open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Alliance rename issue
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (28)

Author Topic

Firdevsi
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:26:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Firdevsi on 24/03/2009 16:26:21
I posted this in CSM thread and I'll post it here. IMO, it is pretty clear the reasons provided by GM Grimmi are just "damage control" excuses for a decision that should not have been taken.

Quote:
provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe


KenZoku was not an alliance created after BoB was disbanded. And, the name choice of "Kenzoku" was certainly not due to the unavailability of the name "Band of Brothers". It was an industrial-alt alliance used by Reikoku.

Alliance creation date: 2008.12.08 23:42

Ex-BoB corps joined Kenzoku to get sov back asap. CCP says that the petition for name change came when BoB was disbanded, which means the name change petition dates almost 3 months after the creation of Kenzoku alliance. 3 months is not a petition made within a reasonable timeframe. GM's logic and rationalization of the decision fail.

Zang Hoor
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:26:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: clone 1
Edited by: clone 1 on 24/03/2009 16:03:12
Originally by: ry ry

it's a non-issue. the only people who care what bob are called are bob and, predictably, goons.



Sorry but you are wrong. I don't like goons, I don't like them more than I don't like BOB/.BOB. .

It affects me because I was denied a 'name change' (all I wanted was a capital 'C') and was denied due to the rules by which everybody in the game are governed, and it applies to me because our old alliance was denied a change of 'U' to 'u' (within the first hours of creating the alliance) based on the rules by which everybody in the game are governed. Everybody it seems except BOB.

Rules are rules until a BOB incident changes them.

"Please keep in mind that the names cannot be changed after you have created the account, character or corporation so please take care what you name them."

"Player-run corporations, factions, organizations and player-owned items within the EVE Online game world are also subject to these rules and policies."

http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/namepolicy.asp

That's why I am ****ed off. THAT'S WHY.






can i have your stuff ? whining ?

Proxay
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:26:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain

But remember perspective. CCP could have 'cheated' a lot more in the past few months for BoB. But they didn't.


You're not seriously giving this as a rationalization are you?

I'm just saying you all need to step back and look at the big picture.

I really don't think this is a big deal since CCP could have rolled back sov had they wanted to.

So they changed the name of some alliance that holds a handful of systems. How does this effect the game?

You still know who to hate. Now get off this forum and go blow something up.Wink


PRECISELY.

Genius, you're a visionary.

ry ry
Heroes.
Merciless.
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:27:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: ry ry on 24/03/2009 16:29:18
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: ry ry
rules are not being broken
You've kind of missed the point here, haven't you?

Originally by: ry ry
sadly in this case it's a name change and no matter how much you try to blow it out of perspective, or imply that it is proof of some greater level of shadowy cheating, it's essentially meaningless.
The 'greater level of shadowy cheating' has come and gone, all people are looking for is proof that it has the potential to occur again. Are you new here or what?

perhaps they would do better looking for a sense of perspective?

alternatively, there are more financially damaging ways of showing your disdain for CCP's blatant list, cheating and bias.

Mathin Storm
Amarr
MEK Enterprises
Mjolnir Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:27:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain

But remember perspective. CCP could have 'cheated' a lot more in the past few months for BoB. But they didn't.


You're not seriously giving this as a rationalization are you?

I'm just saying you all need to step back and look at the big picture.




and the big picture is that they changed BoB's name and not any of the other alliances that petitioned for it. so why BoB and not the others?

Gefunkt
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:28:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: ry ry
sadly in this case it's a name change and no matter how much you try to blow it out of perspective, or imply that it is proof of some greater level of shadowy cheating, it's essentially meaningless.


Given the proven history of of cheating between the two entities in question, we are 100% correct in demanding a greater level of transparency.

On one side, we have BOBR. On the other, we have several examples of alliances that requested a renaming due to typos and were denied. What makes the case of BOBR different from the case of, say, Stain Allaince?

Shenko Minara
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:28:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Greme

Actually, on this note: Wasn't POS Bowling only really changed after a BoB precedent aswell?


POS Bowling: using the bumping mechanics, extreme size of capitals/supercapitals, and ability to land ships at any point in space, in order to bump ships out of the protective POS shield.

BoB and allied forced took to this with their Titans and Motherships. Shortly after Goonswarm built a Titan and joined in, it was deemed to be an exploit.

Take that as you will.

Igus
M. Corp
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:29:00 - [98]
 

this is really just another step (and probably the most effective as of yet) in theit"need for speed" changes. what better way to reduce lag than to **** off players enough to leave the game. its brilliant ccp! oh please oh please will you lend me someone to manage my company i really need customer suport like only you can give!

Montasque
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:30:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain

But remember perspective. CCP could have 'cheated' a lot more in the past few months for BoB. But they didn't.


You're not seriously giving this as a rationalization are you?

I'm just saying you all need to step back and look at the big picture.

I really don't think this is a big deal since CCP could have rolled back sov had they wanted to.

So they changed the name of some alliance that holds a handful of systems. How does this effect the game?

You still know who to hate. Now get off this forum and go blow something up.Wink


Corruption is a slippery slope. This time it's a name change, next time it will be something bigger that has large in-game ramifications. It's not acceptable and showing favoritism one way or another has to stop.


Kuar Z'thain
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:31:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Mathin Storm
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: thelung187
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain

But remember perspective. CCP could have 'cheated' a lot more in the past few months for BoB. But they didn't.


You're not seriously giving this as a rationalization are you?

I'm just saying you all need to step back and look at the big picture.




and the big picture is that they changed BoB's name and not any of the other alliances that petitioned for it. so why BoB and not the others?


Look back at page #1. I agree they need to show us the precident and that this incident is not a 'new policy' for CCP.

Until then, innocent until proven guilty (regarding this issue at least).

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:31:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: ry ry
perhaps they would do better looking for a sense of perspective?
Another proponent of "this is a minor issue and we can safely say that CCP would never do anything significant to help BoB"?

You've convinced me. CCP would certainly never do anything that actually made a material difference, like say spawning BPOs. That would never happen.

TheGunslinger42
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:31:00 - [102]
 

What a complete joke. Theres no reason they deserved to get special treatment and have their alliance renamed. What happened was well within game mechanics and "fair" gameplay, so their petition should have failed.

Complete. Bloody. Joke.

Corban Mah
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:32:00 - [103]
 

Considering 3000 people got screwed over because of poor game mechanics, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to change at least their name.


Goonfail needs to stfu and everyone else complaining too.

Tyger Maul
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:32:00 - [104]
 

Pretty dang funny that all the controversies always involve BoB.

The new Eve slogan:

Eve..Where you control your destiny.*

*Unless game mechanics negatively affect the corporations we favor, in which case CCP reserves the right to break all rules and throw all sense of fairness out the window.

Grimmi for United States Treasury Secretary!

Leellu Multipass
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:32:00 - [105]
 

As a long time player who's been a player since the days of beta I find this unacceptable.

It is blatant favoritism. And after everything CCP has went trough because of the favoritism towards the alliance formerly known as BoB doing this just tells us that you don't care about maintaining a game that has a fair playing field for all the players.

I spoke with my wallet when the t20 incident came out and I quit the game for 2 years. Only to come back and see that nothing changed.

If you're going to have a GM/Developer alliance then please come out publicly and stop deceiving the player base.

Nimue Medb
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:33:00 - [106]
 

Hell if you don't like it, can't stomach it, feel let down or feel your e-peen is suddenly smaller than it was when you woke up, take a stand and leave instead of whining in these forums. It's doing my head in.

I'm new. Can I have your stuff?


rValdez5987
Amarr
Imperial Guard.
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:33:00 - [107]
 

Well now that goons arent blue I can really speak my mind a bit better.

Stop crying goons. You have their space so why do you care about what they call themselves?

The truth to that is you will never be satisfied until Band of Brothers ceases to exist in any form, a goal which you will NEVER reach.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:34:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Until then, innocent until proven guilty (regarding this issue at least).
They've already been proven guilty in the past. This is not an isolated issue. It is up to them to prove that they haven't been up to the same kind of crap again this time.

Sertan Deras
Gallente
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:34:00 - [109]
 

I'm still waiting for CCP to show us some precedent here, as they claim was set at some point. Again, we've provided plenty of examples where you wouldn't do a completely harmless name changes. Why are you afraid, or incapable, of providing a single example where you have?

Kuar Z'thain
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:34:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Montasque
Corruption is a slippery slope. This time it's a name change, next time it will be something bigger that has large in-game ramifications. It's not acceptable and showing favoritism one way or another has to stop.


I completly agree.
So CCP, when have you done this before?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Precident proves me right, lack of it proves me wrong. Very Happy

Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:34:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Gefunkt
Originally by: ry ry
sadly in this case it's a name change and no matter how much you try to blow it out of perspective, or imply that it is proof of some greater level of shadowy cheating, it's essentially meaningless.


Given the proven history of of cheating between the two entities in question, we are 100% correct in demanding a greater level of transparency.

On one side, we have BOBR. On the other, we have several examples of alliances that requested a renaming due to typos and were denied. What makes the case of BOBR different from the case of, say, Stain Allaince?


At the very least, I think that a clarification on the precise rule from CCP would be very useful here.

Clone 1
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:35:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Zang Hoor
Originally by: clone 1
[stuff





can i have your stuff ? whining ?


Sure, let me apply some force of evil and my euphoria will be released.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:35:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: Crumplecorn on 24/03/2009 16:37:28
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 24/03/2009 16:36:53
Originally by: Nimue Medb
Hell if you don't like it, can't stomach it, feel let down or feel your e-peen is suddenly smaller than it was when you woke up, take a stand and leave instead of whining in these forums. It's doing my head in.
Giving up instead of trying to fix problems is always the better solution.

As for this forum doing your head in, hell if you don't like it, can't stomach it, feel let down or feel your e-peen is suddenly smaller than it was when you woke up, take a stand and leave instead of whining in these forums.

Captain ULTIMATE
DarkStar 1
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:36:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: ry ry
hey, i don't care what they're called or if CCP changed their name for them. i also don't think the issue warrants the sort of tedious FAUX INTERNET OUTRAGE it's going to illicit.

sadly in this case it's inconsequential (beyond the additional load on the servers) and no matter how much you try to blow it out of perspective, or imply that it is proof of some greater level of shadowy cheating, it's essentially meaningless.

if you really want to show CCP how angry you are, vote with your feet. once all those canceled subs start hitting them in the bank-account they'll be forced to reconsider their evil cheating ways.




Yes I agree, you don't appear to think much at all. Rules are being broken... by CCP. Let's do a test, go ahead and petition that amazing name you have, see if they'll even capitalize it for you without actually changing your name at all. They won't. They will say their name policy does not allow it. This has been their policy for years now without exception other then offensive terms. So basically, get out?

Drunk Driver
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:36:00 - [115]
 



Ever try to puke out of a porthole underneath the forward part of the flight deck on an aircraft carrier?

The updraft provides some interesting effects on airborne fluids.


Oh, wait..... Were we talking about something important?


Laughing


ry ry
Heroes.
Merciless.
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:36:00 - [116]
 

Edited by: ry ry on 24/03/2009 16:39:47
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: ry ry
perhaps they would do better looking for a sense of perspective?
Another proponent of "this is a minor issue and we can safely say that CCP would never do anything significant to help BoB"?

You've convinced me. CCP would certainly never do anything that actually made a material difference, like say spawning BPOs. That would never happen.

T20 giving his player-character a ****load of RPs on the sly is very different to Bob successfully petitioning their own name following a 2 month (!!!) investigation by CCP, you big drama lama you.

Unless you're saying Wrangler broke into the offices in the dead of night, and hax0red the database entry in exchange for IRL $ to feed his alcohol dependency brought about by eve. That would be ****ing awesome.

Kuar Z'thain
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:36:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Until then, innocent until proven guilty (regarding this issue at least).
They've already been proven guilty in the past. This is not an isolated issue. It is up to them to prove that they haven't been up to the same kind of crap again this time.

Wow, remind me to never have you in a Jury. Laughing

Su mina
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:38:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Shenko Minara
Originally by: Greme

Actually, on this note: Wasn't POS Bowling only really changed after a BoB precedent aswell?


POS Bowling: using the bumping mechanics, extreme size of capitals/supercapitals, and ability to land ships at any point in space, in order to bump ships out of the protective POS shield.

BoB and allied forced took to this with their Titans and Motherships. Shortly after Goonswarm built a Titan and joined in, it was deemed to be an exploit.

Take that as you will.


I guess little things like facts are lost on you, but whatever go on about your ranting. If you shout loud enough and long enough it will magically become true.

Sertan Deras
Gallente
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:38:00 - [119]
 

Also, to all you people white knighting CCP, especially the ones who are relatively new players: I highly, HIGHLY suggest you go educate yourself on a little incident involving one CCP employee named T20 and, coincidentally enough, the very alliance who received their free name change card a couple of days ago.

Until you do, you honestly just look terribly stupid to the rest of us.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:40:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Until then, innocent until proven guilty (regarding this issue at least).
They've already been proven guilty in the past. This is not an isolated issue. It is up to them to prove that they haven't been up to the same kind of crap again this time.

Wow, remind me to never have you in a Jury. Laughing
I'm sorry. I didn't realise we were in pretend court. Ok, let's do it the court way. I call T20 as a character witness for CCP.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (28)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only