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


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

Author Topic

Jack Kardaver
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:29:00 - [901]
 

My words will drown, so I will limit them as much as possible in hope to interest the random hopper.

Everything was said, every argument pressed and every viewpoint stretched into Dalish' perspectives. What remains is some interesting lesson:

This was about nothing (just a name change, by petition, if you will) and about everything (what rules apply to whom?).

CCP: What I personally would advise you to do: Rework your TOS and employer's guidelines. Make them clear, reasonable, public and enforce them!

First Post, btw :/

Boknamar
Gallente
Quality Control.
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:30:00 - [902]
 

Originally by: Doctor Penguin
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.


Ah, so you examined the first 25 pages, not just the first 25 posts. This was unclear in your post. Still a bit biased, but not all that bad. I maintain my second criticism.

Most Deviant
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:32:00 - [903]
 

If I could only tap into the EMO rage on these forums I would never have to pay an electrical bill again, anyhow.... On one hand Props to CCP for listening to both sides of the story (At least trying their best), still kinda sucks they took the name back... But hey, tough lesson learned I guess. Best of luck to both sides with the pew pew in Delve.

CoolBro
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:38:00 - [904]
 

*gets the popcorn*
*enjoys the drama*

don't stop people

nuance rasam
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:46:00 - [905]
 

so it turns out it was the goons that really cheated and people are suprised Shocked

Tractormech
Caldari
Stones Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:55:00 - [906]
 

Edited by: Tractormech on 27/03/2009 00:03:59
If it had been any other alliance, a low level GM would have ignored/denied it immediately. But as usual CCP wanted their alts to have BOB as their ally ticker.

You think they would have learned the first 20 times with the favouritism approach.

How this could have even been considered in the slightest, much less inacted and reversed is beyond me.

Garathyal
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:58:00 - [907]
 

Originally by: Hubris
Originally by: Sinsalura
You're a ****ing joke CCP


you so don't get bat phone privileges anymore.




Apparently you do along with your friends.

Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
Posted - 2009.03.27 00:06:00 - [908]
 

If they pettitioned for their name back, then they should get it. Now if they get to keep sov with the existing KenZoku POS, that is a different story altogether.

I mean, its going to be rather confusing since "Band of Brothers" and "Band of Brothers Reloaded" are now part of goonswarm. If Kenzoku Call themselves "Band of Brothers....", are goons going to file a harrasment pettition stating theft of their name?

Its all gone a bit silly tbh. The sov issue is a seperate one altogether though, and I would say to f' with the sov and focus on pettition due to simaler name.

Mr Leeson
Posted - 2009.03.27 00:09:00 - [909]
 

Originally by: slothe
There should be no more debate over the kenzoku or reloaded name. The original name should be returned without question or debate.

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

Sort it out CCP



o/

laura raumal
Posted - 2009.03.27 00:17:00 - [910]
 

Originally by: Tractormech
Edited by: Tractormech on 27/03/2009 00:03:59
If it had been any other alliance, a low level GM would have ignored/denied it immediately. But as usual CCP wanted their alts to have BOB as their ally ticker.

You think they would have learned the first 20 times with the favouritism approach.

How this could have even been considered in the slightest, much less inacted and reversed is beyond me.


Have you even read this thread? How i'll informed you actually are.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2009.03.27 00:42:00 - [911]
 

First, I'll say that I don't really care about bob vs goons, and I don't think that particular situation is ever going to be sorted to the satisfaction of everybody.

At this point I think it's more important for clear and transparent principles to be established for the future, to ensure that the correct decision can be reached first time, and everyone is clear what to expect should something similar happen to them. I would prefer the CSM to focus on these principles, rather than getting mired in the politics of this individual case.

For me the key point to come out of the current drama is:

At what point is an entity considered to have given up it's rights to a name?

There seems to be conflicting historical precedent in this area, so there needs to be clarity of principle. And while precedent should be considered, it should not be a barrier for establishing a completely new rule going forward, if that rule will be more effective.

Personally I would suggest something along the lines of a 7-day cooloff. So if the entity with that name is closed, they retain a right to re-use that name for 7 days before it becomes available for public use again. e.g. deleted character name can only be re-created by the same account, corp name by the same CEO etc, with no cross-type naming allowed within this time window.

This also gives a reasonable window for the owner to petition if they believe foul play was involved in the losing of the name, as the name is not yet allocated to anyone else (either deliberately or accidentally), thus making resolution and any restoration that may be required a much simpler matter. Any outstanding petition regarding the name would cause the 7-day clock to be reset until the petition is resolved. It would also need to be pre-defined what scope there would be to petition for the rights to the name to be transferred to someone else (e.g. in the situation where bugs or grief-play prevented the default owner from exercising the right of re-creation).

Of course, it could also be "as soon as the entity is disbanded", but that causes the current problems we get when there is uncertainty over the legitimacy of an action, as someone else may already be up and running with the name before the issue can be resolved.

There are clearly many other points that might also benefit from clarification, especially around response times to petitions, how to keep playing while the petition is being considered, and appropriate security facilities on all levels of organizational entities.

While I appreciate that you can never legislate for every possible event that may arise, I feel these are general principles that it would be beneficial to have established and publicly known.

northwesten
Amarr
Trinity Corporate Services
Terran United Federation
Posted - 2009.03.27 01:43:00 - [912]
 

WTF we still going on about this crap Shocked freaking hell guys Neutral

Poopsock Alarmclock
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2009.03.27 01:45:00 - [913]
 

Originally by: Jack Kardaver
What remains is some interesting lesson:

This was about nothing (just a name change, by petition, if you will) and about everything (what rules apply to whom?).



goons invented e/n you know

Joe Darkie
Minmatar
Darkies Mob
Posted - 2009.03.27 01:57:00 - [914]
 

Would BoB have done the same to GS given the chance...categorically YES.
Should name stealing be allowed to happen as part of game mechanics...categorically NO.

After BoB petitioned CCP about the alliance name theft,
the alliance name should have been returned immediately.

lol at CCP

Michuh
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.27 01:59:00 - [915]
 

Laughing hi5 GM's

Momoha
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.03.27 02:44:00 - [916]
 

Edited by: Momoha on 27/03/2009 02:43:43
Originally by: northwesten
WTF we still going on about this crap Shocked freaking hell guys Neutral


Obviously this is important, durr.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2009.03.27 04:34:00 - [917]
 

Originally by: laura raumal
Originally by: Tractormech
Edited by: Tractormech on 27/03/2009 00:03:59
If it had been any other alliance, a low level GM would have ignored/denied it immediately. But as usual CCP wanted their alts to have BOB as their ally ticker.

You think they would have learned the first 20 times with the favouritism approach.

How this could have even been considered in the slightest, much less inacted and reversed is beyond me.


Have you even read this thread? How i'll informed you actually are.


Considering Tractormech is a known corp thief I'm not sure how much faith you can put in anything he says.

Pudgy McFudge
Posted - 2009.03.27 04:44:00 - [918]
 

No not posting. Posting wins erry time.

Darathor Omegie
Posted - 2009.03.27 05:16:00 - [919]
 

Some games I played dev's would do an embarrising name change.

Just rename them to "flower power" corp or to "The pink brigade" or something to something slightly embarrising with an Eve twist or something= problem solved.

And as per alliance name changes.. just make the alliance pay 100 Euro's or 150 USD for the name change= Eve dev's win and players wont beg to change there name as quick.. Or even make it 500 Euro's... and add a 10 billion or so ISK to the charge as an ingame penalty.
That would more then make up for community issue's and territory issue's..

But an eye for an eye would leave the world blind. The arguement that "well they would do it to gs if they had a chance" is not a real arguement as it is an unethical arguement.

Garathyal
Posted - 2009.03.27 06:23:00 - [920]
 

Originally by: YuuLike FryLice

You mean the history of clandestine support for BoB, for which retractions and apologies happened only after massive ****-storms of negative public sentiment? Goonswarm throws tantrums because tantrums are the only thing that effectively alerts the general Eve community to CCP's malarkey.


