| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
   |
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:04:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: GM Grimmi
We appreciate the feedback from everyone. After reviewing all of these very valid concerns, we were compelled to go back over the information weĈd collected in this case and carefully weighed it again against the precedents set in the past. Ultimately, we felt we had no other recourse than to reverse the name change, the key factor being that during this re-investigation we learned that the KenZoku alliance was created several months before the BoB alliance leadership switched hands. That being the case, the name change request was not submitted within a timely manner, as it had been in the legacy cases we were holding up as examples.
We will be contacting the CSM for input regarding our naming policies.
GM Grimmi.
Will you be renaming the Band of Brothers alt-corp currently controlled by the Goonswarm alliance and allowing the original Band of Brothers leadership to re-establish their alliance name by paying 1billion isk?
I understand there is precedent for this process (see Cult of War) and would you agree with me that allowing Band of Brothers leadership their alliance identity back with zero sovereignty and the appropriate alliance formation payment would be the appropriate and fair resolution of this case?
I think you have correctly reached the conclusion that one part of this resolution (kenzoku into band of brothers reloaded) was incorrectly handled.
Will you now ensure that the other part of the resolution (failing to remove/rename the goonswarm identity blocking corp) will also now be rectified.
Thanks in advance.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:51:00 -
[2]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
The only goon on the CSM is Darius Jonhson.
There's an alternative who is in the GS alliance too.
Did you get accepted by Snigg in the end by the way LaVista? (combat alt I mean obviously?) Just curious.
And while on the subject - I think we've kinda got away from the remaining point of this thread:
Back on page 4 I asked...
***
Quote:
GM Grimmi.
Will you be renaming the Band of Brothers alt-corp currently controlled by the Goonswarm alliance and allowing the original Band of Brothers leadership to re-establish their alliance name by paying 1billion isk?
I understand there is precedent for this process (see Cult of War) and would you agree with me that allowing Band of Brothers leadership their alliance identity back with zero sovereignty and the appropriate alliance formation payment would be the appropriate and fair resolution of this case?
I think you have correctly reached the conclusion that one part of this resolution (kenzoku into band of brothers reloaded) was incorrectly handled.
Will you now ensure that the other part of the resolution (failing to remove/rename the goonswarm identity blocking corp) will also now be rectified.
Thanks in advance.
Could you please ensure this question is asked of CCP when they consult with the CSM LaVista?
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:46:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 26/03/2009 15:47:49
Originally by: EliteSlave
Jade you are an Idiot seriously, COW lost their name due to the fact they did not pay their bills. and just so happend someone was quick enough to catch it and block it. That is why the name change occurred. But this wasnt a matter of alliance bills not being paid.
Beginning with a personal attack doesn't do much for your credibility but I'll do you a favour and show you why you are wrong regardless:
COW lost their name to not paying bills, I seem to recall there was talk about bugs with email notification - such things have been mentioned in the past. It is a bit silly that an alliance can just disband without a big notification anyway. But regardless the alliance was disbanded - why it happened is not relevant. Just like the Band of Brothers alliance - it got disbanded. I'm sure we all agree that its ridiculous its possible to instantly disband an alliance when it takes a CEO 24 hours minimum to kick out a corp spy right? But again its not relevant to this case - it happened, it was done.
So we have COW = alliance disbanded and BOB = alliance disbanded.
(these things are the same.)
In COW's case an enemy took the opportunity to register the name Cult of War to prevent the COW founders from re-establishing their alliance name.
In BOB's case an enemy took the opportunity to register the name Band of Brothers to prevent the BOB founders from re-establishing their alliance name.
(these things are also the same).
In COW's case the founders decided to petition CCP to get their name back.
In BOB's case the founders decided to petition CCP to get their name back.
(these things are still the same.)
But then we get a critical difference:
In COW's case the GM's decided to rename the offending blocking alt corp and allow COW to reform with their chosen alliance name restoring equilibrium and resolving the matter.
In BOB's case the GM's decided to wait 2months and then change a completely different alliance into Band of Brothers Reloaded while allowing the offending blocking alt corp to remain as a "trophy" inside of the Goonswarm alliance directly triggering the scandal and froth of the last few days.
This is the critical difference.
Why was this different? Thats the question that needs to be answered. Why was the offending corp in COW's case renamed and yet the Goonswarm alt corp was not? This is not equal and transparent decision-making it looks like bias and improper resolution.
It doesn't matter a damn how the alliance came to be disbanded - what matters is how alt-blocking corps preventing re-establishment are treated and the GM's need a consistent playbook on the issue to avoid the appearence of bias and partiality.
Quote:
You will realize that you are insignificant to the matters of Eve and should just go quietly into the dark and just STFU as you are nothing to this universe. you did nothing in CSM, you failed at it, you were a running joke of the CSM, you are just plain worthless.
I'm afraid that you'll find I'm far harder to froth and bully into submission than GM Grimmi appears to be 
As much as it grates on your nerves to have a person standing up to the goonswarm forum brigade and calmly speaking for the opposite point of view you are going to have to put up with it. On forums, at meets, at fanfest, text or voice or whatever. I will never back down to threats and harrassment and bullying and you are going to learn that however long it takes. I'm entirely confident with my record on the CSM and will stand on that record when the time comes to run for a second term. Question is will you ever feel that kind of confidence?
Until you attain a greater level of maturity than that evidenced by your post I suspect that answer will remain an empathic ... no.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:54:00 -
[4]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Well. I'm curious what kind of response you expect of them. They don't usually discuss this kind of thing.
I'd like an answer to my question basically. If they have decided to treat the COW case differently to the BOB case I'd like to know why? I'd like to hear the justification in detail. This is not a normal petition debate - its something that has very serious ramifications to the alliance game all round.
