|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:15:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Spoils of war my good man(?) Spoils of war.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:24:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Twobits PieCake After all the harsh words on this subject matter, and as a show of good faith from all parties, i think we can all agree a more suitable name would be [KenZoku Reloaded] A good compromise and more fitting as it also reflects the recent swapping of names back and forth.
It's like a convergence of terrible. I like it.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:42:00 -
[3]
You gentlemen certainly seem upset about all this. Perhaps you should take this game a bit less seriously.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:47:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Kheldon Fel on 26/03/2009 18:47:09
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Vladic Ka
Originally by: Vladic Ka
If you feel badly about the way an in game mechanic is flawed then it goes to the Assembly Hall or the Ideas Forum, like everything else. It gets changed after the fact.
Ill just quote myself here and leave it at that then eh boys. Dont want you getting all worked up.
We aren't talking about a flawed in game mechanic, we are talking about name squatting, which is a know customer service issue which has previously been resolved in favour of the alliance who had their name taken.
I'm sure you would encourage CCP to apply their own rulings fairly and equally, no matter who is involved, right? I am sure you would be outraged if they showed favouritsm?
Good try though.
Arguably, the CoW name was squatted due to a mechanics bug (notification failure). Had the bug not been in place, the name would have been squatted.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:59:00 -
[5]
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Marius Duvall
Also, I don't think you "get" threadnaughts.
No, I get them perfectly. They are a way to dictate terms to CCP. Sad though really (for CCP anyway). Congrats to you guys though, honestly. You have truly figured out how to get your way.
Sorry to step in, but you must not have been around for the last goon threadnaught.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:03:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Shinma Apollo The basis of name blocking isn't strictly applicable, as in the last case, to my knowledge, it wasn't done deliberately It was done incidentally, whereas your name theft was a pre-meditated act.
No, it was deliberate in both cases.
The disbanding of CoW was not a deliberate act.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:37:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Thol's Ego
Originally by: EliteSlave
Here ill try to break it down nice and easy.
So bob got disbanded yeah?
Ok now that we understand that BoB got disbanded, we can move to the next step.
So Now that the BoB corps are now "In limbo", Instead of Joining Kenny as what was done and then Petitioning for the name change, What should have been done was...
The Corps Make new alliance...
Stop there, we were wardecced, and inable to make a new alliance. Thanks for being smart and bringing this up twice now. I see you are a credit to your alliance.
So have a neutral corp/corps create a new alliance, and invite the other corps in. Problem solved!
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:01:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Karezan
Originally by: Kheldon Fel So have a neutral corp/corps create a new alliance, and invite the other corps in. Problem solved!
For them to make a neutral corp to do this, they'd need an alt with Empire Control V laying around somewhere or in a corp without roles, otherwise it would have taken too long.
Given how fast Goons were able to scoop up the Band of Brothers name, this does not seem as unlikely as you imply.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:04:00 -
[9]
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 20:04:00
Originally by: Kheldon Fel
Originally by: Karezan
Originally by: Kheldon Fel So have a neutral corp/corps create a new alliance, and invite the other corps in. Problem solved!
For them to make a neutral corp to do this, they'd need an alt with Empire Control V laying around somewhere or in a corp without roles, otherwise it would have taken too long.
Given how fast Goons were able to scoop up the Band of Brothers name, this does not seem as unlikely as you imply.
They disbanded the alliance and created a corp with the same name. Corp creation only requires corp management level 1 which takes like 15 minutes.
Hmm, I guess it WOULD seem unlikely as was originally implied.
Valid point. I must be drunk.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:13:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Kheldon Fel on 26/03/2009 20:14:06
Originally by: slothe There should be no more debate over the kenzoku or reloaded name. The original name should be returned without question or debate.
It shouldn't bother the Goons as they were purely after delve or are they openly admitting they did it for greifing and harrasment in game and on the forums, something else which is against CCP ethos??
Sort it out CCP
But the original alliance name has been restored. It says so right in the OP
|
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 26/03/2009 20:13:54
Shhhhh, I own stock in Pepto Bismol.
|

Kheldon Fel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: slothe
Originally by: Kheldon Fel Edited by: Kheldon Fel on 26/03/2009 20:14:06
Originally by: slothe There should be no more debate over the kenzoku or reloaded name. The original name should be returned without question or debate.
It shouldn't bother the Goons as they were purely after delve or are they openly admitting they did it for greifing and harrasment in game and on the forums, something else which is against CCP ethos??
Sort it out CCP
But the original alliance name has been restored. It says so right in the OP
the original name was Band Of Brothers?? have you only just started playing eve?
Sorry, the original name of the new alliance is kenzoku. Perhaps you are confused?
|
|
|
|