EVE General Discussion

"Anyone can buy from amazon.com just provide a (fake) US address"

I am not commonly in the habit of perpetrating fraud for a discount on ingame currency. Guess that's my own silly fault, then :roll eyes:

Whilst that maybe the reason, we are still just guessing.

This si why CCP need to stop just copying and pasting the TOS and EULA and actually explain with words why they have decided that one has broken the TOS and another hasn't.

CCP > DAMN YOU GENIE GET BACK IN THE BOTTLE!!!!

Can you prove that? If CCP bothers to clarify at all, what happens when their clarification is "Closed for TOS violation because there was no in-game method of participating in the lottery"?

Whatever you BELIEVE the reason it was closed is irrelevant; until someone replicates Blink PRECISELY (and a purely in-game method of participation is a pretty huge part of that), there is absolutely no "scientific" value in these attempts to call out the double standard.

EDIT: Just to clarify since my point was not well made. I am not saying that the in-game thing *is* or *is not* the reason the thread was closed while Blink remains open. What I am saying is that if you want to back CCP into a corner on this issue then you actually have to back them into a corner! As long as there are differences in technicalities that allow CCP to hand-wave away why the Nyx lottery was closed while Blink remains open, nothing has been accomplished. In particular, any scheme trying to replicate Blink must AT LEAST manage these technicalities: 1) a chance based lottery where the house odds come out on top 2) open to anyone* via normal, legal in-game methods where 3) using GTC referral links is an optional way to improve your chances to a non-100% level (either directly in a single lottery or indirectly by allowing you to play more lotteries).

* obviously "anyone" is not meant to counter the normal capacity players are allowed for blocking people from scamming/harassing/attacking their channel/system, an aspect of Blink that I think no one is really arguing against.

If that happens, I start up a website offering in game methods as well as an out of game method through affiliation, and am happily able to convert isk to cash with full permission of CCP.
If they really want to come back and clarify that the lack of an in-game payment method was the only reason they closed it, that's totally fine.

But lets face it, they aren't going to come back and open the floodgates to legal RMT are they? You can nitpick every detail of all of the threads being opened to copy Somer which get closed "for RMTing", but at the end of the day we all know why they are closing it. We don't even disagree with why they are closing it (You realise we don;t actually want RMT legalised right?). We just want them to force Somer to play by the same rules and they refuse to engage us in any form of dialog, or give us any announcements on the subject.

Edited my post you were quoting to clarify, but yes, we do need to nitpick every post until someone actually gets the technicalities correct. ONLY THEN will CCP be backed into a corner of being forced to admit that either 1) the method Blink uses for RMT is acceptable under the TOS or 2) that there is a double-standard and Blink is allowed to do it where others are not. If the goal is to force CCP into commenting on this issue, nitpicking the details is the only thing relevant to putting them in a position where they can no longer squirm their way out of admitting one or the other.

The "we all know why" argument is useless and won't accomplish anything but let CCP laugh at these threads and cause everyone else on GD to wonder where your tinfoil hat is.

But they don't need to be backed into a corner. What you are saying is they can hand wave this with "oh they offer an in game method". Well that's fine, that will still be them telling us RMT is fine as long as we have an in game method to play. The point being they can't say that without repercussions.
Really. Think about what they would be allowing if they stated that the reason Somer is allowed is because it's an in game lottery too. For starters, evalopolous, BIG, eohpoker, myevelotto, etc. All would be able to immediately start the same level of RMT.
I'm a programmer. I could get a working lottery site up in under a day with the ability to accept in game or injected currency. And I'm certainly not the only one that could.

In none of my previous posts was I trying to argue whether they do or don't need to be backed into a corner. I'm informing the people that ARE trying to back them into a corner (with their lottery knock-off schemes designed for exactly that purpose) that they are doing a poor job of it.

That said, my personal opinion is that they DO need to be backed into a corner because the issue has reached the level of volatility where they simply cannot keep pretending it isn't something the community is going to force. But I'm also perfectly fine with the answer being the second option -- there is a double standard, Blink is allowed to do it, no one else is, deal with it. I have no problem with that being the final word on it, honestly. But I do think there needs to BE a final word.

Except as far as I'm aware, that isn't true. Markee Dragon is an authorized ETC reseller and Blink has a private agreement with Markee Dragon for referral links. There is no agreement between Blink and CCP with regard to ETC sales at all; certainly no more than anyone else, and no different than the Nyx lottery's private affiliate link agreement with Shattered Crystal (also an authorized ETC reseller).

lol, you are truly an epic genius.
Somer are NOT an ETC reseller. Markee Dragon is an ETC reseller, of which Somer is an affiliate (so Some just links people to Markee and gets paid to do so). Now, If you read the thread that you and I have both linked, you'll read about "Shattered Crystal". They are also a registered ETC reseller. The OP of the other thread would be an affiliate of them, the same way Some is to markee.

So in short, what you posted was utter nonsense, written without taking the 60 seconds it would take to read and understand the relevant posts.

Try again.