Login

Ratjoy.com » Forums » EoS Litigations » I thought this game was for fun, however destruction was tra

I thought this game was for fun, however destruction was tra

Mister Death RJ: McFlono McFloninoo Post Rating: 17 + / - Total Posts: 266 Karma: 300 Joined: Feb 6, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 I'm pleased to see such insightful, well-written posts from new players; thanks, Brent and Josh! I'm afraid this post isn't going to be quite at your level fellows, because I have a couple things to say to the gloaters. Congratulations! You have managed to drive away the nicest, smartest guy in EoS, and hurt the personal feelings of a great guy in the process. Well done! Sure, "It isn't personal, it's business!" Well, when you wake up tomorrow and there's no Q32 water left out there, sorry guys, it's business. When JOI Whatsits isn't buying your stuff and you have to lower your prices, remember that it isn't personal. What's that sound? A dozen idiots shooting themselves in the foot. All of you think you're going to be the next #1, but none of you have a clue how to build something up. All you know is how to knock something down. Which is why you'll never, ever win. Nice job, gang. Thanks for making my game just that much more petty, just that much less fun. I for one will miss you, Garry. I'm going to keep playing, but I'm going to miss you.
Matt Magnum RJ: Matt CO: Post Rating: 7 + / - Total Posts: 9 Karma: 16 Joined: Mar 25, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 FAIR gameplay? So you advocate a reset so everyone can play with the same rules rather than amass tons of cash with an incredibly flawed retail system?
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 41 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 One thing is for certain. If CEOs are not going to have a fiduciary responsibility requirement there is no point having them in the game. If anytime you hire a CEO they can just xfer any money you have to to themselves or their friends and be able to continue merrily along it might as well go the way of chat. No wonder most multi-player games suck and no one that has already reached puberty wants to play them.
Gail B RJ: Gail Goose Post Rating: 8 + / - Total Posts: 14 Karma: 11 Joined: Mar 31, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) Re: rip EVE springs to mind, it has no arching law over responsibilities of CEOs of corps. Things like this happen all the time on there, it becomes just a question of appointing somebody you trust as CEO. This can be an object lesson in that, for everybody, no matter where people stand on the ethics of it. Having "laws" to govern this kind of thing just seems like creating an unnecessary amount of work for whoever has the job of enforcing said laws and listening to arguments from people, and also opens all kinds of problems of what over things get laws put against them, like collusion on the stock market. It seems like it would get pretty messy pretty quickly if such a thing was introduced.
Ron Krovatom RJ: Ron Swanson CO: Alvie Post Rating: 7 + / - Total Posts: 6 Karma: 53 Joined: Mar 27, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) Good point Rip. Being able to be ripped off in this game is why most multiplayer games suck. Have you ever considered maybe that's why CEOs shouldn't be hired based on talking to them for two minutes in internet chat? And that maybe they shouldn't be given control of the main company?
John Doe RJ: T-man CO: T-man Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 16 Karma: 40 Joined: Mar 31, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 While I don't often get into this sort of thing, I take offence at being told I can't build anything. The people that joined recently wanted to go after someone who had cornered many businesses using money gained outside of the normal game play. More to my point, this is not a fairness simulator. Capitalism has been showed to cause competition, as that is the main draw of it. The people who have worked on taking down this monopoly are simply acting out what the game was designed to do: Simulate an economy. If you don't want that, I don't know why you are here.
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) If you are going to simulate it then do so, there is a reason there are laws about how companies compete. As well as how executives are required to be professional. How exactly does a person who knows no one come into a game with little forum activity and now know enough by chat interviewing someone? It doesn't matter to me but if anyone is to ever going to have real fun in this game not kiddie haxors fun then you have to be able to expect some things from a CEO and a company. If most companies that come out are just a scam to pump up the price and steal the assets and screw investor what is the point of having a stock market? I say if you can't fix it where it is friendly and fair competitiveness than I say remove the Chat, CEO, and Stocks. I know if it isn't that way there is no way I will ever touch them. In reality all you guys really want is to create a vacuum so your little goony boys band can take over. I think anyone who IPOs a company simply to scam and then dump the stock should be deleted, including whatever assets/companies they held prior to.
Chandler Hill RJ: Chandler CO: Chandler Post Rating: 6 + / - Total Posts: 54 Karma: 113 Joined: Mar 25, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 See, I kind of disagree. Look at real life: you see owners cut and run and leave stockholders high and dry all the time. Perhaps before investing in a stock you should do due diligence on who you're investing in? I mean that's kind of common sense. If it's some no-name dude who showed up and has like Q3 researches maybe he is not the wisest investment guy
Nick Wright RJ: Marx Post Rating: -2 + / - Total Posts: 8 Karma: 15 Joined: Apr 1, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 The public meltdown and subsequent tears are utterly glorious. Best. Game. Ever. It's almost like real capitalism, except that it's the super rich dude getting shafted by the little guy instead of the other way around. How refreshing.
John Bouton RJ: John Bouton CO: LOL Post Rating: 7 + / - Total Posts: 20 Karma: 27 Joined: Apr 3, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 It seems to me if you hand over CEO control of a company to someone you are sort of saying "I'm rich enough that I don't even need to manage this any more" and that if someone's mismanagement can sink your entire empire then you probably shouldn't give it to them. It would be a lot simpler to tell players to be careful who they hand the reins to than to try to enforce rules for CEOs. The argument about it being illegal to intentionally sabotage your corporation isn't a bad point, but it could equally apply to insider trading, manipulation of stocks, and monopolistic practices. Where is the line drawn?
John Doe RJ: T-man CO: T-man Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 16 Karma: 40 Joined: Mar 31, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 Why do you think anyone acting in a realistic way will be banned when the creator doesn't like banning/wiping. More to the point, he's shown repeatedly that he doesn't want to interfere in this type of thing. Face it, you're simply trying to keep in control of this game and are willing to screech incessantly about the evil goons to stay in what little power you have. I hate to say it, but the way you are acting demands a response to keep this a civil place to discuss things.
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: -4 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 Really show me the company that sold their assets and pissed away all the cash they got for IPOing the very day they IPOed and I will (would because it has never happened)show you a full set of executives doing life for it. You guys want this to be a cutthroat commit any fraud you can dream up game and I and I don't think most of the people that would actually pay for the game someday want something that is competitive but in the same professional business is conducted today. I know I do business every day and I respect my competitors and am more worried about taking care of my business more than trying to figure out how to steal/swindle from my competitor. If this is to be a game as much about being two faced and stabbing people in the back it really isn't something I will be interested in long. What is the next money making strategy? Seeing if you can sell something to someone and type a few extra zeros in b2b? :)
Richard Ripberger RJ: Rip CO: Rip Post Rating: -4 + / - Total Posts: 153 Karma: 78 Joined: Mar 28, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 It would be a lot simpler to tell players to be careful who they hand the reins to than to try to enforce rules for CEOs. The argument about it being illegal to intentionally sabotage your corporation isn't a bad point, but it could equally apply to insider trading, manipulation of stocks, and monopolistic practices. Where is the line drawn? It is drawn at the point that CEO is allowed to profit from it. Or is that the big get rich scheme, suck up to rich guy, gain his trust, get your hand around his wallet, and steal it? Are you guys trying to play out some fantasy we should know about?
Newton Venture RJ: Rehab Submarine CO: Rehab Submarine Post Rating: 25 + / - Total Posts: 8 Karma: 46 Joined: Apr 1, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) One final note from me as I should respond to Jacko's alligations that "it wasn't an investment gone wrong." If there was anything damning about this whole thing, is that you got fooled twice, before the whole CEO incident (which I personally thought went a bit overboard). For those not fully in the know this is essentially what happened. First Jacko got burned on a new IPO, for the stock JTM. The CEO of JTM purposely oversold stock, and before Jacko could take ownership, sold everything and spent the money on useless stuff. Similarly, not FIVE HOURS LATER, Jacko buys into another IPO by the SAME CEO (this time MERC), with the intent of a hostile takeover, and the same exact thing happens. I can completely understand getting taken by the first company, you were blindsided by that one. However, I would have been extreamly dubious of any claims by that user in the future, and I would certainly limit my investment in any of his companies to a few million; if that. Then, in a fit of anger and frustration, you sell your stock in basically everything, and kick out your CEOs (understandable here). Yet, while reappointing a proven helper like Rip was a wise move, appointing an unknown newbie, who was begging to become your CEO to your prime company, and was lavishing you with praise? That was just foolishness.
in vision RJ: very redman Post Rating: 9 + / - Total Posts: 2 Karma: 23 Joined: Apr 4, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) Actually, I screwed up on the JTM IPO and oversold my stock. I should also note that at the time the company went live, JTM had something like 3 factories, no stores, and the highest research was 3. Jacko bought up a huge portion of it (somewhere around 2g?) and sent me a message basically stating that he was positioned for a takeover of JTM. To cut my losses I sold out and burned the company. He then sent me a message basically begging me to stop running it into the ground. After some research I had figured out that he does this quiet regularly, which in my mind is a ridiculous thing to do and makes him a bully pushing new players out of the game. That's when I got the idea for MERC. I funneled the money into it from JTM, sent him a message saying "hey this company is about to go public, buy buy buy!" Keep in mind that MERC has less assets than JTM had when it went live. I took MERC public a little bit earlier than I told him I would, then got on chat and told him that I made a mistake by going early and he needed to buy up. He proceeded to dump a ton of money into yet ANOTHER worthless company, and got burned again. If it's somehow wrong that an investor in my company wasn't wise enough to scroll down a bit and see that the company had NO ASSETS before he bought, you can't blame that on me. Just because I took a company public and told someone to buy doesn't mean that I'm responsible for his lack of research. If you walked into a car dealership and the salesman said "buy this now!" would you just blindly throw cash at the man? No. The investor has a duty to perform due diligence and research exactly what he is investing in. It's the same way in "the real world." I then dumped basically all of the funds onto the open market as kind of a stimulus. What it boils down to is that a player is ultimately responsible for his or her financial decisions in game - no one else should have to hold your hand. There is no one there to hold your hand in the real world and I feel as if pressuring Rattan into babysitting individual players is both unfair to Rattan, the players, and the overall economy of the game. But apparently, it's completely fine when Jacko performs a hostile takeover of a company, but when it happens the other way around suddenly there is an outcry. JTMarlin - Buy Now! Disclaimer: Don't really buy now, it's a SHAM!

You need to register or login to post a reply.

© 2012 Ratjoy.com Server Time: May 4, 2024, 4:42 AM