EVE Search - iMune

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

iMune

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Shadow Tycho IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.01.02 18:54:00 - [1] This really doesn't effect me much, CONCORD has a problem with me, but i would really think that the idea has merit in game terms any way, its a easy way to get in on fighting a free war. From what i have read I don't really see a huge problem with it while its a little more paperwork for the people war decing if a corp keeps dodging in and out of this alliance don't they get to maintain war 2 out of 3 days for free for all time? I did read GM Nova's response, it was cryptic at best and since this is a idea that could potentially change the shape of high sec, for the profit of those who created it, and continues pvp(actually making more war not less) I think it is very in the spirit of EVE. At the very least i would just like to hear the reasoning behind the ruling governing this, if its cheating or an exploit its not like CCP wasn't given enough time. Also it seems that out lawing this practice is unnessicary, when someone could simply start another alliance (lets call it iWar for fun) that does 24 hour wardecs of corps leaving iMune,when a corp you are fighting join iMune to shirk your war dec simply call iWar and dec them in the 24 hour cool down period then you join up when concord says you cant shoot anymore and you can continue shooting in peace if they rejoin the alliance then you simply dec them again during the 24 hour cool down. Unless I'm mistaken this is a pretty simple answer(I'm not completely sure that this would work but then again i don't exactly do war as a profession) As another thought to tack onto this if this is somehow a exploit it would be good for all of us to know at what point joining and alliance with a war going is peitionable,If the gm response it that joining an alliance to shield your self from a merc corp or similar wardec is an exploit(even if it is only to get rid of the war, because in the long run THAT IS WHY people who are under war dec would join an alliance anyway). Similarly if it is not an exploit to join an alliance with a war dec on but it is one to leave to quickly, does that apply to say a industrial corp that dosen't have any wars going joining an alliance that has wars going and then leaving because they want no part in the alliances fight? Here's hopeing for a gm response that isn't as cryptic and immediately followed by a WTH??? I'm sure we are all intrested.
Battleclash	Posted - 2008.01.02 19:04:00 - [2] Edited by: Battleclash on 02/01/2008 19:04:36 General discussion is ---------> way. Theres already about 6 threads on war dodging and privateers. Originally by: Vladimir Ilych Stupidity is universal.
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.01.02 19:18:00 - [3] Originally by: Shadow Tycho I did read GM Nova's response, it was cryptic at best and Yeah saying that it is clearly cheating and that ceos exploiting this loophole will get a warning is really cryptic!
Battleclash	Posted - 2008.01.02 19:30:00 - [4] Originally by: Wu Jiun Originally by: Shadow Tycho I did read GM Nova's response, it was cryptic at best and Yeah saying that it is clearly cheating and that ceos exploiting this loophole will get a warning is really cryptic! Quote: Originally by: GM Nova This is cheating, plain and simple. CEOs exploiting this loophole will receive a warning from now on. I R CONFUZD!!!!! Originally by: Vladimir Ilych Stupidity is universal.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.01.02 19:35:00 - [5] we will see it in a few days, maybe a week when they sober up and get back to work
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.01.02 20:32:00 - [6] Good points. As things stand now there is only the brief statement from the single GM Nova. The way he wrote it made it sound like his personal opinion rather than a statement of CCP policy. To put this issue to rest we need to hear something worded in a way which makes it clear that it has officially been declared an exploit by CCP or that it is not. Or something more than a terse couple of sentences. If it's going to be treated as an exploit, then all the GM's have to be on the same page in handling it and it needs to be clear that they are. Otherwise you get some of them saying, "no problem, not an exploit" and others saying, "you're banned for exploitation" and the community of EVE wondering which it is. Regards, Windjammer
Wynona Mesopotamia iMune Empire	Posted - 2008.01.02 20:56:00 - [7] I agree, the GM's ruling does come across as a personal opinion. One same petition sent by different players is ok'd by a few GM's then called cheating by another GM seems shifty. It's their game, so that's cool. My Free War Removal thread is moderated to the point of me saying nothing. Looks like the Information Minister 'Bhagdad Bob' is back in town.
Kurogauna	Posted - 2008.01.02 20:59:00 - [8] All threads locked ?! Damn... War dodging is a problem. That's all
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.01.02 21:20:00 - [9] Edited by: Windjammer on 02/01/2008 21:22:33 Edited by: Windjammer on 02/01/2008 21:21:49 If CCP chooses to change the mechanics of the game to preclude imunes activities, so be it. If CCP chooses to rule the activities a punishable exploit, again, so be it. In either case it is CCP's responsibility to their customers to make it clear to the entire community what the heck the deal is. A communication to the entire community is in order and it needs to be given in a way that the entire community can be sure of seeing it. Put it in the eve-mail, put it on the side bar as we log in under news, but don't just give out a couple of sentences buried in a hard to find thread. The moderation (censorship) and mass thread locks that are occuring on this subject are heavy handed and extremely insulting to the entire community. You know. The people that give you, CCP, money for the service you've agreed to provide?
Kwedaras	Posted - 2008.01.02 21:54:00 - [10] Originally by: CCP Mitnal Locked I believe the ruling from GM Nova covers this. how is this confusing ? dev answered.
Strak Yogorn Amarr Mind Warpers	Posted - 2008.01.02 21:58:00 - [11] Originally by: Wynona I agree, the GM's ruling does come across as a personal opinion. One same petition sent by different players is ok'd by a few GM's then called cheating by another GM seems shifty. It's their game, so that's cool. maybe because the initial "petition" was in fact a bugreport ? which wasnt ok'd by any GM, but a BH who only commented on the game mechanic. its all there in ashleys post in one of the other threads.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.02 22:18:00 - [12] Originally by: Wynona I agree, the GM's ruling does come across as a personal opinion. One same petition sent by different players is ok'd by a few GM's then called cheating by another GM seems shifty. It's their game, so that's cool. My Free War Removal thread is moderated to the point of me saying nothing. Looks like the Information Minister 'Bhagdad Bob' is back in town. Yes because a senior GM saying this is "clearly an exploit" and saying that CEOs doing this will be warned is a "personal opinion". I guess when your acct is banned it will be GM Nova's "personal opinion". And no you liar you didn't pre-petition and have GMs say it was alright. You guy intentionally petitioned with a bughunter because you knew a bughunter would see nothing wrong with the code and say its not a bug. You deliberately tried to misdirect the eve population in order to throw a veil of legitimacy on your actions. Too bad for you that a senior GM, whose words>>>> any bug hunter's, has declared it an exploit.
Wynona Mesopotamia iMune Empire	Posted - 2008.01.02 22:25:00 - [13] Prior to GM Nova's 'ruling' this was petitioned in game under the heading of exploit by multiple players, the answers were the same. It's not an exploit. A bug hunting report was sent too. Are you with me so far? There is no misdirection here.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.02 22:29:00 - [14] Originally by: Wynona Prior to GM Nova's 'ruling' this was petitioned in game under the heading of exploit by multiple players, the answers were the same. It's not an exploit. Prove it. Quote: A bug hunting report was sent too. Are you with me so far? Which is deliberate misdirection. Quote: There is no misdirection here. Yes says the guy who declared a clear and concise GM ruling a "personal opinion".
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.01.02 22:34:00 - [15] Originally by: Strak Yogorn maybe because the initial "petition" was in fact a bugreport ? which wasnt ok'd by any GM, but a BH who only commented on the game mechanic. its all there in ashleys post in one of the other threads. From what I've read, the initial petition wasn't a bug report petition. Nor was the bug report petition the only type of petition and iMune weren't the only ones involved in the petitions. When iMune first petitioned for information/ruling prior to starting their activity, the reply was that what they proposed was not an exploit. Then they petitioned under bug report. Again the reply was, "not an exploit". Additionally, a corporation complaining of iMunes activity complained in petition and the reply was once again, "not an exploit". From the level of excitement this topic has raised, it should be obvious that there were many other petitions and since nobody has come forward indicated they've been warned or punished, it should be equally obvious that these petitions were answered all the same way. "Not an exploit". This is not to say that CCP can't very well issue statement along the lines of, "after further review of the situation we find this to be an exploit, etc". iMune took substantial pains to make sure their activity wasn't considered an exploit by CCP. Multiple GM's reported back, "not an exploit". Now, suddenly, two sentences from one GM are being taken as a statement from CCP that iMunes activities are an exploit. A term that even the GM in question did not use. Moreover, these two sentences are buried in a now hard to find thread. iMune may be engaged in something that will be ruled out, but they have been completely open and above board about the entire situation, what they are doing and how they're doing it. This wasn't some sneaky thief in the night deal and assertions to the contrary are coming from sour grapes rats who've been frustrated by iMunes tactic.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.02 22:40:00 - [16] Originally by: Windjammer Originally by: Strak Yogorn maybe because the initial "petition" was in fact a bugreport ? which wasnt ok'd by any GM, but a BH who only commented on the game mechanic. its all there in ashleys post in one of the other threads. From what I've read, the initial petition wasn't a bug report petition. Nor was the bug report petition the only type of petition and iMune weren't the only ones involved in the petitions. When iMune first petitioned for information/ruling prior to starting their activity, the reply was that what they proposed was not an exploit. Then they petitioned under bug report. Again the reply was, "not an exploit". Additionally, a corporation complaining of iMunes activity complained in petition and the reply was once again, "not an exploit". From the level of excitement this topic has raised, it should be obvious that there were many other petitions and since nobody has come forward indicated they've been warned or punished, it should be equally obvious that these petitions were answered all the same way. "Not an exploit". This is not to say that CCP can't very well issue statement along the lines of, "after further review of the situation we find this to be an exploit, etc". iMune took substantial pains to make sure their activity wasn't considered an exploit by CCP. Multiple GM's reported back, "not an exploit". Now, suddenly, two sentences from one GM are being taken as a statement from CCP that iMunes activities are an exploit. A term that even the GM in question did not use. Moreover, these two sentences are buried in a now hard to find thread. iMune may be engaged in something that will be ruled out, but they have been completely open and above board about the entire situation, what they are doing and how they're doing it. This wasn't some sneaky thief in the night deal and assertions to the contrary are coming from sour grapes rats who've been frustrated by iMunes tactic. Hi Imune alt. And no, you're wrong. The imune leadership maintained that they petitioned with a bughunter(and even posted a log of the petition), and the bughunter said it was not a bug. They never posted any evidence that a normal GM said it was not an exploit. Now they're lying to try and misdirect the public.
Ashley Sky Mesopotamia iMune Empire	Posted - 2008.01.02 22:55:00 - [17] Originally by: Gamesguy They never posted any evidence that a normal GM said it was not an exploit. Now they're lying to try and misdirect the public. Posted - 2007.12.27 01:32:00 Kal Shakai Dominus Imperium in this thread... The 53 man corp we were paid to fight joined and left iMune in the same minute. We petitioned it and were told it's not an exploit. See for yourself, this was petitioned and verified by a 3rd party.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.02 23:04:00 - [18] Originally by: Ashley Sky Originally by: Gamesguy They never posted any evidence that a normal GM said it was not an exploit. Now they're lying to try and misdirect the public. Posted - 2007.12.27 01:32:00 Kal Shakai Dominus Imperium in this thread... The 53 man corp we were paid to fight joined and left iMune in the same minute. We petitioned it and were told it's not an exploit. See for yourself, this was petitioned and verified by a 3rd party. I guess its too bad that senior GMs are supposed to overrule decisions like that isnt it?
Ashley Sky Mesopotamia iMune Empire	Posted - 2008.01.02 23:11:00 - [19] Originally by: Wynona My Free War Removal thread is moderated to the point of me saying nothing. Looks like the Information Minister 'Bhagdad Bob' is back in town. You're right man! Check it out... This thread has been moderated to remove all evidence of what we originally offered. Fortunately we have records of our old posts, so we can still tell the story, when the EVE dictators have burnt all the books.
Flinx Evenstar Minmatar Omniscient Order	Posted - 2008.01.02 23:24:00 - [20] Originally by: Ashley Sky Fortunately we have records of our old posts, so we can still tell the story, when the EVE dictators have burnt all the books. What did you expect to happen? You advertised your alliance as a method to avoid war decs. It's quite amusing to see you act this pigheaded about it, trying to play the victim to "CCP's dictators"
Ponderous Thunderstroke Republic War Machine Industries	Posted - 2008.01.02 23:35:00 - [21] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Wynona Prior to GM Nova's 'ruling' this was petitioned in game under the heading of exploit by multiple players, the answers were the same. It's not an exploit. Prove it. OK. from CAOD Originally by: Eskona Runningstar Originally by: Everyone Dies (...) how does your mindless ad hominem argument invalidate the fact that what i stated about using imune is considered an exploit? (...) Since transferring war-decs to others seemed a little fishy, and we did not want to rely on the iMune pre-petition only, we got in contact with a GM before applying to iMune with RUSE. It was explicitely stated as being within the rules. If GMs later on change this ruling, it does not mean RUSE joining iMune at the time it happened was an exploit (GM Nova explicitely stated "from now on"). Consistancy, or the lack thereof, is the key. Fix the damned wardec system, CCP, and this all goes away.
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.01.02 23:39:00 - [22] Edited by: Windjammer on 02/01/2008 23:45:06 Edited by: Windjammer on 02/01/2008 23:44:20 Originally by: Gamesguy Hi Imune alt. And no, you're wrong. The imune leadership maintained that they petitioned with a bughunter(and even posted a log of the petition), and the bughunter said it was not a bug. They never posted any evidence that a normal GM said it was not an exploit. Now they're lying to try and misdirect the public. This will be my only response to this particular poster as he's either trolling or really not paying attention or much worse, actually believes he's accurately read and interpreted what he's read. Not that it should make a lick of difference, but I am, of course, not an iMune alt. I have neither supported iMunes activity nor have I taken a stand against it. The worst I can be accused of is being tickled by iMune sticking it to some of the lower classes of rats. Those that prey upon the weakness of newbs. I've merely clarified the truth and corrected erroneous allegations such as those made throughout the threads by the poster quoted above. I've also called for CCP to make a statement to the EVE community that all of the EVE community can see. In the news sidebar as we log in or some other communication equally as noticeable. Since he's sure CCP's statement would favor his position, he should be 100% behind such a proposal. Indeed, anyone with a position on this issue should be. Gamesguy, take a pill, a deep breath, drink another six pack or whatever it is that calms you down. Then read what's been written again and this time *try* to understand what's written instead of skimming the text and jumping to the nearest conclusion you find convenient. Regards, Windjammer
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.02 23:45:00 - [23] Originally by: Windjammer Edited by: Windjammer on 02/01/2008 23:44:20 Originally by: Gamesguy Hi Imune alt. And no, you're wrong. The imune leadership maintained that they petitioned with a bughunter(and even posted a log of the petition), and the bughunter said it was not a bug. They never posted any evidence that a normal GM said it was not an exploit. Now they're lying to try and misdirect the public. This will be my only response to this particular poster as he's either trolling or really not paying attention or much worse, actually believes he's accurately read and interpreted what he's read. Not that it should make a lick of difference, but I am, of course, not an iMune alt. I have neither supported iMunes activity nor have I taken a stand against it. The worst I can be accused of is being tickled by iMune sticking it to some of the lower classes of rats. Those that prey upon the weakness of newbs. I've merely clarified the truth and corrected erroneous allegations such as those made throughout the threads by the poster quoted above. I've also called for CCP to make a statement to the EVE community that all of the EVE community can see. In the news sidebar as we log in or some other communication equally as noticeable. Since he's sure CCP's statement would favor his position, he should be 100% behind such a proposal. Indeed, anyone with a postion on this issue should be. Gamesguy, take a pill, a deep breath, drink another six pack or whatever it is that calms you down. Then read what's been written again and this time *try* to understand what's written instead of skimming the text and jumping to the nearest conclusion you find convenient. Regards, Windjammer Says the 4 month old noob corp char.
