These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Stratios Emergency Responder Vanity Item or Not?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#61 - 2013-11-22 20:30:11 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

No, you haven't made a point. You haven't even presented one. You dropped something that you imagined to be clever that had absolutely no bearing on the conversation in the least.

Then, you threw a tantrum, called names, and, without a hint of irony, started whining about "school-yard debating skills" Lol.

Calm down, it's going to be okay. I'm sure you'll have a point to make some other day.



Ok and now you have gone from arguing in the school yard to pantomine "Oh no you didnt" "oh yes I did" arguments

You seem to be entirely unable to actually form any kind of rational defense to your position and are now launching ad hominem attacks at me

Which is fine

I do like getting emotional when faced with morons

Means I know Im right

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#62 - 2013-11-22 20:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Ramona McCandless wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

No, you haven't made a point. You haven't even presented one. You dropped something that you imagined to be clever that had absolutely no bearing on the conversation in the least.

Then, you threw a tantrum, called names, and, without a hint of irony, started whining about "school-yard debating skills" Lol.

Calm down, it's going to be okay. I'm sure you'll have a point to make some other day.



Ok and now you have gone from arguing in the school yard to pantomine "Oh no you didnt" "oh yes I did" arguments

You seem to be entirely unable to actually form any kind of rational defense to your position and are now launching ad hominem attacks at me

Which is fine

I do like getting emotional when faced with morons

Means I know Im right


You haven't actually presented anything I would have to defend my position against. You're just throwing a tantrum that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. That you continue to do so instead of actually stating any position at all makes it pretty obvious that you're intent on derailing this for as long as possible because you understand that you were wrong and don't want to admit it.

If your position were as ironclad as you're trying to pretend that it is (without, notably, saying anything at all to actually support your position), you shouldn't have any problem merely expounding. Instead you're doing the childishly transparent, "I'm not going to lower myself by actually explaining it to you, if you don't get it that's YOUR problem." Roll

You're usually smarter than this.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#63 - 2013-11-22 20:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


You haven't actually presented anything I would have to defend my position against. You're just throwing a tantrum that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. That you continue to do so instead of actually stating any position at all makes it pretty obvious that you're intent on derailing this for as long as possible because you understand that you were wrong and don't want to admit it.



But Im not

Im also not derailing anything. Im sticking to to point made in regards to favouritism.

You are simply making empty arguments based on nothing to keep my attention.

So, then, please, why not answer the question;

In what manner can favouritism exist without a mutual beneficial back and forth realitionship between giver and receiver?

Please ask for meanings of any words you find difficult before answering

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-11-22 20:42:59 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Ramona McCandless wrote:


In what manner can favouritism exist without a mutual beneficial back and forth realitionship between giver and receiver?



What I said, is that that doesn't matter. This being a competitive game, CCP has an inherent responsibility to play the role of an impartial arbiter.

That they get something out of violating their impartiality doesn't magically obviate that inherent responsibility, therefore the statement that you believe to be so clever doesn't actually matter within the scope of the greater argument.


In other words, regardless of the explicit internal accuracy of the statement, you merely succeeded in saying something that has no actual significance or bearing toward anything that I said.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#65 - 2013-11-22 20:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:


In what manner can favouritism exist without a mutual beneficial back and forth realitionship between giver and receiver?


What I said, is that that doesn't matter. This being a competitive game, CCP has an inherent responsibility to play the role of an impartial arbiter.

That they get something out of it doesn't magically obviate that inherent responsibility, therefore the statement that you believe to be so clever doesn't actually matter within the scope of the greater argument.

In other words, regardless of the explicit accuracy of the statement, you merely succeeded in saying something that has no actual significance.


Ah but it DOES matter.

"CCP has an inherent responsibility to play the role of an impartial arbiter."

No, it doesn't .

CCP has an inherent responisbility to its owners, shareholders, a lesser extent its staff, and to an even lesser extent you and me.

CCP is a business, not a referee.

It is not bound by anything other than international law and business "ethics".

What I have said previously is the HOW of the CCP/SB relationship.

What I have just said is the WHY

These are relevant and explicitly signifigant to the situation

Your concept of being some sort of football referee is the irrelevancy here

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-11-22 20:48:57 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:


In what manner can favouritism exist without a mutual beneficial back and forth realitionship between giver and receiver?


What I said, is that that doesn't matter. This being a competitive game, CCP has an inherent responsibility to play the role of an impartial arbiter.

That they get something out of it doesn't magically obviate that inherent responsibility, therefore the statement that you believe to be so clever doesn't actually matter within the scope of the greater argument.

In other words, regardless of the explicit accuracy of the statement, you merely succeeded in saying something that has no actual significance.


Ah but it DOES matter.

"CCP has an inherent responsibility to play the role of an impartial arbiter."

No, it doesn't .

CCP has an inherent responisbility to its owners, shareholders, a lesser extent its staff, and to an even lesser extent you and me.

CCP is a business, not a referee.

It is not bound by anything other than international law and business "ethics".

What I have said is the HOW of the CCP/SB relationship.

What I have just said is the WHY


As long as they're presenting it as a competitive game, they ARE a referee. If they're willing to sacrifice that assertion, then they can ditch that responsibility. They're trying to do both, which is dishonest, at best.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#67 - 2013-11-22 20:51:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


As long as they're presenting it as a competitive game, they ARE a referee. If they're willing to sacrifice that assertion, then they can ditch that responsibility. They're trying to do both, which is dishonest, at best.





And they can do that if they like, its their ball

But they dont have to tell you anything about it

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Cave Ciliatum
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-11-22 20:54:38 UTC
omfg plz stop this madnesss!!!!
Cosmar
Syn Interstellar
#69 - 2013-11-22 20:59:48 UTC
The only thing that bothers me about this and the scorpions and all that is that CCP doesn't have the nuts to just say "we reserve the right as a company to give a small number of unique variants of ships to events and people we like, for any reason we feel like, like we've done for 10 years now, goodbye, **** off".

It's not CCP's job to babysit the market in case it makes one objectively nearly-worthless item super expensive because of insane collectors or whatever (or in the opposite case if giving more cool items to more people loses someone money on their dumb speculative investment).
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#70 - 2013-11-22 21:02:48 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Cosmar wrote:
The only thing that bothers me about this and the scorpions and all that is that CCP doesn't have the nuts to just say "we reserve the right as a company to give a small number of unique variants of ships to events and people we like, for any reason we feel like, like we've done for 10 years now, goodbye, **** off".

It's not CCP's job to babysit the market in case it makes one objectively nearly-worthless item super expensive because of insane collectors or whatever (or in the opposite case if giving more cool items to more people loses someone money on their dumb speculative investment).



WINNAR!

If they could stop incessantly bullshitting us in dev blogs and forum posts about how much they respect and value an even playing field in Eve, this would be an entirely different matter.

Instead it's, "We reserve the right to publicly pretend that we will behave impartially while openly cheating on behalf of some players."

The Greed is Good doctrine is obviously still very much alive within CCP.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#71 - 2013-11-22 21:09:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


WINNAR!

If they could stop incessantly bullshitting us in dev blogs and forum posts about how much they respect and value an even playing field in Eve, this would be an entirely different matter.

Instead it's, "We reserve the right to publicly pretend that we will behave impartially while openly cheating on behalf of some players."

The Greed is Good doctrine is obviously still very much alive within CCP.



*BLINK*

Thats precisely what I said except without the entitled attitude at the start


Wow.

You really do have some sort of problem lol

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#72 - 2013-11-22 21:12:17 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Ramona McCandless wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


WINNAR!

If they could stop incessantly bullshitting us in dev blogs and forum posts about how much they respect and value an even playing field in Eve, this would be an entirely different matter.

Instead it's, "We reserve the right to publicly pretend that we will behave impartially while openly cheating on behalf of some players."

The Greed is Good doctrine is obviously still very much alive within CCP.



*BLINK*

Thats precisely what I said except without the entitled attitude at the start


Wow.

You really do have some sort of problem lol



Except, it's not your position at all, because you're 100% fine with the hypocrisy and will white knight them regardless.

Your position: They can cheat AND openly lie about it, **** it, I don't care.
My position: They should at least be honest about cheating.

These are only the same thing if you are functionally illiterate.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#73 - 2013-11-22 21:20:41 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:



Except, it's not your position at all, because you're 100% fine with the hypocrisy and will white knight them regardless.

Your position: They can cheat AND openly lie about it, **** it, I don't care.
My position: They should at least be honest about cheating.

These are only the same thing if you are functionally illiterate.


I see you handily ignored the sentence about having an entitled attitude


They ARE the same thing, except you feel they should treat you with some sort of unearned respect

Why should a video game company treat you any differently than any other company operating in the western world treats you?

Because you fly pretty pixels?

Call me illiterate if you like, but you are the one who is living in a fantasy

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#74 - 2013-11-22 21:24:22 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Ramona McCandless wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:



Except, it's not your position at all, because you're 100% fine with the hypocrisy and will white knight them regardless.

