|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
225
   |
Posted - 2013.02.12 10:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Colonel Xaven wrote:Well, we know one side of the medal now. I am sure CCP doesn't act like that out of nothing.
You base this assumption on what?
I have always (since I started eve in 2006-2007) considered their behaviour in security matters to be completely arbitrary. Part of the reason why they bring this bad rap on themselves.
It is already a bad sign that you cannot discuss moderation on these forums, allowing them to ignore any claims on their suspicious activity.
This is less about whether this guy was guilty or not. This is about the behaviour of Eve security teams. There should be more transparency. |
Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
225
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 11:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: I'm not sure why we feel we should be able to escalate higher than the highest reasonable authority but the fact is that this team operates with significant oversight.
I don't think escalation is the issue here, rather the fact that you don't explain your actions (up til now). Making any action seem suspicious. |
Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
225
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 11:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
The fact is that we did insofar as we could being that we were dealing with a third party. This party wanted to be treated specially rather than like a normal customer and we simply do not operate that way.
:Edit: to state that escalation isn't the issue in a topic titled quite hilariously dramatically "Who watches the watchers" is a bit of a misstep IMO
My issue is precisely your policy of not discussing moderation with other parties. You can claim that you are merely operating within that policy which is all nice and dandy and true, but I think that policy is wrong in the first place.
Ugh, I have spoken. I will now leave. |
Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
225
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 12:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:
While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.
Induction is not a valid form of deduction. No matter the amount of times you do right, does not prevent the possibility of you doing wrong.
I don't believe in CCP misconduct in this case. I believe that this guy was a botter. That is not the issue. I was trying to point out that if your sec team had convinced this E-U guy (a third party) that there was sufficient proof of the botters deeds, this thread wouldn't be here. He was not technically even a third party since he was holding the isk. But no, there is this policy about discussing moderation in place. (which this thread is breaking already)
After a while, people will remember only the suspicion, not the particulars. In this thread someone already implied security incidents that happened long time ago, that people can't remember the particulars of. This is why I believe that policy is wrong. It will always make you look bad. And you can only alleviate the suspicions by breaking that very selfsame policy yourselves.
"The world is not based on reality, but the perception of reality" - sneakers, 1992 |
|
|
| |
|