Clarification about Entropia banking operations

Didint know it was 1 april today..... Now this is the worst bs i have ever read in my EU life so far We get screwed over and over again for each VU. How far can MA dig up our ass before enough is enough ???

wanna play monopoly someone ?

Marco|MindArk said:

I fully understand that frustration and emotion is running high right now. The policy update was the result after having discussions and feedback with the support department, who got dozens of requests from participants who wanted to start loan services. A lot of the people behind the requests are ones with a shady background in the Entropia. We saw a rapid rise in fraudulent enterprise forming, which would hurt the little guy. We decided to act pre-emptevly and state that those who publicly offers loan services hereby us to be viewed upon as scammers, because that is the only real way to act. My horror scene would have been seen 50 loan sharks in Port Atlantis scamming newcomers from their first PEDs, killing all fun and all hope for them. The biggest sad thing in this is that those who manage a trusted venture gets tossed in with the rest, but at this point we cannot differentiated in a way that MA can guarantee.

Click to expand...

Why are these scammers still walking around freely? You know them, yet you dont act.
Well, in fact, until yesterday you didnt care about players getting scammed either. All trades are final, remember? But now, you decided to act "pre-emptevly" and not only warn for scammers, but also adapted your policy. Seems not all trades are final anymore, and finally scammers are going to be banned.
So when do you send the first armour upgrader to jail forever? And when do you make tt-items un-auctionable and reset their market value to a fixed +0? These are real issue's. Not the hypothetical loan sharker in PA who gives 3 ped for an opalo, running away with 80 pec.

To me, this is just a rash limitation of the rights players had for a long time, just to favour a few rich investors. Especially when MA is not changing their 'all trades are final'policy in general.
And let me tell you what: there is no need to protect the bank licence buyers investments. They knew beforehand there are 'irregulated' loans, and even succesful ones. Besides, my investment when hunting, mining, crafting, buying minor TP chips, etc etc is not protected either.
If you feel so sorry for them, give them a 50% rebate... But no, that wont happen, because it hurts MA, and not the 'participants', isnt it?

Maybe you, Marco, should consider improving the game for the average player, by not nerfing amps, skill gains, average hunting results for a player, lack of items, ...

I wonder ... do you have someone working there who cares for players? Who thinks about how changes might work out for 'ordinary' 20usd/month colonists? Maybe start there

/end rant

LuckyStrike said:

You might want to ask Akoz, ooops I mean Qetesh, how much he bid on the banking license.

Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing with us the background information (if any) to this statement? Or, if such background info is not available, would you mind stopping spreading unsubstantiated rumours?

BBB

Marco|MindArk said:

I fully understand that frustration and emotion is running high right now. The policy update was the result .......

Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Yesterday it was a "Clarificiation" and today it is a "Policy update".
You are entitled to change the rules of the game as you see fit but why lie to your customers and pretend that this rule had existed before and you were offering a "Clarification"?
Why is this post not titled:
"Policy change because of Entropia banking operations"

Marco|MindArk said:

My horror scene would have been seen 50 loan sharks in Port Atlantis scamming newcomers from their first PEDs, killing all fun and all hope for them.

Click to expand...

How would that work out Marco?
Newcomers arriving with plenty of items that they could use as collateral but no peds?
Why don't these people have peds and where did they get the items from?
How would a newcomer be scammed "from their first peds"? Why would a newcomer want to give their peds to a loanshark? People borrow money from loansharks, they do not give money to them.

A person arriving at PA with peds but no items does not need a loan.
A person arriving at PA with no peds and no items can not get a loan.
A person arriving at PA with items but no peds COULD be scammed out of their item by an evil scamming loanshark that loans them less than the value of their item and then sells it.

But how come they have arrived at PA with items but no peds?


This horror scene of yours could never happen and you know it.
And why do you expect us to believe that you would find this a horror story anyway?
MA has always refused to act against every scammer in every case, whatever the circumstances. You always just use the cop out "All trades are final"
It is ironic that there are people being threatened with a ban who are some of the most respected and trusted people in game while actual scammers can still go about their scamming business unchallenged, as they always have been and as they always will be, because MA just doesn't care.

dolera said:

If you feel so sorry for them, give them a 50% rebate... But no, that wont happen, because it hurts MA, and not the 'participants', isnt it?

Click to expand...

Should that happen then the outroar would be even bigger - and rightfully justified then too.

Maybe you, Marco, should consider improving the game for the average player, by not nerfing amps, skill gains, average hunting results for a player, lack of items, ...

I wonder ... do you have someone working there who cares for players? Who thinks about how changes might work out for 'ordinary' 20usd/month colonists? Maybe start there

Click to expand...

That would interest me too.

Tussi

aridash said:

<- second use today. its not good is it. now they lie to us. worried about scammer in PA... the only way to act... crocadile tears that a trusted venture gets tossed in with the rest, when it is MA that have made that association.

How about banning the known scammers? anyone offering to colour/upgrade armour get insta-lock? would that have been so difficult? would that not have been a better way to act?

Click to expand...

No, because then they would have to work.

And since they are that bussy at the moment - as Marco stated about the missing VU preview - and as the VU itself shows: eg. Team is badly broken (chat, members not yellow on radar), Font issues, CTD and (even worse) CTR, unable to log in (etc.) - they didnt even seem to have time to run some basic tests on the shit they throw at us.

Sorry, slowly getting real pissed about what's going on here.

Had the same feeling beginning of last year because of the landgrab fiasco where the 'no compensation for bugs' lead to land areas handed over to some uber socs. Result back then? Gimme what's left of my PED and cu later maybe.

Getting the feeling that my next leave could be for good - and feels to be closer as i had suspected last week.

Hopefully this will change again - but hope dies last, so we'll see...

Tussi

Marco,
Whichever the real reasoning underlying MA's position about this issue, this was a very ill-conceived (or at least, ill-timed) post by you. You should know the EF community well enough to understand that we are sufficiently mature to fully understand the implications of secured or unsecured loans, and are in the game since long enough to know who the scammers are and how they behave.
A fair and clear statement about MA's decision may have found us in disagreement (or maybe not), but would not have left us so utterly disaffected by the ruthless and sneaky way your company is using when dealing with its paying customers. We don't need to be nurtured in false illusions, we all know MA is not going to act against street scammers. Please deal with us as you would do with grown ups, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe MA and (unfortunately) you. And I have the feeling customers' confidence is the single most important asset your company has been building its business upon.

Sincerely,
Buck Banzai

Marco|MindArk said:

I fully understand that frustration and emotion is running high right now. The policy update was the result after having discussions and feedback with the support department, who got dozens of requests from participants who wanted to start loan services. A lot of the people behind the requests are ones with a shady background in the Entropia. We saw a rapid rise in fraudulent enterprise forming, which would hurt the little guy. We decided to act pre-emptevly and state that those who publicly offers loan services hereby us to be viewed upon as scammers, because that is the only real way to act. My horror scene would have been seen 50 loan sharks in Port Atlantis scamming newcomers from their first PEDs, killing all fun and all hope for them. The biggest sad thing in this is that those who manage a trusted venture gets tossed in with the rest, but at this point we cannot differentiated in a way that MA can guarantee.

Click to expand...

Frey said:

Considering the topic that popped up just a few days ago on RCE-universe: Court Rules Against Linden Lab Terms of Service

"The court decision essentially holds LL to a higher standard than any virtual world company has been held before, as far as I know. In part, the decision grows out of the fact that real money is at play in Second Life, and out of LL’s and Rosedale’s relentless promotion of SL as a place where money can be earned. (I’m not speculating on this; it’s made explicit in the filing.) Essentially, what the court is saying is, “If you’re going to bill your world as an earning opportunity, you have to toe a more rigorous line in governing it” ...... To me, this looks like an important decision that could start to bring governance of virtual worlds up to the standard it needs to be — something more akin to the standards by which we govern the real world. At the very least, it’s nice to see a court take these issues seriously."

Im not so sure the EULA gives any wiggle-room at all, should someone wish to challenge it.

Click to expand...

Its a tricky one, because there have been other rulings using a EULA that have gone in the favour of the games maker. It seems to depends on how the EULA is package and presented to the user for acceptance. As well as the substance of the EULA in terms of its legalese.

Off course the other problem, is that we probably would have to try a test case in a Swedish court which is where MA is domiciled.

Frey said:

Calling it semantics however, is dismissing it to the point of naivity imo. You know as well as anyone that MA just killed any business CBE or anyone else might have been able to build up with that announcement. Even should someone wish to challenge MA's statement, and go ahead and advertize their loaning-business, they would have to do it fully aware of the stated intent from MA to ban anyone doing so.
I doubt anyone would be willing to risk the several 100.000 peds it would take to run a pawnshop/bank, and even more doubt that they would be getting any customers, who also know that they, or their items might disappear at the whims of MA trying to protect the licence-holders interest.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it naive, just a realistic viewpoint on whats going on. CBE isn't the only business to have been destroyed by changes in policy, I've seen others as well as my own ventures disappear because of changes to EULA or just VU updates. So these arguments have come and gone as it were.

