Karl Planck wrote:jesus there is a lot of butthurt in this thread. Can we not bring up the plethora of cases to which this is normally applied to which is clearly what they are referencing instead of bringing up fringe cases where the rule has never been applied?
For example: Someone wants to apply to SniggWaffe and they find a corp on the recruitment threads called SniggWaffe. (notice the dot) in an alliance WAFFELS. (misspelled) that was made to misdirect pilots and scam for recruitment.
Previously this would result in a name change for both the corp and the alliance which are clearly impersonating the real deal. Now it would be a ban. I really donGÇÖt get all the rage about this. You couldn't do it before, you still canGÇÖt. They simply changed the punishment. And knowing the GMs the punishment is probably relatively light
(Disclaimer: while I bath in scammer tears, this is an issue that might affect the player base negatively, and we have a community here to think about).
You see what's being asked for here is known as "precedent".
When I legally openly carry a loaded gun in public, and cops show up, half of the documents I shove at them are precedents in case law where the police felt it was safe for their careers to take sides with whoever made a complaint and found out otherwise in court. I do the same at warrantless checkpoints when I refuse to let them search my vehicle.
So what I think the rage/butthurt is about is a lack of "case precedent".
Without precedent, then each case to be "decided on" individually, as the GM post implies, may end up seeming arbitrary. Arbitrary is a legal word for "unfair", meaning that one person is at risk of getting banned while another is not FOR THE SAME ACTIONS.
And God help us if the person not being banned has some kind of ties or connection with CCP or a large alliance said to have some ties with CSMs or CCP.
The tears will flow like rivers of pure hate and rage. CCP Falcon will have to don a robe and beard and build an ark for all of the new players (bitter vets can walk on water or PLEX their own arks, what with all those SP).
So I think what is sorely needed in this case is precedent to be known. There needs to be some public knowledge of outcomes of past cases to guide us towards justice in future cases. We need to be able to cite these cases like "No way could I be banned for that because in CCP vs. Captain Butthead back in 2012 it was ruled that the defendant did in fact not violate the rules and I am doing the same thing".
Yeah I know this would be a lot to ask. We have an ISD of volunteers, perhaps there are legal eagles playing the game who could be part of a new division of ISD to handle this sort of thing?