Zostera
Minmatar
Honour Bound
Sc0rched Earth
   |
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:19:00 -
[1]
GM Grimmi has stated the reasons for allowing an alliance to recently change it's name. This has caused some concern in the player base over potential favouritism, and it seems to me that CCP do not understand why.
The explanation given is that a petition for a name change was raised by the disbanded alliance directors at the time of joining a new alliance. This highlights to me that the alliance directors has full knowledge at the time of joining that they would not continue to use the alliane name, why should this be important, well it is an indication of intent, intent to gain adavantage and not suffer the usual penalty for change.
Using the alliance chosing immediateley after being disbanded gave them a potential advantage by recovering soveriegnty in the speediest way possible. That sovereignty extended across several regions and more than 100 systems. The alliance concerned essentially made it clear that they were using a temporary alliance to regain soveriegnty as swiftly as possible, yet asked CCP to change a name they didn't like. It was at this point that the alliance should have chosen an alliance they were happy with and followed the process as others usually have to do.
Let us look at what would have happened had there not being sufficient military action to remove that swiftly regained soveriegnty. The alliance concerned would have gained a significant advantage by the regain, and yet not have to suffer the disadvantage of agreeing a new name and forming a new alliance, let alone the price of 1 Billion isk. Image if 100 systems had just changed name.
CCP GM Grimmi states that is delays at CCP which have made the process of change so slow, and essentially states that the name change could have happened sooner. Therefore I must ask was it CCP's intent to allow a name change at the time the alliance concerned was actually regaining sovereignty in more than 100 systems?
GM Grimmi also states that there is precedent for a name change. Having seen the "Stian empire" error and their subsequent denial of a free name change for what was clearly a typograhpical error, one free from mal-intent, I think that GM Grimmi is perhaps misinformed of previous policy on this point.
In summary, the statement by Grimmi says to me.
"We allowed 'Alliance X' to regain sovereignty using an alliance name which 'Alliance X' would not continue to use. CCP knew this because they petitioned the request for change almost two months ago as they swiftly regained sov. We don't feel that requiring them to lose sov now is appropriate because we really ought to have required it then. The action was limited to allowing them to regain sovereignty as swiftly as possible in the full knowledge that the new alliance was a sham. Any other alliance or corporation in the same position would get the same treatment, Stian empire can attest to that."
My concerns have been expressed via e-mail to [email protected]. I urge others to do so too.
It is irrelevant to me who 'Alliance X' actually is, also have they came to be disbanded due to poor management of their own internal affairs. My concern is simply this...
One rule for everyone.
Zos
|