|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 15:30:00 -
[1]
Even though I don't think this is a big deal, CCP's reasoning needs to be laid out for us. Grimmi, it feels like a lot is being left unsaid.
Like someone else posted, what is this precident you are referring to? On these previous incidents, did the Alliance have Sov? Was the Sov transferred if this was the case? If not, why is this situation different?
This really smells like favoritism. /ex-BoB
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 15:37:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Pnuka Thanks for the timely reponse.
Here in America, we follow rules and laws to the exact letter, part of the reason we are so god damn good at everything. Your US based clients are just not as sensitive as myself to the Euroasia way of doing things is all.
Ahh, there's the trolling we missed.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 15:51:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Mr M
Originally by: Tobruk It is so ungodly frustrating to fight an entity in game that has developer support, its like your fighting the game itself.
If CCP helped BoB, why doesn't it show?
Yeah, you'd think CCP's pet alliance would have more space. If CCP was really in BoB's pocket, they would have 'determined' that Haargoth was 'hacked' and rolled back the Alliance disbanding.
But don't mind me, continue threadnaughting.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Crumplecorn quote]Because CCP being on BoB's side at all immediately implies that they will do anything and everything to help them. Because the world is, you know, black and white.
Yes, I admit, there are a lot of shades of grey in this issue.
Just from our perspective, how would we know if CCP was making **** up? We wouldn't. CSM? Don't make me laugh.
...okay, what was my point again?
Anyway, Molle probably petitioned the loss of 'Band of Brothers' name hours after the disbanding. CCP most liklely screwed up by saying, "We will change your Alliance name because this was not an intended game mechanic." Molle (probably) then convinced them to make the change at his whim.
So yes, CCP is showing favoritism. Yes we have not seen this precident they are referring to.
But remember perspective. CCP could have 'cheated' a lot more in the past few months for BoB. But they didn't.
They changed a name entry in a database.
Yes it was stupid to do it now and not the day after.
/ramble
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:21:00 -
[5]
Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
But remember perspective. CCP could have 'cheated' a lot more in the past few months for BoB. But they didn't.
You're not seriously giving this as a rationalization are you?
I'm just saying you all need to step back and look at the big picture.
I really don't think this is a big deal since CCP could have rolled back sov had they wanted to.
So they changed the name of some alliance that holds a handful of systems. How does this effect the game?
You still know who to hate. Now get off this forum and go blow something up.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:31:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Mathin Storm
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
But remember perspective. CCP could have 'cheated' a lot more in the past few months for BoB. But they didn't.
You're not seriously giving this as a rationalization are you?
I'm just saying you all need to step back and look at the big picture.
and the big picture is that they changed BoB's name and not any of the other alliances that petitioned for it. so why BoB and not the others?
Look back at page #1. I agree they need to show us the precident and that this incident is not a 'new policy' for CCP.
Until then, innocent until proven guilty (regarding this issue at least).
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:34:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Montasque Corruption is a slippery slope. This time it's a name change, next time it will be something bigger that has large in-game ramifications. It's not acceptable and showing favoritism one way or another has to stop.
I completly agree. So CCP, when have you done this before? Inquiring minds want to know.
Precident proves me right, lack of it proves me wrong.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Until then, innocent until proven guilty (regarding this issue at least).
They've already been proven guilty in the past. This is not an isolated issue. It is up to them to prove that they haven't been up to the same kind of crap again this time.
Wow, remind me to never have you in a Jury.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:44:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Until then, innocent until proven guilty (regarding this issue at least).
They've already been proven guilty in the past. This is not an isolated issue. It is up to them to prove that they haven't been up to the same kind of crap again this time.
Wow, remind me to never have you in a Jury.
I'm sorry. I didn't realise we were in pretend court. Ok, let's do it the court way. I call T20 as a character witness for CCP.
Yes, one bad employee who was not reprimanded properly proves all of CCP is corrupt.
Yes, he should have been fired.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:53:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 24/03/2009 16:48:26
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: Crumplecorn I'm sorry. I didn't realise we were in pretend court. Ok, let's do it the court way. I call T20 as a character witness for CCP.
Yes, one bad employee who was not reprimanded properly proves all of CCP is corrupt.
If all you've got are sarcastic remarks, remind me never to hire you as a lawyer.
At least put the whole quote in there. T20 should have been fired.
So... what were we talking about?
|
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:00:00 -
[11]
Honestly, all these people complaining about corruption need to vote with their wallets.
Why continue paying CCP to cheat against you?
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:05:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 24/03/2009 17:01:22
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain So... what were we talking about?
CCP favouring BoB again and the only responses supporting CCP so far being "I'm too new to know what's going on" and "I don't care so it's ok".
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain Honestly, all these people complaining about corruption need to vote with their wallets.
Why continue paying CCP to cheat against you?
Because we'd rather see EVE fixed than do without?
You've tried to fix it for years yet you act like nothing has changed since the T20 incident.
Is progress being made regarding this? Has the CSM accomplished anything?
What about the POS exploit? CSM was led at the time by BoB's enemies, yet they concluded BoB had nothing to do with the exploit.
Had the CSM not been there you would have been calling for blood then. Why not have the CSM investigate this and take their word for it?
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:07:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Laura Rampart My point is, no side in this war is better than the other. And to be honest, it's funny to see you guys sooo ****ed off for a stupid name. You still won versus Band of Brothers, but that doesn't seem enough for you.
Quoted for the mother ****-ing truth.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:13:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Professor Impossible If I were CCP I would've stripped the original name from the fake corp Goonswarm created and given it back to BoB.
Goonswarm has admitted that they took the name just to harass BoB. They also admitted to wardeccing every BoB corp for the sole purpose of preventing them from being able to form a new alliance. They are just annoyed because CCP is putting its foot down regarding their harassment tactics.
It's a basic principle that players should get to choose the name of their corporation or alliance. Goonswarm intentionally tried to thwart that by using game mechanics inappropriately. Wardecs are not for the purpose of blocking alliance creation. And neither is it appropriate to create a corp name and ticker just to deny it to someone else. This isn't a case where its questionable whether Goonswarm did these things for legitimate purposes. They unequivocally stated that the wardecs and corp creation were to harass BoB.
Also, everyone knows that the BoB alliance was not disbanded because BoB wanted to disband, it was because of a spy in the executor corp. BoB is still stuck with the tactical repercussions of that, losing all sov. The name change is purely cosmetic. For Goonswarm to act like a purely cosmetic name change means that CCP is somehow helping them win the game is completely asinine. It has no tactical repercussions at all. Everyone is in the same place as before. What Goonswarm considers "unfair" is that someone would dare impede their right to grief the hell out of everyone in EVE.
I am not aware of an alliance being renamed, but I know of a corp and multiple characters that have been renamed because they were created for the express purpose of trying to pass themselves off as other corps or players. It completely makes sense to me that an alliance would be allowed to rename when it was used solely because other groups griefed them into using it.
I am glad CCP doesn't allow Goonswarm to run roughshod over this game, implicitly condoning their griefing by ignoring it. Goonswarm just has sour grapes that their juvenile antics aren't allowed to run rampant.
Excellent post. Neither side in this war is in the right. Nothing has changed since two days ago other than a name entry in a database.
Everyone still knows who to hate. Now go out there and make tritanium more expensive.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:17:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tobruk
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: Laura Rampart My point is, no side in this war is better than the other. And to be honest, it's funny to see you guys sooo ****ed off for a stupid name. You still won versus Band of Brothers, but that doesn't seem enough for you.
Quoted for the mother ****-ing truth.
No Dumb **** were not mad about the name, WE ARE MAD CCP BROKE THE RULES FOR BOB, whatever the reason.
Remember ghost training? Remember the KB article? Now where did that issue go?
When you make the rules, how can you break the rules?
CCP: we're still waiting on your proof of precident that this isn't a new policy.
Trust me, I'll eat my words if they fail to bring us proof.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:35:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Kuar Z''thain on 24/03/2009 17:35:15
Originally by: Tobruk well at least you are willing to admit it might be more than just goon whine and an actual issue. Sorry for flaming you but cheating makes my blood boil, kudos for at least keeping an open mind.
No problem, I prefer an actual discussion over flaming some days.
To page 8 and no clarification from CCP yet. Don't think I'm going to win this one.
Come on CCP, why did you really do this? If there is no precident there is favoritism.
edit: damn this thread is just flying by...
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Popsikle Over-Harassment of any other player in eve is against the TOS/AUP and the judge of that has always been CCP. Yes eve is a game where 99% of the time harassment is OK and allowed, but that 1% of the time it goes overboard CCP fixes it, regardless of who the target was.
Then CCP needs to say that this was their reasoning.
At this point they have given almost no reason at all other than "the situation warranted such action".
More transparency please.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Bagdon Here are some responses that would be received much better: "We were drunk." "We decided to mess with you for fun." "Oops" "The person who did this no longer works for us." "We're changing the policy, free renames for everyone." <publish a youtube video of a GM jumping out of the window> "We lost a bet." "We arranged a cage fight between a BoB GM and a goon developer, the goon lost."
I think we found a great event for this year's Fanfest.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:02:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Donna Maria Maybe if Goon's haven't stated their 'intent' to 'break' the game, and didn't spam local like A.d.d ******s,,,
An intention they failed at so greatly, they have been shunned by SA goons.
They did pretty good at breaking AoC, though.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:08:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Hanabi Kazan
Originally by: Avon
Other alliances, for example Goonswarm, have cheated - but when that is pointed out they laugh it off as the actions of individuals, whilst accusing BoB as a whole of being corrupt because of the actions of individuals.
Other alliances, for example BoB, have cheated - but when that is pointed out they laugh it off as the actions of individuals, whilst accusing Goonswarm as a whole of being corrupt because of the actions of individuals.
You're both stupid. Please go back to shooting each other and driving up mineral/T2 prices.
|
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:16:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Kantar Cmon Goons keep posting, I got a bet that this post gets more of 25 pages of whining.
PLS PLS PLS keep goin need that isk...............
Does the CSM thread count?
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:36:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Thresh Avery ...otherwise there would have been no strong reason for BoB to join that alliance instead of just making a new one.
Goons abused game mechanics to prevent BoB from creating a new alliance.
|
|
|
|