open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked no local "bug", cheats and their ilk
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Schani Kratnorr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.10.21 11:18:00 - [1]
 

Some time ago a bunch of turds decided to dabble a bit and came up with a way to not show up in local chat. A lot of smoke was spotted and, rumor has it, a few may have gotten temp bans in the wake.

A few days ago, a few pilots I know came across a ship. They found it and noticed a few odd things. According to numerous buddy lists, the pilot was logged on, but for some reason, he did not show up in local chat.

After dispatching the vessel, a few inquiries were made. A GM oddly refused to investigate on the grounds that "no evidence" had been presented.

If a GM had stalked this particular person for any length of time, he would have noticed that he frequently appears to have, let's say, 'issues with his client not allowing him to be shown in local.'

Naturally. The person in question and his friends are usually content to make use of such wild claims to amuse and entertain the EVE community. My 'issue' however, has to do with the inherent flaw in GM policy. How can a potential EULA breach ever be investigated if the criteria for starting an investigation is that the accuser/petitioner delivers absolute proof?

This points to a central problem - witness accounts are not accepted as evidence. The account itself, by its very nature, does not provide proof. It does however warrant an investigation. If a GM decides not to investigate in spite of witnesses' accounts, then he is in effect making a ruling that the accuser/petitioner is lying.

I am not sure how to turn this in to a "proper CSM issue," and I am not sure if it even belongs there. I DO have reservations about the specific case. Either the person, (lets call him Abecirkel,) in question is cheating (again,) or the people who said he was, "online, but not in local," lied to a GM in a petition.

Either way, we, the community, have a problem with how these cases are handled.

Also: Anomaly respawns are bugged and a lot of people will not accept "wait three downtimes" as a solution.

Kern Walzky
Caldari
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.10.21 13:03:00 - [2]
 

i agree..this should be a priority for CCP to prevent it even to be possible... CCP please look into this ! Evil or Very Mad

Saan Koo
Posted - 2010.10.21 17:44:00 - [3]
 

There are many issues here:
Since there as Schani stated there are no appeals, so once again if you cheat ccp and makes isk (Isk farmers) then you will be banned for live, cheat against a fellow player and that player not only has to prove that the other is the offender and what he has done, but he is for all practical purposes accused as being a liar and you get scot free and the GM won’t even follow up on it even thou it is something the accused already have been found guilty of.
The first is that CCP acknowledge that he was cheating by making a patch for the cheat but they did not reimburse those that lost their ships.
The patch does not work obviously.
The offending player is still in the game,( that makes me wonder if he got a friend, No it can’t beTwisted Evil)
Furthermore even this time those that attacked him shot the offender and have no reason to be vindictive other then they doesn’t like to play against cheaters.
If you look at ccps policies on this then “Abecirkel” should no longer be able to play since he is guilty of 1a, 1b, 1c , Partly 1e and 1f how many more policies do a player and his accomplices have to be guilty of before they are banned permanently
Quote of CCPs policys on SUSPENSION AND BAN POLICY
1. EXPLOITS
An immediate permanent ban of an account may result if:
• a. Investigation shows that a player has employed the use of an exploit tactic despite a public announcement being made to alert players they will be banned for using it.
• b. A player who has been previously warned for exploiting and continues to exploit, whether using the same exploit or another.
• c. An account holder guilty of employing “duping” exploits. Players found to have received the benefits of this exploit may also face reprimand, from removal of the items in question up to, and including, banning of their accounts.
• d. A player has engaged in activity that intentionally causes others to lose connection, suffer latency issues (lag) or to crash to desktop (CTD).
• e. A player renders himself invulnerable through the use of a bug.
• f. A player has created, distributed or advertised an illegal 3rd party program (i.e. macro or cheat program) that disrupts game mechanics, is considered unfriendly or gives an unfair advantage by misusing game features in a way for which they were not intended.

Severe offences may result in an immediate ban without warning; however, warnings may be given for first time offenses, followed by account suspensions of varying degree and ultimately a permanent ban if a player:
• a. Creates a character using a name that is misleading and causes others to believe he is a fair target, such as a non-player pirate or other NPC entity.
• b. Is discovered to be employing the use of a third party program to macro illegally. Funds or goods received from the benefits of macroing are subject to removal from the player’s inventory.
• c. Is aware of an exploitable bug and fails to report it to Game Masters and/or distributes the information to other players.



Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:57:00 - [4]
 

Screenshots, or much better, a nice fraps showing the exploit would be very helpful.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.10.21 21:14:00 - [5]
 

Quote:
A GM oddly refused to investigate on the grounds that "no evidence" had been presented.


Have you and your friends escalated to a senior GM or contacted CCP Internal Affairs?


JC Anderson
Caldari
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2010.10.22 09:50:00 - [6]
 

We have run across this again recently as well.

While a cov ops was observing a pos in system, they noticed that there were quite a few ships moving around behind the pos shield. That of course is nothing new. But the problem is a number of them were being flown by pilots that were not showing up in local.

A petition was filed along with screenshots but to date I am not sure if anything was ever done about it.

Schani Kratnorr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.10.22 09:56:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Quote:
A GM oddly refused to investigate on the grounds that "no evidence" had been presented.


Have you and your friends escalated to a senior GM or contacted CCP Internal Affairs?



Burden of proof should be on CCP who are the ones to investigate and take action.

The petition was closed by a GM due to "lack of evidence," and as such CCP have determined that no violations or bugs caused this particular persons client to malfunction in such a useful manner.

And that is exactly my point. Fraps, logs and screenshots are easily faked and as someone pointed out, banning does have a finality to it. It would be equally problematic to accept screenshots or fraps from customers as evidence and elevate it to proof.
CCP would need to do some sort of verification themselves and that would require their GMs to think about what their role is.

In this case, I could simply state that the circumstances surrounding this case points to the GM in question protecting the person(s) rather than investigating them. This is exactly the kind of accusations that prompted the formation of the CSM in the first place.

If these types of cases require investigation it should be a CCP employee doing the job. Not some arrogant and biased misanthrope like myself. They simply decided to "not look into the matter."

This simple case of a possible repeat cheater is just an example. There are plenty of issues out there that find themselves in the Limbo between 'bug' and 'feature.' GMs keep telling you "have you filed a petition?" and the bughunters keep rejecting your petition because they arent competent or equipped to re-create the problem and thus it fails to live up to "bug"-criteria.

It is exactly this kind of smug arrogance that ****es paying customers off. Failure to react intelligently to inquiries is getting in the way of effective customer service.

I have now made a few more people aware of a particular case and tried to make a general observation on the subject. Maybe a CCP evaluation-team-jule-frokost can use the input. I am now back in game and unlikely to be posting more on the matter.

Just keep in mind, that an empty local chat is not necessarily empty.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.10.22 12:31:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 22/10/2010 12:32:20
Originally by: Schani Kratnorr
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Quote:
A GM oddly refused to investigate on the grounds that "no evidence" had been presented.


Have you and your friends escalated to a senior GM or contacted CCP Internal Affairs?



Burden of proof should be on CCP who are the ones to investigate and take action.

.....

In this case, I could simply state that the circumstances surrounding this case points to the GM in question protecting the person(s) rather than investigating them. This is exactly the kind of accusations that prompted the formation of the CSM in the first place.



But this is exactly the point of my post and the first row of your reply say you aren't tackling it.

You suggest that the specific GM that has replied to your petition is biased, possible, but then you refuse to use the instrument CCP gave you to get a second appeal against a biased GM simply because "burden of proof should be on CCP".

Appealing to a Senior GM is there to get a second and hopefully more competent opinion on the possible exploit.

Appealing to Internal Affairs is there to confront a possible malpractice issue with biased GM.

Your refusal of using those instrument make your whole position that of a thin hatter saying there are conspirations all around him, not those of a rational person trying to resolve a problem with a probable exploit.

mazzilliu
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.10.23 05:08:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Schani Kratnorr
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Quote:
A GM oddly refused to investigate on the grounds that "no evidence" had been presented.


Have you and your friends escalated to a senior GM or contacted CCP Internal Affairs?



Burden of proof should be on CCP who are the ones to investigate and take action.

The petition was closed by a GM due to "lack of evidence," and as such CCP have determined that no violations or bugs caused this particular persons client to malfunction in such a useful manner.


lawl, im sure ccp get a lot of reports of players accusing the other side of having an unfair advantage. investigating something like that would be time consuming and there's no reason to allocate resources on the word of some players with a clear agenda and no proof.

Schani Kratnorr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.10.23 10:22:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
...sniptoavoidcharlimitfailforumworkaround...

Your refusal of using those instrument make your whole position that of a thin hatter saying there are conspirations all around him, not those of a rational person trying to resolve a problem with a probable exploit.

No no no. I am not against the escalation solution, but if the junior GM closes and continues to close petitions related to a problem, then it is practically impossible to get in tuch with a senior GM.

I did not refuse, nor did I suggest that people should refuse to use escalations and/or CSM to solve seemingly unsolvable problems. You failed to understand the issue. Perhaps I am not being clear enough, but if you think the issue is one that can be solved by escalations and CSM then you are missing my point.

Here is an example: Some guy is sitting in a system doing whatever. He is keeping an eye on local (maybe 'cause he once lost a ship by not doing so.)
With no one in local apart from himself, a ship appears next to him, lights a cyno and voilá he is dead.

Now. From what I gather. The GMs and just about everyone else is content to drone mindlessly "he can just fraps it for proof otherwise LOL." In effect, people are telling this hypothetical person that he should run fraps and record each and every single second of game time just in case someone decides to breach the EULA and abuse bugs or features.

That is not realistic and it is a fair placement of the burden of proof - this is the problem I am trying to raise as an issue.

Now the blind CSM fanboys might not get it, but to them one can easily raise another issue related to their favorite cry of "proof!" Even IF someone recorded fraps or a similar visual record and even IF people took screenshots, it is possible to manipulate such evidence. So if CCP decided to accept 'evidence' from other players as proof, they risk becoming easily manipulated judges.
And that is why I am suggesting something like an overhaul of the whole GM/petition process before rising volumes squeeze the last remnants of "fair" out of the rotting carcass.

Again, Mr Venkul Mul. I am not interested in discussing the particulars of the alleged cheating. I was not there (sleepmode,) when they blew his ship up. I was using the circumstances surrounding the petition-refusal to raise an issue that I believe is universal and affect all types of petitions. CCP have shifted the burden of proof on to the customers and increasingly make use of the "close" button to rid themselves of problems that require an actual effort to solve. In the case of Abecirkel, the GM in question should have handled the complaint as a witness statement and added it to the already large pile of similar accusations made against this particular player.

Originally by: "mazzilliu"
lawl, im sure ccp get a lot of reports of players accusing the other side of having an unfair advantage. investigating something like that would be time consuming and there's no reason to allocate resources on the word of some players with a clear agenda and no proof.

Naturally the petition system as a while receives petitions that need to be ignored. Arguing that some of them should be closed without investigating due to their "time consuming nature" is not really a proper or intelligent suggestion.

If I spot something I know to be erroneous behaviour I am armed with a multitude of choices. Bug report, petitions and community guides can help me establish what I am looking at and where I should go with it.

If a TCU is vulnerable when it should not be, I can raise the issue and help a GM investigate by providing further information as needed. If the GM simply refuses on the grounds that 'no proof was given other than a statement about a vulnerable TCU," then the problem wont be investigated, verified or cast aside, nor will CCP get to gather further information. Instead they are likely to perpetuate a culture among their underling GMs that such petitions can be ignored

mazzilliu
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.10.23 10:50:00 - [11]
 

by the way as far as ccp ignoring stuff on the basis of "manipulating evidence" goes, i am pretty sure that only applies to things like reimbursing player ships, if its to illustrate a bug or something, their bug reports seem to readily accept and encourage supplying them with screenshot or video evidence whenever its relevent.

FawKa
Gallente
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.10.23 11:06:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: FawKa on 23/10/2010 11:10:53
mazzilliu as a CSM I think you should let this one go to some of the other CSM's. It doesn't matter how valid your points may be, but you have a tag on you that places you on the 'exploiters team'. It would be professional to leave as fact is that you may not be 100% objective.

Point of this whole thing is that said person has been exploiting before, banned for 3 months (that's what I heard anyways), he comes back online, he uses the exact same exploit (or at least doing whatever he's doing to do the same: disapear from local) and GM's won't even check up on it. By rules a person that has already been banned doesnt have that many rights in this game, but it looks like this guy has.

I know that there was no recorded proof, but honestly after a guy has already exploited the game that many times it shouldnt be needed for us gamers to hunt him around EVE trying to get proof. It would have taken a GM two secons to spawn himself one system from him. Jump in, see that he's ratting but not in local. End of story.

It's just sad that some people hunt for holes in the game to exploit it to it's fullest. Even more sad CCP doesnt fix said exploits or at least perma ban ppl that does use/make them.

btw: I asked to get my petitions escalated but I haven't heard a single thing on my petitions since then. It just went silent and times out.

Saan Koo
Posted - 2010.10.23 11:28:00 - [13]
 

mazzilliu

You just illustrated one of our points, the faith in the system and especially the CSM´s is seriously failing by your meddling.
You have just disqualified yourself by even posting since you’re not unbiased. You even try to ridicule our complaints you are supposed to be the player community’s champions.
But by your actions you just prove one of our points. ;)

RedSplat
Posted - 2010.10.23 16:30:00 - [14]
 

Quote:
This points to a central problem - witness accounts are not accepted as evidence. The account itself, by its very nature, does not provide proof. It does however warrant an investigation. If a GM decides not to investigate in spite of witnesses' accounts, then he is in effect making a ruling that the accuser/petitioner is lying.


Perhaps if these 'Witness accounts' were more dependable and impartial they would be better regarded, because frankly players have demonstrated as a whole that they cannot be trusted to remain a neutral commentator or whistle blower or divorce self interest from what may be a legitimate claim regarding actual bugs or exploits. In short, they mad.

This is aside from the track record CCP has thus far in dealing with supposed and real exploits. The policy of silence and of punishing the whistle blower has only negative consequences for the game and its community.

zenthral staichon
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.10.23 16:48:00 - [15]
 

lawl, abecirkel. good one.

Rebnok
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.10.23 17:20:00 - [16]
 

TDLR: those meanies in PL killed my macro raven now my but hurts bad

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.10.24 00:04:00 - [17]
 

Well, no.
What we know for a fact is that someone was exploiting.
What's suggested, often as a rationalization, is that a non-zero percentage of the 'sploiter's targets were, themselves, cheating. If folks really want to believe that the (good) white knight cheater was preying on the (bad) cheaters, that's up to them. But it's not exactly a convincing argument.

RedSplat
Posted - 2010.10.24 01:20:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: RedSplat on 24/10/2010 01:28:47

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

What we know for a fact is that someone was exploiting.



No, what we have is conjecture by groups with their own agenda and interests many of whom aren't acting altruistically by any stretch of the imagination, or whom will never need 'proof' because the accused has already been tarred and feathered by those they are conceptually speaking in bed with.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
What's suggested, often as a rationalization, is that a non-zero percentage of the 'sploiter's targets were, themselves, cheating. If folks really want to believe that the (good) white knight cheater was preying on the (bad) cheaters, that's up to them. But it's not exactly a convincing argument.


Most people seem to take the view that bad people doing bad things to other people in EVE is OK as long as all the bad people get punished in the end. Unfortunately there are rather a lot of bad people that have expended a lot of time and effort trying to look like good people and far more than that number whom are good people that couldn't tell the difference in the first place.

CCP can be the ONLY body in this game that can be expected to run a proper investigation into an allegation of foul play. But, for an allegation to have ANY credibility that would warrant a time consuming investigation there has to be a degree of evidence supporting that there is actually something happening that shouldn't be. If players can provide this, they should. Frankly, until an entire fleet of 500 starts being invisible in local the suggested problem is a minor one and looks to be limited to individuals that have grown too used to having an infallible unsleeping intel tool at their disposal that would in other games be considered cheating in and of itself.

Further, repeat occurrences seem to be in extremely limited circumstances effecting limited numbers of players for whom the inconvenience is minor. The lack of ready repetition of this phenomenon does not lend support to its existence.

This evidence must be impartial either in source of by nature, hearsay spewed forth by people opposed in game to a another group accused of wrongdoings is understandably given short thrift.

When CCP does investigate and find no evidence there is any wrongdoing this rarely assuages any self righteous accusers in favor of a witch hunt- they have already decided someone is guilty, they do not NEED proof and are quite capable of inventing the most convoluted ans spurious claims to further their chosen fantasy.

Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Posted - 2010.10.24 02:12:00 - [19]
 

IT have discovered that sometimes the addressbook is bugged and fails to register when pilots have logged off. Welcome to 2006.

Pretty sure this revelation doesn't warrant random people being banned for it though.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.10.24 05:01:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: RedSplat

No, what we have is conjecture


Is your claim really that the exploit was duplicated and then the exploit was rapidly patched because CCP didn't know that there was an exploit, but only guessed that maybe there might have been one?
Of course it was proven. The fact that CCP patched it out of the game shows that there was something that had to be patched out of the game.

Quote:

Frankly, until an entire fleet of 500 starts being invisible in local the suggested problem is a minor one and looks to be limited to individuals that have grown too used to having an infallible unsleeping intel tool at their disposal that would in other games be considered cheating in and of itself.

Further, repeat occurrences seem to be in extremely limited circumstances effecting limited numbers of players for whom the inconvenience is minor. The lack of ready repetition of this phenomenon does not lend support to its existence.


So it takes an entire 500 man fleet? If I just follow you around and repeatedly gank you when local tell you you're alone, you'd be cool with that, right? And the game CCP themselves designed is now "cheating in and of itself". And because the proven exploit isn't used on a grand scale, we should doubt it even exists at all?

You do realize that, as rationalizations go, those aren't very good?

Quote:

This evidence must be impartial either in source of by nature, hearsay spewed forth by people opposed in game to a another group accused of wrongdoings is understandably given short thrift.



No, that is an absurdity. It must be impartial in terms of "source". You've just creaetd a nifty loophole whereby evidence put forward by absolutely anybody in EVE can now be discounted since nobody is totally impartial, even objective evidence has to be relayed through a non-objective source, and any evidence is suspect anyways. Or can I photoshop you into a local chat spewing racial slurs and that'd be cool?

We're left with a confirmed exploit that some folks now want to set standards of proof for which are Herculean at best and impossible at worst. This is not an effective manner in which to police a game's structural integrity.

Originally by: Captain Thunk
IT have discovered that sometimes the addressbook is bugged and fails to register when pilots have logged off. Welcome to 2006.



Originally by: what was actually said
A few days ago, a few pilots I know came across a ship. They found it and noticed a few odd things. According to numerous buddy lists, the pilot was logged on, but for some reason, he did not show up in local chat.

After dispatching the vessel, a few inquiries were made. A GM oddly refused to investigate on the grounds that "no evidence" had been presented.


Quite a different story than a mere addy glitch.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.10.24 07:11:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Schani Kratnorr
Originally by: Venkul Mul
...sniptoavoidcharlimitfailforumworkaround...

Your refusal of using those instrument make your whole position that of a thin hatter saying there are conspirations all around him, not those of a rational person trying to resolve a problem with a probable exploit.

No no no. I am not against the escalation solution,



And again after saying this kind of platitude you go disproving your words or showing that you are ignorant of the way you should act.

Quote:
but if the junior GM closes and continues to close petitions related to a problem, then it is practically
impossible to get in tuch with a senior GM.


If the GM refuse to escalate and close the petition you can:

1) open a new petition with another GM and ask to escalate immediately, citing the previous refusal as the reason;

2) contact directly Internal Affairs and present a petition against the specific GM for the refusal to escalate beside asking for a Senior GM appeal on the starting petition.

Getting in touch with a Senior GM is a right, the low level GM can say "I think it would not be useful" to reduce the burden of the Senior GMs, but if requested he can't refuse. His refusing would only give more credit to your favoritism accusation the moment you get old of a Senior GM or Internal Affairs.

If you noticed I didn't say anything about the need of proof on your part (even if adding further informations is always helpful), I did speak about your apparent refusal to use the tools available to get the petition to someone that would check what can be checked in the logs.

You always end your posts in the same way "there is a constipation, we can't do nothing, the same GM is always stonewalling our petition, I should cry on the forum instead of contacting the proper authorities". And that is exactly why people don't care for your message.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.10.24 07:14:00 - [22]
 

It's a problem if that's the expected path. Contact GM and ask them to look at the logs (which show nothing because the 'logs' are just a Magic Eight Ball, but still...), get stonewalled. Demand to move up the chain, get stonewalled. Contact IA, wait for an investigation. Etc.

That seems, shall we say, excessive.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.24 09:58:00 - [23]
 

I sympathise with the OP, and of course, everyone on the CSM wants to have exploits reported and fixed as soon as possible. Cool

The problem, of course, from the GM's point of view, is that everyone is an unreliable witness. Playing the devil's advocate here:

* The reporter may be lying.

* He may be honestly mistaken.

* The aggressor may be triggering the bug by pure accident, and as far as he is concerned, you were just AFK and he walked right up to you.

* Or he might be a filthy exploiter.

So how is a GM supposed to figure out what is really going on, given the limited amount of information available? What tools can CSM suggest CCP build to help make these decisions?

This is not a simple problem. For example, a database of complaints against particular characters could be abused by ill-intentioned complainers, resulting in an innocent player being banned.

It occurs to me that one thing that might help would be the much-requested battle-recorder, if it recorded the actual packets going to and from the client. But even this would have to be turned on in order to catch the action. Or perhaps something that just logs the packets since the last session change?

But even if things like this could be done, there is a bang-for-buck question -- is it worth the time and effort to do this, as opposed to devoting it to fixing other parts of the game? Arguably, it might be a good bug-hunting tool.


klolk
Posted - 2010.10.24 10:13:00 - [24]
 

It`s strange to say atleast that this keep happening

Good though that these incidents with 1 or more ppl not showing in local (local bug) has been all around the eve universe should be a headsup and more to the GM but since it aint that`s very strange and makes me kinda scared about where this is going.

Anyways im only left with 1 acc and thats cause i love the game - but this is going don the drain aswell hopefully the game will catch up again and show worthy of me playing it again.


gotta say that this is a thing to keep me away from it still.

Xianthar
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.24 15:59:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: klolk
It`s strange to say atleast that this keep happening



Whats strange about it? People have been bad at watching local and finding spys since 2003, now they have some big bad ::exploit:: to blame their failings on.

mazzilliu
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.10.24 16:53:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Saan Koo
mazzilliu

You just illustrated one of our points, the faith in the system and especially the CSM´s is seriously failing by your meddling.
You have just disqualified yourself by even posting since you’re not unbiased. You even try to ridicule our complaints you are supposed to be the player community’s champions.
But by your actions you just prove one of our points. ;)



proof or stfu!

Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Posted - 2010.10.24 16:53:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Dlardrageth on 24/10/2010 16:55:59
The conclusion to this seems pretty self-evident to me. From usual experience playing a couple of years and reading "CSM subforums" recently. IMNSHO the majority of petitions with regards to halfway important issues are about as futile as addressing those with the current CSM. Either way hardly any chance of success at best.

OTOH, no reason for a maudlin mood. Once you realize this, you can spend your time in better ways... Laughing Unless of course you do enjoy being trolled for your bothers... Rolling Eyes

Camios Agent
Posted - 2010.10.24 19:45:00 - [28]
 

Tbh, I think that the EVE community should demand a full investigation on cheats.

There have been a lot of conspiracy theories about the sphere and its functionality. For example, there have been reports of entire fleets not appearing in local thanks to "the sphere".

Were these lies? Was all the "the sphere" stuff invented by PL just to flame other players making them saying "HAXXXXORRZZ!" and laugh?
I like to think that those sorrounding the power of "the sphere" are probably just rumors spread by stupid people, but those are very spread ones, and scaring.





Bad Messenger
draketrain
Posted - 2010.10.24 20:52:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: FawKa

btw: I asked to get my petitions escalated but I haven't heard a single thing on my petitions since then. It just went silent and times out.


You have to reply for petition and say "thank you, i'll wait", if you are not polite and send message in every week it just closes automatically, so remember to bumb your petition next time.

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.10.25 01:48:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Camios Agent

Were these lies? Was all the "the sphere" stuff invented by PL just to flame other players making them saying "HAXXXXORRZZ!" and laugh?





Yes.


Pages: [1] 2

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