open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked A Call for Transparency regarding the Reaction/POS Exploit
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 ... : last (48)

Author Topic

Doc Fury
Caldari
Posted - 2008.12.15 22:26:00 - [1261]
 

Quote:
Vuk wanted to add quickly that the current petition system was not good, mostly due to the incompetence of the low level Game Masters


Best quote from the minutes, and may qualify as the understatement of the year.

LOL that we had to wait a week for these bunch of vague non-answers, but hey, that's the CCP way! I think the CSM have proven themselves to be irrelevant, we would have likely received the very same "answers" without their involvement.








Treelox
Posted - 2008.12.15 22:33:00 - [1262]
 

Originally by: Doc Fury
I think the CSM have proven themselves to be irrelevant, we would have likely received the very same "answers" without their involvement.




...but would we have gotten them as quickly without the CSM?

Remeber the t20 incident took months to get any sort of "answers".

Delos Korelian
Amarr
Korelian's Salvage and Reclamation
Posted - 2008.12.15 22:37:00 - [1263]
 

Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde
Since when does personal privacy extend to alliances. I cant beleive the CSM just let that go either; characters i understand but corp/alliance? Come on.

We already know about Evoke, and if CCP wants to stop speculation (as they're locking all the threads) maybe you should, oh i dunno, TELL PEOPLE who the other alliance is, if indeed it *was* only two.


QFT. LOL, CSM rolling over again and playing nice doggy with CCP.

Doc Fury
Caldari
Posted - 2008.12.15 22:44:00 - [1264]
 

Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: Doc Fury
I think the CSM have proven themselves to be irrelevant, we would have likely received the very same "answers" without their involvement.




...but would we have gotten them as quickly without the CSM?

Remeber the t20 incident took months to get any sort of "answers".


We get "answers" quicker now because CCP can craft their spin with the CSM as their soundingboard and then just point back at the CSM (when the players rabble) and spout crap like "transparency".

IMHO the CSM is just another layer of damage control/insulation for CCP. It is so, so, truly sad the CSM's purpose and responsibilities aren't what was originally promised by CCP's CEO after the t20 incident.










Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2008.12.15 22:48:00 - [1265]
 

Originally by: Doc Fury

We get "answers" quicker now because CCP can craft their spin with the CSM as their soundingboard and then just point back at the CSM (when the players rabble) and spout crap like "transparency".

IMHO the CSM is just another layer of damage control/insulation for CCP. It is so, so, truly sad the CSM's purpose and responsibilities aren't what was originally promised by CCP's CEO after the t20 incident.




I couldn't agree more with you.

Delos Korelian
Amarr
Korelian's Salvage and Reclamation
Posted - 2008.12.15 23:28:00 - [1266]
 

I think this is apt, considering that CSM is just a joke when it comes to its dealings with CCP, the first CSM was a resounding failure with issues unresolved, and they all went nicely home.

Originally by: Delos Korelian

Didn't you know, CSM is CCP's poodle, and it is growing big and strong, and is growing fast...

Its a good doggie, that loves to be petted, and is very pretty, especially to show to others on how democratic and transparent things are.

Well, I tell you, the problem is, which no one knows, but soon will realize, that CCP had the poodle fixed, and had its teeth pulled out. So, all it can do is wag the tail, bark, and roll over and play dead. Oh, and it loves its belly rubbed.

O7

Now, I am going to frog march myself out.




Solomon XI
Hidden Souls
Posted - 2008.12.15 23:36:00 - [1267]
 

Edited by: Solomon XI on 15/12/2008 23:36:13
Alright, I just read the minutes ... what the **** was that, really?

***

Talk about dancing around a bush, here. I waited a week for this? Vague questions and even vaguer answers?

Oh Hamburgers
Posted - 2008.12.15 23:50:00 - [1268]
 


Regat Kozovv
Caldari
Alcothology

Posted - 2008.12.15 23:56:00 - [1269]
 

Signed.

KAELA MENSHA
Posted - 2008.12.16 00:10:00 - [1270]
 

Edited by: KAELA MENSHA on 16/12/2008 00:10:51
CCP = Crappy Code Purveyors

CSM = Corporate S**t Management

Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
Posted - 2008.12.16 01:41:00 - [1271]
 

Originally by: Havlentia Castigatrix
Originally by: Haakelen
They are obligated to follow their own terms of service and privacy policy, lest someone sue them.


You'll find that everything they supply is their property, meaning the data.

Originally by: Haakelen

The nerdragers here talk a whole lot about 'respect' and 'trust' of the playerbase (nice of you to speak for all of us).


Yeah, it eventually translates into the commercial reality of people jumping ship once there is a competing product on the market.

Originally by: Haakelen

I would have considerably less trust and respect for CCP if they revealed private information, or decided to point their fingers at people.



Oh, you silly bear, a character name isn't private information. I can see hundreds in local on a daily basis. As for pointing fingers, a ban is pretty pointy.




Spot on. Very Happy

Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
Posted - 2008.12.16 01:55:00 - [1272]
 

Originally by: Kaijusan
Lets cut the BS...CCP is removing anything that makes them or their "friends" look bad. The odds of us knowing who did what are slim to none. All this is going to do is add fuel to the already rampant rumor mongering fires that burn here. CCP could clear up so much of the past allegations against them with regards to T20 and Bob and what not by naming the names of the characters/alliances involved. They could start to re-build that bridge of trust that got burnt down long ago. And the CSM should be threatening to resign as a united body if CCP doesnt tell us who is responsible for this.



... and is it just me or doesn't this seem very suspicious and sound like spin?

It really comes across as over-compensating for the real facts...



update regarding the starbase exploit
reported by GM Grimmi | 2008.12.11 13:29:29

On December 7th 2008, a date which will live in infamy, a petition from a concerned player alerted us to a serious problem with Starbase reactors. The petition had been filed five days earlier, a far longer waiting time than we can accept with our current queue status and we have now taken measures to fix that. We immediately started investigating the issue and found that there was indeed a problem and that it was being exploited to gain unfair advantages.


Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.12.16 05:30:00 - [1273]
 

Edited by: Bunyip on 16/12/2008 05:58:52
You can never please some people...

I have been nothing but forthcoming to the events as I interpret them, without CCP intervention. Yes, QA screwed up on letting this exploit through, but it was inevitable that it would happen sooner or later. Yes, Petitions screwed up on letting this get caught in the paperwork for 5 days. Yes, the answers we have now are somewhat vague.

If something like this occured in another game, what kind of response do you think you'd get. I've played many other games, and the usual response is "It's something we can't fix, the code won't let us." What you have now is a corporation that admitted wrongdoing in the T2O scandal (although they didn't handle it well), and who is willing to devote a lot of their time to sifting through the old records to find any traces of wrongdoing and take irrevocable action to the accounts.

You call me CCP's lapdog, and you have that right. I have given you the answers based on what I got from the meeting, but I am still restricted by the NDA. This exploit was a disaster monetarily, and it will take some time to fix, but we're not talking about big brother here. I advise you to be patient, and you can always reach me or my alt (Krazeek) in the chatroom titled 'CSM Chat' or via evemail or convo.

What more can I say?

Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2008.12.16 05:49:00 - [1274]
 

Originally by: Electra Deis
Very much signed. IIRC part of the purpose behind the CSM was to provide transparency to CCPs actions wasn't it?

**** knows we need it on this.



qft and signed.

Shuckstar
Gallente
Hauling hogs
Swine Aviation Labs
Posted - 2008.12.16 06:20:00 - [1275]
 

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Electra Deis
Very much signed. IIRC part of the purpose behind the CSM was to provide transparency to CCPs actions wasn't it?

**** knows we need it on this.



qft and signed.


Yep and signed again, tell us the ****ing full story Twisted Evil


Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.12.16 07:06:00 - [1276]
 

Originally by: Antar Neem
Privacy concerns about a character, WTF. I understand releasing the name of the player might have privacy issues. But the name of an artificial digital creation, this is BS.

It smells, seems like they don't what anyone to trace the characters associations and activities.


I'll probably have to put on my fire-******ant suit for this one, but I agree with what CCP is doing. If they release character names, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to link names to the alliances (unless they purged all info from that character's affiliation and all rosters) - People and Places can do that in a minute.

People know Eve better than that by now. We'd have people who had nothing to do with this scandal all the sudden hunted down wherever they go, and if they try to join another corp, only about 2% of the playerbase would even take them. Soon, they'd quit their accounts as they aren't able to do what they used to enjoy doing.

Yes, CCP is receiving a lot of flak for this, but I admire them for sticking to their guns. CCP is choosing to take the heat rather than innocent people in alliances which few people would be guilty, and playing the martyr.

Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
Posted - 2008.12.16 08:04:00 - [1277]
 

Originally by: Bunyip
Originally by: Antar Neem
Privacy concerns about a character, WTF. I understand releasing the name of the player might have privacy issues. But the name of an artificial digital creation, this is BS.

It smells, seems like they don't what anyone to trace the characters associations and activities.


I'll probably have to put on my fire-******ant suit for this one, but I agree with what CCP is doing. If they release character names, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to link names to the alliances (unless they purged all info from that character's affiliation and all rosters) - People and Places can do that in a minute.

People know Eve better than that by now. We'd have people who had nothing to do with this scandal all the sudden hunted down wherever they go, and if they try to join another corp, only about 2% of the playerbase would even take them. Soon, they'd quit their accounts as they aren't able to do what they used to enjoy doing.

Yes, CCP is receiving a lot of flak for this, but I admire them for sticking to their guns. CCP is choosing to take the heat rather than innocent people in alliances which few people would be guilty, and playing the martyr.



And here I was thinking that the CSM were supposed to be the players' representatives...

Regarding the previous post about some people never being happy etc. that may well be true.
However, it's obvious from the published minutes that the exact nature of the length nd breadth of the issue from ALL angles is not yet established, or CCP were being evasive on purpose.

The jury is still out on which of the two is fact.

Machachagogo
Posted - 2008.12.16 09:15:00 - [1278]
 

My understanding of the EULA was that even though we create the character we do not have any rights to it.

Name the involved characters, it's not like all of us have access to the player DB and can connect a charname (thats not even our property) to a real world person.

personally i feel that it is nessecary to at least "name and shame" the corps and alliances involved EVEN IF the characters involved are not named.

hell CCP, why not turn this around and have some news regarding low grade or impure Ferrogel being sold by these corporations and how they have been disbanded by the concord. just an idea but it may just dig your bums out of the fire here Razz you could even write about it in eve chronicles Neutral

Boomershoot
Caldari
Suddenly Ninjas
Posted - 2008.12.16 10:04:00 - [1279]
 

Edited by: Boomershoot on 16/12/2008 10:04:07
Signed. Because T20 wasn't that bad afterall.

EDIT: Obviously forgetting the thumb

Squirrrel
Gallente
Squirrrel Industries
Posted - 2008.12.16 10:31:00 - [1280]
 

Originally by: Machachagogo
My understanding of the EULA was that even though we create the character we do not have any rights to it.

Name the involved characters, it's not like all of us have access to the player DB and can connect a charname (thats not even our property) to a real world person.

personally i feel that it is nessecary to at least "name and shame" the corps and alliances involved EVEN IF the characters involved are not named.

hell CCP, why not turn this around and have some news regarding low grade or impure Ferrogel being sold by these corporations and how they have been disbanded by the concord. just an idea but it may just dig your bums out of the fire here Razz you could even write about it in eve chronicles Neutral


Nope. CCP don't want to "point fingers" (Although perma-banning an account is far more than pointing a finger) nor do they want to change their policy of revealing character names "on a whim."

I mean, this instance of exploiting having "considerable and far reaching" effects on the market is purely whimsical, nothing to see here, please move on etc. etc.

I for one cannot believe the arrogance of some of the minute responses, in addition to many other official responses.

Tellnan Matkiel
Gallente
The Industrial Consortium
Posted - 2008.12.16 11:16:00 - [1281]
 

Originally by: Squirrrel
Originally by: Machachagogo
My understanding of the EULA was that even though we create the character we do not have any rights to it.

Name the involved characters, it's not like all of us have access to the player DB and can connect a charname (thats not even our property) to a real world person.

personally i feel that it is nessecary to at least "name and shame" the corps and alliances involved EVEN IF the characters involved are not named.

hell CCP, why not turn this around and have some news regarding low grade or impure Ferrogel being sold by these corporations and how they have been disbanded by the concord. just an idea but it may just dig your bums out of the fire here Razz you could even write about it in eve chronicles Neutral


Nope. CCP don't want to "point fingers" (Although perma-banning an account is far more than pointing a finger) nor do they want to change their policy of revealing character names "on a whim."

I mean, this instance of exploiting having "considerable and far reaching" effects on the market is purely whimsical, nothing to see here, please move on etc. etc.

I for one cannot believe the arrogance of some of the minute responses, in addition to many other official responses.


If it annoys you so much, quit.

Droog 1
Posted - 2008.12.16 12:14:00 - [1282]
 

Originally by: Squirrrel

I for one cannot believe the arrogance of some of the minute responses, in addition to many other official responses.



If you want arrogance check some of the posts made by players demanding the naming and shaming of those involved.
Nobody will be getting any names so wtf are you going to do about it.

Cry more [ ]
stfu [ ]
quit [ ]

BECHA Lee
Posted - 2008.12.16 12:19:00 - [1283]
 

Signed.

Jah'Ret Khan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.12.16 12:40:00 - [1284]
 

The sheer volume of nerd rage here is awesome.

CCP have punished the culprits, as is their mandate.
They don't have to do anything else.
No matter how much you rabble and cry or how important you think your opinion is.

Job done, exploit gone, move on.

You really want to try and figure out who was benefitting from this?

Look towards the alliances that have been churning out super caps like they were Rifters.

But don't forget to shake the blame at the thousands of people who innocently bought the components off the market.

And don't forget to scream at the people who made them into T2 items and ships and sold them.

And best get ready to pound on the door of the people that bought and used them.

A lot of EVE benefitted from this over the past 4 years.

The perpetrators are gone.
Setting up innocent parties for persecution achieves nothing but satisfying fat hormonal nerd rage.
It entertains me more to leave you unsatisfied.

Deal with it.
Thanks for fixing this CCP.

Mantees
Gallente
Posted - 2008.12.16 13:56:00 - [1285]
 

signed

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2008.12.16 17:11:00 - [1286]
 

Originally by: Bunyip
We'd have people who had nothing to do with this scandal all the sudden hunted down wherever they go, and if they try to join another corp, only about 2% of the playerbase would even take them.



Did you ever think CEO's, like me (and I vote), would not LIKE to take those party to this exploit into our corps? There's a reason we name and shame corp thieves and dishonorable players like duel jumpers.

If them not being accepted to corps became a problem, there's not a damn thing stopping them from creating their own corps.

La Sciura
Posted - 2008.12.16 17:27:00 - [1287]
 

signed

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.12.16 19:24:00 - [1288]
 

Originally by: Bunyip
Edited by: Bunyip on 16/12/2008 05:58:52
You can never please some people...

I have been nothing but forthcoming to the events as I interpret them, without CCP intervention. Yes, QA screwed up on letting this exploit through, but it was inevitable that it would happen sooner or later. Yes, Petitions screwed up on letting this get caught in the paperwork for 5 days. Yes, the answers we have now are somewhat vague.

If something like this occured in another game, what kind of response do you think you'd get. I've played many other games, and the usual response is "It's something we can't fix, the code won't let us." What you have now is a corporation that admitted wrongdoing in the T2O scandal (although they didn't handle it well), and who is willing to devote a lot of their time to sifting through the old records to find any traces of wrongdoing and take irrevocable action to the accounts.

