Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Jack Gates
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:55:00 -
[421]
Originally by: Glengrant I support the decision.
Should have been done right away after they lost their original alliance.
I wonder how these threads would look if this happened with any other alliance. Would we see the same storm in a teacup if this happened to TCF or Morsus Mihi? I very much doubt that. Less posts and more people agreeing with the name fix is my guess.
To deny BoB some semblance of their original name - how small-minded is that. Disbanding and recreating the alliance to achieve that - how is that not stupid.
If some other alliance had a name change denied under similar circumstances I would understand if they are annoyed now and they simply should petition to get their 1 bn back.
The whole thing started with a (by hindsight) stupid defect on how alliances work. Got fixed right afterwards. I can't see how anybody could argue in good conscience that anybody should loose their alliance that way (without the 24 hour grace period for example that any char gets).
I prefer BoB being named BoB. If you want to take sov from BoB do it the old-fashioned way by destroying stuff - not by requiring them to disband their alliance to get the name fixed.
You're missing the point entirely. No other alliance is given this kind of special treatment.
|
Liz Laser
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:58:00 -
[422]
Edited by: Liz Laser on 24/03/2009 22:59:03
First time I ever used the report button on a GM.
Sorry, but Internal Affairs really needs to take another look at ties between the renamed alliance and CCP's employees.
|
REDEI CEO
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:02:00 -
[423]
Edited by: REDEI CEO on 24/03/2009 23:03:03
Originally by: Tobruk
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.
Clearly you are not, becuase if you were you would recognize how valid his point is. Unless REDEI CEO cares to enlighten us on how bob could have done their rename without sov loss? (besides the way they did, cheating).
Alliance IDs are what matters. Kenzo kept the same alliance ID just changed name and ticker, that how it goes in the server AFAIK.
Also read http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1032494&page=14#398 as why its not the first time and etc etc etc
Yours
|
Tom Sasaki
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:02:00 -
[424]
Well might just be my highsec carebear PoV but a few thousand players in 0.0 care and the remaining 240k or so doesnt give a rats ass.
0.0 Drama blown out of propertion as usual as if what people do ingame actually matters.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:03:00 -
[425]
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.
I don't respect cowardly sneaky ways of doing business, pretending to be one thing and doing something else. Honestly, if CCP show some balls, I won't ***** about them for a year, how about it. Give me something to respect
|
Arkyk
Viper Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:05:00 -
[426]
@CCP:
You should own up to the fact that you made a bad decision, in this case. If the policy needed to be changed (and it seemed like it did), you should probably have chosen to start with an alliance other than the one that has been involved in major conflicts of interest with the developers in the past. Even if nothing untoward went on and it was a genuine change to the policy with no favoritism displayed, surely you must see how it looks to your playerbase. The appearance of impropriety is often as bad as actual impropriety when it comes to PR.
@Everyone Else:
An alliance name got changed. A name. Frickin' deal with it and move on, already. ---------------- Mostly harmless. |
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:09:00 -
[427]
It's like a parade of butthurt...
----
=v= |
Liz Laser
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:13:00 -
[428]
CCP's new advertisement tagline:
We're only corrupt about the little things now.
|
REDEI CEO
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:19:00 -
[429]
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
|
JitaBum
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:21:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Tom Sasaki Well might just be my highsec carebear PoV but a few thousand players in 0.0 care and the remaining 240k or so doesnt give a rats ass.
0.0 Drama blown out of propertion as usual as if what people do ingame actually matters.
And who are you to speak for 240k people you idiot. This bothers a lot of people, not just in 0.0
|
|
Tobruk
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:27:00 -
[431]
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
actually PL lived in delve for months and fought bob on unequal terms and consistently beat them down despite the odds. We never needed nay help to beat bob especially an even basis, frankly they are average pilots... but that's beside the point... What happened in game was sneaky but that doesnt make special treatment or cheating right because as sneaky as it was it was still valid.
Like it or not Goons play by the EULA and pay when they don't, However, CCP Reloaded is another sad sad story. ----------------------------------------------
Sig removed. Elmo Pug removed my sig because he hates me
|
Quaristice
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:28:00 -
[432]
Edited by: Quaristice on 24/03/2009 23:28:23
Originally by: JitaBum
Originally by: Tom Sasaki Well might just be my highsec carebear PoV but a few thousand players in 0.0 care and the remaining 240k or so doesnt give a rats ass.
0.0 Drama blown out of propertion as usual as if what people do ingame actually matters.
And who are you to speak for 240k people you idiot. This bothers a lot of people, not just in 0.0
Agreed....I've said this before and I'll say it again. I dont give a **** about Goon or Bob. I dont like the fact that they got a free name change and kept their sov when all I wanted was a name change for my character. Its unfair and yes....Im an empire carebear.
|
EVE's WeekendWarrior
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:30:00 -
[433]
Edited by: EVE''s WeekendWarrior on 24/03/2009 23:31:48
Originally by: Arkyk
@Everyone Else:
An alliance name got changed. A name. Frickin' deal with it and move on, already.
I think one of the larger parts of the GS scheme was to take the name away...
Anyways, I hope I can blog about this sometime this week @ EVE's Weekend Warrior (http://evewarrior.com). Maybe you can check it out!
Edit: Last time I did this my reply was removed. I don't know why, and the link to forum rules was also broken, so if you remove this again I will srsly hate you CCP... *puts on shield hardener with 100% GM/CCP resistance*
|
REDEI CEO
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:36:00 -
[434]
Originally by: Tobruk
actually PL lived in delve for months and fought bob on unequal terms and consistently beat them down despite the odds. We never needed nay help to beat bob especially an even basis, frankly they are average pilots... but that's beside the point... What happened in game was sneaky but that doesnt make special treatment or cheating right because as sneaky as it was it was still valid.
Like it or not Goons play by the EULA and pay when they don't, However, CCP Reloaded is another sad sad story.
Despite the odds lol, dsptie the odds of having NC GOONS and more with you. You skipped this post: Also read http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1032494&page=14#398 as why its not the first time and etc etc etc
Yours
This isnt the first time CCP intervenes for name change. They mange/run the game simply put.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:39:00 -
[435]
Originally by: Ben Derindar
It would be sad if the fact that, most of those who are whining the loudest about all this, belong to alliances that have long claimed to take pride in not taking internet spaceships oh so seriously, wasn't also so very amusing at the same time.
/Ben
All you Kenny alts/fanbois/pets that are posting about how it's so amusing that people are taking this seriously are just trolling for the sake of it and it's damn obvious to everyone. Shame on you. It's telling that none of you are actually trying to defend this decision cos you KNOW it sucks.
Here's the part that you're missing, which makes this an EVE wide issue -
This is not about about a name change. This is not about Kenny. This is not about Delve. This is not about Goons.
This is about whether a decision made by CCP exhibits impartial favouritism towards a specific group of players by setting a new predecent by breaking with their own policies to date.
So how about you actually discuss the issue at hand? Otherwise, just take your trolling elsewhere and STFU.
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:07:00 -
[436]
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.
アニメ漫画です
|
mrspiggy
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:15:00 -
[437]
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.
It took you two months on weather to decide to change the name or not and you still got to the wrong decision??!?
How the hell is this game still running is beyond me :/
|
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:17:00 -
[438]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Xrak Oh but it is all about us. If this were some small alliance that was claiming 2 systems in some crap region, no one would give a crap, but it's the big bad BoB so everyone has to cry and whine a bit to make themselves feel like the ebil man at CCP is actively working against them.
But if CCP were willing to change the name of some nobody alliance, that would imply that they would do it for any alliance, and thus there would be no issue in the first place.
The simple solution is for the director in some alliance's executive corp to disband the alliance, have the name taken as an alt corp, the disbanded alliance's corporations joined an existing alt alliance petition for name change, wait however long the petition takes and get a new name. Going by the BoB/Ken/BoBR method anyways since the GM post mentioned same situation.
If the alliance gets its name changed, we know CCP's going to do it for anyone, if they don't, then I'm sure you can find a pitchfork at some supply store and torches are pretty easy to make out of just about anything.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Dire Radiant
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:17:00 -
[439]
Originally by: Arkyk @CCP:
You should own up to the fact that you made a bad decision, in this case. If the policy needed to be changed (and it seemed like it did)...
The private internal policy was changed for this one instance then reverted. Name change petitions are now back to the old policy, that being DEINED.
Originally by: Arkyk
@Everyone Else:
An alliance name got changed. A name. Frickin' deal with it and move on, already.
If it is such a small deal... Just 1B ISK. Heck we should all be getting 1B Isk from the BOBR-TARP Fund.
|
Kalissa Dauntless
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:20:00 -
[440]
It's a name, get over it.
The Goons disbanded BoB and stole the name. I believe the EULA states that misrepresentation or "passing yourself off as someone else" is prohibited. As the Goons have used the "Band of Brothers" corp name in forum posts this breaches the EULA and CCP are well within their right to take action as deemed necessary. The EULA also clearly states that CCP have the authority to do this, on their servers and their software - you have all "signed" the EULA and are bound by it.
They could have deleted the "Band of Brothers" corp registered by Goons for EULA violation, but instead took the more diplomatic option of renaming KenZoku to Band of Brothers reloaded.
This whole "storm in a teacup" is being propagated by the Goons, their alts and their allies. Please stop subscribing to such mindless drivel.
|
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:25:00 -
[441]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless The Goons disbanded BoB and stole the name.
lolcontradiction -
DesuSigs |
Aetec Raa
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:27:00 -
[442]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless It's a name, get over it.
The Goons disbanded BoB and stole the name. I believe the EULA states that misrepresentation or "passing yourself off as someone else" is prohibited. As the Goons have used the "Band of Brothers" corp name in forum posts this breaches the EULA and CCP are well within their right to take action as deemed necessary. The EULA also clearly states that CCP have the authority to do this, on their servers and their software - you have all "signed" the EULA and are bound by it.
They could have deleted the "Band of Brothers" corp registered by Goons for EULA violation, but instead took the more diplomatic option of renaming KenZoku to Band of Brothers reloaded.
This whole "storm in a teacup" is being propagated by the Goons, their alts and their allies. Please stop subscribing to such mindless drivel.
Is this true? My understanding is that a BoB director disbanded the alliance. What is the truth here?
|
Kalissa Dauntless
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:30:00 -
[443]
Originally by: Aetec Raa Is this true? My understanding is that a BoB director disbanded the alliance. What is the truth here?
Ok fine, nitpick holes. A BoB director disbanded it and went over to the Goons. That still doesn't change the fact that the Goons re-registered the old name and use it in forums posts. My original reasoning still stands, and your point is moot.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:32:00 -
[444]
Originally by: Aetec Raa Is this true? My understanding is that a BoB director disbanded the alliance. What is the truth here?
The truth is that BoB gave up the name, the Goons took it, and people are trying to twist this into some kind of name-stealing impersonation deal. Since at the time the alliance BoB no longer existed, it doesn't hold much weight. -
DesuSigs |
Xenea
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:33:00 -
[445]
Bad call CCP. |
Aetec Raa
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:36:00 -
[446]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless
Originally by: Aetec Raa Is this true? My understanding is that a BoB director disbanded the alliance. What is the truth here?
Ok fine, nitpick holes. A BoB director disbanded it and went over to the Goons. That still doesn't change the fact that the Goons re-registered the old name and use it in forums posts. My original reasoning still stands, and your point is moot.
I really wasn't trying to make a point. I guess it comes down to whether "spying" and clandestine activities are allowed in eve. Also, not being familiar with alliance mechanics, is it possible to prevent a single director from disbanding an alliance? I have always read that you should watch your back in Eve and that corporate spies were common. The question is, what would CCP have done if this wasn't BoB? I really don't know the answer to that but I would hope the answer would be the exact same thing. Otherwise it is favoritism.
|
Kalissa Dauntless
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:40:00 -
[447]
Originally by: Crumplecorn The truth is that BoB gave up the name, the Goons took it, and people are trying to twist this into some kind of name-stealing impersonation deal. Since at the time the alliance BoB no longer existed, it doesn't hold much weight.
So they just woke up one day and thought "I know, we'll disband our alliance, lose our sov and let someone else re-register it". That doesn't hold much weight either. The name was not "given up" it was taken by using a grey area without the consent of the corps within the alliance.
Again this is still moot as to my previous post, because the corp registered as "Band of Brothers" have made posts on the forums and there is nothing saying that CCP cannot take a certain action - regardless of whether they are going to explain it or not.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:45:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless taken
Explain to me how an alliance name can be taken. Can I go and take an alliance name if I want. Alliance names can only be given up, letting someone who chose to give up it in the position of making the decision is (was ) BoB's problem. -
DesuSigs |
Zul'Athar
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:46:00 -
[449]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless Edited by: Kalissa Dauntless on 25/03/2009 00:31:51 It's a name, get over it.
The Goons disbanded BoB and stole the name A BoB director defected to the Goons, closed down the alliance and the Goons stole the alliance name (edit: happy now?)
I believe the EULA states that misrepresentation or "passing yourself off as someone else" is prohibited. As the Goons have used the "Band of Brothers" corp name in forum posts this breaches the EULA and CCP are well within their right to take action as deemed necessary. The EULA also clearly states that CCP have the authority to do this, on their servers and their software - you have all "signed" the EULA and are bound by it.
They could have deleted the "Band of Brothers" corp registered by Goons for EULA violation, but instead took the more diplomatic option of renaming KenZoku to Band of Brothers reloaded.
This whole "storm in a teacup" is being propagated by the Goons, their alts and their allies. Please stop subscribing to such mindless drivel.
IF CCP found that the Band of Brothers corporation was passing themselves off as someone else as put forth in your claim, then CCP would have renamed the Band of Brothers corporation too, not just give KenZoku a free rename (which I'm still waiting for the "conditions" of when this will happened and prior examples).
As the Band of Brothers corporation still exists as an entity with that name, your point is moot.
My current conclusion from the data I have available is that CCP is still playing favorites and have not learned from the T20. My perception is that they have not instilled any sort of professionalism.
|
Kalissa Dauntless
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:46:00 -
[450]
Originally by: Aetec Raa I really wasn't trying to make a point. I guess it comes down to whether "spying" and clandestine activities are allowed in eve. Also, not being familiar with alliance mechanics, is it possible to prevent a single director from disbanding an alliance? I have always read that you should watch your back in Eve and that corporate spies were common. The question is, what would CCP have done if this wasn't BoB? I really don't know the answer to that but I would hope the answer would be the exact same thing. Otherwise it is favoritism.
The CEO of the executor corp kicked all the other corps ergo disbanding it by default. Actions in a corp/alliance require a voting process which this circumnavigated. It hasn't been deemed as an exploit, and espionage is certainly permitted in EVE.
My point is that whilst the Goons could have taken the name using a holding corp that would not have been an issue. However they have misrepresented it (the corp/old BoB alliance name) by making posts on the forums and passing themselves off as it. CCP could have renamed it to "Corporation 2454634" or simply deleted it. However they chose to rename KenZoku to BOBR.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |