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) |
Odetta Harpy
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:00:00 -
[1021]
|
Elicetian
ICE is Coming to EVE Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:00:00 -
[1022]
Signed
|
Kite Fan
Defcon One Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:00:00 -
[1023]
|
Pseudothei
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:01:00 -
[1024]
:ccp:
|
The Riddik
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:02:00 -
[1025]
guk guk
look at all of you lame goonies and goonie pets posting. lol
you think CCP is that stupid to not see your spamming?
you did not beat BOB, a former director of BoB beat them, you guys were just the pathetic vessle of retribution to a shattered alliance, AFTER the damage was done.
so really, you guys are nothing.
|
Augustus Thorn
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:02:00 -
[1026]
Edited by: Augustus Thorn on 24/03/2009 12:02:51 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IELcBwoh5KY
|
spinarax
Method of Destruction Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:03:00 -
[1027]
|
KristineKochanski
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:03:00 -
[1028]
Edited by: KristineKochanski on 24/03/2009 12:03:50 Seems unreasonable to have different rules for different Alliance, anyway we all want to see post starting "Oh my God, the killed Kenny, You B*stards"
|
rhumbline
Caldari No Fear Buccaneers
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:05:00 -
[1029]
Definantly not supported.
Although the whining and headless chicken ambulation is much chucklesome over my morning java.
|
Zephod Beeblebrocks
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:06:00 -
[1030]
For God's sake think of the Barbies!
But seriously CCP offers to rename Characters at a price is this going to be waived from now on.
|
|
Beer Consumer
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:12:00 -
[1031]
I am annoyed at what appears to be a blatant piece of favouritism by a random GM with BoBR connections. I am just plain disappointed by those who put their political alliance ahead of objective evaluation when they say silly things like, "It's only a name," or, "Goons deserve it." There can be no justification for effectively giving a brand new alliance sov 3 status in multiple systems for free. Rule avoidance on this level effectively undermines GM authority and creates more work as petition queues are flooded with everyone demanding the same treatment. This stuff affects us all, no matter how irrelevant 0.0 politics may seem.
I have no connection to Goons, BoBR or their respective allies. As a relative newcomer, I have heard about the "bad old days" when developers actively aided their alliance of choice. However, I believed such things to be a relic of the past.
Here's hoping the player base will get an official answer from CCP at least. |
Supi Lamie
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:12:00 -
[1032]
Same rules for all.
|
Tristen Orde
Maximum Yarrage Band of Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:12:00 -
[1033]
I support this and I also take issue with .BOB. parodying our BOB ticker. Please fix this.
|
Raniy
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:13:00 -
[1034]
|
Malice Darkmoon
Amarr Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:16:00 -
[1035]
+1
|
Zezima Khalid
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:17:00 -
[1036]
|
Irumani
ICE is Coming to EVE Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:17:00 -
[1037]
|
Moff Tigriss
IMpAct Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:19:00 -
[1038]
|
Angelspirit
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:22:00 -
[1039]
Edited by: Angelspirit on 24/03/2009 12:22:11 Get over it!, its just a name and gain no Advantage from it!!!!
Stop wasting CSM time with this Crap |
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:26:00 -
[1040]
THIS:
"This is the **** that makes everyone so angry. While goonsawrm used a valid IN GAME mechanic to remove your alliance (broken or not) YOU GOT WHAT NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER GOTTEN. Two wrongs never make a right and certainly - petition to change the sov mechanic - BUT YOU DON'T DESERVE SPECIAL TREATMENT.
Its not about whats fair - this isnt hello kitty online - its about he rules, and making you play by them." |
|
Beer Consumer
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:28:00 -
[1041]
Originally by: Angelspirit Edited by: Angelspirit on 24/03/2009 12:22:11 Get over it!, its just a name and gain no Advantage from it!!!!
Stop wasting CSM time with this Crap
Errr no, alliance name changes have, until now, required disbanding the alliance, paying 1 billion ISK to form a new one and losing sov status in the old alliance systems. Thus, BoBR's name change is the equivalent of not only waiving the alliance creation fee, it also involves effectively giving a brand new alliance sov 3 status in multiple systems for free.
*That* is why people are annoyed about it and making a fuss. |
Belid Hagen
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:29:00 -
[1042]
a whole lot of sandy vag's in here |
Nazowa
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:30:00 -
[1043]
This should be done immediately before it is all over various gaming sites.
|
Menkaure
Vanitas Corp.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:33:00 -
[1044]
|
Jack Gilligan
Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:34:00 -
[1045]
IMHO, this is BS, and preferential treatment for an alliance that CCP employees have been caught cheating for in the past.
CCP needs to make a policy statement. Either they do name changes for alliances who "don't like their name" (which was the case here, Kenny didn't want to be Kenny anymore, when they COULD have paid their $1B and formed "Bob Reloaded" the day they all joined Kenny) or they don't do alliance renames.
And to be fair, CCP needs to do this for anyone who requests it. And do it for free if BOB got it for free.
--- My opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my corp or alliance. |
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:35:00 -
[1046]
Edited by: TraininVain on 24/03/2009 12:36:40 Yeah.
Honestly if CCP want EVE to be this living universe we the players build (which I think they do. That's how I read them letting the original disband stand) then they shouldn't run around erasing player mistakes.
|
Erialor Godsent
Federal Navy Support Divison
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:37:00 -
[1047]
--
Get Your Crumplecorn signature here. |
Mani Hiro
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:38:00 -
[1048]
|
Karezan
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:40:00 -
[1049]
First off, I don't think CCP should cave simply because there's a lot of posts in here, mostly from Goonswarm + friends. If they caved to every demand Goonswarm set simply because they can forum ***** a lot, this game would fall apart within like a week. :P
That said, I'm surprised at the amount of people demanding for this specifically. If this thread was about renaming BoBR back to Kenny, sure, I'd understand that request. That's not what this post is calling for, this post is calling for BoBR being disbanded entirely.
That's not a neutral stance where you want CCP to apply rules fairly, that's an attempt at using a messy situation and trying to leverage it in such a way you can screw BoB over even more. That's an attempt by BoB's enemies to try and own BoB some more by forum whoring and making ridiculous demands. That has nothing to do with fairness, because the fair approach would be renaming them back and figuring out which GM allowed this to happen and why.
As for the rules being broken. Everybody has to accept that there can be situations that the rules never accounted for when originally written. It's almost impossible to write a rule and think of every possible scenario that might come up, especially in this case when these rules existed well before current sov mechanics. It's just as important to re-evaluate the rules to make sure they still apply in the current atmosphere, as it is to make sure the rules are applied fairly.
In this case, BoB was disbanded, they lost their name, their sov, everything. They reformed under a new alliance name that they still had lying around somewhere (with the 1b paid for when they created Kenny), and started over at sov 1. They had to reform the alliance on that same day, because it had to be done before DT so sov claiming would start again. They had no time, as an alliance, to discuss a new name or anything of that nature, simply because of the time constraint. Is it really that unreasonable for them to be allowed to now pick a name they like better (however lame it may be), because they didn't have a realistic chance at doing so when they had to emergency reform the alliance?
Certainly, some people might still say that yes, that is unreasonable, and some might say it's reasonable. Saying that this was a clear case of favoritism is a stretch though, because I think there's at the very least a good case to consider whether an exception is justified here, not because it's BoB and because they have their "line to the CCP", but because it's an alliance that had to reform under these conditions without having adequate time to decide on a name.
Either way, I doubt I'm going to convince most people posting here. I don't believe most posters here looked at it from an unbiased point of view, and tried to understand both sides of the coin. They're just here to drag BoB's name through the mud some more, accuse them of more favoritism from CCP, and try to turn this giant whinefest into a way to punish BoB (disbanding the alliance).
|
JitaBum
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 12:40:00 -
[1050]
This is not an alliance vs alliance thing. It's about fair-play and the samle rules for all. I'm so sick of this ****
|
|
|
|
|
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 |