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


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:52:00 - [811]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 18:52:44
Originally by: Marius Duvall
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Marius Duvall
Please show me where you have made a good post tia.


I'm sure you know how to use eve-search, or hit the back button to read the posts. Why should I accommodate your incompetence and/or laziness?

I will take your post to mean you have no contradicting points to bring up on any of these topics? Speaks volumns tbh. Smile


Why would I need to refute any points? Do you actually think I care about your counter arguments or silly justifications, your name, fairness, or ccp's precedents or lack there-of?

This entire escapade has been the best troll ever.


Much as I already thought. Thanks for confirming your ignorance on this matter. Wink And trust me, I am quite positive that you do not care about fairness as your "threadnaught" would indicate. Thanks for confirming this as well though. Perhaps CCP will use a bit more judgement before capitulating next time though. Confused

Shinma Apollo
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:52:00 - [812]
 

Sorry, I missed out on the internet lawyering debate, but Avon, your analogies seem like a falacy of composition. CCP had a longstanding precedent on this matter (assuming you were going by english common law) and it would be presumptuous to assume that they'd break it, simple stare decisis is what people were harping about.(A matter adjudicated by the courts should not be re-opened for non-latin types)

Granted, your situation is not an amicable one, but it is one that fit well enough into past precedent that you can't reasonably expect a different resolution. I'm not sure why you're so against playing by the rules and just creating a new alliance though, it's been a bit since I've cared about the sov maps but there's no real lynch pin, and you probably wouldn't lose sov ticking in 49-.

Thol's Ego
Tin Foil
KenZoku
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:53:00 - [813]
 

Originally by: EliteSlave
When one starts to compare EVE to RL you automatically lose the arguement.

Now,

I knew that GS had wardec'd your alliance to prevent the Corps at hand from making the alliance. But had you really wanted the BOB name back you could have made a new corp which costs 1.6m isk and made the alliance which cost's 1b isk. and thus got around the war dec preventing you from joining up.


Your alliance is full of people like you. Who get spoonfed crap by goons without even checking facts or having a single clue about what the gamemechanics are. Please never post again unless you actually read up on what happend.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:53:00 - [814]
 

Originally by: Montmazar

Why, it's almost as if it's a video game. With different rules from day to day reality. Imagine that.

We aren't talking about how rules differ from real life, but how they are applied differently based on perception of circumstance rather than historical precedent.

Marius Duvall
Amarr
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:54:00 - [815]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 18:52:44
Originally by: Marius Duvall
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Marius Duvall
Please show me where you have made a good post tia.


I'm sure you know how to use eve-search, or hit the back button to read the posts. Why should I accommodate your incompetence and/or laziness?

I will take your post to mean you have no contradicting points to bring up on any of these topics? Speaks volumns tbh. Smile


Why would I need to refute any points? Do you actually think I care about your counter arguments or silly justifications, your name, fairness, or ccp's precedents or lack there-of?

This entire escapade has been the best troll ever.


Much as I already thought. Thanks for confirming your ignorance on this matter. Wink And trust me, I am quite positive that you do not care about fairness as your "threadnaught" would indicate. Thanks for confirming this as well though. Perhaps CCP will use a bit more judgement before capitulating next time though. Confused


Counterpoint: Buttes.

Also, I don't think you "get" threadnaughts.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:55:00 - [816]
 

Originally by: Shinma Apollo
Sorry, I missed out on the internet lawyering debate, but Avon, your analogies seem like a falacy of composition. CCP had a longstanding precedent on this matter (assuming you were going by english common law) and it would be presumptuous to assume that they'd break it, simple stare decisis is what people were harping about.(A matter adjudicated by the courts should not be re-opened for non-latin types)

Granted, your situation is not an amicable one, but it is one that fit well enough into past precedent that you can't reasonably expect a different resolution. I'm not sure why you're so against playing by the rules and just creating a new alliance though, it's been a bit since I've cared about the sov maps but there's no real lynch pin, and you probably wouldn't lose sov ticking in 49-.


So your argument is, we should have expected to get our name back since precedent dictated that, however we should have simply said "screw that let's form a new alliance anyway?".

Wow.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:55:00 - [817]
 

Originally by: Shinma Apollo
Sorry, I missed out on the internet lawyering debate, but Avon, your analogies seem like a falacy of composition. CCP had a longstanding precedent on this matter (assuming you were going by english common law) and it would be presumptuous to assume that they'd break it, simple stare decisis is what people were harping about.(A matter adjudicated by the courts should not be re-opened for non-latin types)

Granted, your situation is not an amicable one, but it is one that fit well enough into past precedent that you can't reasonably expect a different resolution. I'm not sure why you're so against playing by the rules and just creating a new alliance though, it's been a bit since I've cared about the sov maps but there's no real lynch pin, and you probably wouldn't lose sov ticking in 49-.


