EVE Search - On the recent bans

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

On the recent bans

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mr Epeen It's All About Me	Posted - 2011.07.04 18:26:00 - [61] Originally by: Reilly Duvolle Originally by: Mr Epeen Please point me to the paragraph in the EULA you think his action violated. (iv) CCP becomes aware of game play, chat or player activity under your Account that is, in CCP's discretion, inappropriate or in violation of the Rules of Conduct. Such termination shall be effective upon notice transmitted via electronic mail, or any other means reasonably calculated to reach you. yes mr Epeen, and can you now point to to the breach of the Rules of Conduct section? sigh See and understand the word 'or' after the colored text.
Ranger 1 Amarr Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.07.04 18:28:00 - [62] These are the same people that would tell a waitress she needed her ass kicked for getting their drink wrong, and then start screaming "you can't kick me out" when the bar/restaurant staff throws them out the door. ===== The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction.
Nick Bete Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.07.04 18:41:00 - [63] Maybe the trolls who got banned should take the time to reflect on their irresponsible behavior and grow up rather than whining to their pals to make yet another thread about how "unfairly" they were treated? Flaming and trolling are one thing but threatening physical violence against CCP employees or players crosses the line and has to be taken seriously and dealt with harshly.
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2011.07.04 18:46:00 - [64] Originally by: Darik Jita Lemme get this straight: So a customer issues a physical threat against an employee of a company (and we all know that's just got to be a credible threat, right? /sarc), and the company's response is to ban him in a spaceship game? Phew, at least now he can't log in to carry out his threats (err, wait, wut?). Since we're on the subject of banning people over a "spaceship game", could you please explain to me what was all this emorage madness warranting threats and personal insults precisely over an internet spaceship game? For a community that spouts "it's just internetz spaceship" we sure as hell don't practice what we preach. But what else is new. Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today!
Reilly Duvolle	Posted - 2011.07.04 18:55:00 - [65] Originally by: Mr Epeen yes mr Epeen, and can you now point to to the breach of the Rules of Conduct section? sigh See and understand the word 'or' after the colored text. Thats open for intrepetation. However, it doenst really matter, as the CCP EULA must conform to existing customer protection laws, or else it is null and void. Now, a paragraph esentially giving the GMs a de-facto blanko authority to ban people based on what they deem "appropriate" is definilty well within the legal greay area if not in direct violation. Also there is a difference bwteen "would be" customers (you visit a store with the intention of buying something, but are denied in doing so) and "De facto" customers (you are cut off from an ongoing business relationship which renders your purchased product useless). "Go Die in a Fire" (= **** you) may be inappropriate language, but would not hold up as a sufficient reason to cancel an ongoing business relationship.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me	Posted - 2011.07.04 19:03:00 - [66] Originally by: Reilly Duvolle Originally by: Mr Epeen yes mr Epeen, and can you now point to to the breach of the Rules of Conduct section? sigh See and understand the word 'or' after the colored text. Thats open for intrepetation. However, it doenst really matter, as the CCP EULA must conform to existing customer protection laws, or else it is null and void. Now, a paragraph esentially giving the GMs a de-facto blanko authority to ban people based on what they deem "appropriate" is definilty well within the legal greay area if not in direct violation. Also there is a difference bwteen "would be" customers (you visit a store with the intention of buying something, but are denied in doing so) and "De facto" customers (you are cut off from an ongoing business relationship which renders your purchased product useless). "Go Die in a Fire" (= **** you) may be inappropriate language, but would not hold up as a sufficient reason to cancel an ongoing business relationship. You agreed to the EULA or you would not be here posting daytime TV law at us. The others agreed to it as well. Now they are not posting here. They broke the agreement. They lose there accts. Period. Trying to weasel after the fact is rarely effective.
Reilly Duvolle	Posted - 2011.07.04 19:12:00 - [67] Edited by: Reilly Duvolle on 04/07/2011 19:13:08 Originally by: Mr Epeen You agreed to the EULA or you would not be here posting daytime TV law at us. The others agreed to it as well. Now they are not posting here. They broke the agreement. They lose there accts. Period. Trying to weasel after the fact is rarely effective. Again, you are wrong. If you as a customer sign an agreement that a court on a later occasion rules unlawful, you are NOT bound by that agreement. The case here ofc, is that nobody has taken CCP to court. And I doubt they will. But until that happens, CCP will continue issuing arbitrary (and probably unlawful) bans, to get rid of customers the deem "too much trouble".
Mr Epeen It's All About Me	Posted - 2011.07.04 19:27:00 - [68] Edited by: Mr Epeen on 04/07/2011 19:28:31 Originally by: Reilly Duvolle Again, you are wrong. If you as a customer sign an agreement that a court on a later occasion rules unlawful, you are NOT bound by that agreement. The case here ofc, is that nobody has taken CCP to court. And I doubt they will. But until that happens, CCP will continue issuing arbitrary (and probably unlawful) bans, to get rid of customers the deem "too much trouble". CCP uses real lawyers to write these documents. Not internet 'law experts'. They are binding. Although, if/when you decide to represent the righteously indignant HB in court, I will follow the proceedings with much interest. And even more amusement, no doubt. Please post the minutes here. Mr Epeen
Reilly Duvolle	Posted - 2011.07.04 19:32:00 - [69] Originally by: Mr Epeen CCP uses real lawyers to write these documents. Not internet 'law experts'. They are binding. Although, if/when you decide to represent the righteously indignant HB in court, I will follow the proceedings with much interest. And even more amusement, no doubt. Please post the minutes here. Mr Epeen Ah yes. The "My dad is bigger than your dad" argument. I wondered when you resort to that. Well played.
riverini Gallente Reliables Inc BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.07.04 19:36:00 - [70] Originally by: Mr Epeen Originally by: Reilly Duvolle Originally by: Stephanie Rose People need to realize, your going to be held accountable for your actions. Whether it was in the moment or not, this is the internet, the level of crazy, is staggering, how can you really trust anyone? I will give you an example, an i am not sure if this is a myth or fact. A woman was playing WoW, the group she was in was on the last boss, the boss dropped a ring she wanted very badly, someone else rolled on the ring an won it, the woman went ballistic. This woman then went out of her way to get to know this guy, seduce him, an murder him, all because of a ring in a video game. Now, how can you honestly tell what kind of people your dealing with? When it comes to the internet, you can't. I seriously hope the story is BS, but with humanity, you never know. I am sorry, but I think most of you guys are wrong. CCP does have intellectual property of EVE online, and the GMs do have the authority to ban people violating the EVE Online EULA. However, what we have here is not a EULA violation now is it? If CCP REALLY considered "Die In a Fire" to be a credible threat to CCP staff, they wouldnt have banned him from a video game, they would have gone to the police, and pressed charges. Maintaining the LAW is a Police responsibility, not something a video game developer can or should do. Personally I think Helicity has a good case for a corporate complaint against CCP. GMs exceeded their authority (which is detailed in the EULA). By banning him, they unfairly removed a "troublesome" player. By doing so, they might have violated Icelandic/EU Consumer protection Laws which prohibit unfair commercial practices. Watching too much Judge Judy, methinks. ROFL!! where the hell is the +1 rep on these forums!?
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.07.04 19:58:00 - [71] Originally by: Uuali Banning players for venting at the time it happened was more BAD PRESS. CCP would have been wise to let it go with a slap on the wrist and just lock thread or delete and move on. If the players then posted a second time maybe a ban would not be seen as overreacting. See, the problem is that they were venting in a way that violated the EULA and TOS. Those who received it deserved the ban and I'm very happy that CCP went through with it. We don't need members of this community who see fit to make personal threats against anyone on these forums (or anywhere else in New Eden). ~Gnosis~
Solstice Project	Posted - 2011.07.04 20:56:00 - [72] Edited by: Solstice Project on 04/07/2011 20:57:51 LOL THREE PAGES ALREADY !!!! By banning him, they unfairly removed a "troublesome" player. By doing so, they might have violated Icelandic/EU Consumer protection Laws which prohibit unfair commercial practices. LMAO
Riddick Liddell	Posted - 2011.07.04 21:02:00 - [73] CCP are like a paraplegic watching a dog chew thier foot off. They can't feel it but they know it's a bad thing and they lean down to shew the dog away. The dog ignores them and takes another toe off. Bann me too. I really don't give a ****.
northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services Terran United Federation	Posted - 2011.07.04 21:07:00 - [74] My view of the whole thing is the people who got banned deserved it. Been so **ing **ed and immature over a freaking space game. Yes I love it too but they went the wrong way. Pama ban? well that is a little harsh I would of said 14 days would of been enough. CCP wont change this but it's done and the player that threaten? well tough ** your a dumb arse. ------------------------------------
Cregg Neir	Posted - 2011.07.04 22:35:00 - [75] Helicity wrote what he wrote deliberately, without a speck of rage. He knew exactly what he was about. He intended to push CCP hard and he did. You can't claim Helicity was a jerk and a bully because he was angry; he was always a jerk and bully in every possible post, in every possible way. He treated other people like his donkeys in any way he could, especially if they dared to disagree with him. If I had a customer like that, no matter what business I was in, I would get rid of him. CCP deserves a medal for that act alone. I would never desert this company now.

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: 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.