I think I've explained the Hydra thing sufficiently

Hey Sreegs, who checks the Alliance Tournament email inbox? So we know who ignored all our emails to it.

Hey Sreegs, who checks the Alliance Tournament email inbox? So we know who ignored all our emails to it.

Hey Sreegs, who checks the Alliance Tournament email inbox? So we know who ignored all our emails to it.

I didn't post the logs. A player did. That means I get to repost them to give context. Even if the player hadn't we are STILL well within our right to do so.

I think I've explained the Hydra thing sufficiently and if "We will not discuss the issue further" wasn't clear enough for you on that I'll say um.... we will not discuss the issue further.

You're not implying anything. You appear aware at least that these posts shouldn't exist on the forum because you know that if you have an allegation to make IA is the one and only place to make it but it seems forum suicide by posting is what you're going for. IA has plenty to do with misconduct whether it come in the form of moderation or not. I encourage you to contact them rather than spewing all over every thread in the alliance tournament subforum.

The emails were just as purposely obtuse as the petition.

However for this year, even before the rules were announced, we have wanted to do things differently. Hydra and 0utbreak have been different groups on TQ for the past year and will have different people leading the teams this year. We do not intend to work together or colaborate in any way in the tournament matches starting on June 30th. We only intend to test together in the preparation through the medium of testing on SiSi. Even this we wouldn't do if getting 24 people on the test server wasn't difficult as a result of our alliances being much smaller than the large ones.

Assuming that there's no collaboration between our alliances in any way in the actual tournament, apart from testing, are we classed in the A/B team criteria?

You were booted for the reasons outlined in our two posts on the subject. What you sent in the emails and the petition was virtually identical in content regardless of if one had more words and I know it's convenient to pretend that's a major issue, but the fact is that it isn't and no response to the question that was posed would have changed the outcome. Posting over and over again about it won't change that and our annoyance with said childish behavior has reached its limit.

Exactly 3 weeks ago to this day, I declared hydra + outbreak's intention for this year in an e-mail, asking for clarification, and for permission if we were allowed to test with each other when numbers were scarce. I'd like to emphasize the only reason we are in the same corporation, is because when we test, it's in a wormhole, and we need to be able to give roles to people so they can fit their ships. Many alliances have been testing with each other for ATX, and it has been like that for years. I thought we were in the clear after being very open to you, here is the e-mail I sent to [email protected] on the 03/05, 3 weeks ago



On the 12th, 9 days later, I sent a follow up e-mail after receiving no response ;

So let's get this straight. Someone did something not allowed and as a result you are suddenly allowed to do it. Even though if a player does it ofcourse he get's burned. Because let's face it. We are all equal, just that some are more equal.
It's so darn convenient and pleasant to hide behind the Dev ticker now so you can huff and puff however you want and nobody can do a thing about it.
Do you put your thumbs in your ears after each post and wiggle your fingers while singing nana nana na na?



If your explenation would have been satisfying then there wouldn't have been a discussion in the first place.
You screwed up and that ends the discussion.
Great move.



And yet again you assume things without verifying them.
-You assume I don't imply anything yet a major part of the readers here can see exactly what I imply.
-You assume I am aware of what should and shouldn't exsist on these forums. Seeing you don't even seem to know it then how should a humble player like me be aware of it.
-You assume I haven't contacted IA in the passt already yet IA already told me they mainly wotk on Dev and GM behaviour ingame and that for forum moderation I should contact the same people I am petitioning about.

And am not allowed to express my personal opinion in thread which have any sort of impact on me? Odd.....
I think I need a new definition as what forums are.
Are you this harsh and forthcomming towards people like Andski aswel?

We both know that this is not true. Petition was written by OB member without caring much about wording, while emails were far more detailed and described what we were doing.

Look:


This is exactly what we planned to do and what we were doing, and we got banned without even seeing reply to this (far from vague/ambiguous) email. If you still think that quoted part is obtuse and/or ambiguous, i really can't help.

I think you would look a way better if you just said Hydra/OB are banned @ 2nd may, instead of doing what you did.

Thank you for posting the email. My statement hasn't changed. I do find it amusing that you want to paint this as some giant conspiracy as if we needed some event to occur to remove you. If we truly wanted you out it as you suggest, it would have been easier and just as possible to do so up front or even last year. The fact is that we said "fair game" last year and gave you your trillions of isk worth of prizes, then gave you a shot at not breaking the rules this year. You proceeded to do so and in the best interests of the tournament were removed. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit within the confines of your conspiratorial worldview.

It's hard to follow you because your posts are in a lot of threads so I have to assume you're reading at least one of them since you quoted me here. You make a good point about the GM communication and given that the rules should be followed and all things being equal we should probably ban the person who did so.

