EVE Search - Alliance rename issue

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Alliance rename issue

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Kalissa Dauntless	Posted - 2009.03.25 00:52:00 - [451] Originally by: Zul'Athar ...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). Could you imagine the increased raging this would have caused? I believe the path chosen was the most reasonable of all the options available. In the very beginning CCP could have stated "This was not an intended mechanic and bypassed the normal voting operation, therefore we are rolling back the changes and restoring BoB". For once CCP have not made a knee jerk reaction and have taken some time to look into all the aspects, probably also verifying it was the account owner that did it and so on. I'm please by this, but it seems the Goons and friends are not. If indeed it's as the GM's have stated they have taken time to investigate and discuss what to do.
REDEI CEO	Posted - 2009.03.25 00:57:00 - [452] Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless 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. lol u have no clue. Its a director in the corp, not the CEO, who kicked out all corps and confessed to goons. It wasnt espionage, it was a single person lighting the fire and switching sides, and CCP did not have the proper mechanic set up to prevent such action because this was a first in eve's history, at least on this scale and size. As for Goons and co picking up names and tickers of what was Band of Brothers, that was an attempt to grief, and Ive mentioned before 2 cases where CCP intervened. If CCP gave the BOB name back to BOB instead of BOBR we... well i dont even want to think of the reactions that would come out and accusations towards CCP.
Viscount Prawn Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 00:57:00 - [453] 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.
Kalissa Dauntless	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:02:00 - [454] Originally by: REDEI CEO lol u have no clue. I'm tired, leave me alone /cry Originally by: Viscount Prawn 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. 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.
Aetec Raa	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:03:00 - [455] Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless 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. Ok. There is a lot of meat here. First off, was the executor of BoB it's leader? Forgive my ignorance but I really don't know if this person is the leader or just a rep of the corps that formed the alliance. If he was indeed the leader then I would say that his disbanding the alliance was legit. Secondly, if the above is true than once the name became available and was claimed there really is no reason they shouldn't be able to post in the forums as BoB since they are in effect, now BoB. To be honest, the epic battle between BoB and the Goons is a nice draw to Eve. It kind of gives an Empire/Rebel feel to the game. To me, the biggest problem in all of this is the T20 issue. I know it was a while ago but you have to admit that developers cheating for a single alliance/clan/guild, etc. in any mmo is a serious issue. It really leaves lingering questions in the minds of the playerbase. Now here we are again and of all of the players in Eve it just so happens that this involves BoB. If I were BoB, I would want to reinstate my dominance without any type of involvement from CCP. Once that was done, the stain of T20 could truly be shed. As it is now, seeing any type of involvement from CCP in regards to BoB really brings their neutrality into question.
Jason Marshall Gallente Hammer Of Light Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:04:00 - [456] **ing Bull**. Tacky Lensflares in sigs ftw
Aetec Raa	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:09:00 - [457] Originally by: REDEI CEO Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless 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. lol u have no clue. Its a director in the corp, not the CEO, who kicked out all corps and confessed to goons. It wasnt espionage, it was a single person lighting the fire and switching sides, and CCP did not have the proper mechanic set up to prevent such action because this was a first in eve's history, at least on this scale and size. As for Goons and co picking up names and tickers of what was Band of Brothers, that was an attempt to grief, and Ive mentioned before 2 cases where CCP intervened. If CCP gave the BOB name back to BOB instead of BOBR we... well i dont even want to think of the reactions that would come out and accusations towards CCP. I realize I have no clue which is why I asked the question. You state in your answer that this is a "first" in Eve then go on to qualify it by saying "at least of this scale and size". It sounds to me like you really don't know if it is a "first" or not. If it is not then it should have been handled the same way as the others that came before it.
Ubidak Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers Reloaded	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:09:00 - [458] Originally by: Tobruk Like it or not Goons play by the EULA and pay when they don't Ever wanted to mine 1 moon with 2 poses? Ask goons how to Ever wanted to keep pos jammers online while your pos is reinforced? Ask goons how to Is this good or bad? Ask goons, they must know better Now pls enlighten me, how did goons pay for that?
Jason Auralis	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:11:00 - [459] Originally by: Ubidak Originally by: Tobruk Like it or not Goons play by the EULA and pay when they don't Ever wanted to mine 1 moon with 2 poses? Ask goons how to Ever wanted to keep pos jammers online while your pos is reinforced? Ask goons how to Is this good or bad? Ask goons, they must know better Now pls enlighten me, how did goons pay for that? Shut up you ****ing cheat.
Viscount Prawn Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:11:00 - [460] 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?
Comstr Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:12:00 - [461] Edited by: Comstr on 25/03/2009 01:15:47 This is clearly against the terms of changing names, which may ONLY be done if they offensive. This was not the case. Furthermore, the GM who did it claims this happened before. There is no report of this ever happening before, beyond offensive names. The player who asked for this change clearly did it in an attempt to go around the existing, and in game rules, of creating a new alliance and paying 1 billion ISK. They are also able to keep sovereignty in systems, and not having it reset, which creating a new alliance would require. All previous times players have asked for a alliance name change, they have been denied. The Kenzoku alliance was a pre-existing alliance and no request had been made to change the name until the Band of Brothers alliance was disbanded by a director using legitimatise and in game rules and actions. His motivations are completely unrelated, and CCP announced the disbanding was completely allowed and acceptable. The player who disbanded the Band of Brothers alliance had the full in game authority to do so, given to him in a valid and legal manor. The reasons given by the GM do not in any way explain his actions, or indeed, why it took nearly 3 months for them to occur. Please take action at resetting the alliance now known as Band of Brothers Reloaded to Kenzoku. If the players in said alliance wish to change their name, they can do so in game, like everyone else. Also please investigate the GM who made this change, as he is clearly playing favourites and ruining the good name CCP has made itself lately of being impartial and treating all players equally and fairly.
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:14:00 - [462] what you fail to realise is that this is not about bobr kenny this is about ccp changing a policy to suit an alliance if it was goons who had this it would be the same outcry from the rank and file let me put it another way . If an alliance had a war dec and was allowed by ccp to change there name the dec would be invalid would you think that was ok NO i would hope you would say no ccp your WRONG Im sorry to drag up the past but most of us still have the bitter taste in or mouths from the t20 incident again poorly handled by ccp i thought things had changed after the moon exploit was glad to see ccp acting,but after this im starting to see the same patten of hurf bluf with no examples "This action was limited to changing their name, as we have done before for others" WHO ARE THE OTHERS. Any other corporation or alliance finding themselves in the same situation would get the same treatment. NOT TRUE
Kalissa Dauntless	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:15:00 - [463] Originally by: Aetec Raa Ok. There is a lot of meat here. First off, was the executor of BoB it's leader? Forgive my ignorance but I really don't know if this person is the leader or just a rep of the corps that formed the alliance. If he was indeed the leader then I would say that his disbanding the alliance was legit. It was a director in the executor corp, so in effect, no, not the "leader" as such. Originally by: Aetec Raa Secondly, if the above is true than once the name became available and was claimed there really is no reason they shouldn't be able to post in the forums as BoB since they are in effect, now BoB. It was taken to grief ex-bob/kenzoku which can result in dev intervention. Originally by: Aetec Raa To me, the biggest problem in all of this is the T20 issue. I know it was a while ago but you have to admit that developers cheating for a single alliance/clan/guild, etc. in any mmo is a serious issue. It really leaves lingering questions in the minds of the playerbase. Now here we are again and of all of the players in Eve it just so happens that this involves BoB. I think CCP were in a difficult place here because if this mechanic wasn't intended they could have rolled-back and restored BoB - but that would have caused an outcry. Based on the previous T20 stuff, I feel CCP thought they shouldn't intervene even if the mechanic wasn't intended - thus giving BoB a raw deal because they didn't want to be seen as pro-BoB. After they'd crunched through all the facts and figures it would have been too late to do a roll-back (restoring sov and all), leaving either the option of giving the BoB name back to KenZoku (public outcry) or renaming KenZoku to BOBR (public outcry). Even if they had knee-jerked and instantly restored/rolled-back BoB or blocked the process it would have lead to... a public outcry. So in short, they had a difficult decision to make whatever they did. I think if they have investigated and taken their time on it, then this is the lesser of all the evils present. Although they should announce that after careful consideration it wasn't intended.
Reilly Jax Amarr Freespace Technologies	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:21:00 - [464] I made this flow chart to help you folks understand the selection process when it comes to name changing criteria for the Devstaff and gm's http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=flowchart.png
Kalissa Dauntless	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:21:00 - [465] 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. Originally by: bloody johnroberts what you fail to realise is that this is not about bobr kenny this is about ccp changing a policy to suit an alliance if it was goons who had this it would be the same outcry from the rank and file let me put it another way . If an alliance had a war dec and was allowed by ccp to change there name the dec would be invalid would you think that was ok NO i would hope you would say no ccp your WRONG I would guess each corp/alliance has an ID in the database and that the name is purely external - so it wouldn't change a thing. Originally by: bloody johnroberts Any other corporation or alliance finding themselves in the same situation would get the same treatment. NOT TRUE You now have it on record. If this occurs again, you know what will happen. As I said earlier, CCP were screwed whatever they did; 1. Insta roll-back BoB and sov 2. Block it from happening 3. Delete the Goon "Band of Brothers" grief Corp 4. Rename Kenny to BOBR. They have made a difficult decision and taken time to weigh up everything at hand.
