July 9, 2008 by Konner McDonnell
Posted in
My previous coverage of the proposed CSLL/CSVC merger ended with a fairly mellow update. Given that Oceanlane was taking his company private, it seemed harsh to criticize him further. Even if the terms of the buyback were, as one Y2P reader put it, “a slap in the face,” it seemed only a matter of time before Oceanlane’s volatile disposition led to the downfall of CSLL, so personally, I was glad to see a positive outcome for all parties.
In all honesty, I thought the matter was done with. That is, until this morning, when I came across Skip Oceanlane’s response to Scott Nestler. The accusations within Oceanlane's hateful message reminded me that there was a story left untold. I'll remedy that error now.
What to say about Skip Oceanlane? He claims to be a safety inspector with a GS rating in real life. And I'm inclined to believe that. His management style utilized the sort of “do it my way or I'll close you down forever" state of mind I’d expect from someone wrapped up in their own position of authority, marginal though it may be. But he's not Gordon Ramsay. This isn't Kitchen Nightmares. And beneath his veneer of oozing self-confidence is the ever-present threat of mindless tantrum, vindictiveness, and baseless accusation.
So when Scott Nestler and others asked why they hadn't been compensated for their shares yet, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised to see this included in Oceanlane's response:
You robbed former Sky Hedge Fund investors on SLCapex, and you are working with known scammers, and yet you still deny you have done anything wrong. I don't trust you at all, and it's because of people like you that very few invest in the stock markets anymore. I'm not the reason things have gone downhill. It's because of people like you and your friends on stock exchanges like SLCapex.
Oceanlane didn’t elaborate on his accusations against Scott Nestler. But Oceanlane has a habit of making wild accusations and unlikely claims unburdened by proof. In the past, Oceanlane accused Nobody Fugazi of being friends with Jasper Tizzy simply because Fugazi didn't jump when Oceanlane provided a 'story.' Oceanlane managed to take a report I had written and spin it completely out of
Another instance that had gone unreported stems from the first shareholder meeting concerning the CSLL/CSV merger. After that shareholder meeting, I asked Bogart Beck to be my proxy with the 505 CSL shares I held. The reason for this was Oceanlane's clear refusal to let Bogart attend the shareholder meeting. While I don't vouch for people, I will say Bogart Beck knows the exchange game. And if Oceanlane doesn't want Beck there discussing a deal I have grave concerns with, but don't want to sensationalize with my presence, I can’t think of anyone better to stand in my place than Bogart Beck, who I should note, was happy to oblige.
You can find my proxy designation notecard here . Oceanlane refused the notecard, so VSTEX requested that I email him a copy. You can find his response here and his second email (which wasn't cc'ed to VSTEX) here .
In the first email, Oceanlane claimed that LL had ordered him to ban Bogart Beck because of a collaborative ‘scheme’ that is manifested in SLWallet (SLW) on SLCAPEX. LL told Oceanlane to ban someone because of something they did in an exchange? Allowing Beck into his sim would get him a TOS violation?
What part of the TOS is this? This would be the first time I’ve ever heard of someone being punished by LL for refusing to ban an individual from their sim. It’s also the first time I’ve heard anything close to LL taking a public stand on something happening in the exchanges. Pardon me. Am I to believe that LL is taking issue with SLCapex after all of LukeConnell Vandeverre’s shenanigans? WTF is blameless, but SLWallet is a ‘scam?” I'm not buying this claim of LL making demands. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that prior to listing on VSTEX, Oceanlane went to Arbitrage Wise and Bogart Beck with his proposal and was promptly turned away.
Given Skip's claims about the TOS, I'm curious if fabricating instructions from LL in order to harass someone you simply don't like is a TOS violation. I'm inclined to think so.
Alas, Skip has taken his companies private. Though I am glad he is no longer a threat to his shareholders, there remains one possibility that will haunt me - that between all of those unsupported accusations and mistaken assumptions was a claim that was substantive and factually based. Guard your credibility folks. People's belief in you may rely on it.
