EVE Search - LEFT CORP TO AVOID WARDEC... SO BANNED??!?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

LEFT CORP TO AVOID WARDEC... SO BANNED??!?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:04:00 - [61] Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA So... "account suspended for avoiding a war dec by leaving corp" clearly means "account suspended for apping into a corp at war and engaging a war target without session change" Wow, do i feel stupid... how did i not know that's what he meant. Are you serious??? even so, if the banned member had performed a app in then gank tactic he followed the proper session change procedure. If you think its dumb, its still not an offense that calls for warn or ban. Ok. this member was obvioulsy doing more than just "avoiding a war dec by leaving corp". But you want the reason for the ban to explicitly state explicitly word for word what the member did wrong when you already know exactly what he did wrong. He was even warned and continued to do it anyway. You're going to fight this tooth and nail and latch on to the excuse that he was banned for "hopping corps" when the ban email should have stated a different reason. You are not going to win this one. Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today!
IAMYOURMAMA	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:09:00 - [62] Originally by: Barakkus Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA If this be the case then a LOT of people that are in large wardec corps/alliances such as NOIR or Privateers (be dec'd by or initiated dec) should have been or should be banned. Explain how so? Don't think either of those corps are avoiding decs. Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA Not to mention, ALL capsuleers who use the 1 man corp dec method then instantly join 2 or more members to the corp after locating a war target then leaving corp should be banned(I have not heard of any such cases of this). How so? This would be considered hired help, not avoiding a dec. Something smells fishy here...sounds like the whole story isn't coming out...The only mechanic I know of that is punishable is the alliance wardec transfer thing they patched a while back and stated anyone using that as a way to avoid decs would be in trouble. Who is your main that got banned? So... neither of those alliances have member leave corp while at war?
Barakkus	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:14:00 - [63] Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA Originally by: Barakkus Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA If this be the case then a LOT of people that are in large wardec corps/alliances such as NOIR or Privateers (be dec'd by or initiated dec) should have been or should be banned. Explain how so? Don't think either of those corps are avoiding decs. Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA Not to mention, ALL capsuleers who use the 1 man corp dec method then instantly join 2 or more members to the corp after locating a war target then leaving corp should be banned(I have not heard of any such cases of this). How so? This would be considered hired help, not avoiding a dec. Something smells fishy here...sounds like the whole story isn't coming out...The only mechanic I know of that is punishable is the alliance wardec transfer thing they patched a while back and stated anyone using that as a way to avoid decs would be in trouble. Who is your main that got banned? So... neither of those alliances have member leave corp while at war? I doubt just to avoid the war, they're mercs, war is what they do...but if you had specific examples... - - [SERVICE] Corp Standings For POS anchoring
IAMYOURMAMA	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:25:00 - [64] Originally by: Barakkus Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA Originally by: Barakkus Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA If this be the case then a LOT of people that are in large wardec corps/alliances such as NOIR or Privateers (be dec'd by or initiated dec) should have been or should be banned. Explain how so? Don't think either of those corps are avoiding decs. Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA Not to mention, ALL capsuleers who use the 1 man corp dec method then instantly join 2 or more members to the corp after locating a war target then leaving corp should be banned(I have not heard of any such cases of this). How so? This would be considered hired help, not avoiding a dec. Something smells fishy here...sounds like the whole story isn't coming out...The only mechanic I know of that is punishable is the alliance wardec transfer thing they patched a while back and stated anyone using that as a way to avoid decs would be in trouble. Who is your main that got banned? So... neither of those alliances have member leave corp while at war? I doubt just to avoid the war, they're mercs, war is what they do...but if you had specific examples... So.. you're telling me that the GM knows who is and who is not leaving a corp to avoid a war dec.... And in any case if you petition a GM and ask him if its an offense to leave a corp to avoid a war dec he will more then likely say NO its not against any rules and is completely fine. Well unless you get GM stardust and depending on his mood.
Barakkus	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:28:00 - [65] Originally by: IAMYOURMAMA So.. you're telling me that the GM knows who is and who is not leaving a corp to avoid a war dec.... And in any case if you petition a GM and ask him if its an offense to leave a corp to avoid a war dec he will more then likely say NO its not against any rules and is completely fine. Well unless you get GM stardust and depending on his mood. Huh? You're avoiding the request, and avoiding the previous request...who is the person that got banned? - - [SERVICE] Corp Standings For POS anchoring
Iam Widdershins FODT	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:28:00 - [66] Leaving a corporation, at any time, has never been a bannable offense, an exploit, or punishable by GMs. Numerous people have petitioned numerous times and received the same answer, only now from what I can gather "avoiding wars" is suddenly a bannable offense, in this one instance, which CCP will not answer. Making people avoid wars is often the whole GOAL of a wardec. You want them to leave the corporation or alliance, to break them up and reduce their numbers and organization. If CCP is changing the rules regarding this, they will have to do a hell of a lot better in their description of the offense, and make some kind of announcement explaining what is changing and what is and is not allowed. Or they can withdraw this ban and let us rest easy in our chairs without worrying about getting banned next time we want to change corporations at some point in a war.
