Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Dungar Loghoth
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:31:00 -
[661]
Originally by: CCP Arkanon
Internal Affairs is following the issues being debated here along with the GM team, the Community team and other interested parties within CCP. The GM team will be handling this for the most part, as the namechange is a matter of GM policy and procedure. Thank you all for your input and patience.
Why are you letting the GM team have oversight over this when they are the ones that made the ruling that appears to be motivated by favoritism? Why do you have a job if you are going to let the fox guard the chicken-coop?
Since you are reading this, maybe you can tell me why these two events are treated differently:
1. Scooter makes Stian Empire. Scooter realizes his obvious (and harmless) mistake and petitions it, only to be denied. Scooter makes Stain Empire. 2. BoB creates KenZoKu. Months pass. They start using KenZoKu as their main alliance. They petition the name and that petition is granted. CCP renames "KenZoKu" to "Bank of Brothers Reloaded".
Genuinely, I don't understand why these situations are treated differently. Even if you had granted Scooter/Stian Empire's petition, there's a substantial difference between correcting an obvious typo that was petitioned immediately after the alliance was formed and what happened with this. The fact they were treated completely different boggles my mind. ---
Nothing is more discomforting than the discovery of our own inadequacies - Carl Jung |
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:31:00 -
[662]
Originally by: GM Grimmi Yesterday we changed the name of the alliance KenZoku to Band of Brothers Reloaded as the result of a petition by their leadership. It has come to our attention that this was not a popular decision among some of our players and weĈd like to take this opportunity to address those issues.
We have previously changed names provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe and the situation warranted such action. The leadership of KenZoku/Band of Brothers did petition us immediately after they were disbanded and their name was taken. While we worked on the petition for about two months we do not feel that they should suffer because of that. Having them disband and lose sovereignty again was not deemed appropriate in this case.
This action was limited to changing their name, as we have done before for others - we did not assist them in regaining their sovereignty after the Band of Brothers alliance was disbanded, nor did we assist with that now. Any other corporation or alliance finding themselves in the same situation would get the same treatment.
What is the "situation" they've found themselves in? Is it a "situation" that is outside game rules/mechanics, and warranted GM intervention?
Could you also tell us what other entities were lucky enough to get this kind of help from GMs and getting their chars/corps/alliances renamed?
You ****ing CCP ******s. BoB was disbanded by their own director. It's not as it 3rd party was involved in making them lose their name/sov. It was all within game mechanics. It wasn't a mystery, so they could petition it. It was all perfectly clear and legal.
But still, they get preferential treatment.
Heh, some thing just never change. |
Robin Plunder
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:36:00 -
[663]
11.C (graph 2) the EULA:
C. User Content User Content that you cause to be communicated to the System may not (i) violate any statute, rule, regulation or law; (ii) infringe or violate the intellectual property, proprietary, privacy or publicity rights of any third party
Band of Brothers is a TRADEMARKED name. See United States Trademark Serial Number 78711617 Registration Number 3331480.
The petition should not have been granted. As soon as I am at a computer that can login to Eve I will be petitioning the name for violation of intellectual property rights and publicity rights.
Given that the alliance has become a laughingstock for its cozy relationship with the devs, it is obvious that these teacher's pets injure the trademark owner's publicity rights.
|
Victor Valka
Caldari Kissaki Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:46:00 -
[664]
Originally by: Robin Plunder Band of Brothers is a TRADEMARKED name. See United States Trademark Serial Number 78711617 Registration Number 3331480.
The petition should not have been granted. As soon as I am at a computer that can login to Eve I will be petitioning the name for violation of intellectual property rights and publicity rights.
Given that the alliance has become a laughingstock for its cozy relationship with the devs, it is obvious that these teacher's pets injure the trademark owner's publicity rights.
Fair use.
(Internet-fucking-drama. )
Originally by: Spaztick You are not outnumbered, you are in a target-rich environment.
|
Monikerina
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:52:00 -
[665]
Can I change my name please?
|
Poopsock Alarmclock
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:54:00 -
[666]
Originally by: GM Grimmi Yesterday we changed the name of the alliance KenZoku to Band of Brothers Reloaded as the result of a petition by their leadership. It has come to our attention that this was not a popular decision among some of our players and weĈd like to take this opportunity to address those issues.
We have previously changed names provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe and the situation warranted such action. The leadership of KenZoku/Band of Brothers did petition us immediately after they were disbanded and their name was taken. While we worked on the petition for about two months we do not feel that they should suffer because of that. Having them disband and lose sovereignty again was not deemed appropriate in this case.
This action was limited to changing their name, as we have done before for others - we did not assist them in regaining their sovereignty after the Band of Brothers alliance was disbanded, nor did we assist with that now. Any other corporation or alliance finding themselves in the same situation would get the same treatment.
GM Grimmi, you've left out critical details:
You claim that the "leadership of KenZoku/Band of Brothers did petition us immediately after they were disbanded and their name was taken", and this is the reason for your recent renaming of KenZoku to BOBR. That action only makes sense however if the substance of the petition was "we want to play in an alliance called BOBR now", but since the BOBR name was available back when the former BoB joined KenZoku, I can't see why they would need to petition to get that name.
Since the original petition was clearly not about getting the BOBR name, please fill us in on the details of that petition and the subsequent reasoning which led to you renaming KenZoku as BOBR.
|
EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:03:00 -
[667]
Originally by: CCP Arkanon
I just wanted to answer this briefly.
The volunteer program has been a part of EVE since before launch. There is no doubt that through the years, there have been individuals that abused their position to some degree within the volunteer team. However, it is also fact that CCP has acted on complaints of corruption and removed individuals that were verifiably breaking our rules.
The events you describe can probably not be verified, one way or the other, since too much time has passed. It is worth noting, however, that the entire event team was closed down in 2007, partly due to numerous complaints and allegations of misconduct. We have since restructured the team and reopened it under new guidelines and command.
It's therefore not true to say that CCP did not respond to allegations of misconduct within ISD.
Internal Affairs is following the issues being debated here along with the GM team, the Community team and other interested parties within CCP. The GM team will be handling this for the most part, as the namechange is a matter of GM policy and procedure. Thank you all for your input and patience.
If this is allowed to remain in effect, then you will have people asking for name changes and using this as precident and you will have to oblige or threadnaughts will ensue due to the denial due to favortism.
|
Evocationz
Amarr Infinitas Audacia Shadows Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:03:00 -
[668]
Goons, cry louder, cry harder, cry longer, cry like the little ***** kids you are
BLATENT BLOODY NOOBS
Shamelessly Stolen Sig - it Owns All |
Seth Quantix
Domination. PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:07:00 -
[669]
Originally by: Cendaliaa Lol what an utter crap of favoritism, no other alliance have been accepted name changes and here you do, letting BoB keep their sov and change their name. pathetic ccp, very pathetic.
stain alliance?, black out was in the time frame and yet you didnt allow them...
WRONG!!!!!
I was in an alliance that was formed and the name was similar to another alliance that made its name at same time to us.
We patationed and got our name changed and I kept sov in some system i had pos in.
Look at my history for un-natural selection then scorched earth.
haha move on people, it been done
FAIL!! -----------------------------------------------
The NC final solution:
Quote: rawr-vuk-lau: can we set BoB blue so we can kill Tri together?
|
UVPhoenix2
Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:16:00 -
[670]
This song fits the theme of this thread quite nicely.
|
|
HSDREAD
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:20:00 -
[671]
Ok CCP again, simply tell us when and whom you did this for, before Bob?
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:27:00 -
[672]
Originally by: HSDREAD Ok CCP again, simply tell us when and whom you did this for, before Bob?
Wow..you really have your head in the ground don't you. You exist in a little closed box which seemingly prevents you from reading the post 2 steps above your own. I'm speechless.
|
Vladic Ka
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:38:00 -
[673]
Edited by: Vladic Ka on 25/03/2009 14:39:20 Read the post two above and I think you are trying to tell us to petition the name because it sounds like another corps name?
I too am speachless.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:40:00 -
[674]
Originally by: HSDREAD Ok CCP simply tell us when this has been done before.
A simple answer would solve this issue in my mind at least.
Cult of War has its name stolen, GM's rename the offending corp and alliance name is recreated.
Guess that pretty much concludes the thread.
Next thread should be why that didn't happen in this case.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Vladic Ka
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:44:00 -
[675]
Was cult of war closed legitimatly because of a disgruntled director or because of a mistake?
|
Shoukei
Caldari Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:45:00 -
[676]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Cult of War has its name stolen, GM's rename the offending corp and alliance name is recreated.
Guess that pretty much concludes the thread.
Next thread should be why that didn't happen in this case.
But, what would goons and PL create 30 thread about then? Look at all this whining and crying, its great.
|
teji
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:46:00 -
[677]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: HSDREAD Ok CCP simply tell us when this has been done before. A simple answer would solve this issue in my mind at least.
Cult of War has its name stolen, GM's rename the offending corp and alliance name is recreated. Guess that pretty much concludes the thread.
Next thread should be why that didn't happen in this case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WhuikFY1Pg
|
Jetharers
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:47:00 -
[678]
From the sounds of it others have not received the same treatment. By allowing an alliance to do something that you have denied others then this is favoritism and in a larger scale cheating. Cheating those who do follow the game mechanics only to have CCP modify the rules on them when it doesn't appear to be working out they way they want.
Tiny name change - not a big deal. Keeping SOV3 when others have to lose it - is big deal.
For the rest of ken/bobr enjoy playing a game where the victories you do have are smeared with evidence of favoritism and yet again corruption.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:48:00 -
[679]
Originally by: Vladic Ka Edited by: Vladic Ka on 25/03/2009 14:39:20 Read the post two above and I think you are trying to tell us to petition the name because it sounds like another corps name?
I too am speachless.
No one said anything of the sort. Why you try to complicate a simple fact is beyond me. The claim is: BoB are favored, cause they were allowed a name change. The fact is: At least one person of a completely different alliance, unaffiliated with BoB, have stepped up and let everyone know that their alliance had their name changed too, so it's not something new.
Another claim is: Now people will ask for name changes, and CCP has to oblige because they changed Kenzoku -> Band of Brothers Reloaded. The fact is: BoB isn't anymore important than any of the previous alliances that had their names changed BEFORE BoB. So there is no reason why things suddenly has to change, and I think you will find that to be the standpoint CCP has taken from the very beginning.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:48:00 -
[680]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 25/03/2009 14:49:35 *dbl post*
|
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:48:00 -
[681]
Originally by: Vladic Ka Was cult of war closed legitimatly because of a disgruntled director or because of a mistake?
Doesn't make any difference really. Corp was created specifically to block the alliance name and GMs intervened to change the name of the corp and allow the alliance to be recreated by its founders. Precedent is established.
What went wrong in this case is that Goons have been allowed to maintain possession of an alt-corp created with the sole intention of blocking the recreation of Band of Brothers alliance.
If this had been resolved right at the beginning its unlikely we'd have the current scandal and froth.
ISSUE - Bring Space Bushido to CAOD |
Dungar Loghoth
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:49:00 -
[682]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Cult of War has its name stolen, GM's rename the offending corp and alliance name is recreated.
Guess that pretty much concludes the thread.
Next thread should be why that didn't happen in this case.
hmm interesting
Originally by: Lem2J When Cult of War (COW) didnt pay the bill, the alliance was disbanded. A third party took the corp name in order to block the re-creation of Cow. I petitioned this, the corp was re-named and we paid the fee to recreate the alliance...
Funny, I see CoW having to reform their alliance, pay the extra money for the privileged, and lose their sov while they reformed.
With BOBR, I see the GM's renaming an existing alliance, waiving the alliance-creation fee, and BOBR not losing their sov.
Why are these events comparable again? CoW got their name sniped after they forgot to pay their bills; BoB was disbanded voluntarily by someone in their leadership and another corporation took their name, as it was perfectly within their right after the name became available (which is why the GM's won't rename the corporation "Band Of Brothers", I presume).
There really is no precedence for what CCP did here, and trying to shoehorn a completely different scenario to fit this situation is a pretty clear indication you have no objectivity in the matter. ---
Nothing is more discomforting than the discovery of our own inadequacies - Carl Jung |
Vladic Ka
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:52:00 -
[683]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Doesn't make any difference really. Corp was created specifically to block the alliance name and GMs intervened to change the name of the corp and allow the alliance to be recreated by its founders. Precedent is established.
What went wrong in this case is that Goons have been allowed to maintain possession of an alt-corp created with the sole intention of blocking the recreation of Band of Brothers alliance.
If this had been resolved right at the beginning its unlikely we'd have the current scandal and froth.
So doing something intentionally that serves a purpose and making a mistake are the same thing?
|
teji
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:53:00 -
[684]
Originally by: Vladic Ka So doing something intentionally that serves a purpose and making a mistake are the same thing?
It's how he/she rationalizes his/her mom saying that he/she was a mistake.
|
Vladic Ka
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:54:00 -
[685]
Originally by: Cadela Fria No one said anything of the sort. Why you try to complicate a simple fact is beyond me. The claim is: BoB are favored, cause they were allowed a name change. The fact is: At least one person of a completely different alliance, unaffiliated with BoB, have stepped up and let everyone know that their alliance had their name changed too, so it's not something new.
Another claim is: Now people will ask for name changes, and CCP has to oblige because they changed Kenzoku -> Band of Brothers Reloaded. The fact is: BoB isn't anymore important than any of the previous alliances that had their names changed BEFORE BoB. So there is no reason why things suddenly has to change, and I think you will find that to be the standpoint CCP has taken from the very beginning.
The guy above petitioned because his name sounded like another alliance that had the same name. I too think that bobr should be petitioned because they sound very similar to an in game corp. Its not complicated.
|
Jowen Datloran
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:54:00 -
[686]
Hey you guppies, let me trow some wood on the fire:
Is it ok to take over another entity's name (be it alliance or character) when the previous entity has disbanded or otherwise has its entry in the database deleted? Or does this fall under the no-impersonations allowed rule?
Ex. if Chribba emo-rage-quit and delete his character can I then make a new character looking like and called Chribba, though I might not officially claim to be the original Chribba?
Excuses to Chribba for using him in an example. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
|
Mani Hiro
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:58:00 -
[687]
Originally by: CCP Arkanon Internal Affairs is following the issues being debated here along with the GM team, the Community team and other interested parties within CCP. The GM team will be handling this for the most part, as the namechange is a matter of GM policy and procedure. Thank you all for your input and patience.
You say that it is a matter of GM policy... However, it is IA's job to ensure that policy is properly applied accross the board. Therefore, you should be investigating why an exception to the policy was made in this case. Especially since the people who received the exception have a history of gaining favors and unfair advantages from CCP. This is exactly the kind of thing your job was created for, so now's the time to do it. You need to investigate and put out the details and take appropriate corrective actions. Now is not the time to do as you are and sit back and say "not our job."
|
|
CCP Arkanon
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:08:00 -
[688]
Originally by: Mani Hiro
Originally by: CCP Arkanon Internal Affairs is following the issues being debated here along with the GM team, the Community team and other interested parties within CCP. The GM team will be handling this for the most part, as the namechange is a matter of GM policy and procedure. Thank you all for your input and patience.
You say that it is a matter of GM policy... However, it is IA's job to ensure that policy is properly applied accross the board. Therefore, you should be investigating why an exception to the policy was made in this case. Especially since the people who received the exception have a history of gaining favors and unfair advantages from CCP. This is exactly the kind of thing your job was created for, so now's the time to do it. You need to investigate and put out the details and take appropriate corrective actions. Now is not the time to do as you are and sit back and say "not our job."
