These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP Response Regarding SOMER Blink Concerns

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#561 - 2014-08-21 14:15:41 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Hawkr Trimodian wrote:
And What about that Volcano. I am convinced this is the gods being offended by the unfair Pirate Treatment of Somer........

A huge volcano in Iceland may be getting ready to erupt:

[Update, Aug. 20, 2014: Iceland's National Crisis Coordination Center has been activated, and a large uninhabited area surrounding the volcano has been evacuated. The Icelandic Met Office reports that about 1,000 small earthquakes occurred near the volcano on Tuesday. Also on Tuesday, Iceland's Civil Protection raised the nation's threat level from Uncertainty Phase to Alert Phase.]



Wait wait...how do you evacuate an uninhabited area? Did they import people to evacuate?


A common necessity. They have to canvas the area and run-off all of the looky-loos who inventively gather and want to gawk at things like this first-hand.


This is the part I don't get. But then, I don't really get the people who build multi-million dollar houses on tiny little islands 2 feet above sea level in the path of on coming hurricanes either.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#562 - 2014-08-21 14:17:54 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
It's right there in the proposal that the rate would be MORE than Jita prices.
Jita prices aren't always the best, I can sell a PLEX for marginally more elsewhere, but it's generally not worth the hassle.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#563 - 2014-08-21 14:26:34 UTC
To be honest I don't remember it being termed as "best" price when I read it, I seem to remember it being less ambiguously termed than that (as can be seen in my explanation in the other thread) but between lack of sleep and the possibility it may have been edited since not sure if it was me misreading it or not.
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#564 - 2014-08-21 14:29:01 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The highlighted part of the workflow doesn't specify the price that SomerBlink would pay for the PLEX, it merely says best price. Which is basically an ambigous term to try and cover their arse.


The BEST price, in context, clearly means the highest price. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Which is why the proposal even mentions that it will prevent people from buying PLEX in Jita and then selling it to Blink.

"You can only sell 2 PLEX at this rate for each ETC you purchased (so you can't just go buy PLEX in Jita and resell them to Blink for more than you paid.)"

It's right there in the proposal that the rate would be MORE than Jita prices.

But you knew that already, didn't you?





More than jita buy, or more than jita sell? Is Jita price the highest price in the Eve Universe? The point of the sentence that you linked is to highlight that you have to use ETC to do the transfer, you cannot just buy at Jita price and sell to Somer saving yourself the broker fee.

"Best price" is a vague term, used to cover a multitude of sins. If they had said "We will buy at Jita sell + 15%" do you think CCP would have written back with the response their sales department gave?

Fluffy Bunny Pic!

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#565 - 2014-08-21 14:29:30 UTC
Now, having defended the victim, I'll say this:

I don't approve of any RMT, even CCP-approved RMT that is fueled by an out-of-game gambling website and not by destructive in-game activities (like botting, multi-boxing and exploiting.) But it's not Somer's fault that CCP approved his RMT scheme and then banned him.

CCP never should have given this guy unique ships, formed a business relationship with him (by basically giving his business the CCP stamp of legitimacy, which it clearly did,) or approved this scheme in the first place.

That's all CCP's fault, though, not Somer's. Who wouldn't convert trillions of play money into real life cash if they were told by the game developer that it was okay to do it?

The appropriate way to handle this was to say to Somer:

Look, sorry, we've changed our minds about that scheme of yours we approved. It's no longer authorized. You have 2 weeks to take it down and then we won't allow any further RMT-lite schemes like the many we've approved in the past. If you persist beyond those 2 weeks, all your accounts will be permabanned.

Fly Safe.
Ace Boogi
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#566 - 2014-08-21 14:43:40 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:


The appropriate way to handle this was to say to Somer:

Look, sorry, we've changed our minds about that scheme of yours we approved. It's no longer authorized. You have 2 weeks to take it down and then we won't allow any further RMT-lite schemes like the many we've approved in the past. If you persist beyond those 2 weeks, all your accounts will be permabanned.

They pretty much did that last year. Somer's response was to go balls out during the grace period with 1bil isk bonuses per plex purchase. He got arrogant and thought he was too big to fail after CCP let him get away with that disgraceful stunt.

I remember that when he stopped that first scheme he was at the same time blaming it on a goon conspiracy and promising he'd figure out a loophole. He thought he did but Eve players were too clever for him. Twisted
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#567 - 2014-08-21 14:44:46 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Now, having defended the victim, I'll say this:


Somer was not a victim, or if he was, he was a victim only of his own scheme. Somer is more accurately described as the perpetrator.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#568 - 2014-08-21 15:00:23 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
i wonder if every CCP member has to consult the legal team before making a forum post.
But they are read and judged*) by CCL. Does that count? Twisted


*) = Only as far as the forum rules go mind you...

Devposts being edited and handslapped by ISD is a rare but very lovely sight ;)

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
SomeDudeInLocal
Late Night Holding
#569 - 2014-08-21 15:04:50 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Now, having defended the victim, I'll say this:


Somer was not a victim, or if he was, he was a victim only of his own scheme. Somer is more accurately described as the perpetrator.



Pretty much. The victims are more likely the users he falsely led into believing the service had CCP's Authorisation when he knew it really didn't.

He closed shop and ran before he was even banned, he doesn't care about EVE. The people he misled into using the supposed legit service for getting isk for their plex that do enjoy EVE However...
Alexis Nightwish
#570 - 2014-08-21 16:04:01 UTC
CCP is that a spine I see? Wow it looks great on you! You should keep it!

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
NathanNever80
Apple Construction Inc
#571 - 2014-08-21 16:22:58 UTC
Well having read most of this Good Job CCP, shame about all the Rare stuff that got banned along with Somer.

Maybe CCP should Auction off all the items and donate the proceeds to a charity of the CSM's choice.

Just a thought.

NN
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#572 - 2014-08-21 16:24:04 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Now, having defended the victim, I'll say this:


Somer was not a victim, or if he was, he was a victim only of his own scheme. Somer is more accurately described as the perpetrator.


This is the third time Somer has been a Victim.

Fist time was his first "scheme".. That ran for YEARS, with full CCP Knowledge, to the point CCP even advertised his game on the old Character Selection Screen, in the community section of the website several times.

Second time was when CCP GAVE them Ships, both the rare Scorps, and the big blast rare ships. Even if Somer had of asked for them, it was CCP that gave them all out.

This is the Third, where Somer gave them a document, lacking in clear detail, and they just rubber stamped it. Even after Somer asked it to go through Legal, they said Nope, not need, it's fine. They gave clear Authorization without knowing the details. Then not only went back on it once they did know the details, but now CCP maintains they didn't Authorize it. YES YOU DID.

"Best Price" could mean anything. Anyone with half a brain would have asked Somer "How are you going to determine your buy price for the PLEX?".. But not CCP.. CPP just said it's fine, and authorized, several times.

I don't like that Somer released the mails, but even this is a huge grey area. For one, this wasn't an ingame character talking to CCP via mechanics. This was the Business of SomerBlink talking with the VP of Sales for CCP Games. This communication can in no way be covered by the EULA. It's not in game.


What happened here was CCP got caught with their poor decision making skills, and internal communication. Rather than fess up and admit it. Rather than say "Yes we gave approval to Somer to do something like this. It WASN'T Properly vetted. It SHOULD NOT have been approved. But that was our mistake and WE will attempt to CORRECT IT".. They said OMG we had NO idea. Then took down Somer to distract everyone from their own faults.

Somer isn't innocent in this. They released the emails even before a decision was made. And they clearly worded the proposal in a vague way. But it is CCP's fault it ever got this far.
MRS AWSOME COOL
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#573 - 2014-08-21 16:27:49 UTC  |  Edited by: MRS AWSOME COOL
On 'TheMittani' The EULA States:

B. Selling Items and Objects

You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction. The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions, newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game.

The Mittani.com pays its contributes with in game currency, and then profits in ad revenue from the content thereby generated. This does not appear to be straight forward RMT. However, it is exchanging in game items for out of game services. Essentially isk is being sold in exchange for out of game labor (which then generates real life income).

It does not specify in the EULA that only direct monitory transactions are prohibited. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that it also covers transactions involving non liquid assets and services as well. Especially considering the following: if someone was wealthy out of game and decided to, say, bankroll an alliance by offering (non- monetary) services or assets to an individual who was wealthy in game in exchange for isk, then CCP would likely appeal to this clause when taking sanctions against the involved players. However, unless the clause is read in such away that it extends to non-monetary out of game goods and services it is not clear that they would be able to. If this reading of the EULA is correct then it appears that themittani.com violates it.

Thus it appears that another popular eve website may have been violating the eve EULA for years as well (also in order to generate real life revenue).

Edit: There is no mention in the EULA of exceptions for services which relate in some way to eve. Thus as the EULA stands the mittani seems to be in violation of it. Perhaps CCP should be clearer about what sorts of goods and services can and cannot be exchanged for in game items.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#574 - 2014-08-21 16:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Hendrick Tallardar
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Deka Ekato wrote:
I really do feel, (and from what I understand), that Somer was not punished for RMT, (which he should be), but for some other reason(s).


There is basically 3 reasons he was punished. The first is the RMT, the second would be falsely claiming that the scheme as it is was CCP approved, the third would be publicly posting the private emails with CCP.


Incorrect. RMT was not, in any capacity, mentioned as why he was banned. That is specifically stated by CCP Falcon in the OP. It was only stated that Somer was investigated for alleged RMTing but that CCP will not comment on what their investigation found.

ExplorerAlTNewb wrote:
.. its not just EVE Related. http://imgur.com/sCn0H1u


The scenario is basic, certain 3rd parties use ISK to pay EVE Players to create EVE content & services....

This is supposely OK"ed

And one (possibly more) of the 3rd parties uses ISK to pay EVE Players to create content & services that have nothing to do with EVE Online.

This hasnt been answered, and will most likely get ignored unless more focus is shined on it.

Multiple CSM are a part of the "entity" that is doing it so they will deflect away from this. There is also the forum crashers & non sense wing working at odds ends to cover up / jam up everything as best they can.


You will need to provide proof that TMC is paying it's writers in-game ISK explicitly for their non-EVE related work then. You're making claims based off zero provided evidence outside the fact that TMC covers non-EVE content. They are well within their write to cover non-EVE games, they aren't however permitted to pay any writer EVE's in-game ISK for non-EVE content. This has been stated numerous times because last year after the Somer debate, CCP went to those sites and laid out the guidelines. If you have evidence that proves they're paying their staff in-game ISK for non-EVE coverage then provide it to CCP. You also are linking to an image that is over a year old (pro-tip how do I know? Because I worked for TMC and know their pre-SomerGate 1.0 policies and post-SomerGate 1.0 policies and that is pre-SomerGate policy). Still though, if you're dead set on it being illegal RMTng then contact CCP and explain how it's a violation of the policies.
TheButcherPete
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#575 - 2014-08-21 16:35:13 UTC
MRS AWSOME COOL wrote:
Since we are discussing people who violate the EULA in order to generate real life income, I feel it might be worth mentioning the Mittani.com, which also appears to violate the EULA (or at the very least occupy a grey area). The EULA States:

B. Selling Items and Objects

You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction. The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions, newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game.

The Mittani.com pays its contributes with in game currency, and then profits in ad revenue from the content thereby generated. This does not appear to be straight forward RMT. However, it is exchanging in game items for out of game services. Essentially isk is being sold in exchange for out of game labor (which then generates real life income).

It does not specify in the EULA that only direct monitory transactions are prohibited. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that it also covers transactions involving non liquid assets and services as well. Especially considering the following: if someone was wealthy out of game and decided to, say, bankroll an alliance by offering (non- monetary) services or assets to an individual who was wealthy in game in exchange for isk, then CCP would likely appeal to this clause when taking sanctions against the involved players. However, unless the clause is read in such away that it extends to non-monetary out of game goods and services it is not clear that they would be able to. If this reading of the EULA is correct then it appears that themittani.com violates it.

Thus it appears that another popular eve website may have been violating the eve EULA for years as well (also in order to generate real life revenue).


TMC has a very specific greenlight from CCP to give isk to writers ONLY FOR ARTICLES RELATING TO EVE ONLINE.

Any other, is RMT.

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#576 - 2014-08-21 16:39:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Hendrick Tallardar
Garai Nolen wrote:
Now I'm imagining a Puffin round-up...


I'm now imagining a Pompeii like area of Iceland, just with penguins instead of humans.

MRS AWSOME COOL wrote:
Since we are discussing people who violate the EULA in order to generate real life income, I feel it might be worth mentioning the Mittani.com, which also appears to violate the EULA (or at the very least occupy a grey area). The EULA States:

B. Selling Items and Objects

You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction. The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions, newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game.

The Mittani.com pays its contributes with in game currency, and then profits in ad revenue from the content thereby generated. This does not appear to be straight forward RMT. However, it is exchanging in game items for out of game services. Essentially isk is being sold in exchange for out of game labor (which then generates real life income).

It does not specify in the EULA that only direct monitory transactions are prohibited. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that it also covers transactions involving non liquid assets and services as well. Especially considering the following: if someone was wealthy out of game and decided to, say, bankroll an alliance by offering (non- monetary) services or assets to an individual who was wealthy in game in exchange for isk, then CCP would likely appeal to this clause when taking sanctions against the involved players. However, unless the clause is read in such away that it extends to non-monetary out of game goods and services it is not clear that they would be able to. If this reading of the EULA is correct then it appears that themittani.com violates it.

Thus it appears that another popular eve website may have been violating the eve EULA for years as well (also in order to generate real life revenue).


That's all well and good, except CCP approved paying people in-game ISK for EVE related content including videos for AT ads, forum signatures, and yes even articles. It's why sites like DotLan, ZKillboard, etc. are allowed to function while running Ads. Considering TMC, EN24, CZ and other sites were spoken to by CCP after the SomerGate 1.0 issue last year about their payment methods to their contributors and the specific guidelines they're required to follow, I'm going to assume you're bringing this up with little to no understanding of the differences nor the guidelines they're to follow, and simply want to point the finger at someone else and rumor monger while you're at it.

Still though, as regularly stated in this thread by people who are making these brazen claims sans contradicting evidence and the statements by CCP of old if you think they're breaking EULA contact CCP Falcon and CCP's Support team Support@CCPGames.com outlining how they've broken EULA/TOS in your mind.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#577 - 2014-08-21 16:39:25 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
A common necessity. They have to canvas the area and run-off all of the looky-loos who inventively gather and want to gawk at things like this first-hand.
Let them gawk. Why interrupt natural selection while it's working?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#578 - 2014-08-21 16:40:16 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
This is the third time Somer has been a Victim perpetrator.
Fixed. He has never been a victim of anything other than his own RMT schemes exploding in his face.

Quote:
Somer isn't innocent in this.
…and everything else is irrelevant as far as determining who the victim is. It sure isn't Somer.
MRS AWSOME COOL wrote:
Since we are discussing people who violate the EULA in order to generate real life income, I feel it might be worth mentioning the Mittani.com, which also appears to violate the EULA (or at the very least occupy a grey area).
…except, of couse, that TMC does not do any of the things listed in that paragraph. They pay contributors with ISK for sending in EVE-related articles, which is a kind of service that has been explicitly allowed and clarified over and over, time and time again, for many many years.

There is no tit-for-tat between handing over cash to TMC and receiving ISK in return. Those who get ISK aren't providing any cash in exchange. Those who provide cash aren't getting any ISK in exchange. Yes, there is a party that provides ISK and gets cash, but there is no relation or connection between those transactions — it's not RMT for the same reason as drawing a salary from your job is not RMT.
John Ending
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#579 - 2014-08-21 16:43:09 UTC
its almost like people dont wanna hear, or just cant handle the truth

i would have an awesome meme for this if i had the backend forum permissions that falcon does
MRS AWSOME COOL
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#580 - 2014-08-21 16:45:58 UTC
Ah fair enough. In that case is there an actual explicit statement on what is or is not ok? Because the EULA itself is extremely ambiguous and doesn't cover any of the stuff just mentioned.