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:23:00 - [466] WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT GOONS OR KENNY/BOB/BOBR THIS IS ABOUT CCPS ACTIONS TO GIVE AN ADVANTAGE TO ANOTHER ALLIANCE 1,IF YOU CHANGE AN ALLIANCE NAME SOV DROPS 2,YOU PAY 1BIL im not sure if any of these have happened apart from sov that has not changed again this is about rules not meta gaming or pushing buttons this is about 1 gm deciding to change the rules to suit an alliance
Aetec Raa	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:24:00 - [467] How many corporations does it take to form an alliance? I ask because there may be an answer that CCP can code into the game to prevent this in the future. I know that in general in MMO's it takes 3-6 players to form a guild. Why can't CCP code into the game the requirement to have the majority of the founding corporations vote to disband an alliance? If it takes 3 corps to form you could require at least two to disband the alliance.
Zul'Athar	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:24:00 - [468] Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless 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. This is different than: Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless Could you imagine the increased raging this would have caused? I believe the path chosen was the most reasonable of all the options available. In the very beginning CCP could have stated "This was not an intended mechanic and bypassed the normal voting operation, therefore we are rolling back the changes and restoring BoB". For once CCP have not made a knee jerk reaction and have taken some time to look into all the aspects, probably also verifying it was the account owner that did it and so on. I'm please by this, but it seems the Goons and friends are not. If indeed it's as the GM's have stated they have taken time to investigate and discuss what to do. Originally by: REDEI CEO Its a director in the corp, not the CEO, who kicked out all corps and confessed to goons. It wasnt espionage, it was a single person lighting the fire and switching sides, and CCP did not have the proper mechanic set up to prevent such action because this was a first in eve's history, at least on this scale and size. As for Goons and co picking up names and tickers of what was Band of Brothers, that was an attempt to grief, and Ive mentioned before 2 cases where CCP intervened. If CCP gave the BOB name back to BOB instead of BOBR we... well i dont even want to think of the reactions that would come out and accusations towards CCP. So why isn't the corporation by the name of Band of Brothers not dealt with in the same fashion and said alliance given the name back? As you said there's precedence. Right now there's no precedence as the outcomes are currently different. I'm waiting for CCP to answer to the conditions under which this type of solution is granted rather than speculating about it at this point.
Ezoran DuBlaidd Freedom From Fear Industries	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:29:00 - [469] 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), 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. actually, an alliance changed their named and were allowed to retain sovereignty... while all previous alliances either had to stick with their original name (and keep sov), or reform with the new name they wanted (and lose sov). even a child is capable of understanding the world of difference between the two. sov doesn't mean anything? is that why delve is still controlled by bob? oh wait...
Viscount Prawn Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:30:00 - [470] 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.
Kalissa Dauntless	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:30:00 - [471] Originally by: Zul'Athar Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless 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. This is different than: Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless Could you imagine the increased raging this would have caused? I believe the path chosen was the most reasonable of all the options available. In the very beginning CCP could have stated "This was not an intended mechanic and bypassed the normal voting operation, therefore we are rolling back the changes and restoring BoB". For once CCP have not made a knee jerk reaction and have taken some time to look into all the aspects, probably also verifying it was the account owner that did it and so on. I'm please by this, but it seems the Goons and friends are not. If indeed it's as the GM's have stated they have taken time to investigate and discuss what to do. Yes, yes it is. In the first I'm saying that if the Goons had not have paraded around like jerks with the name (ie, not griefed) then they might not have breached the EULA and it wouldn't be a problem. In the second I'm saying CCP could have simply blocked/rolled-back the event from ever occurring stating it wasn't an intended mechanic.
Ezoran DuBlaidd Freedom From Fear Industries	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:32:00 - [472] Originally by: bloody johnroberts WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT GOONS OR KENNY/BOB/BOBR THIS IS ABOUT CCPS ACTIONS TO GIVE AN ADVANTAGE TO ANOTHER ALLIANCE 1,IF YOU CHANGE AN ALLIANCE NAME SOV DROPS 2,YOU PAY 1BIL im not sure if any of these have happened apart from sov that has not changed again this is about rules not meta gaming or pushing buttons this is about 1 gm deciding to change the rules to suit an alliance exactly. i'm still waiting for the list, that the op mentioned, of the many times this has happened in the past.
Boknamar Gallente The Knights Trevor	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:32:00 - [473] Edited by: Boknamar on 25/03/2009 01:32:41 Can we please just get the name change reversed already? I'm getting sick of Goonswarm being on the right side of an issue. Let's make the issue go away.
