I'm kinda curious about you people who are still baying for Somer's blood. I get that you're unhappy. I am too. Favoritism is bad. Messing with the sandbox is bad. There's a lot to not like. But have you really thought about what it means if CCP were to kick Somer out? Do you not realize how horrifically bad this would make CCP look? Analogy time.

Old Lady: I would like to cross the road.
Policeman: OK, go and cross the road.
Old Lady: It is OK for me to cross the road then?
Policeman: Oh yes.
Policeman: Tell you what, I'll even give you a hand.
Old Lady: Sweet!
Policeman: That's OK, I heard you help out other people too.
Old Lady: Yes, sometimes I do, but it often benefits me too (sinister cackle).
Policeman: OK, you can manage the rest of the way.
Old Lady: Thanks, almost there. See you around!
Policeman: STOP! OR I'LL SHOOT.
Old Lady: Errr OK, I've stopped. I've done as you aske....
Policeman: Sorry, got to kill you now.

Old Lady gets mown down in a hail of gunfire.

Is this really the CCP you guys would be happy doing business with? They've been giving Somer the green light for years. They've been thanking them. They've given them their blessing. This is indisputable.

Now you want CCP to do a u-turn and "mow them down". You're the same guys who ***** about CCP not being trustworthy right? The ones who get all butt hurt when CCP renege on delivering something, yeah? The ones who cry rivers of tears when you're told you can go ahead and do something, but then are told later you should stop doing it. At least they didn't ban you once you had stopped.

But now all of a sudden, you actually want CCP to act in this way. People, get a grip for once. Please.

Logic fail. There's only one cop and he was happy with you crossing the road every single day. He also helped you to cross the road. But one day, he killed you for it.

Aside from your terrible analogy which makes no sense (in what way is SOMER like a little old lady?), I would be satisfied to know that SOMER loses his RL cash cow. Who gives a rat's ass about the imaginary pixel side of it. RL tears, best tears.

yes, it would mean the rules are being applied fairly, for once. everyone else who shows the slightest hint of RMT gets a banhammer, but in this case we have clear evidence of massive ongoing RMT to the tune of over $135k over several years. if that isn't ban-worthy, i don't know what is.

Logic fail. There's only one cop and he was happy with you crossing the road every single day. He also helped you to cross the road. But one day, he killed you for it.

Logic fail. There's only one cop and he was happy with you crossing the road every single day. He also helped you to cross the road. But one day, he killed you for it.

Logic fail. There's only one cop and he was happy with you crossing the road every single day. He also helped you to cross the road. But one day, he killed you for it.

You do understand that loopholes often get closed? Using your analogy closed = killed.

Sometimes a loophole becomes a noose, as CCP is finding out.

So you'd be perfectly happy for CCP to tell you that evading Concord in highsec is fine. So you evade Concord. But then the next day they ban you for it? Providing they ban everyone who evaded Concord (after being told it's OK), you'd be cool with that?

Well no, not really. There was one cop, and there were lots of people loudly crossing the road and they stopped them crossing all the time. But the little old lady was quietly sneaking across the road, while the cop was busy elsewhere.
Now that everyone behaving themselves by not crossing the road has said "hey, look at that old lady, she's been crossing the road!", and some people have been saying "look, look at how I can cross the road sneakily", the cop now is changing how he enforces the already existing law to prevent the old lady crossing sneakily.
The old lady should get the chair since she's a far worse road crosser than a blatant road crosser, as she knowingly sneaks across the road!

So you'd be perfectly happy for CCP to tell you that evading Concord in highsec is fine. So you evade Concord. But then the next day they ban you for it? Providing they ban everyone who evaded Concord (after being told it's OK), you'd be cool with that?

Logic fail. There's only one cop and he was happy with you crossing the road every single day. He also helped you to cross the road. But one day, he killed you for it.

Closing loopholes in one thing. Punishing someone for actions you have told them are acceptable is another. The question is, had CCP, or someone at CCP approved Somer's setup? If they had then it would be more than closing a loophole to punish Somer for acting as he had been told he could; it would be a pretty clear case of injustice. But things get tricky when we start to ask whether approval came from CCP or just someone at CCP and whether CCP would stand behind their someone in this case. T20 was someone at CCP and they didn't stand behind him. This situation is clearly not directly analogous but some of the same issues arise. If someone ok'ed Somer's business did they have the authority to do so or did they go off the reservation?

You missed a bit. let me help you out.

"But the little old lady was quietly sneaking across the road, AND THE COP WAS HELPING HER."

You missed a bit. let me help you out.

"But the little old lady was quietly sneaking across the road, AND THE COP WAS HELPING HER."

A better analogy would be:

Corrupt cop helps lady illegally cross the road for a share of the illicit road crossing profit.(where do you get this stuff???).
There is an investigation and cops corrupt activity is exposed alongside ladies corrupt activity.
Court convicts both and justice gets served. Lady gets 20 to life, no parole. Cop gets shitcanned.
Hopefully the new cop isnt such a corrupt money-grubbing dbag.

The end.

So what about GTC resellers like Markee Dragon and Shattered Crystal? do they now have to resell at cost to?

you familiar with Whitey Bulger?

he was running his racket successfully for years in part because he had help from corrupt LEO

when he was finally caught... he went on trial. he didn't get off because some crooked FBI agent helped him

People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.

You''ve hit the nail on the head here. The question is whether CCP owns the decision of whoever approved Somer's operation or not. If they treat the dev as having gone rogue then Somer is in the position you describe. If they back the dev as executing company policy then it's not a crooked FBI agent, just an FBI agent.

Agreed. The implication is, that CCPs gifts to Somer equate to approval. Not necessarily my opinion, but it's the opinion of many who are currently baying for Somer's blood.

if it turns out the whole FBI is corrupt, they need to clean house.

i don't see any fair resolution that doesn't involve Somer being punished.

People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.

Never underestimate the power of self delusion.

People at CCP knew what was going on. They rationalized it somehow because it helped sell more plexes.

The best part of all of this is that if CCP hadn't have given them the scorpions no one would have ever made a fuss about it.

Enjoy those scorpions!

Except the difference we are arguing is they didn't authorise the RMT. The fact that they authorised Somer to perform an in-game raffle on their behalf and stupidly stated they are legit does not mean they gave Somer permission to breach the EULA.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.