| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Minuet
   |
Posted - 2006.06.15 17:37:00 -
[271]
 Quote:
So unless a scam, bug or exploit is being used to conduct a scam, CCP cannot intervene. Thats a very solid line of defense, i have to agree here ...
Am I the only one who actually passed reading comprehension in grade school? You are completely misreading the sentence.
Quote:
In cases where lying or withholding information betrays a simple trust - unless a scam, bug or exploit is used - we cannot intervene.
"In cases where lying or withholding information betrays a simple trust" -- that part would describe the case in point: a situation where lying and withholding information betrayed a trust (the act of issuing a false IPO, for those of you not following along quite yet); "unless a scam, bug or exploit is used - we canot intervene" -- the whole thing was a scam...the whole vehicle of sale was a scam...a ploy put in place for the express purpose of bilking isk from investors, which in turn ALLOWS the act of intervention.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 17:40:00 -
[272]
And I've had about enough of this 'GM's can give stuff back if you are scammed' rubbish.
It may be true this week, but it never was before.
Quote:
A scam is what happens when someone takes advantage of your misplaced trust, temporary confusion or ignorance of game rules, and robs you via legal in-game means. When this occurs, there is nothing the Support Team can do for you. Although low and despicable, scams do not violate any game mechanics and can not be compensated for by the GMs, nor can the scammers generally be punished for their actions.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Mag's
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 17:41:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Avon
The longer this goes on, the more I have a bad feeling about this...
I am starting to think that CCP are going to sell out.
I hope I am wrong.
QFT
It isn't looking good.
|
Gina Baldur
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 17:49:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Minuet
Quote:
So unless a scam, bug or exploit is being used to conduct a scam, CCP cannot intervene. Thats a very solid line of defense, i have to agree here ...
Am I the only one who actually passed reading comprehension in grade school? You are completely misreading the sentence.
Quote:
In cases where lying or withholding information betrays a simple trust - unless a scam, bug or exploit is used - we cannot intervene.
"In cases where lying or withholding information betrays a simple trust" -- that part would describe the case in point: a situation where lying and withholding information betrayed a trust (the act of issuing a false IPO, for those of you not following along quite yet); "unless a scam, bug or exploit is used - we canot intervene" -- the whole thing was a scam...the whole vehicle of sale was a scam...a ploy put in place for the express purpose of bilking isk from investors, which in turn ALLOWS the act of intervention.
I still disagree on your interpretation of the policies, but lets just assume your interpretation would be ok...
This would mean CCP officialy has no official policy on scams, since it is both possible that they will reimburse or they wont reimburse, even if the situation is identical.
This also leads us to the escrow scam discussion. An escrow scam is a scam, just like the IPO scam is a scam.
Yes, there are differences, but both are scams.
To me as a normal player if in one case (where prominent or very wealthy players were involved) the scam is reimbursed, and in cases where "normal" players were involved no reimbursement is given - this leaves a very bitter taste, to say the least.
|
Minuet
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 17:53:00 -
[275]
Quote:
And I've had about enough of this 'GM's can give stuff back if you are scammed' rubbish.
It may be true this week, but it never was before.
It's not rubbish. And the rules and framework have been there for quite some time.
You see, the real problem is that many have been playing believing that the percieved design goals matched the stated CCP rules policy -- which they demonstratably don't. Certain play styles, while they may be allowed and encouraged in-game, clearly were never meant to run rampant and out of control. These rules, must therefore exist, to prevent the extremes of certain behaivour, beyond that which CCP defines as "reasonable play".
CCP is ultimately the final arbitrator of "reasonable play" -- not you, not I. Arguing that CCP doesn't have the right to rule however they choose because of lack of prior rules is arguing from a non-existant platform.
Again, I urge you to stop complaining until after the summation and brief have been presented to the community.
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 17:55:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Minuet
"In cases where lying or withholding information betrays a simple trust" -- that part would describe the case in point: a situation where lying and withholding information betrayed a trust (the act of issuing a false IPO, for those of you not following along quite yet); "unless a scam, bug or exploit is used - we canot intervene" -- the whole thing was a scam...the whole vehicle of sale was a scam...a ploy put in place for the express purpose of bilking isk from investors, which in turn ALLOWS the act of intervention.
There is a difference between can and cannot. Cannot is another form of can not, or Can't.
So: case in point - exception - consequence. Pretty simple, no? By the way the discussion seems to be moot anyway, stay tuned for more.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 17:55:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Minuet
Again, I urge you to stop complaining until after the summation and brief have been presented to the community.
Your gold bars fall off your post?
No?
Well, the post at the start of the thread says discuss, and that has gold bars.
The quote in my previous post is accurate. Care to comment?
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Minuet
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 17:58:00 -
[278]
Edited by: Minuet on 15/06/2006 17:58:28
Quote:
Your gold bars fall off your post?
No?
Well, the post at the start of the thread says discuss, and that has gold bars.
The quote in my previous post is accurate. Care to comment?
Fine.
Your quote is extracted from FAQ in regards to gameplay, my quote is extracted Policies section.
Happy?
|
Rthor
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:01:00 -
[279]
The discussion is not moot. The only point of this discussion is to give somebody at CCP arguments against somebody else at CCP because if they are really having an internal discussion about this then it looks a little scary to stay quiet.
|
Minuet
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:03:00 -
[280]
Quote:
There is a difference between can and cannot. Cannot is another form of can not, or Can't.
So: case in point - exception - consequence. Pretty simple, no?
I'm beginning to wonder if you're failing to comprehend on purpose.
"unless a scam, bug or exploit is used - we cannot intervene" let's rearrange the structure of the preceeding clause to correct its really bad grammatical layout into something you can more readily understand: "we cannot intervene -- unless a scam, bug or exploit is used". Is *that* any more clear?
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:04:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Minuet
Edited by: Minuet on 15/06/2006 17:58:28
Quote:
Your gold bars fall off your post?
No?
Well, the post at the start of the thread says discuss, and that has gold bars.
The quote in my previous post is accurate. Care to comment?
Fine.
Your quote is extracted from FAQ in regards to gameplay, my quote is extracted Policies section.
Happy?
Over the moon, because the statement I quoted is clear as crystal and requires no fancy wordplay to make it say what I want it to ... unlike your examples.
Occam's Razor 4tw.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:05:00 -
[282]
I am starting to think there is a CCP plant in this thread trying to get them off the hook...
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:10:00 -
[283]
Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 15/06/2006 18:14:24
Originally by: Minuet
I'm beginning to wonder if you're failing to comprehend on purpose.
"unless a scam, bug or exploit is used - we cannot intervene" let's rearrange the structure of the preceeding clause to correct its really bad grammatical layout into something you can more readily understand: "we cannot intervene -- unless a scam, bug or exploit is used". Is *that* any more clear?
Congratulations, thats exactly how everyone else was interpreting it. Read my posts above. So unless a Scammer uses a Scam, Exploit or bug to scam someone, CCP cannot intervene. I never heard a single case where a scam happened with the help of a scam [SARCASM].
This entire case is tautologic, and i tried to do moderate "ad absurdums" a couple times, and seem to have failed.
This rule, as written, makes no sense - CCP will not intervene in the case of breach of trust unless a bug , exploit or scam [defined as breach of trust above] is used.
From my experience, this happens when you translate texts, and one language happens to have less fitting words for something then the other.
The discussion may be moot because "something" seems to have happened in the meantime - i expect official comment soon, and will keep quiet for now.
|
|
kieron
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:11:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Avon
I am starting to think there is a CCP plant in this thread trying to get them off the hook...
If there is someone from CCP posting to this thread with his play character, it's not something I have been made aware of.
We've discussed what has transpired, what we are going to do, and changes that need to be made. I'm working on the presentation right now and it will be up in a few minutes.
kieron
Community Manager,
EVE Online |
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:13:00 -
[285]
Originally by: kieron
Originally by: Avon
I am starting to think there is a CCP plant in this thread trying to get them off the hook...
If there is someone from CCP posting to this thread with his play character, it's not something I have been made aware of.
We've discussed what has transpired, what we are going to do, and changes that need to be made. I'm working on the presentation right now and it will be up in a few minutes.
woo. Please have made the right decision 
|
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:13:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Avon
I am starting to think there is a CCP plant in this thread trying to get them off the hook...
hmm, perhaps. Considering how long it takes to get a response, one cant help wonder if they just want it to blow over then forget about it. Or that they wanna get their own view across before they say -"GM was right".
Hope you fix this CCP. We all want clear rules as to everything.
PS: cheers Kieron, atleast an answer, whatever it will be
damn need to make a new sig... |
Minuet
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:13:00 -
[287]
Quote:
I am starting to think there is a CCP plant in this thread trying to get them off the hook...
Why? Because the facts make you uncomfortable?
Quote:
Occam's Razor 4tw.
I totally aggree. The case *without* assumption: the rules and framework exist to allow CCP to intercede in this matter however they choose to.
Whether it conforms to, or satisfies, *your* belief in how the game should opperate is a wholly different issue.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:14:00 -
[288]
Originally by: kieron
Originally by: Avon
I am starting to think there is a CCP plant in this thread trying to get them off the hook...
If there is someone from CCP posting to this thread with his play character, it's not something I have been made aware of.
Well side-stepped.
I'll grab my tin-foil hat and wait quietly for the official word.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:15:00 -
[289]
Originally by: kieron
We've discussed what has transpired, what we are going to do, and changes that need to be made. I'm working on the presentation right now and it will be up in a few minutes.
/waits patiently
--Proud member of the [23]--
-WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II- |
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:16:00 -
[290]
Glue has been removed... hope the answer comes before the football match with Sweden against Paraguay
damn need to make a new sig... |
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:17:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Sir Juri
Glue has been removed... hope the answer comes before the football match with Sweden against Paraguay
Hmm... maybe I should go to someone with a TV... nah...
*Waits patiently*
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:17:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: kieron
We've discussed what has transpired, what we are going to do, and changes that need to be made. I'm working on the presentation right now and it will be up in a few minutes.
/waits patiently
I was wondering when you'd turn up.
You missed the B-Movie, but the main feature is just about to start.
/me passes DS some popcorn.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Mag's
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:19:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: kieron
We've discussed what has transpired, what we are going to do, and changes that need to be made. I'm working on the presentation right now and it will be up in a few minutes.
/waits patiently
I was wondering when you'd turn up.
You missed the B-Movie, but the main feature is just about to start.
/me passes DS some popcorn.
I've avoided this flamewar so far, mostly
We noticed.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:19:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
I've avoided this flamewar so far, mostly
Yeah, I was subtly praising you for your restraint.
Don't get used to it though.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Apocryphai
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:19:00 -
[295]
Originally by: kieron
We've discussed what has transpired, what we are going to do, and changes that need to be made. I'm working on the presentation right now and it will be up in a few minutes.
Oh I love all this drama 
This has been the most fun I've had this week! I so need to get out more 
|
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:19:00 -
[296]
whatever the answer is it better be one noone in the future can argue against. Make sure ppl cant interpret the way they want to. Btter be something someone can quote!
damn need to make a new sig... |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:20:00 -
[297]
I'll go with the popcorn tbh
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:21:00 -
[298]
I didn't think it would take kieron this long to get it up...
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Sir Juri
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:21:00 -
[299]
Originally by: HippoKing
I'll go with the popcorn tbh
share damnit!
damn need to make a new sig... |
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 18:22:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Avon
I didn't think it would take kieron this long to get it up...
Only 10 minutes so far...
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |