open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] Player Bannings
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

Narciss Sevar
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:10:00 - [121]
 

Edited by: Narciss Sevar on 11/06/2008 14:29:25
Originally by: Torshin

Torshin had he just said it was a typo in the first place, rather than try to make me out as some flamer and not to mention going back to change his post to make it seem that way then we wouldn't be here. But admitting mistakes and making up for them doesn't seem to be something Jade can do. I apologise if my first post was a bit inflammatory, but that is because i found the way his post seemed to implie that ccp shared information with him very worrying.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:10:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Torshin
Originally by: Jade Constantine

(edited for clarity)
I'm not going to support the specific case because neither I (and I'm guessing none of you) have specific information on precisely what went on between this player and ccp.




it is quite clear that while yes his OP did seem to read like you posted that that was not his intention and was just a simple typo which when pointed out was quickly corrected. If you could keep your childish flaming and pathetic posts out of my thread that would be great.


While i do not agree with some of your posts torshin your honesty has just scored you a lot of points. The other drama bombers however need to **** off back to caod.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:15:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Torshin
it is quite clear that while yes his OP did seem to read like you posted that that was not his intention and was just a simple typo which when pointed out was quickly corrected. If you could keep your childish flaming and pathetic posts out of my thread that would be great.


Only after it was edited. When someone makes a mistake which causes someone to ask a question. Usually the person who made the mistake says "sorry, i made a mistake and left out neither, i don't have any information". They do not say "you suck at reading stop trolling!"

The fault lays on the one who made the error, and Narciss made no error in reading what Jade wrote. Its not a big deal so long as the person who made the, what seems to be, completely honest mistake doesn't go ape**** when someone asks a legitimate question regarding what was actually posted.

Some guy in GF found a section on the forums where i typed "president" instead of "precedent". Did i change it to "precedent" and then call him a dirty liar? No, i said "whoops" then fixed my mistake. Then we went on our merry ways. Everyone was happy.

Torshin
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:17:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Torshin
it is quite clear that while yes his OP did seem to read like you posted that that was not his intention and was just a simple typo which when pointed out was quickly corrected. If you could keep your childish flaming and pathetic posts out of my thread that would be great.


Only after it was edited. When someone makes a mistake which causes someone to ask a question. Usually the person who made the mistake says "sorry, i made a mistake and left out neither, i don't have any information". They do not say "you suck at reading stop trolling!"

The fault lays on the one who made the error, and Narciss made no error in reading what Jade wrote. Its not a big deal so long as the person who made the, what seems to be, completely honest mistake doesn't go ape**** when someone asks a legitimate question regarding what was actually posted.

Some guy in GF found a section on the forums where i typed "president" instead of "precedent". Did i change it to "precedent" and then call him a dirty liar? No, i said "whoops" then fixed my mistake. Then we went on our merry ways. Everyone was happy.
While this may be true I think this current discussion is taking away from what has become a very good thread. The amount of support for this issue is right up there with the top issues in the assembly hall and I feel that we should get back on the matter at hand which is taking steps to put in a review process or appeals process for bans.

GO MaZ
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:18:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: GO MaZ on 11/06/2008 14:18:54
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I'm not going to support the specific case because neither I (and I'm guessing none of you) have specific information on precisely what went on between this player and ccp.


Since the actions of Kugu can arguably be blamed for the formation of the CSM (maybe not directly but the idea of oversight and IA for example), I'd say this is one of those rare occasions where the specific case *should* be argued. Just remember that if he hadn't done what he did there may not have ever been a CSM or any sort of internal oversight such as the IA (at least publically) and issues such as dev corruption would have never been checked (and you wouldn't be getting trips to iceland Razz).

Goumindong
SniggWaffe

Posted - 2008.06.11 14:24:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Torshin
While this may be true I think this current discussion is taking away from what has become a very good thread. The amount of support for this issue is right up there with the top issues in the assembly hall and I feel that we should get back on the matter at hand which is taking steps to put in a review process or appeals process for bans.


Agreed.