From the horses mouth.

Nazowa
The Scope
Posted - 2009.03.27 08:47:00 - [921]
 

A good and in my personal opinion correct move by CCP. Sends a loud and clear message to the people who still cannot get over the fact that the days of the "BatPhone" is over...

Nevenda'ar
Posted - 2009.03.27 09:59:00 - [922]
 

This is why I no longer participate in major 0.0 conflicts- it's like a freaking kindergarten.

The worst thing is, I don't know who to say 'Grow Up' to - CCP or goon/bob clowns.

Deadly Doer
Posted - 2009.03.27 10:12:00 - [923]
 

Edited by: Deadly Doer on 27/03/2009 10:17:08
This isn't the biggest deal of eve nor the worse PR problem CCP has ever faced, they let everyone from isk buyers to exploiters and even the people who had been known to be banned from other MMO games such as the goonswarm. The fact they let all these people in while taking the most laid back approach to dealing with them seems obvious.

Why hasn't CCP pulled in countermeasures to stop macro mining like a mandatory 4 hour logoff? with a UI that can reset the timer? I've noticed many AFK person get ganked because their client hadn't noticed them being AFK for 2 hours at a gate. Can't they at least kick you from eve if you are idle for 40+ mins?

50% of eve are either *******s or scammers and they wonder why they can't get over 200,000 people? i make this bold statement with very low expectations that CCP will handle my any differently than the other 9,000 people they leave alone scamming in jita a week.

If it requires this many people to make a change why isn't there a constant line around a planet of 500+ protesters? hell i'll even lead a protest to make all high sec spaces conquerable so we can move those constant lines that stop us getting to them.

NOTE:
i edited the post as a redeemer just to say CCP didn't actually do a bad job at making the game, it's just their management of it that makes it suck, stop expanding the game and try fixing it for a while so we as players have a better experiance overall.

Megane
Rage of Angels
Posted - 2009.03.27 10:14:00 - [924]
 

Originally by: slothe
There should be no more debate over the kenzoku or reloaded name. The original name should be returned without question or debate.

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

Sort it out CCP


A BoB director disbanded the alliance using valid ingame mechanics, so by default the name "Band of Brothers" is therefore free to be used by anyone. So if ccp were to give the original name back, that would obviously be a breach of the rules again!!

Bullitnutz
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.03.27 10:16:00 - [925]
 

Edited by: Bullitnutz on 27/03/2009 10:51:00
Originally by: Thol's Ego
So when we couldn't remake bob, and couldn't realisticly determine when to expect an answer on our petition from ccp. We did the most logical thing.


And then refused to accept the consequences of doing so.

No, that's exactly what you did. You slapped everyone into Kenzoku and then petitioned for a name change. There's probably an 8.5x11 inch piece of paper tacked to a bulletin board at CCP HQ saying "CHECK ALLIANCE AGE BEFORE GRANTING RENAMES!!!" because of you guys. Whoever granted the change for you (and it probably took so long because there were many levels at which the whole chain of events could have been voided, had there been a breach of rules/eula/conduct) apparently overlooked that piece of info, and so we filed a petition asking if that change was within the rules. Oh, and we posted a lot. But the petition was filed. They revisited it and noticed the Kenzoku born-on date on the second go-around. At that point there weren't any other matters in the petition needing to be checked up on because it was only about the name change and not about disbanding/account sharing/squatting/sovereignty timers/etc. Not that you brought any of that up in your petition, but there probably was a fair effort (and probably a fair amount of petitions queued regarding your disbanding) to make sure everything else was kosher before fiddling with your name. Hence, 6 weeks. Since the legitimacy of the disbanding and squatting were already decided, the name change was the only thing on the table, hence 48 hours.

There used to be an argument about how long you had played this game and you had developed a relationship with CCP and it implied that you were somehow deserving of special treatment because, well, they were friends.

So, are you all still friends? Or did CCP realize they were running a company and not a treehouse?

