey, you could have checked) or something like that.
So, ok, direct trade out of the question then ?
Well, how about replace "direct trade" with : Undock, warp to random bookmark. Jettison. Scoop up with alt.
Too complicated and risky you say ? Or maybe ALSO penalize people for looting wrecks of outlaws ? COME ON...
Well, how about selling 1 trit for 1 bil ISK then ?
Wait, what, now you ALSO want to deny people trading on the market with people of opposing status ? Or maybe make it so that only outlaws can trade in lowsec while only positives can deal in highsec ? What about 0.0 then, how do you handle it ? Or maybe you just mean penalize them randomly since they can't see who's selling/buying stuff ? Waaaait a minute, now you're proposing people to see WHO is the issuer of the order ? What about the fact you can't select the best order and you end up buying from the best priced one anyway and you STILL end up buying from or selling to an outlaw if you're an honest citizen ? The HELL ? Now you want us to be able to select the order too ?
What if I have two guys, one outlaw and one honest citizen, each with their own corp, and each has the share for the OTHER guy's corp. Just pay anything you want as dividends. Wait, what ? You want to make it a penalty to simply receive dividends from that ? Well, HOW ABOUT THE GREAT NEW GRIEFING METHOD you just introduced, destroying any target's sec status down to at least zero ?
Seriously, stop now before you end up having to change JUST ABOUT EVERY IMAGINABLE MECHANIC that can be used to exchange goods and/or funds.

Unenforceable things (or extremely hard to enforce, or unfair to even think of enforcing without regards to circumstances) should never go past initial hasty proposal status.

I'm going to just echo the "yeah, no" sentiment here.



to plug in the loopholes:
1. all sec status drops in this way will come with a warning so newbies won't be tricked into it.
2. all of these sec status drops will penalize both parties by reducing sec status all the way down to the exact amount of whoever's lower, including direct trades.
3. knowing that the criminal is an outlaw on the run and intentionally buying the car off of him to throw off the trail or aiding and abetting him in any other way is still a crime.
4. ejecting/jettisoning will also have the same sec status drop as a trade since that is aiding and abetting as well.
5. accepting a contract from an outlaw will have the same penalty.
6. if an outlaw attempts to accept a contract, a mail will be notified to whoever made the contract, asking if he is willing to accept the consequences of aiding an outlaw. if so, same sec status penalty applies to the contract maker.
7. make no mistake, u can still market trade--u just have to accept the consequences for doing business with criminals.
8. all market orders can be arranged with the option of sec status factored in. and all outlaw orders will be highlighted in red.
9. if even 1 corp share is owned by an outlaw, the corp's ceo will be penalized the same way the instant he starts paying dividends.
10. once again, all of these sec status drops come with a warning.
11. all of the above is void if both parties r above -5.

no more loopholes, no more risk-aversion behind high sec anonymity, circumventing sec status and not having to earn back your high sec access.


Get Out.

Rented
Posted - 2011.04.23 21:32:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: J Kunjeh
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

Third, it's a crap idea that serves no purpose.


Boy, is this what everyone voted for? Snarky comments by the CSM in the Assembly Hall, where presumably these kinds of ideas are to be discussed? Do we really have to put up with this from them for another year? And just when they were starting to win me over...


I propose giant floating pink elephants be added to space everywhere... just because. Anyone who offhandedly(and correctly) dismisses this idea as stupid and pointless is obviously just being snarky and I R DISAPPOINT. How dare you make reasonable judgements that pointless meaningless crap shouldn't be added to the game, we should obviously give my random floating giant pink space elephants a serious discussion.

I'd /sarcasm here, but honestly if you managed to miss it... I fail to care.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.23 21:43:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Danika Princip

Get Out.


translation: it works and u're mad about it.

Rented
Posted - 2011.04.23 21:56:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Rented on 23/04/2011 21:56:56
Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Danika Princip

Get Out.


translation: it works and u're mad about it.


translation: its such complete fail that he has determined you to be beyond reasoning, leaving nothing to be said beyond "No, that's stupid" and various iterations thereof, since he's unable to communicate on a level low enough to actually debate it with you.

You apparently support cutting the game in half, changing massive amounts of game mechanics, and adding an abundance of grief... just because you feel like it. No, that's stupid.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

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