Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 61 post(s) |
Contorted
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:04:00 -
[181] - Quote
It's so funny that you base your whole "defense" on this GM Quote.
You asked:
Quote: For example, are 2 alliances sparring against each other and testing out ship setups before the tournament itself classed as breaking this rule?
You get a "No, that's okay BUT BE CAREFUL TO NOT OVERSTEP IT!" as an answer and what are you very intelligent people going to do? You take his ruling and bend it like a ******* ***** over and put your **** as far as possible up it's ass that the ONLY OUTCOME of this was what you can see now. There is NO WAY you didn't see this coming and you did it anyway. |
Time Funnel
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
139
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:04:00 -
[182] - Quote
Gnaw LF wrote: You are in Test and you are calling me new? And I don't care about your personal experiences with GMs, the idea is that their decisions and responses to petitions are OFFICIAL. It may not work that way all the time, or any of the time for that matter, but that is precisely why we need to voice our concerns, otherwise we just let CCP off the hook with their inconsistent approach to moderating the game.
Yeah well you are preaching to the choir. I was simply pointing out that this has been a problematic area for quite a while now. GMs saying things that do not reflect CCPs stances for whatever reason. Undefined interactions between customer support, devs, GMs, etc. If you have any experience with the game at all you know that what a GM says means literally nothing when it comes to a big issue.
If you have put a rule in place to prevent the kid 4 doors down from firing pumpkins into your yard, and the kid starts building another huge slingshot at what point do you take action? Probably right away. You won't wait for the pumpkin to land in your living room.
I can comment on all this from the comfort of my armchair and watch good juicy drama unfold in forums other than TEST forums. And maybe help it along once in a while. |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
169
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:05:00 -
[183] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Karl Planck wrote:Hyrda did not disclose the full extent of what they were doing. Placing both teams in the same corp in the same pos on the test server and saying "trust us, were not working together THAT much" is a load of bull. If they had FULLY DISCLOSED what they were doing i am confident the answer would not have been the same First off, what is the actual intent of the "No alternate teams" rule? Is it meant to stop the same entity from entering multiple teams from the same alliance/organization? Is it intended to prevent an alts vs alts situation such as the finale of AT9? If it's the former, Red vs Blue looks to have been granted preferential treatment while engaging in similar behavior. If it's the latter, I wasn't aware Hydra and Outbreak are alt corps; are they?
If they want to compete like alt corps then what exactly are then in reference to the AT? They can cry foul all they want about having permission, but without full disclosure they can't be surprised, even though they are moaning its not fair.
Please tell me, why didn't they ouline their entire plan for practice to the GM if they were so concerned about the legitimacy. Please. If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
217
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:06:00 -
[184] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:And with this much doubt, on your side of the table, in the legitimacy of your actions you continued along a path which you knew could exclude you both from competition... It wasn't doubt, we felt we're doing right thing.
But information we possessed was enough to conclude that behavior of some CCP AT crew members in this case is biased and we just didn't know what to expect, thus had to ask for clarification.
My personal opinion, is that *if* we were more careful - we would have even more stupid accusations applied onto us, outcome would be the same anyway. It's not rule enforcement, it's punishment for screwed finals, which made some bitter CCP employees looking for a ways to inflict maximum damage. |
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:07:00 -
[185] - Quote
Hecater wrote:Quote:It's ok - CCP has started deleting posts now. Excellent work. dont be afraid dear CCP dudes this shiet will definetely reach certain media and i am also trying to contact Sony atm.
good
Just in case you missed it, compare:
http://eve-search.com/thread/113251-1
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113251 |
Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
141
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:13:00 -
[186] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:[If they want to compete like alt corps then what exactly are then in reference to the AT? They can cry foul all they want about having permission, but without full disclosure they can't be surprised, even though they are moaning its not fair.
Please tell me, why didn't they ouline their entire plan for practice to the GM if they were so concerned about the legitimacy. Please.
For starters, you can try to give the benefit of the doubt with regards to intent. Second, it is very difficult to frame a full disclosure question that provides a good contextual framework from which the question was asked. It's entirely possible, and not unreasonable, that the question asked of the GM was perceived to adequately provide context to the issue in question.
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
217
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:15:00 -
[187] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:For starters, you can try to give the benefit of the doubt with regards to intent. Second, it is very difficult to frame a full disclosure question that provides a good contextual framework from which the question was asked. It's entirely possible, and not unreasonable, that the question asked of the GM was perceived to adequately provide context to the issue in question.
I want to emphasize that it wasn't just GM, it was senior GM which was confirmed to be one of the most adequate by CCP official (in private convo). |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
503
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:16:00 -
[188] - Quote
Contorted wrote: You get a "No, that's okay BUT BE CAREFUL TO NOT OVERSTEP IT!" as an answer and what are you very intelligent people going to do? You take his ruling and bend it like a ******* ***** over and put your **** as far as possible up it's ass that the ONLY OUTCOME of this was what you can see now. There is NO WAY you didn't see this coming and you did it anyway.
Isn't the rule bending to the max one of the key corner stones of Goonswarm?
Do you get away with it because you have homies at the CCP team now?
It makes EVE so darn easy once you have a batphone. Doesn't it.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:18:00 -
[189] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Contorted wrote: You get a "No, that's okay BUT BE CAREFUL TO NOT OVERSTEP IT!" as an answer and what are you very intelligent people going to do? You take his ruling and bend it like a ******* ***** over and put your **** as far as possible up it's ass that the ONLY OUTCOME of this was what you can see now. There is NO WAY you didn't see this coming and you did it anyway.
Isn't the rule bending to the max one of the key corner stones of Goonswarm? Do you get away with it because you have homies at the CCP team now? It makes EVE so darn easy once you have a batphone. Doesn't it. i see you're fleeing here after getting 0wned repeatedly elsewhere
remember that time i told you i knew an infinite number of names in the hat and you thought that meant i had a batphone
good times, good times, pity it got deleted |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
169
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:18:00 -
[190] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Karl Planck wrote:And with this much doubt, on your side of the table, in the legitimacy of your actions you continued along a path which you knew could exclude you both from competition... It wasn't doubt, we felt we're doing right thing. But information we possessed was enough to conclude that behavior of some CCP AT crew members in this case is biased and we just didn't know what to expect, thus had to ask for clarification.
that is total bull and you know it. If there was NO DOUBT in your actions you wouldn't have petitioned it in the first place. If it was simply stupidity that whoever wrote the petition happened to forget the actual suspicious actions in the petition then you know where to point the finger.
Kadesh Priestess wrote: My personal opinion, is that *if* we were more careful - we would have even more stupid accusations applied onto us, outcome would be the same anyway. It's not rule enforcement, it's punishment for screwed finals, which made some bitter CCP employees looking for a ways to inflict maximum damage.
It is MY personal opinion that you screwed over last years final, tried to screw it this year, and are now trying to make CCP look bad by trying the showing the information in your favor
To all everyone concerned over the fairness involving the H/O disqualification https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113351&find=unread |
|
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
169
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:20:00 -
[191] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:For starters, you can try to give the benefit of the doubt with regards to intent. Second, it is very difficult to frame a full disclosure question that provides a good contextual framework from which the question was asked. It's entirely possible, and not unreasonable, that the question asked of the GM was perceived to adequately provide context to the issue in question.
I want to emphasize that it wasn't just GM, it was senior GM which was confirmed to be one of the most adequate by CCP official (in private convo).
adaquate response cannot be given when the details of what you were doing (specially those that crossed the line) were not disclosed to the GM making the decision.
You got an answer to the question you asked, it was the wrong question to validate your actions To all everyone concerned over the fairness involving the H/O disqualification https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113351&find=unread |
Gobbins
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:20:00 -
[192] - Quote
I think CCP has been engaging in a completely new stance of community management.
The old days of "bro CCP" are gone and their new focus is on wider PR.
They have learned that individual alliances can be unfairly punished without that generating too much of a fuss: see the shitcanning of Mittens for example, other bans before that, and today this low blow they did on hydra.
I imagine they want to send a clear message: "mess with our public events (fanfest panel for mittens, AT finals for hydra) and consequences will never be the same" ; since they cannot control what players will do in a live event, and eve is full of trolls, their only way to deal with the problem is to make an example and hope it will act as a deterrent |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
505
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:20:00 -
[193] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:i see you're fleeing here after getting 0wned repeatedly elsewhere
remember that time i told you i knew an infinite number of names in the hat and you thought that meant i had a batphone
good times, good times, pity it got deleted
I don't know what your definition of "getting owned" is but clearly it's not the same definition commonly used. Also you didn't tell me, but you told in general you knew an infinite humber of names. But that is nittpicking and I prefer to leave that to you. Can't beat the master there.
And ofcourse it got deleted. Now let's all wonder why.
|
Time Funnel
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
140
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:22:00 -
[194] - Quote
Dear GM:
We at HYDRA RELOADED and Outbreak. would like a pre-ruling on the activities that we have planned during the time leading up to the tournament. We will outline everything we are planning on doing and wait for an official response before taking any action.
We would like to have the members of [Alliance A] join the corp of [Alliance B] to facilitate logistics and testing inside the wormhole that we have selected on Singularity server. This is for logistical purposes only. This does not mean that we are the same team. It is a relationship of convenience, not an indication that we share setups, leadership, or anything of that nature. It is only to facilitate our sparring.
We understand that the reason that this rule was put in place was due partly to our apparent collusion in last year's Alliance Tournament (AT IX). The last match was done through agreement and created an un-entertaining final for the tournament showcasing CCPs product. We can assure you that the actions that we are taking this year, while exactly the same actions as last year, do not mean that we will collude or pre-arrange fights or outcomes in any fashion. We believe that you can accept on good faith that our intentions are nothing like last year even though our actions are almost identical.
We are also sending this letter to the appropriate parties at CCP and we would hope you would consult with [List of VIPs] before giving us your ruling. We know we are already under the microscope and if we make any false step we will get squished.
Sincerely,
The letter writer you should have had to prevent this whole terrible situation from happening in the first place.
PS. If you remove us from the tournament we are going to cry.
|
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
169
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:25:00 -
[195] - Quote
Time Funnel wrote:Dear GM:
We at HYDRA RELOADED and Outbreak. would like a pre-ruling on the activities that we have planned during the time leading up to the tournament. We will outline everything we are planning on doing and wait for an official response before taking any action.
We would like to have the members of [Alliance A] join the corp of [Alliance B] to facilitate logistics and testing inside the wormhole that we have selected on Singularity server. This is for logistical purposes only. This does not mean that we are the same team. It is a relationship of convenience, not an indication that we share setups, leadership, or anything of that nature. It is only to facilitate our sparring.
We understand that the reason that this rule was put in place was due partly to our apparent collusion in last year's Alliance Tournament (AT IX). The last match was done through agreement and created an un-entertaining final for the tournament showcasing CCPs product. We can assure you that the actions that we are taking this year, while exactly the same actions as last year, do not mean that we will collude or pre-arrange fights or outcomes in any fashion. We believe that you can accept on good faith that our intentions are nothing like last year even though our actions are almost identical.
We are also sending this letter to the appropriate parties at CCP and we would hope you would consult with [List of VIPs] before giving us your ruling. We know we are already under the microscope and if we make any false step we will get squished.
Sincerely,
The letter writer you should have had to prevent this whole terrible situation from happening in the first place.
PS. If you remove us from the tournament we are going to cry.
its like you guys are deliberately ignoring the facts.... To all everyone concerned over the fairness involving the H/O disqualification https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113351&find=unread |
Kratisto
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:26:00 -
[196] - Quote
What I find most amusing about this thread is Outbreak. and Hydra attempting to lawyer their way into the tournament. That works in civil courts with laws and rules, and accountability of judges.
CCP is the sovereign lord and master of the game and tournament. They do not have to do anything. Basically it comes down to this: Who needs whom more; Does Hydra/Outbreak need CCP for the tournament, or does CCP need them. It is frankly quite easy to say CCP has all the leverage; you guys should be on your knees begging for mercy, not on your feet trying to worm your way around like a lawyer. Sue for tempered understanding, not technicalities.
Your rage and tears do nothing but feed the masses who harbor resentment for the anticlimactic ending of last year, where (intentionally or not) you swung your dicks around and slapped all the viewers and organizers in the face. Yes you were within the law that time, but the new rules were specifically added to prevent the same thing from happening! You changed nothing, and expected no punishment? It was clear to all viewers, that last year one team was preordained to win. That there was an A team, and a B team.
In this thread I hear you apologized and feel bad about how that ended. Your apologies were not publicized, if they were given. You will find little compassion, unless you issue a very public and heartfelt apology for last year, ask for forgiveness and understanding, and request one team be allowed to compete.
Right now, all I see is lawyering. |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:26:00 -
[197] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:that is total bull and you know it. If there was NO DOUBT in your actions you wouldn't have petitioned it in the first place. If it was simply stupidity that whoever wrote the petition happened to forget the actual suspicious actions in the petition then you know where to point the finger. This is not a bull. When you have a guy who directs his BFG9k at you you have to think about every your step and ask / consult him as much as possible. It's exactly our situation, and it's exacctly what we did.
Karl Planck wrote:It is MY personal opinion that you screwed over last years final, tried to screw it this year, and are now trying to make CCP look bad by trying the showing the information in your favor No, it wasn't intentional. No, we didn't plan to screw any matches this year. What you're writing here is just your speculations, while I have all the inside information to state that we never ever planned to make fools out of CCP, neither AT IX nor AT X.
I understand that you may not trust me, but I never lied to community - this is just stupid for the gameplay style I chose, with no alts or toons, it kills your authority which you earned throughout the years of playing eve. |
Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
141
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:28:00 -
[198] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:adaquate response cannot be given when the details of what you were doing (specially those that crossed the line) were not disclosed to the GM making the decision.
You got an answer to the question you asked, it was the wrong question to validate your actions
It was entirely possible for CCP to pursue extra clarification; no single party can be blamed for inadequate understanding here.
Quote:that is total bull and you know it. If there was NO DOUBT in your actions you wouldn't have petitioned it in the first place. If it was simply stupidity that whoever wrote the petition happened to forget the actual suspicious actions in the petition then you know where to point the finger.
Strawman. As was indicated by my previous post, I found that the intent and specifics of the rules regarding the alternate team clauses are not clear.
Now, for my full disclosure: I think that Hydra and Genos should be allowed to participate, so long as the characters used in the tournament do not belong to the same people. EDIT: Meant to say Hydra and Outbreak. |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
219
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:30:00 -
[199] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:adaquate response cannot be given when the details of what you were doing (specially those that crossed the line) were not disclosed to the GM making the decision.
You got an answer to the question you asked, it was the wrong question to validate your actions This is true. However, please consider that this petition was filled by outbreak member as act of free will - he has no direct relationship to HYDRA leadership. He just knew we're waiting for email response and decided to help, presenting us just GM's reply.
Who knew that question wasn't worded correctly enough. If anybody would know & notice it - question would have been reworded with 100% chance, i remind you of amount of attention we were putting into this. |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:31:00 -
[200] - Quote
Kratisto wrote:In this thread I hear you apologized and feel bad about how that ended. Your apologies were not publicized, if they were given. You will find little compassion, unless you issue a very public and heartfelt apology for last year, ask for forgiveness and understanding, and request one team be allowed to compete. Did you miss Duncan's detailed write-up response last year with Garmon's apology, or something? |
|
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:34:00 -
[201] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Karl Planck wrote:adaquate response cannot be given when the details of what you were doing (specially those that crossed the line) were not disclosed to the GM making the decision.
You got an answer to the question you asked, it was the wrong question to validate your actions This is true. However, please consider that this petition was filled by outbreak member as act of free will - he has no direct relationship to HYDRA leadership. He just knew we're waiting for email response and decided to help, presenting us just GM's reply. Who knew that question wasn't worded correctly enough. If anybody would know & notice it - question would have been reworded with 100% chance, i remind you of amount of attention we were putting into this.
This being the case why did you practice together until you got clearence? Everything in eve works like this. For example, if you are exploiting something that seems like a bug then the GM can temp ban you for doing it (if they THINK you had intent to break the rules).
This is no different. You guys were playing with fire and you got burned.
All of this said, I am sad you guys wont be competing as HYDRA has done very well in the past, but that sadness is much much less than my appriciation for CCP holding up the rules it set out. To all everyone concerned over the fairness involving the H/O disqualification https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113351&find=unread |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:38:00 -
[202] - Quote
Kratisto wrote:What I find most amusing about this thread is Outbreak. and Hydra attempting to lawyer their way into the tournament. That works in civil courts with laws and rules, and accountability of judges.
judges in real cases are free to go "**** you we all know what you were up to" too, you only get to get hypertechnical when the judge is forbidden from being reasonable (cases like new york contract law) |
Jimmy Luv
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:42:00 -
[203] - Quote
Pretty simple really......
Senior GM responds to Garmon giving them the go ahead to practice with each other on the test server. If this wasn't supposed to be allowed in the first place then the blame can only lie with CCP. A lack of communication on they're part should not consitute a problem on Outbreak/Hydras.
There simply is no other argument to be made.
Sort your S**t out CCP. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7365
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:47:00 -
[204] - Quote
Jimmy Luv wrote:A lack of communication on they're part should not consitute a problem on Outbreak/Hydras. It is when Outbreak/Hydra are the ones not communicating properlyGǪ
Yoink.
GǪbah! Breaking sipes by deletion is a much bigger GM issue! GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
220
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:48:00 -
[205] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:This being the case why did you practice together until you got clearence? You must've missed my post where i said that we wouldn't get response from evetv email address no matter what.
We would understand if CCP would limit both HYDRA/OB to fielding one team, using previous year as precedent.
We would even understand if CCP told us that both HYDRA and OB are not allowed to participate in tournament on 2nd may, when they published the rules.
But making it just now, when thousands of man-hours (3-5 training sessions a week + logi + theorycrafting + spying stuff) were spent and making such lame excuses makes me thing that the only thing which drove CCP in this case is bitterness of certain persons who placed their own opinion above anything else.
I entered HYDRA just few months ago to participate in ATX. After hanging around for a while - I really thought these guys are tinfoiled and that they really overestimate amount of hatred towards HYDRA. After recent events, it turns out they had a good reason to do so. |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
220
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:49:00 -
[206] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It is when Outbreak/Hydra are the ones not communicating properlyGǪ I would be glad to hear your advice on how we would have to communicate with CCP.
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:50:00 -
[207] - Quote
Jimmy Luv wrote:Pretty simple really......
Senior GM responds to Garmon giving them the go ahead to practice with each other on the test server. If this wasn't supposed to be allowed in the first place then the blame can only lie with CCP. A lack of communication on they're part should not consitute a problem on Outbreak/Hydras.
There simply is no other argument to be made.
Sort your S**t out CCP.
Permission to practice with each other is different from permission to use same SiSi corp / logistics / theorycraft / setups Right up until tourney starts ( at which point one can only assume they'd still be in constant communication and metagaming together )
But yeah the Tourney team should've communicated better. Doesn't mean the GM gave them permission to behave as if their two alliances were one team. |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
505
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:51:00 -
[208] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:I would be glad to hear your advice on how we would have to communicate with CCP.
Get a batphone.
|
Intigo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
31
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:54:00 -
[209] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jimmy Luv wrote:A lack of communication on they're part should not consitute a problem on Outbreak/Hydras. It is when Outbreak/Hydra are the ones not communicating properlyGǪ
...what did we do wrong when we emailed the official Alliance Tournament address twice?
Zero reply. |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
172
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:57:00 -
[210] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Karl Planck wrote:This being the case why did you practice together until you got clearence? You must've missed my post where i said that we wouldn't get response from evetv email address no matter what. We would understand if CCP would limit both HYDRA/OB to fielding one team, using previous year as precedent. We would even understand if CCP told us that both HYDRA and OB are not allowed to participate in tournament on 2nd may, when they published the rules.
Waiting for a response and continuing to perpetrate risky behavior is what I am talking about. While CCP should have gotten into contact with H/O, pushing forward like you got the clearance was rediculas.
RvB was given an exception, exceptions are by definition not standard practice and you had absolutely no reason to expect one.
To all everyone concerned over the fairness involving the H/O disqualification https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113351&find=unread |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |