These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Open letter to CCP and the community regarding HYDRA and OB ban from ATX

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#121 - 2012-05-25 16:57:07 UTC
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.

I has all the eve inactivity
Karbox Delacroix
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-05-25 17:00:51 UTC
I also like how Sreegs seems to imply that reducing logistics is somehow dishonest because other teams have to work harder. Roll I'm pretty sure any small alliance has to work harder per person compared to Goons and PL. Those guys are loaded and they have the numbers so logistics and procurement are not as big a burden.
Kadesh Priestess
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#123 - 2012-05-25 17:05:50 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
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.
Again, we got response from Senior GM and it was basically approved by CCP official who's on my skype. We got the clearance, we tried our best to contact AT team directly to completely ensure it. We didn't have a batphone to sort it out.

RvB is completely other situation because they were contacted by CCP, not vice versa (or at least they deserved CCP's attention if they initiated the contact). We would never ever field 2 teams after we started trainings together, if we knew it is considered as offence by CCP. We would never ever start training together if we got quick reply to our first email disallowing us to do so.

Please stop playing words - it won't make you right or wrong. Just face the fact that our requests to the highest AT commands were intentionally ignored by CCP, even though at least 1 person within company (or even two or 3) had our message at hands with appropriate requests to pass it to AT team, even if mail delivery failed.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#124 - 2012-05-25 17:32:35 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
[Again, we got response from Senior GM and it was basically approved by CCP official who's on my skype. We got the clearance, we tried our best to contact AT team directly to completely ensure it. We didn't have a batphone to sort it out.

we've seen the gm response and it doesn't support your case
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#125 - 2012-05-25 17:35:00 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Karl Planck wrote:
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.
Again, we got response from Senior GM and it was basically approved by CCP official who's on my skype. We got the clearance, we tried our best to contact AT team directly to completely ensure it. We didn't have a batphone to sort it out.


Again, for like the tenth time, you got clearence for only a portion of what you were doing. You did not mention that you were in the same corp on sisi, in a wh, practicing together with mixed teams/coms/fittings/mods

If you want to provide some evidence of THAT correspondence, i'll change my tune


Kadesh Priestess wrote:

RvB is completely other situation because they were contacted by CCP, not vice versa (or at least they deserved CCP's attention if they initiated the contact). We would never ever field 2 teams after we started trainings together, if we knew it is considered as offence by CCP. We would never ever start training together if we got quick reply to our first email disallowing us to do so.

Please stop playing words - it won't make you right or wrong. Just face the fact that our requests to the highest AT commands were intentionally ignored by CCP, even though at least 1 person within company (or even two or 3) had our message at hands with appropriate requests to pass it to AT team, even if mail delivery failed.


While it is unfortunate there was a lack of communication, you were completely in the wrong for going ahead like you had a green light. And you are certainly not boo-hoo'ing CCP because of lack of email clarity (calling for a reformat of how CCP delegates information), you are trying to get a reverse decision when you should have known (and obviously did know) how you were operating could get you disqualified.


I has all the eve inactivity
Kadesh Priestess
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#126 - 2012-05-25 17:49:03 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
Again, for like the tenth time, you got clearence for only a portion of what you were doing. You did not mention that you were in the same corp on sisi, in a wh, practicing together with mixed teams/coms/fittings/mods

If you want to provide some evidence of THAT correspondence, i'll change my tune
Testing against each other pretty much implies we do it in the same place. being in the same corp - is purely technical moment (like shared CEO of executor corp between trusted persons, because you can't have multiple characters fulfilling this role), it doesn't change anything regarding being entity or not. As you may know, we did it for corporate hangar access.

Sreegs says it is a difference which matters, i see you're inclined to believe him. But formal reasoning leads to few conclusions:

1) We were banned just because we were easining burden of logistics
2) He doesn't care so much about what's shown in tournament, he wants to waste participants efforts on something which is largely behind the scenes - and only then he will call it fair

Or, as i previously voiced my opinion - he published opinion of the part of AT collective which is bitter because of AT IX finals.


Karl Planck wrote:
While it is unfortunate there was a lack of communication, you were completely in the wrong for going ahead like you had a green light. And you are certainly not boo-hoo'ing CCP because of lack of email clarity (calling for a reformat of how CCP delegates information), you are trying to get a reverse decision when you should have known (and obviously did know) how you were operating could get you disqualified.
Don't belittle significance of lack of communication. It was primary reason of recent events resulting in hydra ban.

And please stop justifying that CCP are humans too and can make mistakes from time to time. Making mistake isn't a problem, handling it - is.
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#127 - 2012-05-25 18:06:16 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Karl Planck wrote:
Again, for like the tenth time, you got clearence for only a portion of what you were doing. You did not mention that you were in the same corp on sisi, in a wh, practicing together with mixed teams/coms/fittings/mods

If you want to provide some evidence of THAT correspondence, i'll change my tune
Testing against each other pretty much implies we do it in the same place. being in the same corp - is purely technical moment (like shared CEO of executor corp between trusted persons, because you can't have multiple characters fulfilling this role), it doesn't change anything regarding being entity or not. As you may know, we did it for corporate hangar access.

Sreegs says it is a difference which matters, i see you're inclined to believe him. But formal reasoning leads to few conclusions:

1) We were banned just because we were easining burden of logistics
2) He doesn't care so much about what's shown in tournament, he wants to waste participants efforts on something which is largely behind the scenes - and only then he will call it fair

Or, as i previously voiced my opinion - he published opinion of the part of AT collective which is bitter because of AT IX finals.


You are now changing the criterion of what you are arguing, just pointing that out, but its fine.

There is a HUGE thick line between sparring with people and combining together, as a united entity. I simply cannot believe you cannot see the difference. Furthermore, the items you list are evidence of a unified team, not of simplifying things. Notice all of the we's in every thread. You guys are together, as one, doing the exact same thing, and getting punished for it, together, like a team.

Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Don't belittle significance of lack of communication. It was primary reason of recent events resulting in hydra ban.

And please stop justifying that CCP are humans too and can make mistakes from time to time. Making mistake isn't a problem, handling it - is.


I am not belittling it, but it is not your point. This thread isn't a "call for CCP to answer their emails" its a call for you to get an exception to breaking the rules when you were only attempting to bend them.

I has all the eve inactivity
Merdaneth
Angel Wing.
Khimi Harar
#128 - 2012-05-25 18:10:29 UTC
"We are testing in a wormhole because we don't want anyone else to get as much as the smallest glimpse of our setups and tactics, we are very secretive."

"Except of course for one other team who is allowed complete access to all of our setups and tactics and from which we have no secrets at all."

"Oh: the other team is completely independent from us of course."

It is not rocket science: any two (or more) teams who have no secrets from each other, but try to keep as much secrets as possible from other teams are basically one team with just a different alliance label.

It is also not rocket science that CCP would be likely to act if they noticed this behaviour after the fiasco of a finale last year.
Vily
1 Royal Fleet Corps
Pandemic Horde
#129 - 2012-05-25 18:12:15 UTC
During the pre-entry stage, Goonswarm had a group that wanted to run a second team from within the alliance (WiDot) they had the means, the ability and the history to do so.

We asked them not to enter because the knew rules were very clear on what the consequences could be if we did so. As such we entered only one team.

When you play with fire, it is only yourself you can blame when you get bruned
Beledia Ilphukiir
Proffessional Experts Group
#130 - 2012-05-25 18:12:46 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Karl Planck wrote:
Again, for like the tenth time, you got clearence for only a portion of what you were doing. You did not mention that you were in the same corp on sisi, in a wh, practicing together with mixed teams/coms/fittings/mods

If you want to provide some evidence of THAT correspondence, i'll change my tune
Testing against each other pretty much implies we do it in the same place. being in the same corp - is purely technical moment (like shared CEO of executor corp between trusted persons, because you can't have multiple characters fulfilling this role), it doesn't change anything regarding being entity or not. As you may know, we did it for corporate hangar access.

Sreegs says it is a difference which matters, i see you're inclined to believe him. But formal reasoning leads to few conclusions:

1) We were banned just because we were easining burden of logistics
2) He doesn't care so much about what's shown in tournament, he wants to waste participants efforts on something which is largely behind the scenes - and only then he will call it fair

Or, as i previously voiced my opinion - he published opinion of the part of AT collective which is bitter because of AT IX finals.


Karl Planck wrote:
While it is unfortunate there was a lack of communication, you were completely in the wrong for going ahead like you had a green light. And you are certainly not boo-hoo'ing CCP because of lack of email clarity (calling for a reformat of how CCP delegates information), you are trying to get a reverse decision when you should have known (and obviously did know) how you were operating could get you disqualified.
Don't belittle significance of lack of communication. It was primary reason of recent events resulting in hydra ban.

And please stop justifying that CCP are humans too and can make mistakes from time to time. Making mistake isn't a problem, handling it - is.


They tried to old and failed method of getting a GM "permission" by intentionally leaving out relevant points from their petition in an effort to secure a positive outcome to that petition from their perspective. They then proceeded with the obviously dubious activity and when caught, try to wave around their worthless petition ruling as a justification for their actions.

Nothing in their actions says to me they had a genuine intention of try to sort things out and play by the rules. Everything points out to trying to get around the intention of the rule, but still have some technical point to fall back on, if they can't get away with what they are doing. They intended to cheat, but thought the backup plan would allow them to continue in the tournament normal in the case CCP didn't agree with them. They were confident it would work, since they have a very high opinion about their own importance to the game. It didn't work.

CCP certainly could have used soft gloves and just stopped what they were planning by a warning them, but they also had justification to just ban them outright. I'm guessing CCP took their efforts to get around the rules as a giant FU and went: "F me? Oh no, no, no! FU!". Since CCP is actually the only party with the ultimate power concerning everything EVE related, it was a bad move to try to **** in their face and tell them it's raining.
Merdaneth
Angel Wing.
Khimi Harar
#131 - 2012-05-25 18:14:07 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:

1) We were banned just because we were easining burden of logistics


I'm sure there were many more sparring partners available that would have gladly joined your WH corp to easy the burden of their logistics. I guess you didn't want them?

If your are very picky about your sparring partners, but do share almost everything with those selected sparring partners, you should really think again about your definitions of sparring partners and competitors.
Karbox Delacroix
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#132 - 2012-05-25 18:21:00 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Karl Planck wrote:
Again, for like the tenth time, you got clearence for only a portion of what you were doing. You did not mention that you were in the same corp on sisi, in a wh, practicing together with mixed teams/coms/fittings/mods

If you want to provide some evidence of THAT correspondence, i'll change my tune
Testing against each other pretty much implies we do it in the same place. being in the same corp - is purely technical moment (like shared CEO of executor corp between trusted persons, because you can't have multiple characters fulfilling this role), it doesn't change anything regarding being entity or not. As you may know, we did it for corporate hangar access.

Sreegs says it is a difference which matters, i see you're inclined to believe him. But formal reasoning leads to few conclusions:

1) We were banned just because we were easining burden of logistics
2) He doesn't care so much about what's shown in tournament, he wants to waste participants efforts on something which is largely behind the scenes - and only then he will call it fair

Or, as i previously voiced my opinion - he published opinion of the part of AT collective which is bitter because of AT IX finals.


You are now changing the criterion of what you are arguing, just pointing that out, but its fine.

There is a HUGE thick line between sparring with people and combining together, as a united entity. I simply cannot believe you cannot see the difference. Furthermore, the items you list are evidence of a unified team, not of simplifying things. Notice all of the we's in every thread. You guys are together, as one, doing the exact same thing, and getting punished for it, together, like a team.



The line is blurry because the most troublesome forms of collusion are the hardest ones to prove. People have cited the importance of theory crafting and setups, but CCP cannot monitor private out of game emails or voice chats. Two alliances could be sitting in a private server somewhere talking up a storm and CCP would never know. Also, given that sparring is allowed, someone will see the killmails somewhere. Fittings and tech will be released simply through the very action of sparring. Presumably an Alliance that spars more is more prepared. Larger Alliance have more members and deeper wallets to do this internally. It is not unreasonable for smaller alliances to seek out external sparring partners.

What does joining together on a test server prove? Nothing. We already knew they had a close working relationship and we also knew that we could not black out their out of game communications. It was admitted earlier that Goons and Test were sparring against each other. Do we have any doubts that if they face each other they will both fight as hard as they can?

CCP wanted an excuse to punish Hydra/Outbreak so they created a pretext to revenge themselves.
Hroya
#133 - 2012-05-25 18:26:50 UTC
Wouldnt be eve without drama, but geesh you're pushing it with this one.

Clearly some mistakes have been made in both giving information and implementing said information.
For a showcase like AT you could take a step back a bit and not let everyones personall feelings about metagaming and assorted shenannigans get in the way. And surely holding a grudge over last years AT final is ... a long grudge i tell you.

Like some one else said, devs etc arent robots, as players we are all humans and humans make mistakes. Grow up and admit a mistake and help solve the situation. That's what grown ups do.

Maybe you could settle on a middleground here. Let them compete at the AT, but let them only field 1 combined team or none.

You go your corridor but.
Denarus Arran
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#134 - 2012-05-25 18:58:30 UTC
Break the rules get banned. Next topic.

PEWPEWPEW
Uggs
Imperial Technology
#135 - 2012-05-25 19:08:52 UTC
What I don't understand is, Hydra/0utbreak claim to have spent a ton of time preparing for the tournament, but apparently it was too much work to spend an extra 30 mins to set up a second pos to keep the 2 corps separate. I do think they should still be allowed one team though, but they could of easily had both in if they weren't dumb.
Hroya
#136 - 2012-05-25 19:33:38 UTC
Sad thing is, without a mature compromise to the situation, afer the tournament the new champion will not recieve the praises they should get because the forums will be crowded with posts like:

"But the former champion and runner up were banned and they would have beaten you"
"The competition was less then last year"
"It was rigged"
etc etc

It's a shame really but i think that is what it will be like.

You go your corridor but.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#137 - 2012-05-25 20:49:47 UTC
MrWhitei God wrote:
ScoRpS wrote:
We had neither 0utbreak or Hydra on the roster. We didn't get picked and as such we never had either team a secured spot in the tournament. So technically no we didnt but our intentions were to field both teams.


Thats alot of "We" for two separate entities


hahaha true. This is so obviously a big lie by the OP. Sorry I'm not buying it. Hydra is suddenly honorable and would never do anything underhanded?

Sorry but be proud of your history Hydra, don't try to act Innocent.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#138 - 2012-05-25 20:52:42 UTC
Hroya wrote:
Sad thing is, without a mature compromise to the situation, afer the tournament the new champion will not recieve the praises they should get because the forums will be crowded with posts like:

"But the former champion and runner up were banned and they would have beaten you"
"The competition was less then last year"
"It was rigged"
etc etc

It's a shame really but i think that is what it will be like.


But ti's on video, no one outside of Hydra is/or was looking forward to seeing them in the final. They lost and then the other team gave it to them. Which is in the spirit or eve, but to make it so obvious, it was a lazy rush job. And now they've done it again, at least from my point of view. And got caught.


Last year the two alliances fighting in the final were the same alliance. Everyone knew at the time, but we figured they would still give a good fight. And as there are only 64 spots, I hope Hydra gets back in, but as just themselves. No more. becuase they suck at rigging matches, totally un entertaining.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
Makkz
Lamorei Prosapia Vexillum
#139 - 2012-05-25 21:00:05 UTC
ATX will miss Hydra, but they got caught... blatantly. And now sing the forum tune of its not our fault.

No ones buying it, your leadership made a serious serious error, live with it.

As a note to the explanation... if committing fraud, you do not get a beat cop (gm in this case) who doesn't have a clue to validate what your doing. Specially when a judge (ccp) has already made it clear that your actions specifically in a previous case were unacceptable.

Many were actually shocked you weren't just banned from this year anyway because of last years final, and then you tried this anyway... bad call.

Hydra pvp = awesome sauce of the highest caliber.
Hydra leadership = arrogant slimy and in denial.
Luis Graca
#140 - 2012-05-25 21:09:30 UTC
wondering what will kil2 answer in ATX to the question "what do you this of this year tournament?"