We are most assuredly not sitting back and ignoring this However, we are acting in an advisory manner, rather than taking direct action. We've confirmed that this is not a matter of actual misconduct, now what remains is to conclude this matter in a fair and impartial manner in co-operation with the GMs. So that's what we're trying to do.
CCP Arkanon
CCP Internal Affairs
[email protected] |
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:08:00 -
[689]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 25/03/2009 15:10:54
Originally by: Vladic Ka
Originally by: Cadela Fria No one said anything of the sort. Why you try to complicate a simple fact is beyond me. The claim is: BoB are favored, cause they were allowed a name change. The fact is: At least one person of a completely different alliance, unaffiliated with BoB, have stepped up and let everyone know that their alliance had their name changed too, so it's not something new.
Another claim is: Now people will ask for name changes, and CCP has to oblige because they changed Kenzoku -> Band of Brothers Reloaded. The fact is: BoB isn't anymore important than any of the previous alliances that had their names changed BEFORE BoB. So there is no reason why things suddenly has to change, and I think you will find that to be the standpoint CCP has taken from the very beginning.
The guy above petitioned because his name sounded like another alliance that had the same name. I too think that bobr should be petitioned because they sound very similar to an in game corp. Its not complicated.
So now the argument is no longer that CCP were favored with a name change..funny, thats what you've all been saying up till this point, but okay, ill play along. Impersonation you say to an existing corp, uh huh..okay.. Corporation: Band of Brothers Founded: 2009.02.05
Gee, I wonder by that information if the alliance known as Band of Brothers was disbanded on this date. If thats true then by your logic this is again a case of impersonation, and even if it isn't, its at the very least a deliberate act to prevent the original owners of that name, to use it again.
BoB then gets their name change, and according to you it sounds too similar to the existing corporation, Band of Brothers, even though the alliance that now exists has HUGE - EXTRA - WORD attached to the end of it. It's not exactly a case of replacing an "s" with "5" or "o" with "0", unlike some cases I could mention. So this is the argument, forgetting the flood of names created to impersonate and mimic the original BoB while their alliance existed, including corporations, alliances, characters and so forth, all funnily enough seeming to originate from...well, ill let you figure that out ;) However all that was okay. Oh plenty of these things were shut down, banned or warned, yet kept popping up for some reason:
Band of Brohters Band of Brothers Unlimited Band of Brothers.. (with 2 dots) Band of Brothers. (1 dot) Band of Bruthas Band of Bruthers
And so forth..most of the more blatant ones dont exist anymore, but are you actually arguing that BoB are naughty because they're impersonating a corp by the name of Band of Brothers, founded right after the alliance was shut down to prevent BoB from using that name, blatantly abusing game mechanics, while also considering the history of impersonations projected at BoB in the past..Alright, good luck.
|
Aetec Raa
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:11:00 -
[690]
Originally by: CCP Arkanon
Originally by: Mani Hiro
Originally by: CCP Arkanon Internal Affairs is following the issues being debated here along with the GM team, the Community team and other interested parties within CCP. The GM team will be handling this for the most part, as the namechange is a matter of GM policy and procedure. Thank you all for your input and patience.
You say that it is a matter of GM policy... However, it is IA's job to ensure that policy is properly applied accross the board. Therefore, you should be investigating why an exception to the policy was made in this case. Especially since the people who received the exception have a history of gaining favors and unfair advantages from CCP. This is exactly the kind of thing your job was created for, so now's the time to do it. You need to investigate and put out the details and take appropriate corrective actions. Now is not the time to do as you are and sit back and say "not our job."
We are most assuredly not sitting back and ignoring this However, we are acting in an advisory manner, rather than taking direct action. We've confirmed that this is not a matter of actual misconduct, now what remains is to conclude this matter in a fair and impartial manner in co-operation with the GMs. So that's what we're trying to do.
When you say "that this is not a matter of misconduct" what exactly do you mean?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |