EVE Search - Noir. [Est. 2008]

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Noir. [Est. 2008]

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 132	Posted - 2014.05.03 01:37:00 - [1] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I am still confused how there is supposed to be a "backlash" by "the majority of players" or whatever, if it's mostly a handful of people affiliated with, or outright pets of Gevlon posting against Noir. I'd just call that a smear campaign, speaking as an observer. And a rather half assed one at that. Confirming that Gevlon's charming wiles have ensnared a following that rivals Goonswarm's own beastiary. WTF did I just read?
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 144	Posted - 2014.05.10 04:10:00 - [2] - Quote Terminus Calamity wrote: Gevlon Goblin wrote: Also, your job was to jam Goons which you didn't even attempted. Funny you can't even remember what terms were set for the contract. Jamming Goons was suggested but not agreed upon. What was agreed upon was a per kill bounty. I believe the links are still in the thread if you would like to go back and fact check your own conversation. I've read the entirety of the contract discussion. Several times in fact. Maybe I'm just a little slow but would you mind linking the part where Aleks explicitly says "Actually, we're not going to play ECM games, but we can kill CFC ships that have gone GCC"? I've tried to look for it or anything that might approximate to it, but its completely absent. It's almost as if, despite Gevlon's specific request for ECM, that Alekz simply assumed that bounties offered per killmail were valid whether ECM was used or not. Face it. When the conversation switched to discussion about specific payments, Aleks lost track and forgot about the crutial ECM part. In a desperate attempt to save face, neither he nor Noir are prepared to offer a simple apology for the cockup. Of course, to doubly-cockup by allying with their targets during a war makes incompetence a lot more like malice, so I guess it's a bit much to ask. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 144	Posted - 2014.05.10 10:22:00 - [3] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Tor Norman wrote: Also, your job was to jam Goons which you didn't even attempted. Aleks 2014.04.23 02:41 wrote: How about 5m/kill, 10m for pods? GSF only or all participating CFC forces? -Aleks Gevlon 2014.04.23 04:17 wrote: All the CFC worth bounties. Hi, 5M/kill is great, no, their job was just to kill the CFC. as per your link. No, their job was to ECM them, as per the link. Specifically the phrase "The plan would be to NOT be at war with Goons, forming up in Scorpions and Blackbirds and jamming out Goon Taloses and Brutixes when they go GCC, spoiling their ganks." requests the use of ECM. Here's the bit that seems to be tripping people up: ===>THIS REQUEST WAS NEVER REJECTED <=== If I could add more emphasis, I would, possible flashing text, ideally with sirens. Aleks never rejected ECM, in fact he stated he would use EAFs instead. He never said he wouldn't exploit GCC and instead use killrights to sabotage fleets before they were even on grid with their targets. When you fail to explicitly say "no" to such a specific request, you're inviting trouble. There isn't even an interpretation where Aleks even implied "no". So, unless there's an entirely different conversation of which I'm unaware, Aleks goofed the contract, period. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 144	Posted - 2014.05.10 10:59:00 - [4] - Quote Kaea Astridsson wrote: Props to at least finding the correct mail a counter offer was given. If you would be so kind as to continue reading you would see the following also; "But we do things a little differently as you know ;p How about 5m/kill, 10m for pods? GSF only or all participating CFC forces? I see. So, paraphrased, "Please ECM goons when they go GCC" can acceptably be translated to "we'll *** in on CONCORD killmails". You don't see the problem with this? You don't think maybe the entire strategy may need to be reworked? Exploiting GCC is no longer on the table, nor is ECM (not as a primary attack, anyway). Noir would have to engage pilots using their criminal status (if the pilot has it) or acquiring killrights - neither of these were mentioned. A wardec would be helpful, though not particularly cost effective; still, it should have been discussed as a possibility if nothing else. Crucially, Aleks offers a metric by which Gevlon can measure success and offer payment (the part you were kind enough to highlight for me). However, aggressing gank fleets means there's no way to tell the difference between intercepting them before a gank and simply whoring them before CONCORD pops them. So an entirely new metric for payment needed to be established. You think all of that is covered in the conversation? If it is, a LOT of information is being conveyed implicitly, particularly for a contract negotiation. Maybe Noir should be more explicit in their negotiations. Quote:** This whole debacle was fun to read about the first few days and so, but now just about everyone sounds like a broken record so could we just stop and move on to some more engaging activity. That's your problem, though. When your corp screws up, the problem doesn't go away, it must be addressed. Insulting people that point out your mistakes, then compunding the issue by simply denying any mistake was made doesn't deal with the problem, it just makes it worse. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 144	Posted - 2014.05.10 11:01:00 - [5] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: are you sure you're reading the conversation in chronological order? If you read the mails backwards, you might be a little confused how the conversation starts with an agreement on "kills" only to have the client babble on about ECM ships, with no resolution. FYI: Start reading from the bottom message, it'll make much more sense. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 147	Posted - 2014.05.10 11:19:00 - [6] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Tor Norman wrote: Dave Stark wrote: are you sure you're reading the conversation in chronological order? If you read the mails backwards, you might be a little confused how the conversation starts with an agreement on "kills" only to have the client babble on about ECM ships, with no resolution. FYI: Start reading from the bottom message, it'll make much more sense. i know which way they're meant to be read, that's why i intentionally included the timestamps in m quotes. OK, we've established the order they're read in. So, where did Aleks reject the plan to ECM the ships? Also, given that no ECM requires a different strategy and metric for payment, where were these etails discussed? I can't help but feel a chunk of the conversation is missing. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 147	Posted - 2014.05.10 11:45:00 - [7] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: please, carry on and ignore your own evidence proving you wrong. Could you at least point out why I'm wrong? So far in this little area of discussion, I've linked the source, shown you where the problem is and why Aleks failed to make clear he wasn't going to do what the customer requested. You, in response have made vague gestures that I'm wrong, but fail to supply any reasoning whatsoever. No, childish mockery doesn't count as reasoning. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 147	Posted - 2014.05.10 13:02:00 - [8] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Tor Norman wrote: Could you at least point out why I'm wrong? scroll up. I think I've spotted where everything's going wrong. "How about 5m/kill" It seems you're interpreting this as "Pay us 5m for each Goon ship we kill". Unfortunately, the context of the conversation makes this particular interpretation pretty meaningless as I've laid out in this post. A better interpretation is "Pay us 5m for each killmail that we ECM a GCC'd Goon" as this lines up with the context of the rest of the conversation, including the quote two sentences earlier: "Much prefer to do things with EAF and be more mobile." which, beyond any shadow of a doubt means that ECM is still in play. When an explicit "no, we won't do it the way you requested, here's an alternative", then all we have is an implicit message. This is a poor contract negiotation practice at the best of times. The fact that "How about 5m/kill" makes no sense in the context of the conversation means that no rejection of Gevlon's proposal is present, explicitly or otherwise. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 154	Posted - 2014.05.10 17:12:00 - [9] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: if you've got to resort to literally making things up with "context" to justify your position, it should be obvious that you're wrong. I know it's hard to admit when you're wrong but don't worry about it, it happens to everyone. No one will think less of you for it. It's better than divorcing your posts from reality altogether. Quote: if he was in any doubt about the service he was purchasing then he should have clarified the terms and conditions before the event. noir. aren't mind readers, they weren't to know he was asking, and paying for service X but was instead expecting service Y. That's the problem, though and ultimately why I'm taking part in this conversation. As far as the customer was concerned, there was no doubt what he was getting simply because Aleks never rejected his request. This isn't helped by the fact Aleks confirmed Gevlon's request by saying he'd prefer to use EAFs. Had I been in Gevlon's shoes, I'd find myself in a similar predicament as he is in now. This isn't exactly reassuring to a potential customer. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 154	Posted - 2014.05.10 17:46:00 - [10] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: by "confirmed gevlon's request" you mean, propose a totally different deal that gevlon agreed to? Confirming that EAFs aren't ECM boats and suggesting you will use them means you reject the use of ECM outright. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!

Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 154	Posted - 2014.05.10 17:58:00 - [11] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: actually, i don't care. you've already admitted you and goblin can't understand the english language. It bears repeating: When you realise you're wrong, you're better off admitting your mistakes than divorcing your posts from reality. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!
Tor Norman Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 156	Posted - 2014.05.10 19:15:00 - [12] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: except i'm not wrong OK dear. I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog. For the ISK and the yarr!

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.