EVE Search - t20 and Hellmar speak on recent events

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

t20 and Hellmar speak on recent events

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.10 06:11:00 - [1] Originally by: Azerrad InExile t20: "So Let us play and enjoy the game you and I both love on the same level." I think I just found my new sig.
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.10 06:53:00 - [2] Originally by: Maya Rkell 3) Why were goonfleet not banned en-mass for the client-side hack they did. I'm confused ... So if you want to ban goon for EULA violations; then why aren't you also asking for BoB to be banned as well?
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.10 07:02:00 - [3] Originally by: Dred'Pirate Jesus Absolutely.. But on another note how many BoB haters are in this thread right now just slavering at the chops to get any dig they can in? Logical Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms: 1. Person A makes claim X. 2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X. 3. Therefore claim X is false. 1. Person A makes claim X. 2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances. 3. Therefore X is false. A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false." There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.11 05:01:00 - [4] Edited by: The Libertine on 11/02/2007 04:58:17 "Proof or STFU!" - BoB "Looks like BoB is the one who has STFU." - Everyone Else
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.11 05:17:00 - [5] Edited by: The Libertine on 11/02/2007 05:21:20 Originally by: Tanis Bastar OK, I've got another theory, which was already brought up by someone on this thread--the timing strongly suggests that the failure to deal with this in the summer is connected to the deal with White Wolf. While this is entirely speculation ... I would hope that it was true; it would mean we only have to worry about Dev's getting away with violating the rules and helping alliances cheat; during times when mergers and sensitive business deals are taking place at CCP. That should reduce the amount of dev-misconduct to at most, only a few months out of the year.
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.11 05:27:00 - [6] Originally by: Maya Rkell Social engineering as part of the game would have to fill several criteria to be illegal - and being "hurt" in Eve is in NO WAY under current British, American or Icelandic law an injury or loss. And CCP would be most displeased if you were able to prove otherwise...I'm sure you can work out the reason why. Good thing for you it's not illegal for a developer to pretend to be a normal player on the forums. "The Devs were never meant to be an OMGWTF game-winning PWNMOBILE." - Yan Song
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.11 05:44:00 - [7] Originally by: Maya Rkell The Libertine, you're funny. Maya: Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the BoB party? --- "The Devs were never meant to be an OMGWTF game-winning PWNMOBILE." - Yan Song
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.11 05:49:00 - [8] Originally by: Maya Rkell I was a member of BoB in the past (before any of these accusations, I believe - you can check my character history, I have one account and this is the only character in a player corp with 2 or more people). I was kicked out of BoB. Shortly afterwards, I became an enemy of BoB. While I was in BoB, I was never asked to commit an act against the EULA. I think that's pretty clear :) Yeah, it's clear you didn't have a cap ship at the time. --- Since the BoB CynoNet violated the account sharing rules in the EULA; why haven't all those BoB accounts been banned yet?
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.11 05:56:00 - [9] Originally by: Hemroid Does this mean we should start playing WoW for our online gaming fix? Nah, We should all go play Pirates of the Burning Sea; that way we can fight against the BoB/CCP Developers on an even playing field. --- Since the BoB CynoNet violated the account sharing rules in the EULA; why haven't all those BoB accounts been banned yet?
The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.11 16:13:00 - [10] Edited by: The Libertine on 11/02/2007 16:10:49 Originally by: Avon I can understand people taking this chance to throw a few cheap shots at BoB, and I really can't blame them.There comes a point, however, than it does more harm than good. I think we have already passed that point. Yes, calling out BoB for cheating/breaking the EULA is a 'cheap shot' ... got it. When you admit your BoB-CynoNET account sharing abuse; then I'll take you seriously. You broke the rules; CCP KNEW you broke the rules; and your accounts did not get banned. --- Since the BoB CynoNet violated the account sharing rules in the EULA; why haven't all those BoB accounts been banned yet?

The Libertine	Posted - 2007.02.12 04:23:00 - [11] Originally by: Nils Bohr So you're saying you think t20 didn't level with his employers back in June, when CCP found out about this? Seems like they'd sack him now for not telling the full truth then. Nah, that makes no sense at all. If t20 is staying with CCP, that means he must have told them about the BPOs at the very least. Clearer now? Maybe it slipped his mind? He can't be expected to remember every single time he broke the rules and spawned an illegal BPO for BoB ... right? --- Since the BoB CynoNet violated the account sharing rules in the EULA; why haven't all those BoB accounts been banned yet?

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.