EVE General Discussion

The purpose of the analogy is to explore a hypothetical. We do not know the actual situation at the moment so there is no reason to 'stick to the facts' when the currently known facts are almost certainly only part of the picture. Coming to firm conclusions in the absence of all the data is jumping the gun and in the meantime it is worth considering what the various possibilities are.

You missed out an important fact: we simply don't know at the moment what CCP did or did not authorise Somer to do. Sticking to the facts requires hypothesising at this point. You have an implicit assumption in your argument that CCP did not authorise Somer's actions. Just because your assumption is implicit rather than explicit doesn't make it any less of an assumption.

CCP needs a good lesson in the fine art of detachment.

While it may have been 'seen, witnessed and rewarded by the the law maker' there was no loophole to be closed, to continue the analogy,crossing the road was always against the law. The law has not been changed, it just has not been enforced in this case.

As to CCP acting as a beast is it fair on everyone who has been punished under this law if they are treated differently?

Honestly I don't know where I stand on this other than something must be done, I choose not to state what I would like to see as I might be placing my anger at the stupidity of some of Somers supporters onto Somer itself and that would not be fair either.

And again no sign of life from CCP.
Is the whole company on a trip again or why cant we even get a post "yes were working on it" out of anyone?

so, who's alt are you? Somer, or Andrev?

Such a wonderfully insightful, original and well thought out response! Simply brilliant!
/s

I would rather a company didn't ban someone for the company's own mistakes / corruptness / ineptitude etc. You presumably would prefer this to happen. So who's alt are you? Stalin's? (see what i did there?)

I wonder if streamers and youtubers should be worried now, doing a lottery or giveaway to attract viewers or subs could be seen in the same light once he/she earns revenue that way.

With the integration of twitch into the client ccp should come out with a clear policy on streaming, video and the monetization of that aswell.

If CCP did not spotlight, give out exclusive rewards, and heavily endorse Somer Blink just weeks ago, then there would be little issue in assuming that they changed the EULA to close such loopholes and were closing current threads because it is not in a violation. They could have been considering what to do with Blink since it was such a large violator and big part of the community, but would have closed it down eventually anyway.

As it stands though with the rewards, spotlight, endorsements, and pretty much all around favoritism, it shows a double standard that they do not think what Blink is doing is wrong, while at the same time banning others who do the same. CCP kind of dug their own grave here, and there is no real way to side with CCP here. Blink either deserves to be taken down for equality, or CCP needs to allow it's competitors to do their thing.

If someone is making a product and selling it freely, but then it becomes illegal, they are not in the wrong if they quit producing and selling it immediately. As we know laws change, and policies close, so this is normal. HOWEVER, if that company continues to produce and sell these illegal goods, they are in violation of the law. This is what Blink is doing right now as it is shown they are breaking the laws of the EULA and ToS since others are being shut down for the same thing. Blink is NOT in the wrong for what they did before the loophole was closed, but they ARE in the wrong for operating after seeing the loophole has been closed.

A great reference for this is to think about how c0caine was originally put into Coke when it was legal to do so. IS it anymore? lol no.

edit