Jump to content
Theodosius

Administration meta interference

Recommended Posts

Wait wait wait..

When I looked at this yesterday it said "NPO & GoG Bailout". Why does it only say "NPO" now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so I was defrauded by EB as an investor in the past when one of their admins deleted. Do I get a refund from then? 

BK deleted and took a $4.3 billion loan from MB with them. They quit as a direct consequence of NPO leaving. Does MB get a bailout as well? Pretty sure Orion lost money on a bunch of alliances leaving with their loans unpaid, and it might cause them to close down. Do they get a bailout? 

Or does Sheepy have a special relationship with EB only? 

Honestly, this is why we didn't want you starting a bank as a mechanic in the game. 

 

Edit: It isn't like EB would have gone under. The money they were loaning out was an investment, not a bank balance they were required to return when asked for. Even if EB was left with a single dollar, they would still technically be in the black. 

 

This is just Sheepy playing favorites. Typical. 

Edited by Joel James
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, as a third party, can and will provide evidence/testimony that this is indeed administrator privilege abuse and absolutely a terrible and unfair move.

Furthermore, I am personally being slighted and involved in this incident/report at a national level as I couldn't find MY bailout.
Where is my bail out for sinking millions fighting a cheating alliance?

Admin moves like this prove IQ right when they said bad things about this game and the admin!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alex

There are two "fair" solutions to this one. You give everyone a bailout who got shafted by NPO/etc. or you give it to nobody.

Everything else but these two is bias and favoritism. I have no idea who Seb is investing to next or who not. I have no idea who is profiting most from this bailout. But if you don't like being called out for bias, then don't do things that clearly are biased. The amount of money involved here is no justification as to why one bank should be favored.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Elijah Mikaelson

Well I asked Alex if he would refund anyone who has loaned NPO, BK, GoG and those who deleted and with enough proof he will, A banker or two has also told me after I reported to them about Alex refunding the loans that they would get a 50% refund on what they lost as long as it was to pay back investors.

I wonder if Seb was told the same thing that he will refund 14 billion as long as he refunded EB investors 

Edited by Elijah Mikaelson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I'm allowed to post here since it's not -technically- a report, but this was Alex's response on the official PW server.
Bail-outs.png

Edited by Aether
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mitsuru said:

@Alex

There are two "fair" solutions to this one. You give everyone a bailout who got shafted by NPO/etc. or you give it to nobody.

Everything else but these two is bias and favoritism. I have no idea who Seb is investing to next or who not. I have no idea who is profiting most from this bailout. But if you don't like being called out for bias, then don't do things that clearly are biased. The amount of money involved here is no justification as to why one bank should be favored.

I know other groups were reaching out to Alex at least, i however do not know his reply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically what I'm hearing is "I know you lost a lot of money because of a player's decision, so let me give you something that I am offering no one else who was similarly effected. That's fair." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Aether said:

Not sure if I'm allowed to post here since it's not -technically- a report, but this was Alex's response on the official PW server.
Bail-outs.png

It's not because of a moderation decision he made, it's because NPO was cheating, forcing admin action.

Look at it this way: Seb loans money to NPO, and NPO gets in a war. If NPO doesn't cheat at that point, they lose and don't have the resources to repay him.

If they do cheat (as they did), eventually moderation action will lead to them being punished, and they don't repay him. Either way, the point is Seb made a bad bet. Player run banking systems do add a layer of complexity, but only so far as they function as real banks do, without some outside source pumping in money if they fail (lame bailout jokes aside).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a discussion post, and has been moved to the Moderation Support subforum accordingly.

As for compensation for defaulted loans, Seb and many others reached out to me asking about that. I made the decision to interfere in this case and re-issue half of the verifiable transactions because NPO & company defaulting on their loans is effectively my fault.

Normally, I would not interfere in these cases (and do not intend to in the future.) However, the players that invest in and operate these "banks" add a lot to the community, and I don't want to see them fail because of a moderation action I took.

This whole ordeal is a unique and atypical circumstance. I will not bail out future loan defaults.

