EVE General Discussion

Probably. But...

Now that is guaranteed whereas before there was a possibility - however small - to get a nice killmail because people are people, they do make mistakes.

I am curious as to why this is CCP's stance. What harm could come from redistributing assets of banned accounts in a responsible manner? It seems to me at the very least CCP (through CONCORD) could auction the assets of banned accounts off during a "PLEX 4 Good." That way the history of Eve and stories these ships may make some day aren't lost due to someone's irresponsible actions, and there is a "greater good" benefit out of the assets being auctioned. It seems to me like a win-win.

You are correct about that.

Someone in sales, who should have passed it to legal but didn't, signed off on a proposal that was worded in such a way that it appeared to say one thing, and meant another, thus obscuring the true intent.

TL;DR SomerBlink attempted to pull the wool over CCP's eyes, and failed due to those pesky Eve players.

I'm curious if this is the death of more than just SOMER. does this also mean promoting PLEX purchases with ISK is not possible? I mean the real-money, out of game purchases that create PLEX. ISK is already an incentive for purchasing PLEX / it's the main reason (the sole reason, even?)... it makes sense that an offer of even more ISK is well-received by people who would purchase PLEX.

the concept also passed an inspection (albeit a brief / superficial one... PS: honey pot), and it hasn't so far been criticized as 'wrong.' but isn't it unrealistic to expect anyone will do that out of altruism, and for -no- tangible benefit (versus intangible benefit, like space fame or something)?

(there is one person I know of, who does stuff for the community in this way... the space deity known as Chribba )

but for people who are a little more.. practical, what are acceptable out-of-game reasons they could overpay for PLEX... are there any?

If CCP policy and player opinion is strictly ISK must always only equal ISK, having unlimited ISK (or effectively unlimited ISK) [still] leaves the effort of a player/entity restricted to TQ.

in the SOMER / MD arrangement, what could be offered as a referral reward that would be considered OK by CCP and the community as not-RMT?

example case: Amazon is an ETC reseller. assuming referrals can be verified by both Amazon and the referrer, would an Amazon credit arrangement be accepted by CCP and players as not-RMT?

---

a large group has strength in numbers... and for the group to be effective, the thinking should be left to as few people as possible. the power of that group of thinkers transcends any in-game "apex force."

(know them, but don't get stuck in the game mechanics. it makes one a worker bee, and it's gauche).

+1 Falcon
+1 CSM
+1 anyone else

So who is doing a public falcon roam now? :D

So, technically EvENews24 and TheMittani are both RMT-ing, right?

ISK -> Writers
Writers -> Articles
Users read Articles and see advertisement on website
Mittani gets money for advertisement

http://i.imgur.com/i6L5GGY.png

just my .02 ISK.

I think this was the right way to go.

I really really hope they do allow us to know what unique assets were banned.. why? because us collectors/resellers need this type of information to know how rare/valuable our assets now are. Volume is one of the most defining points of worth with rare assets.

Please CCP let us know what unique assets were banned, think of us legit traders :(

about that. I generate an ad click ... pretty much every time I visit TMC and OCD-click in the margins (I don't know why I do it. keeping myself warm for game time? it occurs to me that my fingers deserve track pants. my clicky little finger athletes)

arguments against TMC will probably not get very far. (but yeah I know what it looks like)

I can also think of reasons why the involved transactions are removed enough to not be RMT.

that was referring to the ISK payment made to article writers for TMC.