Clarification about Entropia banking operations

[dbelinfante]

Originally Posted by Pe-nerd

I really hope the European union will take steps to ensure the wild growth of people earning from addiction and gambling inside the virtua worlds. I hope for a more lifestyle centered game instead of supplying rich kids with new toys and the casino style in looting.

I wanna feel free in this game since it is meant to be entertainment not a cruel reminder of real life.

These two statements contradict eachother. The EU (the other one ) taking steps will inevitably lead to regulation, not deregulation, which is what we need here.

MA should live by this creed: "Don't fix it if it ain't broken."

[KP708]

Having just read through the new posts on this thread since yesterday, and seen a lot of very heated exchanges, but still nothing really getting anywhere, can someone please explain a few things to me.

1. Is it people's objective to actually get something changed, or merely to let off some steam and hence feel better.

I mean I know it's human nature when you feel angry you want to lash out at someone or something - MA are out of reach, so we start attacking each other. But is this everyone's primary objective, or do we actually want to achieve something positive.

If you want to express your anger, there are many effective ways of doing this.

2. Assuming people want something to be changed, what really is the objective. As I said yesterday, MA have issued the licences, and got the money for them. Done deal, now a solution is needed which includes that.

BMW said yesterday that a solution has been proposed - that MA need to do a complete U turn and allow unofficial competition to the banks. It doesn't take much to realise that since this would mean they could not deliver the exclusivity they had promised to the licence holders, the licence holders would complain about 'cheating unreliable MA' who need to do a complete U-turn on their latest policy. MA could then say, either 'all trades are final - hahahhaha we are off to the golf course'. Or they could say ok we will buy back the licence if any licence holder feels cheated. They will then have to recover the cost from elsewhere - so lower loots, maybe an increase to decay etc.

So obviously that solution won't work. Or maybe this is what everyone wants - just scrap the banks, we would rather have less loot and higher decay, and no new features or bugfixes. I don't know what people prefer. But I do know software takes a lot of time and money to write and test and support, so it has to be paid for somehow.

However, what I actually suggested yesterday was that we needed a solution which works with the continuing existence of the official licences.

Now maybe the licence-holders would say - yes we are all quite happy for unofficial competition. We are confident of our business plan, and feel no threat from any unlicensed competitors. Perhaps MA are currently canvassing opinion on that from the licence-holders, with a view to issuing a new statement.

But if not, here are some ideas to get the ball rolling. Do any of them come close:

- MA could just issue an apology for such a cack-handed PR exercise. They could state that they should have sought player community opinion before introducing the 'bank' licences, and could express regret that they handled this issue in a way that caused so much unhappiness.

OR

- MA could offer to provide an explicit statement that certain players who were offering a loan service as a business prior to the licence auction would not be subject to ban if they continue their operations, provided those players (a) continue to operate in a reputable way, and (b) ensure they advise all players they deal with that they enter into any agreement with them at their own risk
This would not be a blanket lifting of the ban, but an unofficial licence for players who were already offering the service which has now been banned. however, those players would be under a higher duty to behave reputably than normal players, in the same way that a licensed financial organisation has a higher duty to look after customers' funds than a normal business in the real world. That means these players have to put things right themselves in the case of a complaint, or MA will just cancel their unofficial licence. It may mean writing off some loans - this is a normal cost of a lending business.
Perhaps MA could also offer first chance to those people to acquire an official licence after the exclusive period expires, should they want to have one.

OR

- MA have some extra money now - so although they can't change what's been decided on the 'banks' situation, they do have flexibility with what they do with the money. What would we like? What is a priority? If they agreed to introduce vehicles in the next VU, would this offset the unhappiness?

Ok I am just trying to be constructive here - there are better ideas I'm sure. Point being instead of just bashing each other and MA, and demanding change without thinking through the consequences, surely we need to think about what we really want, and also what is possible?

[Annica]

Originally Posted by KP708

1. Is it people's objective to actually get something changed, or merely to let off some steam and hence feel better.

I think it is just those who wanted to start some bankbusiness of their own that is pissed of by MA:s statement.
So they let some steam off here because they cant really change anything at all.
Its MA:s game and also their business so they make the rules.
We just have to accept those rules because MA is NOT going to change the statement about the banks.
I can really understand that they dont want any competition with the bank licenses they sold.