Correct.
The precedent is that if an alliance is for some reason disbanded and a corp is formed in that name in order to prevent that alliance reforming under its original name, the corp is renamed so that the alliance can reuse it.

Well spotted.





Oh, wait .. you didn't actually mean that you thought that CCP should act as they had previously, did you?

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:56:00 - [818]
 

Originally by: Marius Duvall

Also, I don't think you "get" threadnaughts.


No, I get them perfectly. They are a way to dictate terms to CCP. Sad though really (for CCP anyway). Congrats to you guys though, honestly. You have truly figured out how to get your way.

Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:57:00 - [819]
 

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of CCP's decision, may I just say that in my opinion KenZoku is a better name than Band of Brothers Reloaded.

Garathyal
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:58:00 - [820]
 

Originally by: Shinma Apollo
Sorry, I missed out on the internet lawyering debate, but Avon, your analogies seem like a falacy of composition. CCP had a longstanding precedent on this matter (assuming you were going by english common law) and it would be presumptuous to assume that they'd break it, simple stare decisis is what people were harping about.(A matter adjudicated by the courts should not be re-opened for non-latin types)

Granted, your situation is not an amicable one, but it is one that fit well enough into past precedent that you can't reasonably expect a different resolution. I'm not sure why you're so against playing by the rules and just creating a new alliance though, it's been a bit since I've cared about the sov maps but there's no real lynch pin, and you probably wouldn't lose sov ticking in 49-.


The point is they cannot do it. 2 months after the whole thing happened Goons have been allowed by CCP to squat on Bobs name. Yet in previous cases CCP has stopped people name squatting.

It is obvious that CCP are acting in favour of Goons but it seems people are 'Goon blind' these days. What CCP did was actually block Bobs petition and fail to stop Goons name squatting. Looks like a double whammy.... Will CCP ever sort this crap out?

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:59:00 - [821]
 

Originally by: Rodj Blake
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of CCP's decision, may I just say that in my opinion KenZoku is a better name than Band of Brothers Reloaded.


lol

I struggled to say it sober if you remember, and after a couple of drinkies I had given up trying.

That is why BoB is a good name.

Kheldon Fel
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:59:00 - [822]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Marius Duvall

Also, I don't think you "get" threadnaughts.


No, I get them perfectly. They are a way to dictate terms to CCP. Sad though really (for CCP anyway). Congrats to you guys though, honestly. You have truly figured out how to get your way.


Sorry to step in, but you must not have been around for the last goon threadnaught.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:00:00 - [823]
 

Originally by: Rodj Blake
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of CCP's decision, may I just say that in my opinion KenZoku is a better name than Band of Brothers Reloaded.


Perhaps. I don't really care about the name tbh. I just care about this whole "fair and equal treatment" but only when it works out for goons anymore, and threadnaughts occur when it doesn't. I love how they are "sticking up for the little people" but have no problems getting decisions their way that go against past decisions. Seems to be against the whole "we are good for eve" mantra they want to push. Confused

Shinma Apollo
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:01:00 - [824]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Shinma Apollo
Sorry, I missed out on the internet lawyering debate, but Avon, your analogies seem like a falacy of composition. CCP had a longstanding precedent on this matter (assuming you were going by english common law) and it would be presumptuous to assume that they'd break it, simple stare decisis is what people were harping about.(A matter adjudicated by the courts should not be re-opened for non-latin types)

Granted, your situation is not an amicable one, but it is one that fit well enough into past precedent that you can't reasonably expect a different resolution. I'm not sure why you're so against playing by the rules and just creating a new alliance though, it's been a bit since I've cared about the sov maps but there's no real lynch pin, and you probably wouldn't lose sov ticking in 49-.


Correct.
The precedent is that if an alliance is for some reason disbanded and a corp is formed in that name in order to prevent that alliance reforming under its original name, the corp is renamed so that the alliance can reuse it.

Well spotted.





Oh, wait .. you didn't actually mean that you thought that CCP should act as they had previously, did you?


Or more specifically, name changes aren't done. You have to reform the alliance and drop sov, pay the bill change. The basis of name blocking isn't strictly applicable, as in the last case, to my knowledge, it wasn't done deliberately It was done incidentally, whereas your name theft was a pre-meditated act. At least you've stopped using anologies though. Avon, I've yet to take a condescending tone, I'm not sure why you feel the need to do so, but I'm sure we discuss this in a civilized fashion.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:02:00 - [825]
 

Originally by: Shinma Apollo
The basis of name blocking isn't strictly applicable, as in the last case, to my knowledge, it wasn't done deliberately It was done incidentally, whereas your name theft was a pre-meditated act.

No, it was deliberate in both cases.

Marius Duvall
Amarr
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:02:00 - [826]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of CCP's decision, may I just say that in my opinion KenZoku is a better name than Band of Brothers Reloaded.


Perhaps. I don't really care about the name tbh. I just care about this whole "fair and equal treatment" but only when it works out for goons anymore, and threadnaughts occur when it doesn't. I love how they are "sticking up for the little people" but have no problems getting decisions their way that go against past decisions. Seems to be against the whole "we are good for eve" mantra they want to push. Confused


Goons have always cared about the well being of pubbies, hth.

Shinma Apollo
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:03:00 - [827]
 

And simply put, the matter at hand isn't name squatting, it was alliance renaming. So this whole name squatting discussion is largely spurious. Your submission for request was on the Kenzoku alliance, not Band of Brothers. Figured I'd add that.

Kheldon Fel
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:03:00 - [828]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Shinma Apollo
The basis of name blocking isn't strictly applicable, as in the last case, to my knowledge, it wasn't done deliberately It was done incidentally, whereas your name theft was a pre-meditated act.

No, it was deliberate in both cases.


The disbanding of CoW was not a deliberate act.

Thol's Ego
Tin Foil
KenZoku
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:05:00 - [829]
 

Originally by: Kheldon Fel
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Shinma Apollo
The basis of name blocking isn't strictly applicable, as in the last case, to my knowledge, it wasn't done deliberately It was done incidentally, whereas your name theft was a pre-meditated act.

No, it was deliberate in both cases.


The disbanding of CoW was not a deliberate act.


he's talking about the name blocking. But i guess you obvisouly didn't "get" that.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:06:00 - [830]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 19:23:57
Originally by: Kheldon Fel
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Marius Duvall

Also, I don't think you "get" threadnaughts.


No, I get them perfectly. They are a way to dictate terms to CCP. Sad though really (for CCP anyway). Congrats to you guys though, honestly. You have truly figured out how to get your way.


Sorry to step in, but you must not have been around for the last goon threadnaught.


Actually I was. If you would feel free to look up this character you can see I have been around for quite a while.

And just for reference, the T20 event (which occured long before I was in Bob, 3+ years ago but it's still brought up almost daily as if it occured yesterday) and the eventual "threadnaught" I view as a legitimate tact at that time. There was inpropriety on the part of CCP and the threadnaught worked and helped with the creation of the CSM.

Others such as the "nerf carriers cause Bob uses em effectively" is something I don't agree with.

This latest where Goons expect, nay, demand preferential treatment from CCP and should anything disrupt that they again threaten to quit "en mass" as a way to force CCP to change a decision against past precedent is very concerning.

The Irony is simply this. When Goons "feel" cheated there is a threadnaught about it.
When the facts show that most likely Bob was actually cheated and Goons are getting different rules applied to them then has occurred to anyone else, goonswarm seem to just disappear and people like you (no offense, I mean the tickerless and therefore probable alts), come rushing to the forums.



Thol's Ego
Tin Foil
KenZoku
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:07:00 - [831]
 

Originally by: Shinma Apollo
And simply put, the matter at hand isn't name squatting, it was alliance renaming. So this whole name squatting discussion is largely spurious. Your submission for request was on the Kenzoku alliance, not Band of Brothers. Figured I'd add that.


We joined another alliance partly becus our name was taken the exact time our alliance was disbanded. Partly becus we could not form a new alliance with all our corps wardecced and partly becus we had no clue wether the disbanding was legitimate. So that's why it is relevant to the matter at hand.

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:10:00 - [832]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
The Irony is simply this. When Goons "feel" cheated there is a threadnaught about it.
When the facts show that most likely Bob was actually cheated and Goons are getting different rules applied to them then has occurred to anyone else, goonswarm seem to just disappear and people like you (no offense, I mean the tickerless and therefore probable alts), come rushing to the forums.


To be fair, I think Goons just want a fair and even playing field, what was done was wrong and now it's been corrected there's no need for them to post about it anymore, they've moved onto other things. Goons don't really strike me as the type to sit and gloat all day about such a thing.

Captain Thunk

Poopsock Alarmclock
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:11:00 - [833]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte

22 posts in 3 pages



your terrible posting is turning the tide

don't falter now


Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:11:00 - [834]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of CCP's decision, may I just say that in my opinion KenZoku is a better name than Band of Brothers Reloaded.


lol

I struggled to say it sober if you remember, and after a couple of drinkies I had given up trying.

That is why BoB is a good name.


