These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Handsome Feller
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#361 - 2013-10-29 21:00:42 UTC
Kirren D'marr wrote:

And yet, others doing the same as SOMER have been shut down; therefore CCP has failed in its enforcement of the EULA/TOS. There are only two ways to rectify this: either punish SOMER equal to what has been done to others guilty of the same act, or reinstate all others who were previously punished for this act.


If, and that's a controversial if, others were banned for doing exactly the same as Somer, there is clearly a case for the "impartiality" issue. How it's rectified is obviously up to CCP (at least the rules have now been extended now), but banning someone after you've endorsed them for being a prime example of a fantastic community site is wrong in many ways. If this happens, let's hope CCP don't change their mind about say, suicide ganking and ban anyone who has ever done it.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#362 - 2013-10-29 21:01:28 UTC
Handsome Feller wrote:
Kirren D'marr wrote:

And yet, others doing the same as SOMER have been shut down; therefore CCP has failed in its enforcement of the EULA/TOS. There are only two ways to rectify this: either punish SOMER equal to what has been done to others guilty of the same act, or reinstate all others who were previously punished for this act.


If, and that's a controversial if, others were banned for doing exactly the same as Somer, there is clearly a case for the "impartiality" issue. How it's rectified is obviously up to CCP (at least the rules have now been extended now), but banning someone after you've endorsed them for being a prime example of a fantastic community site is wrong in many ways. If this happens, let's hope CCP don't change their mind about say, suicide ganking and ban anyone who has ever done it.

Maybe they should. ganking isn't pvp

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
RAW23
#363 - 2013-10-29 21:01:58 UTC
Ace Boogi wrote:
RAW23 wrote:

If he has been given 10 days to stop then it would be silly to expect him to stop before he has to and ridiculous to demand that he be punished for not stopping in a time-frame shorter than the one that has been permitted. Look, the actual practice of isk for cash is not really a threat to eve or the player experience. What is a threat is CCP's arbitrary attitude towards such behaviour. It is CCP that is the problem here. The most Somer is guilty of is collusion but no entity is going to punish someone for colluding with themselves; the notion just doesn't make sense.

i agree that it is CCP that is the problem here. regardless though, Somer needs to go because she broke the EULA in the same ways other did, and while others have been punished, she has not. her level of RMT is beyond ridiculous and can't go unpunished if CCP wants to come out of this with any shred of credibility left.

do you really think it's fair that even the slightest hint of RMT gets others punished, and that people using the same model as Somer get locks and threats, but Somer is allowed to RMT over $135k (conservative estimate) and not face any consequences at all?


You are absolutely right that it's not fair. But this is a catch-22. It would also be unfair to penalise someone for behaviour that you have told them is ok. CCP do not seem to be treating this as a clear breach of the EULA but rather as a change in policy. They have not demanded an immediate cessation of these practices as rule breaking but rather have asked for compliance to a new interpretation within a ten day period. I understand the anger at Somer here, I really do. I just don't think the appropriate thing to do is to heap further injustices on top of previous ones.

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
#364 - 2013-10-29 21:02:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ace Boogi
corbexx wrote:

Also keep in mind that the reason shatter crystal stopped using somer was cos he kept asking for more and more of % from the gtc referal. That more than anything shows making cash was very high on his list (could be wrong but think noisy gamer said the difference between 5% and 8% was liek grand a month or something)

yep, i'm fully aware of that part. more of that 'greed is good' thinking. it illustrates exactly why she needs to go.

and even now, people are still asking for help about the bonus isk in their in-game channel, and the staff is still more than happy to help. they simply don't give a **** what we think as long as they're making that money. they are quite literally laughing at us.
Ace Boogi
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#365 - 2013-10-29 21:03:53 UTC
RAW23 wrote:

You are absolutely right that it's not fair. But this is a catch-22. It would also be unfair to penalise someone for behaviour that you have told them is ok. CCP do not seem to be treating this as a clear breach of the EULA but rather as a change in policy. They have not demanded an immediate cessation of these practices as rule breaking but rather have asked for compliance to a new interpretation within a ten day period. I understand the anger at Somer here, I really do. I just don't think the appropriate thing to do is to heap further injustices on top of previous ones.

the only injustice i see here would be in turning a blind eye to her massive irl profits and setting the stage for her to just RMT the **** out of her personal isk anyways using a more traditional route. she's already shown she lacks ethics and integrity.
Handsome Feller
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#366 - 2013-10-29 21:06:07 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Handsome Feller wrote:
Kirren D'marr wrote:

And yet, others doing the same as SOMER have been shut down; therefore CCP has failed in its enforcement of the EULA/TOS. There are only two ways to rectify this: either punish SOMER equal to what has been done to others guilty of the same act, or reinstate all others who were previously punished for this act.


If, and that's a controversial if, others were banned for doing exactly the same as Somer, there is clearly a case for the "impartiality" issue. How it's rectified is obviously up to CCP (at least the rules have now been extended now), but banning someone after you've endorsed them for being a prime example of a fantastic community site is wrong in many ways. If this happens, let's hope CCP don't change their mind about say, suicide ganking and ban anyone who has ever done it.

Maybe they should. ganking isn't pvp


Neither is PVE. Ban them all right now!
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#367 - 2013-10-29 21:10:15 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Ace Boogi wrote:
RAW23 wrote:

If he has been given 10 days to stop then it would be silly to expect him to stop before he has to and ridiculous to demand that he be punished for not stopping in a time-frame shorter than the one that has been permitted. Look, the actual practice of isk for cash is not really a threat to eve or the player experience. What is a threat is CCP's arbitrary attitude towards such behaviour. It is CCP that is the problem here. The most Somer is guilty of is collusion but no entity is going to punish someone for colluding with themselves; the notion just doesn't make sense.

i agree that it is CCP that is the problem here. regardless though, Somer needs to go because she broke the EULA in the same ways other did, and while others have been punished, she has not. her level of RMT is beyond ridiculous and can't go unpunished if CCP wants to come out of this with any shred of credibility left.

do you really think it's fair that even the slightest hint of RMT gets others punished, and that people using the same model as Somer get locks and threats, but Somer is allowed to RMT over $135k (conservative estimate) and not face any consequences at all?


You are absolutely right that it's not fair. But this is a catch-22. It would also be unfair to penalise someone for behaviour that you have told them is ok. CCP do not seem to be treating this as a clear breach of the EULA but rather as a change in policy. They have not demanded an immediate cessation of these practices as rule breaking but rather have asked for compliance to a new interpretation within a ten day period. I understand the anger at Somer here, I really do. I just don't think the appropriate thing to do is to heap further injustices on top of previous ones.


If SOMERblink had a reason to think that what they were doing was sanctioned by CCP because it fell within the Resellers agreement and CCP failed to tell them otherwise, then punishing them is probably not fair.

Here's the question. Is it fair to judge SOMERblink by their actions once they are notified they are breaking the EULA?

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Ace Boogi
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#368 - 2013-10-29 21:12:02 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:

Here's the question. Is it fair to judge SOMERblink by their actions once they are notified they are breaking the EULA?

go into their channel, they're still actively directing people to their GTC for ISK scheme... sounds like flagrant violation to me
Protovarious
The Neocom Network
#369 - 2013-10-29 21:18:05 UTC
Thread TL;DR

People who lost isk on Blinks want their space currency back.

Someone was more clever than someone else. I must rage.

People who had no idea what SomerBlink was until this.

People playing the victim for CCP because obviously, they don't understand their own EULA.

It's Kony 2012 all over again. Nobody gave a **** until it was cool to disagree and rage against it.

Co-host of The Neocom Podcast - http://www.TheNeocom.com

Eve Community Blogger - The Eve Editorial - http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com

Twitter: @Proto_Eve
RAW23
#370 - 2013-10-29 21:19:28 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:

If SOMERblink had a reason to think that what they were doing was sanctioned by CCP because it fell within the Resellers agreement and CCP failed to tell them otherwise, then punishing them is probably not fair.

Here's the question. Is it fair to judge SOMERblink by their actions once they are notified they are breaking the EULA?


If they have been given ten days to comply it doesn't seem reasonable to me to penalise them for not acting immediately. If CCP had wanted immediate action then they could have asked for that. Passing judgement on their moral character is one thing but passing official judgement on them is another entirely.

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
#371 - 2013-10-29 21:25:11 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:

If SOMERblink had a reason to think that what they were doing was sanctioned by CCP because it fell within the Resellers agreement and CCP failed to tell them otherwise, then punishing them is probably not fair.

Here's the question. Is it fair to judge SOMERblink by their actions once they are notified they are breaking the EULA?


If they have been given ten days to comply it doesn't seem reasonable to me to penalise them for not acting immediately. If CCP had wanted immediate action then they could have asked for that. Passing judgement on their moral character is one thing but passing official judgement on them is another entirely.

their competitors are already stopping. Somer on the other hand seems to be ignoring it, and probably will until the very last second, if this ruling even applies to them. my bet is that they'll just quietly remove it at the last possible second, and then announce it post-fact. gotta milk that cow for all she's worth.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#372 - 2013-10-29 21:46:42 UTC
Ace Boogi wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:

If SOMERblink had a reason to think that what they were doing was sanctioned by CCP because it fell within the Resellers agreement and CCP failed to tell them otherwise, then punishing them is probably not fair.

Here's the question. Is it fair to judge SOMERblink by their actions once they are notified they are breaking the EULA?


If they have been given ten days to comply it doesn't seem reasonable to me to penalise them for not acting immediately. If CCP had wanted immediate action then they could have asked for that. Passing judgement on their moral character is one thing but passing official judgement on them is another entirely.

their competitors are already stopping. Somer on the other hand seems to be ignoring it, and probably will until the very last second, if this ruling even applies to them. my bet is that they'll just quietly remove it at the last possible second, and then announce it post-fact. gotta milk that cow for all she's worth.

How much dolla is 10 days worth?

Pre-tax, of course

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Luci Ambrye
The Service Crew
#373 - 2013-10-29 21:52:27 UTC
to all those who moaned about 'us' complaining about nothing, it seems CCP have suddenly realised that its not 'nothing'.
Rekkr Nordgard
Steelforge Heavy Industries
#374 - 2013-10-29 21:55:26 UTC
Wow, the Somer Blink alts sure are out in force in the second half of this thread, aren't they?
Frying Doom
#375 - 2013-10-29 21:58:01 UTC
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:
Wow, the Somer Blink alts sure are out in force in the second half of this thread, aren't they?

You mean the faceless alts some of them that haven't posted in years, that just spring to life or the ones that argue so aggressively and then leave and another takes over, like they were employees being paid to be on the forums.

Impossible Somer couldn't sink that lowLol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#376 - 2013-10-29 22:00:28 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:
Wow, the Somer Blink alts sure are out in force in the second half of this thread, aren't they?

You mean the faceless alts some of them that haven't posted in years, that just spring to life or the ones that argue so aggressively and then leave and another takes over, like they were employees being paid to be on the forums.

Impossible Somer couldn't sink that lowLol

Well they have the money to pay them for some ingame services

or not, maybe the forums aren't ingame enough

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#377 - 2013-10-29 22:13:11 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Well they have the money to pay them for some ingame services

or not, maybe the forums aren't ingame enough

This... this isn't the game? Straight
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#378 - 2013-10-29 22:18:45 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Well they have the money to pay them for some ingame services

or not, maybe the forums aren't ingame enough

This... this isn't the game? Straight


I knew I was doing something wrong...

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_
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#379 - 2013-10-29 22:20:22 UTC
Well, SOMER enjoyed a nice run for as long as it lasted. I just hope this little setback doesn't mean the end of what is otherwise a very fun service.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
ngaly
Doomheim
#380 - 2013-10-29 22:31:30 UTC
I wonder if SOMERblink actually paid taxes for his profits. I would love to know his real identity to send the tax authorities of his country a nice mail.