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 : ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 : last (35)

Author Topic

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.03.27 12:43:00 - [931]
 

Thank God that I am not part of this meta-gaming crap.

You guys make me feel like vomiting.

Grimster
Reikoku
Posted - 2009.03.27 12:54:00 - [932]
 

Just poasting to see what my ticker is today.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Jocko Majockomo
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.03.27 12:56:00 - [933]
 

As much as it sucks for Kenzoku, they got trounced in the social warfare department and effectively lost their 'Band of Brothers' brand name. It's interesting to see a game evolve this far.

The brand itself was (and still is, for those aware of the history) a powerful thing. The BoB brand leverage could change the nature of negotiations, change the outcome of deals, and inspire, fear, hatred and envy. It was a juggernaut of a marketing machine that was constructed over the span of years. Companies invest billions in building a social fabric with their name at the top of the list, just like the name Band of Brothers. Off the top of your head, think of your favorite cereal, shampoo, and beer. Then think of why those came to mind first.

The perception of nefarious deeds in how BoB got as strong as it did along with all of the forum traffic on it just furthered the effect - there's no such thing as bad PR, and they did a pretty good job of dealing with all of the venom that was directed their way and presented well in the forums. They've been the elephant in the room for years, and everyone likes to take shots at the elephant - if you can bring it down it's quite a prize.

In this case, Goonswarm found a weak spot in the armor through social warfare, stole the brand name, and now has the head mounted on the way to display proudly. The legitimacy, nefariousness, game mechanic suitability, or name squatting conversations about the brand takeover isn't much of an issue for me personally. In fact I think was rather ingenious and I would suspect the GHSC is pounding tables and saying 'Dammit, why didn't we think of that?!' and developing plans to infiltrate alliances and hold names hostage for massive bounties.

Say your favorite cereal is Captain Crunch - Goonies just stumbled on a path to coerce the name from it's original holders and redeployed it as a naughty picture site, complete with crunchberries and everything (just an extreme example - I'm sure Goonswarm are Kenzoku are equally wholesome and wouldn't do that). In reality, this kind of thing would take down industrial powerhouses in the blink of an eye. Say G.E. turned into Geee overnight. Who's going to buy jet engines, locomotives, MRI machines or light bulbs from Geee?

Kenzoku trying to get their other unknown brand of Toasty-O's renamed to Commodore Crunch was a bit of a reach. The history is gone, the brand is gone, it's all gone, gone, gone. Sure, it's the same people running the show, but the mass of people aren't the face of the entity - the brand name was. I'd posit Kenzoku is better off starting with something that's uncorrupted and rebuild from there. There's a bit of a legacy for the people who pay attention to the macro political events, but for re-educating the unwashed masses and getting Kenzoku to be the household name that BoB was, it's going to be a long road.

- Not affiliated with either organization, but have been popped and podded by both. They're both right on par lawyers. If a ship sunk and there was a life boat that could take goonswarm, kenzoku, or the lawyer, I'd hope for the life boat to sink.

-- Jocko

Scruffy Jed
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.03.27 13:12:00 - [934]
 

Edited by: Scruffy Jed on 27/03/2009 13:12:30
Edited by: Scruffy Jed on 27/03/2009 13:12:08
Originally by: Jowen Datloran
Thank God that I am not part of this meta-gaming crap.

You guys make me feel like vomiting.


http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/65686

Ugh what sort of forum doesn't automatically parse URLs?

Shardiss
Medecins sans Planetes
Posted - 2009.03.27 14:01:00 - [935]
 

Originally by: Jocko Majockomo

I'd posit Kenzoku is better off starting with something that's uncorrupted and rebuild from there. There's a bit of a legacy for the people who pay attention to the macro political events, but for re-educating the unwashed masses and getting Kenzoku to be the household name that BoB was, it's going to be a long road.


Kenzoku is now the alliance that wanted to be BOBR, but failed. Beaver wanna-be's, if you will.

