Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Account Liquidation Auctions

Status
Why he couldnt just bought like others did in auction? Why others didnt had the opportunity to buy some more? For me looks like a big BS!

And how can MA make an 'agreement' with someone that cheated, exploited the system?
Thats like robbery an bank and make an 'agreement' that they can have part of stolen money!
Click to expand...

Well, let me reply to the rest then, because you just don't bother to do your own homework do you?

Maxim Overdrive didn't HAVE to buy on auction.
As was clearly mentioned in the CLD FAQ at the time (and is still on the EU website):
For those interested in larger quantities of over 500 and need help or advise please contact info@mindark.com
Click to expand...
So ANYONE who wanted more than 500 CLDs could have (and probably did) buy larger quantities direct from MA.

In the case of the items being auctioned (the topic of this thread):
The player apparently* sued MA. MA apparently* then made a counter-claim.
It apparently* ended in arbitration, and a settlement was eventually reached.
That the players items were to be auctioned was apparently* stipulated in the settlement agreement.

*Apparently, because the copy of the supposed settlement document that was posted on various EU forums is not an official announcement by either party. And given that apparently* the agreement included non-disclosure clauses for both parties, posting it is apparently* a breach of that agreement that one of them might just be end up being penalised for.)
 
Lets all agree to only bid 1 PED. Whos with me ? :D
 
eSoul said:
So u can ensure all players that is not an avatar owned for anyone with connections to MA?
Why he couldnt just bought like others did in auction? Why others didnt had the opportunity to buy some more? For me looks like a big BS!

And how can MA make an 'agreement' with someone that cheated, exploited the system?
Thats like robbery an bank and make an 'agreement' that they can have part of stolen money!
Click to expand...


1) I think you are one of the few who does not know whose items are up for sale. Most others, especially older players had quite clear idea when they read the list. :D

2) How can MA make an 'agreement' with someone that cheated, exploited the system? Good morning, I assume you have totally no idea how courts, settlements etc work. Its a common thing, that one side does something, the other party does something in reaction, one sues another one and vice-versa, when lawyers are involved, they realized both sides have some grounds, claims, so they make a settlement that is neither very good or bad for either of them. If either side had a 99.99% position, there would be no settlement. :)

3) about the CLD big sale - quite sure I remember seeing somewhere that for larger quantities you can contact MA directly as Serica already mentioned. http://www.entropiauniverse.com/bulletin/buzz/2011/11/16/Calypso-Land-Lot-Deeds.xml
 
For what i have read or Futurama and Serica didnt read what i write or i dunno what to say more!

I never said that was not possible to buy Clds in other way, i said that was not clear! And theres a big diference between that! So if someone wanted all 6k available clds none of others player had the right to buy any!

In the other case about 'agreement', theres no possibility to an agreement because one more time thats not clear, just a court decision could make it clear and thats what i call lack of transparency!
 
I must be wrong but i keep reedin 2,5k n 6k clds, whilst it was 60k clds sold overall, not? And maxim bought 20-30k
 
Piotr said:
I must be wrong but i keep reedin 2,5k n 6k clds, whilst it was 60k clds sold overall, not? And maxim bought 20-30k
Click to expand...

yes maybe that!

Its like sell the right of vote to one player!

Or keep control of the system!
 
Pyhä Antero said:
Dear comrade, it's simple... they had nothing to win here.
Click to expand...

Mmmm... we do not know the final agreement, but if 300.000 USD were claimed (probably an estimation of the items in game + skill + MU at that time), then NOT having to pay back to the player 40% of that aka 120.000 USD maybe was worth a fight... no, comrade :)? Is for the public good, after all, even if now the amount would be less than that.

Somebody did a great job on the other forum and requested some public documents, I guess the human curiosity will lead some to request the full data against a fee. Read it, is in Swedish... myself cannot understand a word besides "Tack".

It was so much better if MA would come and say - look guys, we did this and that with this guy, we had to deal with him this way and so on. Of course they have no obligation whatsoever to do so, but a little bit of game-related excitement could not hurt right now.

I for one I'm interested how virtual assets are dealt with in case of legal battles, including RCE and bitcoin.
 
Tepes said:
The question is, why MA settled to this? They were advised that they could lose more (seeing is not the actual settlement, could be even worse for them in the end) or the legal costs were not worth?

It seems though the settlement was agreed AFTER a legal action was initiated.
Click to expand...

In Sweden, whoever loses a lawsuit pays legal COSTs for both parties. This keeps people from suing eachother unless there is a strong case (you are sure that you are right).

And as for settlement, I guess it's normal. The parties gets called to the courthouse, but Before the trial begins, the judge says "are you sure you want to do this? If you lose you risk large legal fees, if you make a settlement between the two of you your risk less". So they settled after the suit was filed, but Before there was an official verdict.

On one hand, as a "normal" player it would feel good in a way if the "bad guys" are punished and just get the TT value of their items (if it's >1000 ped). On the other hand, well, maybe it's a good thing market value has gone down a bit on the top items.

I wouldn't have minded getting a mod fap in my loot window... but, well, chance is probably Close to zero *I*'d get it.
 
thanks for the clarification aia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aia
Tepes said:
Mmmm... we do not know the final agreement, but if 300.000 USD were claimed (probably an estimation of the items in game + skill + MU at that time), then NOT having to pay back to the player 40% of that aka 120.000 USD maybe was worth a fight... no, comrade :)? Is for the public good, after all, even if now the amount would be less than that.
Click to expand...

Assuming that the player didn't gain any financial advantage and/or didn't even cause any harm (expect mental decay to forum besserwissers), the court's judgement could have been more "fair" to the player. Plus, it was Mindark who got sued and I don't see how it's wise to seek for justice or just show-off when you have better things to do as a business owner and as a developer of platform and now they aren't even paying any of this, as they are receiving deposits.
 
Last edited:
i guarantee its not a court decision or...

eSoul said:
For what i have read or Futurama and Serica didnt read what i write or i dunno what to say more!

I never said that was not possible to buy Clds in other way, i said that was not clear! And theres a big diference between that! So if someone wanted all 6k available clds none of others player had the right to buy any!

In the other case about 'agreement', theres no possibility to an agreement because one more time thats not clear, just a court decision could make it clear and thats what i call lack of transparency!
Click to expand...

...it would be public...its arbitration which is probably stated in all there employee manuals...arbitration is private...

Tepes said:
Mmmm... we do not know the final agreement, but if 300.000 USD were claimed (probably an estimation of the items in game + skill + MU at that time), then NOT having to pay back to the player 40% of that aka 120.000 USD maybe was worth a fight... no, comrade :)? Is for the public good, after all, even if now the amount would be less than that.

Somebody did a great job on the other forum and requested some public documents, I guess the human curiosity will lead some to request the full data against a fee. Read it, is in Swedish... myself cannot understand a word besides "Tack".

It was so much better if MA would come and say - look guys, we did this and that with this guy, we had to deal with him this way and so on. Of course they have no obligation whatsoever to do so, but a little bit of game-related excitement could not hurt right now.

I for one I'm interested how virtual assets are dealt with in case of legal battles, including RCE and bitcoin.
Click to expand...

...MA cannot release this information...there is nondisclosure I GUARANTEE YOU!!...stop thinking that you will get the actual agreement...the other document was only a non-agreed to document and I still think the releasing agent better have checked with his attorney on whether he can release that document...usually a nondisclosure agreement covers all signed documents and all negotiations that led to that document...

Brick
 
Last edited:
I don't think there should be complaints about these items being "added" to the game. They already should have been in the game if not for the account locks.
 
jaydub said:
I still think the releasing agent better have checked with his attorney on whether he can release that document...usually a nondisclosure agreement covers all signed documents and all negotiations that led to that document...
Click to expand...

Since this player got banned in the first place I think it's safe to assume they don't care too much about following the rules.
 
Neil Stockton said:
Since this player got banned in the first place I think it's safe to assume they don't care too much about following the rules.
Click to expand...

He was talking about court legal rules, not MA rules, very different.

Maybe we will hear more once the money has been paid over. (The draft agreement says 6 months).

I am still of the opinion that the most interesting aspect of all this is that MA decided not to test their ToU in a full court hearing (that players are only entitled to TT), and agreed to settle.
 
Last edited:
chevrons said:
I am still of the opinion that the most interesting aspect of all this is that MA decided not to test their ToU in a full court hearing (that players are only entitled to TT), and agreed to settle.
Click to expand...

Can you guess what court was that or eventualy might be?
I mean in what country the court is/was or will be hearing such case?
 
chevrons said:
I am still of the opinion that the most interesting aspect of all this is that MA decided not to test their ToU in a full court hearing (that players are only entitled to TT), and agreed to settle.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

AxeMurderer said:
Can you guess what court was that or eventualy might be?
I mean in what country the court is/was or will be hearing such case?
Click to expand...

This would work both ways then, also in MA advantage: what do you want? your money? bwhahahhahhaha

This is why I said is interesting, how this kind of things are dealt with. I'm sure in the end more will transpire about the real settlement, non-disclosure or not. Just enough time to pass.
 
AxeMurderer said:
Can you guess what court was that or eventualy might be?
I mean in what country the court is/was or will be hearing such case?
Click to expand...
Read the link at #56. Sweden.
 
Wtf showing greedines. Why dont take this to loot pool and make someone happy looting old school high end items again. I dont understand :eek:
 
angelhenx said:
Wtf showing greedines. Why dont take this to loot pool and make someone happy looting old school high end items again. I dont understand :eek:
Click to expand...
You haven't read this thread at all. MA are doing this because they are being legally forced to.
 
Guys listen...

Neil Stockton said:
Since this player got banned in the first place I think it's safe to assume they don't care too much about following the rules.
Click to expand...

...this is a legal matter...MA rules are irrelevant as they may breach criminal or civil liability law...it doesnt matter if the player got banned...but it wouldnt surprise me that he's an idiot IRL that doesnt understand or cant be made to understand by his attorney, that releasing documents like this in breach of a nondisclosure agreement will lead to MORE attorney's fees, MORE arbitration time, potentially a real trip to civil court for recourse by MA rather than private arbitration and ultimately a loss of what MA would have paid him because of the breach...

chevrons said:
He was talking about court legal rules, not MA rules, very different.

Maybe we will hear more once the money has been paid over. (The draft agreement says 6 months).

I am still of the opinion that the most interesting aspect of all this is that MA decided not to test their ToU in a full court hearing (that players are only entitled to TT), and agreed to settle.
Click to expand...

...exactly Chev...I am at work and cant pull up the posted agreement but I guess it is possible that it has a timeframe on nondisclosure but I wouldnt say that is typical and I don't read Swedish...typically its openended unless both parties have something to gain about temp privacy and later disclosure like in a business deal not typically with litigation or arbitration(in this circumstance)...

Biller said:
I guess MA will stay silent as they did over the years with such incidents
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forum/ask-mindark/200094-about-ongoing-investigation.html

Hope we will be able to see the official scanned documents from the court soon. :wtg:
Click to expand...

...they must be silent...is noone listening?

AxeMurderer said:
Can you guess what court was that or eventualy might be?
I mean in what country the court is/was or will be hearing such case?
Click to expand...

...again I dont have the document handy...but even if a 'court' was listed on the document...I would nearly bet my life that this is an arbitration agreement reached by two parties and an arbitrator and not a court judgment...almost all contracts with an employed or independent contractor will have an arbitration clause...its cheaper and boxes in employees rights to sue for civil remuneration on complaint...

THE MOST IMPORTANT KEY TO THIS WHOLE ISSUE IS...SOMEONE...AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE...MAKE COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS...KEEP THEM IN A SAFE PLACE ELECTRONICALLY OR HARDCOPY SO THAT IF YOU EVER NEED TO REFER TO THEM YOU WILL HAVE THEM...THIS CASE SETS IMPORTANT LEGAL PRECEDENT FOR THE VALUE OF ITEMS WITHIN EU AS:

1) MORE THAN TT REGARDLESS OF WHAT EULA AND TOU SAYS AND

2) A CLIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE OR LITIGATE THE VALUE OF THEIR ACCOUNT AND RECEIVE REMUNERATION FOR THAT VALUE

particularly if you did nothing wrong under EULA or TOU this 60/40 split would be more in your favor as a return of value

Brick
 
Arch said:
items should be sold at tt value through a lottery system
Click to expand...

Dare to dream! At first glance, people would mostly hate this idea...but the idea has merit. If there was a lottery--let's say, only players with a certain level of skills achieved or longevity in-game would be considered, ensuring that only regulars would have a chance to win one of those items, and not some n00b who just joined a week before or created an account solely for the chance to win--it would ensure that those good items don't just end up back in the very same hands of the players who already HAVE them.

Enough with the rich getting richer and everyone else, to be damned! (Oh, looks like I'm dreaming again...)
 
My question is, where are they in action?

Can't find them under Caly Auction nor under Global Auction.
 
jaydub said:
...MA cannot release this information...there is nondisclosure I GUARANTEE YOU!!...stop thinking that you will get the actual agreement
Click to expand...
you might want to read whats been leaked before guaranteeing or betting your life on anything.

chevrons said:
I am still of the opinion that the most interesting aspect of all this is that MA decided not to test their ToU in a full court hearing (that players are only entitled to TT), and agreed to settle.
Click to expand...

dont need to as the other party admits violating the EULA apperently. this outcome is consistant with most EULA cases one reads about, they are half valid, in that they are observed to be a contract but with flaws (typically not equitable). They are a starting position for legal proceedings. if you violiate the EULA, you start again.
 
Status
Back
Top