Awesome Possum Original Sin. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:37:00 - [67] Originally by: Cacnea I'm sure continual wardecs on a specific person is borderline, if not full, harassment. I'm sure you're absolutely wrong. This isn't WOW, this game has consequences, if someone wishes to dec you everywhere you go.... join an NPC corp. ♥
OLDSKOOL 707	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:15:00 - [68] I have an idea who the character in question is that the op is talking about. Let me try to state some facts. Some detail involving game mechanics will be discussed. Remember, lack of "honour" is not petitionable, and your own personal morals should not be substituted for fact. This is not the witch trials (or will I get banned for mentioning witch trials? Touchy Massachusettsians in the audience tonight that haven't gotten over 1692 yet?) Now for the facts. 1.) The character in question had previously petitioned characters for leaving corp to avoid a war dec, going to a hub to purchase new ships, and rejoining corp with new ships a few minutes later and was told this was perfectly legal. The character in question was explicitly told "Characters can join and leave a corp at any time even if it is to avoid a war dec." 2.) The character in question once got a warning for engaging a target without having gone through a session change. Let's say this came from GM 1. This came after another GM, GM 2 had stated that either the character in question OR the target had to undergo a session change. The reason for this is so the character in question immediately shows up as a war target on overview. GM 2 was in error. In fact the character in question has to undergo a session change. At this point GM 1 gave the character in question a warning and a question and answer session occurred between the character in question and GM 1, which specifically laid out the rules for changing corps and engaging war targets. Since this period, the character in question has not done anything that GM 1 as well as the GM in 1.) said was illegal and followed what they knew to be the rules to the fullest extend of ... spacelaw? 3.) Regarding the specific incident regarding the character in question. One morning the character in question joins one of his war dec corps since he doesn't have to watch his daughter that day and will have time to properly play eve. Character roams around for a couple of hours and stumbles upon a sizable target. Character in question destroys target, loots the wreck, and docks, noticing a new wt that was previously in a Hawk comes into local. Target passes through on his way to Jita. Character in question has eyes in systems in 3 jumps in every direction to look for wt's. None but the Hawk is out and about. It should be noted that the character in question is in a machariel and decides he would not be able to lock a hawk before it warps and decides to app to his mission running corp since he'll be watching his daughter in the evening and will need something non pvp oriented to do. Character in question runs a locator in a neighboring system, docks, logs, and begins his work day. During a break in the day the character in question logs on his mission running corp ceo and accepts app. Even later in the day, the character in question tries to log into his account to see what's going on and possibly run a locator and sees that he's been banned. Reason "leaving a corp to avoid a war dec having already been warned about it before". The character in question had never received a warning concerning this issue, and therefore believes a ban was unwarranted. The character in question, however, would have accepted a warning without much of an argument because it would have established a rule, even though it goes against what prior GM's have said. If this ban was really about "leaving a corp to avoid a war dec", who was trying to hunt the character in question? The character in question would want nothing more than to stay in a corp until a space armada showed up for some p versus p. However, after a sizable kill there was no action to be found so the character in question, in accordance with a prior GM's assessment that "players may join and leave a corp whenever they wish and is not considered an exploit", rejoined his mission running corp. And those are the facts.
Jovan Geldon Gallente Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:33:00 - [69] The simple answer to this would be to state unequivocally that you want this "GM Stardust" fellow to disclose the details of your ban publically. There is a precedent for such things, but be warned; the one i have see nnever end well for the OP.
Pollux21 The Pollux The Cool Kids Club	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:47:00 - [70] The "character in question", after a futile effort in enlisting public support, has now resorted to a method known as "pulling heartstrings" by inventing an imaginary infant daughter of which he would like to be seen as the sole caregiver or single parent. This sort of politicking is juvenile at best, and illegal in some U.S. states ( amongst them, New Jersey is known to be the strictest, and it's consequences, most dire). I would urge the character in question to abandon this fruitless effort and chalk this one up as a loss. It is unfortunate but just. Good luck to you and God help your imaginary bundle of joy you call a daughter.
OLDSKOOL 707	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:50:00 - [71] Originally by: Pollux21 The "character in question", after a futile effort in enlisting public support, has now resorted to a method known as "pulling heartstrings" by inventing an imaginary infant daughter of which he would like to be seen as the sole caregiver or single parent. This sort of politicking is juvenile at best, and illegal in some U.S. states ( amongst them, New Jersey is known to be the strictest, and it's consequences, most dire). I would urge the character in question to abandon this fruitless effort and chalk this one up as a loss. It is unfortunate but just. Good luck to you and God help your imaginary bundle of joy you call a daughter. You know for a fact that the daughter of the character in question has f'd the character in question out of many glorious kills.
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:54:00 - [72] As mentioned already, ask GM stardust to post here about the ban if you want people to take you seriously. Also that name sounds somewhat familiar, is he a senior GM? If he is you're probably boned, as if a senior GM tells you you're doing something wrong they are more often than not right (tbh the difference between GMs and senior GMs is absurd)
Pollux21 The Pollux The Cool Kids Club	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:56:00 - [73] Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 You know for a fact that the daughter of the character in question has f'd the character in question out of many glorious kills. I also know for a fact that the felines currently residing in the character in question's humble abode have accounted for dozens of very lawlful kills. Which to my school of thought would be more than adequate penance to be paid on part of said daughter.
OLDSKOOL 707	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:58:00 - [74] Originally by: Pollux21 Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 You know for a fact that the daughter of the character in question has f'd the character in question out of many glorious kills. I also know for a fact that the felines currently residing in the character in question's humble abode have accounted for dozens of very lawlful kills. Which to my school of thought would be more than adequate penance to be paid on part of said daughter. Does that count as account sharing if my cats jump on the keyboard and reset standings mid op, causing many many ship "losses"?
OLDSKOOL 707	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:04:00 - [75] Originally by: Cambarus As mentioned already, ask GM stardust to post here about the ban if you want people to take you seriously. Also that name sounds somewhat familiar, is he a senior GM? If he is you're probably boned, as if a senior GM tells you you're doing something wrong they are more often than not right (tbh the difference between GMs and senior GMs is absurd) As hard as this is to believe, the character in question did not start this thread, but was started by friends whose hearts are bigger than their brains. Much love bros. The character in question felt the need to set the record straight and regrets any use of GM names in the thread. The character in question does not care if the readers of this forum take him seriously as most of the readers have been unable to comprehend the situation, and probably never will. The character in question does point out that he finds it odd that in this instance, the petition was handled within a couple hours, when the character in questions petitions take 5 days or more to be answered. The character in question notices his cat scribble the characters "T20" in the litterbox and wonders what it means.
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:57:00 - [76] Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 As hard as this is to believe, the character in question did not start this thread, but was started by friends whose hearts are bigger than their brains. Much love bros. The character in question felt the need to set the record straight and regrets any use of GM names in the thread. The character in question does not care if the readers of this forum take him seriously as most of the readers have been unable to comprehend the situation, and probably never will. If memory serves repeatedly hopping in and out of corp to engage targets only at your convenience while being immune the rest of the time is something that CCP considers an exploit. It's kind of like griefing; you can get away with doing it, but if you're blatantly repeatedly doing it after a gm tells you to back down then you can expect a ban is incoming. Also what you're doing is very explicitly NOT just a matter of leaving a corp to avoid a wardec, it's hopping in and out of a corp to ** with your wartargets. Originally by:** OLDSKOOL 707 The character in question does point out that he finds it odd that in this instance, the petition was handled within a couple hours, when the character in questions petitions take 5 days or more to be answered. Exploit petitions are always handled quite fast, often with a gm showing up on scene within minutes. Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 The character in question notices his cat scribble the characters "T20" in the litterbox and wonders what it means. Yes, CCP banning "the character in question" for doing something that is clearly an abuse of the current game mechanics, after having been told not to do it by a GM, is clearly a victim of CCP bringing him down just for fun/to protect their alts. "The character in question" needs to get the GM in question to disclose the full case on the forums, because otherwise I have a sneaking suspicion that "the character in question" is just talking out his ass.
Barakkus	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:05:00 - [77] Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 Well I hope you get your ban squared away and tell your corpies not to bring problems with GMs to the forums I'm assuming it's just a temp one anyways. - - [SERVICE] Corp Standings For POS anchoring
Cacnea	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:10:00 - [78] We need to run instances again some time bro. I re-speced my drake for tank, so it'll be easy-peasy if we can find a healer.
OLDSKOOL 707	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:10:00 - [79] Originally by: Cambarus ]If memory serves repeatedly hopping in and out of corp to engage targets only at your convenience while being immune the rest of the time is something that CCP considers an exploit. It's kind of like griefing; you can get away with doing it, but if you're blatantly repeatedly doing it after a gm tells you to back down then you can expect a ban is incoming. Also what you're doing is very explicitly NOT just a matter of leaving a corp to avoid a wardec, it's hopping in and out of a corp to ** with your wartargets. Here is why you don't know how to read. A GM never said to backdown, but instead went over specific rules regarding the mechanic of changing corps, what is legal, and what is not. At which point the character in question did not do anything illegal according to the rules that GM stated. That warning was for engaging without a session change, which has not happened once the character in question had the rule clarified. A ban for "leaving a corp to avoid a war dec" is something completely different and should not have been piggybacked on the unrelated warning. Originally by:** Cambarus ]Yes, CCP banning "the character in question" for doing something that is clearly an abuse of the current game mechanics, after having been told not to do it by a GM, is clearly a victim of CCP bringing him down just for fun/to protect their alts. You obviously don't know how to read. The character in question was never told not to do "it" by a GM. Cconveniently a petition reply was only given once the war dec ran out. Probably just coincidence, but it is curious.
Ladie Scarlet GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:16:00 - [80] lol highsec
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:17:00 - [81] From what I understand the rules are thus: 1) When under a war dec, you can drop corp and suffer under the tyranny of your NPC corp overlords. You pay a 11% tax as a consequence and can not have standings with 0.0 corps, can not own POSes, etc etc... 2) Hopping corps to avoid wardecs has ALWAYS been considered an exploit! Corp A disbanding and reforming under Corp B, then disbanding again and then reforming under Corp C, etc etc was always an exploit. Joining and leaving alliances to avoid war decs was always an exploit (remember the imune alliance?) THUS the general rule of thumb that I give you is this: Either STAY in the war dec corp or leave it. Changing your corp status rapidly raises suspicion and is "dangerous". You are putting yourself at the whims of whatever GM is reviewing a petition. ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
OLDSKOOL 707	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:21:00 - [82] Originally by: Barakkus Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 Well I hope you get your ban squared away and tell your corpies not to bring problems with GMs to the forums I'm assuming it's just a temp one anyways. The ban on the character in question expired a few days ago. However, the character in question believes the GM's should fully read the prior warnings and petitions that have been levied against a character, or submitted by a character, before they click on the ban button. The character in question does not believe the situation was investigated thoroughly, if it was investigated at all. Tthere should be one set of clear rules. A player shouldn't hear one set of rules specifying certain activities are legal from two seperate GM's, and then get banned for it without a warning from another GM. There also should be one set of rules that govern "pvpers", "griefers", and "carebears" equally. If it is against the rules for the character in question to leave a corp to "avoid a war dec" then it should be against the rules for a "carebear" to leave a corp that's at war, go to Jita to fit a new ship, and re-join the war dec'd corporation 20 minutes later. I'm not saying what the character in question did should be legal, however if it is deemed illegal then characters on the flipside of the equation should be subject to the same rules.
OLDSKOOL 707	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:26:00 - [83] Originally by: Taedrin From what I understand the rules are thus: 1) When under a war dec, you can drop corp and suffer under the tyranny of your NPC corp overlords. You pay a 11% tax as a consequence and can not have standings with 0.0 corps, can not own POSes, etc etc... 2) Hopping corps to avoid wardecs has ALWAYS been considered an exploit! Corp A disbanding and reforming under Corp B, then disbanding again and then reforming under Corp C, etc etc was always an exploit. Joining and leaving alliances to avoid war decs was always an exploit (remember the imune alliance?) THUS the general rule of thumb that I give you is this: Either STAY in the war dec corp or leave it. Changing your corp status rapidly raises suspicion and is "dangerous". You are putting yourself at the whims of whatever GM is reviewing a petition. Point 2 is partially incorrect. The first section I was told by 2 GMs was legal as long as you session change. That is why this thread exists I suppose. the second section, " Corp A disbanding and reforming under Corp B, then disbanding again and then reforming under Corp C, etc etc was always an exploit. " is apparently legal because I've petitioned it a number of times. Targets were closing corp the second they got dec'd and reform under the same exact name, making them invalid targets with the same corp name as the corp you dec'd. I have explicitly been told that this is perfectly legal to my dismay, as the corps in question house obvious isk farmers.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:27:00 - [84] Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 Originally by: Barakkus Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 Well I hope you get your ban squared away and tell your corpies not to bring problems with GMs to the forums I'm assuming it's just a temp one anyways. The ban on the character in question expired a few days ago. However, the character in question believes the GM's should fully read the prior warnings and petitions that have been levied against a character, or submitted by a character, before they click on the ban button. The character in question does not believe the situation was investigated thoroughly, if it was investigated at all. Tthere should be one set of clear rules. A player shouldn't hear one set of rules specifying certain activities are legal from two seperate GM's, and then get banned for it without a warning from another GM. There also should be one set of rules that govern "pvpers", "griefers", and "carebears" equally. If it is against the rules for the character in question to leave a corp to "avoid a war dec" then it should be against the rules for a "carebear" to leave a corp that's at war, go to Jita to fit a new ship, and re-join the war dec'd corporation 20 minutes later. I'm not saying what the character in question did should be legal, however if it is deemed illegal then characters on the flipside of the equation should be subject to the same rules. So, you failed to escalate a petition that should have been escalated (someone corp jumping) and then you cheat the same way they cheated and got caught so now you're butthurt. Got it.