That's not going to make that long road any easier to travel.

Xaen
Caldari
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.03.27 14:01:00 - [936]
 

Originally by: Arch Ville
Originally by: Xaen
Oh my god, you killed resurrected kenny!


How do you use those colorful letters?Very Happy
I wrote a program that does it for me.Cool

Sa'ac Rifrishalgote
Posted - 2009.03.27 14:14:00 - [937]
 

Originally by: slothe
Edited by: slothe on 27/03/2009 12:19:36

Regardless of the fact that the alliance may possibly have been disbanded legitimately thus making the name available, it was not taken by an innocent third party.

It was taken and deliberatly blocked from BOB by GS for no other purpose than to grief and harrass other players, it wasn't inadvertantly registered by a newb player unaware of the situation.


This should not be allowed to continue and it's interesting to see that CCP as a company clearly endorses "cyberbullying", something that is in the current headlines in the UK news involving other websites and companies; not the image I suspect they are hoping for and no doubt damaging to sales too if they were to be found on that list.


Lol @ the ex-bobbit whining about griefing. Laughing

Your whole frackin' alliance was built on griefing other players and then bragging about it on CAOD. You can still do all that if you want ... but when you do, you'll always have an alliance ticker that reminds everyone how you got bested by a bunch of goons. Sucks, yeah, but you earned it.

Firenze Nightingale
Posted - 2009.03.27 14:21:00 - [938]
 

Originally by: Talon Scorpio

You are goons ... You dont care about EVE.



By golly, I think you "get" Goons. Cool

Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.27 14:41:00 - [939]
 

Glad to see the unfair name change overrulled, but I'm not buying the excuse about using an existing alliance.

This still smacks of 'the left hand don't know what the right hand is doing.' Anyone approving of the initial change must not have read any threads or done any research.

As I stated before: CCP should have detailed name change rules, then allowed it to be used. Doing it backwards because it was Bob asking is what consistently gets CCP in trouble.

gordon cain
Posted - 2009.03.27 14:46:00 - [940]
 

Try complaining about titans now that CCP gives in if people nuke the forums.

G

ChalSto
Galactic Shipyards Inc
Huzzah Federation
Posted - 2009.03.27 15:26:00 - [941]
 

Ok.....so nukeing the forums becouse of whinage and CCP listens...wow.

Just becouse 7k players cry on the forums...

Ok......so I dont like the Pandemic Legion allaince name. Its offense.
So plz CCP change it to Pathetic Legion, and everyone will be happy...

THREATNOUGH INCOMING!!!

Sad.....very sad CCP...

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.27 15:48:00 - [942]
 

Originally by: Scruffy Jed

Adjusting the game mechanics isn't necessary, there are fail-safes in place to prevent the instant disintegration of an alliance. CCP cannot be held responsible when, for example, the CEO removes all shares in the executor corp so as to remove the 24-hour wait on alliance changes.


You do know this isn't true right? It makes no difference whether there are shares or not.

Quote:
It's not the game mechanics that screwed KenZoku, and it's certainly not CCP's fault when a CEO disables an alliance's protection.


Its the fault of game mechanics that it takes a CEO 24 hours to remove roles and boot a corp spy (for example) while it takes no longer than to click the "remove corp(s)" and "disband alliance" buttons for a disgruntled director of an alliance to destroy it.

If it did take say a 48 hour vote of all alliance ceos (declaring opposition or support for the disband motion) then I imagine nobody would have a problem with this and the Band of Brothers disband wouldn't have happened.

Cippalippus Primus
eXceed Inc.
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:53:00 - [943]
 

If that feature is badly implemented and you are against it, then you should've done something about it when you were in the CSM.

The name theft was legitimate and no wall of text will change this simple fact. Names, as everything else in EVE, can be stolen, deal with it.

