These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

SomerBlinks non-RMT RL earnings

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#261 - 2013-10-29 17:01:57 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.
Except the difference we are arguing is they didn't authorise the RMT. The fact that they authorised Somer to perform an in-game raffle on their behalf and stupidly stated they are legit does not mean they gave Somer permission to breach the EULA.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ace Boogi
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2013-10-29 17:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ace Boogi
RAW23 wrote:
Ace Boogi wrote:
Handsome Feller wrote:


You missed a bit. let me help you out.

"But the little old lady was quietly sneaking across the road, AND THE COP WAS HELPING HER."



you familiar with Whitey Bulger?

he was running his racket successfully for years in part because he had help from corrupt LEO

when he was finally caught... he went on trial. he didn't get off because some crooked FBI agent helped him Roll


You''ve hit the nail on the head here. The question is whether CCP owns the decision of whoever approved Somer's operation or not. If they treat the dev as having gone rogue then Somer is in the position you describe. If they back the dev as executing company policy then it's not a crooked FBI agent, just an FBI agent.

if it turns out the whole FBI is corrupt, they need to clean house.

i don't see any fair resolution that doesn't involve Somer being punished.
RAW23
#263 - 2013-10-29 17:03:47 UTC
Handsome Feller wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Closing loopholes in one thing. Punishing someone for actions you have told them are acceptable is another. The question is, had CCP, or someone at CCP approved Somer's setup? If they had then it would be more than closing a loophole to punish Somer for acting as he had been told he could; it would be a pretty clear case of injustice. But things get tricky when we start to ask whether approval came from CCP or just someone at CCP and whether CCP would stand behind their someone in this case. T20 was someone at CCP and they didn't stand behind him. This situation is clearly not directly analogous but some of the same issues arise. If someone ok'ed Somer's business did they have the authority to do so or did they go off the reservation?


Agreed. The implication is, that CCPs gifts to Somer equate to approval. Not necessarily my opinion, but it's the opinion of many who are currently baying for Somer's blood.


Actually, I'm not really talking about the gifts. Those are not too relevant. I suspect that Somer, not being an idiot, will at some point have officially or unofficially petitioned the validity of his plan and that it may have been directly approved by someone or implicitly approved by CCP's expression of support for his business when this was a non-secret element of it. Implicit support is obviously trickier for him though.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
RAW23
#264 - 2013-10-29 17:04:45 UTC
Ace Boogi wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Ace Boogi wrote:
Handsome Feller wrote:


You missed a bit. let me help you out.

"But the little old lady was quietly sneaking across the road, AND THE COP WAS HELPING HER."



you familiar with Whitey Bulger?

he was running his racket successfully for years in part because he had help from corrupt LEO

when he was finally caught... he went on trial. he didn't get off because some crooked FBI agent helped him Roll


You''ve hit the nail on the head here. The question is whether CCP owns the decision of whoever approved Somer's operation or not. If they treat the dev as having gone rogue then Somer is in the position you describe. If they back the dev as executing company policy then it's not a crooked FBI agent, just an FBI agent.

if it turns out the whole FBI is corrupt, they need to clean house.

i don't see any fair resolution that doesn't involve Somer being punished.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#265 - 2013-10-29 17:04:58 UTC
This thread is gonna get locked so hard for RMT discussion lol

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Handsome Feller
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#266 - 2013-10-29 17:06:16 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.


I knew I'd create a lot of tears and anger with my analogy :-) Well done for seeing it for what it is.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#267 - 2013-10-29 17:06:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
Sexy Cakes wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

The sad thing is I don't think a single person other than those prefixed with "CCP " ever thought somer was a community site/service. Everyone knew it was a business - one we sometimes we gave our patronage - but a business none the less.


Never underestimate the power of self delusion.

People at CCP knew what was going on. They rationalized it somehow because it helped sell more plexes.

The best part of all of this is that if CCP hadn't have given them the scorpions no one would have ever made a fuss about it.

Enjoy those scorpions!


Forum ate my damn post, not in the mood to retype it.

Spot on.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
RAW23
#268 - 2013-10-29 17:07:10 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.
Except the difference we are arguing is they didn't authorise the RMT. The fact that they authorised Somer to perform an in-game raffle on their behalf and stupidly stated they are legit does not mean they gave Somer permission to breach the EULA.


Then I think we are talking about different things. I, for one, am considering this from the perspective of an assumption that Somer did receive either explicit or implicit approval for his practices from CCP. This is obviously hypothetical at this point but seems likely given how long it took them to make a decision on this point. CCP were obviously not just straightforwardly enforcing their longstanding rules. They had to think about it and think about it for a long time. Which strongly suggests to me that they were reversing themselves.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Ace Boogi
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#269 - 2013-10-29 17:08:55 UTC
RAW23 wrote:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

certainly not the CSM
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#270 - 2013-10-29 17:10:48 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.


THANK. YOU.

I don't know if the internet makes people ********, or if it just opens the door for more retards to discuss opinions, but my god its rare for someone to understand what an analogy is . . .and what it is not.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#271 - 2013-10-29 17:12:04 UTC
Ace Boogi wrote:
RAW23 wrote:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

certainly not the CSM


Malcanis sure supports the CCP company line, not sure how many others agree. Pretty sure he's not gonna get re-elected, either . . .so hopefully the CSM is self correcting.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
dr poom
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#272 - 2013-10-29 17:14:19 UTC
CCP need to just distance themselfs from all third party lottery and gambling sites. Do it in game or dont do it ! Also if they do Ban Blink do you think i could get my 30 bil back. xD

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Ace Boogi
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2013-10-29 17:15:12 UTC
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:

Malcanis sure supports the CCP company line, not sure how many others agree. Pretty sure he's not gonna get re-elected, either . . .so hopefully the CSM is self correcting.

he was my favourite CSM member... until i saw him go full potato in the Somer threads.

now i just see him as another brownnosing corrupt piece of ****.

guess eve IS real. it certainly makes it's politicians act the part.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#274 - 2013-10-29 17:15:19 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Hi,

We understand that people are eager to discuss this matter; We (ISD) have decided to use this thread as a container so that people may post their views.

Please don't let this devolve into any kind of RMT discussion or otherwise, and we will let this stay open.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.



OP directly illustrates how real cash changed hands and CCP allowed it, and later endorsed it. thank you for leaving it open however as it confirms what I have previously stated.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#275 - 2013-10-29 17:18:19 UTC
Leigh Akiga wrote:
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
I appreciate what Blink does for the community. What I don’t appreciate is that it’s not ok for an individual for raffle off his own in game stuff for profit yet this company can


Company?? Its one dude, ONE DUDE, or one girl.. behind a computer just like you. Who started a corp with a slick website using all the classic casino moves- they make it VERY easy to get in and difficult to get out. Casinos are physically set up that way. Ease of access.

And as far as 'doing things' for the community- they give away isk to incentivize the buying out GTC which generates the out of game dollars. So no, he or she is only cycling money. From you to her.

Pay people isk ingame- corpmates, to deliver prizes and such, start an alliance called Cognitive Development Network and make yourself sound like a company and the people will begin to believe it. Google cog dev and see what you get. nothing but the eve site and all its blinks winks bonks and giga blinks, nothing but massive profit generation.

They say: "Ohh look at all the isk we give away ingame.." that isk is given to incentivize buying GTC GTC GTC its all about the GTC and the referral.

So what your saying is because Blink generates income via GTC and the individual person raffling off their stuff does not then that’s why Blink gets the nod and the individual gets the ban?

So the individual should also give away a GTC with their raffle so CCP gets their cut.
Handsome Feller
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#276 - 2013-10-29 17:19:03 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Handsome Feller wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Crossing the road was always against the law, just because some cops looked the other way for a few years does not change that fact.


Logic fail. There's only one cop and he was happy with you crossing the road every single day. He also helped you to cross the road. But one day, he killed you for it.


You do understand that loopholes in laws/rules/EULAs often get closed? Using your analogy closed = killed.

Sometimes a loophole becomes a noose, as CCP is finding out.


I do understand. But this is a loophole that objectively has been seen, witnessed and rewarded by the the law maker. The hole is closed and the law maker pulls the trigger for past "crimes".

I personally would never trust anyone who did such an act, I'm just surprised at how many people actually want for CCP to be such a beast (but only when it suits them, I guess).
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#277 - 2013-10-29 17:19:15 UTC
Regardless I'm gonna hate you all :P (most months I pay for 3-4 accounts through Somer's referral, very rare I don't atleast win something like a faction cruiser per the 200m credit each, quite often faction battleships, etc.).
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#278 - 2013-10-29 17:21:17 UTC
Handsome Feller wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
Handsome Feller wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Crossing the road was always against the law, just because some cops looked the other way for a few years does not change that fact.


Logic fail. There's only one cop and he was happy with you crossing the road every single day. He also helped you to cross the road. But one day, he killed you for it.


You do understand that loopholes in laws/rules/EULAs often get closed? Using your analogy closed = killed.

Sometimes a loophole becomes a noose, as CCP is finding out.


I do understand. But this is a loophole that objectively has been seen, witnessed and rewarded by the the law maker. The hole is closed and the law maker pulls the trigger for past "crimes".

I personally would never trust anyone who did such an act, I'm just surprised at how many people actually want for CCP to be such a beast (but only when it suits them, I guess).

But then again, why were all the other threads raffling off assets/characters locked, if its a legitemate practice?

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#279 - 2013-10-29 17:23:12 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.
Except the difference we are arguing is they didn't authorise the RMT. The fact that they authorised Somer to perform an in-game raffle on their behalf and stupidly stated they are legit does not mean they gave Somer permission to breach the EULA.


Then I think we are talking about different things. I, for one, am considering this from the perspective of an assumption that Somer did receive either explicit or implicit approval for his practices from CCP. This is obviously hypothetical at this point but seems likely given how long it took them to make a decision on this point. CCP were obviously not just straightforwardly enforcing their longstanding rules. They had to think about it and think about it for a long time. Which strongly suggests to me that they were reversing themselves.
Goddamn forum eating up my replies.
Short of it being:
- Don't assume, look at the facts
- Facts are, RMTing has occurred, the perpetrator should be punished

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#280 - 2013-10-29 17:23:25 UTC
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.


THANK. YOU.

I don't know if the internet makes people ********, or if it just opens the door for more retards to discuss opinions, but my god its rare for someone to understand what an analogy is . . .and what it is not.
We all know what an analogy is, it was just a bad one that makes no sense unless you have evidence that CCP gave permission for Somer to RMT.
Maybe you don;t realise what an analogy is. It's generally supposed to be a description of a situation in terms more easily related to the target audience that describes the original situation in a way the audience can understand.
What you presented was a different situation, which simply presented your assumed view of what had happened.
Stick to the facts, and maybe just avoid analogies altogether if you don't understand their purpose.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.