Clarification about Entropia banking operations

[ragethecorp]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Yes, I realize all of this. So, why would I (or anyone else, for that matter) choose to do business in this manner? There is exactly the problem, this has too many opportunities for something to go wrong. The licensed operations fix much of that, But, all that is irrelevant to this discussion, too.

You brought up the fact that they chose not to buy a bank and passed up the offer to run one. That MA isn't stopping them, but that they chose not to run a bank by not buying a license. I was showing that they gave up things such as 24/7 service by not buying a bank, and that they did not choose to close down by not buying a license but that MA closed them down. That is why it is relevant.

Originally Posted by Bubba

Well, that is certainly what the Clarification states.

So you do admit when you are wrong. Unless you meant Teilk could have done loans since January, even though he wanted the money irl.

Originally Posted by Bubba

Where does it say they cannot?
(And there are players doing exactly that.)

If you ask me it sounds like the clarification started as soon as MA said it. Also, if you get banned and then you say "but you didn't say we couldn't do it before the real banks were out" MA will tell you to shut up and go play another game.

Yes, players are giving these services but they aren't advertising on the forums and making themselves noticed by MA. CBE was already advertising on the forums and I'm sure it isn't very hard for MA to track them.

Also, these players run the risk of getting banned. CBE was smart enough to realize that the profits made from this bank weren't worth possibly getting banned for. Instead they are protesting their right to run their business and following all of MA's rules. Very admirable if you ask me.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by ragethecorp

You brought up the fact that they chose not to buy a bank and passed up the offer to run one. That MA isn't stopping them, but that they chose not to run a bank by not buying a license. I was showing that they gave up things such as 24/7 service by not buying a bank, and that they did not choose to close down by not buying a license but that MA closed them down. That is why it is relevant.

No, I simply pointed out that CBE chose not to pursue the business (which they attempted to start AFTER the licenses were sold. (I have no idea if they were in on the bidding for the license or not)), after they had forced MA to issue the clarification. So they were NOT an established business that was forced by MA out of business.

So we are two for two here. neither of the favorite poster children of this glorious revolution were actually rousted from their business and put out on the street.

So you do admit when you are wrong. Unless you meant Teilk could have done loans since January, even though he wanted the money irl.

I never admit that I am wrong. Well, unless I am. The clarification states that there is a risk of being locked. So I simply agree with you that CBE risked lock if they pursued the business without the license. But, also, only after licenses are put into effect. And Teilk could have done, and I suspect, probably did whatever he wanted.

If you ask me it sounds like the clarification started as soon as MA said it. Also, if you get banned and then you say "but you didn't say we couldn't do it before the real banks were out" MA will tell you to shut up and go play another game.

Yes, players are giving these services but they aren't advertising on the forums and making themselves noticed by MA. CBE was already advertising on the forums and I'm sure it isn't very hard for MA to track them.

Also, these players run the risk of getting banned. CBE was smart enough to realize that the profits made from this bank weren't worth possibly getting banned for. Instead they are protesting their right to run their business and following all of MA's rules. Very admirable if you ask me.

Our opinions differ. The EULA has yet to change. I therefore believe that MA will only enforce current EULA, and will provide an update to the EULA when this policy goes into effect.

[JackFree]

Originally Posted by Bubba

It is not I who fails to comprehend.
Call me what you wish. I seldom concern myself with the character analysis from the likes of yerself.

And the facts do, indeed, speak for themselves.

You ended your "business" in January.
You could have been doing this all along, and could have continued until the licensed banks are active, but you chose to end your business, long before the licenses were sold.

Now you want to whine about how you have been screwed? PAH!

Since you were not "in business", you were not "forced out of business."

...and if you add the fact that the banks might not be implemented until the fall or even winter, he will have wasted a full year.

May I mention the fact that nothing in the EULA has changed yet, we don't even know what changes will be made. Teilk could have been running his business until the rules actually do change. The more this drags on the more I feel like the only reason this thread is alive is because a few avatars got their virtual toes stepped on.

The poor horse has been beaten to death and is now severly decomposed and still being beaten, bury the carcass and move on. This is not healthy.

Cheers

[Teilk]

Originally Posted by JackFree

...and if you add the fact that the banks might not be implemented until the fall or even winter, he will have wasted a full year.

May I mention the fact that nothing in the EULA has changed yet, we don't even know what changes will be made. Teilk could have been running his business until the rules actually do change. The more this drags on the more I feel like the only reason this thread is alive is because a few avatars got their virtual toes stepped on.

The poor horse has been beaten to death and is now severly decomposed and still being beaten, bury the carcass and move on. This is not healthy.

Cheers

Actually the rules did change, per Marco and the support department. Marco stated quite clearly that commercial lending services are not allowed withput a license. Support stated much the same, and the cases have been copy pasted and posted here on this thread. I dont know where some of you are getting the idea that its "ok" to run until the "banks" are actually implemented.

[JackFree]

Originally Posted by Teilk

Actually the rules did change, per Marco and the support department. Marco stated quite clearly that commercial lending services are not allowed withput a license. Support stated much the same, and the cases have been copy pasted and posted here on this thread. I dont know where some of you are getting the idea that its "ok" to run until the "banks" are actually implemented.

Maybe because the rules should be stated in the EULA, and until that is done the rules have not changed.

Maybe Marco or Frank can tell us when this policy will go into effect.

[demoniac]

Originally Posted by JackFree

Maybe because the rules should be stated in the EULA, and until that is done the rules have not changed.

Maybe Marco or Frank can tell us when this policy will go into effect.

Well one of the rules in the EULA is that MA can make the rules up as they go along
Given that, it is fairly understandable for people to assume that this policy is already in effect, especially given the support responses.

If they stated in an announcement and support cases that shouting "Free Tibet!" in public chat risked your account being locked, would you test your theory out and shout it repeatedly while waiting for this change to be incorporated in the EULA?

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by Teilk

Actually the rules did change, per Marco and the support department. Marco stated quite clearly that commercial lending services are not allowed withput a license. Support stated much the same, and the cases have been copy pasted and posted here on this thread. I dont know where some of you are getting the idea that its "ok" to run until the "banks" are actually implemented.

Perhaps, from the fact that some are this very minute offering the very same type of service you claim you have been cheated out of?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by demoniac

Well one of the rules in the EULA is that MA can make the rules up as they go along
Given that, it is fairly understandable for people to assume that this policy is already in effect, especially given the support responses.

If they stated in an announcement and support cases that shouting "Free Tibet!" in public chat risked your account being locked, would you test your theory out and shout it repeatedly while waiting for this change to be incorporated in the EULA?

I tested that out today.
I ran about PA, and several other places, spamming "Free Tibet!!" for acouple of hours.

Only result, so far, several Avi's came to me saying they wanted some.

[BlackMagicWoman]

Originally Posted by Bubba

I tested that out today.
I ran about PA, and several other places, spamming "Free Tibet!!" for acouple of hours.

Only result, so far, several Avi's came to me saying they wanted some.

Hehe, well, wait until the new project with the chinese is implemented... then try

[BlackHawk]

Originally Posted by Bubba

I tested that out today.
I ran about PA, and several other places, spamming "Free Tibet!!" for acouple of hours.

Only result, so far, several Avi's came to me saying they wanted some.

LoooooL
Special delivery for them then.