These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Announcement regarding rewards and prizes to fansites and third-party contributors

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kate stark
#1321 - 2013-11-01 15:17:25 UTC
Mra Rednu wrote:
Ace Boogi wrote:
The Legendary Soldier wrote:


And still no official word to the players?

Nothing in Dev Blog, nothing in EVE General Discussion?

Have I missed it, or are CCP trying to break my arrogance meter (again)?

i think we're going to get the official word on nov. 7th, after Somer finishes cashing out.



We thought we were going to hear at the end of the week when they all came back from Turkey......


we did, the offical word was "turkey was nice, now we're off to vegas" and we haven't heard **** since.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Rekkr Nordgard
Steelforge Heavy Industries
#1322 - 2013-11-01 17:28:37 UTC
Somer Blink: Incarna 2.0, because good PR and crisis management is just too much trouble.
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#1323 - 2013-11-01 18:21:18 UTC
Well played CCP, well played.....

Signature removed - CCP Eterne
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1324 - 2013-11-01 21:16:53 UTC
Since most of the activity on this seems to have shifted threads for the time being, I made this post over there, but I'll repeat part of it here as an open invitation for anyone interested:

Kirren D'marr wrote:
You hit the nail on the head here but somehow arrived at the completely wrong conclusion: SOMER Blink was "conduct[ing] business," which is clearly against the EULA. They've been running a business which has reportedly grossed well over $135,000; a business which is promoted and utilized through their in-game activities (exchange of ISK and items). How is this not a violation? What possible defense is there for this?

For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, here is the relevant passage from the EULA:

Quote:
Accounts may not be used for business purposes. Access to the System and playing EVE is intended for your personal entertainment, enjoyment and recreation, and not for corporate, business, commercial or income-seeking activities. Business entities and anyone who is acting for or on behalf of a business or for business purposes may not establish an Account, access the System or play EVE. Accessing the System or using the Game for commercial, business or income-seeking purposes is strictly prohibited.


Frankly, I'm shocked that Somer et al. were not banned outright once the truth of their business came to light. Just because CCP not only permitted, but also endorsed this operation in the past does not mean that they cannot turn around now and take appropriate action.

I would recommend that all players who are upset over this issue begin issuing petitions reporting Somerset Mahm and all other characters associated with this business as being in violation of the EULA. Cite the business clause, and point to the relevant articles that illustrate the business connection.

If people make enough of a stink about this, then just maybe CCP will actually take action (I know it's a longshot, but at this point, it's about all I can come up with).

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_
Opia Munba
mss industry
#1325 - 2013-11-01 22:06:46 UTC
Why not just leave messages on the eve online tweet?
They only seem to act when public image gets tarnished Eve online twitter
Frying Doom
#1326 - 2013-11-01 22:15:44 UTC
Opia Munba wrote:
Why not just leave messages on the eve online tweet?
They only seem to act when public image gets tarnished Eve online twitter

Good to see Two Step making digs at them on Twitter.

Normal though, an ex-CSM doing more than the CSM. Reminds me of
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194625&find=unread
Where the CSM were to scared to say anything in-case it jeopardized their relation with CCP, I think this mess has shown what CCP think of the CSM. Their to clean up their mess, nothing more.

But where the bloody hell is internal affairs in all this EULA breaching behavior, surely that must fall right into their purpose.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Dark Magni
The Church of Awesome
#1327 - 2013-11-02 04:34:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Dark Magni
Time to be frank and list my complaints.

1) CCP spawning insane sums of ISK for players

The spawned iscorps have massive market value. Therefore CCP indirectly gave SOMER hundreds of billions in liquid ISK. This in a game where normal players have to work hard for ISK either in game (PVE and PVP activities) or out of game (using the PLEX market).

I have read that certain CCP employees believe the iscorps are essentially worthless (reprocess to 1 tritanium and are weaker than normal scorpions) and think a sound case for spawning hundreds of billions of rare ships for SOMER is "it's cool to help them out for being a community hub". This is a level of incompetence that rivals what I saw when I watched the movie Prometheus, and that is saying something by the way.

2) CCP allowing RMT from an ingame entity it has a relationship with

CCP usually cracks down hard on RMT with bans. However SOMER has been given a seven day notice period. Needless to say SOMER is capitalising on this by now selling ISK in one billion chunks. This after CCP permitted SOMER to RMT for years with chain of command approval. It beggars belief.

3) CCP is totally ignoring the community

It is pretty ignorant how we are being ignored. The case that these problems are all 'CCP side' is overwhelming, but we have barely received any acknowledgement of this. The real incompetence on display for me is how CCP has taken the 'totally ignore the main thread and lock all ancillary threads' approach.

4) The CSM is useless

I am sorry, but the CSM has done nothing to represent us. It is barely contributing to this debate and has clearly not represented any of the core complaints to CCP.

EDIT:

Edit withdrawn
Kate stark
#1328 - 2013-11-02 08:22:04 UTC
I just hope ccp don't think the issue is "resolved" by stopping incentives for gtcs, since that was never the issue to begin with.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Mra Rednu
Oyonata Gate Defence Force.
#1329 - 2013-11-02 08:30:49 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
I just hope ccp don't think the issue is "resolved" by stopping incentives for gtcs, since that was never the issue to begin with.


+1
Tina Tin Tits
Doomheim
#1330 - 2013-11-02 17:00:50 UTC

Two of my accounts have now expired dual training, and the third will soon.

One of my accounts I closed went off line already - and two more will soon.
This one and one other are paid for months, but those will close too when their time comes.

Still waiting for an update.

No you cant have my stuff, if I am not given a reason to resubscribe - it can rot.
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#1331 - 2013-11-02 17:26:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Argus Sorn
Dark Magni wrote:


I don't have anything against SOMER. It is just taking advantage of CCP mistakes. As I was saying all these issues are 'CCP side'. SOMER has no obligation to self police the EULA when CCP is overtly giving it permission to break it.


Hey, don't get me wrong here, I love your arguments - but I am not sure why some players are so quick to let SOMER off the hook.

Would you argue that the guy who steals your car has no obligation to not steal your car? It's the purely the police's fault? Would you then go and buy your car back from him because he offers you a better deal than the car dealership?

The reasons players get banned for violating the EULA is because they are 100% expected to be aware of it and follow its rules
Kate stark
#1332 - 2013-11-02 17:56:35 UTC
Argus Sorn wrote:
Dark Magni wrote:


I don't have anything against SOMER. It is just taking advantage of CCP mistakes. As I was saying all these issues are 'CCP side'. SOMER has no obligation to self police the EULA when CCP is overtly giving it permission to break it.


Hey, don't get me wrong here, I love your arguments - but I am not sure why some players are so quick to let SOMER off the hook.

Would you argue that the guy who steals your car has no obligation to not steal your car? It's the purely the police's fault? Would you then go and buy your car back from him because he offers you a better deal than the car dealership?

The reasons players get banned for violating the EULA is because they are 100% expected to be aware of it and follow its rules


your analogy pretty much falls down on the fact that stealing a car is illegal, and nothing about what somer have done so far has broken any rules.
the core issue really has nothing to do with somer at all, replace somer with any one else and the issue still remains.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
YesYes NoNoNo
Karmic Rebalance
#1333 - 2013-11-02 19:29:11 UTC
Ace Boogi wrote:
The Legendary Soldier wrote:


And still no official word to the players?

Nothing in Dev Blog, nothing in EVE General Discussion?

Have I missed it, or are CCP trying to break my arrogance meter (again)?

i think we're going to get the official word on nov. 7th, after Somer finishes cashing out.


I doubt you're going to see an official word period.

They're doing the same thing as somer is - going quiet in the hopes that this all just blows over (what's it been now? A month overall?)
Kate stark
#1334 - 2013-11-02 20:09:34 UTC
YesYes NoNoNo wrote:
Ace Boogi wrote:
The Legendary Soldier wrote:


And still no official word to the players?

Nothing in Dev Blog, nothing in EVE General Discussion?

Have I missed it, or are CCP trying to break my arrogance meter (again)?

i think we're going to get the official word on nov. 7th, after Somer finishes cashing out.


I doubt you're going to see an official word period.

They're doing the same thing as somer is - going quiet in the hopes that this all just blows over (what's it been now? A month overall?)


about that, yeah. this thread was made 10/10/13, the scorpions came to light almost a week before that.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Dark Magni
The Church of Awesome
#1335 - 2013-11-02 22:59:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Dark Magni
Argus Sorn wrote:
Dark Magni wrote:


I don't have anything against SOMER. It is just taking advantage of CCP mistakes. As I was saying all these issues are 'CCP side'. SOMER has no obligation to self police the EULA when CCP is overtly giving it permission to break it.


Hey, don't get me wrong here, I love your arguments - but I am not sure why some players are so quick to let SOMER off the hook.

Would you argue that the guy who steals your car has no obligation to not steal your car? It's the purely the police's fault? Would you then go and buy your car back from him because he offers you a better deal than the car dealership?

The reasons players get banned for violating the EULA is because they are 100% expected to be aware of it and follow its rules


On reflection you do have a point.

While I still believe CCP staff are 100% responsible for this mess and incompetence, SOMER is still apprehensible for damaging EVE Online AKA breaking the EULA (the EULA is there to protect EVE Online, so if SOMER breaks it then the game is taking damage, in the case of RMT the damage is to the in game market).
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#1336 - 2013-11-03 13:17:51 UTC
Kate stark wrote:

your analogy pretty much falls down on the fact that stealing a car is illegal, and nothing about what somer have done so far has broken any rules.
the core issue really has nothing to do with somer at all, replace somer with any one else and the issue still remains.


SOMER violated the EULA. The both participated in RMT and used EVE to run a business. They may not have been punished for it, but just because they haven't been punished doesn't obviate the violation.
Mra Rednu
Oyonata Gate Defence Force.
#1337 - 2013-11-03 13:31:04 UTC
Argus Sorn wrote:
Kate stark wrote:

your analogy pretty much falls down on the fact that stealing a car is illegal, and nothing about what somer have done so far has broken any rules.
the core issue really has nothing to do with somer at all, replace somer with any one else and the issue still remains.


SOMER violated the EULA. The both participated in RMT and used EVE to run a business. They may not have been punished for it, but just because they haven't been punished doesn't obviate the violation.


Agree with you, but there are 2 issues, the first one of CCP favouring ingame for profit corps with shed loads of favours which in this case happens to be Somer, in my opinion it's the biggest one in regards to CCP's behaviour.
The 2nd being Somer RMT'ing like there is no tommorrow which is unrelated apart from the insistance from CCP that Somer is 100% legit.. Roll
Kate stark
#1338 - 2013-11-03 15:31:43 UTC
Argus Sorn wrote:
Kate stark wrote:

your analogy pretty much falls down on the fact that stealing a car is illegal, and nothing about what somer have done so far has broken any rules.
the core issue really has nothing to do with somer at all, replace somer with any one else and the issue still remains.


SOMER violated the EULA. The both participated in RMT and used EVE to run a business. They may not have been punished for it, but just because they haven't been punished doesn't obviate the violation.


The point is irrelevant as rewards for gtc has come to an end. Not that it was ever the point, to begin with.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#1339 - 2013-11-03 15:49:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Argus Sorn
Kate stark wrote:
Argus Sorn wrote:
Kate stark wrote:

your analogy pretty much falls down on the fact that stealing a car is illegal, and nothing about what somer have done so far has broken any rules.
the core issue really has nothing to do with somer at all, replace somer with any one else and the issue still remains.


SOMER violated the EULA. The both participated in RMT and used EVE to run a business. They may not have been punished for it, but just because they haven't been punished doesn't obviate the violation.


The point is irrelevant as rewards for gtc has come to an end. Not that it was ever the point, to begin with.


Please remember the analogy was a direct response to another post. The poster to which I was replying said SOMER had no responsibility to police itself in regards to the EULA.

The analogy was relevant in that regard.

And yes, I agree, it applies to all parties who violate the EULA, so you can replace SOMER with anyone else. Entities have a responsibility to NOT violate the EULA, whether or not CCP punishes them immediately or not. A failure to punish on the part of CCP should not be deemed as a de facto statement that is is NOT in violation. Nor should a failure to punish preclude CCP from doing so at a later date (like now).
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1340 - 2013-11-04 09:41:39 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
I just hope ccp don't think the issue is "resolved" by stopping incentives for gtcs, since that was never the issue to begin with.


It's been a shitstorm of a number of different issues

allowing somer to RMT
directly gifting somer hundreds of billions
indirectly helping both somers in game and out of game activities/ability to compete by giving them and only them certain prizes to give away
allowing a third party to dictate access to certain in game content
Directly lying to the players and stating that somer are legit and have honoured literally every thing (this is unknowable)
etc