Maybe thats why I'm less worked up about it as I have a slightly different view on EU, given my own experiences over the last few years. And perhaps why I find it interesting that people still cling onto the idealism that somehow its a fair environment for all. The only reality I can see is that you have to adapt to the capricious nature of EU and MA.

Reality is, MA likes playing the Evil Empire sometimes ;-)

Bertha Bot said:

Clarification about Entropia banking operations
04 June 2007
...We do not wish to discourage entrepreneurship within Entropia Universe, but based on experiences from community feedback and support case history, unfortunately not all entrepreneurs offering loaning services are trustworthy members of the Entropia Universe and therefore we need to be strict in our policies in order to protect the community from scams and cheating.

Therefore, any loan services offered outside the approved bank system will be considered by MindArk as scam attempts and the avatar offering such services risk a permanent lockdown of his/her account.

...

Originally Posted Here

Click to expand...

Marco|MindArk said:

...We decided to act pre-emptevly and state that those who publicly offers loan services hereby us to be viewed upon as scammers, because that is the only real way to act.
...

Click to expand...

Please Marco... Usually you make a lot of sense, but this is not a very smart move.

Borrowing items for collateral is a scam then?
Come on... Think again.
Where's the line between borrowing a friend an item (for collateral), and being viewed as scammer by MA?
If I borrow my gun to a friend and take collateral I suppose it's ok, though it's technically the same thing as a 'loan'. Or is it only if the loan has a cost? If the cost is the dicisive factor, then how big should it be, to be a scam in MAs eyes? How will you ever track if the cost was paid in a seperate transaction?
And if I tell another friend that this guys wouls like to borrow some uber item, is he a scammer then?
What if I stand around at Twin and tell people that he want's to borrow something, and that he gives good collateral.
Or is it only a crime if the Ad boards are used?
Or is he considered a scammer by MA, if I write a post on EF that he wants to borrow some items...?
What if I start a new thread about it then...?

What if he does it himself?

If none of these cases are scamming in MAs eyes, is it then only if he uses the words 'renting service'?

At least explain the rules more in detail, if you're gonna insist on labeling people who rents out stuff as scammers.

Don't call people scammers, if their intentions are good.
You guys shouldn't deem people scammers before they have intentionally done something wrong. It's a wrong use of the word, and MA would come across as being completely unfair.

Also... If you must, you should use the EULA for this... But would need to be MUCH more clear about what's allowed and what is not.


The 'real' reason for this?
Personally, I think this sounds a lot more like an excuse to protect the investments in the new bank licenses, which makes a LOT more sense.
If it is so, then PLEASE JUST SAY SO!... It would be easier to understand and make more sense.

Aardman has just said pretty much what I have been thinking reading through this whole thread.

Noobs are not at risk from any kind of loaning scam. They have nothing to secure a loan with. If they get peds unsecured, they will spend them very quickly - more fool the lenders.

I have to ask myself why have a secured lending service at all.

Example: here I am with my just looted mod fap. Hmm I think - I need peds for another hunt. I have 3 options:
1. Sell my mod fap for market value
2. Exchange my mod fap for less than market value at the lender, then buy it back later at more than market value after interest is added
3. Deposit or sweat or gather fruit/dung

Well it seems to me that nobody is going to pick option 2. Either I need my mod fap, in which case I will keep it to use, and I will deposit. Or I don't need it, in which case sell for market value.

So what is the advantage of the 'banks'. Well suppose I am a player and I think I just want some more peds to hunt for that elusive ath. Hunting is looking good and I just want to kill 1 more, cos that will give me the ath I'm sure. But I can't deposit again - I know... I'll pawn my mod fap.

Damn ath did not come, and now, oh no I have to find a lot of peds to get my mod fap back or I will lose it for less than its market value. My bad.

Ok I will just deposit MV of the mod fap to get it back from lender. It's just a one-off deposit of course, because I don't want to lose the mod fap. Really. I won't do it another time. Errr.

So does anyone think the main motivation for 'banks' is they encourage panic depositing and so deposits go up?

I can honestly say I will never borrow from a lender in EU - there is no benefit. The only exception is large loans like mortgages to get LA or shop, secured on the property. Not short term loans.

So I wonder how the 'banks' are really expecting to make any money?


As a service between friends/socmates, on the other hand, it's a great idea. I have done many pvp trades with friends either lending items, or selling stuff for each other. This is a really great way to make playing more enjoyable.

So the services I actually find useful are illegal, but the legal ones are useless. Hmm interesting.

lol.. i bet that's what someone is wishin' right about now.

To clarify the clarification - MA will target avatars who state they offer loan services (or equal) as business (and not having a virtual banking license). Private loans, the borrowing or lending of items/money between friends, is not the target.

Newcomers come to Entropia, they have read about the banking license and assume baning is safe in Entropia. All banking. When they get fooled by a scammer bank avatar they lose all trust in Entropia and in MindArk. It creates support cases, grief and anger. Many newcomers doesn't really understand the concept of virtual items having real value until after something bad happens. This time we wanted to act before the situation gets out of hand, and to protect the community and add safety to the virtual environment. Many of the newcomers today don't have the knowledge or insight of the culture and mechanics in Entropia, thus meaning MA must add means to protect them.

As to scammers in general, MA is locking accounts due to scams and frauds. Maybe we should have a weekly posting of "Accounts locked since last week" somewhere to have transparancy, maybe we should add the number of warnings an avatar has when people interact with the avatar. Obviously there are things that can be improved.

Marco|MindArk said:

maybe we should add the number of warnings an avatar has when people interact with the avatar. Obviously there are things that can be improved.

Click to expand...

That would be a great idea. Let's fix some bugs first, though.

Marco|MindArk said:

To clarify the clarification - MA will target avatars who state they offer loan services (or equal) as business (and not having a virtual banking license). Private loans, the borrowing or lending of items/money between friends, is not the target..

Click to expand...

Thanks Marco for clarifying that

Marco|MindArk said:

When they get fooled by a scammer bank avatar they lose all trust in Entropia and in MindArk. It creates support cases, grief and anger.

Click to expand...

The irony...

Marco|MindArk said:

To clarify the clarification - MA will target avatars who state they offer loan services (or equal) as business (and not having a virtual banking license). Private loans, the borrowing or lending of items/money between friends, is not the target.

Newcomers come to Entropia, they have read about the banking license and assume baning is safe in Entropia. All banking. When they get fooled by a scammer bank avatar they lose all trust in Entropia and in MindArk. It creates support cases, grief and anger. Many newcomers doesn't really understand the concept of virtual items having real value until after something bad happens. This time we wanted to act before the situation gets out of hand, and to protect the community and add safety to the virtual environment. Many of the newcomers today don't have the knowledge or insight of the culture and mechanics in Entropia, thus meaning MA must add means to protect them.

As to scammers in general, MA is locking accounts due to scams and frauds. Maybe we should have a weekly posting of "Accounts locked since last week" somewhere to have transparancy, maybe we should add the number of warnings an avatar has when people interact with the avatar. Obviously there are things that can be improved.

Click to expand...

Yes , now the targets are a bit clearer now.
Seems a good improvement to see those posting with locked and warning accounts , shows the playerbase that something is done against scam and fraud.

Marco|MindArk said:

To clarify the clarification - MA will target avatars who state they offer loan services (or equal) as business (and not having a virtual banking license). Private loans, the borrowing or lending of items/money between friends, is not the target.

Newcomers come to Entropia, they have read about the banking license and assume baning is safe in Entropia. All banking. When they get fooled by a scammer bank avatar they lose all trust in Entropia and in MindArk. It creates support cases, grief and anger. Many newcomers doesn't really understand the concept of virtual items having real value until after something bad happens. This time we wanted to act before the situation gets out of hand, and to protect the community and add safety to the virtual environment. Many of the newcomers today don't have the knowledge or insight of the culture and mechanics in Entropia, thus meaning MA must add means to protect them.

As to scammers in general, MA is locking accounts due to scams and frauds. Maybe we should have a weekly posting of "Accounts locked since last week" somewhere to have transparancy, maybe we should add the number of warnings an avatar has when people interact with the avatar. Obviously there are things that can be improved.

Click to expand...

You know, people would be pissed off but they would probably actually respect you if you just had said: "Hey, five parties just bought official banking licences for a LOT of money. We just HAVE to protect their investment, right? So NO unofficial banking funny stuff!"

Now you just come across as an inexpensive dispenser of untruths.

Marco|MindArk said:

To clarify the clarification - MA will target avatars who state they offer loan services (or equal) as business (and not having a virtual banking license).

Click to expand...

Atleast now you admit you want to get rid of the competition for the official banks.

Marco|MindArk said:

To clarify the clarification - MA will target avatars who state they offer loan services (or equal) as business (and not having a virtual banking license). Private loans, the borrowing or lending of items/money between friends, is not the target.

Click to expand...

Well I think this is right, it is more simple and secure to have 5 banks trusted and with suport from MA , that having hundreds, less trusted and with no support from MA .
I think u (MA) did it right thing, but u have some problems express yourself

Dear friends,
I am offering to loan uber items to any and each of you. PM me if interested.

(just joking ofc)

dbelinfante said:

You know, people would be pissed off but they would probably actually respect you if you just had said: "Hey, five parties just bought official banking licences for a LOT of money. We just HAVE to protect their investment, right? So NO unofficial banking funny stuff!"

Now you just come across as an inexpensive dispenser of untruths.

Click to expand...

And please alos add "As we are not ready yet with the implementation of this secured system we need to make sure that the smart entrepreneurs with no licences could not get a good customer base before VU15.2"

Ok, I fully understand why it is not allowed to offer banking services if you are a non-licence holder. Only the licence holders will be able to use an in-game system, which should be trustworthy (probably).

However, this does not automatically imply that these licence holders are to be trusted outside of this banking system... in my opinion, any services these banks offer outside of the in-game system equal the banking services of non-licence holders. I can therefore not imagine any reason why Anshe Chung should be allowed to sell shares etc. using a website.

I don't have anything against Anshe, but allowing her IPO will just be unfair and promote inequality...

Marco|MindArk said:

When they get fooled by a scammer bank avatar they lose all trust in Entropia and in MindArk.

Click to expand...

Ehm

Let's take the clarification further:

If existing loaners (Akoz, Teilk and Cindywood) do continue their service without scamming anyone, will they still be considered scammers?

(Kerham is the first colonist to discover Creating Dilemmas Skill!).

P.S.: and yes, let us see what accounts were locked.

MA I think its pretty safe to say that you have royally p.o'd many of your most dedicated players.

Marco|MindArk said:

As to scammers in general, MA is locking accounts due to scams and frauds. Maybe we should have a weekly posting of "Accounts locked since last week" somewhere to have transparancy,

Click to expand...

of topic, but i like this idea

Aziphirael said:

I wouldn't call it naive, just a realistic viewpoint on whats going on. CBE isn't the only business to have been destroyed by changes in policy, I've seen others as well as my own ventures disappear because of changes to EULA or just VU updates. So these arguments have come and gone as it were.

Maybe thats why I'm less worked up about it as I have a slightly different view on EU, given my own experiences over the last few years. And perhaps why I find it interesting that people still cling onto the idealism that somehow its a fair environment for all. The only reality I can see is that you have to adapt to the capricious nature of EU and MA.

Reality is, MA likes playing the Evil Empire sometimes ;-)

Click to expand...

Sure, businesses have been made and unmade with the change in direction in how something works within the game. This is the first time as far as i can recall however, that they activly make an effort to quash a business-endeavor, saying "If you attempt to challenge the monopolies bought and paid for by others, we will ban you".

Kerham said:

Ehm

Let's take the clarification further:

If existing loaners (Akoz, Teilk and Cindywood) do continue their service without scamming anyone, will they still be considered scammers?

(Kerham is the first colonist to discover Creating Dilemmas Skill!).

Click to expand...

Of course YES

just because of that ...

Marco|MindArk said:

To clarify the clarification - MA will target avatars who state they offer loan services (or equal) as business (and not having a virtual banking license). Private loans, the borrowing or lending of items/money between friends, is not the target.

Click to expand...

Kerham said:

Ehm

Let's take the clarification further:

If existing loaners (Akoz, Teilk and Cindywood) do continue their service without scamming anyone, will they still be considered scammers?

(Kerham is the first colonist to discover Creating Dilemmas Skill!).

Click to expand...

Not by us, but they will for sure piss off a lot those who payed a huge amount of money for some virtual pawns and a virtual banking license.
Tbh, I can really see a black market coming, and I am looking forward to it...
We are all friends, right?

eu is dynamic


edit - tbh i think i understand this. i would like to hope it is a new day with MA and they will be more proactive . . . . in genernal act like they care about running this sandbox. now theyhave the chinese breathing down their necks they better behave.

in other news, i want to buy shares of the malls

just like the real world

just like the real world

companies draw everything to theirselves, and make it for regular ppl impossible