[Congadawg]

Originally Posted by Annica

Its MA:s game and also their business so they make the rules.
We just have to accept those rules because MA is NOT going to change the statement about the banks.

William Wallace would not agree. Freeeeeedoooooom!!!!!!

[Annica]

Originally Posted by Congadawg

William Wallace would not agree. Freeeeeedoooooom!!!!!!

lol i know, but this is the freedom MA wants

[Congadawg]

Just like kings of the past... but if enough people stand together on an issue, MA will have no choice. For one thing... this whole thread has given so much neg. publicity to the banks that I'd hate to be one of those who invested so much money in them. I really feel for them... none of this is their fault. They are clients of MA, and MA is trying to protect their investment. I can understand that... but two things get me. 1. The lack of.. um.. cooth, shall we say, that this matter was handled with. And 2. The thought of how easily our rights can be stripped away if MA so inclined.

The best option for MA, (and this is even to protect their investors) is to allow those who wanted to to go ahead with their business plans to do so without fear of violation of the EULA. The bank liscenses come with a place of business, and automated operation, security and many other incentives. The "others" assume ALL risks. I say if they want to take those risks, let them. But the problem we face now is players NOT using the 5 liscensed banks simply out of spite. (Again.. lets remember that this isn't their fault.) BUT, the services the rouge bank owners provide is NO DIFFERENT than traders, resellers etc etc etc. I'm surprised that with the application of the malls that trading other players was no longer allowed. I mean.. lets be consistant, right.

I hope this can all be resolved peacefully... for Mindark, For the bank investors and for the peace and assurance of all the community. Reinstill our faith Mindark.. while you still can.

[Congadawg]

edited.... its too early in the morning.

[KP708]

Originally Posted by Annica

I think it is just those who wanted to start some bankbusiness of their own that is pissed of by MA:s statement.
So they let some steam off here because they cant really change anything at all.
Its MA:s game and also their business so they make the rules.
We just have to accept those rules because MA is NOT going to change the statement about the banks.
I can really understand that they dont want any competition with the bank licenses they sold.

yes I can understand this as well, but I always thought the good thing about EU is the maturity of the playerbase. We are not all teenagers. Yet I read this thread and I think maybe suddenly everyone is 13 again.

However, maybe I'm wasting my time trying to be constructive. Maybe this is why MA don't bother trying to communicate with players very much.

Let's get past :

and try instead:

[MG Mighty]

Originally Posted by KP708

yes I can understand this as well, but I always thought the good thing about EU is the maturity of the playerbase. We are not all teenagers. Yet I read this thread and I think maybe suddenly everyone is 13 again.

However, maybe I'm wasting my time trying to be constructive. Maybe this is why MA don't bother trying to communicate with players very much.

Let's get past :

and try instead:

Well it was MA who started the fight when they call that honest players would be considered scammers without due cause.

I don't agree that MA should protect the license bank holders more than providing them with a safe and reliable system to perform their activities.

If somebody is willing to risk to use a not so secure system to provide similiar services, accordingly to the majority of the opinions previously here expressed , people think that should be allowed to do it.
And as long as their behaviors are legit morally and legally I don't think that anybody should be forced to abandon such activities.

The withdraw of that unfortunate comment from their site shows that given them the opportunity they will correct their mistakes.

This wasn't their first, not even the most serious and certainly that I don't expect to be their last mistake in terms of handling certain game play features.

The license holders have an exclusive to operate a secured bank like activity/system that nobody else has.
That is what was advertised why should be given more to them at costs of the community based help services
when those license holders didn't even yet proven their value in terms of that service
and are beyond dispute here to milk the system out of MA hard earned supplies of wealth provided by their costumers=us.

[KP708]

Originally Posted by MG Mighty

Well it was MA who started the fight when they call that honest players would be considered scammers without due cause.

Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh

He started it miss it wasn't me

I give up. If I was Marco I'd probably have thrown myself under an Atrox by now.

Have fun in EU if you choose to. Or not if you don't. Gl with your campaign