OLDSKOOL 707	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:52:00 - [85] Originally by: mkmin So, you failed to escalate a petition that should have been escalated (someone corp jumping) and then you cheat the same way they cheated and got caught so now you're butthurt. Got it. Get out of my sandbox bro. You're way to angry to be in here.
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.31 05:11:00 - [86] Originally by: OLDSKOOL 707 Originally by: Taedrin From what I understand the rules are thus: 1) When under a war dec, you can drop corp and suffer under the tyranny of your NPC corp overlords. You pay a 11% tax as a consequence and can not have standings with 0.0 corps, can not own POSes, etc etc... 2) Hopping corps to avoid wardecs has ALWAYS been considered an exploit! Corp A disbanding and reforming under Corp B, then disbanding again and then reforming under Corp C, etc etc was always an exploit. Joining and leaving alliances to avoid war decs was always an exploit (remember the imune alliance?) THUS the general rule of thumb that I give you is this: Either STAY in the war dec corp or leave it. Changing your corp status rapidly raises suspicion and is "dangerous". You are putting yourself at the whims of whatever GM is reviewing a petition. Point 2 is partially incorrect. The first section I was told by 2 GMs was legal as long as you session change. That is why this thread exists I suppose. the second section, " Corp A disbanding and reforming under Corp B, then disbanding again and then reforming under Corp C, etc etc was always an exploit. " is apparently legal because I've petitioned it a number of times. Targets were closing corp the second they got dec'd and reform under the same exact name, making them invalid targets with the same corp name as the corp you dec'd. I have explicitly been told that this is perfectly legal to my dismay, as the corps in question house obvious isk farmers. Did you try escalating those petitions? I'm fairly certain that this is one of those "officially" against the rules, but most GMs ignore it things. Sort of like log-in/log-on traps. ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
Sepheir Sepheron Caldari Genco	Posted - 2011.03.31 07:21:00 - [87] Originally by: Mara Rinn Don't bring your GM issues to the forums, you'll score yourself a forum ban too. Follow the process for escalation as per the EVE site. How does gm co*k taste?
Rasz Lin Caldari Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:20:00 - [88] sound like banned guy was one of those "hey lets make 1 man corp that grows only when we have eyes on our WTs" Good riddance I say.
Hermosa Diosas	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:25:00 - [89] The more I play this game the more I realise how stupid the people at CCP are! They complain about mechanics THEY implemented ! If it's an issue then CCP should code it so you can't leave a Corp whilst in a war it's not difficult in fact it's prob a couple of lines of code!! Making it a bannable action is just stupid!! Absolute idiots
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:34:00 - [90] Originally by: Hermosa Diosas The more I play this game the more I realise how stupid the people at CCP are! They complain about mechanics THEY implemented ! If it's an issue then CCP should code it so you can't leave a Corp whilst in a war it's not difficult in fact it's prob a couple of lines of code!! Making it a bannable action is just stupid!! Absolute idiots The problem is, that leaving or joining a corp during a war isn't an actual problem and is something you have to allow. On the other hand you can't program a mechanic that is immune to player abuse and doesn't interfere greatly with legitimate use of the mechanic. It can often be much more sensible to just deal with the few abusers of the mechanic and ban their wrinkly asses, than do a massive overhaul of the system that inconveniences everyone and just propably creates new exploits.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: 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.