Orar Ironfist Incarnation of Evil Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.01.03 00:03:00 - [24] Now i usually dont care about something lik this but wasnt it an imune person who said clearly that you enjoyed testing your limits when game mechanics were concerned? Well guess what limit reached. No matter how much you say ccp are dictators no matter how much you whine, The Senior Gm's and the CCP dev team have the final say so get over yourself. Also you claim they are dictators....but you still pay 15$ a month?Lol if you really thought they were dictators youd just stop playing. Cry more nub Your sig burn is weak If by "Your sig burn is weak" You mean that "Orar is obviuosly alot cooler then me and I fail Very hard" Then i concur with your statement
Ashley Sky Mesopotamia iMune Empire	Posted - 2008.01.03 00:31:00 - [25] Originally by: Orar Ironfist Now i usually dont care about something lik this but wasnt it an imune person who said clearly that you enjoyed testing your limits when game mechanics were concerned? Well guess what limit reached. No matter how much you say ccp are dictators no matter how much you whine, The Senior Gm's and the CCP dev team have the final say so get over yourself. Also you claim they are dictators....but you still pay 15$ a month?Lol if you really thought they were dictators youd just stop playing. Cry more nub I'm not upset. This unfolded exactly as we intended and provided great entertainment for us all. In addition, it had the unexpected result of demonstrating once again what kind of company runs the show. You said it yourself.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.03 00:59:00 - [26] Originally by: Ashley Sky Originally by: Orar Ironfist Now i usually dont care about something lik this but wasnt it an imune person who said clearly that you enjoyed testing your limits when game mechanics were concerned? Well guess what limit reached. No matter how much you say ccp are dictators no matter how much you whine, The Senior Gm's and the CCP dev team have the final say so get over yourself. Also you claim they are dictators....but you still pay 15$ a month?Lol if you really thought they were dictators youd just stop playing. Cry more nub I'm not upset. This unfolded exactly as we intended and provided great entertainment for us all. In addition, it had the unexpected result of demonstrating once again what kind of company runs the show. You said it yourself. Somebody's bitter.
Khavid Kharver	Posted - 2008.01.03 01:33:00 - [27] Originally by: Wu Jiun Originally by: Shadow Tycho I did read GM Nova's response, it was cryptic at best and Yeah saying that it is clearly cheating and that ceos exploiting this loophole will get a warning is really cryptic! Well, if I am a CEO of a corp at war, and I join an alliance, is THAT an exploit? Or is it only an exploit if I leave? How long do I have to stay for it not to be an exploit? If I am the head of an alliance that wants cheap wardecs, is it an exploit for ME to convince corps at war to join my alliance and then kick them? GM Nova just created MORE questions than he answered with his vague statement about his intention of using the ban bat.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.01.03 01:46:00 - [28] thats the golden question here, whats the "legal" cool down timer for joining then leaving an alliance when you are at war.
Galsia Yovinda Gallente Dec Me Please	Posted - 2008.01.03 01:49:00 - [29] Originally by: Khavid Kharver Originally by: Wu Jiun Originally by: Shadow Tycho I did read GM Nova's response, it was cryptic at best and Yeah saying that it is clearly cheating and that ceos exploiting this loophole will get a warning is really cryptic! Well, if I am a CEO of a corp at war, and I join an alliance, is THAT an exploit? Or is it only an exploit if I leave? How long do I have to stay for it not to be an exploit? If I am the head of an alliance that wants cheap wardecs, is it an exploit for ME to convince corps at war to join my alliance and then kick them? GM Nova just created MORE questions than he answered with his vague statement about his intention of using the ban bat. Indeed. Say corp A has a wardec pending and joins alliance B Wardec goes live and corp A causes issues by shooting alliance ships and feeding data to corp C Would they or the alliance get petitioned for booting them out since corp A winds up war free after expulsion. Lots of other concerns, including a corp deciding after x hours that they joined an alliance of jerks or have issues with others in the alliance and leave
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.01.03 02:12:00 - [30] Edited by: Windjammer on 03/01/2008 02:13:47 Originally by: Khavid Kharver GM Nova just created MORE questions than he answered with his vague statement about his intention of using the ban bat. Just to be clear, GM Nova did not mention the word ban. She said warnings would be issued. And just a reminder, she used the term cheating, not exploitation.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.