|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
   |
Posted - 2009.03.24 15:39:00 -
[1]
I have no doubt, this name change was done with great trepidation, and with full knowledge of its consequence, by CCP.
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:29:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Eventy One on 24/03/2009 19:29:27
 Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Everything's a new rule under 'special conditions' when its BOB.
But its not BOB!
Its BOB reloaded!
Quite different, really.
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:37:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kheldon Fel
See: ARSED. Similar condition.
Which is the same as saying .. this case is unique, but we're setting a precedent because we're now going to have to honour other requests that meet the same conditions.
This is still a unique case, until another Alliance comes along that meets the same conditions.
Semantics really. Have any other alliances prior to BoB/BoB reloaded been renamed?
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Bagdon
For me, the most pathetic part is the stupid attempt to spin this in the OP and CCPs lack of understanding that their customer base is filled with nitpicking nerds and forum warriors who will pick any spin to pieces if it's not 100% factual.
What most likely happened was that some junior GM happened to pick up the petition and made a stupid mistake of not knowing the rules, thought that it looked harmless enough and just did it instead of escalating. Outrage happens and instead of smacking the junior GM in the head, yelling "don't do this again" and then coming to the forums saying "sorry, mistake, we'll try to make it not happen again", they try to spin it with bull**** that took 10 seconds to pick apart.
Interesting Post.
First para complains about nitpicking nerds and forum warriors that pick up any spin that's not 100% factual ...
.. and goes on in the second para to speculate about what most likely happened.
Is that speculation 100% factual or are you a forum warrior that is picking up on a spin?
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:20:00 -
[5]
Originally by: The Mittani
yeah there's also that whole pesky 'we got into your director forums and exposed your corruption for all to see' thing
kind of interferes with your victim gimmick but hey i guess you have lots of sabres
"and we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those darn kids"
Ya, but really, what Alliance (including Goons, I dare say) doesn't have skeletons hidden away, things they don't want exposed.
At most BoB was sloppy at protecting theirs.
This issue here is, is it legitimate to honour the request for a name change from an alliance formerly known as Bob?
Exposed corruption or no - I think it hovers somewhere between:
Harmless request afforded to other alliances AND BoB has managed to use generosity on the part of CCP temporarily preserve their sovereignty while benefiting from a name change that previously had been denied to others.
I know other alliances have had their requests denied. I haven't seen if anyone else has enjoyed the same benefit. For me - that will decide where I fall on the issue.
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:37:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Psi Draconis
This!
Using IN GAME MECHANICS...
Bad CCP, real bad...
EDIT: BOB lost by metagaming, wich they had been doing for years
BOBR must be reversed, this is utter carbage.. seriously..
Not bad if CCP is being consistent in their application of the rules.
Does anyone know with certainty that CCP has never before renamed an Alliance under any circumstance? (I know they've denied requests, but .. have they denied all previous requests IAW that dev blog previously cited?)
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:53:00 -
[7]
This thread is exactly like in game politics:
BoB (BoBR) on one side with pets, Goon (and pets) on the other.
BoBR is say "s'ok"
Goons are saying "Dev support"
Blah Blah Blah.
Doesn't anyone actually want to get past the rhetoric and know if this actually is special favour, a unique circumstance?
Simply Pro-ing and Con-ing isn't going to progress this debate. Finding out one other alliance who's been renamed is. It will show that CCP's claim of consistency is exactly that.
Otherwise, all the debate in the world is simply partisanship, and as someone above quoted, "Cabbage".
|
|
|
| |
|