|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 61 post(s) |
Kalvunia IV
Born-2-Kill
12
   |
Posted - 2012.05.26 12:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:iLLeLogicaL wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Edenmain wrote:
Fair enough, but CCP.... Don'y you dare refer to EVE as a sandbox ever again, because it's clearly not... Well at least one that's raked flat by you whenever you feel the need.
The alliance tournament has never been a sandbox and by nature never will or can be. We make rules that specifically make it not a sandbox. When those rules aren't followed we enforce them. I'm sorry if you're confusing The Alliance Tournament Rules with the overall premise of the spaceship videogame EVE Online, but the fact remains that the sandbox mentality has never applied to the tournament. Except perhaps when it is convenient to forum posters who are mad. But sisi has it own set of rules, and nowhere in the alliance rules did you state that these rules apply on sisi. In court here you would have nothing to stand on and this case would be dismissed on case of techniquality. You can however still win back a few of your playerbase by making it right, by letting one of them participate. But instead what you did, send a half assed reply and then when they can not do anything more to please you. You say, but you did something wrong and for that you get banned from participating in ATX. Instead of saying right from the start, It's either hydra or outbreak but not both. Please tell me more about court I've never been in one. :edit: As per the post you quoted sisi's rules weren't what they were banned for. The tournament rules are. I don't understand why this appears so hard to follow.
I've read the post, and it seams to me that you implying that being part of the same Alliance on SiSi is why you concluded that Hydra/OB are working as one team. But if they had stayed separate on SiSi and done the same thing that would be alright.
You are also pointing out that you can not predict the future, I agree with you that is impossible. But I also find it impossible to read minds. As the rule about A and B teams are vague at best and reading your mind as to what constitutes "working as one team" is. Nowhere does it state that being part of the same corp on SiSi for testing and logi purposes are deemed as working as one team.
On the other part you were willing to open a dialog with both RvB and PL to make sure they did not get banned over some technicality but were unable to do so with Hydra and OB could be an oversight on your part and should be admitted and attempts should be made to amend this.
|
Kalvunia IV
Born-2-Kill
13
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 13:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Kalvunia IV wrote:Nowhere does it state that being part of the same corp on SiSi for testing and logi purposes are deemed as working as one team. the great thing about rules is that they leave a lot of wiggle room for interpretation for instance, "they did the same thing last year"
True. But what is eating at me is CCP's forthcoming attitude towards open dialog with RvB but almost no approach was made by CCP to Hydra/OB even after they tried to contact the AT team. |
Kalvunia IV
Born-2-Kill
13
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 13:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Makkz wrote:
all of the letters almost constantly refer to the hydra/OB group as a "we".
Semantics is not proof of guilt in my book. |
Kalvunia IV
Born-2-Kill
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 14:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Quote:
None of those teams had a history of cheating using the exact same methods they were using again this year. Were we not to have to enforce these new rules a conversation with PL or RvB wouldn't have been necessary because those teams would have been in.
I hope this helps but it probably won't.
PL and RvB do not have a history of cheating, neither does Hydra and OB as they were well within the AT9 rules last year, as you CCP did state at the time. And Hydra and OB were not the only so called 'A and B' team, as you well know. They just happen to both as capable as the other as opposed to PL's B team.
And you state in your reply that you found it necessary to have have a conversation with PL and RvB, but it did not occur to you to have the same dialog with Hydra/OB? What is this, The Banana Bending Factory?
|
Kalvunia IV
Born-2-Kill
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 14:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:iLLeLogicaL wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:IamBeastx wrote:Intigo wrote:
It's a good thing that CCP clarified that joining the same corp was not allowed, but practicing together is.
The fact that the rule is so vague is the very reason that CVA & 4th were confused. They had considered doing the very same thing before HYDRA & Outbreak were banned.
Do you think Sreegs would have instantly banned their teams too?
Don't confuse my posts with anything other than replies related to previous tournies, go back a bit further and you'll see i do not agree with the complete ban, even the rules previously posted don't mention A-Teams being banned for having b,c, etc teams We did mention it somewhere it just really isn't worth my time digging it up for people who won't be participating in this year's alliance tournament. And that's the precise reason why you should step out and let someone above you handle this. ok :edit: haha j/k I'm still here
As some one who is representing CCP publicly on this forum you should act more professional in my honest opinion. |
Kalvunia IV
Born-2-Kill
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 15:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Intigo wrote:Reiterating "read the stickies" does not explain anything at all. CVA & 4th considered doing the very same thing we did without being aware at all that it was not allowed because your rules were so vague that you can suit any ruling to fit your needs.
Does the fact that they had the same plan initially not give you a hint at how vague your ruleset is and how silly it is for the entire Alliance Tournament team to ignore all attempts at communication from Garmon?
And yet you instantly ban 3 teams taking all those things into consideration.
It's impressive.
I think it's becoming more and more apparent to everyone that answering simple questions with more then "read stickies" is above the dev in questions cognitive functions. |
|
|
| |
|