On a positive note I hope it will lead to a workover the alliance system and removal of these loopholes. Active alliances should not be disbanded because the officers miss a single bill payment - Active alliances should not be disbanded because a rogue director instantly kicks out all corps and clicks self-destruct. These loopholes need patching up.
But while their doing that they need to ensure that they are being even-handed on past issues - its just not reasonable that COW got its name back and BOB didn't. I don't care who the participants are - but you can't have such an obviously partial decision affecting thousands of players standing out like a sore thumb in this way.
Quote:
CCP has requested a timeslot at our upcoming meeting on April 5th to discuss naming policies. If people think it's a desirable thing that CCP addresses the case in it's entirety, then I think it's fair that we ask them to do so.
I'd like them to do so and I'd like you to specifically ask the question I posed to GM Grimmi on this thread.
Thanks in advance.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Tharrn
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Too long to quote
This is the critical difference.
Why was this different? Thats the question that needs to be answered. Why was the offending corp in COW's case renamed and yet the Goonswarm alt corp was not? This is not equal and transparent decision-making it looks like bias and improper resolution.
They can have their name back for all I care: rename the corp Band of Brothers and free the slot for them. They can then have their name back with all ramifications.
Heh, its a rare thing for you and I to agree on anything Tharrn. This alone should count for something.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:44:00 -
[6]
Originally by: EliteSlave
Now I qouted and bolded key parts of the policy.
BOB > Disbanded > then joined Kenny
Not
BOB > Disbanded > Form BOBR ( Fight to be renamed to BOB)
BoB didnt make BOBR after being disbanded... thus you lost out on a key arguement there, and had you done it immediately you would have suffered no differences between joining kenny or bobr. but your leadership chose to join kenny, which was an already established alliance in the attempt to get it renamed why?
I guess you don't really expect half a dozen corps to explain why they joined an interim alliance for unified chat and standings rather than waiting 2 months outside an alliance for the petition to be answered right?
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 15:48:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Scruffy Jed
Adjusting the game mechanics isn't necessary, there are fail-safes in place to prevent the instant disintegration of an alliance. CCP cannot be held responsible when, for example, the CEO removes all shares in the executor corp so as to remove the 24-hour wait on alliance changes.
You do know this isn't true right? It makes no difference whether there are shares or not.
Quote:
It's not the game mechanics that screwed KenZoku, and it's certainly not CCP's fault when a CEO disables an alliance's protection.
Its the fault of game mechanics that it takes a CEO 24 hours to remove roles and boot a corp spy (for example) while it takes no longer than to click the "remove corp(s)" and "disband alliance" buttons for a disgruntled director of an alliance to destroy it.
If it did take say a 48 hour vote of all alliance ceos (declaring opposition or support for the disband motion) then I imagine nobody would have a problem with this and the Band of Brothers disband wouldn't have happened.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Cippalippus Primus
If that feature is badly implemented and you are against it, then you should've done something about it when you were in the CSM.
I don't think anyone actually realized it was so ridiculously easy to disband an alliance to be quite honest or we'd likely have brought it up. Sometimes exploits on weak game mechanics take everyone by surprise. Rest assured if this hasn't been resolved by the time I decide to run again I'd definitely be in favour of having the fix high on the council agenda.
Quote:
The name theft was legitimate and no wall of text will change this simple fact. Names, as everything else in EVE, can be stolen, deal with it.
I don't think precedence shows that at all. Name theft in the past has not been allowed - see the Cult of War example. If CCP are going to change the rules on name theft they will need to make an announcement of the fact - and even doing that there would be a very strong argument for Band of Brothers getting their name back simply because as far as anyone knew name theft was not allowed at the time goon-swarm appropriated the name via its blocking alt corp.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:55:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Smacktalking Alt
I don't know anything about the CoW incident, but I thought that there was a bug in the mailing system that prevented the alliance from being notified that it had an payment due, and that CCP restored the alliance because the game failed in its intended function, namely to give warning of impending doom.
Dunno to honest, there have been "bugs" in the past with people missing alliance mails - but the system itself was so buggy it was difficult to tell if it was people with the wrong permissions deleting them, the system itself eating the mails or just people failing to notice these things. Ultimately I think everyone can agree that a structure that takes 1billion isk and a long skill to train just to set up shouldn't be disbanded so easily as missing a payment or some guy getting ansy and clicking "instant-disband".
Its a dangerous road to go down to argue that just because something is possible in game-mechanics its right and valid to use that something. Often these things end up being ruled as exploits and people get banned for it.
Sure YOU CAN utilize these quirks and loopholes but you should really use some common sense and realize that some of these tricks are not in the best interest of the game.
Example - Once upon a time it was possible to be in a corp in a sanctioned war - undock with the war-flag and insta quick your corp mid-combat with war enemies and get the other side ganked by concord. Everyone knew this was not how the system should be working but most people knew the spirit of eve well enough not to rely on this rubbish and expect not to get banned for doing it. Sure enough the system was patched and we got various fixes to prevent it (like the 24 hour role-removal timer for people leaving corps and various overview fixes).
Bottom line is that something as critical and important to the organization of large player entities as the alliance management shell should not be disbandable with a click of a button. Everyone knows this. Some will not admit it for partizan reasons but in their hearts nobody supports this mechanism. It will get fixed.
But ultimately thats not really the point here. Cult of war got their name back with a hostile entity was holding it to ransom. Band of Brothers should get their name back in exactly the same circumstances and then this whole business can be put to bed and everyone can get on with playing the space war.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:56:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Alrar Manq
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Name theft in the past has not been allowed
Lotka Volterra
Dead alliance, its membership went and joined another alliance entirely. Chances are nobody cared - nobody petitioned. No complaint - no crime.
Its not the same thing as an active alliance wanting its name back to reform under.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
| |
|