Also, I agree with Go Maz. The fact that the CSM is more or less a direct result of **********s actions warrants that the issue be looked into and outweighs any concerns regarding whether or not we have the evidence to judge. With the CSM bringing it to the Agenda they will have to, at the very least, share the information with the CSM(as they must give reasons for any acceptance or refusal in writing) who will be able use their judgment regarding whether or not CCP acted a proper manner and whether or not the appropriate measures have been taken, or need to be.

sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:32:00 - [127]
 

I cannot and will not support a individual case as that is a bad way for things to proceed.

But i will and would support a motion that allows a separate or board to review cases of bans individually and perhaps over turn them if justification is found to do so.

Miss Domination
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:35:00 - [128]
 

The point remains, ********** did this game a great service by dragging so many things into the light. What matters is that corruption was exposed and he forced it to be dealt with by making a compelling case.

His reward? The banstick. This was a knee-jerk reaction by CCP and should be reversed. Whistleblowers should not be punished, they should be rewarded. Read up. The information is in plain sight for anyone who knows how to use the internet. The story of **********'s discoveries is one of the most interesting stories this game has to offer, and has generated untold publicity for this game, some good and some bad.

Free **********, a true patriot of the community as a whole.

Ecid Q'Wulf
Sniggerdly
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:36:00 - [129]
 

+

Miss Domination
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:52:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
I cannot and will not support a individual case as that is a bad way for things to proceed.

But i will and would support a motion that allows a separate or board to review cases of bans individually and perhaps over turn them if justification is found to do so.



With all due respect, this is THE individual case. There are no other cases like this by any stretch of the imagination, and I believe much of the MMO world is still watching to see what the final verdict will be. Not understanding this demonstrates a lack of understanding in the issues or facts surrounding the ********** debacle.

We're not asking for the CSM to become a court of appeals for anyone, we're asking for this one very special case to be reviewed and hopefully the ban reversed due to the very high-profile nature of the issue, and the vast public support for **********.

sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:57:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 11/06/2008 14:57:37
Originally by: Miss Domination
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
I cannot and will not support a individual case as that is a bad way for things to proceed.

But i will and would support a motion that allows a separate or board to review cases of bans individually and perhaps over turn them if justification is found to do so.



With all due respect, this is THE individual case. There are no other cases like this by any stretch of the imagination, and I believe much of the MMO world is still watching to see what the final verdict will be. Not understanding this demonstrates a lack of understanding in the issues or facts surrounding the ********** debacle.


I do not care about this or any other individual case although in matter of fact i do know about the case as i was playing at the time.

My point is that it cannot be treated as a individual case and the whole banning/appeal structure must be looked at if that is what ppl wish or it is not a fair system as popularity or lack thereof is not a just reason to ban or unban somebody.

Xplained
Caldari
Geese Jugglers
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:27:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Miss Domination
Free **********, a true patriot of the community as a whole.


lolz


Euriti
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:46:00 - [133]
 

BAEMP HIM!

Nynaeve Ares
Animus Incarnate

Posted - 2008.06.11 19:08:00 - [134]
 


Carin K
Minmatar
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:09:00 - [135]
 

Noone knows exactly what happened with the ********** bannings, bot even some of his better friends in sniggerdly, but surely since it is such a hotly debated topic, if CCP had nothing to fear, they would expose the truth to clear their name.

This arguement needs redigging up and looking into and I believe the CSM is the only way we have the power to do this. If any CSM member wants to disagree with this then I invite you to reply to this post and argue against it.

The MapMaker
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:26:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean

I do not care about this or any other individual case although in matter of fact i do know about the case as i was playing at the time.

My point is that it cannot be treated as a individual case and the whole banning/appeal structure must be looked at if that is what ppl wish or it is not a fair system as popularity or lack thereof is not a just reason to ban or unban somebody.


The ********** banning was justified using some catch-all Terms of Service Agreement clause as the result of a dev decision to ban him for the trouble he was causing to CCP (at least one would assume this was the reason; CCP kept very quiet during the t2 scandal). It did not happen as part of any normal established banning procedure and therefore overturning this ban would not require the creation of any broader system of appeals for other bans.

You say it cannot be "treated as a individual case" but this was exactly what happened to ban him in the first place; his ban was extraordinary (in the literal sense) and his unbanning would be equally so.

sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:46:00 - [137]
 

Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 11/06/2008 19:50:56
Originally by: The MapMaker
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean

I do not care about this or any other individual case although in matter of fact i do know about the case as i was playing at the time.

My point is that it cannot be treated as a individual case and the whole banning/appeal structure must be looked at if that is what ppl wish or it is not a fair system as popularity or lack thereof is not a just reason to ban or unban somebody.


The ********** banning was justified using some catch-all Terms of Service Agreement clause as the result of a dev decision to ban him for the trouble he was causing to CCP (at least one would assume this was the reason; CCP kept very quiet during the t2 scandal). It did not happen as part of any normal established banning procedure and therefore overturning this ban would not require the creation of any broader system of appeals for other bans.

You say it cannot be "treated as a individual case" but this was exactly what happened to ban him in the first place; his ban was extraordinary (in the literal sense) and his unbanning would be equally so.


Every ban can be portrayed as an individual case just like this one is, if a appeal system is to be implemented i will vote for it 100%. However i will not support the use of the CSM for each individual case as doing so will be decided on popularity not on the full facts.

The MapMaker
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:55:00 - [138]
 

If every unjust ban could be examined and overturned I would totally support it, however most of them happen completely out of the limelight in the privacy of email notifications. The Kugu case was completely in the open for all to see and is probably the only ban of its kind that has any reasonable chance of generating enough support to convince CCP to even blink at it.

An appeal system is incredibly unlikely; do a little bit of good instead of overstretching the CSM authority in search of justice or whatever.

CCP admitting a mistake, even in light of them creating the CSM council as a result of Kugu's actions, and actually going through with any unbanning I feel is very unlikely however, and this discussion is probably entirely academic. I hear "hope" is a pretty powerful political message these days though so we'll see.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.06.11 21:00:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: The MapMaker
If every unjust ban could be examined and overturned I would totally support it, however most of them happen completely out of the limelight in the privacy of email notifications. The Kugu case was completely in the open for all to see and is probably the only ban of its kind that has any reasonable chance of generating enough support to convince CCP to even blink at it.

An appeal system is incredibly unlikely; do a little bit of good instead of overstretching the CSM authority in search of justice or whatever.

CCP admitting a mistake, even in light of them creating the CSM council as a result of Kugu's actions, and actually going through with any unbanning I feel is very unlikely however, and this discussion is probably entirely academic. I hear "hope" is a pretty powerful political message these days though so we'll see.


The first part of your post is exactly why one player's case can't be a CSM issue. Every banned player has a sob story or an excuse as to why they shouldn't have been banned (how many of these stories are legitimate is another matter). If you ask the CSM to champion the cause of this single case, you are asking them to give preferential treatment to a single person based on the popularity of his issue. This would move the CSM out of the role of a representative body for the playerbase as a whole and into the realm of giving individual favors to friends, associates, etc., which I think we can agree is a bad idea. Either that, or in order to be fair representatives, the CSM would have to take the time to personally review the case of each and every banned player, which would be a huge waste of time and entirely beyond the scope of what the CSM is supposed to be doing. They are not here to handle individual player complaints, that's what customer service is for.

If the CSM wants to work to get CCP to set up an impartial review process open to all former players, that would be entirely different. Even so, we would have to keep in mind that it is CCP's game, and they have the final say on who plays and who doesn't, regardless of what we may think is fair. If in the end you can't put up with their rules and decisions, then the best thing to do is take your money to someone else's game.

Romale
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.11 21:43:00 - [140]
 

Every player can come up with a sob story true, but they can't come up with a sob story that involves them doing absolutly nothing in game, being punished under a general EULA term for causing them headache that didnt' break any actual rules.

Voculus
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:16:00 - [141]
 


Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:39:00 - [142]
 

Originally by: Romale
Every player can come up with a sob story true, but they can't come up with a sob story that involves them doing absolutly nothing in game, being punished under a general EULA term for causing them headache that didnt' break any actual rules.


They can't? Why not? Do you know the circumstances of every single player ban that has been issued by CCP? I don't think so, and I don't think that the CSM have that knowledge either. My point is that singling out one special case sets a bad precedent and opens Pandora's Box, either requiring the CSM to perform a job which they were never intended nor equipped to perform, or paving the way to corruption by favors to the popular. Opening an issue like this could very well be the start of the downfall of the CSM as a useful and fair institution. Is that really what you want? I'm sorry if a player was treated unfairly, I'm sure he's not the only one, but you have to look at the bigger picture here. The fact is that this is not the way to go about solving the issue. Giving one player an unfair advantage over others simply because of the notoriety of his case does not correct past unfairness, it only creates a new disparity.

Romale
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:01:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: Romale on 12/06/2008 00:11:54
Edited by: Romale on 12/06/2008 00:08:43
if someone was banned for anything out of game, that wasn't illegal, that doesn't involve time codes, yes it should be reviewed, there is no pandora's box there

edit: basicaly what im saying is you dont know its opening pandora's box, id ont know of anyone else ever who has been banned for something out of game that didn't invovle time codes, EVEN IF THERE IS more then him, we dont know that, you should error on the side of protecting the playerbase then error on the side of ccp is right because kugu proved already they arnt' always right
edit2: the whole reason the council was created was to prevent abuse from ccp employee's on the game, to me that should include looking into kugu getting banned because from my point of view thats exactly what it is

Euriti
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.12 10:49:00 - [144]
 

BAEMP

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.12 12:20:00 - [145]
 

Posting in a thread I support.

fuze
Gallente
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.06.12 12:52:00 - [146]
 

I guess the point is that at the time he was being banned CCP was pretty much going emo on his a**. And they basicly banned him for giving them a hard time. A good reason would have been because he posted RL information on the forums but so did Molle at the time. And he didn't get banned for that. (I won't link to the blog where the most of this is explained but it isn't hard to find.)
I'm no fan of the man nor his play style but what CCP did was/is wrong IMHO. And I'd applaud the CSM if they try and sort this out with CCP.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.06.12 15:02:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Romale
Edited by: Romale on 12/06/2008 00:11:54
Edited by: Romale on 12/06/2008 00:08:43
if someone was banned for anything out of game, that wasn't illegal, that doesn't involve time codes, yes it should be reviewed, there is no pandora's box there

edit: basicaly what im saying is you dont know its opening pandora's box, id ont know of anyone else ever who has been banned for something out of game that didn't invovle time codes, EVEN IF THERE IS more then him, we dont know that, you should error on the side of protecting the playerbase then error on the side of ccp is right because kugu proved already they arnt' always right
edit2: the whole reason the council was created was to prevent abuse from ccp employee's on the game, to me that should include looking into kugu getting banned because from my point of view thats exactly what it is


I think you misunderstand the purpose of the council. The council is there to review game-related issues brought up by the players and determine which are worthy of CCP's attention. As has been pointed out by those on both sides of the argument, this is not a game-related issue, everything about it happened outside of the game, and it in no way affects the functioning of the game. This is a customer service issue. If Kugu has a problem with it, he needs to work through the channels of customer service. If people feel strongly enough about it to support him, they should write letters to CCP's customer service department stating that support. This should not be brought to a player council designed for reviewing game-related issues.

It most definetely is "opening Pandora's Box," as you are asking the CSM to consider the case of an individual player and grant preferential treatment based on the popularity of the individual's case. It is opening the door to potential corruption of the CSM through favoring individuals, it is setting a precedent of favoritism to the popular and well-known, and it is involving the CSM in issues beyond the scope of where they should be focusing their time.

As I said before, if the CSM wants to push CCP to develop a review process available to all banned players, that may still be stretching their jurisdiction, but I could find acceptable. The CSM should definetely not start looking at individual cases, it's not their place, and in the end it's not within their power to do anything about it. The CSM exists to suggest ideas to CCP about how to improve their game, not to tell them how to run their business.

nomlasmit
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.12 15:53:00 - [148]
 

I believe that a clearer banning process and implementation should be looked at along with appeals...

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:26:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: nomlasmit
I believe that a clearer banning process and implementation should be looked at along with appeals...


I wouldn't disagree there, but that is not what you are supporting by giving this thread a thumbs up.

Siona Windweaver
Placeholder Holdings
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:42:00 - [150]
 

Supported.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

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