- Konner McDonnell's blog
- Add new comment
- 933 reads
Exchanges safe, Oceanlane a fraud...
Oceanlane has been telling a number of people outrageous claims about the imminent banning of inworld stock exchanges. I talked to Jack Linden about it, and he told me directly that LL had no plans to interfere in inworld stock exchanges, the same answer he gave me back in February.
Not only does this directly contradict Oceanlane's claims, but his claims also directly contradict Linden Lab's policies against Lindens interfering in resident business relationships. Specifically speaking, if Jack actually said that to Skip, he would lose his job for doing so. I've known Jack quite a while, and while I may grossly disagree with his land sales policies, among a number of other topics, one thing he cannot be accused of is playing favorites in the inworld business world. Much the opposite, LL is so against its staff interfering, that they would rather let one resident screw another over on a business deal than to inject LL's gods-eye view into the situation. Such things are called 'resident issues', we are left to our own devices to deal with.
One reason for this is legal: if they started actually giving secret knowledge to certain people, they would be legally liable for the consequences. This is the god paradox described in internet service provider regulations: an internet service provider can only avoid liability for what happens on its networks if it does not actively interfere in how people use the network.
So, for these valid reasons, Oceanlane is clearly out to lunch.
IntLibber Brautigan
Robin Linden talks about the SL Exchanges at her meeting.
A couple months ago at Robin Linden's Office Hour, I brought up the question about Stock Exchanges in SL. Here are the 2 key points that she talked about.
[2008/05/27 11:52] Robin Linden: That's a good questions for attorneys Bart. I believe though that anyone who wants to run a stock exchange in SL should make sure they are familiar with RL regulations
[2008/05/27 11:54] Robin Linden: If the regulators were to tell us that the exchanges are violating SEC rules, then we would have to make a decision about that
Here is most of the chat log, if you want to see more, I can post the rest of the meeting. But here is the part about stock exchanges.
[2008/05/27 11:51] Bart Heart: And speaking of stocks, the ones in SL, What is LL take on stock exchanges in SL
[2008/05/27 11:51] Ciaran Laval: The pound has never been $5
[2008/05/27 11:52] Chrischun Fassbinder: Bart, heh, just had to go there and open up that can of worms. :)
[2008/05/27 11:52] Jeb Gibb: Nope it has not.
[2008/05/27 11:52] Jeb Gibb: The Pound is stonger then the Euro.
[2008/05/27 11:52] Robin Linden: That's a good questions for attorneys Bart. I believe though that anyone who wants to run a stock exchange in SL should make sure they are familiar with RL regulations
[2008/05/27 11:52] Robin Linden: Ciaran you're just not old enough
[2008/05/27 11:52] Ciaran Laval: No it's not lol. The pound is worth more than the euro but the euro is stronger,
[2008/05/27 11:53] Jeb Gibb: Oh Someone revealing there age huh?
[2008/05/27 11:53] Robin Linden: :P
[2008/05/27 11:53] Jeb Gibb: :)
[2008/05/27 11:53] Bart Heart: Yes but just like banks and gambling, would LL ever ban them, or had talks about them
[2008/05/27 11:53] Jeb Gibb: Yeah Good Question Bart
[2008/05/27 11:53] Bart Heart: I know the Gambling Ban was due to Master Card and VIsa
[2008/05/27 11:54] Bart Heart: But the Bank ban was do to people complaining
[2008/05/27 11:54] Jeb Gibb: Plus the Feds snooping in LL file cabinet.
[2008/05/27 11:54] Robin Linden: If the regulators were to tell us that the exchanges are violating SEC rules, then we would have to make a decision about that
[2008/05/27 11:55] Qie Niangao: Uh.... right, but LL's opinion (and enforcement) is almost irrelevant to the real risks here, I think.
[2008/05/27 11:56] Jessica Holyoke: many people look at any thing of value as a security and so even if say its fictional fictional fictional, it can still be SEC regulated
[2008/05/27 11:56] Ciaran Laval: Exactly Jessica, it's all a bit messy
[2008/05/27 11:57] Bart Heart: Im fine with it being regulated.
