|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Viscount Prawn
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:57:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: clone 1
By allowing this change, there is an underlying issue. Goons took the corp name Band of Brothers to deny it to BOB. Is this an allowed act, the above actions described by GM Grimmi say it is, but the result is that it isnt. The logic is circular, and poorly handled.
This is a very good point. At the time it happened, the alt corp registration was allowed to go through without comment - we could debate whether that was right for pages I'm sure, but there certainly seemed to be no problem with it on CCP's part at the time.
Now, if CCP's justification for the renaming is the shadiness of the alt-corp, that sets a horrible precedent - even if an ingame action is initially permitted by the devs, it can now be dug up months later and used as a justification for modifications to the database favouring a particular player faction. This is totally arbitrary and will inevitably lead to people second-guessing CCP's decisions about what is and is not acceptable within the game.
|
Viscount Prawn
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:11:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless
I don't think it was "initially permitted" per say, I would guess they just took their time to look into all the facts and verify the real account holder did it. Nice not have have an omgwtfinstakneejerkpwn for once.
The devs investigated shortly after the incident and informed Kenzoku that the disbanding was legitimate. It's been at least a month and a half since they came to that decision, which is plenty of time to clean up the rest of the incident however they wished.
In any case if account hacking was to blame then there would simply have been a rollback and "Band of Brothers Reloaded" would not exist anyway.
And unless I'm mistaken, even if BoB had reformed under their old name right after the disband they would not have had the instant sov-1 that using Kenzoku gave them. There's no reason why they should be able to have instant sov AND the name they want, unless you just want to throw them a bone for getting so completely screwed over by Haargoth and the goons. And what kind of game would EVE be if the devs regularly did things like that?
|
Viscount Prawn
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:30:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless
Edited by: Kalissa Dauntless on 25/03/2009 01:26:05
Originally by: Comstr
This is clearly against the terms of changing names, which may ONLY be done if they offensive. This was not the case.
The terms state that a player/corp/alliance may have their name changed if it's offensive - true. Otherwise a player cannot chance their name/corp/alliance. It doesn't say that CCP cannot change it.
Now you're splitting hairs. There isn't a box that players can fill out to put in a new name; the player must send their desired name to CCP so that they can make the change.
That's exactly what happened in this situation. If the rule doesn't apply to CCP changing people's names for them, then nothing about the rule is relevant to name changing at all.
|
Viscount Prawn
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:38:00 -
[4]
a) Griefing is not illegal.
b) CCP taking two months to investigate a single name-change issue is nearly as ridiculous as changing the name of an alliance just because. It's pretty telling that the only remotely reasonable defense of CCP's actions so far is the suggestion that they're just incompetent rather than corrupt.
|
Viscount Prawn
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:48:00 -
[5]
Griefing in general is not against the EULA and is no reason for GM intervention unless a specific rule is broken. If CCP viewed the disband as illegitimate we wouldn't be here; the alliance name and sovereignty would have been resolved months ago when it was first petitioned. There would be no reason for compensation now.
|
|
|
| |
|