Edit: Now I'm seeing a space bushido versus pragmatism argument going on in this thread. Well, if they were allowed to just roll back up into BoB, then all that effort put into spying and flipping various individuals would have zilch payoff. Fortunately for pragmatists, EVE is not world of warcraft. You die, you're dead. You slip up, you eat the concrete, and if you lose teeth from getting curbstomped by your own insolvencies, well, you have a silly mouth now. This game is all about making you think before you act in 0.0. It forces you to think about your choices and live with the consequences. Sure, you can get 24h TZ coverage with a titan, but you'd better treat those pilots nicely because one could fly off with it to the enemy. Sure, you can keep some sovereignty after getting your alliance disbanded, but you don't get to pick a new name for a months-old alliance just because this is the first time you've made use of it. Perhaps if you'd petitioned straight away regarding the squatting and didn't bolt into KZ as fast as you could, things may have been different. Unfortunately for you, you joined an alliance (legitimately) after disbanding (legitimately) and we then took BoB's name so you couldn't wave it around. (okay, that part was done underhandedly but all within the game mechanics - damn, it felt good)

Essentially, beggars can't be choosers. No choosing your alliance name after hopping into one that's been laying around for months. If you wanted to get BoB back, you should have waited for a petition because everything in this game can be rolled back. You wanted your sov, you have your sov. What you failed to see was that it was a choice between picking your name and keeping what sovereignty you had left. You went with trying to maintain your tenuous hold on power and now you're stuck with Kenzoku.

Doctor Penguin
Amarr
Sacred Templars
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.27 11:03:00 - [926]
 

Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 27/03/2009 11:06:14
Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 27/03/2009 11:04:57
Quote:
We appreciate the feedback from everyone. After reviewing all of these very valid concerns...


Sounds more like a reaction to spam than a petition, in all honesty.

If precident matters - GS's BOB and BOBR corps should be disbanded.
If precident does not matter - KZ should have been allowed to rename to BOBR.

If you're saying that there is some other reason to do with fairness involved, well, your The Mittani referred to that sort of thing as Space Bushido, correct?

Thol's Ego
Tin Foil
KenZoku
Posted - 2009.03.27 11:04:00 - [927]
 

Originally by: Bullitnutz
Edited by: Bullitnutz on 27/03/2009 10:51:00
Originally by: Thol's Ego
So when we couldn't remake bob, and couldn't realisticly determine when to expect an answer on our petition from ccp. We did the most logical thing.


And then refused to accept the consequences of doing so.

No, that's exactly what you did. You slapped everyone into Kenzoku and then petitioned for a name change. There's probably an 8.5x11 inch piece of paper tacked to a bulletin board at CCP HQ saying "CHECK ALLIANCE AGE BEFORE GRANTING RENAMES!!!" because of you guys. Whoever granted the change for you (and it probably took so long because there were many levels at which the whole chain of events could have been voided, had there been a breach of rules/eula/conduct) apparently overlooked that piece of info, and so we filed a petition asking if that change was within the rules. Oh, and we posted a lot. But the petition was filed. They revisited it and noticed the Kenzoku born-on date on the second go-around. At that point there weren't any other matters in the petition needing to be checked up on because it was only about the name change and not about disbanding/account sharing/squatting/sovereignty timers/etc. Not that you brought any of that up in your petition, but there probably was a fair effort (and probably a fair amount of petitions queued regarding your disbanding) to make sure everything else was kosher before fiddling with your name. Hence, 6 weeks. Since the legitimacy of the disbanding and squatting were already decided, the name change was the only thing on the table, hence 48 hours.

There used to be an argument about how long you had played this game and you had developed a relationship with CCP and it implied that you were somehow deserving of special treatment because, well, they were friends.

So, are you all still friends? Or did CCP realize they were running a company and not a treehouse?