You call me CCP's lapdog, and you have that right. I have given you the answers based on what I got from the meeting, but I am still restricted by the NDA. This exploit was a disaster monetarily, and it will take some time to fix, but we're not talking about big brother here. I advise you to be patient, and you can always reach me or my alt (Krazeek) in the chatroom titled 'CSM Chat' or via evemail or convo.

What more can I say?



yes, some people will never be happy and much more are happy only if they can wave some "great conspiracy" theory.

I have some limited idea how a database search work and the thought of the time and manpower needed to check 4 years of game logs, probably needing CCP to set up several of the old builds on the internal server to see if the exploit was possible stagger me (think about it, boys, the need to load the old build and the old data to check for the exploit possibility and the towers using it, how much time that take? Doen for each old build?).

So while I want more informations when they will be available, what CCP has given so far is reasonable for the time elapsed. And remember, every hour they spend on this is 1 less hour on game development and optimization.

So thums up to CCP and CSM work so far. Continue with it.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.12.16 19:47:00 - [1289]
 

Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde
Originally by: Bunyip
We'd have people who had nothing to do with this scandal all the sudden hunted down wherever they go, and if they try to join another corp, only about 2% of the playerbase would even take them.



Did you ever think CEO's, like me (and I vote), would not LIKE to take those party to this exploit into our corps? There's a reason we name and shame corp thieves and dishonorable players like duel jumpers.

If them not being accepted to corps became a problem, there's not a damn thing stopping them from creating their own corps.


The point is that someone that has been in the wrong corp or alliance for some time and did know nothing of the exploit and didn't even benefit indirectly from it will be treated as if he was one of the culprit. If you name and shame the alliance/corp people will not to differentiate between wrongdoers and simple bystanders.


Jinx Barker
Caldari
GFB Scientific
Posted - 2008.12.16 22:30:00 - [1290]
 

Edited by: Jinx Barker on 16/12/2008 22:32:06
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde
Originally by: Bunyip
We'd have people who had nothing to do with this scandal all the sudden hunted down wherever they go, and if they try to join another corp, only about 2% of the playerbase would even take them.



Did you ever think CEO's, like me (and I vote), would not LIKE to take those party to this exploit into our corps? There's a reason we name and shame corp thieves and dishonorable players like duel jumpers.

If them not being accepted to corps became a problem, there's not a damn thing stopping them from creating their own corps.


The point is that someone that has been in the wrong corp or alliance for some time and did know nothing of the exploit and didn't even benefit indirectly from it will be treated as if he was one of the culprit. If you name and shame the alliance/corp people will not to differentiate between wrongdoers and simple bystanders.




Does that mean I have a misguided faith in good nature of most people? Because I believe the opposite, I believe that should we know the names of the characters banned, and their corporations, and alliances - community as a whole will be able to ferret out their associations. Someone remembers doing business with them, someone remembers a name mentioned briefly, someone remembers mistake on forums, etc, etc, and the bigger picture comes out.

For example, just because T20 was part of BoB, I do not think for a second that everyone in BoB are low life cheaters. Nor do I believe that all Goons are evil in game scammers, even though many are known for it.

I think we should give credit to sensible people who would not paint everyone with the same brush.

And, finally, the most important point for me personally: the scale of the cheating could not have gone unnoticed by the leadership of the corporation, and alliance. Regular grunts might have benefited because they got cheap/free ships, or some T2 on the side, but it is the leadership that either chose to turn a blind eye, or willfully ignored, or even worse, was complicit in this mess.

I personally am ready to believe a rank and file guys at Ev0ke that they were not in any way complicit or were aware of the issue. I am, however, less eager to believe the leaders. Because, should I be a leader of a corporation, or an alliance, whether I am a carebear, or I am an ardent FC, I am first, and foremost a manager of a large group of people - as a manager, and a leader, I have responsibility, for budgets, organization OPs, for the ISK spent and ISK gained, and I should, and honestly WOULD learn the sources and sinks.

So yes, grunts really do get a pass, leadership people do not. And we mostly know who were the grunts, and who were the leaders in 90% of the cases, and the associations.




Pages: first : previous : ... 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 ... : last (48)

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