Clarification about Entropia banking operations

[fric]

wonder when someone from MA will have the balls to comment on this matter since akoz has a support ticket saying that it wasnt forbidden

[Agnus_Dei]

Originally Posted by fric

wonder when someone from MA will have the balls to comment on this matter since akoz has a support ticket saying that it wasnt forbidden

Look at bottom of page... Marco is just reading here...


Ag.

[EyeContact]

I'm sure they'll see their mistake tomorrow; the announcement is full of contradictions, unclear statements and bad choise of words. They shouldn't have the underpaid intern made an important announcement like this when they have qualified communication managers

Yes, the above statement is sarcasm. I'm just sad to see some nice additions to the universe and on the same day another piece of it dies: freedom.

[Mikah]

Originally Posted by Xen

So, unapproved loan services are considered scams, but when you loan someone something and don't get it back, it's just a trade - not a scam - and they won't (notice won't is not the same as can't) do shit for you.

What a load of fucking shit.

Tell me about it!
When I sent a support case regarding a scammer who had scammed not just me, but multiple societies and publicly admitted it, they said they couldnt do anything because it meant them using their money to open such an investigation

Sorry MA, but sounds like a load of dung if you ask me, not to mention contradictory...instead of dealing with real scammers , they are more afraid of people who are a threat to their current business plan, if it doesnt make them money, make it illegal...

[demoniac]

Originally Posted by Bertha Bot

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.

Its very sad to see MA using these kind of threats to protect big investors. They have a very poor record on dealing with real scammers (usually adopting the policy that all trades are final so it is out of their hands) and yet here they suggest the account will be at risk even if there is no suggestion or evidence of a scam.

The real reasons obviously have little or nothing to do with protecting the community so shame on you MindArk, both for the position you have adopted and the dishonest reasons you use to justify it.

[Akoz]

So in my opinion and experience people asking to LOAN stuff make up a much bigger portion of the scammers. Shouldn't MA then tag everyone that asks to loan items from people as scammers and lock down their accounts as well?
Hey how about we just disable item trade!?

In my opinion there is no doubt what the real motivation behind this new "rule" is, and it is not to add to the safety of the community!

Enough said.

[Art Ludgren]

Originally Posted by fric

wonder when someone from MA will have the balls to comment on this matter since akoz has a support ticket saying that it wasnt forbidden

EULA basically says we can change what we want when we want and you have no recourse.

Precisely why I sold my hangar!

[BlackMagicWoman]

Originally Posted by Janus

MA needs to think these things through in advance much better than they have. The knee-jerk statement at the end of their press release here sure makes me pause, and question my further investments (even if modest) in the game going forward. The little voice of doubt in my head grew a bit more vocal with this statement. Full disclosure and consistency from here on out MA, we don't want to see EU crumble like a house of cards.

I absolutelly feel the same way. And I am quite positive many other current players do as well... It is outrageous in my own eyes what is happening.
They thought perhaps that they would switch our attention from this with their new VU and all the new stuff filled with bugs...
Maybe they dont even want us the chinese potential players that would join blinded their judgement and all that they can see is $$$...
MA, I hope you enjoy that champagne you are drinking...

[Frey]

Originally Posted by Aziphirael

Be interesting, in general though the EULA gives enough wiggle room for MA to either take/not take action. Judging by comments made on another forum, MA does not see what Anshe is doing as violating the terms of the EULA.

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.

Originally Posted by Aziphirael

At the end of the day we can argued all we want about the semantics of a statement but the reality is that the EULA gives MA enough power to selectively enforce whatever they choose.

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.

[jw350]

So if I understand correctly if you didn't put up the big bucks to get in on the banking (pawnshops) system your not trust worthy. Thats a load of