Edit: Now I'm seeing a space bushido versus pragmatism argument going on in this thread. Well, if they were allowed to just roll back up into BoB, then all that effort put into spying and flipping various individuals would have zilch payoff. Fortunately for pragmatists, EVE is not world of warcraft. You die, you're dead. You slip up, you eat the concrete, and if you lose teeth from getting curbstomped by your own insolvencies, well, you have a silly mouth now. This game is all about making you think before you act in 0.0. It forces you to think about your choices and live with the consequences. Sure, you can get 24h TZ coverage with a titan, but you'd better treat those pilots nicely because one could fly off with it to the enemy. Sure, you can keep some sovereignty after getting your alliance disbanded, but you don't get to pick a new name for a months-old alliance just because this is the first time you've made use of it. Perhaps if you'd petitioned straight away regarding the squatting and didn't bolt into KZ as fast as you could, things may have been different. Unfortunately for you, you joined an alliance (legitimately) after disbanding (legitimately) and we then took BoB's name so you couldn't wave it around. (okay, that part was done underhandedly but all within the game mechanics - damn, it felt good)

Essentially, beggars can't be choosers. No choosing your alliance name after hopping into one that's been laying around for months. If you wanted to get BoB back, you should have waited for a petition because everything in this game can be rolled back. You wanted your sov, you have your sov. What you failed to see was that it was a choice between picking your name and keeping what sovereignty you had left. You went with trying to maintain your tenuous hold on power and now you're stuck with Kenzoku.


It's a directo result of goons taking our name after disbanding the alliance. So infact i'd say CCP needs to adress that.

slothe
Caldari
Jian Products Engineering Group
Atlas.
Posted - 2009.03.27 11:11:00 - [928]
 

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

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

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


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

CCP it doesnt take weeks to resolve this simple matter, give the original Band of Brothers name back and let the rest sort itself out on the battlefield. Make your decision and make it final, you are just making the situation worse by drawing this whole harrasment process out.

Whilst your at it sort the whole broken mechanics out allowing alliances to be disbanded by one person, that's like the uk government being able to be removed because Gordon Brown fancies it and is having a bad day, what a joke.

Pattonator
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.03.27 11:19:00 - [929]
 

This is stupid all around. It is only a name and each alliance should be able to choose which name they wish to choose as long as its not taken and not offensive.

The original BoB name was lost due to bad game mechanics. A corp name cannot be changed by a director. A corp cannot be closed without the CEO. It is undeniable that the alliance formerly known as BoB did not elect to close or change their name. Bad game mechanics allowed a disgruntled director to pull a plug on the pos's and it is bad enough to go down without a real fight. Goons won by getting BoB space so it shouldn't be seen to bad to let them have the name they wanted.

If CCP has any plans to adjust the game mechanics in order to make it impossible for someone other than alliance CEO to pull the plug then a reversal is a bad decision. Just because idiots are screaming about GM favoritism doesn't mean anything. I think most alliances would choose to keep their space over their name.

Scruffy Jed
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.03.27 12:33:00 - [930]
 

Originally by: Pattonator
This is stupid all around. It is only a name and each alliance should be able to choose which name they wish to choose as long as its not taken and not offensive.

The original BoB name was lost due to bad game mechanics. A corp name cannot be changed by a director. A corp cannot be closed without the CEO. It is undeniable that the alliance formerly known as BoB did not elect to close or change their name. Bad game mechanics allowed a disgruntled director to pull a plug on the pos's and it is bad enough to go down without a real fight. Goons won by getting BoB space so it shouldn't be seen to bad to let them have the name they wanted.

If CCP has any plans to adjust the game mechanics in order to make it impossible for someone other than alliance CEO to pull the plug then a reversal is a bad decision. Just because idiots are screaming about GM favoritism doesn't mean anything. I think most alliances would choose to keep their space over their name.


Adjusting the game mechanics isn't necessary, there are fail-safes in place to prevent the instant disintegration of an alliance. CCP cannot be held responsible when, for example, the CEO removes all shares in the executor corp so as to remove the 24-hour wait on alliance changes. It's not the game mechanics that screwed KenZoku, and it's certainly not CCP's fault when a CEO disables an alliance's protection.


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

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only