|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
   |
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.
So if your GMs are experienced why was dee snider and barracuda unjustifiably banned for reasons that wern't even in the EULA?
Flash news at 11 |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 22:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
To be fair this kind of dumb **** is expected from a company who thinks showing favouritism is the same as Vouching for someone and bans people for it |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 22:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
if u want a good read CCP go here and go to caycay's post |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 22:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Georgina Parmala wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:Well now everything makes sense. That article is dated 10-06-2013, so it's from the future. We'll just have to wait until October to find out what happens! YK DD.MM.YYYY format. Same as all the other articles there. That is from June 10th. Sorry bout that. Just trying to bring some levity to the drama. I was under the impression this rule change was implemented this week and read the link with that in mind. My bad. YK Come to think of it that change is just as bad. It covers any entity named by players. Ships are entities named by players. If I'm sitting on a wormhole and someone jumps through, I rename my ship to match theirs and jump into their hole. That's not being clever trying to stay under the radar of his bro's on the other side if they catch me on dscan... that's impersonation and subject to account action?
CCP ****** up so bad they need to sort there **** out, My anshar is named anshar am i going to get double banned now? |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 13:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
so going off what you said surely the guys impersonating chribba and other 3rd parties. Should of just had the items removed and temporary banned? since its not a extreme case and it was out of game. |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 14:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Having to play a game where every time you rename your ship/pos/station you have to send a petition in and wait a couple days to see if naming your machariel "machariel" is a bannable offense
nothx |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 17:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Chris%20Baileyy is impersonating https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Chris%20Bailey
Hes impersonating a well known 3rd party |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 19:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
i am CCP Hilmar |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 22:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Chribba is ruining this game for everyone, Just leave chribba and be with mintchip. |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 18:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Close the eve servers forever already |
|
|
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 18:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:Close the eve servers forever already Wow, what a constructive idea and argument. most of the people posting on this thread actually want to see this game grow and improve. "Closing the servers" helps no one and solves nothing.
ban you for talking back to me |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
Slaktoffer wrote:Malcanis wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:GM Karidor wrote:To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either. you are implying that there are no other ways to protect yourself other than blowing someone up, which is not true. trust is an asset like any other and if you are not able or not willing to protect the trust people place in you, you probably do not deserve it to begin with. More to the point: since when was "But this makes people mad" sufficient reason to limit player freedom? Generally speaking, making people mad has been a huge content creator in this game for 10 years and counting. It even has at least one subforum of its own on this site. What the actual ****, CCP.
u look like a cat |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:55:00 -
[13] - Quote
I am the N3 Coalition |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:01:00 -
[14] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:arabella blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues. Prove consent first... At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/ granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing.
They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now. |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:07:00 -
[15] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:Grimpak wrote:arabella blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues. Prove consent first... At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/ granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing. They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now. doesn't help at all. I mined a rock and all of the sudden I'm banned because some obscure law made it illegal to mine something at some place and a GM just happened to woke up on the wrong side of the bed. the clearer the law, the less problematic the interpretation is, the easier is to pass judgement.
Exactly, The EULA is a joke they just want to be able to ban anyone at anytime so that any problems they run into can just be brushed under the rug.
RIP Eve |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 22:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Escobar Slim III wrote:LOUD NOISES.
|
|
|
| |
|