Anyone who had an official loan with NPO, BK, or GotG can reach out to me with specific details of transactions, including loan amounts, dates, payments made, and if I can verify it through in-game records I will refund half of the unpaid amounts. I am not considering any interest owed, only the principals of the loans less payments made.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Elijah Mikaelson
4 minutes ago, Alex said:

This is a discussion post, and has been moved to the Moderation Support subforum accordingly.

As for compensation for defaulted loans, Seb and many others reached out to me asking about that. I made the decision to interfere in this case and re-issue half of the verifiable transactions because NPO & company defaulting on their loans is effectively my fault.

Normally, I would not interfere in these cases (and do not intend to in the future.) However, the players that invest in and operate these "banks" add a lot to the community, and I don't want to see them fail because of a moderation action I took.

This whole ordeal is a unique and atypical circumstance. I will not bail out future loan defaults.

Anyone who had an official loan with NPO, BK, or GotG can reach out to me with specific details of transactions, including loan amounts, dates, payments made, and if I can verify it through in-game records I will refund half of the unpaid amounts. I am not considering any interest owed, only the principals of the loans less payments made.

Well unless you told them to cheat I am not sure how it can be your fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alex said:

This is a discussion post, and has been moved to the Moderation Support subforum accordingly.

As for compensation for defaulted loans, Seb and many others reached out to me asking about that. I made the decision to interfere in this case and re-issue half of the verifiable transactions because NPO & company defaulting on their loans is effectively my fault.

Normally, I would not interfere in these cases (and do not intend to in the future.) However, the players that invest in and operate these "banks" add a lot to the community, and I don't want to see them fail because of a moderation action I took.

This whole ordeal is a unique and atypical circumstance. I will not bail out future loan defaults.

Anyone who had an official loan with NPO, BK, or GotG can reach out to me with specific details of transactions, including loan amounts, dates, payments made, and if I can verify it through in-game records I will refund half of the unpaid amounts. I am not considering any interest owed, only the principals of the loans less payments made.

Again: Seb made a bad loan to an entity that couldn't pay him back. If they don't cheat, they don't have the resources to repay him. Your moderation action didn't screw him over: He was screwed over when he agreed to make the loan. Why should he expect to be compensated with illicitly generated funds?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

Well unless you told them to cheat I am not sure how it can be your fault?

Of course I didn't tell them to cheat.

I just mean that in the absence of moderation action, they most likely would have repaid the debts owed. This was, in my opinion, an impossible to foresee risk, and the impact could have bankrupted / ended some of these player-run "banks."

As I stated, I think these player run organizations add a lot of value to the game and the community, and I don't want to see them end. Verifying and "bailing out" for 50% of defaulted principals in this extraordinary circumstance is, in my opinion, a way to ensure that they continue to exist (while also not fully insuring them or making banking "risk free.")

1 minute ago, Divinum said:

Again: Seb made a bad loan to an entity that couldn't pay him back. If they don't cheat, they don't have the resources to repay him. Your moderation action didn't screw him over: He was screwed over when he agreed to make the loan. Why should he expect to be compensated with illicitly generated funds?

Again, he wasn't fully compensated. Only 50% of the losses were compensated.

My reasoning being that it would be unreasonable to expect him to know that they were cheating (I didn't know, how would he or others know?)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People talking about precedent here, in this instance don't know how precedent actually works. 

First, the problem has to be the same. Okay, bank defaulting. Now the context has to be the same, or very close. The context here? 1/3 of the game just left and mass deleted. A third, mind you, who typically ran command economies that were extremely good at leveraging and using debt, and one of these alliances even reportedly took debt it didn't need to keep liquidity of other assets.

You're not talking about some tinpot micro defaulting or even disbanding, merging and defaulting, you're talking about 1/3 of the game literally quitting, with whatever wealth they add scattered to who knows where. 

Again, mind you, very large, command econ alliances, with a reputation for using debt to leverage growth. NPO alone probably had enough out to cover it's liquidity to cripple multiple private institutions if it borrowed them, and this is counting the biggest of those private institutions as the ones being crippled.

 

There's no precedent to even set here. Anyone who lost significant sums because of this and can prove it, should bring it to Alex, and in keeping with what he's said, he should then return half. That's as simple as it gets, no fire and brimstone, no usable precedent unless you think 1/3 of the game will delete again.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Elijah Mikaelson
Just now, Alex said:

Of course I didn't tell them to cheat.

I just mean that in the absence of moderation action, they most likely would have repaid the debts owed. This was, in my opinion, an impossible to foresee risk, and the impact could have bankrupted / ended some of these player-run "banks."

As I stated, I think these player run organizations add a lot of value to the game and the community, and I don't want to see them end. Verifying and "bailing out" for 50% of defaulted principals in this extraordinary circumstance is, in my opinion, a way to ensure that they continue to exist (while also not fully insuring them or making banking "risk free.")

I am sorry Alex i disagree, You temp banned what five people for cheating? BK and GoG had no one banned, NPO lost 4 gov members, THEY deleted of their own free will.

Also you know how much money was in NPO offshore and such, you really think they could not pay it? you also know how much from BK/NPO/GoG was sent to goons and others.

Why are you not removing the banks of those who had willingly taken cash and such from BK, NPO and GoG knowing they was going to delete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex said:

Again, he wasn't fully compensated. Only 50% of the losses were compensated.

My reasoning being that it would be unreasonable to expect him to know that they were cheating (I didn't know, how would he or others know?)

But it should be 0%. So what if he didn't know? If they hadn't actually been cheating, he'd be screwed out of the loan just the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just get rid of player-player banking if it's going to cause this many headaches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Divinum said:

It's not because of a moderation decision he made, it's because NPO was cheating, forcing admin action.

Look at it this way: Seb loans money to NPO, and NPO gets in a war. If NPO doesn't cheat at that point, they lose and don't have the resources to repay him.

If they do cheat (as they did), eventually moderation action will lead to them being punished, and they don't repay him. Either way, the point is Seb made a bad bet. Player run banking systems do add a layer of complexity, but only so far as they function as real banks do, without some outside source pumping in money if they fail (lame bailout jokes aside).

It would be hard for Alex to judge who would've won the war without the cheating through an objective lens. Ignoring that though, they did cheat, got proper punishment for it, but others got screwed over, and Alex has stated his prerogative is to keep these player run banks alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aether said:

It would be hard for Alex to judge who would've won the war without the cheating through an objective lens. Ignoring that though, they did cheat, got proper punishment for it, but others got screwed over, and Alex has stated his prerogative is to keep these player run banks alive.

It's actually very easy to know who would have won without cheating. NPO and entourage certainly did; that's why they ragequit. This defeats the meta purpose of player run banks, to bolster activity and make the game more complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

People talking about precedent here, in this instance don't know how precedent actually works. 

First, the problem has to be the same. Okay, bank defaulting. Now the context has to be the same, or very close. The context here? 1/3 of the game just left and mass deleted. A third, mind you, who typically ran command economies that were extremely good at leveraging and using debt, and one of these alliances even reportedly took debt it didn't need to keep liquidity of other assets.

You're not talking about some tinpot micro defaulting or even disbanding, merging and defaulting, you're talking about 1/3 of the game literally quitting, with whatever wealth they add scattered to who knows where. 

Again, mind you, very large, command econ alliances, with a reputation for using debt to leverage growth. NPO alone probably had enough out to cover it's liquidity to cripple multiple private institutions if it borrowed them, and this is counting the biggest of those private institutions as the ones being crippled.

 

There's no precedent to even set here. Anyone who lost significant sums because of this and can prove it, should bring it to Alex, and in keeping with what he's said, he should then return half. That's as simple as it gets, no fire and brimstone, no usable precedent unless you think 1/3 of the game will delete again.

Ah, how about this then for a fun hypothetical so if as a result of this moderation action t$ decides to delete and leave the game - we easily meet that same criteria where we have regularly taken loans of substantial numbers to help growth while not impacting internal capital. 
 

If we left and had 40bil in outstanding loans would that also constitute a need for repayment? 
 

Or is your argument that just because a lot of people rage quit the value of numbers involved is more relevant?

edit: nothing about this would have killed in game banking and making leaps that alliances not even affected by the moderation action directly are also eligible just seems ridiculous. It sucks don’t get me wrong, but this does not feel like an appropriate way to fix the (non-existent) problem... 

Edited by Timmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.