EVE Search - Ban Request

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Ban Request

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
themonkeybutler Unified Collective Development	Posted - 2010.12.10 11:47:00 - [1] These characters unconcensually dropped sov blockades in our system and ref'd our inf hub, before attacking our station. wolfalfa marco marques mrkillxxx shanticat retriever girl Corporation: Catalina Operations and Logistics Division Alliance: Supernova Federation Not sure if anyone else was involved, these are just the names on the attack reports.
themonkeybutler Unified Collective Development	Posted - 2010.12.11 09:32:00 - [2] They've now reinforced our station... do bans no lnger happen on sisi now... The Outpost 'lOlcanoe's playground' is being attacked in 77-KDQ. Attacker: JLemming Corporation: Catalina Operations and Logistics Division Alliance: Supernova Federation Outpost status is as follows: Shield: 50.1% Armor: 100.0% Structure: 100.0%
Lianne Modun	Posted - 2010.12.11 15:45:00 - [3] 3) Conquerable stations and outposts * If a player gains ownership of a conquerable station or outpost he/she must NOT restrict access to that station and the station services in any way. I'd say what you're doing is also against the rules, so how about we drop the matter?
Kintrell Caldari Cenex Industries	Posted - 2010.12.11 16:27:00 - [4] You can put up Ihubs and claim sov and take any station that is not currently taken by a corp on SiSi. As long as you don't restrict access...I see no where in the op's post that says any access was restricted...I had the same thing happen to me the other day in DKUK I just took out their stop's. And just to include the whole rule set for claiming Sov on SiSi and not just the 3rd rule. Here ya go!!! 1) Sovereignty * The first person to put up a TCU (Territorial Claim Unit) and start onlining it in an unclaimed system (that has no sovereignty) is entitled to hold sovereignty in that system. * Exceptions from the above rule: If the sovereignty claiming is done with malicious intent, i.e. to disrupt other players' testing, the right to sovereignty is void. * If the sovereignty-claiming TCU should go offline, the player loses the right to claim sovereignty in that system after the system becomes unclaimed again. * Anchoring or attempting to online a SBU (Sovereignty Blockade Unit) without consent from the sovereignty-holding entity is classed as griefing, disrupting of the test server and non-consensual combat. * No politics on the test server. Leave your Tranquility conflicts behind when you log on the test server. Claiming sovereignty in a system already claimed by another alliance is classed as griefing, disrupting of the test server and non-consensual combat. 2) Starbases and station services * Starbases and station services are included in the "No non-consensual combat" rule. This means that you are not allowed to attack a starbase, starbase modules or station services that belong to someone else without their express permission. * This does not mean that you can spam the moons in a system with starbases just for the lulz. If it is obvious that you are not using your starbase for testing purposes and you let it go offline, it will be removed or players who want that moon will be granted permission to destroy your starbase.
entroncas Caldari Catalina Operations and Logistics Division	Posted - 2010.12.11 20:55:00 - [5] As far as i know no access was given on the station in the specific system, + the system was SOv clear. According to the info i have no rules were broke during this matter. But if u are testing stuff in outpost no worries u can have ur station back since we only want to see how the supercap production works, so we only need sov and station access to store cap parts.
themonkeybutler Unified Collective Development	Posted - 2010.12.11 22:36:00 - [6] Edited by: themonkeybutler on 11/12/2010 22:42:45 The station access settings were set to all standings ranges, the system was NOT sov clear, or I would not have been shooting at three of your sov blockades on all three gates...stop trying to turn this around, you broke rules, just admit it. Also if it was sov clear, why would my IHUB be in reinforced?
themonkeybutler Unified Collective Development	Posted - 2010.12.11 22:47:00 - [7] Your Infrastructure Hub in 77-KDQ is under attack! From: Unified Collective Development Sent: 2010.12.11 22:15 The Infrastructure Hub is being attacked in 77-KDQ. Attacker: Shanticat Corporation: Catalina Operations and Logistics Division Alliance: Supernova Federation Infrastructure Hub status is as follows: Shield: 19.6% Armor: 8.7% Structure: 96.7% This happened after you posted...do you people have a problem with obeying rules?
Shanticat	Posted - 2010.12.11 23:48:00 - [8] Why the ** u noob dont post all the chat? and tell that u blow me with a friend with Avatar? and i didnt atack u... ahahaha Shut the ** up man and dont tell lies u stupid noob
Shanticat	Posted - 2010.12.11 23:54:00 - [9] and btw... why we cant test an atack to the soverighty in test server? is for test right? DUH
entroncas Caldari Catalina Operations and Logistics Division	Posted - 2010.12.12 00:19:00 - [10] 2 much drama for this. Stop posting guys.Themonkey, if u have a problem, send a petition for the GMs.
Rezaa Mercenary Cooperative Conglomerate	Posted - 2010.12.12 09:38:00 - [11] Edited by: Rezaa on 12/12/2010 09:41:23 Edited by: Rezaa on 12/12/2010 09:39:29 Linkage "* Anchoring or attempting to online a SBU (Sovereignty Blockade Unit) without consent from the sovereignty-holding entity is classed as griefing, disrupting of the test server and non-consensual combat." Read them, live by them, OR be banned! Shanticat
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.12.12 10:22:00 - [12] Originally by: Shanticat Edited by: Shanticat on 12/12/2010 00:00:25 and btw... why we cant test an atack to the soverighty in test server? is for test right? DUH and the station till i was blow off are unable to dock. whos get rules off? i think u need a ban not me Looks like we have a 'Dunning Kruger effect' candidate. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.

Pages: [1] :: 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.