Doctor Penguin
Amarr
Sacred Templars
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:02:00 - [944]
 

Originally by: Cippalippus Primus
The name theft was legitimate and no wall of text will change this simple fact. Names, as everything else in EVE, can be stolen, deal with it.


No they can't - CCP has deleted name-stealing corps and given the rightful owners their names back in the past. Just now that it's happened to BOB, Devswarm get to whine about it and get it fixed for them. YARRRR!!

Or at least, that how it looks to moderates.

Yarik Mendel
Amarr
Red Horizon Inc
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:03:00 - [945]
 

I think the bobbits are saying that Goons are mean Evil or Very Mad


Bobbits, you reap what you sow. Now you will be known for cheating twice, but thanks to the Goons, CCP corrected the mistake.


This is so delicious, NOTHING, will ever beat this.
Game Over bobbits.

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:12:00 - [946]
 

Edited by: Red Thunder on 27/03/2009 17:13:11
pretty sad tbh, its just an name and this is just a game lmao


also....rly ****es me off how goons won using such underhand tactics :( yes its valid, but wasnt a real victory lol

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:27:00 - [947]
 

Originally by: Cippalippus Primus
If that feature is badly implemented and you are against it, then you should've done something about it when you were in the CSM.


I don't think anyone actually realized it was so ridiculously easy to disband an alliance to be quite honest or we'd likely have brought it up. Sometimes exploits on weak game mechanics take everyone by surprise. Rest assured if this hasn't been resolved by the time I decide to run again I'd definitely be in favour of having the fix high on the council agenda.

Quote:
The name theft was legitimate and no wall of text will change this simple fact. Names, as everything else in EVE, can be stolen, deal with it.


I don't think precedence shows that at all. Name theft in the past has not been allowed - see the Cult of War example. If CCP are going to change the rules on name theft they will need to make an announcement of the fact - and even doing that there would be a very strong argument for Band of Brothers getting their name back simply because as far as anyone knew name theft was not allowed at the time goon-swarm appropriated the name via its blocking alt corp.

Smacktalking Alt
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:32:00 - [948]
 

Edited by: Smacktalking Alt on 27/03/2009 17:32:48
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Cippalippus Primus
If that feature is badly implemented and you are against it, then you should've done something about it when you were in the CSM.


I don't think anyone actually realized it was so ridiculously easy to disband an alliance to be quite honest or we'd likely have brought it up. Sometimes exploits on weak game mechanics take everyone by surprise. Rest assured if this hasn't been resolved by the time I decide to run again I'd definitely be in favour of having the fix high on the council agenda.

Quote:
The name theft was legitimate and no wall of text will change this simple fact. Names, as everything else in EVE, can be stolen, deal with it.


I don't think precedence shows that at all. Name theft in the past has not been allowed - see the Cult of War example. If CCP are going to change the rules on name theft they will need to make an announcement of the fact - and even doing that there would be a very strong argument for Band of Brothers getting their name back simply because as far as anyone knew name theft was not allowed at the time goon-swarm appropriated the name via its blocking alt corp.



I don't know anything about the CoW incident, but I thought that there was a bug in the mailing system that prevented the alliance from being notified that it had an payment due, and that CCP restored the alliance because the game failed in its intended function, namely to give warning of impending doom.

Alrar Manq
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:49:00 - [949]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Name theft in the past has not been allowed


Lotka Volterra

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:55:00 - [950]
 

Originally by: Smacktalking Alt

I don't know anything about the CoW incident, but I thought that there was a bug in the mailing system that prevented the alliance from being notified that it had an payment due, and that CCP restored the alliance because the game failed in its intended function, namely to give warning of impending doom.


Dunno to honest, there have been "bugs" in the past with people missing alliance mails - but the system itself was so buggy it was difficult to tell if it was people with the wrong permissions deleting them, the system itself eating the mails or just people failing to notice these things. Ultimately I think everyone can agree that a structure that takes 1billion isk and a long skill to train just to set up shouldn't be disbanded so easily as missing a payment or some guy getting ansy and clicking "instant-disband".

Its a dangerous road to go down to argue that just because something is possible in game-mechanics its right and valid to use that something. Often these things end up being ruled as exploits and people get banned for it.

Sure YOU CAN utilize these quirks and loopholes but you should really use some common sense and realize that some of these tricks are not in the best interest of the game.

Example - Once upon a time it was possible to be in a corp in a sanctioned war - undock with the war-flag and insta quick your corp mid-combat with war enemies and get the other side ganked by concord. Everyone knew this was not how the system should be working but most people knew the spirit of eve well enough not to rely on this rubbish and expect not to get banned for doing it. Sure enough the system was patched and we got various fixes to prevent it (like the 24 hour role-removal timer for people leaving corps and various overview fixes).

Bottom line is that something as critical and important to the organization of large player entities as the alliance management shell should not be disbandable with a click of a button. Everyone knows this. Some will not admit it for partizan reasons but in their hearts nobody supports this mechanism. It will get fixed.

But ultimately thats not really the point here. Cult of war got their name back with a hostile entity was holding it to ransom. Band of Brothers should get their name back in exactly the same circumstances and then this whole business can be put to bed and everyone can get on with playing the space war.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:56:00 - [951]
 

Originally by: Alrar Manq
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Name theft in the past has not been allowed


Lotka Volterra


Dead alliance, its membership went and joined another alliance entirely. Chances are nobody cared - nobody petitioned. No complaint - no crime.

Its not the same thing as an active alliance wanting its name back to reform under.

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.03.27 18:01:00 - [952]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Bottom line is that something as critical and important to the organization of large player entities as the alliance management shell should not be disbandable with a click of a button. Everyone knows this. Some will not admit it for partizan reasons but in their hearts nobody supports this mechanism. It will get fixed.



Maybe you are right about this. I had come to the conclusion that people around here are stupid as bricks, and not worth spending any time trying to reason with.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2009.03.27 18:04:00 - [953]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 27/03/2009 18:12:40
Prolly the right decision, but the fact that CCP gave in to bullying on their own forums leaves a bad taste, especially if its only a insignificant (but very vocal) minority of the player base.

Sometimes its better to stick to a wrong decision, but I guess you'll realize your mistake soon enough.

Edit: besides, think about the PR impact for a second, in a game that is geared on building your empire over several years, having it destroyed by a poor game mechanic in about 10 seconds and the game company even backing that up is certainly not making a lot of people want to register new accounts... I would certainly think twice about it.

Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.03.27 18:09:00 - [954]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Prolly the right decision, but the fact that CCP gave in to bullying on their own forums leaves a bad taste, especially if its only a insignificant (but very vocal) minority of the player base.

Sometimes its better to stick to a wrong decision, but I guess you'll realize your mistake soon enough.


problem was that this was BoB- any other alliance and nobody would have cared.

If BoB gets a ship back through petition, it's cheating.
If BoB wins a fleet battle, it's cheating.
If BoB gets a new name, it's cheating.

all because of the t20 incident, BoB has been, in a way, at a disadvantage when it comes to PR. Any favorable decision on petitions by GMs, or favorable actions since then, no matter how significant to the gameplay, has been assaulted with wild accusations of cheating, iternal favoritism, etc.

The lesson to be learned by this whole mess, though, is to look at the initial threads, look at the locked CAOD threads, and look at the actions and threadnaughts as to what was thrown out there. It's sad.


Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2009.03.27 18:18:00 - [955]
 

Originally by: Doctor Penguin
No they can't - CCP has deleted name-stealing corps and given the rightful owners their names back in the past. Just now that it's happened to BOB, Devswarm get to whine about it and get it fixed for them. YARRRR!!

Or at least, that how it looks to moderates.


There are no moderates in this thread; everyone has an axe to grind.

