Originally by: Sertan Deras

---

Edited by: Sertan Deras on 24/03/2009 15:31:10
So, lets see here:

According to you, there is precedent for this. I think that we are due to hear what that precedent is. Since we can produce several examples of cases where you DID NOT do an alliance name change when requested, I think it's fair if you provided cases where you (supposedly) did.

Also, what is a timely manner? KenZoku existed as an alliance for quite some time before they decided to use it as a sov holding entity. In addition, I find it very strange it took you two months to decide this was a good idea.

Since these are supposedly the new rules of alliance name changing, I think we are owed a complete and descriptive explanation as to what those new rules are, and what precedent was in place to change those rules so abruptly.

---

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?

---

Originally by: Leellu Multipass

---

As a long time player who's been a player since the days of beta I find this unacceptable.

It is blatant favoritism. And after everything CCP has went trough because of the favoritism towards the alliance formerly known as BoB doing this just tells us that you don't care about maintaining a game that has a fair playing field for all the players.

I spoke with my wallet when the t20 incident came out and I quit the game for 2 years. Only to come back and see that nothing changed.

If you're going to have a GM/Developer alliance then please come out publicly and stop deceiving the player base.

---

Originally by: Ironnight

---

Wow the system works and people whine? What is it with you people?

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kuar Z'thain

---

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.

---

Originally by: clone 1

---

Originally by: Rodj Blake

---

Originally by: Tobruk

---

Only character names that are deemed as inappropriate are eligible for a possible name change. Names will not be changed for any other reason.

it took me 1.2 seconds to read the above...

If after 2 month of deliberation you still concluded that it was OK to rename kenzoku... the Grimmi, you are ****ing hopeless

---

Bolded the important part for you.

---

Player-run corporations, factions, organizations and player-owned items within the EVE Online game world are also subject to these rules and policies.

Added the important part for you.

http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/namepolicy.asp

---

Originally by: Laura Rampart

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

When griefing goes to far, CCP changes the rules to prevent people from being griefed out of the game.
Privateers: Upped the cost to wardecs
Suicide Ganking: Concord wtfpwnd drones and such
Moo: well, lotsa things changed because of them.

Dynamic rules to prevent overgriefing is just the way it is in eve.

You really should be used to it by now

---

/winthread

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Originally by: Tobruk

---

Originally by: Laura Rampart

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

When griefing goes to far, CCP changes the rules to prevent people from being griefed out of the game.
Privateers: Upped the cost to wardecs
Suicide Ganking: Concord wtfpwnd drones and such
Moo: well, lotsa things changed because of them.

Dynamic rules to prevent overgriefing is just the way it is in eve.

You really should be used to it by now

---

/winthread

---

NONE OF THOES CHANGES WERE RETROACTIVE TO BENEFIT SPECIFIC CORPS/ALLIANCES. the people who were killed by privateers didnt get their ships back and a sorry about that game mechanic its not what we meant to have happen. if you cant see the difference between the above and the sepcial favor done for bob then your simply being difficult.

---

If it was done when the petition was opened it would not be retroactive now would it?

GM's screwed up one of my petitions a while back. I could not wait for them to fix it, so I moved on. Later they helped me out because at the time of the petition I would have been able to do something that I should have been able to do at the time but could not later due to standings...

The time it takes for GM's to sort issues should NOT be a penalty on the player base.

---

Originally by: Laura Rampart

---

Originally by: Tobruk

---

For bob it just happend. And still you havent adressed a single one of my points - did any of the people who were killed by a privateer wardec get thier ships back? NO. should bob get its name back. NO. What about people who got suicide ganked, did they get their stuff back? NO.

---

Did Bob get their territory back? NO
Did Bob get their name back? NO


The example above are only examples of when CCP changed rules. This discussion is about wheter CCP changed rules before and these are the proofs.

---

Originally by: Hubris

---

Edited by: Hubris on 24/03/2009 21:00:27
Hey everyone Avon (of bob/kenny/beavers) thinks its ok if there is a protest in jita that crashes the server over this. He stuck up for players to be able to protest in the 4S name debockle. "Avon - it was a peaceful protest" BTW the people that started the protest got banzored for crashing the server. I am not saying that we shoudld, unlike avon i am saying it would be a bad idea.

He also speaks at great lengths about the selective interpretation of rules "Avon - What I want are rules that are enforced fairly and equally. If something is not allowed, then it should be the same for everyone."

Anyway enjoy this walk down memory lane with your best bob/kenny/beaver buddy Avon.

Originally by: Avon Posted - 2005.11.09 23:37:00

---

Originally by: Joshua Foiritain

---

I feel mistreated should i;
A: Attempt to communicate with CCP trough diplomatic channels to convince them of their mistakes.
or
B: Crash the entire server, which serves no purpose other then inflicting our own grief onto others.

---

4S tried A.
Repeatedly.

CCP then said that their name was gone and was not comming back and that option A was no longer open.

Those are the facts.

B would never have happened if CCP had looked fully in to the matter before telling the entire community that their descision would not be reversed, and that channel A was closed.

---

the same issue avon yet again

Originally by: Avon Posted - 2005.11.09 23:57:00

---

Originally by: Wrangler

---

Ok, we need to calm down again. It's ok if you are angry about what happened, no matter what "side" you are on. But please don't start fighting each other over it. Smile

---

Shame on you Wrangler.

It isn't about sides, it is about truth and justice. It is about fairness and understanding. It is about doing the right thing.

---

he rage quits and cancels his accounts

Originally by: Avon Posted - 2005.11.10 11:22:00

---

I have already said my accounts have been cancelled, so why bother ranting at me?

We have seen the problems caused by selective enforcement of the EULA, and yet we also see a thread on this forum about the creation of can art.
Can art and dumping shuttles are both in violation of the same clause in the EULA, and yet again we see selective enforcement.

We have seen a section of our community demonised unfairly, and now they are being treated as figures of hate. How can progress be made without compassion and forgiveness. These people have been wronged, and deserve justice.
I value my principles, and I will stand by them.

"We win justice quickest by rendering justice to the other party.
Mohandas Gandhi"

---

it seems that at one time est 2005 Avon actually was against selective enforcement of the rules........
best for last

Originally by: Avon Posted - 2005.11.10 11:49:00

---

Originally by: Mallikanth

---

Of course it selective. You want everything allowed or everything banned?

---

I'll ignore the subtle flames and get to the real issue.

I don't want either everything banned or allowed, that isn't the issue with selective enforcement.
What I want are rules that are enforced fairly and equally.
If something is not allowed, then it should be the same for everyone.
If something is allowed, then it should be the same for everyone.

How hard is that to understand?

---

This obviously isn't the Avon we all know currently or his merry band of beavers. Has to be a different alliance and person behind these rants. Please Avon do not quit the game this time in a crazy injustice fueled rage.

---

Originally by: REDEI CEO

---

Edited by: REDEI CEO on 24/03/2009 22:17:20

Originally by: threeDspider

---

Also, 'the BOB guys' couldn't just create a new alliance without losing sovereignty (i believe, i'm not an expert in sov rules) and paying the 1 Billion dollar charge for a new alliance.

---

Exactly, you are not, so spare us, and its ISK not dollars.

---

Originally by: Piratejoeh

---

I wonder what Icelands courts/laws would say about CCP's conduct with BoB vs the rest of the Eve Community. Now Ive only known of one lawsuit vs a game developer that won, when players sued Ultima Online and most crys people are going to sue are pointless. However I believe if someone actually did wish too pursue legal means in this case they might actually have a case. Players pay CCP to play the entertainment product CCP provides and in return for this CCP is expected to provide certain services. Now usually the EULA covers CCP and other game developer companys for almost anything from asteroids hitting their servers to them forgeting too fead their hamsters,

But in this case theirs a pattern of misconduct on the company CCPs part that paying customers may be able too claim they are being disenfranchised by CCP giving a unfair advantage from small things such as name changes to huge things as prime real estate and BPO's. I know this may sound silly too many readers but I'm willing too bet CCP would lose in court if a class action lawsuit was brought up against them. (But I also know that they would recieve only a slap on the wrist) and a lawsuit would not really be worth it.

On a personal note, I cannot see why any player would stay in BoB. I have my dignity and I know this is just a game but still. How could I look my self in the mirror each time I log on knowing im playing in a Alliance that cheats and I dont mean just meta gaming, but actual cheating. Id either start looking for another Alliance or another game.

---

Originally by: REDEI CEO

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

If CCP openly came out and issued a statement like "We do support BoB, it is our game and our decision to choose favoriates. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to leave the game or fight us in game"

Then I'd have more respect for CCP - because it would show they got big balls. I respect power.

---

BOBR is powerful enough to change its own name, in game

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

I don't respect cowardly sneaky ways of doing business, pretending to be one thing and doing something else.

---

Like claiming to want pvp on equal terms but resort to disbanding an alliance using sneaky ways because you cant do it any other way?

Just a thought

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Tobruk

---

Ive seen people get wrecked by their own words on the forum before, but this, this is a masterpice. Avon you just got DESTROYED.

---

I don't see how.
Exactly the same situation exists now as then.
I wanted rules to be enforced equaly then, and equally now, and the OP clearly states that is the case.

You choose not to believe that, and that is your right.
However, that is all you have, a belief.

The very fact that we can't discuss specific cases means that you are free to make whatever accusation you so desire, knowing that no defence is allowed.

Honestly, it is just a name.
No-one in .BoB. is going to rage quit if it get's changed back, or if it hadn't have been changed at all.
It makes no difference to the situation in game.

You guys seem to be getting really angry over this game, increasingly so.
That is a pretty sad thing to see.

---