These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

FREE DURRHURRDURR

First post First post
Author
Nemesis Factor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#81 - 2011-11-09 22:52:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Nemesis Factor
Belthizaar wrote:
DarkAegix wrote:
It must have been an impressively stupid petition to get him banned.


Full contents of DHD's single petition he sent:

Quote:

It has come to my attention that a Game Master known as "GM Thunder" has recently altered the topic text of the public channel "recruitment" to reflect a change of policy disallowing scamming and fraudulent activities to occur within the channel, or to be used as a channel with which to find targets for such activities.

It is my opinion, and the opinion of many other EVE Online players, that this is an encroachment upon the activities of players that use the recruitment channel.

Scamming has long been part of the EVE culture and has long been a promotional tool by CCP to draw new players to the game. The permission of such activities is a display of the truly sandbox nature of the harsh, hypercapitalistic EVE universe and the recent rule change in the recruitment channel encroaches on the true sandbox that the game provides for its players.

From TenTonHammer to PCGamer, the proliferation of EVE Online scams in gaming media has been a powerful driving force for EVE's current popularity. The draw of a true sandbox where your actions have legitimate consequences is a very powerful niche that isn't filled by any other game, and that includes the dangers of interacting with players on a regular basis. From the fall of BoB at the hands of a disgruntled director to the massive thefts of iterations of large EVE banks and investments to supercapital holding scams, the scamming culture is very deep-rooted and an important part of EVE Online.

Additionally, this change of rules presents a considerable workload increase on GMs as well as issues with burden of proof; cases where recruitment is used as a "hunting ground" will be exceptionally difficult to prove and even more difficult to enforce punishment for the use of such channels.

I would like this petition to be escalated to a senior GM who can reverse this recent change and, if the change is not reverted, respond to this petition with a clarification and justification as to why this new rule has been placed.

The full text for the recruitment channel's topic will be pasted below for easy reference.



[18:16:37] EVE System > Channel MOTD: Welcome to the recruitment channel. This channel is intended for those players looking to find a new corporation, as well as those looking to enlist new players. Other activities, such as non-recruitment discussion is not permitted.No scamming is allowed in this channel and this includes, but not limited to, using the recruitment channel as a platform to find or target players to scam. As per subject, we ask everyone to use their best judgment before contracting assets or ISK as part of corporation’s recruitment process and any deals made or finalized outside this channel are done at your own risk and responsibility.An additional recruitment source is the Alliance and Corporation Recruitment Center section of the forums.



They banned him for this.


They did not ban him for that. I don't know what he was banned for, but if you are suggesting it's this, you are as stupid as he is.

Edit: There are several reasons to NOT free DHD.


  1. He was friggin banned, and CCP doesn't ban people for no reason.
  2. Never even heard of this guy, so his celebrity status is no reason to let him out.
  3. He has all of TEST behind him, which is reason enough for ANYONE to be banned for at least a week.
  4. Apparently he likes to scam new players.
Tarion Awessi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2011-11-09 22:54:56 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Yep, pretty stupid, but also not the reason for the ban.

Swamping the petition system with this would be the cause of the ban, so you already know exactly who got him banned and why.

Not the brightest move.
DHD is one man. He can only have 3 petitions open, right? The fact that other people took the wording of his petition and used it themselves is not his fault. He's not in a position of power within TEST vis-à-vis scamming, petitioning, or any combination thereof and shouldn't be held responsible because people who share his concerns were too lazy to write their own petitions.

Besides, if other people using your petition is reason for you to get banned, then I see a new metagaming tactic coming.
Pesky LaRue
Mercatoris
#83 - 2011-11-09 22:58:27 UTC
DidntWantThatShipAnway wrote:
Banned because he filed one petition.
Then a bunch of other people copied the body of his petition (he didn't ask them to) and filed their own.
How is this his fault?
:CCP:


Belthizaar wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Swamping the petition system with this would be the cause of the ban, so you already know exactly who got him banned and why.
Not the brightest move.

He sent it once. You're wrong. You can only send 3 petitions at any one time, if you dont believe me, try it yourself.


If he hadn't made the contents of his petition public and had a legion of retards not copied/pasted it, he would not have got banned.

Arguably, not his fault but hey, if you going to play with a bunch of spaz's and they act like spaz's and you get blamed for it, you don't really get to cry about it.

Next time, don't share petition contents with lemmings?
Zions Child
Higashikata Industries
#84 - 2011-11-09 22:58:43 UTC
Posting in a thread.

What are we here for again?
K Suri
Doomheim
#85 - 2011-11-09 22:59:51 UTC
Tarion Awessi wrote:
The fact that other people took the wording of his petition and used it themselves is not his fault.

And they got the copy of the petition how?

Tarion Awessi wrote:

Besides, if other people using your petition is reason for you to get banned, then I see a new metagaming tactic coming.

How. The ORIGINAL petition writer has to GIVE the copy. Yes?


Tuggboat
Oneida Inc.
#86 - 2011-11-09 23:00:10 UTC
Send a message CCP, Send a Message.... louder
Pesky LaRue
Mercatoris
#87 - 2011-11-09 23:02:11 UTC
Tarion Awessi wrote:

Besides, if other people using your petition is reason for you to get banned, then I see a new metagaming tactic coming.
How do they find out about it if the petition owner doesn't share it?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#88 - 2011-11-09 23:04:12 UTC
Pesky LaRue wrote:
DidntWantThatShipAnway wrote:
Banned because he filed one petition.
Then a bunch of other people copied the body of his petition (he didn't ask them to) and filed their own.
How is this his fault?
:CCP:


Belthizaar wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Swamping the petition system with this would be the cause of the ban, so you already know exactly who got him banned and why.
Not the brightest move.

He sent it once. You're wrong. You can only send 3 petitions at any one time, if you dont believe me, try it yourself.


If he hadn't made the contents of his petition public and had a legion of retards not copied/pasted it, he would not have got banned.

Arguably, not his fault but hey, if you going to play with a bunch of spaz's and they act like spaz's and you get blamed for it, you don't really get to cry about it.

Next time, don't share petition contents with lemmings?


This.

I never said he did the spamming, however he made it available to be spammed.

Apparently CCP takes a dim view of having the petition system swamped by lemming petitons from people trying to be clever and held the original author responsible for making it available.

Not an unreasonable stance.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

K Suri
Doomheim
#89 - 2011-11-09 23:05:02 UTC
Pesky LaRue wrote:
Tarion Awessi wrote:

Besides, if other people using your petition is reason for you to get banned, then I see a new metagaming tactic coming.
How do they find out about it if the petition owner doesn't share it?

Exactly. And what's happened is Testies launched a fail petition spam and the originator got nailed.

They oughta be thankful that CCP didn't nail all of them for participating in the abuse of the petition system.

Pretty bloody stupid really.
Hershman
Creepers Corporation
#90 - 2011-11-09 23:05:06 UTC
DHD actually has writing skills... unlike the rest of test

I play EVE every day! Follow me at http://www.twitch.tv/matthershman

Hershman
Creepers Corporation
#91 - 2011-11-09 23:05:14 UTC
DHD actually has writing skills... unlike the rest of test

I play EVE every day! Follow me at http://www.twitch.tv/matthershman

Tarion Awessi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2011-11-09 23:07:13 UTC
K Suri wrote:
And they got the copy of the petition how?
Can you point to anywhere in the rules where sharing your petition (Not the GM response, the petition itself) is against the rules?

Quote:
How. The ORIGINAL petition writer has to GIVE the copy. Yes?
Yeah, but people sharing the petitions they've sent in isn't particularly uncommon, in my experience.
BuckStrider
Nano-Tech Experiments
#93 - 2011-11-09 23:08:11 UTC
Quote:
DHD is one man. He can only have 3 petitions open, right? The fact that other people took the wording of his petition and used it themselves is not his fault.


Because DHD would NEVER EVER tell you Test pubbies to c&p his wording and petition CCP.

I'll bet that's the reason why he was banned....Doesn't matter if it's true or not. If I was CCP, I would have thought this.

So really what it comes down to is that you TEST lemmings are the ones that got him banned.

Mine smart. Mine safe. Purchase your mining permit today...... www.minerbumping.com

Goe Rilla
Quantum Force Inc.
DammFam
#94 - 2011-11-09 23:08:54 UTC
Hout! Hout!

Hand of the gorilla agrees with this thread.
Jovan Geldon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2011-11-09 23:09:36 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:

>Durrhurrdurr
>pillar of the community


Pick one
Bocephus Morgen
The Suicide Kings
Deepwater Hooligans
#96 - 2011-11-09 23:10:56 UTC
I disagree with DHD but I don't think he should have been banned. Ugh
Gabriel Grimoire
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2011-11-09 23:12:59 UTC
Pubbie carebears have no say in this issue. Please return to mining veldspar and leave this issue to the big boys.
Pesky LaRue
Mercatoris
#98 - 2011-11-09 23:14:04 UTC
Gabriel Grimoire wrote:
Pubbie carebears have no say in this issue. Please return to mining veldspar and leave this issue to the big boys.

oh, from what i'm seeing here, we ARE leaving it to you to get your own members banned.

well done.
Akuma Gouki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2011-11-09 23:14:29 UTC
What's this, DHD is banned? Now I have no reason at all to log in!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#100 - 2011-11-09 23:16:30 UTC
No matter how you sliced it, the GMs have ****** up on this one — the only real question is where.

1. Posting a MOTD that directly contradicts actual game policy.
2. Banning a guy who sends in a petition.
3. Not banning guys who spam said petition.

Gotta love a lose-lose situation… Lol