You replied to the conspiracy part of my post, thanks. however, it's not something i want to discuss because it is my personal opinion.

The other part: you say, petition message was ambiguous and we didn't follow reply closely. It may be true, okay. You say, email is the same as petition, but in other words, okay.

If it's similar and ambiguous, i want you to point at the statement of email which we didn't follow and broke. I'll even split them so you can mark them with "true" or "false":

1) Hydra and 0utbreak have been different groups on TQ for the past year
2) will have different people leading the teams this year
3) We do not intend to work together or colaborate in any way in the tournament matches starting on June 30th
4) We only intend to test together in the preparation through the medium of testing on SiSi.

And the final question "Assuming that there's no collaboration between our alliances in any way in the actual tournament, apart from testing, are we classed in the A/B team criteria?" is not a statement, it just a summary with the request for your opinion, so i'm not including it.

I don't want you to write blabbing post, just statement numbers and "true" and "false", with the reasoning behind "false" if possible.

because the contents of the email you keep harping on are absolutely irrelevant

We don't decide what to do based on stated intentions.

The fact is that we said "fair game" last year and gave you your trillions of isk worth of prizes, then gave you a shot at not breaking the rules this year. You proceeded to do so and in the best interests of the tournament were removed. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit within the confines of your conspiratorial worldview.

The fact is you personally didn't want to give us prizes, but other people decided otherwise. But now you reached your goal.
So there is no "we" as CCP - it's your personal vendetta and not answering the emails fits perfectly in it.

I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing you at the fact that petition and email requests are far from being the same meaning expressed in different words, so just avoid putting equality sign between those two.

But you (here i mean AT10 team) had all the unambiguous info on the intentions so could just prevent both alliaces from breaking (your interpretation of ambiguous) rule by replying "no u cant", 9 key strokes.

Can you say, did you see this email (or quotes from it) before reading Garmon's reply here?

The emails were just as purposely obtuse as the petition. I'll mea culpa that we should have responded but to be honest it wouldn't have changed anything ...

You were banned for your actions. Not what you said you do in an email or petition. We don't decide what to do based on stated intentions. We base what we do on action. Action you did.

By all means keep deflecting from the fact that you got kicked out for what you did though. Not for getting prizes last year or for sending emails.

What you did.

No amount of vague conspiracy drivel or insinuation of wrongdoing will change that.

Of course we did that because you framed us
And now we're caught with a gun over a dead body, nice job.

Despite the fact that they were asking whether or not working together on SiSi was breaking the rules? They were asking for clarification. They stated multiple times that they didn't want to break the rules. You guys just ignored them. Finally they got a petition response from a supposedly qualified source, that said it was okay to share fits and train together. Then when they did so, you ban them.

You don't see how this is a problem? Seriously?

Despite the fact that they were asking whether or not working together on SiSi was breaking the rules? They were asking for clarification. They stated multiple times that they didn't want to break the rules. You guys just ignored them. Finally they got a petition response from a supposedly qualified source, that said it was okay to share fits and train together. Then when they did so, you ban them.

You don't see how this is a problem? Seriously?

"its a trap!"

he wanted an excuse to ban them, they delivered, trusting the call of some "random gm"... i read the word "conspiracy" here a few times now, its not a conspiracy by all means, since its pretty obvious...

You can't read stickies so I'll go ahead and re-explain that working together isn't against the rules. That isn't what happened.

Then tell us what did happen, exactly what happened

You can't read stickies so I'll go ahead and re-explain that working together isn't against the rules. That isn't what happened.

Mr Sreegs wants to say, that Outbreak./Hydra guys were only asking about training together, and they got permission only for that, but they went far and merged into ONE corp, right?
But Mr Sreegs, do preffer BAN them without even warning, or answering any of their emails, he don't want to listen explanations that they were merged into one corp due to logistics effort.
Mr Sreegs is security guy in CCP, there is no better person in whole CCP Team to check if they were sharing accounts or were logging in from same IP address, or paying for game with same CC, or beeing same people IRL, right?
But still Mr Sreegs preffer BAN, and say they are same team.
Or maybe, Mr Sreegs when he was playing this game, was very bad at this game, got humiliated by Outbreak./Hydra guys, maybe they killed him one time to much and now hes taking revenge.

No offence, just trying to figure out why do so and not otherwise.

No, actually I can read stickies. In fact I have read all the stickies in this forum. Reading English is a trick I picked up at age 5. But thanks for your mildly insulting comment anyway.

So if it's not the fact that they were working together, then the reason they were banned is simply because the were all in one corp in one wormhole? That's it?