Gabrielle Atrocity	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:32:00 - [474] Ive read most of this... tried to sort out the crap... and all I keep coming back to was the corporation Band of Brothers being created in the first place. A very clear grief. Im not going to go reading up eula and all that crap, but it sounds like **** is borked right there. That should not have been allowed. Or BOB should have been able to petition to have it renamed since it was obviously setup for a single greifish purpose. Im my mind the Kenzoku -> BOBR rename makes up for the fact that a role back would have everyone in eve flipping out... especially if it had occured 2 months after the fact. The fact of the matter is goons + pl and friends are going to whine about anything good happening to bob/kenzoku/bobr no matter who does it and how.
Hubris Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:34:00 - [475] Edited by: Hubris on 25/03/2009 01:34:56 Originally by: 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. If something is allowed, then it should be the same for everyone. How hard is that to understand? i completely agree with you avon Originally by: Avon You guys seem to be getting really angry over this game, increasingly so. That is a pretty sad thing to see. Posted by Avon Posted - 2005.11.10 11:22:00 I have already said my accounts have been cancelled, so why bother ranting at me? why dont you ragequit about it -
Trojanman190 Yultani Advanced Research	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:34:00 - [476] Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless Originally by: Zul'Athar Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless 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. This is different than: Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless Could you imagine the increased raging this would have caused? I believe the path chosen was the most reasonable of all the options available. In the very beginning CCP could have stated "This was not an intended mechanic and bypassed the normal voting operation, therefore we are rolling back the changes and restoring BoB". For once CCP have not made a knee jerk reaction and have taken some time to look into all the aspects, probably also verifying it was the account owner that did it and so on. I'm please by this, but it seems the Goons and friends are not. If indeed it's as the GM's have stated they have taken time to investigate and discuss what to do. Yes, yes it is. In the first I'm saying that if the Goons had not have paraded around like jerks with the name (ie, not griefed) then they might not have breached the EULA and it wouldn't be a problem. In the second I'm saying CCP could have simply blocked/rolled-back the event from ever occurring stating it wasn't an intended mechanic. This. The name change was to make up for the fact that you cant do a roll back after 2 months. CCP should have had a dev come out and write a dev blog about it, THEN do it. At the very least we can get a dev blog about the after the fact.
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:37:00 - [477] Edited by: bloody johnroberts on 25/03/2009 01:40:36 If i was the exec of MM and said hey guys and gals i dont like the name as i don't know what it means and said to ccp please change my alliance name and oh i don't want to lose sov in tribute or pay any fees too response would be 1 u mad 2 sorry 3 sorry again 4 stop wasting my time 5 no i don't want your sister
Viscount Prawn Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:38:00 - [478] 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.
Zul'Athar	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:39:00 - [479] Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless Yes, yes it is. In the first I'm saying that if the Goons had not have paraded around like jerks with the name (ie, not griefed) then they might not have breached the EULA and it wouldn't be a problem. In the second I'm saying CCP could have simply blocked/rolled-back the event from ever occurring stating it wasn't an intended mechanic. For your first point, there's precedence for that as indicated by (although I do not have proof): Originally by: REDEI CEO Its a director in the corp, not the CEO, who kicked out all corps and confessed to goons. It wasnt espionage, it was a single person lighting the fire and switching sides, and CCP did not have the proper mechanic set up to prevent such action because this was a first in eve's history, at least on this scale and size. As for Goons and co picking up names and tickers of what was Band of Brothers, that was an attempt to grief, and Ive mentioned before 2 cases where CCP intervened. If CCP gave the BOB name back to BOB instead of BOBR we... well i dont even want to think of the reactions that would come out and accusations towards CCP. My question is why did CCP handle this differently than what REDEI CEO claims has happened before? Second, the precedence for CCP rolling back the server involves parts of the server dying and losing information. Otherwise, all PvP actions are non-refundable. Unless you want to argue that the disbanding of the Band of Brothers alliance was not a PvP action? or is there other precedence that I missed? My next question is, why did CCP bother setting new precedence? Especially with an entity that they have shown favoritism before and will have the perception of impropriety?
Kalissa Dauntless	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:40:00 - [480] Originally by: Viscount Prawn 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. The ultimate decision to change/not change a name is with CCP. I think if they'd stated that they'd changed the name because; 1. Griefing by Goons (aka Band of Brothers corp) 2. Disband was by unintentional mechanic Then people might have been a bit more happy. As it stands no reasoning has been provided afaik, but it would have helped people to understand. In any case, the current outcome beats either a blocking of the transaction, an insta roll-back when it occured or deleting the Goon BoB named corp imo. Thanks for your time discussing, but it's very late and I should get some sleep. Props for keeping it civil and not degenerating into a playground style slanging match. o7

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.