Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Edited by: LaVista Vista on 24/03/2009 15:23:23
Grimmi,

due all respect, I think this could have been solved a bit nicer.

So tell me if I'm wrong, but here's what happened:


1. BOB was compromised and disbanded after they eliminated a built-in safeguard, in exchange for convenience.
2. They joined an alt-alliance in order to keep sov.
3. They then petition for their name back. CCP gets a second opinion from your friendly neighborhood friends.
4. Months later, you decide that there's basis for letting an alt-alliance, which suddenly became a main-alliance, change their name.
5. You try to justify it by saying that they have done it to other alliances too. However it's the case that alliances have only been given another chance, if they misspelled the name or the like.

I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly why it was warranted, that an re-utilized alt-alliance suddenly could get a renaming.

I could personally not care less if even goonswarm had their name changed. However the response of yours lacks a bit. You haven't justified a whole lot, which I had hoped for. It's also obvious that people weren't pleased with it.

I hope that you will address the issue further.

Originally by: Vashan Tar

---

When their alliance was disbanded using in game mechanics they had the option of either reforming a new alliance (losing sov) or joining an existing one (kenzoku) and losing their name.

---

Well, they lost all their space. But still. I agree with this.

---

Originally by: Commander Talana

---

Cult of War alliance was disbanded due to unpaid bill.
Band of Brother alliance was disbanded due to a defector.

Both circumstances are "in-game mechanics". End result is the same: alliance was disbanded, name is now up for grabs.

Cult of War name was then taken by another corp with the sole intention of preventing the original CoW from reforming. This was considered "griefing", [albeit using in-game mechanics] consequently, that corp was re-named, and the original CoW was allowed to reform their alliance with their original name.

Band of Brother's name as taken by a goon alt, all corp was wardec'd with the sole intention of preventing the original alliance from reforming [albeit using in-game mechanics]. Sov was completely lost and reset to 1. BoB (original) petitioned this right away, but took 2 months to resolve.

With the precedent set forth by CoW, one has an effective case to argue for the restoration of BoB's name. The usage of "all legit under in-game mechanics" argument with the sole intent of griefing someone (as is evident by Goons taking BoB's name and even yesterday, KenZoku's name) does not negate the intention of the action: griefing.

Many precedents have been set forth with regards to "griefing", i.e., prevention of someone from leaving corp by repetitively granting roles, etc. was intervened by CCP. Just because it's "in-game mechanics" does NOT permit it's usage with the intent of harassment and griefing.

The appearance of "favoritism" is what it is: appearance. The proper course of action would have been to grant BoB their name back as soon as they had petitioned, reset all of their sov.

The fact BoB decided to join an existing alliance does not negate the original problem. They simply decided to continue on while CCP consider the petition (which we all know CCP can take forever to do anything).

To be perfectly honest, the reason why people are so upset, is because they just realized, just because it's "in-game mechanics" doesn't mean you are allowed to pursue such course of actions if such actions could be deemed as griefing and harassment.

---

Originally by: Lubsmelongtime

---

If you read the statement above carefully you will see is that CCP does not claim it has happened before.

What they are saying is that in this instance where an alliance has lost their sov because of a name change that they would not like to see the same thing happen again to that alliance. They are saying in other words that this is a precedent for future problems to do with names.

---

Originally by: Lubsmelongtime

---

Wrong Bob lost Sov and their name. They already had payed for Kenny name and used it because it was the quickest thing to do. CCP are saying sicne the original petition was submitted very quickly that they cannot advise Bob to disband <again> because losing space for a second time would be unfair. So they are allowing in this case a rename of the alliance name.

---

Originally by: Lubsmelongtime

---

Edited by: Lubsmelongtime on 25/03/2009 15:53:02

Originally by: Kuranta

---

Originally by: Lubsmelongtime

---

If you read the statement above carefully you will see is that CCP does not claim it has happened before.

What they are saying is that in this instance where an alliance has lost their sov because of a name change that they would not like to see the same thing happen again to that alliance. They are saying in other words that this is a precedent for future problems to do with names.

---

The problem is that BoB used Kenzoku in order to exactly not lose (all) sov and to be able to regain sov faster. So the point that CCP doesn't want to BoB to lose sov again is moot. They didn't lose it in the first place.

So CCP can either

a) reroll everything and make BoB lose all sov (we can agree that this will not happen)
b) revert the namechange because BoB is not entiteled to it, since they didn't suffer the consequences others did have to (lose all sov)

---

What bit don't you get? Bob as a name in game lost all Sov. Effectively the alliance was disbanded and lost its sov. The fact they joined Ken was simply a badge of convenience and yes even if Ken had some sov it doesn't remove the bare faced fact that all Bob sov had gone.

What the disbanded owners did was Join Ken and start the timer on new sov for Ken. The point being that CCP are renaming Kenny to enable Bob to not have to lose sov again. Read the message. A lot of the 24 pages of bile posted here is pointless and fails to take account of what CCP ARE ACTUALLY SAYING.

People should read before posting tbh.

---

Originally by: Lubsmelongtime

---

I know what you are saying but you are talking at crossed purposes. I hope its because you honestly don't see my point rather than to continue to grind your axe against Bob and/or CCP.

---

Originally by: Ironnight

---

Its not a big deal,

---

Originally by: Lubsmelongtime

---

No Bob did lose Sov - all Bob's sov had gone. The name no longer held any meaning in relation to sov in game.

Now CCP have already said that Goons were greifing because they set a new corp up instantly to stop Bob reforming under that name. What were Bob going to do? The most likely thing was to use the Kenny name even if they were not too keen on it. The irony is Goons actually shot themselves in the foot here because of the griefing playstyle. Bob were forced in many ways by Goons to get into Kenny....

The flaw in your logic is that you are claiming that CCP are applying the rules differently. The point is that CCP are not. They have created a precendent for exceptional circumstances - can you tell me where this has happened before to this extent?

CCP are saying they would do the same for you and anybody else. In other words. If Goons had not attempted to Grief Bob in the first place this new precedent would not have been required.

Goons actually precipitated this. Its why it is quite alarming to see so many people being sucked in by it all. Unless those people are posting as part of a Goonfleet threadnaught....

---

Originally by: Gallente Ardientemente

---

The central point of this argument has always been about choice and consequence. They chose to go with Kenzoku rather then start a new alliance, with all the pros and cons that went with it. And they are now backing out of that choice months later having already received the pro (sov 1 faster then normal making sov 3 jammers come even faster). The alliance bill is the least of concerns in this issue, EVE is all about consequences for your actions. Then of course add in that CCP still does not allow anyone ELSE to change their names.

---

Originally by: ArmyOfMe

---

Originally by: Kuranta

---

Since you still don't get it: When a Alliance is disbanded for whatever reason you can:


a) Join existing alliance. You can eventually claim sov faster (or, in case of BoB - keep some). Drwback: You can not pick a new name for the alliance.

b) You create a new alliance. You can pick a name you like, or, like CoW, get your old one back. Drawback: you can not claim sov right away.

It's not about what the old alliance lost. It's about what the new alliance can get or how fast it can get it.

BoB should have on or the other, like everyone else. Not both.

---

looks like you dont get it still.
bob couldnt make a new alliance with the name they wanted cause goons stole their name
wich is probably what they petitoned in the first place, and since ccp have acted on the same sort of thing before for other alliances they did so this time as well, other then since it took them 2 months to act on the petition it would have been unfair against bob if they had to loose sov 2 months after the petition was made

---

Originally by: fuze

---

Grimmi made it clear that they felt sorry for BOB being disbanded. What makes me wonder is how the heck it should take 2 months.

---

Originally by: Ironnight

---

When the T20 thing went down I was ****ed and I think they got off way to easy, but trying to compare this with the T20 crap is stupid, this is a question of a petition being processed and CCP admitting that their gamemechanics didnt work. <-Period

---

Originally by: Ironnight

---

Really what it comes down too, is talking too CCP in a respectfull manner, bobr did it and it worked, the goon and pet way, throwing a fit on the forum, now think about it for a second, who would you listen too and who who what you just block out?

---