View Single Post
Old 04-02-2008, 12:09   #96
Xandra
Alpha
Xandra's Avatar
Xandra AbleXandra AbleXandra AbleXandra AbleXandra AbleXandra AbleXandra AbleXandra AbleXandra Able  
  Activity Longevity
4/2016/20
Posts: 517
Blog Entries: 6
Avatar Name:
Xandra "MadMaiden" Xandottir
Soc: The British Empire
Location: In exile
EFD: 9,928.73
Reputation: Able
Fame: 108 Achievements: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traf Rellik View Post
Several of us have said essentially the same thing: it's POLICY, nothing more. It gives them latitude and jurisdiction control, nothing more.
With all due respect, Traf, I object, too.

Policies where one part remains nearly rightless when the other part reserves to act at will are considered "contra bonos mores" here in Germany, and this might very well hit MA.
Think of it, this is marketed as "the most secure virtual reality" of all, and, in fact, MA reserves the rights to do whatever they want - is this really OK?

MA doesn't have any security for our "deposits" in their book-keeping (according to the quarterly records), and they claim in the support reply I quoted that any actions like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xandra View Post
[...] Question: If I did things like this (receiving small amounts of PEDs from other avatars without countervalue), provided that such activities would be fully at my/ my business partners risk and MA would be in full discharge from any liability (due to EULA anyway), would this put any risk onto my avatar of getting banned? [...]
could result in things like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MA View Post
As a result our common policy is to block the involved Entropia accounts, in reference to the EULA 17 h. § and 18 §. [...]
It's fine that many of us have enough trust in MA to be sure that they wouldn't abuse such a possibility to block nearly all & every participants account at will (and I'm among these), but, as I have elaborated earlier, things might change. The sheer possibility of such actions is a pending danger, and I cannot understand that some ppl talking about "deposits" when they, in fact, give their money to MA in full knowledge they don't have any right at all to claim it back, should things go wrong.
With the current policy MA (or whoever get's in possession of it) is easily able to simply shutdown, keeping all the "deposits".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traf Rellik View Post
If you freak out any time you see somebody "reserve a right" for this or that, you probably haven't spent much time reading small print or public notices in the places you visit.
Right, you'd give your money to an investment fund that reserves the right to kick you at will, keeping your money, without any means of legal resistance? Well, I have one, we're investing in coastal immobile's in Austria, usually we pay about 56% interest - feel free to contact me about my banking details ;-))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traf Rellik View Post
Stop shouting that the sky is falling, it's not even cracked.
Right, not yet. But it could happen any time. What do we know who buy's in IPO? And how much? And who would this be? And how much shares would come to market? And what would be the goal of a new majority owner? I could imagine it could be a nice deal to take over EU for cheap now, have it run some more year, then cash out. We don't know.

And since we "deposit" real money, I cannot help to think that we'd deserve clear rules and safe reserves, as we'd expect in any other kind of pecuniary investment, too. Is this this far-fetched?


Have fun!
__________________
No more Sig here.
Xandra is offline Reply With Quote