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) |
Nevada Tan
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:24:00 -
[1111]
Originally by: GM Grimmi Any other corporation or alliance finding themselves in the same situation would get the same treatment.
To quote Wikipedia - "Citation required"
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I have done a bad thing. |
digital0verdose
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:25:00 -
[1112]
Nepotism FTL!!!! For shame CCP. Either let this be something any alliance can do or roll back the change and make BoB use the same rules as the rest of us. We could keep talking about this all day but you're too busy reading my sig instead.
|
ceaon
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:25:00 -
[1113]
Edited by: ceaon on 24/03/2009 13:24:53
Originally by: Jmanis Catharg Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 24/03/2009 13:23:54 I merely ask one question. What was stopping them from changing their alliance name just like any other alliance does? By disbanding their alliance and reforming it, paying the 1 bil ISK and dealing with the sov change?
was a way to remove kenzuko from the corp history
|
Tiggi Wrath
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:25:00 -
[1114]
i fully support this
|
Sibras Freeflight
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:25:00 -
[1115]
|
Yourdoom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:25:00 -
[1116]
One game one rule.
|
destinationZERO
Pain Management Services
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:25:00 -
[1117]
Originally by: JasonKuehn Total BS... noone else could have had this done for them.
you should try checking the "Check here if you want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on"
like your other 1000 buddies~~~~~~~
|
Fryrr
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:25:00 -
[1118]
And yet this new GM Grimmi post fails to address the reason why it was done. Why was it "warranted"? What *reasons* were there that they were allowed to bypass the sideeffects of rebranding that everyone else would have to go through?
|
Vincent Gaines
Avis de Captura
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:26:00 -
[1119]
Originally by: Jmanis Catharg Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 24/03/2009 13:23:54 I merely ask one question. What was stopping them from changing their alliance name just like any other alliance does? By disbanding their alliance and reforming it, paying the 1 bil ISK and dealing with the sov change?
they should at least be charged the 1b ISK
|
Tradax
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:27:00 -
[1120]
Sorry CCP that answer doesn't cut it. If it was any alliance without a loooong history with CCP it would have worked but regrettably won't work in this case.
A company with a history of game involvement by its employees should know better...
|
|
Yonker
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:27:00 -
[1121]
Originally by: Jmanis Catharg Edited by: Jmanis Catharg on 24/03/2009 13:23:54 I merely ask one question. What was stopping them from changing their alliance name just like any other alliance does? By disbanding their alliance and reforming it, paying the 1 bil ISK and dealing with the sov change?
Because the GMs felt they should not have to suffer that fate.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1032494
Hey GMs, I've lost multiple ships to game mechanics such as lag. I don't feel it is fair that I have to use the established mechanic of re-buying/fitting them... please contract me all of my lost ships in 319- please.
|
InnerDrive
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:27:00 -
[1122]
|
Firdevsi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:27:00 -
[1123]
Edited by: Firdevsi on 24/03/2009 13:30:30
Quote: We have previously changed names provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe and the situation warranted such action. The leadership of KenZoku/Band of Brothers did petition us immediately after they were disbanded and their name was taken. While we worked on the petition for about two months we do not feel that they should suffer because of that. Having them disband and lose sovereignty again was not deemed appropriate in this case.
This is the answer given by CCP.
Quote: We have previously changed names provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe
KenZoku was not an alliance created after BoB was disbanded. And, the name choice of "Kenzoku" was certainly not due to the unavailability of the name "Band of Brothers". It was an industrial-alt alliance used by Reikoku.
Alliance creation date: 2008.12.08 23:42
Ex-BoB corps joined Kenzoku to get sov back asap. CCP says that the petition for name change came when BoB was disbanded, which means the name change petition dates almost 3 months after the creation of Kenzoku alliance. 3 months is not a petition made within a reasonable timeframe. GM's logic fails, just the way CCP does once again by favoring BoB and interpreting the rules for BoB's benefit.
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:28:00 -
[1124]
At least we can see how effective the assembly hall is now.
840 supports, and completely swept under the rug by ccp. That is listening to your player base at its finest
|
corebloodbrothers
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:28:00 -
[1125]
underlying message implies that the earlier goon action which lead to delve war II is started with eula breach itself, else there is no reason to adjust that mentioned "suffering" if any this answer implies not BOB is getting a favor but are goons by not intefeering the first time, which is only corrected by a name change, and not by the punishment deserved for account sharing.
what does puzzle me that i wouldnt want to win any war liek this myself, it would be a victory with a stain forever. Whats next ? bribe ? hacking ? I never had so much fun in eve since war started, not the way it started, but the actual fun the game provides. As Bob directors stated on radio , we love the fight itself, thanks for that. But this time now again, start with "take away their sov" , cause we cant hold on to delve, we get our asses kicked, weeeeee snif, mommieee look their name is changed , weee get a new diaper and login eve instead of forums, and lets blow eachother up
Originally by: Iva Soreass Edited by: Iva Soreass on 24/03/2009 13:07:33
Originally by: GM Grimmi Yesterday we changed the name of the alliance KenZoku to Band of Brothers Reloaded as the result of a petition by their leadership. It has come to our attention that this was not a popular decision among some of our players and weĈd like to take this opportunity to address those issues.
We have previously changed names provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe and the situation warranted such action. The leadership of KenZoku/Band of Brothers did petition us immediately after they were disbanded and their name was taken. While we worked on the petition for about two months we do not feel that they should suffer because of that. Having them disband and lose sovereignty again was not deemed appropriate in this case.
This action was limited to changing their name, as we have done before for others - we did not assist them in regaining their sovereignty after the Band of Brothers alliance was disbanded, nor did we assist with that now. Any other corporation or alliance finding themselves in the same situation would get the same treatment.
GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master
Now cry more or emoragequit about it.
|
Gen Mayhem
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:28:00 -
[1126]
Edited by: Gen Mayhem on 24/03/2009 13:28:37
|
Lemia
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:28:00 -
[1127]
Special treatment Club.
|
Schwarzlicht
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:28:00 -
[1128]
|
Gumpy Nighthawk
Amarr Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:29:00 -
[1129]
Originally by: Karezan
And irl, just like in game, people can find over time that there are reasonable exceptions to rules, possibly even reasonable exceptions that were not accounted for when the rules were written.
What it comes down to is that you trust the entity that is supposed to uphold these rules to use fair judgment in those situations. If you do not trust CCP to do this, why do you keep supporting them by playing their game?
If thats maybe true, then why weren't other alliances favored by this rule aswell, from what i read even -a- once had to disband and recreate their alliance, stain empire, which first was named stian empire, wasn't allowed a simple name change. It's the fact that again it's bob(r). I mean the disband happened fully within the game mechanics, no hacking or exploits were used, so why would they be allowed a name change again? That bob at the time was incompetent enough to let an afk director in tinfoil is something bob is supposed to be held responsible for, now they lost most of their systems and also their name, but it is all their own mistake and i don't see why some rules have to be bend.
Also the reason why i still pay and play this game is because of the people in my alliance and corporation, if they would leave, i'd be gone too. Signature Locked. Please refrain from amending a moderated warning. Navigator |
Cutie Chaser
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:30:00 -
[1130]
Originally by: Firdevsi
Quote: We have previously changed names provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe
KenZoku was not an alliance created after BoB was disbanded. It was an industrial-alt alliance used by Reikoku.
Alliance creation date: 2008.12.08 23:42
Ex-BoB corps joined Kenzoku to get sov back asap. CCP says that the petition for name change came when BoB was disbanded, which means the name change petition dates almost 3 months after the creation of Kenzoku alliance. 3 months is not a petition made within a reasonable timeframe. GM's logic fails, just the way CCP does once again by favoring BoB and interpreting the rules for BoB's benefit.
/thread
*** Thats a Templar, the amarr fighter. Its a combat drone used by carriers. |
|
Kuranta
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:31:00 -
[1131]
Originally by: Cutie Chaser GM Grimmi, who else in the past has been the recipient of such a renaming?
This. I don't care if it's GM/customer stuff you don't want to post. This is simple proof or stfu.
Originally by: GM Grimmi The leadership of KenZoku/Band of Brothers did petition us immediately after they were disbanded and their name was taken. While we worked on the petition for about two months we do not feel that they should suffer because of that. Having them disband and lose sovereignty again was not deemed appropriate in this case.
So, they chosse Kenzoku as the new alliances name and then petitioned to have the alliance renamed BoBR imediately after? Yeah. Sure.
And even if: why did it take you 2 months to decide to change the name to BoBR? If you have done it before, why didn't you change it right away then? It just smells fishy no matter how you look at it. And its your own fault CCP.
Just don't pull stunts like that if EVE should ever get a half decent competitor. You would start to pay for stuff like that with customers actually leaving for another game.
|
Riyal
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:31:00 -
[1132]
|
ice3
STK Scientific The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:32:00 -
[1133]
|
Karezan
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:34:00 -
[1134]
Originally by: Lady Karma At least we can see how effective the assembly hall is now.
840 supports, and completely swept under the rug by ccp. That is listening to your player base at its finest
If 840 supports warranted disbanding an alliance, you might as well turn EVE Online into forum wars online.
Hell, 840 supports is pretty much less than nothing compared to the total population of EVE, and almost all the support is coming from Goons and friends, the alliances currently fighting BoB.
That's like asking the GBC/GKC/ASSCAKES, whatever you want to call them, to vote on whether all of Goonswarm should be banned from the game or not, and expecting a reasonable and unbiased result.
|
Trinelise
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:35:00 -
[1135]
Why did Grimmi not say why they broke the rules and changed the name?
|
Toey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:36:00 -
[1136]
|
Arina
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:37:00 -
[1137]
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
H A V O C Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:37:00 -
[1138]
Nothing against BoB, but this is unfair and once again showing CCP favortism/cheating for BoB.
|
Zhul Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:38:00 -
[1139]
GM Grimmi, thanks for a quick response.
"While we worked onthe petition for about two months we do not feel that they shouldsuffer because of that." Why not, Goons played inside of rules created by CCP. If you feel those rules are not good, just change them..of course in a reasonable time frame.
"Having them disband and lose sovereignty againwas not deemed appropriate in this case." If this would be a noob alliance, than (maybe) yes. But you are talking about a top (?) alliance which just failed at choosing a proper director.
Because of some incidents considering favorism, Eve community is watching you with Argus eyes and thats for good reasons. Trust was slowly building up, but now you again stress it. Why ?? PR ? Whats the real reason ? "we do not feel" doesn't sound like a reason to me.
regards
|
Pesky LaRue
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 13:38:00 -
[1140]
Originally by: Buxaroo Edited by: Buxaroo on 23/03/2009 21:34:19 I already made a bet that someone would make a post like this. Thanks for making me 100 mil isk.
And if it wasn't for a POOR game mechanic, you know, disbanding an alliance in a SECOND when you can't even LEAVE a corp in 24 hours, then there wouldn't be a NEED to a renaming.
posts like this are the reason you guys draw so much heat - you might be right, this might be a poor game mechanic but if CCP will do this for YOU, they should do it for EVERYONE - coming here after the fact and saying "the game's broken (but it got fixed JUST for us) so deal with it" just shows what a tard you are.
never met anyone from BoB and wouldn't really care except that this is just plain favoritism.
|+ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |