|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Avon
   |
Posted - 2005.11.08 15:27:00 -
[1]
 Quote:
The name change applied to the corporation SAS was done mistakenly and will be reverted. The change was applied without consultation of GMs in the position to make such a decision.
I think that could do with a little clarification.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.08 15:53:00 -
[2]
Originally by: CmdrRat
Originally by: Avon
Quote:
The name change applied to the corporation SAS was done mistakenly and will be reverted. The change was applied without consultation of GMs in the position to make such a decision.
I think that could do with a little clarification.
A junior GM over steped his bounds and messed up. Fixed. Done. Over.
Let it pass.
You are probably right. Let's hope that's what happened.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.08 16:54:00 -
[3]
" The catalyst for 4S' name change came as the result of some web research. SAS has not been referred to in the documents of any war crime tribunals. 4S has been referred to in numerous war crime tribunal documents, associated with Radovan Karadzic and atrocities commited by those under his command.
The survivors of that war have the right to not be reminded of what happened. "
Kieron, it is clear that CCP's heart is in the right place over this, but unfortunately this is matter for the brain.
'Internet Research' may well have shown that the term 4S was used in a war crimes tribunal, but in what context?
Are CCP suddenly (after 2+ years) experts in international relations, or was some hasty Googling done to save face?
As I understand it, almost every Serbian faction carried the 4S symbol. Were they all criminals? Are all Serbs criminals? Further still, are all Muslims victims?
This whole matter is very much in the public eye, and yet seems to have been a PR nightmare. Not because of the subject, but because of the way it was handled. Now we are in a situation where one corp has (imho unfairly) lost its name, and CCP's reputation has suffered for it. And for what? Who has been protected by this? What great right has been done?
If anything, this has probably caused more offence than the name ever could. CCP have shown disregard for, and ignorance of, a complicated issue. The handling of which has been quite disrespectful.
As community manager you have a resposibility to the community. The whole community. This farce has shown a side of CCP I really didn't think was there. This could have been a chance to learn about a different culture, a tragic turning point in 20th century history, and how much people value their national identities.
What it has become is a an example of how trying to be PC can make you more of a bigot than a racist.
Shame on you.
"The survivors of that war have the right to not be reminded of what happened."
Forgetting the past does not make it go away, it just leaves the door open for when it cares to return.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 10:05:00 -
[4]
(This is hypothetical, so don't go all crazy on me)
If a corp or alliance has a name which I (for valid reasons) find very offensive, maybe to the point of flashbacks to some horrific crime, I should petition them and get their named changed.
It would be perfectly okay for me to get 100's or 1000's of players to change their name just to suit me?
Does that seem a little odd?
Maybe, just maybe, if I was that offended by a name in a game I should stop playing?
Seriously, this thing was a non-issue until CCP decided to change the name of a corp for reasons they won't even state. Sure they'll try and justify the actions as EULA enforcement, but we know that stinks of a cover-up. It has already been shown that CCP have interacted with 4S in the past, and thought nothing of the name then.
Just how many people petitioned the name?
How many individuals does it take to devalue 2.5 years of corp building?
Look at the can of worms that has been opened. CCP are suddenly looking guilty of either racism, or extreme political correctness - it is always hard to tell them apart, even though they are meant to be opposites.
This entire episode has been mismanaged so badly I can't think of a suitable word to describe it.
Maybe our community manager would care to fill in some of the blanks?
Or is it going to be the usual "no further comment" and hope everyone forgets?
As to the whole Jita thing.
Pfft.
All it really demonstrates is quite how bad a state the servers are in.
If it was due to a protest by 4S (which is certainly what CCP are trying to imply), who cares? Is it their fault the servers aren't up to the job?
A relatively small group like 4S can ruin the gameplay fo 15k other users?
Well, now those users know how 4S feel.
(P.S. I am past worrying about getting banned. Eris has rejected me. My life is over.)
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 10:38:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
As a matter of interest, would Udorian Volunteer Force or Intaki Republican Army be allowed as corp names?
Probably.
It would appear that so long as you lie about the reason behind your name you are fine, but if you are honest you get the name removed.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 10:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Avon
As to the whole Jita thing.
Pfft.
All it really demonstrates is quite how bad a state the servers are in.
If it was due to a protest by 4S (which is certainly what CCP are trying to imply), who cares? Is it their fault the servers aren't up to the job?
So you're saying it's CCP's fault that the servers cannot handle an action for which there is no valid in-game reason other than to mess up the server? If they had been having a huge fleet-battle or something that happened to take down the node, then you would have a point. As it is, their action was deliberately intended to cause as much trouble to the server as possible, there is no other reason or explanation for those actions.
After all, if someone throws a brick through your window, you blame the person who threw the brick. You don't blame the glazier for not making the window strong enough to stop the brick.
Well, if I had wound the bloke up enough to make him throw the brick I would only have myself to blame.
Capishe?
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 10:48:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Traxio Nacho
Originally by: Avon
Well, if I had wound the bloke up enough to make him throw the brick I would only have myself to blame.
Capishe?
Not really winding someone up doesnt give them the right to throw a brick through your window.
I didn't say it was right to throw the brick, but deep down I'd know who to blame.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 10:52:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Aelius
One thing is to protest in a ordely manner, not affecting your fellow player, another is to ruin the game for everyone.
Are you saying it is wrong for a minority to remove the enjoyment of the majority?
Like, for example, one person petitioning to change the name of a 2.5yr old corp?
Besides, didn't all the crashes happen AFTER Jita was cleared?
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 11:03:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
A cat once scratched me when I was in Dartford. That animal was evil, and I still have nightmares about it today. I had to have a tetanus shot.
Does that mean that I can petition against the Krazed Killer Kitty Kats from Kent?
I had a nightmare about Blake's 7 once, I'm petitioning both of us Rodj.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 11:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Aelius
I got me wrong Avon. There are ways and "ways" for protest, affecting people not responsible for CCP/GM's actions (ie: other players) is the wrong course of action.
My protest aimed CCP/GM's alone, hurting them where they care the most, their wallet. Others should do the same. S4 had the HUGE majority of EVE's comunity along side with them. Doing such actions only hurt the players that WERE supporting them against a very bad call from CCP/GM's.
I hope i cleared that out. 
Even if the servers crashed as a direct consequence of 4S's actions alone (which would require them to be in an empty system if you think about it), you still can't say the crashed the servers. Unless they knew that their actions would definately crash the servers, and it was their sole aim, any such accusations are unfounded. Protest and disruption go hand in hand, but I am sure that crashing the server was not the aim.
As someone already said, this is a convenient was for CCP to scapegoat 4S and turn opinion against them. They are probably hoping everyone will now forget the origins of the problem, and CCP can walk away blameless.
Spin4tw
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
|
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 11:11:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
I bet that you enjoyed your dreams about being Servelan's prisoner though...
So true.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 11:34:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Avon on 09/11/2005 11:35:03
Originally by: Khan Age
actually the more I think about this, the more I agree with Avons comments (even if his name is probably against the eula too!!!)
so err yeah, what avon said.
Yup, my name is a character from a sci-fi series, and a make of car tyre, and the name of a huge cosmetics organisation.
Still, if the devs ask I'll just tell them that it is "Nova" spelt backwards - it is clear that honesty doesn't pay.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 11:42:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Avon on 09/11/2005 11:42:18
CCP made it possible to dump shuttles, it is their tool for the players to use.
Isn't Oveur on record as saying that the devs are constantly impressed with the ways players find to use the tools provided?
It is no more an attack on the servers that advertising cans at gates, or the long abandoned secure containers that litter Eve, or the almost unending supply of n00b ships you can find abandoned on your scanner.
If the system can't cope with the mechanics, then you have to fix either the servers or the mechanics.
Besides, server crashes on the same day as an extended downtime - coincidence?
You are doing exactly what CCP wants you to do.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 13:00:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Matthew
Yes, it is in doubt whether their actions caused the server to crash. What is not in doubt is that their actions caused massive disruption within Jita, and required a significant amount of time from multiple GM's to clear up the resulting mess.
Woah there Nelly!
Causing disruption in game is a long way shy of your claim of intentionally crashing the server.
Protest & disruption go hand-in-hand.
Are you saying that Miz's n00b smartbombing protest was more legitimate than peacefully dumping shuttles?
Or that Zombies Yulai killing spree was a fairer form of protest?
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 13:08:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Avon on 09/11/2005 13:08:47
Originally by: Karunel
Quote:
Or that Zombies Yulai killing spree was a fairer form of protest?
They got banned IIRC.
For not stopping when asked.
The indescriminate slaughtering of everyone who came to the gate was perfectly acceptable.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 13:37:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Avon
Causing disruption in game is a long way shy of your claim of intentionally crashing the server.
Protest & disruption go hand-in-hand.
So DOS'ing the server would be acceptable as long as you only slowed it down rather than knocking it offline?
No, DOS'ing the server is not using it for its intended purpose. Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Avon
Are you saying that Miz's n00b smartbombing protest was more legitimate than peacefully dumping shuttles?
Or that Zombies Yulai killing spree was a fairer form of protest?
Yes, because their protests used in-game methods to achieve purely in-game effects.
The shuttle-bomb protest uses in-game methods to generate an out-of-game disruption to the server.
Also, both Miz and Zombie's actions were within the rules and EULA at the time, as you so handily point out yourself in Zombie's case. Deliberately generating excessive server load is a direct contravention of the EULA. It doesn't matter if it's just to cause disruption instead of deliberately taking down the node, it's still against the rules. That is why Miz and Zombie were legitimate, and this lag-bombing isn't.
Firstly, I need to point out that Yulai was lagged to hell during the Zombie event, and in that respect is no different to the Jita event.
Again you are claiming that the server load issue was the goal of the protest, and not a consequence of it.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 14:21:00 -
[17]
Right.
So if I head to Jita and dump hundreds of shuttles because I think players might like a free ship, that is fine?
My intention would be to give people free stuff, all the lag I created would just be an unfortunate side effect?
I would be using the same mechanic, in the same system, with the same ultimate result, but because I had a legitimate reason it would be okay?
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 14:23:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kalsius Dakalsai
They INTENDED to cause issues with the server as there is NO legitimate reason for dumping hundreds of shuttle outside a station. These INTENDED acts impaired the operation of the comuters running the game. It is therefore a criminal act.
I previously provided a link which demonstrates that the UK legal system does not agree with your interpretation.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 14:49:00 -
[19]
Originally by: super4lt
Originally by: Avon
I previously provided a link which demonstrates that the UK legal system does not agree with your interpretation.
The UK legal system is irrelevant in this case
Read it in the context of the post.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 15:07:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Kalsius Dakalsai
Whether I think they did it is probably irrelevant, its for a judge to decide, and it doesn't take much to actually read the Act in question and see the words under Section 3 state that the impairing of a computers operation is a criminal act.
Again, as with the decision taken by CCP over quite a wide ranging section in the EULA, its left to the interpretation of the law to determine whether any wrongdoing occurred.
Like I said, a judge has already ruled on a similar case, and a link was provided.
Also, your corp name is apparently in violation of the EULA.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
|
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 15:35:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Gerome Doutrande
Can you give a concise definition of a "nationalist symbol" please, and can you also differentiate a national symbol from a nationalist symbol.
Exactly the point I was going to make.
They are two very different things, and confusing them is bad.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 15:44:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Gerome Doutrande
Can you give a concise definition of a "nationalist symbol" please, and can you also differentiate a national symbol from a nationalist symbol.
Exactly the point I was going to make.
They are two very different things, and confusing them is bad.
Then surely answering his question, to allow him to not confuse the two would be good
I too would be interested in how you define the two.
The question wasn't aimed at me Matthew, it would have been rude to answer.
Anyway, how come you only reply to my posts? Go find someone else to follow. Shoo little puppy, shoo. Bad doggy. 
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 16:02:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Avon
The question wasn't aimed at me Matthew, it would have been rude to answer.
Fair enough, but jumping in to say they are different, but not saying how, isn't the most helpful post either
Originally by: Avon
Anyway, how come you only reply to my posts? Go find someone else to follow. Shoo little puppy, shoo. Bad doggy.
 I can't reply to everything, and your posts are well-structured and easy to reply to, however much I disagree with the content sometimes. You're also providing quite a lot of posts
Besides, I'm not just replying to you, I did a whole string of Khaldorn's earlier too.
Er thanks .. I think 
National - in support of your country.
Nationalist - in support of your ethnicity.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 18:42:00 -
[24]
Ah bollox to it.
This account and a secondary account have now been cancelled.
Can't see the point in paying for the Dev's beer, they don't deserve it.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 19:08:00 -
[25]
Sz Blacklight.
I don't want to leave, but I can't bring myself to funding CCP at the moment, it seems hypocritical.
My monthy sub was debited today, so Avon has a month to live.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.11.09 20:39:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Vang Vorkain
Now supposing I started a corp with the Sanskrit word for Swastika, would it mean I was a n**i? I don't think so. We have been using that symbol for centuries
ok lolrof! the swastika was created from a celtic symble. the celtic cross witch ment good luck, or long life dont remmber witch one. the germans took the symble and broke each end and turned it witch then became the swastika. and if that wrong then maby u need to tell the historians to change there wrightings in books!
Guess again
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
|
|
| |
|