| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow
C.L.O.N.E.
1307
   |
Posted - 2013.11.08 22:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Once again we see CCP caving to carebear entitlement. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow
C.L.O.N.E.
1311
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 22:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
I have a compromise solution
PLEX-For-Petition
For the cost of a PLEX your petition will be approved. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow
C.L.O.N.E.
1313
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 23:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Honestly, y'all need to chill.
So some nub that Erotica managed to scam (or however he managed to get the API) got some SP. What's this guy gonna do, fit t2 mining lasers to his hulk? The SP is non-transferable.
Going over every tiny interaction CCP has with its player base will accomplish nothing, it will only deaden the communication channels that exist between the player base and the devs.
Facts are CCP only treats carebears this nicely. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow
C.L.O.N.E.
1315
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 23:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Agent Kailethre wrote:dexington wrote:Imiarr Timshae wrote:My uncles ghost accessed my account and failed to train when I asked him to for two months during 2009... can I get my lost SP back? You didn't lose any sp, you never got them... he lost potential SP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vfa6HXsccE |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow
C.L.O.N.E.
1316
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 23:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Kate stark wrote:
CCP are simply inconsistent in it's enforcement of the rules.
Tell me something, do you think an organization that is "inconsistent in it's enforcement of the rules" will somehow change its inconsistency based off of one trivially insignificantly case? Do you honestly think that such an inconsistent organization uses such trivial events as precedents for later action? CCP doesn't follow precedent, never has. Don't believe me? They flip-flop on whether a dozen decloak cans on a gate is either allowed or a bannable repeat offense on an almost weekly basis. CCP does not follow precedent on anything. If they did, they would never have given out rare blueprints again after T20.
In other words you can't be bothered to object. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow
C.L.O.N.E.
1316
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 00:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:masternerdguy wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Kate stark wrote:
CCP are simply inconsistent in it's enforcement of the rules.
Tell me something, do you think an organization that is "inconsistent in it's enforcement of the rules" will somehow change its inconsistency based off of one trivially insignificantly case? Do you honestly think that such an inconsistent organization uses such trivial events as precedents for later action? CCP doesn't follow precedent, never has. Don't believe me? They flip-flop on whether a dozen decloak cans on a gate is either allowed or a bannable repeat offense on an almost weekly basis. CCP does not follow precedent on anything. If they did, they would never have given out rare blueprints again after T20. In other words you can't be bothered to object. K, threadnaught for every tiny little thing Erotica digs up in his publicity stunt for his CSM run. CCP completely ignores the player base thereafter. Gotcha.  BTW The next threadnaught should complain about smart bombing the Jita IV-4 undock. It's a bannable offense, you know. Only station in eve off which smart bombing will get you a ban. Way-inconsistent, and blatant favoritism for the Jita residents. See you guys in the next publicity-stunt threadnaught, same time tomorrow? Or do we wait a couple days?
This is bigger than Erotica 1.
This is about standing against carebear entitlement.
Something that obviously isn't important to you. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow
C.L.O.N.E.
1322
|
Posted - 2013.11.09 05:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:I don't think CCP appreciates the hard work that goes into persuading someone to let you pod them 70 times and taking several months worth of SP from them. What's the point of having a sandbox if CCP are just going to kick over all my sand castles because another player doesn't like the shape of them? It seems like favouritism to me.
That's because it is favoritism. |
| |
|