I myself have found the discombobulation (no pun intended) of the increasingly re-named alliance amusing, but have slight reservations that the dismantling of BoB, and the resultant chicanery, was instigated by an organisation formed with the express ruination of the game as it's goal. If it hadn't have been the goons that did it, I'd have had no compunctions about weeing myself laughing. As it is, the laughter is tinged with regret that goons have managed to have such a large effect on so many.

Fact is, it was done using the game mechanics. OK certain folk had to be in positions of power within the holding corp to abuse the trust of the BoB membership as a whole and bring it crashing to it's knees, but there was nothing "illegal" about it.

Many corporations and alliances have had problems with infiltraitors (sic) but this is part of EVE; don't put anyone in a position where they can do you damage if you can't trust them... and even then you could be wrong.

The name change was, as CCP have now admitted, outside the scope of the rules and was therefore illegal. End of. It shouldn't have happened in the first place, but now it has come to light, CCP have undone it and all should be well.

Watching the whole BoB/Kenny/Beaver vs. Goon thing leaves me feeling slightly ambivalent; I know someone is going to suffer, but am I really bothered who exactly it is?

There is also the matter of increasing goon power in the EVE universe. Like it or not, they are an integral part of the bigger picture now, and I suspect that there may well be those operating under the goon umbrella who now have a vested interest in not seeing EVE "broken", and are now more interested in occupying the same sort of niche that BoB held for so long. How long before someone else sees them in the same light as they saw BoB and the boot is on the other foot?

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.



Anglo
Minmatar
Astral Mexicans
Posted - 2009.03.27 18:33:00 - [956]
 

is it now bob start flame like goons and others did ?? rofl... ccp is pathetic...

Myra2007
Millstone Industries
Posted - 2009.03.27 18:53:00 - [957]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi
the key factor being that during this re-investigation we learned that the KenZoku alliance was created several months before the BoB alliance leadership switched hands.



bwaahahahaha

You needed a reinvestigation for that? Well tbh thats evidence of incapacity right there. I feel sorry for you guys but this is unprofessional to say the least. First you make an unsufficient "investigation" (wtflol? i mean how hard is it to query that info goddamn) and then you reverse an already made decision. Can you make it even worse?

Khlitouris RegusII
Posted - 2009.03.27 18:53:00 - [958]
 

Originally by: gordon cain
Try complaining about titans now that CCP gives in if people nuke the forums.

G


CCP have always given in if people nuke the forums look at every nerf in the game Rolling Eyes

Wyn Pharoh
Gallente
Deep Stage
THE-FEDERATION
Posted - 2009.03.27 20:06:00 - [959]
 

Edited by: Wyn Pharoh on 27/03/2009 20:11:24
Originally by: Wyn Pharoh
Originally by: slothe
There should be no more debate over the kenzoku or reloaded name. The original name should be returned without question or debate.

It shouldn't bother the Goons as they were purely after delve or are they openly admitting they did it for greifing and harrasment in game and on the forums, something else which is against CCP ethos??

Sort it out CCP


Without debate or without cost? Is this the exBob position, that it is now the time to disband and reform in order to have the petitioned name returned?




I'm posting this once again, as there has been no reply, while members of exBob continue to say CCP fix this...

There are plenty of non-GS players that may have been opposed to the initial 'freebee from CCP' that would not argue against exBob being allowed to follow the COW incident precedent as long as it was executed to the letter, accepting the various costs and consequences along the way.

P.S. CCP's stated position has nothing to do caving to GS threadnaught...this meme is tiresome and an insult to every other player that is concerned about inappropriate measures taken to solve a problem that does have a pre-existing precedent to draw from.

Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.03.27 20:39:00 - [960]
 

Originally by: Wyn Pharoh

.this meme is tiresome and an insult to every other player that is concerned about inappropriate measures taken to solve a problem that does have a pre-existing precedent to draw from.


When you add net content on a constant basis you will always have issues and decisions without precedent.


Pages: first : previous : ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 : 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