Double Standard

Status
Screw pls

Akoz is a known cheat. - Fact
We are a community. - Fact

When a known cheat is allowed the benefit of the doubt we all suffer as a community. True, many of us do not allow this to affect our gameplay, however the attitude of "I don't care" is ignorant and irresponsible.

I want the rules enforced in this case because I know the man behind Akoz pursues immoral means for his own gain.
Anyone defending him is as guilty and is just as questionable....quite a few, but that's RCE for you.
 
WE DON'T NEED CORPORATIONS IN GAME TOO! Sure, planet partners can and should be corporations, but individual avatars should not be...

I've sometimes thought about the possibility for "corporations" ingame. Consider an example as when Star wanted people to join to purchase CP, or the "EI fund". They would exist with or without MA support, but with MA support, it would have been possible even for player with smaller budget to buy a slice of CP, if things like profit sharing was automatic.

Also consider the banks.

Now imagine if there were a built-in coroporate function. Then there would be limitations that are enforced by technical rules, for instance an avatar that is the representative for the "Crystal Palace" corporation would, by votes, get certain rights to manage the CP deed, for instance get x% of the total taxes for maintenance, he would be allowed to add fertilizer and to change maturity levels in estate terminals but not destroy DNA, or to restrict (and sell) the estate deed.
And there could be limitations as set up by the EULA, for instance to regulate what an Argus Bank manager avatar can do, it could be stated in EULA that a an coroprate representative avatar is not allowed to do trades not directly related to management of the corporation (he he's allowed to buy fertilizer but not IMK2s) and a corporate avatar is not allowed to engage in ingame activities (ie hunting [including pvp3-4]/mining/crafting/store items for someone else).

Also we already know about a recent example about something that practically is a corporation; shogomat shoti who said he was a representative of a group of people (and thus couldn't make decisions by himself - he had to ask his investors before doing anything).

It's just that things would get much clerarer if there were corporate avatars: We would know if we deal with an individual, or a "corporation". And with with help of built-in systems and EULA rules, there would be less space for cheating by using the corporate avatar in a non-intended way - and less risk someone who buys a share in a land area gets scammed if the pseudo-corporate avatar decided to withdraw and vanish.

Practically, you don't even need special avatars as corporate representatives, you could think of a system where an avatar who is CEO takes on his "hat" when managing the assets a corporation own, and then is limited to certain actions. And, if the CEO avatar is locked for any reason, the corporation still remains, and the shareholders (that aren't locked) can by voting (proportionally to the shares) assign a new CEO. And if a shareholder gets permanently locked, there could be a system where either his shares vanish/gets sold to "TT-value", gets sold in ingame auction, or is offered to the remaining shareholders.

In the worst case: Even if the CEO and all shareholders get locked, the company and its asset, for instance a land area, can continue to live if the shares are sold to other avatars (for instance offered through some "stock exchange").

Again, we already have "corporations" ingame. It's just that some of it is invisible, and the lack of support for it is a loophole for a potential scammer.
 
Last edited:
....Now imagine if there were a built-in coroporate function.....
EXCELLENT post...++++rep to aia.

Sadly though its a science fiction hypothesis...
These things you suggest are years of light ahead for MA...
They dont have time to think for ideas like these cause they are busy with problems like:
Hey guys and gals! Quick poll;
How many of you guys play with headphones, and how many of you with speakers? :eyecrazy::eyecrazy::eyecrazy::eyecrazy:

Also mind that MA's PR is based on ''the avatar'' not the masses....;)
They dont understand what boost a corporate function or a multiple ownership will bring to the game...

Sil$
 
Last edited:
Funny, I got neg repped by someone complaining about second avatar fappers, who is friendly with avatars in game who used many cheats in the old days for massive advantages now. I guess some people just choose to arbitrarily excuse people because they are cool, or whatever, and anyone outside their buddies is scum for basically doing the same type of things...

Not to mention that maybe one of these people had avatars in game 24/7 for the purpose of collecting data, which used to only be possible using a clicker, which is illegal third party software...
 
I guess we should ban all fappers then. :rolleyes:

The different between fappers and secondary avatars on auto is that if you're using a (real) fapper you're helping someone else, if you're using an auto (typically using something like mod fap) you're mainly helping yourself.
 
The different between fappers and secondary avatars on auto is that if you're using a (real) fapper you're helping someone else, if you're using an auto (typically using something like mod fap) you're mainly helping yourself.

exactly its giving you a unfair advantage, exploiting the system
 
The different between fappers and secondary avatars on auto is that if you're using a (real) fapper you're helping someone else, if you're using an auto (typically using something like mod fap) you're mainly helping yourself.

That is true. :) But that's not my point. My point is, and many seem to fail to comprehend this, that there is no advantage to using a second avatar to fap yourself over using a paid fapper, other than convenience and you get the skills. You pay more for autofapping, and you don't get to kill more mobs. So I don't understand why everyone gets so upset, unless they feel it is their duty to make sure some other avatar they probably don't know gets fapping skills instead of the evil guy with the second avatar.

Only for imp/mod faps can I see this as an advantage, since those fappers cost 50-70 ped/hr.

Anyway, I'm tired of debating this. I am wasting my time trying to point out that others are wasting their time. :silly2:
 
You are ok with the fact that there's two standards?
Then why your signature? (Originally Posted by Marco|FPC
And it still stands - all avatars' are equal.)

Then this means that I can also have a secong Avatar:D
 
This is nothing new , ive seen one of the top warrants out hunting big ass eamon using a secondary ava ( naked, newb stats , MOD FAP ) autofapping even after this warrants guy died from crit.

Was kinda weird though , cause when i landed out in the middle of nowhere and landed just upon him i could feel in the air how he felt "busted" .

But then again , it could be an ava created on his wife , who never play but still , on another irl person.

Guess its just a part of the game.

cheers

ermik
 
I confess - I did make a second avatar a long time ago.

Then my daughter, who was too young to make an account for herself at the time, decided that she wanted to play and promptly took over the ava :D.
I do still log her in from time to time to keep her account current - mainly to collect the Xmas presents, etc off MA - as her mother's PC doesn't like EU for some reason. It's also refreshing to realise what it's like as an almost total noob again.
 
I confess that I did, In fact, make a second avatar a _very_ long time ago.

Then my mother decided that she wanted to play and promptly took over the avatar :D. I made it in her name, for her, as she directed, in case she wanted to play...
I try to log her in from time to time to keep her account current - mainly to collect the Xmas presents, and other stuff off MA - as mum's PC doesn't like EU for some reason. :(

- Nightwolf
 
I made one avatar and continue to play....My son made his own avatar once and he played for a few days then decided this game wasn't for him so he quit it and never played again..I never asked him to let me have his avatar. I still continue to play on just one avatar. That's the rules....
 
Hi,

You're interested in the rich guys vs us regular gamers-discussion, one I'm not taking part in.
Excuse me? Did you read my post? Where have I written something about this?

You qouted BillAirBoy:
[...]
Enforce the rule, or don't have the rule.

and started with:
No, no and no. I disagree.

followed by:
I think it's a very good thing that the game isn't policed in that manner.

This made me disagree, and I have explained why. I didn't attack anybody, I lost not a single word about a "rich guys vs us regular gamers-discussion", I just explained why it's IMHO most important to have clear and indisputable rules that have to be obeyed by everyone.

I didn't even participate in the whacking of second avatars, contrarily, I offered a possible solution how such could be handled in a manner suiting all of our participants.

Quote someone else.
Why this hostile?

We just have a different view about rules - where's the problem? You say:
I don't see the problem with someone contacting support to bend a rule, my statement in a nutted shell.
and I say:

A rule that needs bending is a bad rule. The problem should be solved
not with bending the rule, but with changing the bad rule instead!

Rules that are bend at will are opening all doors to random
advantaging of special ppl, and thus will create
unhappiness, conspiracy theories and hostility.

Better no rule at all but one that needs bending!

Finally, I cannot see this much differences in our points of view regarding the topic. You seem to tolerate second avatars as long as they are not hurting the game (or did I get this wrong?), and I cannot but agree here.

It's just the way we think about the way rules should be handled in a game, and this might be discussed in peace, agree?

For sure, I cannot exclude to misunderstand or to get misunderstood - as much as I try English isn't my native language and sometimes I fall prey to the built-in traps of the English language ...
But be assured my post wasn't in any way meant negative, aggressive, or aiming at any kind of rich guys vs us regular gamers-discussion.

Have fun!
 
EDIT Oh do stop /EDIT
 
I confess that I did, In fact, make a second avatar a _very_ long time ago.

Then my mother decided that she wanted to play and promptly took over the avatar :D. I made it in her name, for her, as she directed, in case she wanted to play...
I try to log her in from time to time to keep her account current - mainly to collect the Xmas presents, and other stuff off MA - as mum's PC doesn't like EU for some reason. :(

- Nightwolf

I confess - I did make a second avatar a long time ago.

Then my daughter, who was too young to make an account for herself at the time, decided that she wanted to play and promptly took over the ava :D.
I do still log her in from time to time to keep her account current - mainly to collect the Xmas presents, etc off MA - as her mother's PC doesn't like EU for some reason. It's also refreshing to realise what it's like as an almost total noob again.

XDDDD:D:D good stuff
 
Whats yours!?!?!

''funny how this is a bs thread!! ive seen one of yours get locked for being pure BS!!'' doing.

Is this why you -rep me? Noob, think twice bifore doing
 
...................................................................
Practically, you don't even need special avatars as corporate representatives, you could think of a system where an avatar who is CEO takes on his "hat" when managing the assets a corporation own, and then is limited to certain actions. And, if the CEO avatar is locked for any reason, the corporation still remains, and the shareholders (that aren't locked) can by voting (proportionally to the shares) assign a new CEO. And if a shareholder gets permanently locked, there could be a system where either his shares vanish/gets sold to "TT-value", gets sold in ingame auction, or is offered to the remaining shareholders.

In the worst case: Even if the CEO and all shareholders get locked, the company and its asset, for instance a land area, can continue to live if the shares are sold to other avatars (for instance offered through some "stock exchange").

Again, we already have "corporations" ingame. It's just that some of it is invisible, and the lack of support for it is a loophole for a potential scammer.


just great , no double standard for private persons versus corporations .
if a CEO exploits a bug and gets locked for good, his assets might be transfered to the other shareholders . brilliant , we(corporations) just like IRL , we never lose ! we always win ! yep win - win situation for us .
more food for the wolves. :laugh:

IRL if a share holder dies all his shares, go to the others shareholders ?
doesn't he have a family ? (many don't have even a mother , but let's forget that ;) )
what is he goes to prison for economical reasons ? the other shareholders get his share too ??


if a private person does the same thing , gets locked and his goods are lost for him , for ever . :lolup:

let's say the game runs for 70 years . many of us won't be and i am not aware of possibility to transfer an account by a testament .
but corporations will have the same property over 60 years .


and the idea is not that SC-FI as somebody said in a previous thread .
there is a large possibility that corporations run in the (near) future for USA senate .
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=332453274725&id=115046902861&ref=share

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/corporation-election/


in the end why not have corporations ingame ?
well , let's have them , but balance their rights well so they don't be more equal than private persons , in front of EULA.

EDIT : to put again in the economical circuit a LA that belonged to a person that is locked for ever , for example , there is no need for a corporation , just a small change in EULA ;)
 
Last edited:
IRL if a share holder dies all his shares, go to the others shareholders ?
doesn't he have a family ? (many don't have even a mother , but let's forget that ;) )
It's two different cases:
When an "avatar owner" dies, the avatar gets (optionally) transfered to the heirs. This means that practically the shares can be transfered to, for instance, the wife/widow (or mother if applicable).

If an avatar gets locked, you can compare it to damages, and for a permanently locked avatar, (personal) bankruptcy. If someone performs (economic) crime, it's possible that the tax authority wants their tax for the non-declared income, together with interest and penalty fee. Then the "repo man" takes all assets (including shares) and sells it in an executive auction, to finance the debts. Compare with the clause in the EULA that says if someone is (permanently) locked, they have forfeited all their assets.

what is he goes to prison for economical reasons ? the other shareholders get his share too ??

By selling the shares in a public auction, the voting rights and the relative value (like returns/profit payouts) get balanced out. Consider the case where there is an ingame company with total 500 shares. Then the main owner can set up a secondary account (optionally use his wifes account), and give one share to the other avatar. Now the primary avatar can do whatever he likes; if he gets locked his wife's single share would now be worth the same as the total 500 shares.
 
And this thread makes another important point.

What MA/FPC has never had is a community rep who will step and and set the record straight. If this thread would have appeared on any other MMO/Virtual world a developer/community rep would have posted to set the record straight.
 
And this thread makes another important point.

What MA/FPC has never had is a community rep who will step and and set the record straight. If this thread would have appeared on any other MMO/Virtual world a developer/community rep would have posted to set the record straight.

Maybe if this thread would not run on a third party forum?
 
Now imagine if there were a built-in coroporate function. Then there would be limitations that are enforced by technical rules, for instance an avatar that is the representative for the "Crystal Palace" corporation would, by votes, get certain rights to manage the CP deed, for instance get x% of the total taxes for maintenance, he would be allowed to add fertilizer and to change maturity levels in estate terminals but not destroy DNA, or to restrict (and sell) the estate deed.
And there could be limitations as set up by the EULA, for instance to regulate what an Argus Bank manager avatar can do, it could be stated in EULA that a an coroprate representative avatar is not allowed to do trades not directly related to management of the corporation (he he's allowed to buy fertilizer but not IMK2s) and a corporate avatar is not allowed to engage in ingame activities (ie hunting [including pvp3-4]/mining/crafting/store items for someone else).

Also we already know about a recent example about something that practically is a corporation; shogomat shoti who said he was a representative of a group of people (and thus couldn't make decisions by himself - he had to ask his investors before doing anything).

It's just that things would get much clerarer if there were corporate avatars: We would know if we deal with an individual, or a "corporation". And with with help of built-in systems and EULA rules, there would be less space for cheating by using the corporate avatar in a non-intended way - and less risk someone who buys a share in a land area gets scammed if the pseudo-corporate avatar decided to withdraw and vanish.

Practically, you don't even need special avatars as corporate representatives, you could think of a system where an avatar who is CEO takes on his "hat" when managing the assets a corporation own, and then is limited to certain actions. And, if the CEO avatar is locked for any reason, the corporation still remains, and the shareholders (that aren't locked) can by voting (proportionally to the shares) assign a new CEO. And if a shareholder gets permanently locked, there could be a system where either his shares vanish/gets sold to "TT-value", gets sold in ingame auction, or is offered to the remaining shareholders.

In the worst case: Even if the CEO and all shareholders get locked, the company and its asset, for instance a land area, can continue to live if the shares are sold to other avatars (for instance offered through some "stock exchange").

Again, we already have "corporations" ingame. It's just that some of it is invisible, and the lack of support for it is a loophole for a potential scammer.
There are not corporations in game now because "all trades are final" as things are now. People can and do cooperate on some level to pretend to play the role of a corporate entity as things are now, but that's a LONG way away from actually being a corporation.

I do agree, that if companies did exist in game, it might help people cooperate in that manner better... BUT... as I mentioned in my other post, that really sets a massively unlevel playing field on things like PVP, the auctions, etc. since the single little shop owner who is one avatar or even the guy standing in twin peaks trying to sell sweat is no competition for the mega-corporation with thousands of it's shareholders that has a monopoly on the market, etc.

Right now companies are in game, but they are non-participant characters. That's the way it should be. Anything else makes things highly unbalanced, and might need some major repair from the balancing manager (like perhaps keeping those avatars with shares in corporation x from looting today since they just made a gigantic purchase on auction, outbidding a solo person with one avatar)
 
And this thread makes another important point.

What MA/FPC has never had is a community rep who will step and and set the record straight. If this thread would have appeared on any other MMO/Virtual world a developer/community rep would have posted to set the record straight.

I couldn't agree with this more ... except that anything dealing with something like TOS or EULA and a perceived double standard or unfair treatment, MA would most likely be the ones to handle this, but ... I think we have experienced over time that (for the most part) MA won't respond when they feel cornered or called out on something. Especially when it's a rather sensitive situation.

Also ... while there may be non-disclosed information about these scenarios that might have impact on openly addressing the issues, I still think that there should be a representative to at least make a statement about it ... but we are also told that they are not obligated to post or address anything at this forum ... even though they use it as the unofficial EU game forum. :D
 
In this particular case, I do see a problem. Names shouldn't be mentioned by the OP though. :)

Selling your own LA's to your 2nd avatar because your first avatar has a bad rep isn't exactly honorable business practice. Spreading the rumor that you sold for millions of PEDs in order to boost your LA's marketvalue is also very shady.

That being said, some people do have a need for a 2nd avatar due to limitations in MA/FPC's current system. Also, when I took on investors for the CP endeavor, I was allowed a 2nd avatar solely for that purpose (to help keep assets separated).

The 2 cases are totally different and should be treated differently, call it favoritism if you like. If the 2nd avatar is known to be operating as a 2nd avatar of the primary user, I see no problems with it. If they are shadily engaging in bidwars with themselves, I see a huge problem with it.
 
Names shouldn't be mentioned by the OP though. :)

I would agree however i had to do it nevertheless. It's kinda hard to discuss things if you don't name them. I stated a fact, because otherwise we would just all be guessing on what i'm really referring to.


That being said, some people do have a need for a 2nd avatar due to limitations in MA/FPC's current system. Also, when I took on investors for the CP endeavor, I was allowed a 2nd avatar solely for that purpose (to help keep assets separated).
The 2 cases are totally different and should be treated differently, call it favoritism if you like. If the 2nd avatar is known to be operating as a 2nd avatar of the primary user, I see no problems with it.

I totally agree. No problems with 2nd avatars if it's publicly known whose 2nd it is.

In this particular case, I do see a problem.
Selling your own LA's to your 2nd avatar because your first avatar has a bad rep isn't exactly honorable business practice. Spreading the rumor that you sold for millions of PEDs in order to boost your LA's marketvalue is also very shady.
If they are shadily engaging in bidwars with themselves, I see a huge problem with it.

Exactly, and that's why i wondered that MindArk didn't act on it. So to me they use double standards. And to those saying 'it doesn't affect me': you haven't got a clue.
 
Status
Back
Top