| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
Moneta Curran
Lunar Industries Ltd
17
   |
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
This Kelduum character should resign. No politician should get away with embezzlement.
If one infamous CSM member can show the good grace to step down after an impulsive drunken sneer at the expense of some random clown, Kelduum should certainly give up his seat after this attempt to hide botted isk in plain sight.
The fact that he feels entitled to the botted isk is hilarious, the way he tried to create public outrage over this appalling.
It merely demonstrates that he is completely unfit to be on the council. |
Moneta Curran
Lunar Industries Ltd
18
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nikolai Lachance wrote:Moneta Curran wrote:
This Kelduum character should resign. No politician should get away with embezzlement.
If one infamous CSM member can show the good grace to step down after an impulsive drunken sneer at the expense of some random clown, Kelduum should certainly give up his seat after this attempt to hide botted isk in plain sight.
The fact that he feels entitled to the botted isk is hilarious, the way he tried to create public outrage over this appalling.
It merely demonstrates that he is completely unfit to be on the council.
Are you daft? E-Uni receives an unsolicited donation of all of a player's ISK as he decides to quit the game. Kelduum, knowing this player was involved in disciplinary action for potential botting to obtain ISK, isolates this donation away from E-Uni assets to prevent it from being used for corp activities, and then contacts CCP to determine the legality of this ISK. How do you get from that to an accusation of "embezzlement" or an attempt to "hide" botted ISK? Kelduum could have simply allowed the money to be used in the corporation. The question is, would it have been confiscated if Kelduum hadn't said anything to CCP? Or, was Kelduum (and by extension in this case, E-Uni) essentially punished for his due dilligence?
It shouldn't surprise anyone that not all botted isk is discovered immediately.
It cannot be deemed a punishment that the isk is taken away if the isk is actually botted. The isk was never his in the first place and it certainly wasn't his call to use it for whatever purpose he saw fit. He did not lose any of his stuff, you see.
His actions toward getting it cleared with proper authorities are fine, his response to the result of their investigation is a spectacular show of bad judgement.
His response is so bad, that one could question whether he was ever prepared to give it up in the first place.
His response is so bad, in fact, that it illustrates an overbearing sense of entitlement. The fact that he tries to manipulate the public opinion of the customer base in his own personal interest only shows that he is not fit to represent them.
|
Moneta Curran
Lunar Industries Ltd
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Shamon Hussad wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Cool, how about we call it "hacking the game client" or "automating game actions" or "roboting the game" or something?
-Liang You're an idiot, reading the game cache is not botting. ITT: People hating on Kelduum because a) they are ******** and don't actually read his posts or b) just because
Please elaborate on this. Would you argue that "John" was wrongfully banned and that his accelerated market order update routines aren't just another form of botting?
On what grounds would you challenge the investigation done by CCP? |
Moneta Curran
Lunar Industries Ltd
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
...and CCP only bans on 150% proof.
-Liang
No, CCP bans on the "trust us" principle. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Someone is banned for botting, we'll call him Bill. Bill sends petition asking for proof. CCP replies to the petition and says "You were botting!". Bill escalates stating, "But I wasn't botting". CCP replies, "You were botting because we say you were botting...now kiss off!". And that's CCP's proof. Since they won't discuss it, won't divulge it everyone in the game is left with trusting CCP.
That's almost correct. I'd like to think, though, that they in fact choose not to share their actual proof, you know, the stuff they mull over before they decide to ban a customer, with some random dude on the internet. |
Moneta Curran
Lunar Industries Ltd
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP does, and that's all that matters.
For them and their actions. Not when forum posters try using it as a reason though. You sound like you're making your opinion objective. Name one good famous debate that was built on the foundation of "this person says so" with nothing to back it up.
Let's not drag religion into this! |
Moneta Curran
Lunar Industries Ltd
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 01:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:On the other hand, I'm also quite disturbed that there isn't an official and well documented means to rebut both the CCP security teams accusations and actions. That there isn't an official process that the accused can participate to the extent of providing additional facts about one's own case means the process is very susceptible impropriety and abuse. In it's current state it does nothing to alleviate the public's fears of misconduct or mistake.
You are free to take CCP to court. Legal disputes can certainly be settled in an official and well documented way. Sreegs has referred to this option implicitly.
Also, as a member of the public I do not recognize your depiction of our feelings. I am pretty convinced that the only true misconduct here can be attributed to Kelduum, when he chose to try to create dissent among the public to support his own questionable cause (keeping botted isk).
|
| |
|