Your position: They can cheat AND openly lie about it, **** it, I don't care.
My position: They should at least be honest about cheating.

These are only the same thing if you are functionally illiterate.


I see you handily ignored the sentence about having an entitled attitude


They ARE the same thing, except you feel they should treat you with some sort of unearned respect

Why should a video game company treat you any differently than any other company operating in the western world treats you?

Because you fly pretty pixels?

Call me illiterate if you like, but you are the one who is living in a fantasy


More like, "Because bullshitting their customers and getting caught on it is the only thing that has ever done measurable damage to their business."

Do explain why it's unreasonable to expect them to explain that they are, in fact, going to cheat on behalf of some players.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone white knight them for flagrantly lying to the players before.

The fact that they feel compelled to lie about it demonstrates an understanding on their part that preferentially gifting things to some players isn't something that they could rely on being generally accepted as okay.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#75 - 2013-11-22 21:34:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


More like, "Because bullshitting their customers and getting caught on it is the only thing that has ever done measurable damage to their business."

Do explain why it's unreasonable to expect them to explain that they are, in fact, going to cheat on behalf of some players.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone white knight them for flagrantly lying to the players before.

The fact that they feel compelled to lie about it demonstrates an understanding on their part that preferentially gifting things to some players isn't something that they could rely on being generally accepted as okay.


Because they are a business. Its what businesses do.


What you call "lying" is usually called "damage limitation", "marketting" or even more archaically "public relations".


They will do whatever they think is the most profitable regardless of what you think of that.


They are not here to make people feel better, or make you love them or anything like that.


If you don't like how they operate, well its an open market, you can vote with your feet.


Im content enough for them to do it because that's how it works. I vote in my own way by not using SB, though I wouldnt use them anyway as I do not like the gamble.

But I don't understand why you think this is in any way an unusual practice and also continue to provide CCP with financial support if you find their operating practices so abhorrant.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#76 - 2013-11-22 21:50:52 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Ramona McCandless wrote:


But I don't understand why you think this is in any way an unusual practice and also continue to provide CCP with financial support if you find their operating practices so abhorrant.


Quit-threats aren't really my style. That said, I've only been subbed for 16 days, and the Somer debacle is somewhat new to me. I may leave. My understanding is that there's still some final word on this pending.

Your assertion that this is business as usual is bizarre, however. It really isn't. There's no functional difference from a player perspective between this and T20.

From CCP's perspective, however, T20 was a scandal, while this is... what, community outreach? That alone represents an extremely large and unusual change in perspective for them.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#77 - 2013-11-22 21:58:03 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Your assertion that this is business as usual is bizarre, however. It really isn't. There's no functional difference from a player perspective between this and T20.

From CCP's perspective, however, T20 was a scandal, while this is... what, community outreach? That alone represents and extremely large and unusual change in perspective for them.


I wasn't around for T20, but from what I recall being told that was where T20 gave BPOs to BoB, right?

Which led to CCP changing their attitude towards employees having identifiable players alts, to one of that they are now secret and are not to divulge sensitive information such as release dates, but refused to fire said person as it wasn't in any way in breach of their employment rules?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#78 - 2013-11-22 22:00:56 UTC
Oh and incidentally, do you have an idea for a fairer way for CCP to get unusual ships into general distribution?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#79 - 2013-11-22 22:02:59 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

Your assertion that this is business as usual is bizarre, however. It really isn't. There's no functional difference from a player perspective between this and T20.

From CCP's perspective, however, T20 was a scandal, while this is... what, community outreach? That alone represents and extremely large and unusual change in perspective for them.


I wasn't around for T20, but from what I recall being told that was where T20 gave BPOs to BoB, right?


Yes.

Quote:

Which led to CCP changing their attitude towards employees having identifiable players alts, to one of that they are now secret and are not to divulge sensitive information such as release dates, but refused to fire said person as it wasn't in any way in breach of their employment rules?


There was definitely a breach of rules. IIRC the employee was basically saved by some sort of double-jeopardy principle after a non-termination punishment was meted out by junior management - just going off of memory. I would have to hit the Googles to for an authoritative version of events.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#80 - 2013-11-22 22:03:49 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


There was definitely a breach of rules. IIRC the employee was basically saved by some sort of double-jeopardy principle after a non-termination punishment was meted out by junior management - just going off of memory. I would have to hit the Googles to for an authoritative version of events.



And this is the same because..?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann