EVE General Discussion

So intentionally breaching a contract then fraudulently claiming theft is OK with you? As that's what this is saying is happening. Then to top it off, she can't prove anything because "all of my email accounts have been hacked, I swear!"

Strangely enough, the game's dev/GM staff is not a part of those aforementioned legal preceedings.

The EULA is a witchunt at best, as it is between an insurance company and it's client.

That sounds very familiar... like carebears who rage after being ganked and claim to have powerful friends in nullsec.

I believe you misinterpreted my message, so let me bring some clarity:

Trustworthy banks and insurance companies are like unicorns - they do not exist.

You do not know that she fraudulently claimed theft. The case is not over as far as I've read . I*n fact, I'll quote it!

"In 2006, the Australian Taxation Office recognised gold farming as a taxable income source.

AAMI has counter-sued, accusing Ms Fincham of staging the theft in order to fraudulently claim on her policy."

So I guess it's up to the lawyer's to do god's work eh?

But laughing at theft and loss of livelihood is bad.

If she is guilty, it still doesn't serve her right, as she will be sentenced or otherwise punished. If she is not guilty, it still isn't funny.

That's true, you did say that. You also said "But, that's what the trial is for, and I may have just tipped off a legal contact of mine at AAMI, anonymously of course, regarding the matter of a legally binding contract with CCP, ie the EULA, that forbids this action in the first place." and that makes me curious...

Did you, and do you have a legal contact in the AAMI? If so, are you losing your objectivity as either a player, a journalist, or both?

Ultimately, the fact that she is/was a gold farmer should have nothing to do wtih the claim. She had a verifiable asset that she paid an insurance premium on. That's pretty much it. If they think that she staged the loss then that is the basis of the trial.

Gold farming, while a violation of a "contract" that you are agreeing to with a company, is not illegal by definition and the "contract" outlines the potential ramifications. While someone could say it's "fraud" that simply is not the case. If there were legal ramifications, there would be alot more hoops to jump through confirming that you were indeed the person agreeing to the "contract". Plus I would think that the offending company would have to file criminal charges to be able to use fraud as a claim disqualifer because she would have not been found guilt through due process.

TL/DR - she's a gold farmer and that is a violation of a company's rules not international law. The insurance company has no basis to deny her claim under the umbrella of "property aquired as a result of criminal activity". Ultimately, so purchased an insurance policy to cover an asset, paid the premium and filed a claim. The only thing that should be disputable is the validity of the claim.

I ran a story on a legal shitstorm that AAMI was involved in during the QLD floods a few years back when they refused to pay claims based on an 'act of god'. It was ridiculous, and they weren't the only company that tried to pull that ****. I made contacts with the legal departments of a number of those contacts. I am no friend to insurance companies, and having contacts there doesn't mean otherwise. I have contacts in most of Australia's political parties as well, but I can still only vote for one.

And no, passing on factual information that may or may not have a bearing on a case has no effect on my impartiality as a journalist. If I was to write about the case, I would state the facts of the case, and stick to the story. People have this misconception that a journalist isn't entitled to an opinion or the right to contribute ever otherwise they are bias. This is not the case. A journalist is not supposed to let bias get in the way of reporting or investigating a story that he or she is to share with the public, but that journalist's opinions on that story do exist. Anyone with a mind has an opinion.

Do I want to see this woman go down? Sure I do. I sent them information that may or may not help them win the case. Did I send them lies or make something up just because I want to see her go down? No, I did not.

Did I write a story about the woman being evil without delivering the facts of the case all full of my opinion? No, I didn't, I made a forum post instead. So my journalistic integrity remains intact. Just because one's profession is 'journalist' does not mean he is not entitled to his opinion, and to express his opinion, beyond his journalism. In fact, many journalists do write opinion pieces, which people often mistake as news and call them ****** journalists as a result. It's just stupid.

It's not likely she'll be charged for fraud regarding the EVE EULA by the insurance company, but the insurance company can argue two things to win their case with the EULA. 1) if the insured property was acquired fraudulently, then they can deny her claim on that basis alone. 2) it shows the woman's tendency to ignore the rules and demonstrates her willingness to commit fraud, so they can argue it is a habit. Along with providing evidence that she has faked the robbery and claimed fraudulently, this material can strengthen their case.

The original link in the OP is not an opinion piece, it is called 'news', the reporting of events that have taken place in the public interest with the facts of the matter at hand, and I didn't flaunt a journalistic view, I expressed a view as an interest party, ie an EVE player. I did present my opinion, yes, but the writer of the article I posted expressed no opinion of their own. I didn't defend anything 'by having an opinion'. That doesn't even make sense.