[2008/05/27 11:57] Jeb Gibb: By ALL Means Regulate it all.
[2008/05/27 11:57] Jessica Holyoke: but who gets to regulate it?
[2008/05/27 11:57] Ciaran Laval: Be careful what you wish for
[2008/05/27 11:58] Qie Niangao: I think if Treasury subpeonas LL for account details of stock exchange officers... there's not much LL could do to protect them, with or without LL "regulations"
[2008/05/27 11:58] Bart Heart: But what I also find as a catch 22 is LL state the L$ is not a real currany, so it just for funny and education proposes
[2008/05/27 11:58] Jessica Holyoke: exactly Ciaran
[2008/05/27 11:58] Robin Linden: it's the 'points' you need to participate in the economy
[2008/05/27 11:59] Robin Linden: the fact that others will pay you for them on the exchange is what gives them value
[2008/05/27 11:59] Jessica Holyoke: the trick is when you get to anything of value
[2008/05/27 11:59] Ciaran Laval: Value is the grey area
[2008/05/27 11:59] Chrischun Fassbinder: I'm glad L$ has always been considered that, just look at what World Winner and all it's users have to do with taxes because they claim "it's just like real money".
[2008/05/27 12:00] Ciaran Laval: However we're back where we started with Sweden trying to assert the Linden dollar has value, other authroities won't be far behind.
[2008/05/27 12:00] Robin Linden: I don't think Sweden is paying particular attention to the L$
[2008/05/27 12:00] Robin Linden: I think they're saying that in-world transactions need to be evaluated for tax purposes
[2008/05/27 12:01] Jeb Gibb: You've got to pay taxes on it anyway when you cash out the lindens for rl cash.
[2008/05/27 12:01] Robin Linden: Exactly. It would be interesting to see how it wouldn't amount to double taxation in that case.
[2008/05/27 12:01] Jessica Holyoke: but that's a question of realization, is it when you cash out or when you receive it
[2008/05/27 12:01] Jessica Holyoke: if its when you receive it, then its not when you cash out
[2008/05/27 12:01] Robin Linden: But from what I understand, from their perspective you don't have to cash out to realize value.
[2008/05/27 12:02] Robin Linden: Which brings us full circle to whether or not there IS vaue.
[2008/05/27 12:02] Robin Linden: *value
Thanks Bart.
Shoot me a copy of the full log if you would. Notecard or email, whatever your preference.
Exchanges safe ???????
Claiming that the SL exchanges are safe is like claiming that an American can casually stroll down an Iraqi open air market. Please don't use the words SL exchanges and safe in the same sentence. Linden Labs is the least of the worries.
Anonymous2
PS: I would love for the SL exchanges to be safe one day.
put a name on that post
a) It's Linden LAB, not Linden LABS. They tend to get annoyed when you pluralize it.
b) on what basis do you make the claim? The failure rate of companies listed on inworld exchanges is far far less than the failure rate on, say, the OTC pink sheet stocks in real life. 99% of pink sheets tend to be scams, whereas the failure rate for inworld exchange traded companies tends to range from 5-20% (ACE traded stocks on the low end, WSE on the high end). So, if you are going to make a claim about the safety of inworld exchanges, you better back up that claim with some facts.
Ahem.
Intlibber, I just read where you threw an anonymous attack at Nobody Fugazi. Registration is not that difficult. Be the change you want to see in the world, yes?
And A2, I think the novelty of the 'anonymous guy with a numerical designation' has worn out. I respect the criticisms of Anonymous people in my articles, but that's only because I expect my arguments to be solid enough not to rely on a cheap defense such as attacking the critic. But, you know, the way you've been dropping people's names in your comments lately, it really does seem unfair to leverage your anonymity against known persons. So, honestly, if you're expecting any responses from me in the future, I have to ask you to step up or step off. In Konnerland, people have a right to confront their accuser.