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 : ... 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:39:00 - [721]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: EliteSlave
Jade you are an Idiot seriously, COW lost their name due to the fact they did not pay their bills. and just so happend someone was quick enough to catch it and block it. That is why the name change occurred. But this wasnt a matter of alliance bills not being paid.



The only difference between Cow and BOB was that they had an unpayed Bill, we were deliberatley disbanded. The abilty to get our alliance name back renames the exact same. The reason that COW got their name back was because another corporation had blocked them, the same situation as us. A petition was filed and granted for them.

We petitioned under the exact same reason, we failed to read anywhere in the rulebooks that says "if your alliance is disbanded by another alliance then these precedent does not apply to you".

Since Goonswarm, MM et al seem to be experts on the very definition on alliance changes, could you kindly post all the variations where a name change is appropriate and where it is not?

Oh I can't wait for the replies I will get about "you knew you would lose SOV" by changing it this week thats why you petitioned" and "you talked to your insiders at ccp". Very Happy


The question is: Should CoW have had their name back? I don't think so personally.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:39:00 - [722]
 

Originally by: Resipsa Loquitor
*snip*


I think you just killed this thread.
/me bows

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:39:00 - [723]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 15:43:02
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Quote:

So what you are saying is.... since it occured in the past with other alliances and a precedent had been set, simply because we are Bob we should not even ask?

You are free to ask. However based on the facts that has been put forward by different people, it is my view that it wouldn't be worth the time, as CCP in the perfect world, should say no.

Quote:
Remember, thats all we did was ask what the rule was.


That doesn't really add up with all the other information that's out there.

Quote:
Good lord, I love how we are cheaters for asking.


Now you are just being unreasonable. I never suggested that you are cheaters. I just think that maybe CCP overlooked a few things. Nothing bad on your part, I don't hate bob.



Perhaps they should have said No. I find it humorous at the "spin" that people like to put in place that if you are in Bob you cannot petition anything. Very Happy

We asked for the alliance name to be changed, as is our right. And it is CCPs right to simply say No.

This last comment was not directed at you per se, but at the overall masses. In your previous posts you seem to indicate that this whole thing is a "bob" problem which it clearly is not, it is a CCP problem.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:41:00 - [724]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: EliteSlave
Jade you are an Idiot seriously, COW lost their name due to the fact they did not pay their bills. and just so happend someone was quick enough to catch it and block it. That is why the name change occurred. But this wasnt a matter of alliance bills not being paid.



The only difference between Cow and BOB was that they had an unpayed Bill, we were deliberatley disbanded. The abilty to get our alliance name back renames the exact same. The reason that COW got their name back was because another corporation had blocked them, the same situation as us. A petition was filed and granted for them.

We petitioned under the exact same reason, we failed to read anywhere in the rulebooks that says "if your alliance is disbanded by another alliance then these precedent does not apply to you".

Since Goonswarm, MM et al seem to be experts on the very definition on alliance changes, could you kindly post all the variations where a name change is appropriate and where it is not?

Oh I can't wait for the replies I will get about "you knew you would lose SOV" by changing it this week thats why you petitioned" and "you talked to your insiders at ccp". Very Happy


The question is: Should CoW have had their name back? I don't think so personally.


This is a pretty ridiculous point though isn't it? Who cares if they got their name back or not, they did and that set the precedent.

We cannot hardly be bothered with ignoring all precedents with the concern that someone may disagree with a past decision.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:42:00 - [725]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista

The question is: Should CoW have had their name back? I don't think so personally.


No, the question is, should precedent be followed?
If yes, then Band of Brothers should be made available to us.
If no then the whole threadnaught was based on a false premise.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:43:00 - [726]
 

Edited by: Misanth on 26/03/2009 15:44:08
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: EliteSlave
Jade you are an Idiot seriously, COW lost their name due to the fact they did not pay their bills. and just so happend someone was quick enough to catch it and block it. That is why the name change occurred. But this wasnt a matter of alliance bills not being paid.



The only difference between Cow and BOB was that they had an unpayed Bill, we were deliberatley disbanded. The abilty to get our alliance name back renames the exact same. The reason that COW got their name back was because another corporation had blocked them, the same situation as us. A petition was filed and granted for them.

We petitioned under the exact same reason, we failed to read anywhere in the rulebooks that says "if your alliance is disbanded by another alliance then these precedent does not apply to you".

Since Goonswarm, MM et al seem to be experts on the very definition on alliance changes, could you kindly post all the variations where a name change is appropriate and where it is not?

Oh I can't wait for the replies I will get about "you knew you would lose SOV" by changing it this week thats why you petitioned" and "you talked to your insiders at ccp". Very Happy


The question is: Should CoW have had their name back? I don't think so personally.


Pretty much this.

The mistakes are on CCP in multiple cases here.
1) Handing back CoW their name
2) Renaming KenZoku

Both above cases actually goes against those very rules presented by CCP themselves. It's individual decisions/not a straight principle from CCP that creates a problem. And it was further made worse by;

3) Taking two months to actually kick in an effect of the BoB rename petition. It wouldn't have had this kind of effect if it happened two months ago. People would've wondered what the reasons for renaming it was, but they'd been more sympathetic. Now they just wonder what the hell is going on, since at this point KenZoku have SOV and is clearly functioning as an allince.

In either case I agree with LaVista here; in both cases CCP took decisions against their own guidelines. That makes players confused, from either side of potential conflicts. Poor decisions. Poor communication from CCP.

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: LaVista Vista

The question is: Should CoW have had their name back? I don't think so personally.


No, the question is, should precedent be followed?
If yes, then Band of Brothers should be made available to us.
If no then the whole threadnaught was based on a false premise.


This.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:46:00 - [727]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 26/03/2009 15:47:49
Originally by: EliteSlave

Jade you are an Idiot seriously, COW lost their name due to the fact they did not pay their bills. and just so happend someone was quick enough to catch it and block it. That is why the name change occurred. But this wasnt a matter of alliance bills not being paid.


Beginning with a personal attack doesn't do much for your credibility but I'll do you a favour and show you why you are wrong regardless:

COW lost their name to not paying bills, I seem to recall there was talk about bugs with email notification - such things have been mentioned in the past. It is a bit silly that an alliance can just disband without a big notification anyway. But regardless the alliance was disbanded - why it happened is not relevant. Just like the Band of Brothers alliance - it got disbanded. I'm sure we all agree that its ridiculous its possible to instantly disband an alliance when it takes a CEO 24 hours minimum to kick out a corp spy right? But again its not relevant to this case - it happened, it was done.

So we have COW = alliance disbanded and BOB = alliance disbanded.

(these things are the same.)

In COW's case an enemy took the opportunity to register the name Cult of War to prevent the COW founders from re-establishing their alliance name.

In BOB's case an enemy took the opportunity to register the name Band of Brothers to prevent the BOB founders from re-establishing their alliance name.


(these things are also the same).

In COW's case the founders decided to petition CCP to get their name back.

In BOB's case the founders decided to petition CCP to get their name back.


(these things are still the same.)

But then we get a critical difference:

In COW's case the GM's decided to rename the offending blocking alt corp and allow COW to reform with their chosen alliance name restoring equilibrium and resolving the matter.

In BOB's case the GM's decided to wait 2months and then change a completely different alliance into Band of Brothers Reloaded while allowing the offending blocking alt corp to remain as a "trophy" inside of the Goonswarm alliance directly triggering the scandal and froth of the last few days.

This is the critical difference.

Why was this different? Thats the question that needs to be answered. Why was the offending corp in COW's case renamed and yet the Goonswarm alt corp was not? This is not equal and transparent decision-making it looks like bias and improper resolution.

It doesn't matter a damn how the alliance came to be disbanded - what matters is how alt-blocking corps preventing re-establishment are treated and the GM's need a consistent playbook on the issue to avoid the appearence of bias and partiality.

Quote:
You will realize that you are insignificant to the matters of Eve and should just go quietly into the dark and just STFU as you are nothing to this universe. you did nothing in CSM, you failed at it, you were a running joke of the CSM, you are just plain worthless.


I'm afraid that you'll find I'm far harder to froth and bully into submission than GM Grimmi appears to be Cool

As much as it grates on your nerves to have a person standing up to the goonswarm forum brigade and calmly speaking for the opposite point of view you are going to have to put up with it. On forums, at meets, at fanfest, text or voice or whatever. I will never back down to threats and harrassment and bullying and you are going to learn that however long it takes. I'm entirely confident with my record on the CSM and will stand on that record when the time comes to run for a second term. Question is will you ever feel that kind of confidence?

Until you attain a greater level of maturity than that evidenced by your post I suspect that answer will remain an empathic ... no.


Resipsa Loquitor
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:46:00 - [728]
 

Originally by: Misanth
Originally by: Resipsa Loquitor
*snip*


I think you just killed this thread.
/me bows


Thanks and sorry about that. I know people are having fun sniping at one another here and that my thing will get drowned out, but I had to call it as I see it.

This game needs to stay too fun to quit with tiny crap made into political mountains.

Doctor Penguin
Amarr
Sacred Templars
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:52:00 - [729]
 

Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 26/03/2009 15:53:03
After a very quick survey of the first 25 posts of the Assembly Hall topic, I have a few facts to release:

1) The vast majority of legit characters that posted thumbs up were from GoonSwarm, Morsus Mihi and Pandemic Legion.
2) I would estimate that 40% of all thumbs up were alt posts. I decided to use "not showing alliance or corp on name" as an alt post. It's rough, but it should hopefully counterbalance alts that were in GS.

At a guess, out of all those 25 pages I looked at (which would consist of more actual characters than alts, because the actual characters had not given their support yet) I would estimate that less than 10% of all posts were actually players that were not members of a coalition of players that have an alterior motive (IE: Demoralisation) to see KZ lose their new name.

Colonel Xaven
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:53:00 - [730]
 

Edited by: Colonel Xaven on 26/03/2009 15:57:15
Originally by: XoPhyte
Since Goonswarm, MM et al seem to be experts on the very definition on alliance changes, could you kindly post all the variations where a name change is appropriate and where it is not?


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

Originally by: Doctor Penguin
[...] I have a few facts to release:
1) [...]
2) I would estimate [...]


Your facts are estimated and thus no facts. Confused

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:54:00 - [731]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista

Well. I'm curious what kind of response you expect of them. They don't usually discuss this kind of thing.


I'd like an answer to my question basically. If they have decided to treat the COW case differently to the BOB case I'd like to know why? I'd like to hear the justification in detail. This is not a normal petition debate - its something that has very serious ramifications to the alliance game all round.

On a positive note I hope it will lead to a workover the alliance system and removal of these loopholes. Active alliances should not be disbanded because the officers miss a single bill payment - Active alliances should not be disbanded because a rogue director instantly kicks out all corps and clicks self-destruct. These loopholes need patching up.

But while their doing that they need to ensure that they are being even-handed on past issues - its just not reasonable that COW got its name back and BOB didn't. I don't care who the participants are - but you can't have such an obviously partial decision affecting thousands of players standing out like a sore thumb in this way.

Quote:
CCP has requested a timeslot at our upcoming meeting on April 5th to discuss naming policies. If people think it's a desirable thing that CCP addresses the case in it's entirety, then I think it's fair that we ask them to do so.


I'd like them to do so and I'd like you to specifically ask the question I posed to GM Grimmi on this thread.

Thanks in advance.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:55:00 - [732]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 16:08:35
Originally by: Colonel Xaven
Originally by: XoPhyte
Since Goonswarm, MM et al seem to be experts on the very definition on alliance changes, could you kindly post all the variations where a name change is appropriate and where it is not?


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


Hmm, sadly there is no "alliance name change" policy in there. Do you read what you link first? Just asking...

Oh, don't bother answering that question, it's a rhetorical one. ugh

What is in there is this...

The following guidelines will apply in the event that approval is given for a name change under the scope of this policy:
The new name must be unique and may not violate any of the rules set forth in this policy. In some cases GM’s might choose a new name for the character if they are unable to contact the player. In that event, the player may petition and request to select a new name.

  • Only one character per account may have a name changed in accordance with this policy. In the event that multiple character on the same account are found with inappropriate names, the remaining characters and their assets will be deleted.


  • Age of the account or character is insignificant. Players who have knowingly and willingly given their characters inappropriate names and successfully avoided detection of this infraction against the rules will not be rewarded for their improprieties by escaping reprimand.


  • Player-run corporations, factions, organizations and player-owned items within the EVE Online game world are also subject to these rules and policies. Players may not create, promote or be a member of a group that violates the policies outlined herein. Membership or participation in such a group may result in character deletion, temporary suspension or termination of a subscriber’s account.



With these very detailed rules it would appear that our new name does not violate any defined policies... Interesting.

Boknamar
Gallente
Quality Control.
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:58:00 - [733]
 

Edited by: Boknamar on 26/03/2009 16:00:26
Originally by: Doctor Penguin
Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 26/03/2009 15:53:03
After a very quick survey of the first 25 posts of the Assembly Hall topic, I have a few facts to release:

1) The vast majority of legit characters that posted thumbs up were from GoonSwarm, Morsus Mihi and Pandemic Legion.
2) I would estimate that 40% of all thumbs up were alt posts. I decided to use "not showing alliance or corp on name" as an alt post. It's rough, but it should hopefully counterbalance alts that were in GS.

At a guess, out of all those 25 pages I looked at (which would consist of more actual characters than alts, because the actual characters had not given their support yet) I would estimate that less than 10% of all posts were actually players that were not members of a coalition of players that have an alterior motive (IE: Demoralisation) to see KZ lose their new name.


Your survey was not even close to scientific. First of all, to effectively gather data on a large population, random sampling is absolutely necessary. This is very basic statistics. Second, your extrapolations from your small, biased sample are based largely on guessing.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but wrapping it in faux science is just disingenuous.

Colonel Xaven
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:05:00 - [734]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
Hmm, sadly there is no "alliance name change" policy in there. Do you read what you link first? Just asking...

Oh, don't bother answering that question, it's a rhetorical one. ugh


Confused You are terrible at reading. So for you:

Quote:
Only character names that are deemed as inappropriate are eligible for a possible name change. Names will not be changed for any other reason.


and

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

Iva Soreass
Friar's Club
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:05:00 - [735]
 

Originally by: slothe
Its a shame to see CCP have changed from a company that once laughed at forum spammers into one who gives in to every whim and whine from the GS and NC alliances. I can see this game is slowly going the same way Star Wars did...

I know there are many who agree with me on the fact that Goonswarm are ruining many parts of this game filling the CAOD forums full of trash, the local spam and their persistent griefing over names etc. By blatantly supporting them you are going to ruin the game and lose your customers. You only have to look at other games the swarm have been in and the damge they did whilst there.

CCP you just showed massive favouritism to Goonswarm by going back on your name change decision, its truly amazing how all they have to do is whine and you jump to their aid, very dissapointed in your recent management decisions.








Quote:
ccp have been drinking the goon kool aid since the anti ccp pr campaign they went on over the t20 thing

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:13:00 - [736]
 

Originally by: Colonel Xaven
Originally by: XoPhyte
Hmm, sadly there is no "alliance name change" policy in there. Do you read what you link first? Just asking...

Oh, don't bother answering that question, it's a rhetorical one. ugh


Confused You are terrible at reading. So for you:

Quote:
Only character names that are deemed as inappropriate are eligible for a possible name change. Names will not be changed for any other reason.


and

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



But if those are so clearly the rules then why has it occured in the past in very similar circumstances to ours?

And you are missing the overall point. I am not really arguing that CCP should have said YES or NO.

I am arguing that..


  1. People are viewing this as a Bob problem

  2. It took 2 months for CCP to come to a decision to only then reverse it 48 hours after another "threadnaught"

  3. We now have a clear discrepency in how a previous situation was handled differently then this one in several instances


Garathyal
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:16:00 - [737]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

So we have COW = alliance disbanded and BOB = alliance disbanded.

(these things are the same.)

In COW's case an enemy took the opportunity to register the name Cult of War to prevent the COW founders from re-establishing their alliance name.

In BOB's case an enemy took the opportunity to register the name Band of Brothers to prevent the BOB founders from re-establishing their alliance name.


(these things are also the same).

In COW's case the founders decided to petition CCP to get their name back.

In BOB's case the founders decided to petition CCP to get their name back.


(these things are still the same.)

But then we get a critical difference:

In COW's case the GM's decided to rename the offending blocking alt corp and allow COW to reform with their chosen alliance name restoring equilibrium and resolving the matter.

In BOB's case the GM's decided to wait 2months and then change a completely different alliance into Band of Brothers Reloaded while allowing the offending blocking alt corp to remain as a "trophy" inside of the Goonswarm alliance directly triggering the scandal and froth of the last few days.

This is the critical difference.

Why was this different? Thats the question that needs to be answered. Why was the offending corp in COW's case renamed and yet the Goonswarm alt corp was not? This is not equal and transparent decision-making it looks like bias and improper resolution.




This needs to be restated again and again in the thread because it demands some sort of explanation. All the so called people crying about how justice has been done will at this point vanish. Nice work Jade - you just justified my vote for you.

Tharrn
Amarr
Epitoth Fleet Yards
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:16:00 - [738]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Too long to quote

This is the critical difference.

Why was this different? Thats the question that needs to be answered. Why was the offending corp in COW's case renamed and yet the Goonswarm alt corp was not? This is not equal and transparent decision-making it looks like bias and improper resolution.




They can have their name back for all I care: rename the corp Band of Brothers and free the slot for them. They can then have their name back with all ramifications.

Colonel Xaven
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:23:00 - [739]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
But if those are so clearly the rules then why has it occured in the past in very similar circumstances to ours?


I have no idea and this should be investigated ofc. As I have stated before, it does not matter that it is Bob, it could have been any other alliance. It is a matter of principle that a given rule should apply to everyone in the same way. There should be no more equal than equal. Ofc the name change of bob / kenzoku has a bad flavor in order to things that happened in the past, which is secondary imho (but explains the mass of complains).

Thol's Ego
Tin Foil
KenZoku
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:31:00 - [740]
 

Edited by: Thol''s Ego on 26/03/2009 16:34:23
Originally by: Colonel Xaven
I have no idea and this should be investigated ofc. As I have stated before, it does not matter that it is Bob, it could have been any other alliance.


Seriously, people are not this dumb. The only reason for the threadnaught is was becus it involves BoB. Trying to kid yourself and us into believing anything else just comes off as hilarious.

It's about the grief Wink

At least when we did it we were straightforward with the reason behind it.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:32:00 - [741]
 

Originally by: Colonel Xaven
Originally by: XoPhyte
But if those are so clearly the rules then why has it occured in the past in very similar circumstances to ours?


I have no idea and this should be investigated ofc. As I have stated before, it does not matter that it is Bob, it could have been any other alliance. It is a matter of principle that a given rule should apply to everyone in the same way. There should be no more equal than equal. Ofc the name change of bob / kenzoku has a bad flavor in order to things that happened in the past, which is secondary imho (but explains the mass of complains).


Agreed. The things that should be looked at imho...


  1. What did CCP "investigate" for 2 months and why did it take so long?

  2. Why did they decided to change to to Band of Brothers Reloaded away from Kenzoku?

  3. Why after 2 months of "investigation" did they then completely reverse their decision after 2 days of complaints? (and they cannot use the "we just found out the Kenzoku alliance was created several months before the disband occured". Thats just a coverup

  4. What in their view sets the COW name change different then the BOB name change?

  5. Why did they not allow a corp to hold the COW name hostage yet they allow Goons to hold the BOB name hostage?




Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:34:00 - [742]
 

Originally by: Tharrn
Originally by: Jade Constantine

Too long to quote

This is the critical difference.

Why was this different? Thats the question that needs to be answered. Why was the offending corp in COW's case renamed and yet the Goonswarm alt corp was not? This is not equal and transparent decision-making it looks like bias and improper resolution.




They can have their name back for all I care: rename the corp Band of Brothers and free the slot for them. They can then have their name back with all ramifications.



Heh, its a rare thing for you and I to agree on anything Tharrn. This alone should count for something.

EliteSlave
Minmatar
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:39:00 - [743]
 

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


Now I qouted and bolded key parts of the policy.

BOB > Disbanded > then joined Kenny

Not

BOB > Disbanded > Form BOBR ( Fight to be renamed to BOB)

BoB didnt make BOBR after being disbanded... thus you lost out on a key arguement there, and had you done it immediately you would have suffered no differences between joining kenny or bobr. but your leadership chose to join kenny, which was an already established alliance in the attempt to get it renamed why?

The big deal on this matter is they went the wrong way about it, they tried to say "we are better then you because we have MSN and you dont" when Eve said... No, CCP listened.

Just as a tie-in to Jades question...

Had i not had to work 12-14 hours a day and deal with kids, then yes I would run for CSM, but I feel as tho if I cannot devote myself to the CSM with some decent amount of time I would end up doing harm to my constituency by not devoting myself to them and their thoughts. thus I do not try to become CSM.

Thol's Ego
Tin Foil
KenZoku
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:43:00 - [744]
 

Edited by: Thol''s Ego on 26/03/2009 16:43:43
Originally by: EliteSlave
The big deal on this matter is they went the wrong way about it, they tried to say "we are better then you because we have MSN and you dont" when Eve said... No, CCP listened.


you do realise all we did was put in 1 petition right? 2 months ago. No phonecalls, no msn no nothing. We only got a response 2 days ago.

You must work at KFC for 12 hours if you can't make a poast without actually checking some of your facts.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:44:00 - [745]
 

Originally by: EliteSlave
Now I qouted and bolded key parts of the policy.
BOB > Disbanded > then joined Kenny
Not
BOB > Disbanded > Form BOBR ( Fight to be renamed to BOB)
BoB didnt make BOBR after being disbanded... thus you lost out on a key arguement there, and had you done it immediately you would have suffered no differences between joining kenny or bobr. but your leadership chose to join kenny, which was an already established alliance in the attempt to get it renamed why?


I guess you don't really expect half a dozen corps to explain why they joined an interim alliance for unified chat and standings rather than waiting 2 months outside an alliance for the petition to be answered right?







Orree
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:45:00 - [746]
 

Originally by: Garathyal
Originally by: Orree
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
dear god, sad to see goons can pressure ccp into everything they want like this.
clearly showes that if you spam enough on the forums you get your will



Nevermind what was done was wrong and reversing it was the correct thing to do, right?

C'mon, man...think about it.

I have no doubt that some of the people who had a problem with it did or said what they did out of spite, but there were a good number of people who were appalled at the action as being on contravention of the rules related to name changes (mainly that they simply rarely, if ever, allow them). The action that was taken circumvented game mechanics.

If Kenny wanted a new alliance name, all they had to do was pay the billion, form the alliance and have their corps join it...just like everyone else.

The number of Goon postings on the subject really has no bearing on the matter at hand other than perhaps being annoying.




You seem rational and honest but yet you and your alliance are propping Goons up in game and here. How can anyone trust your integrity or anything you have to say?

The bob people are being honest - at the time what else would you do? Don't buy goon propaganda and build the new Bob - MM have a better name that that.

Seriously mate - MM seemed a decent force in game and have a name - playing with a bunch of griefing whiners who like to spin things is pulling you down.

Honestly take a serious look at yourselves. You are embroiled in the middle of it all and Goons are laughing at you all.


So guilt by asssociation, eh? I have fought on the same side as the Goons in the past, so therefore my judgement with regard to the subject is not valid? While I agree that I represent my alliance, I am not speaking for my alliance here. I am speaking as a player like any other player.

Put simply, you have no idea how I feel about Goons or their act. Just because the alliance I am in finds it politically expedient to ally with the Goons to fight an enemy, it doesn't mean necessarily that I like the Goons. It just means I/we dislike TAFKAB more.

Your comments seem to pertain more to whether or not you feel Morsus Mihi should be associated with the Goons than whether or not anything I have said here is wrong. It's an interesting discussion--- one that should be had in another thread.

I have never had a problem seperating my in-game politics from my ability to be objective. If I felt TAFKAB were in the right in this situation, I would have happily argued in favor of CCP's initial decision being upheld. I have no problem with them getting a name change as long as it is done according to the policies, precedents and game mechanics available to all.


Since you asked, what I would have done at the time, I'll tell you. I would have formed a new alliance with a new holding corp or I would have done what they did and live with the KenZoku name until such time as I was able to form a new alliance via the game mechanics available. The only petition I would have filed in any of this is to make sure that the disbanding of the BoB alliance was done fair and square and not through illegal means.

I would not have taken an alliance that already existed, hastily jumped in and then petitioned CCP thinking they'd make the change. I have never said these guys "cheated" in doing anything related to this name change. I have simply stated that CCP erred in allowing the change. The recent reversal of that decision bears that out.

What happened to them sucks, but what happened to them was their own fault and it happened through legal game mechanics. Put simply, you reap what you sow.

Goons and friends being in favor of the reversal decision does not make the decision wrong just as Kenny players and friends being in favor of it didn't make it right.


XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:46:00 - [747]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/03/2009 16:49:28
Originally by: EliteSlave
[qoute]Player-run corporations, factions, organizations and player-owned items within the EVE Online game world are also subject to these rules and policies.[/qoute]


Now I qouted and bolded key parts of the policy.

BOB > Disbanded > then joined Kenny

Not

BOB > Disbanded > Form BOBR ( Fight to be renamed to BOB)

BoB didnt make BOBR after being disbanded... thus you lost out on a key arguement there, and had you done it immediately you would have suffered no differences between joining kenny or bobr. but your leadership chose to join kenny, which was an already established alliance in the attempt to get it renamed why?

The big deal on this matter is they went the wrong way about it, they tried to say "we are better then you because we have MSN and you dont" when Eve said... No, CCP listened.

Just as a tie-in to Jades question...

Had i not had to work 12-14 hours a day and deal with kids, then yes I would run for CSM, but I feel as tho if I cannot devote myself to the CSM with some decent amount of time I would end up doing harm to my constituency by not devoting myself to them and their thoughts. thus I do not try to become CSM.


It's very difficult to follow your... well... ramblings tbh.

Here's some facts since you are obviously a bit mis-informed.


  1. Goons wardeced the Bob corps so they could not create and join a new alliance.


  2. Goons were allowed to hold the the existing Bob name hostage which had been disallowed in the past to anyone else.


  3. The COW name had been changed in a similar situation


  4. The Bob being disbanded had never occured before in the game, so given the above there was questions whether or not it was within the rules or not, whether goons would be able to retain the BOB name as a hostage, or whether under these extraordinary circumstances we could get our name changed


  5. It took CCP 2 months to get us any type of an answer






Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:49:00 - [748]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: EliteSlave
Now I qouted and bolded key parts of the policy.
BOB > Disbanded > then joined Kenny
Not
BOB > Disbanded > Form BOBR ( Fight to be renamed to BOB)
BoB didnt make BOBR after being disbanded... thus you lost out on a key arguement there, and had you done it immediately you would have suffered no differences between joining kenny or bobr. but your leadership chose to join kenny, which was an already established alliance in the attempt to get it renamed why?


I guess you don't really expect half a dozen corps to explain why they joined an interim alliance for unified chat and standings rather than waiting 2 months outside an alliance for the petition to be answered right?




I think his (and also CCP's) point is that they could have created a new alliance and then petitioned to get the name changed.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:51:00 - [749]
 

Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: EliteSlave
Now I qouted and bolded key parts of the policy.
BOB > Disbanded > then joined Kenny
Not
BOB > Disbanded > Form BOBR ( Fight to be renamed to BOB)
BoB didnt make BOBR after being disbanded... thus you lost out on a key arguement there, and had you done it immediately you would have suffered no differences between joining kenny or bobr. but your leadership chose to join kenny, which was an already established alliance in the attempt to get it renamed why?


I guess you don't really expect half a dozen corps to explain why they joined an interim alliance for unified chat and standings rather than waiting 2 months outside an alliance for the petition to be answered right?




I think his (and also CCP's) point is that they could have created a new alliance and then petitioned to get the name changed.


Goons wardeced the Bob corps so they could not create and join a new alliance.

Goons were allowed to hold the the existing Bob name hostage which had been disallowed in the past to anyone else.

Doctor Penguin
Amarr
Sacred Templars
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:55:00 - [750]
 

Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 26/03/2009 16:56:17
Originally by: Boknamar
Your survey was not even close to scientific. First of all, to effectively gather data on a large population, random sampling is absolutely necessary. This is very basic statistics. Second, your extrapolations from your small, biased sample are based largely on guessing.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but wrapping it in faux science is just disingenuous.


Not a survey - I literally sat at the computer pulling a table up of characters who are confirmed to be in an alliance vs those in noob corps and no corp/alliance displayed. That's data gathering.

I then sat down and looked at the figures. Most of the characters I put down in the "legit" column were from Goonswarm, Morsus Mihi and Pandemic Legion. Around 40% of all those characters that posted thumbs up were "possible alts".

If somebody is willing to go through all 70 pages and total up the figures accurately, he would be a god-man and would have lots of love thrown at him by me. But I suspect that a substantial amount of that thread up to page 25 - at my most conservative estimate 25% - was fake posting from alts. On top of that, I cannot give accurate guess, but I can say that my suspicion is that the tears shed were overwhelmingly from automatically anti-KZ forum posters.


Pages: first : previous : ... 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 ... : 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