Admit it - you only prefer BoB because you already have the t-shirt Wink

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:13:00 - [835]
 

Originally by: Shinma Apollo
And simply put, the matter at hand isn't name squatting, it was alliance renaming. So this whole name squatting discussion is largely spurious. Your submission for request was on the Kenzoku alliance, not Band of Brothers. Figured I'd add that.


Huh, sadly it would appear that you are lacking in a whole lot of facts.

How could we petition from the Band of Brothers alliance when we were no longer in it? Are you even aware of what has occurred?

And this whole "premeditated" argument is ridiculous. Letís go back to the days of old when we had BM bombs at pos's to generate lag.

Are you saying that we should have been allowed to do that if we planned to put it in place to cause lag? It's a perfectly legitimate in game mechanism, bookmarks where not illegal, nor where there creation of them. There were no limits on how many you could create, or where you placed them.

But if I did it "spur of the moment" I should expect a different response then if I "planned it"?

Defendant: Sir, I don't think I should be guilty of murdering my wife, I planned it in advance!
Judge: You are correct sir, dismissed!

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:13:00 - [836]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 19:18:46
Originally by: Poopsock Alarmclock
Originally by: XoPhyte

22 posts in 3 pages



your terrible posting is turning the tide

don't falter now




I fear your 1 liners. And I guess goons can "threadnaught" but I can't post my counter arguments? Confused

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:15:00 - [837]
 

Originally by: Captain Thunk
Originally by: XoPhyte
The Irony is simply this. When Goons "feel" cheated there is a threadnaught about it.
When the facts show that most likely Bob was actually cheated and Goons are getting different rules applied to them then has occurred to anyone else, goonswarm seem to just disappear and people like you (no offense, I mean the tickerless and therefore probable alts), come rushing to the forums.


To be fair, I think Goons just want a fair and even playing field, what was done was wrong and now it's been corrected there's no need for them to post about it anymore, they've moved onto other things. Goons don't really strike me as the type to sit and gloat all day about such a thing.

Captain Thunk


So to be fair they will not hold the "Bob" name hostage anymore?
To be fair they will agree that an alliance with similar circumstances have been renamed before and therefore the "threadnaught" was unnecessary?

That I would like to see, however I won't hold my breath.

Wyn Pharoh
Gallente
Deep Stage
THE-FEDERATION
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:16:00 - [838]
 

Is there some valid argument here that exBob had to chose plan B because of the wardec stunt pulled when the disband occured? There can be no difference between how they joined Kenzoku as opposed to any new non wardec'd holding corp alliance, can there?

Either option seemed available, though joining the existing alliance had certain advantages that a new alliance would not. Such as the Sov issue. It's a bit of a moot point now, but had there been a fight, the free week for Sov 1 gained by joining Kenzoku immediately could have made a great difference at that time. Following the outcry on how did exBob get all sov back so suddenly, it is apparent that exBob leadership was aware of the mechanic that allowed that to occur, despite the shoddy write up on how sov mechanics actually do work.

So, what about that name change petition? It is fair to say that exBob was familiar with the existing rules and precedents for such things. The COW incident has been dissected forwards and back, with the upshot being that CCP has considered sniping an established name to be a reversible event. One that has been done under very narrow circumstances. One that has always had a hefty price to pay. Sov reset to ZERO and a sum of ISK to be paid. Again, exBob leadership was demonstrably aware of these 'mechanics' as well.

tldr: The outcry has everything to do with the appearance of impropriety for a change in precedent (i.e. the cost) in the case of a group that has had a history of impropriety. The only people who seem to have cared are the players with an awareness of eve history and/or those that have also been denied or forced to pay the same costs. The real shame is that it takes a full scale forum war to keep something that even appears to be a level playing field.

Nonetheless, congratulations and thanks are in order to CCP for looking beyond the hurf-blurf and fixing something that needed to be addressed.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:21:00 - [839]
 

Originally by: Wyn Pharoh

Nonetheless, congratulations and thanks are in order to CCP for looking beyond the hurf-blurf and fixing something that needed to be addressed.


What exactly have they "fixed" other then royaly screwing this up and ****ing off both sides?

Make the correct decision after 2 months of investigation and stick by it either way, YES or NO. Don't take 2 months and the give off the perception to give into a "threadnaught" after 2 days though.


Marius Duvall
Amarr
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:29:00 - [840]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 19:18:46
Originally by: Poopsock Alarmclock
Originally by: XoPhyte

22 posts in 3 pages



your terrible posting is turning the tide

don't falter now




I fear your 1 liners. And I guess goons can "threadnaught" but I can't post my counter arguments? Confused


I'm still amused that you think this was a threadnaught.


Pages: first : previous : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : last (35)

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