EVE Search - Could a loan be secured by out-of-game items?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Market Discussions

Could a loan be secured by out-of-game items?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Zachastoi Zagamnu	Posted - 2009.03.02 21:58:00 - [1] Hi, do you think it would be against the EULA to secure a loan by out-of-game items? It could be viewed as buying isk with ÇÇÇ and then later reversing that transaction (and thus buying and selling isk). But is it really? Would you give or take a loan under these terms? Just curious, ZZ
destinationunreachable	Posted - 2009.03.02 22:08:00 - [2] A load security (correct me, if I'm wrong , I don't know the terms in English) are being used, if the debtor fails to pay back the loan, ie. the ownership is being transferred to the debtee... So we have the situation, that the debtor receives ISK (in-game goods) and the debtee hard cash. So either you would not get your load back or you act against the EULA , either way a clear fail ) I'd guess it is a act against the EULA either way

CCP Mitnal C C P CCP	Posted - 2009.03.03 01:33:00 - [3] We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game. Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Email

Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2009.03.03 01:44:00 - [4] Originally by: CCP Mitnal We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game. Mitnal, I think that's fair enough, but there is a problem here. If the loan is created with the intention of defaulting, then you all of the sudden you have a way to exchange in-game ISK for a RL item. It wouldn't take long for people to offer RL cash as collateral (after all, you don't have to pay anything for shipping). So, let's get right to it; Person A asks for a loan. Person A sends RL collateral (in this case RL cash) to Person B (who holds it in escrow). Person C sends Person A the ISK desired for the loan. Person A defaults on the loan. Person B sends the RL cash collateral to Person C. Let's add one more thing into this scenario. Let's say that Person A and Person C knew all along that the loan would default. Now...is THIS against the EULA? Further, by introducing a third-party into the whole ISK for cash problem, have we found a loophole in the EULA? EBANK - Chairman of the Board \| www.eve-bank.net
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.03 01:47:00 - [5] Edited by: Ricdic on 03/03/2009 01:47:41 Pretty much what Mitnal has advised. I have given loans with out of game securities provided before but always ensure both parties understand it is entirely unsupported by CCP. Having said that, pretty much all loan mechanisms are unsupported by CCP anyway so it's a moot point. For example, someone wanting a 5b loan and sending me X amount of RL cash via paypal to secure the loan. Once loan is repaid the funds are returned. It's not selling ISK, simply securing ones investment. Others do this in the form of information, for example requiring ones RL address or in some cases actually signing and sending official documentation (Statutory Declaration and identification proof in the case of Australia) stating that you are liable for a specific amount of RL funds in the event of a default/scam.
destinationunreachable	Posted - 2009.03.03 01:53:00 - [6] So when I go and ask you for a loan, already in mind of not paying it back - isn't it a loophole in the EULA as Hexx has stated ? If I were a ISK trader I would claim officially to give out loans for cash security and be fully EULA compliant ...
Khrillian Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.03.03 02:02:00 - [7] Edited by: Khrillian on 03/03/2009 02:03:10 Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: CCP Mitnal We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game. Mitnal, I think that's fair enough, but there is a problem here. If the loan is created with the intention of defaulting, then you all of the sudden you have a way to exchange in-game ISK for a RL item. It wouldn't take long for people to offer RL cash as collateral (after all, you don't have to pay anything for shipping). So, let's get right to it; Person A asks for a loan. Person A sends RL collateral (in this case RL cash) to Person B (who holds it in escrow). Person C sends Person A the ISK desired for the loan. Person A defaults on the loan. Person B sends the RL cash collateral to Person C. Let's add one more thing into this scenario. Let's say that Person A and Person C knew all along that the loan would default. Now...is THIS against the EULA? Further, by introducing a third-party into the whole ISK for cash problem, have we found a loophole in the EULA? I believe there is a EULA loophole that is quite similar to this one. Of course it's largely academic, since CCP would probably ban you just on a whim...but: Player A rents a massive vent server to player B for 10bil. (EULA Legal, they allow sale of "EVE related" services for ISK) Player B re-rents the same server to player C for $100. (EULA Legal, both items are OOG) **Player C returns the vent server to player A for 10bil. (EULA Legal, same sale of "EVE related" services for ISK)
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.03.03 04:35:00 - [8] Originally by: Khrillian I believe there is a EULA loophole that is quite similar to this one. Of course it's largely academic, since CCP would probably ban you just on a whim...but: Player A rents a massive vent server to player B for 10bil. (EULA Legal, they allow sale of "EVE related" services for ISK) Player B re-rents the same server to player C for $100. (EULA Legal, both items are OOG) **Player C returns the vent server to player A for 10bil. (EULA Legal, same sale of "EVE related" services for ISK) You've just described how much of the exploited and RMT crap gets laundered through the game. Almost impossible to enforce and detect. Unless there actually is a job at CCP to which all they do all day every day is log forensics... I wouldn't even wish that on Taikun
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.03 06:01:00 - [9] Originally by: Ricdic For example, someone wanting a 5b loan and sending me X amount of RL cash via paypal to secure the loan. Once loan is repaid the funds are returned. It's not selling ISK, simply securing ones investment. You are right, it is not one sale of isk for cash. It is two sales. You sell him isk and he agrees to sell you isk back at the same rate of exchange. Calling it "loan" only tries to obfuscate the matter. Furthermore, I'm surprised I have to point something out to some of you but the EULA is not some hard coded document subject to fanciful interpretation to bypass. Dance with it if you dare but don't be surprised if you find yourself hammered. Breach activity is like computer viruses, the known list is not an exclusive list. You can be found to be in breach and no amount of facile quick talking is going to save you after the fact. PS: Perhaps not your wisest statement. I can only suspect that Ricdic, his accounts, and eBank might now be under sudden critical review for RMT-like activities. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.03 06:14:00 - [10] As if EBANK wasn't under scrutiny already. They can go crazy checking all my accounts Its all good

Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.03 06:39:00 - [11] Edited by: Ricdic on 03/03/2009 06:43:53 Hexxx and myself have come to an agreement whereby I will advise the public that EBANK haven't done any loans with out of game securities, those I advised of above were personal loans I made. It was a good deal, sorry guys Edit: Reading it back it looks forced, it's not. I made my first post specifying I (and not EBANK). I knew some of my biggest fans like Shar were sure to kick up a stink without reading properly and was hoping to enjoy a couple of days drama before telling people they are idiots and L2R. Anyway, Hexxx's acceptance of my out of game trade was far too good to give up so I decided to come clean early.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2009.03.03 08:15:00 - [12] Edited by: Hexxx on 03/03/2009 08:16:26 Originally by: Ricdic Edited by: Ricdic on 03/03/2009 06:43:53 Hexxx and myself have come to an agreement whereby I will advise the public that EBANK haven't done any loans with out of game securities, those I advised of above were personal loans I made. It was a good deal, sorry guys Edit: Reading it back it looks forced, it's not. I made my first post specifying I (and not EBANK). I knew some of my biggest fans like Shar were sure to kick up a stink without reading properly and was hoping to enjoy a couple of days drama before telling people they are idiots and L2R. Anyway, Hexxx's acceptance of my out of game trade was far too good to give up so I decided to come clean early. Per the terms of the agreement between Ricdic and I devised; I agreed to allow him to friend me on Facebook and accept his Mafia Wars invite and to send him an "Energy Pak" to refill his energy in the game in exchange for him "coming clean". Yes, I'm serious. Really. EBANK - Chairman of the Board \| www.eve-bank.net
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.03 19:17:00 - [13] In my role of elected official, I would quite appreciate if we had a frank discussion about this subject. I'm interested in getting a sense of what people think in order to bring it to the attention of CCP trough official CSM channels. I see this very discussion as a result of evolution which has happened inside EVE as a world. I think we can all agree that this is a very gray area. However if CCP tries to control it, we might see that evolution stops happening and innovation stops as well. We have to remember that EVE prides itself by having an advanced financial system. While I can identify several risks of this being a legal and eventually an widely accepted concept as we have seen with GTC trading. Do you guys think that it's something we should welcome? What do you guys think? I'm going to ask you to tell me your honest opinion and if you have any thing you want to say to CCP directly on this topic, I'm happy to bring that to them as well. Once we have a good basis for approaching CCP on this I'm going to bring it to the Assembly hall and subsequently to the attention of the CSM to raise it to CCP.
SencneS Amarr Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2009.03.03 19:37:00 - [14] I think the issue is pretty clear here. You're using real world items which has real world value to secure something in a virtual environment. If we assume for a second that this was allowed to happen, we'd see Titans being traded for a Video **** collection. Or Real money traded for ISK. While it does open up a very very large amount of posibilities, it starts to leave the players more vonderable to fraud.. Look at the evolutionary path for this for a minute. 1) CCP Allow this. 2) People not wanting to get busted for RMT trade real items for collateral or ISK. 2a) Some "shady" people start to use broken real items as collateral or ISK. 2b) Some "shady" people get real working items in real life and don't send any ISK, or give them a loan 3) People start to demand Money as collateral as the item has value, rather then taking the chance the requester is really just a "shady" person and send broken items. 4) People start to use trusted names like Chribba or EBANK, to hold the loan/isk and wait for confirmation of the items before the requester gets the ISK. That's pretty much the evolutionary path in a nutshell. There will be more steps in each major one but I just don't see it happening. It's a big can of worms for CCP even if they say "Sure do it at your own Risk" it's still leaves countless whines from the inept too challenged enough to recognize a scam before their very eyes. This forum is a testament to the fact these people exist. This forum is only a very small handful of the EVE's population which also is representative of the most intelligent of the same population. If people fall for scams in this forum imagine if the general population got involved. Amarr for Life
Business Ethics	Posted - 2009.03.03 19:39:00 - [15] As it's basically unenforceable, I don't see it being worth a lot of consideration on CCPs part. Imagine some guy rips you off the PS3 you lent him for 40 billion isk. Is CCP going to come to Massachusetts and testify in court regarding the virtual goods used to back the real ones? Of significantly greater interest to me here LaVista would be some kind of scheme for CCP to sell time codes directly to the players for ISK, which were sellable for cash via a CCP hosted system. Essentially CCP would be cutting the Shattered Crystals out of the GTC loop and passing the money directly along to the players. This might also act as a very real ISK sink. Not like I'm spending my billions on ships or anything like that. Of course, CCP may prefer to externalize all these factors rather than allowing the players to profit directly from in-game activities, but I think it's a concept worth exploring.
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.03 19:52:00 - [16] FWIW, metagaming is already a dark side to this game. Empowering more/other types of metagaming is simply not for me. Everything that I've accomplished I did it in game, not out of it. I think that keeping the boundaries stark and clear is best way to avoid confusion on these issues. Just because CCP can not police these activities is still no reason for them to say, "Sure, why not." I've said as much many times before, I'll say it again and again. It makes no matter to me who brings it up or who is lightly/heavily involved. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
SentryRaven KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.03 19:53:00 - [17] I do not like the idea of RL items being held as collateral for ingame trades. The scamming and/or RMT links are enough for me to say: NO. There is a reason why GTC and PLEX are two different things, one being scammable ingame and the other not. Let's leave it at that. -------- EBANK Forum Manager \| KIA Recruiting Director
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.03 19:53:00 - [18] Originally by: Business Ethics As it's basically unenforceable, I don't see it being worth a lot of consideration on CCPs part. Imagine some guy rips you off the PS3 you lent him for 40 billion isk. Is CCP going to come to Massachusetts and testify in court regarding the virtual goods used to back the real ones? Of significantly greater interest to me here LaVista would be some kind of scheme for CCP to sell time codes directly to the players for ISK, which were sellable for cash via a CCP hosted system. Essentially CCP would be cutting the Shattered Crystals out of the GTC loop and passing the money directly along to the players. This might also act as a very real ISK sink. Not like I'm spending my billions on ships or anything like that. Of course, CCP may prefer to externalize all these factors rather than allowing the players to profit directly from in-game activities, but I think it's a concept worth exploring. CCP offers PLEXes now. I think that's just fine, since we have the ingame market. Don't you think so?
Business Ethics	Posted - 2009.03.03 19:57:00 - [19] Originally by: LaVista Vista CCP offers PLEXes now. I think that's just fine, since we have the ingame market. Don't you think so? Well sure I think it's fine, excellent even! But what I described was a potential CCP-hosted mechanism for the players to convert spare ISK to real life cash money.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.03.03 20:37:00 - [20] Originally by: CCP Mitnal We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game. Mintal, mind poking someone in the citadel spires to come on down here and possibly straighten us all out since there is ab obvious loop hole here. I'm in agreement with Shar, its RMT by another name and I feel that sometimes even things like vent servers, and web hosting crosses a line at times since the service is never technically "In Game"

Stardust CEO Stardust Manufacturing	Posted - 2009.03.03 21:34:00 - [21] Say it with me... Are Emm Tee.
Athre Minmatar The Higher Standard	Posted - 2009.03.03 23:01:00 - [22] If someone needs isk that bad they should go buy their own GTC/PLEX and do things legally. Everything else should be avoided at all cost. Say No to RL loan securing.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2009.03.03 23:12:00 - [23] While the idea of RL collateral for in-game loans is intriguing, it's also very disturbing. I've gone so far as to post on the EBANK forums about it. But...since people like this sort of thing sometimes, let's give it a go... Hypothetical Person A loans, Person B ISK in exchange for cash collateral and a term of 3 months on the loan. Person B sends Person A collateral. Person A takes that collateral and buys an options spread (something to capitalize on RL market volatility, maybe a strangle, etc), gets a paper gain, liquidates position at a profit. Person A hands Person B his cash collateral back at the end of the loan. Person A keeps his RL trading profits. This is ALSO disturbing because...well...it's horrifically risky, but I'm just pointing out a hypothetical. EBANK - Chairman of the Board \| www.eve-bank.net
Chaos Dreams	Posted - 2009.03.04 00:01:00 - [24] I'm against this, every time CCP loosens their regulations it opens up a new avenue for the RMT people. Like, take PLEX's. I like PLEX's, I've been paying my subs by buying them with ISK. But, I've also started seeing spam in chat, and even received an evemail, offering PLEX for sale for RL money. Sometimes cheaper than an eve subscription would cost normally. Allowing ingame loans to incorporate real world items or cash will just give scammers and RMT people another way to operate. But things like that are probably never going to stop. At least not unless CCP just gives up and opens up an official in-game store like some of those Korean MMO's do. Allowing them to make loans and such with RL items and money is just making things easy on them, though.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.04 09:24:00 - [25] There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this?
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.04 09:30:00 - [26] Originally by: LaVista Vista There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this? There is far from consensus me thinks however if I had to pick where I stand: Not consensus on this topic but horror that we, the players, are even involved in this discussion. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2009.03.04 09:35:00 - [27] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: LaVista Vista There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this? There is far from consensus me thinks however if I had to pick where I stand: Not consensus on this topic but horror that we, the players, are even involved in this discussion. I agree with Shar, this shouldn't be allowed. It's too much of a slippery slope and that's before we even touch the whole ethical and moral problems with it. EBANK - Chairman of the Board \| www.eve-bank.net
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.04 09:39:00 - [28] Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: LaVista Vista There seems to be consensus that this should be entirely disallowed. Am I correct in saying this? There is far from consensus me thinks however if I had to pick where I stand: Not consensus on this topic but horror that we, the players, are even involved in this discussion. I agree with Shar, this shouldn't be allowed. It's too much of a slippery slope and that's before we even touch the whole ethical and moral problems with it. So I asked if there's consensus that we should tell CCP that they should disallow this thing. Shar then says that there's far from consensus(Which I can't tell if he's being funny or serious). And you then agree with him that it shouldn't be allowed? You guys are confusing me. Come on, I'm just a politician. Be easy on me .
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.04 10:06:00 - [29] Sorry mate. 1 - I doubt that we few who have posted here could be considered a consensus. 2 - This topic should not be up for player debate. The slipperiest slope in Eve is when, or if, EULA interpretations are up for player debate. Hope that clears things up. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
SentryRaven KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.04 10:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Shar Tegral Sorry mate. 1 - I doubt that we few who have posted here could be considered a consensus. 2 - This topic should not be up for player debate. The slipperiest slope in Eve is when, or if, EULA interpretations are up for player debate. Hope that clears things up. Welp, I'd look at this from this point of view: LVV is my voted CSM and thus, I believe I can bring issues to his attention where I would want to have CCP know what we think. LVV now grabbed the issue and wants more input from his voters and supporters, which primarily were MD participants. I do not wish to have a direct say in the decision CCP will take, but I want CCP to know that we do have an opinions on this and what it is, when they make their decision ultimately. I agree with Shar though, we cannot be called a consensus, unless you say: The consensus of those who posted and expressed their opinion on the topic. :D -------- EBANK Forum Manager \| KIA Recruiting Director

LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.04 10:34:00 - [31] Originally by: Shar Tegral 2 - This topic should not be up for player debate. The slipperiest slope in Eve is when, or if, EULA interpretations are up for player debate. It's the case atm that CCP doesn't care. However CCP will listen to us and quite possibly take a firm stance if we raise it as an issue, which it is.
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.04 11:08:00 - [32] Son of a *** - I had a post all written up, then I killed the tab it was in when someone walked into the room because I thought it was one of the tabs full of **ography and I didn't pay attention to the header. I'm going to go get a soda, then try and write something out again
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.04 11:18:00 - [33] Originally by: Joss Sparq Son of a *** - I had a post all written up, then I killed the tab it was in when someone walked into the room because I thought it was one of the tabs full of **ography and I didn't pay attention to the header. I'm going to go get a soda, then try and write something out again Quoting for lulz.
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.04 12:53:00 - [34] ... curses. Right, this is an interesting thread so I've given it another go - it might not be the work of eloquence (I'm an eloquent mother**er, no really) I carefully constructed earlier in the evening but I'm afraid it'll have to do. Working from top to bottom, Originally by:** Zachastoi Zagamnu Would you give or take a loan under these terms? I'm going to begin by saying that I would at least give it some consideration rather than dismiss the entire idea immediately - with a heavily emphasised caveat that the idea is to faciliate a temporary exchange of RL and in-game currencies with the expectation of a equivalent reversal of the exchange at a mutually agreed point in time. So in other words, not the retail purchase of in-game currency for real world currency. Because that is bad, right? Next, Originally by: CCP Mitnal We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game. I feel this statement is entirely appropriate as an answer to the question which was posed. If you operate outside the law here then you won't be protected by it if/when you get burned. At the same time, I think Hexxx poses a very interesting set of circumstances relating to the idea of RL collateral loans. Using his example I would contest it to be clear that persons A and C have engaged in RMT while using person B (the escrow agent) as - at best - an innocent mechanism of the illegal exchange, and at worst a "patsy". I would think this is obvious. I believe that it would be against the EULA on the basis that CCP do not condone RMT and the EULA means whatever CCP wants it to mean - by which I mean they can change it any time to reflect whatever they wish. Today, rules and regulations pertaining to how we the customers interact with EVE Online. Tomorrow, the collected works of Jade Constantine. Actually proving (or even identifying) the RMT occured, however? As Kazzac Elentria says, almost impossible to enforce and detect. Now for something which may be a little more "hot button issue" to some, Originally by: Ricdic Pretty much what Mitnal has advised. I have given loans with out of game securities provided before but always ensure both parties understand it is entirely unsupported by CCP. Having said that, pretty much all loan mechanisms are unsupported by CCP anyway so it's a moot point. For example, someone wanting a 5b loan and sending me X amount of RL cash via paypal to secure the loan. Once loan is repaid the funds are returned. It's not selling ISK, simply securing ones investment. I'm actually impressed by this, Ricdic. I'm no financial wunderkind but I appreciate what I see as an evolution of commerce in EVE, even if that means taking part of it "outside" EVE Online to let it work. Again, provided the loan isn't issued with the understanding of both the parties that it will default then I'm not inclined to become too distressed because this entire concept rests very heavily on the intentions of those who are involved. If we believe what we hear, the road to hell is paved with good intentions - I wouldn't know as I've never been, take that as you will. Before everyone automatically equates the concept of RL currency securities on in-game ISK loans to RMT however, I want to better distinguish what RMT actually is to me.
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.04 12:54:00 - [35] To me, RMT isn't just the exchange of in-game ISK for RL money. RMT is much more - even much worse - than that. RMT is the biggest source of spam in EVE Online, which by definition here is an unsolicited annoyance related to visiting an RMT website for the "latest" and "best" deal on something you should already know you shouldn't even be considering because it is against the rules - the fact they usually suggest it isn't against the rules should give it away to most readers immediately. Sadly, spam is more dangerous than most credit it to be and it continues to be a problem everywhere until something drastic is done. RMT is probably the biggest source of reports of account hacking/theft in EVE Online and consequently the reason why victims when approaching others on the forums to announce their distress and warn others about their now uncontrolled characters are hastily scorned for being in-game ISK buyers who deserve what they got, regardless of their actual circumstances and how they reached them - mere mention of it brings out the worst in people. RMT is those ships you see in the same place, doing the same thing, every day - infuriating many of you when you're certain you know what they're up to, even though it always seems like nothing is ever done about them. RMT is as insidious, unrelenting and unethical as the hard drugs trade - it should be, considering it is operated by organisations which have as much disregard for the ultimate fate of their clientele as any honcho of a drug cartel exercises. Oh, and - RMT is essentially the preserve of evil **s who know what they're doing is wrong but don't care as long as they continue to be paid for it, no matter the damage it causes. Personally, I think CCP should start diverting some of our subscription fees into a covert operation to engage in the targetted assassination of RMT business operators abroad. That'd give the greedy little *ers something bigger than a ban stick to worry about. Now with the above in mind, I don't think the loaning of ISK with RL currency as security is anywhere near as nefarious. It would be the abuse* of such a system which raises my only concern. I'm aware the possibility of abuse exists. I'm aware it is highly likely it will be abused. At the same time, I don't want to see an evolutionary branch snapped off the tree because we're afraid of the thorns it may develop. Originally by: SencneS While it does open up a very, very large amount of possibilities, it starts to leave the players more vulnerable to fraud. Exactly right, which I think is a good thing! Currently, there is no risk to buying in-game ISK a la RMT outside of the reversal if you're discovered or having your account hacked - both should in theory be avoidable if the due caution is applied. But when you offer up a billion ISK for a loan and demand 50 USD collateral if things go wrong, does it really matter whether you hope this'll only end up helping you to pay your tuition fees this month or that someone, somewhere like you just got the fiscal power they needed in EVE to realise their own internet spaceship dream. I don't know. What I do know is that I am against is being "disallowed" - I think attempting to enforce such a ruling would be a waste of time, resources and effort unless of course CCP has tools way beyond my puny imaginings. I think the fact the slope is slippery only serves to make it more exciting to be on, together. I find myself in agreement with Shar: This topic shouldn't be up for player debate. The slipperiest slope in EVE is when EULA interpretations are up for players to decide upon. Let what Mitnal posted, stand. Let this concept remain outside the system, unregulated and open for exploration by those who'll pioneer in the dark. If we're lucky, then maybe we'll one day observe something looming out of the shadows that isn't as scary as we first thought. Also, I don't remember when I started drinking this evening ...
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.04 18:40:00 - [36] Originally by: Joss Sparq Let what Mitnal posted, stand. Let this concept remain outside the system, unregulated and open for exploration by those who'll pioneer in the dark. If we're lucky, then maybe we'll one day observe something looming out of the shadows that isn't as scary as we first thought. Very excellent post, or reposting , but I disagree with your concluding suggestion. Have you not witness this community in action? Any time you let someone go exploring in the dark the one thing you can count on is that they come back covered in ****. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
Business Ethics	Posted - 2009.03.04 19:06:00 - [37] Do you guys think a system like I described in post #15, whereby CCP embraced a limited and tightly controlled form of cash-for-isk, might serve to...interfere with the external RMT market? If the exchange rate was pegged somehow to the cost of PLEX/GTC...I dunno it's all very fascinating to think about. After all, that's what it's all about for the ISK spammers, getting some cash for the stuff they farm in game. Perhaps this is going too far off topic and maybe this is a paradigm that CCP is just unwilling to consider for their game design. Basically if they set it up so it was no money out of their pocket and the process literally sucked some isk out of the game with each transaction...
The ChurchWarden	Posted - 2009.03.05 04:39:00 - [38] Edited by: The ChurchWarden on 05/03/2009 04:40:32 Well having played games completely based on RMT. I'd like to point out there are legal concerns to it. Consider Entropia. Many respectable banks consider it to be gambling and infact I believe Bank of America disallows the transfer of funds to that company on those grounds. If CCP in anyway made it an official policy to have RMT. Their Eula would need to be modified, their legal team would need to study, comprehend, and makes the needed changes to the company to protect it from any negative backlashes. An the community leads would of course have to hold back the tide of players screaming for blood for essentially allowing someone to buy power. That being said Entropia is a true evolution of virtual assests. As some of you may know there is a club owner on Entropia who literally turns a 5 figure profitable income yearly from the game. On top of his day job. Can you imagine if EvE players could do the same? I think EvE would have to completely redesign their economy however if they pursued this course. I also think that it is outside the spirit of what eve is. There are no easy paths. There are paths with dark scary trees, and paths with pretty flowers that unbeknowst to you spit venemous acids at your privates then devour you skin first.
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.05 05:45:00 - [39] Originally by: Shar Tegral Have you not witnessed this community in action? Any time you let someone go exploring in the dark the one thing you can count on is that they come back covered in **. Which is why I deliberately let them go and get covered in ** - so I don't have to do it myself
Martosh Toma Gallente Fraction Investment	Posted - 2009.03.05 09:27:00 - [40] This way of securing a loan leaves an huge RTM loophole in my opinion. And to me RTM is part of the sliding slope where a virtual economy becomes a real vitualized economy with eventually real income tax. Maybe I am seeing ghost but basiaclly if you think you can make money out of it, then so will the government, it is only a question of effectiveness and efficienty (and of course liabilities) before they respond. That said the problem proposed here point to something else. If we feel we have to resort to out of game resources to ensure in game trust then something is lacking in the game. New people have no colateral, they have no assets and no reputation. but it is them that have the biggest need for genuine (small) loans. While this way of providing an out of game asset as collateral is a way to get around it I do not think it is the right way. It limits this form of improved growth to those that have not 1 but 2 real life advantages. they have money to spare and more importandly already are in contact with people that have a superior understanding of the game (at least in how to get and retain isk). I would prefer to see some way providing more (not total) security on small business loan in game. perhaps tying it to the account (none trial) rather than to an individual character, but limited to a maximum amount (say 1B) per character making it of limited intrest to scammers to whom a maximum yield of 3B isk may not be worth the effort of creating 3 genuine appearing budding traders or producers (those that do not do any research into the people they deal with deserve what they get).

Phoenix Pryde Caldari 3-I Area 42	Posted - 2009.03.05 09:57:00 - [41] Uuumm, actually i d think CCP's EULA covers that perfectly, no? It states that everything within Eve are virtual goods in the property of CCP. I somehow doubt a court would enforce a contract where one party tries to keep a RL collateral for something which never actually belonged to said party in the first place (as all ISK are virtual goods and therefore are CCPs property) .... no ? So, yeah ... give me a loan for a RL collateral ... i ll let it default and then sue you in RL for my money (or whatever the RL collateral was) back for i never got anything real from you :P So the real question isnt what CCP says, but what would a court say :P
Mr Horizontal Gallente KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.05 10:09:00 - [42] /me looks down the road and just sees the day someone decides to sue RL based on the fact that a deal involving RL collateral wasn't honoured, and then requiring players and CCP to testify with evidence based on a virtual world in court. Good luck finding anyone willing to testify... Welcome to the world's most ridiculous potential court case. It will happen, and I'm already /facepalm. But by then I'll be lmao. Director \| www.eve-bank.net
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.05 10:12:00 - [43] Originally by: Mr Horizontal /me looks down the road and just sees the day someone decides to sue RL based on the fact that a deal involving RL collateral wasn't honoured, and then requiring players and CCP to testify with evidence based on a virtual world in court. Good luck finding anyone willing to testify... Welcome to the world's most ridiculous potential court case. It will happen, and I'm already /facepalm. But by then I'll be lmao. I covered the most obvious impact that now disallowing it might have right here. Please go and support the thread.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.05 10:13:00 - [44] Originally by: Phoenix Pryde Uuumm, actually i d think CCP's EULA covers that perfectly, no? The CCP EULA doesn't. The first dev in here suggested so and I checked with CCP.
Phoenix Pryde Caldari 3-I Area 42	Posted - 2009.03.05 10:46:00 - [45] No, it doesnt explicitly mention this scenario. Because it does not need to. The EULA does cover all thats relevant for CCP. It doesnt covers people being stupid enough doing RL business with virtual money (which is in CCPs property) and risking irl legal cases. Can CCP ban involved parties? Of course. They infringed on CCPs property rights by making a contract about something belonging to CCP (the ISK) and broke the EULA with that. I really dont see a problem here. P.S: Mitnal only said that they could not give any assistance, he did not comment on whether it breaches the EULA or is covered by it.
Chaos Dreams	Posted - 2009.03.05 10:58:00 - [46] Also keep in mind that whatever's in the EULA doesn't necessarily mean anything, as far as actual laws/courts are concerned. When EULA's have been brought under legal scrutiny it's been pretty hit and miss whether or not they've been upheld. Sometimes they aren't, sometimes they are. So if some kind of RMT, or ISK loan secured by RL items/money, or whatever ended up in front of a judge the specifics of the EULA may not matter.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2009.03.05 11:55:00 - [47] My long winded opinion cut short? Trading RL money for an in-game advantage, whether it's for that games currency or something else, just plain sucks. It's unfortunate CCP has to make a system such as GTC for ISK sales, but I suppose they do it to make more money, give fools who'd go to websites to buy the stuff some manner of protection, and cater to the crowd who "just want a little bit more for their money". I had an argument with a friend who supported RL currency to in-game advantage exchanges, but I think I wholeheartedly proved my point while playing a game which supported this sort of mechanic in 30-day "tournaments" by making him lose $50 through some (legitimate) tactics while spending only $10 of my own to enable this. It hurt our friendship for a while.
cpt Mark	Posted - 2009.03.06 00:11:00 - [48] I do believe there was a case on this recently in America, where it was being considered if in-game assests paid for/ had real life assets backing them up, whether these assets were recoverable or not. I believe the game in-question was real life or something? ANyway, I think* not sure, since i can't find the case, that the judge held it could be... but I don't see how such a contract would be enforceable, and whether any consideration has taken place, so you could decide not to continue with the contract, or sue the ISk lender for your money back. ........ *not sure... someone had better find that case
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.06 01:17:00 - [49] Edited by: Joss Sparq on 06/03/2009 01:22:18 Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Trading RL money for an in-game advantage, whether it's for that games currency or something else, just plain sucks. I tend to agree with you, but I don't think that what has been raised here is the same thing as that. RMT in EVE Online (to me) is when an individual visits an RMT website and pays for ISK to be sent to them in-game. There is no intent to reverse the transactions between parties at any time - all sales are final. Furthermore, the organisations which provide these RMT services are essentially operating as parasites on EVE Online who often engage in at best unethical and at worst illegal activites in the course of their business practices. The great majority of people appear to be opposed to RMT because of this. Fair enough, I know I am. My concern is that people are becoming too easily blinkered - the moment people read about the involvement of RL currency being used as security in an in-game loan they think RMT and proceed to shout down the concept without giving it any genuine consideration first. It almost borders on hysteria. Everyone should take a moment to reflect on the fact that EVE Online players already exchange ISK in-game in return for services originating and provided in RL, services such as access to Ventrilo and the creation of forum signatures. Previously, individuals and organisations existing within EVE have exchanged ISK in-game for advertising in EON Magazine, an RL publication affiliated with EVE Online. Lastly, it is common knowledge that GTCs can be exchanged for in-game ISK and more recently this has been tied more closely to in-game transactions with the furnishing of the Market with the PLEX item. So there is already a basis for exchanging in-game ISK for services outside of EVE, most interestingly services which originate outside of the control of CCP itself. It isn't anything new. It is, however, evolutionary. Now think about the large volumes of ISK sitting in wallets, like so much stagnant water in a big pond. There are many, many players in this game who generate substantial amounts of ISK. They end up with a "dragon's hoard" but they don't want to do much of anything with it because they don't want to risk losing it without recompense after they played so hard to accrue it. Imagine the benefit to the game economy if these massive amounts of ISK could be freed from wallets. To achieve that, there needs to be some incentive to counter the risks. To me, the idea of players offering in-game ISK loans based on RL securities (involving, yes, even RL currency) to other players seems like an interesting way to liberate that ISK and return it to the Market at large. Originally by: Kylar Renpurs It's unfortunate CCP has to make a system such as GTC for ISK sales, but I suppose they do it to make more money, give fools who'd go to websites to buy the stuff some manner of protection, and cater to the crowd who "just want a little bit more for their money". I think the important thing to remember is that GTC for in-game ISK does benefit the game and the player. When a GTC is purchased from an authorised distributor, it is that seller and CCP who benefit from it - not one of the groups which I called parasites. That competiton to RMT hurts the parasites and puts more money in the CCP account - which ultimately benefits us, believe it or not! If anything does come of this discussion, then I hope it is the propulsion of further evolution of the economy of EVE Online. This discussion even got me thinking about the future of this evolution and the potential in merging the API key data, database and browser technology and Paypal for the construction of a new kind of financial Exchange for EVE, where in-game ISK loans could be applied for by groups or individuals and backed up by RL currency to secure investors. While I may not intend to pursue it further myself, the idea is out there. "We have the technology!" Will adjusting the EULA stop us applying it?
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.06 03:06:00 - [50] It's all trivial. I have done it before with other players and I will do it again if it's found to be mutually beneficial. I have had about 8 different loan related agreements with others where RL assets or RL information/agreements were made to cover ingame debt/trust issues. In all cases the loanee has not defaulted or scammed. In all of those cases I would have otherwise not provided them the loan had it not had an extra level of security in play. It's impossible for CCP to monitor or track. These are agreements being made between two parties in private. I haven't spammed availability of loans, and the recipient of loan hasnt spammed Jita local offering "Will pay RL money for ISK". Most of the people in this thread have automatically assumed the worst case scenarios and ignored how beneficial these agreements can be. Now, the agreements scan well beyond monetary exchange. Many Alliance forums require ones personal RL information including email address and full name in order to allow these people to register. Could this RL information not also be used in ways unintended by CCP? We here at MD occasionally see people offering their RL addresses, full names and employment positions as securities for bonds/ipo's. Should these people also be banned for attempting to trade RL information for ingame monetary gain (or a loan basically). CCP aren't interested in micro-managing these thngs hence they offer no support for it. Use at your own risk. Makes sense to me. As to RMT well it's not related. Currently a few people do this RL assets backing up ingame loans and they only do it with trustworthy people. Is Chribba not using his RL assets to secure loans? He hosts and provides the eve-search and eve-files websites and in return he was able to have a bond filled without question. Surely one could possibly say that if Chribba had never provided those sites he may not have been as well known and therefore would not have recieved funding. Now people can say whatever they want. I am not here to suck up anyones arse or try to make myself look like gods greatest gift. I'm just doing what I can within the confines of Eve to enrich my own and others play styles at minimum risk. Sue me

Zhilia Mann	Posted - 2009.03.06 06:52:00 - [51] Originally by: cpt Mark I do believe there was a case on this recently in America, where it was being considered if in-game assests paid for/ had real life assets backing them up, whether these assets were recoverable or not. http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2007-02-27/millstone-videogamelaw Case isn't perfect here since it's apparently based on a DMCA violation and Linden Labs settled out of court: http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/10/04/bragg-linden-lab-settlement/ But it does make the whole conversation a bit more relevant, doesn't it?
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.06 09:30:00 - [52] Originally by: Ricdic Now people can say whatever they want. I am not here to suck up anyones arse or try to make myself look like gods greatest gift. I'm just doing what I can within the confines of Eve to enrich my own and others play styles at minimum risk. Sue me No one is accusing you of either (Though you seem to suddenly like making this accusation lately - if you got something to say, man up & say it. Don't be a douche.) in this thread. The only thing being said is that it looks like Real Money Trading, sounds like Real Money Trading, and is Real Money Trading. Now, is CCP able to enforce it - probably not. Doesn't exclude it from being a bit on the dodgy side of things now does it? That's the simple point. It's a little dodgy and for some of us that's an issue. PS: Yes, I know. You accuse me of thinking I'm god's greatest gift. Using the eve forums to continue this bicker is pathetic even for you. So what if I blocked you in Eve and MSN. Get over it, I have. Stalk someone else would you or I might just sue you. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.06 09:43:00 - [53] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Ricdic Now people can say whatever they want. I am not here to suck up anyones arse or try to make myself look like gods greatest gift. I'm just doing what I can within the confines of Eve to enrich my own and others play styles at minimum risk. Sue me No one is accusing you of either (Though you seem to suddenly like making this accusation lately - if you got something to say, man up & say it. Don't be a douche.) in this thread. The only thing being said is that it looks like Real Money Trading, sounds like Real Money Trading, and is Real Money Trading. Now, is CCP able to enforce it - probably not. Doesn't exclude it from being a bit on the dodgy side of things now does it? That's the simple point. It's a little dodgy and for some of us that's an issue. This...
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.06 11:30:00 - [54] Originally by: Shar Tegral The only thing being said is that it looks like Real Money Trading, sounds like Real Money Trading, and is Real Money Trading. Now, is CCP able to enforce it - probably not. Doesn't exclude it from being a bit on the dodgy side of things now does it? That's the simple point. It's a little dodgy and for some of us that's an issue. Yes, it could be a little dodgy in certain circumstances. Except it isn't RMT, not really. The concept which the OP raised was a loan of in-game ISK with RL securities - which could include RL currency due to the relative ease of use it has v.s. corporeal goods. If you define RMT as the purchase of in-game ISK with RL currency performed as a final sale between two parties, then in my opinion this isn't it. This is where two parties privately exchange in-game ISK from the first party to the second once the second party to the exchange has provided the first with an RL asset or assets to be held as security on the loan - possibly those assets could be cash and possibly even with a third party acting the role of an escrow agent/broker/buffer between the two. If the first and second party are intending for the second party to default on the loan then yes there are clear implications that it was always intended to be a case of RMT, whether any third party acting as escrow agent knew or not. But if it was intended to result in what was essentially RMT between the two then I would suggest the chance is good that they would instead simply carry out the trade between themselves without the pretense of a loan and that probably is what happens right now with RMT anyway, so ... bringing me (at last) to my point. Why bother making a more direct pronouncement against RL securities for in-game ISK loans (as some are asking for) when it is essentially a pointless provision? If people want to RMT, they'll find a way around whatever CCP does or says. Sure they might get caught and suffer the consequences, but they'll still do it if they think they can get away with it. People who RMT don't seem to have a great deal of regard for the precious EULA anyway. If it remains entirely unsupported - as the only official response garnered so far states - then it remains as an alternative for those lacking certain resources or qualities that would otherwise draw investment money to them but at the same time it doesn't threaten the developing frameworks currently growing and being discussed in the MD community by introducing some dangerous new standard into the public mind. Oh, and I figure you know all this Shar - I'm just being really anal retentive about it for anyone else who might still be reading, that and I'm still trying to refine my arguments a little. For any of the TL;DR crowd reading: I respectfully disagree with Shar Tegral and consequently LaVista Vista on this subject and prefer to maintain the status quo as illustrated by the official response in the thread. Also at about the middle point of writing this, my netbook powered off because while I had plugged the adapter in, I didn't switch on the wall socket and so I ran down my battery without noticing. I pretty much swore vibrantly due to the effective repeat of my actions last night until I got the wall socket on and found the machine saved my work ...
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.06 12:49:00 - [55] Originally by: Shar Tegral The only thing being said is that it looks like Real Money Trading, sounds like Real Money Trading, and is Real Money Trading. Now, is CCP able to enforce it - probably not. Doesn't exclude it from being a bit on the dodgy side of things now does it? If it's used for RMT yes. But if it's used with the correct intentions in mind (as per the OP and all of my deals with others in the past) then it's not RMT. Its only RMT when its used by both parties with the express desire to convert their funds from one medium to another. Quote: PS: Yes, I know. You accuse me of thinking I'm god's greatest gift. Using the eve forums to continue this bicker is pathetic even for you. I don't actually remember saying your name when I wrote that post. It was actually more directed at LV who tends to let his CSM status make him feel empowered . Don't flatter yourself.
eVaLF Delivery Luck	Posted - 2009.03.06 13:33:00 - [56] Answer to original question is Yes. Send me all your Bank Account Information. Date of Birth. SSN Full Name Mothers Full Maiden Name. This will do for now thanks. ----- POS FUEL DELIVERY & HIGH & LOW SEC FREIGHTER SERVICES
Aricaan Gallente Playboy Enterprises Dark Taboo	Posted - 2009.03.06 17:19:00 - [57] Here comes that video game tax. ISK rules everything around me.
Liisa	Posted - 2009.03.06 17:49:00 - [58] Originally by: Ricdic Originally by: Shar Tegral The only thing being said is that it looks like Real Money Trading, sounds like Real Money Trading, and is Real Money Trading. Now, is CCP able to enforce it - probably not. Doesn't exclude it from being a bit on the dodgy side of things now does it? If it's used for RMT yes. But if it's used with the correct intentions in mind (as per the OP and all of my deals with others in the past) then it's not RMT. Its only RMT when its used by both parties with the express desire to convert their funds from one medium to another. Quote: PS: Yes, I know. You accuse me of thinking I'm god's greatest gift. Using the eve forums to continue this bicker is pathetic even for you. I don't actually remember saying your name when I wrote that post. It was actually more directed at LV who tends to let his CSM status make him feel empowered . Don't flatter yourself. The problem I see is the following: What happens when somebody defaults on a loan? This would turn a loan into a sale of isk for an RL item of value, be it an object or actual money. At what point would a default become RMT or not? If never then all somebody who wants to become an Isk seller has to do is open a bank and give out many loans "secured" by some nice RL currency. A few months later those loans have all defaulted, much to the anger of said Isk sell... I mean ingame banker. I am sure that you will argue "intent" is important, however intent does not enter here. If I take a loan from you and secure it with cash and then default, do you keep the money? If you do then you have just taken part in RMT. What matters is that Isk changes hands for something that has value outside of the game, be it currency or otherwise. That is RMT. End of story. The fact that you continue to argue this makes me wonder if you are just trolling.
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.06 18:46:00 - [59] Originally by: Liisa I am sure that you will argue "intent" is important, however intent does not enter here. If I take a loan from you and secure it with cash and then default, do you keep the money? If you do then you have just taken part in RMT. My plan if anyone defaulted with me was to simply reinject the cash back into Eve via GTC. That's why the costs were generally comparable. As far as I am concerned my main requirement is to do everything within my power and the rules of the game to secure my investment and minimise risk. Some people may feel it's wrong as it can be abused but that's not my concern. It wasn't abused, and it wouldn't have been abused, and I know that my ISK was safe as a result of the security measures adopted. Same can be said for Eve accounts. Someone wants a loan using their second account as security. I never actually log into the account therefore it's within the terms of the EULA. All I do is accept the loan, change the password, and then change it back whenever the persons loan is repaid. It all comes down to the same point. This isn't me trolling, it's me showing that just because a method can be abused doesn't mean it will be. People advising that this is RMT should also agree that we need to remove mining from the game as its being used by macro miners for RMT. All I ever care about is securing my investments to the best of my abilities.
Liisa	Posted - 2009.03.06 20:25:00 - [60] Edited by: Liisa on 06/03/2009 20:28:06 Originally by: Ricdic My plan if anyone defaulted with me was to simply reinject the cash back into Eve via GTC. So if somebody defaulted you would have given isk, gotten cash and it is okay because you would have used the cash to buy GTCs? Because this is what it boils down to Ricdic. I also cannot remember what exactly the ruling is on account sharing, never mind ceding control completely.

Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.07 04:19:00 - [61] Originally by: Liisa So if somebody defaulted you would have given isk, gotten cash and it is okay because you would have used the cash to buy GTCs? Exactly, in turn those GTC's would be converted back to ISK and everyone is happy. I get my ISK investment back (in the form of ISK), and there has been no RMT trade. In the event the person doesn't default they simply get their cash back upon loan completion.
The ChurchWarden	Posted - 2009.03.07 04:40:00 - [62] I am curious exactly what is being debated in this thread particularly. Is it the community stance on such things or CCPs stance. If it's CCP stance then wouldn't the thread that appeared in assembly hall be more appropriate. If it's the communities stance I would suppose like most things that involve change and more people thinking of the abuse of a change rather then the benefit, it will be widely frowned upon.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.03.07 04:42:00 - [63] Ric, I love you man. But I think you're skirting a fine line (in the personal sense) with doing what you described. I don't agree with it ethically, but I won't rail on you since technically its within guidelines.
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.07 05:14:00 - [64] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Ric, I love you man. But I think you're skirting a fine line (in the personal sense) with doing what you described. I don't agree with it ethically, but I won't rail on you since technically its within guidelines. Senator: Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Oh, my God! I don't know what happened! Peter: Whoa, it's okay, it's okay, Senator. This girl didn't have a family. It'll be like she never existed. Now grab a hold of yourself. All right. Now, listen. You may have killed her when you shoved those dollar bills down her throat. You may have killed her when you hit her with the stool. I don't know. I'm not a doctor. But I'll tell you what didn't kill her. Smoking! I guess this method of debate does actually work. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.03.07 05:18:00 - [65] You're not allowed to do that when I've been drinking
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.07 05:21:00 - [66] Like I said though, I will do anything within the guidelines of the EULA to protect my investments. Some may not approve but it has thus far achieved a 100% success rate.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.03.07 05:26:00 - [67] Originally by: Ricdic Like I said though, I will do anything within the guidelines of the EULA to protect my investments. Some may not approve but it has thus far achieved a 100% success rate. Fair enough, more or less just intellectual differences that really aren't worth going to blows over teh intertubes. It just fears me that there may be Pablo Escobars of the EVE world out there taking advantage of such mechanics.
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.07 10:27:00 - [68] Originally by: Ricdic Like I said though, I will do anything within the guidelines of the EULA to protect my investments. Some may not approve but it has thus far achieved a 100% success rate. PS: Sorry Ric, this was pure humor. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.07 10:55:00 - [69] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Ricdic Like I said though, I will do anything within the guidelines of the EULA to protect my investments. Some may not approve but it has thus far achieved a 100% success rate. PS: Sorry Ric, this was pure humor. I laughed
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.07 13:14:00 - [70] I don't know if LaVista Vista or anyone else has mentioned or linked this yet, but LVV has raised this elsewhere for those who are interested or who haven't seen it yet.

Liisa	Posted - 2009.03.07 13:21:00 - [71] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria It just fears me that there may be Pablo Escobars of the EVE world out there taking advantage of such mechanics. This is what worries me more that Ricdic securing a few loans. Oh course I wonder why he needs to secure isk loans with anything but ingame assets, but then he is probably one of those "srs busnis" people. However the problem is that the same argumentation can be used to cover RMT trading. I wonder if CCP will accept "he defaulted on a loan, honest" as an excuse when they go to ban somebody for RMT.
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.07 15:24:00 - [72] Originally by: Liisa However the problem is that the same argumentation can be used to cover RMT trading. Except that RMT is going to happen with or without an amendment to the EULA about this - if anything, such a prohibition could potentially drive more players to RMT vendors. Proscribing against this is only going to hurt legitimate game players who are otherwise only attempting to acquire a loan under a different set of circumstances compared to most other players. Originally by: Liisa I wonder if CCP will accept "he defaulted on a loan, honest" as an excuse when they go to ban somebody for RMT. If someone uses "he defaulted on a loan, honest" as an excuse when CCP has banned them - well, presumably CCP have much more refined criteria to identify ISK sellers than just their making a single transfer of ISK to somebody else in-game. Otherwise we're all royally screwed
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.07 15:31:00 - [73] Quote: It is better to ask forgiveness than permission. I don't know who said that but I think this applies to this whole situation. It is one thing to say that it is unenforceable. Even unknowable. All true and valid. It is another to come here and openly admit to it. To say, "Because you can't stop us, don't bother telling us no." Have you ever tried something like that with your parents? How do you think "authority" is going to view the matter? Not spitefully, thought it is not beyond possibility, but without a doubt challenging authority where on its doorstep is much like bearding a lion. Positive resolution is not likely. Thus I can't fathom why people are so flagrant with something that actually may be actionable. I mean, seriously, just because they can't prove is no reason to go about admitting to it either. I'm bold but I draw the line at stupid. I'm just surprised so many people don't. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.07 15:59:00 - [74] So you are saying you actively break the EULA but think it's ok because CCP doesn't know about it. Good to know Shar. What I have done is not breaking the EULA, it's protecting my own investment. I do the same with DBANK, in case you didn't notice I have been invested there for about 6 months now.
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.07 16:03:00 - [75] Edited by: Joss Sparq on 07/03/2009 16:04:14 Originally by: Shar Tegral Quote: It is better to ask forgiveness than permission. I don't know who said that but I think this applies to this whole situation. I don't have absolute surety of this but a quick Google search took me to a page which in turn indicated Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper as a possible candidate. EDIT: Your >justify< tags drive me insane sometimes
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.07 16:09:00 - [76] Anyway my opinion has been said on the matter. I have my methods, you guys have yours. My methods are proven and have saved a considerable potential loss. If the EULA changes as a result so too will my methods. If you guys check the assembly hall thread Shar has tried to tell people that I run EBANK this way. I have stated here repeatedly that this has absolutely nothing to do with EBANK, it's just Shar lying to suit his cause. Anyway you guys talk amongst yourselves.
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.07 16:22:00 - [77] Originally by: Ricdic stuff You are clever enough to start trouble but to dumb to realize how transparent you are. First, there is nothing you can say that will diminish or destroy my reputation. There is no amount of poking and prodding that will get me to sell my integrity for so small a sum as someone as puny as you are. Can't say the same for you as we've all seen you lie or betray confidences time and time again. Secondly, you can say over and over again that you have not violated the EULA. However until CCP say this you are just guessing and playing with fire. It doesn't make a difference how much you are protecting your investment, any loan shark can be expected to do the same. However when you say that no cash actually leaves the system you are missing one key ingredient: the transit method. If someone sends you collateral cash via paypal, paypal charges for the transaction. When you return the cash via paypal, paypal charges for the transaction. So, like any smart business person, you raise your rates to include any processing fees by third parties. Thus, someone has gotten paid for the activity of exchanging virtualized Eve items and real life currency. By the way, what cash denomination do you require? What is your rate of exchange? How many such loans have you done? How do you trade the isk? Do you hold the isk in an interest bearing bank account while you have it? Do you pass that interest on to the borrower? If you keep the interest, do you report this income? If you did, how would you do so? As a business? Or capital investment? These are just many legitimate but complicating questions. And it is most definitely not about you Ric. You just decided to jump front and center and dominate the limelight. Not my choice, yours. My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.07 16:25:00 - [78] honestly Shar, you just aren't worth my time.
Joss Sparq Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.07 16:26:00 - [79] Originally by: Shar Tegral It doesn't make a difference how much you are protecting your investment, any loan shark can be expected to do the same. You missed a golden opportunity to link those Stewie Griffin YouTube videos again, Shar ... okay, now I'm going to bed.
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2009.03.07 16:27:00 - [80] Originally by: Ricdic honestly Shar, you just aren't worth my time. Thank you. Shall I take this as a cease fire agreement? My old mercenary(PVP) corp is recruiting again. Would you believe I'm giving them my signature block for free?

Xeoniya	Posted - 2009.03.23 23:32:00 - [81] Edited by: Xeoniya on 23/03/2009 23:32:58 There is an easy way around it, the borrow buys enough plexs to cover the loan and uses them as collateral, if they repay the loan then they can use the plex for their account or sell it, if they don't the lender uses or trades them. Or, just sell the plexes in the first place, but from a high road game purity stand point I would say buy the plexes, use them for collateral and then use them for someone's subscription.
Business Ethics	Posted - 2009.03.24 01:25:00 - [82] Ok so how meta can this get before CCP flips out and bans everyone involved? Could someone start a website designed to facilitate real $ "loans" between the guys with the isk and the guy with the $20? You'd have someone with 20 billion on the block "I will loan you this 20 billion for $500 and if you don't pay the isk back in 30 days I'll be forced to default you " and what could CCP ever really do here? I'm afraid to even speculate how big a mess this could make.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.03.24 06:55:00 - [83] Originally by: Business Ethics Ok so how meta can this get before CCP flips out and bans everyone involved? Could someone start a website designed to facilitate real $ "loans" between the guys with the isk and the guy with the $20? You'd have someone with 20 billion on the block "I will loan you this 20 billion for $500 and if you don't pay the isk back in 30 days I'll be forced to default you " and what could CCP ever really do here? I'm afraid to even speculate how big a mess this could make. Due all respect, while you make a good point, you are asking the wrong question: How meta can this get before governments flips out and tries to regulate virtual worlds like EVE?
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2009.03.24 13:40:00 - [84] Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 24/03/2009 13:42:09 Originally by: LaVista Vista Due all respect, while you make a good point, you are asking the wrong question: How meta can this get before governments flips out and tries to regulate virtual worlds like EVE? Already tried. Old article I know, but yet another reason why I pretty much despise any conversion system for RL dollars to ingame items/currency. On a complete aside, I wonder what would happen if one of the great unwashed so to speak noticed this thread and posted in GD "EBank Runner deals in RMT". Enough of a ****-storm started when an Ebank ad was on the login screen.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.03.24 14:06:00 - [85] Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 24/03/2009 13:42:09 Originally by: LaVista Vista Due all respect, while you make a good point, you are asking the wrong question: How meta can this get before governments flips out and tries to regulate virtual worlds like EVE? Already tried. Old article I know, but yet another reason why I pretty much despise any conversion system for RL dollars to ingame items/currency. On a complete aside, I wonder what would happen if one of the great unwashed so to speak noticed this thread and posted in GD "EBank Runner deals in RMT". Enough of a ****-storm started when an Ebank ad was on the login screen. Well. It's probably just question of time really. EBANK is obviously in a tight spot when it comes to this kind of thing. That's why we take it seriously and get in touch with CCP when we notice any kind of questionable behavior.
Dzil Caldari TankSox Industries	Posted - 2009.03.24 14:39:00 - [86] Originally by: Hexxx Originally by: CCP Mitnal We can only give assistance where the items or services provided are in game. Mitnal, I think that's fair enough, but there is a problem here. If the loan is created with the intention of defaulting, then you all of the sudden you have a way to exchange in-game ISK for a RL item. It wouldn't take long for people to offer RL cash as collateral (after all, you don't have to pay anything for shipping). So, let's get right to it; Person A asks for a loan. Person A sends RL collateral (in this case RL cash) to Person B (who holds it in escrow). Person C sends Person A the ISK desired for the loan. Person A defaults on the loan. Person B sends the RL cash collateral to Person C. Let's add one more thing into this scenario. Let's say that Person A and Person C knew all along that the loan would default. Now...is THIS against the EULA? Further, by introducing a third-party into the whole ISK for cash problem, have we found a loophole in the EULA? This is a hard line to toe Hexxx. For example, Ebank takes isk in exchange for bumping numbers on a website. Is that a EULA violation? Would it be a EULA violation for you to then offer to change those numbers for real money? It's a loophole, sure. But sealing it would really pinch the metagame community that Eve's members have created around it.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2009.03.24 21:12:00 - [87] Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 24/03/2009 21:13:12 Quote: This is a hard line to toe Hexxx. For example, Ebank takes isk in exchange for bumping numbers on a website. Is that a EULA violation? Would it be a EULA violation for you to then offer to change those numbers for real money? It's a loophole, sure. But sealing it would really pinch the metagame community that Eve's members have created around it. It's actually pretty simple, and not really a loophole that you demonstrate. EG. Regarding someone paying ISK to (for example) me, to advertise on a website is one transaction. Money received from whatever website I use to 'power' the ads on my site is a completely separate transaction from a third party, and in no way related to my receipt of ISK for advertisment. Regarding the Vent server mentioned before, if I give someone ISK for a vent server, well, kinda fine I suppose (it's actually pretty grey in my mind). If I sell that for RL money to a third party,, it's ok too because once again, the two were unrelated. If I sold it back for RL money to the person I bought it off, that's grey. I suppose if it was found the intent was to facilitate RMT, then I suppose the ISK could be justifiably stripped. Good luck finding that out though Quote: EBANK is obviously in a tight spot when it comes to this kind of thing. That's why we take it seriously and get in touch with CCP when we notice any kind of questionable behavior. The final example of the situation I pointed out before, Receipt of RL currency in exchange for ISK, whether it was un/intended to return that currency or not, that's RMT right there (Real-Money Trade if you forgot). Buying GTC with that currency might make you feel better, but it was still RMT. If this was OK'ed by CCP, I'd question just how seriously they take their own EULA, but since I (hope) Ricdic isn't running a huge RMT washing operation, pulling him up for it probably wouldn't affect the RMT situation much, pebble in the river so to speak,,, and given EBanks notoriety, it'd just cause another threadnaught more than likely. Notionally, nothing tangible would be allowed to be purchased/sold for ISK for the very reasons why the vent-server thing is grey. Otherwise, hey, I'll buy that house off you with ISK because it has an internet connection which allows me to play EVE. Later I'll sell that house and make hundreds of thousands. Regardless, RMT exists and it can go ahead and shove it.
Sphynx Stormlord Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2009.03.25 00:42:00 - [88] Quote: B. Selling Items and Objects You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction. The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions (such as ebay), newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game. This is what the EULA actually says about transfering, buying, selling or auctioning stuff. Aparently every transaction on the eve market is against the EULA (they are all at least at the level of 'transfere'). Basically, since just playing the game normally and doing any sort of trading, or loans, or secondary market etc is actually against the EULA, then the only real issue is what CCP is going to enforce. Which can be as arbitary as they like.
Nadarius Chrome Celestial Horizon Corp. I.C.C Industrial Drive Yards	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:40:00 - [89] I can't see any of this being allowed by CCP, whether it's stated specifically in the rules or not. To CCP it would only be visible in the same way as "real" ISK-selling, and I wouldn't expect them to give you the chance to argue that it was a loan backed by out-of-game assets. I'm disappointed that no more of an official statement has been made though. Maybe they're first drafting up an official guideline and while they're at it, taking out anyone that looks to be involved in similar "ventures". After all, there's always the "We own this game, you have no rights at all beyond what we decide to give you. We can ban you for any reason we like." clause that's present in all MMO EULAs.
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:36:00 - [90] CCP should remove mining because it's exploited by macro miners That's basically what people are saying here. Because the system can be abused by some it should be removed in it's entirety. The interesting fact here is that virtually every person here has been involved in something that has skirted on the EULA or broken it in the past. Most haven't been RMT but they would have been considered unsavoury by some. * How many of you have logged onto a friends account to change his skill at his request, to move some funds, sell a bpo etc? * How many of you have sold an account for isk (with 1 toon on it) to avoid the character transfer fee? None of these are RMT. The reason they are against the EULA is they are a pain in the ass for CCP to govern. Now I do agree 100% that backing ingame isk with RL funds/assets can be abused. It definitely can. But realistically how could CCP stop it even if they wanted too? They could add a clause to the EULA. Would that really stop it from happening? Of course not. It just means CCP is not liable for any fallout that occurs as a result of the change-over. Point is, people are breaking the EULA daily. CCP don't care unless it's RMT as its not bothering them. The only way CCP could combat this would be to screen every chat conversation, install trojans in the Eve client to also monitor email and communications software. CCP choose not to cover this because they have already covered their asses saying if anything outside the realms of Eve occurs it is out of their hands. Direct player to player agreements are always occuring. Anyone who can say they have never experienced or seen the above points occur on at least one occasion is lying. At least 4 people who have posted in this very thread I first handedly know have done so. This may very well inject new life into this thread or cause one of the EBANK staff to say OMFG in EBANK forums but I am saying this right now as a standard player. Before you reply I want you to stop, consider how you have breached the EULA in the past and then post accordingly.

LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.03.25 06:36:00 - [91] Edited by: LaVista Vista on 25/03/2009 06:47:54 Quote: CCP should remove mining because it's exploited by macro miners That's basically what people are saying here. Because the system can be abused by some it should be removed in it's entirety. Fundamentally flawed argument. Everything can be abused in some way or another. The ramifications that abuse of the system could have in this case(EDIT: Spelling ), are just much grander than that of it's sum. Quote: The interesting fact here is that virtually every person here has been involved in something that has skirted on the EULA or broken it in the past. Most haven't been RMT but they would have been considered unsavoury by some. I don't think so at all. Quote: * How many of you have logged onto a friends account to change his skill at his request, to move some funds, sell a bpo etc? No. Quote: * How many of you have sold an account for isk (with 1 toon on it) to avoid the character transfer fee? No. Quote: None of these are RMT. The reason they are against the EULA is they are a pain in the ass for CCP to govern. Now I do agree 100% that backing ingame isk with RL funds/assets can be abused. It definitely can. But realistically how could CCP stop it even if they wanted too? They could add a clause to the EULA. Would that really stop it from happening? Of course not. It just means CCP is not liable for any fallout that occurs as a result of the change-over. CCP needs to take distance from such behavior in order to cover their ass and prevent any outside sources of trouble from getting to them. As already pointed out, governments and the like HAS been trying to do that to other, high-profile games. Quote: Point is, people are breaking the EULA daily. CCP don't care unless it's RMT as its not bothering them. The only way CCP could combat this would be to screen every chat conversation, install trojans in the Eve client to also monitor email and communications software. CCP choose not to cover this because they have already covered their asses saying if anything outside the realms of Eve occurs it is out of their hands. Stop using the logic, that because others break the EULA it's fine to do. Just because CCP can't police it doesn't mean that it can't get them in trouble. Quote: This may very well inject new life into this thread or cause one of the EBANK staff to say OMFG in EBANK forums but I am saying this right now as a standard player. A standard player who has built the greatest financial systems in EVE, and is thus expected to stay clear of any EULA violations due to the huge impact a ban on your butt would have. EVeconomics
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:12:00 - [92] I don't believe anyone is yet to be banned for a statement made on the forums
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2009.03.25 07:54:00 - [93] Originally by: Ricdic CCP should remove mining because it's exploited by macro miners. That's basically what people are saying here. Because the system can be abused by some it should be removed in it's entirety. No, because that's in-game. If you can't distinguish the two you need to get out more. Renting a vent server for ISK is grey as I said because it involves something in-game with something out of game. I don't have a problem with CCPs policies unless they are aware of a fact that someone is doing something (thus my point about lacking faith in CCP if they were aware of this and said it was ok). Go up to a cop and say "Hey man, I broke into that house, but virtually everyone does it and a lot of people get away with it" and see how quickly you last. Quote: Stuff claiming that because everyone does it, it absolves the fact. As I said, go post that WTS and see how long it lasts. Sure, CCP can't regulate everything, I don't expect them to. But to say you dealt with RMT blatantly in the forums just speaks volumes to your attitude. And that's where my war lies. Not with CCPs ability to enforce EULA breaches, not with the fact people macro-mine, not the fact people plain cheat. Just your attitude. Your attitude stinks. As does the attitude of any people who do breach the EULA in order to get somewhere. To collate that and your statements, yeah, that does mean I think almost everyone's attitude stinks. Ever wondered why I'm not part of an alliance or corp with more than just myself? Doesn't stop me engaging the MM part of MMORPG though.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.03.25 08:55:00 - [94] Originally by: Ricdic I don't believe anyone is yet to be banned for a statement made on the forums I know of quite a few cases, actually. So you just laugh EVeconomics
Ricdics Tleilex Developments Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.25 10:22:00 - [95] I must have missed the part where I said I have dealt in RMT? Care to find linkage? Please don't make things up, you make yourself look more stupid. I think some of you should order one of these:
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2009.03.25 11:21:00 - [96] Originally by: Ricdics I must have missed the part where I said I have dealt in RMT? Care to find linkage? Please don't make things up, you make yourself look more stupid. Hey, you know what? I was wrong! Yeah, I misread this bit Quote: My plan if anyone defaulted with me was to simply reinject the cash back into Eve via GTC. Which certainly shows a fair bit of intent to do some RMT. Regardless of the feelgood factor of buying GTC with the cash someone gave you, you've sold ISK to someone for cash. But hey, since you couldn't be a human being and point out my mistake, take nice cup of go **** yourself.
Ricdics Tleilex Developments Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.25 12:03:00 - [97] I love this game


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.