Originally by: Petar Quaresma

---

One thing the less intelligent members of the forums (i.e. Jade) seem to miss (despite feverishly supporting the "sandbox" concept of Eve like god damned zealots) is that most wars are total wars. The point of these wars is to totally and completely destroy your enemy. If given the chance, BoB would have sent us to empire, camped us in, stolen our assets and continued to call some of our homes to harass us. That's Eve Online.

BoB lost their sovereignty and name not because of a hack or exploit but because they were massively incompetent in how they handled roles in game. They were massively incompetent in how they handled assets in game. Yea, they were rich. Yea, they had players that were **** socking, all or nothing suppporters of their pubbie cause. They were also overly trusting of their members; largely inept metagamers; incompetent tacticians (lol medium armor reppers) and all around bad posters.

So, we caught a break because of their massive stupidity (this is a very critical point because the Band of Brothers alliance was poorly run) they lost their name and assets. We took the name, legitimately, and we took their assets, again, legitimately. We then took their space, legitimately.

So now, despite everyone agreeing that Eve is about total wars where the only meaningful conclusion is the complete destruction of your enemy, we want to crap all over that idea and allow KenGoku the privilege of reclaiming some of their namesake and identity with no penalties at all (something no one else is allowed to do) all because we gee golly feel bad for them GOSH DARNIT!

Do you pay back every pilot you kill in game because you destroyed everything they own? No, you laugh about it. You revel in it. Do you feel that someone should get back items they willingly gave to you in a scam? No, you don't. They were stupid and they got burned. In the future, they will wise up or they will lose their items again. There is no justification for receiving special benefits here and since this is a total war, their opponents shouldn't tolerate third parties at CCP giving them pity handouts unjustified by the rules of the game.

---

Originally by: GenrlBaconbits

---

Originally by: Yonker

---

If they re-named using the established ways of re-naming their alliance they would lose Sov3 in 9 (admittidly crappy) systems and be out of 1bil isk.

Since the GMs let them circumvent the rules, it is the equivalent of them being handed Sov3 in 9 systems and free money.

It isn't a huge deal, the systems will be taken anyway. But this type of rule bending is one of the reasons why people have no faith in CCP.

---

or mabe it is because most of you goonies troll around on the forum and .BoB. does not troll too much...mabe you goonies should be nicer on here...you might get some nice things from CCP?? think about it...

---

Originally by: ThorTheGreat

---

A quick newsflash for the stupid in this thread... CCP owns everything in Eve including the corporation and alliance names. You agree to it every time you sign on. The only people who can have "identities stolen" in this case is CCP. Sorry to burst your usual long winded and ignorant bubbles.

---

Originally by: Petar Quaresma

---

---

Originally by: Jack Gates

---

Jade Constantine: all man, all space hooker

---

Originally by: Marcus Druallis

---

Yeah but when CCP is BOB I guess they do own it...

---

Originally by: Dog Solitude

---

I think its funny to see groups of players, who obviously have no care for other peoples game experience, tout the "good guy" line and pretend they care about things like rules and regulations, when in reality, they only care about pursuing their own personal agendas.

---

Originally by: Dangerously Cheesey

---

Jade Constantine
Mistress of the Golden Chamber: JF

Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the charismatic goonetic mastermind Darius JOHNSON.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

I (and many others who play this game) feel that the identity of our corporations and alliances is something that is sacrosanct to our continued subscription and participation.

---

Originally by: Arch Ville

---

Lets keep this shame on top until it gets fixed.
Bump

---

Originally by: Arch Ville

---

Lets keep this shame on top until it gets fixed.
Bump

---

Originally by: Da Maddness

---

Question to the people who has said things along the lines of "It's only a name change, it's not that big of an issue" I ask a simple question. Why not have the name changed back to appease the masses? After all, it's only a name change and not that big of an issue.

---

Originally by: Cautet

---

Originally by: Da Maddness

---

Question to the people who has said things along the lines of "It's only a name change, it's not that big of an issue" I ask a simple question. Why not have the name changed back to appease the masses? After all, it's only a name change and not that big of an issue.

---

Because the masses either don't care or agree with the change. Just because whineswarm and their allies disagree with something and flood the forums with ****posts doesn't mean they have popular support.

The issue wasn't a normal one. It involved an Alliance name being blocked at the same time as an Alliances sov was removed in a coordinated metagaming attack. Its not the ideal time to choose an Alliance name or to wait around for petitions to remove the block. CCP seems to have acted fairly by treating this unusual case differently.

---

Originally by: Avon

---

What CCP need to do is clearly define the policy here, and the process involved. They need to reassure the playerbase that name changes will only be made if the name is seen as reasonably likely to cause real offence to the general public.

---

Originally by: Avon

---

I don't want either everything banned or allowed, that isn't the issue is with selective enforcement.
What I want are rules that are enforced fairly and equally.
If something is not allowed, then it should be the same for everyone.
If something is allowed, then it should be the same for everyone.

How hard is that to understand?

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

I (and many others who play this game) feel that the identity of our corporations and alliances is something that is sacrosanct to our continued subscription and participation.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Originally by: Retepp Nedsmul

---

Well if youÆre suggesting that Hargooth (or whoever) was forced in some manner, thatÆs pretty ridiculous statement to make without evidence.

---

Who knows really? Maybe he sold the account? Maybe a "friend" accessed his computer? Maybe he got bought off with aluminium-stocks or something? Nobody knows and its all irrelevant anyways. What happened with the disband happened and CCP decided to let it stand.

But what should not have stood was the alt corp "band of brothers" created with the express intention of blocking the recreation of the band of brothers alliance in a clear exploit of the naming system.

Its clear we'll disagree on this point and I hope you can appreciate that strong feelings exist on either side of the discussion.

I (and many others who play this game) feel that the identity of our corporations and alliances is something that is sacrosanct to our continued subscription and participation. From the moment we attend real world meets and build friendships, print tee-shirts, commission artwork and build web-infrastructure around our corp and alliance identities we have placed a claim of ownership over the names we've chosen to build.

I contend that identity should not be a spoil of war in Eve Online. When Band of Brothers dies it should be because they have been defeated in war and decide to surrender and disband of their own choice.

I certainly would fight/petition/argue and debate most strongly to have "The Star Fraction" name returned to my alliance if it was ever stolen in a similar identity theft.

CCP do need to consider this matter very carefully in the future because as things stand they have left a nasty metagaming exploit open that endangers much of the alliance identity building game they have previously traded on.

---

Originally by: Lem2J

---

Edited by: Lem2J on 25/03/2009 12:26:11

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Originally by: Retepp Nedsmul

---

Well if youÆre suggesting that Hargooth (or whoever) was forced in some manner, thatÆs pretty ridiculous statement to make without evidence.

---

Who knows really? Maybe he sold the account? Maybe a "friend" accessed his computer? Maybe he got bought off with aluminium-stocks or something? Nobody knows and its all irrelevant anyways. What happened with the disband happened and CCP decided to let it stand.

But what should not have stood was the alt corp "band of brothers" created with the express intention of blocking the recreation of the band of brothers alliance in a clear exploit of the naming system.

Its clear we'll disagree on this point and I hope you can appreciate that strong feelings exist on either side of the discussion.

I (and many others who play this game) feel that the identity of our corporations and alliances is something that is sacrosanct to our continued subscription and participation. From the moment we attend real world meets and build friendships, print tee-shirts, commission artwork and build web-infrastructure around our corp and alliance identities we have placed a claim of ownership over the names we've chosen to build.

I contend that identity should not be a spoil of war in Eve Online. When Band of Brothers dies it should be because they have been defeated in war and decide to surrender and disband of their own choice.

I certainly would fight/petition/argue and debate most strongly to have "The Star Fraction" name returned to my alliance if it was ever stolen in a similar identity theft.

CCP do need to consider this matter very carefully in the future because as things stand they have left a nasty metagaming exploit open that endangers much of the alliance identity building game they have previously traded on.

---

When Cult of War (COW) didnt pay the bill, the alliance was disbanded. A third party took the corp name in order to block the re-creation of Cow. I petitioned this, the corp was re-named and we paid the fee to recreate the alliance...
The same rules should apply to BOB imo, Sov should have been lost (as they did) but they should be able to retain the name.

---

Originally by: Akino Sakura

---

Goonswarm is nothing more then a bunch of backward ******s that need to be lined up and shot to make the world a better place.

---

Originally by: Cautet

---

The issue wasn't a normal one. It involved an Alliance name being blocked at the same time as an Alliances sov was removed in a coordinated metagaming attack.

---

Originally by: Yaay

---

Again, you're quoting rules of a game... not even a real sport, but a cyber online fun game. And even worse, nobody is affected by this one b/c nobody who want's a name change has a history to back up the logic for their change like BoB does.

---

Originally by: Brobuck

---

Originally by: Yaay

---

Again, you're quoting rules of a game... not even a real sport, but a cyber online fun game. And even worse, nobody is affected by this one b/c nobody who want's a name change has a history to back up the logic for their change like BoB does.

---

Well, this answers all the questions, if you want a name change, you have to be BoB, since they are the only ones that have a history. Sorry everyone else who pays a subscription fee, you just don't have the "history" to be able to do the things that the beavers do.

---

Quote:

---

rawr-vuk-lau: can we set BoB blue so we can kill Tri together?

---