Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 70 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Quake Abuse
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:07:00 -
[721]
|
Excello
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:08:00 -
[722]
A quote from EVE Eula regarding rules and policies. So i request a GM to comment.
3. VIOLATIONS
a. If a name is deemed inappropriate, GMÆs may be able to change the characterÆs name in some circumstances. This is solely at the discretion of CCP and/or its representatives based on, but not limited to, account and player history and the severity of the violation. There is no guarantee that the name will be changed. Only character names that are deemed as inappropriate are eligible for a possible name change. Names will not be changed for any other reason.
What i have bolded also includes Alliance names, Kenzoku is not an offensive or abusive name. So may i request why it was changed. This means that CCP have the right to change it, however it also means that they have to give a valid reason as to why it should be changed. Abusive or inappropriate names would be changed. In order to change your alliance name, You need to remake a new alliance, this decision to change there name has no grounds and it should be raised through CCP Internal Affairs as would request an investigation. I would also request that CSA would take up this issue when they conveen with CCP.
CSA speak for the player base of the eve community. So their word does count.
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:09:00 -
[723]
Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 24/03/2009 03:02:51 Wow 24 pages, keep on crying children. You stamp your feet enough the grown ups might listen honest.
So the CSM is not a platform to discuss transparency and allegations of dev misconduct?
You heard if the from the .BOB. guy, might as well close this thread, he's already asked his buddies to ignore it.
|
MichaelTee
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:09:00 -
[724]
|
Slayton Ford
STK Scientific The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:10:00 -
[725]
--------------- This sig has been censored in fear of recieving the ban hammer... |
Excello
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:11:00 -
[726]
Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 24/03/2009 03:02:51 Wow 24 pages, keep on crying children. You stamp your feet enough the grown ups might listen honest.
Sorry, why is your name the same as a x goon corp?
However if you were on the other side where CCP changed your name to an alliance which no longer exists and it is against EULA.
|
Aiden Tyrik
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:11:00 -
[727]
Edited by: Aiden Tyrik on 24/03/2009 03:13:42 What really amazed me was that they not only showed preferential treatment by changing the name, but they allowed a 25 character name when the limit is 24 characters. They should be Band of Brothers Reloade
|
Sunglasses InSpace
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:12:00 -
[728]
Blatant disregard for CCP's rules demands some kind of action
|
Tirazel
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:12:00 -
[729]
CCP has tried to cover up the T20 incident for years now, so this is hardly a surprise.
|
EliteSlave
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:13:00 -
[730]
Just wow....
I think this needs to be looked at, Sent a email to [email protected] about this. but this is pretty just wow and tearing open an old wound...
|
|
CyberChick
SiN. Corp Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:14:00 -
[731]
Edited by: CyberChick on 24/03/2009 03:16:15 Edited by: CyberChick on 24/03/2009 03:16:00
Originally by: Taedrin How so? Mistakes can be made more than once can they not? The only reason why people want BoB 2.0 disbanded is because they have stereotyped the entire alliance as cheaters, and automatically assume that BoB cheated to get this done. People are jumping to conclusions here. The only appropriate actions at this time are to get internal affairs to investigate, and to undo the name change.
I have to wonder why the bob allies are rushing to defend them so quickly, have you not stopped to ask:
If my alliance wanted to change its name to more than 24 characters long or at all - why can't I?
Defenders of bobR are now starting to use the defence this must have been some sort of mistake: did someone type into a field in the database "Band of Brothers Reloaded" and pressed the ok button by accident?
Take a step back and realise that this isn't about bob directly, but you as a customer, shouldn't you as a non bob alliance player regardless of your alignment with them be entitled to the same set of rules and conduct everyone else. Simply standing up and saying their bob they did no wrong, if goons didn't disband the original alliance this wouldn't have happend doesn't change the fact that anyone that isn't in bob - the majority of the player base got screwed over, and it wasn't some simple accidental boo boo by a gm/dev etc
It may have been a name change to some, and again regardless of your affiliation with their alliance, you got screwed over and you should be angry about it.
|
Meisje
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:14:00 -
[732]
|
Futt Bucker
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:15:00 -
[733]
Either change it back, disband them and force them to create a new alliance with the name they want, or allow ALL alliances the ability to do the same, while exceeding the maximum character limit even.
|
angeleyess
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:16:00 -
[734]
|
ProHulaDancer
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:16:00 -
[735]
Supporting this. |
Heinz Rand
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:16:00 -
[736]
Originally by: Karezan
If they're BoB's pets as much as people like to portray, and put a spin on things just to accommodate BoB, all they'd have to say is the director account was hacked. In a situation like that reversing the damage done wouldn't be completely out of the ordinary, and the account hacked vs someone turned traitor is very much a he said she said thing, except one of the parties is supposedly unbiased and has all the information, while the other party is biased and basing it all on the word of a single person.
Except in that case, the person known as Haargoth would say "I did it" and that would really screw up any argument about hacking....hth
|
Junkie Beverage
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:18:00 -
[737]
4realz
|
Astral Water
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:19:00 -
[738]
Wee taaah dead.
|
Helgur
The State
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:22:00 -
[739]
|
deathlust
Flancrest Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:22:00 -
[740]
|
|
Karezan
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:24:00 -
[741]
Originally by: Heinz Rand
Originally by: Karezan
If they're BoB's pets as much as people like to portray, and put a spin on things just to accommodate BoB, all they'd have to say is the director account was hacked. In a situation like that reversing the damage done wouldn't be completely out of the ordinary, and the account hacked vs someone turned traitor is very much a he said she said thing, except one of the parties is supposedly unbiased and has all the information, while the other party is biased and basing it all on the word of a single person.
Except in that case, the person known as Haargoth would say "I did it" and that would really screw up any argument about hacking....hth
Why? The person who hacked the account says it isn't a hacked account but the real player doing it, shocker! No matter what you do, you have no way to prove this is really your account and it wasn't hacked or anything of that nature. The people with the most information in that regard are CCP, which also happens to be the unbiased source (or supposed to be).
Would this be a cluster**** to cover up? Well yeah, definitely. But so is giving T2 BPO's to people and hiding it for so long. If this kind of favoritism is supposed to still exist, then this kind of cover-up isn't all that crazy. :P
|
CyberChick
SiN. Corp Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:24:00 -
[742]
Originally by: Futt Bucker Either change it back, disband them and force them to create a new alliance with the name they want, or allow ALL alliances the ability to do the same, while exceeding the maximum character limit even.
I hope they never allow that, I can see it in a few months time, kenny/bob will rewrite their version of history and claim now that it can be done they did no wrong, and the issue will get pushed aside as they do with every t20 reference, with the rules left as they are they should never be allowed to get away with this.
|
Taedrin
Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:26:00 -
[743]
Originally by: CyberChick Edited by: CyberChick on 24/03/2009 03:16:00 I have to wonder why the bob allies are rushing to defend them so quickly, have you not stopped to ask:
If my alliance wanted to change its name to more than 24 characters long or at all - why can't I?
Defenders of bobR are now starting to use the defence this must have been some sort of mistake: did someone type into a field in the database "Band of Brothers Reloaded" and pressed the ok button by accident?
Take a step back and realise that this isn't about bob directly, but you as a customer, shouldn't you as a non bob alliance player regardless of your alignment with them be entitled to the same set of rules and conduct everyone else. Simply standing up and saying their bob they did no wrong, if goons didn't disband the original alliance this wouldn't have happend doesn't change the fact that anyone that isn't in bob - the majority of the player base got screwed over, and it wasn't some simple accidental boo boo by a gm/dev etc
It may have been a name change to some, and again regardless of your affiliation with their alliance, you got screwed over and you should be angry about it.
This has nothing to do with GOons disbanding BoB. And I apologize if I come across as suggesting that the name change itself was an accident on someone's part. I am simply saying that it was a mistake on CCP's part to allow the name change to happen, and a mistake to not have proper internal controls to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
Just because a single GM was guilty of misconduct, does not mean that all of CCP, and all of BoB is guilty of the same misconduct. If the crimes of a single person fell upon the alliance that person was a part of, then goonswarm would have had to be disbanded a LOOONNNNGG time ago, as I am more than certain that Goonswarm has it's fair share of macrominers, RMT'ers, etc etc...
Another thing that I should clear up is that I am NOT trying to defend BoB/Kenny. While it is true that I have no love for goons, I never liked the way BoB presented itself to me when I was but a fledgling noob back in yon days of the pendulum wars. I was rooting for ASCN back then, and I was always rather resentful that BoB had crushed them.
I am also not saying that BoB should not be punished if they did in fact cheat as a whole. I am saying that CCP should reserve judgement until AFTER internal affairs investigates the situation. The LAST thing they should do is start throwing bans around without proof that the bans are warranted.
|
Jason Marshall
Hammer Of Light Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:27:00 -
[744]
Tacky Lensflares in sigs ftw
|
KalamMek
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:29:00 -
[745]
Quote: How so? Mistakes can be made more than once can they not? The only reason why people want BoB 2.0 disbanded is because they have stereotyped the entire alliance as cheaters, and automatically assume that BoB cheated to get this done. People are jumping to conclusions here. The only appropriate actions at this time are to get internal affairs to investigate, and to undo the name change.
Step back for a second, ignore any of the politics involved between goons and ex-bob. Okay?
So an alliance wants to rename itself. The steps involved and that have been used to this date are disbanding the alliance (mostly just the name) and reforming under a new one. They give up sov claims (even if it's just six) in this time until their new alliance is formed. This has been the case throughout Eve.
Back to names. Kenzoku obviously wanted a new name, so they should have disbanded and reformed under their new moniker (although I'm not sure they would be allowed to have an alliance name so close to a non-affiliated corp's name, but that's off a slight tangent.)
For whatever reason, Kenzoku were allowed to bypass the established process of changing an alliance name, including circumventing ALL of the negatives associated with such an act. Now 1bn isn't much isk of course, even if you don't own R64's anymore, however being allowed to maintain Sov is a pretty large bonus that no other alliance changing names has been allowed to have.
And of course this will reek of bias given my alliance ticker, but how is disbanding their alliance such a drastic thing when they obviously really wanted this new name (which they said they didn't want before =p) so I would expect they would be willing to pay the appropriate penalties associated with changing the name.
Unless they were ONLY willing to change Kenzoku to BoBr if they could avoid the penalties, in which case it is hard to sympathize with them regardless v0v
|
Temari Kurita
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:29:00 -
[746]
Wow, one group of players getting favourable treatment from the GMs/Developers over the rest of the playerbase? That surely wouldn't happen in the "NEW" CCP with their Internal Affairs department that was created as a response to this kind of favouritism causing a huge scandal previously *cough*t20*cough*..
Oh hai, it's the SAME group getting the favouritism.
Something rotten in the state of Finland* (and it's not the rotten shark that they claim is a delicacy either).
*Apologies to Shakespeare.
-=-=-=-=- Just another happy bee for the Swarm |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:31:00 -
[747]
Originally by: CyberChick Edited by: CyberChick on 24/03/2009 03:16:15 Edited by: CyberChick on 24/03/2009 03:16:00
Originally by: Taedrin How so? Mistakes can be made more than once can they not? The only reason why people want BoB 2.0 disbanded is because they have stereotyped the entire alliance as cheaters, and automatically assume that BoB cheated to get this done. People are jumping to conclusions here. The only appropriate actions at this time are to get internal affairs to investigate, and to undo the name change.
I have to wonder why the bob allies are rushing to defend them so quickly, have you not stopped to ask:
If my alliance wanted to change its name to more than 24 characters long or at all - why can't I?
Defenders of bobR are now starting to use the defence this must have been some sort of mistake: did someone type into a field in the database "Band of Brothers Reloaded" and pressed the ok button by accident?
Take a step back and realise that this isn't about bob directly, but you as a customer, shouldn't you as a non bob alliance player regardless of your alignment with them be entitled to the same set of rules and conduct everyone else. Simply standing up and saying their bob they did no wrong, if goons didn't disband the original alliance this wouldn't have happend doesn't change the fact that anyone that isn't in bob - the majority of the player base got screwed over, and it wasn't some simple accidental boo boo by a gm/dev etc
It may have been a name change to some, and again regardless of your affiliation with their alliance, you got screwed over and you should be angry about it.
You are talking to a brick wall, it's the same people that the free bpo's didn't make that much isk anyway, cyno dd's were easy to dodge, titans were easy to kill, sov4 is easy to break. Then they are suprised and outraged when they are wrong, and the cycle repeats itself.
|
Isek
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:31:00 -
[748]
Edited by: Isek on 24/03/2009 03:35:42
|
Lando Dashut
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:35:00 -
[749]
|
Gorfob
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:35:00 -
[750]
Originally by: Temari Kurita Something rotten in the state of Finland* (and it's not the rotten shark that they claim is a delicacy either). *Apologies to Shakespeare.
Iceland.
:cripes:
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 70 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |