These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Community Concerns Regarding SOMERblink

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#1041 - 2014-08-20 16:39:38 UTC
On one side, I generally agree that RMT schemes shouldn't be allowed. For everyone talking about the good somer did, remember that they did it while raking 20% off the top.

On the flip side, we all know PLEX are discounted when purchased in large quantities, CCP says this themselves. What prevents a group of people from getting together and buying 500+ plex at once at the discount price and distributing them among the group? What further prevents the organizer of that event from charging the individuals a price somewhere in-between the average cost of the purchased plex (assuming ~$14 or whatever), and the price of a single plex? ($20). Isn't that, effectively, an RMT scheme?
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1042 - 2014-08-20 16:41:19 UTC
Garai Nolen wrote:
Does the EULA exist as an abstract codified set of law that MUST BE ENFORCED just for the sake of enforcing it? NO. The EULA exists to allow CCP to do what they need to in order to PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE GAME. The integrity of the game is the principle, the "spirit of the law" if you will, which the EULA exists to codify. But as with all such things, written law can never fully capture the spirit of its intent, and sometimes even comes into conflict with that intent.

Finally, the crux... if you were CCP, and your EULA against RMT existed to protect the integrity of the game, and you see Somer doing a verifiable but somewhat low key ISK->$ scheme that doesn't seem to be harming the integrity of the game in any fashion while possibly even boosting PLEX sales, are you going to crack down and enfroce the EULA "just because", or are you going to understandably turn a blind eye? More importantly, what SHOULD you do, again understanding that the EULA doesn't exist just to be enforced for no reason but rather as a tool to allow CCP to protect the integrity of their game?


Uneven enforcement of the rules of the game directly undermines the integrity of the game, and any trust the playerbase has in it, just like any other uneven enforcement of rules and laws directly undermines the faith the community has in the construct formed of those rules, and in those tasked with enforcement.

You can argue that rules/laws sometimes need to be changed. You can even argue that there is often moral value in intentionally breaking rules and laws that are immoral. But if you want to play that card, then you need to look back at the history of civil disobedience, and pay close attention to the fact that those individuals who willfully broke the law in order to call attention to that law for the purposes of changing it expected to be punished.

More, they planned on that punishment. That punishment was, in fact, the vehicle for raising awareness of the law that had them immorally punished. To argue that laws do not need to be enforced, or that transgressors should have an expectation of exemption, is simply naive.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1043 - 2014-08-20 16:42:27 UTC
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
There is no incentivization of using TMC/EN24/etc.'s referral links. That is, one of several, key differences in your analogy. TMC doesn't provide you an in-game reward for buying GTC/PLEX through their site. Them paying their staff in ISK to provide the service for the site falls in line with CCP's policy. When CCP change that policy, they will adapt or cease to exist. Pretty simple really.

CCP Policies are only there for the moment, and subject to change at the hint of Drama.

What Somer was doing before was clearly fine with CCP, they did it for what, 2, 3 years without a word? And in that time were actively advertised by CCP on the Login/Character Selection screen, and in the community posts.

CCP has NO idea where the line is.. They just make it up as the drama heats up.
Prince Kobol
#1044 - 2014-08-20 16:46:06 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
This entire situation raises a worrying aspect about how CCP operates as a company.

I find it very disturbing / worrying that CCP Falcon who is the Community Manager was only made aware of this by the CSM.

Surely this should of been something that was brought to his, or at least his teams attention when the proposal was first brought forward by Somer. I would of also thought that sites such as Somer, Eve Bet, Dotlan etc fall under the Community Teams jurisdiction so to speak.


This is something that was basically an internal misunderstanding at CCP, and I'm not gonna point fingers at people in relation to it.

Basically, a breakdown in communication with people not knowing who to contact during the transition of the Community Team's leadership to me, and a few other factors.

It's something that we're very much looking at changing, and we're taking it into account as part of the ongoing investigation.

Smile




Okay, I am going to say this as nobody has which has surprised me.

So what you are saying is that the person in question did not know how to find out who was part of the Community Team? I know you do not want to point any fingers at anybody as that is the professional ting to do and I really do appreciate that and your position but seriously, they were not able to find out what should be very basic information.

That is a pretty daming indictment

Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#1045 - 2014-08-20 16:47:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Hendrick Tallardar
Sniper Smith wrote:
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
There is no incentivization of using TMC/EN24/etc.'s referral links. That is, one of several, key differences in your analogy. TMC doesn't provide you an in-game reward for buying GTC/PLEX through their site. Them paying their staff in ISK to provide the service for the site falls in line with CCP's policy. When CCP change that policy, they will adapt or cease to exist. Pretty simple really.

CCP Policies are only there for the moment, and subject to change at the hint of Drama.

What Somer was doing before was clearly fine with CCP, they did it for what, 2, 3 years without a word? And in that time were actively advertised by CCP on the Login/Character Selection screen, and in the community posts.

CCP has NO idea where the line is.. They just make it up as the drama heats up.


Welcome to any company in the world that provides a service. They can change their policies at anytime they want and for any reason, your EULA/TOS agreement affirms you understand that. The assumption that CCP just decided that people being mad at Somer was enough to change policy overnight is pretty juvenile in understanding business operations. CCP aren't the best at running a company, but they're not doing this by the seat of their pants.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#1046 - 2014-08-20 16:47:38 UTC
Edit - these ******* forums are terrible
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1047 - 2014-08-20 16:48:42 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Tell me what's gonna happen to Lisa?


They almost certainly will not. Any HR department worth its salt will laugh at you if you tell them you want them to reveal internal disciplinary action. In fact, doing so can (it doesn't always, but it can) open them up to legal action from the individual whose disciplinary history has been revealed.

Anyone with any management training will tell you the exact same thing: disciplinary action doesn't get talked about. You don't tell one person what another person did, or what action was taken against them. I've seen Fortune 500 companies fire department heads for doing so, just within their own department.
Garai Nolen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1048 - 2014-08-20 16:49:32 UTC
111010110 wrote:
Garai Nolen wrote:


RMT scheme.


And who was Somer's backer and financial partner in all of this? Another story of special relationships, favouritism in perception - at minimum special attention. A business with an established record - and taking pride in it publicly - of getting inside games, gaming the makers, and making money off it.


Again though, not nearly so black and white.

Markee and CCP have an actual business relationship as a reseller. That means there is probably a written contract somewhere. CCP is, most likely, actually very tightly constrained on what they can and can't do there without facing all sorts of legal penalties within the terms of that contract. We know for a fact that CCP modified the general terms of their reseller contracts to try and blanket-cover the problem scenario, but that doesn't mean CCP can single out Markee for repercussion without likely facing real legal backlash (in fact, exactly the sort of scenario their EULA is trying to protect them from when dealing with an entity like Somer).

Without knowing the details of those arrangements, we can't say if Markee violated any part of their contract with CCP in any meaningful way. Considering how quickly Somer killed the scheme and the general sneakiness around which they tried to get it vetted, I highly doubt Markee is in any way culpable (this time) with regard to whatever contractual obligations they have to deal with their affiliates in compliance with whatever deal they have with CCP.

As much as I'd like to vilify them, they are simply a business doing what businesses do under terms arranged with CCP that we don't get to see, so there's pretty much no way for us to reasonably criticise their behavior. Don't make the mistake of thinking that Markee should in any way be held to the same standards as a player/entity WITHin the EVE game universe. They are a business partner with CCP in the real world, wholly separate from EVE, and of course they are going to look for creative ways to earn $.
Suzie Swindle
Shady Con Artist Militia
#1049 - 2014-08-20 16:57:01 UTC
I am surprised at how many dont seem to understand the difference between CCP letting groups pay people in isk for content to place on their site while making real life money from adds, and that of how somers was using its affiliate status to perform a kickback type deal....

Giving people isk to write articles/material for your site (and only those who you use get this isk), and making your money pay for your site via banner adds and links while offering no incentive to the people to do so, outside of them wanting to support your site is not RMT... You are not trading isk for cash in any way, those whom you gave isk for articles/material for your EVE related site dont need to buy anything from you/your affiliate, its no different then if someone gave you a great idea for your website and in game you tossed them some isk as a thank you.

The issue with somers is that they didnt do this... what they did was simply a give money to so and so whom gives me money every time you do, and I will give you some isk in game That is RMT. Its not hard to see the difference. And to those who try to say CCP somehow tossed somers under the bus... thats just BS. They didn't shut down blink, somers did, even in the "proof" somers put up and got permission for was NOT the same thing they did. And to top it off as soon as somers started up with this RMT scheme within the day CCP started to act.... you cant blame CCP for not taking action until the action is taken.

Does CCP need to do some internal work to make sure someone doesn't try to pull this type of crap again... yes... but thats internal and they will most likely be doing this now (or I hope so), also the RMT policy is pretty easy to understand, no incentives to get people to buy plex from your an affiliate of... Seems pretty black and white.

Oh and one last thing, people who say "well CCP selling plex is RMT".. its not RMT when its part of their business model sheesh...
Garai Nolen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1050 - 2014-08-20 16:59:32 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Uneven enforcement of the rules of the game directly undermines the integrity of the game, and any trust the playerbase has in it, just like any other uneven enforcement of rules and laws directly undermines the faith the community has in the construct formed of those rules, and in those tasked with enforcement.


Uneven enforcement of the rules is a fact of life. In fact, there is plenty of philosophical argument that uneven enforcement is a necessary component to maintain actual justice within a system of law (e.g. jury nullification).

Quote:
You can argue that rules/laws sometimes need to be changed. You can even argue that there is often moral value in intentionally breaking rules and laws that are immoral. But if you want to play that card, then you need to look back at the history of civil disobedience, and pay close attention to the fact that those individuals who willfully broke the law in order to call attention to that law for the purposes of changing it expected to be punished.


This is assuming that the EULA is somehow equivalent to real-world law. While it makes for useful analogy some of the time, this is simply false at the core of it. Therefore the moral and philosophical arguments around how strictly the EULA should be enforced vs. the same arguments as they might apply to real-world law don't have the same underpinnings.

Fundamentally I am perfectly fine with CCP being somewhat uneven with the enforcement of their EULA based on internal business decisions that we don't ever get to see. I would PREFER that they codify the terms of their favoritism so that all 3rd parties get an equal shot at this favoritism, but even if they DON'T it's not a morally black and white "CCP was wrong" issue.

They can't put me in jail, tax me, freeze my accounts, or strip me of liberties. They can, at most, stop me from playing their game. Given this drastically different level of power I'm perfectly willing to accept that the way CCP enforces the EULA does not, philosophically and morally, by necessity need to be handled in the same way that a government should enforce its law. There are certainly aspects where the same basic arguments apply, but more importantly there are aspects where they definitely DO NOT. I would argue that the importance of even enforcement of the EULA is one of those specific aspects that is in stark contrast to real-world law.

Though again, as I said, it would benefit CCP at this point to codify the terms of their favoritism with regard to acceptable RMT. But only because the community has, for various reasons, decided it's an issue that now needs to be addressed.
Prince Kobol
#1051 - 2014-08-20 17:03:08 UTC
Suzie Swindle wrote:


Does CCP need to do some internal work to make sure someone doesn't try to pull this type of crap again... yes... but thats internal and they will most likely be doing this now (or I hope so),


You would of though after what happened last time they would have but apparently they haven't.. big surprise...
Garai Nolen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1052 - 2014-08-20 17:09:01 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
CCP has NO idea where the line is.. They just make it up as the drama heats up.


You say that like it's a bad thing.

CCP made business decisions that were clearly favorable to their bottom line for a long time. Then a community backlash arose (for understandable reasons) and, like any company, they are being forced to balance those business decisions against the potential business impact of community outrage.

CCP has no idea where the line is because there IS NO meaningful line and, further, there doesn't need to be. The line is wherever it needs to be, today, to make sure EVE keeps running and CCP stays afloat. For 3 years nobody cared about Somer RMT because 1) the community didn't seem to care much and 2) the specific form of their RMT did not cause any of the traditional issues that RMT can produce in a game. Ergo it makes total business sense that CCP turned a blind eye for as long as that scenario continued. And for GOOD REASONS.

Then a community backlash occurred and CCP responded, as any company must, in order to placate their customer base. This happens all the time in business and is in no way surprising.

Again, it's important to remember that RMT is banned not because it is inherently evil but because of the damage it frequently causes to the game and community (hacked accounts, botting, etc.) You simply cannot say "Somer was doing RMT therefore they are evil" and "CCP ignored Somer doing RMT therefore they are evil (and clueless and stupid and unable to establish a firm boundary)" because RMT ITSELF is not now and never has been the actual problem they are trying to address with an anti-RMT stance in the EULA.
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1053 - 2014-08-20 17:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: dexington
Doc Fury wrote:
Andski wrote:
Man you've really been showcasing mod abilities in this thread: endless quotes per post, images, oh boy


It's almost as if there is real forum software buried under here.

They just haven't unchecked the [Sucks] box in the config section for us regular users.

edit: the IRONY
/and divine confirmation.


The images are linked from external sites, i hope they never enable that feature for monkey class users, but i guess it would be fun to datamine ip/browser info and try and match it to users to detects alts and other fun stuff.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Suzie Swindle
Shady Con Artist Militia
#1054 - 2014-08-20 17:11:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Suzie Swindle
Prince Kobol wrote:
Suzie Swindle wrote:


Does CCP need to do some internal work to make sure someone doesn't try to pull this type of crap again... yes... but thats internal and they will most likely be doing this now (or I hope so),


You would of though after what happened last time they would have but apparently they haven't.. big surprise...



Going to the vp of sales is abit different then going through a gm, and when someone put up a proposal that says "I wont give any extra isk", well you kind of have to wait for them to actually do this... you cant (or atleast almost none of us can) see what will happen when someone does a 180 on that until they actually...

I thought it was clear after last year with the NO offering incentives to get people to click your link so you can get a kickback...
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1055 - 2014-08-20 17:14:39 UTC
Suzie Swindle wrote:
I am surprised at how many dont seem to understand the difference between CCP letting groups pay people in isk for content to place on their site while making real life money from adds, and that of how somers was using its affiliate status to perform a kickback type deal....


I am willing to bet that a substantial number of these people are not ignorant at all. I'm curious to know what they're actual motivations are, however.

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.
Annie Getyourgun
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1056 - 2014-08-20 17:15:38 UTC
While there are eyes on the thread, is there any reason that since ETC is dead, long live PLEX happened, we cannot have referral links point directly to the EVE Online Account Management website (similar to how Buddy account referral links work)?

The list of 3rd Party Retailers still has this bit about ETC's

Many of our players subscribe to EVE directly; however, some prefer to pay for their game time using other methods, such as EVE Time Codes. This page lists the websites and services that offer EVE Starter Packs and EVE Time Codes (ETCs). Remember you can also trade ETC with other players or buy PLEX.


but it seems that any of the sites listed has their ETC as 'out of stock' if they continue to list them at all.

What is the limitation preventing this from happening, as a change such as this would surely help to separate some of the grey area back into black and white?
Prince Kobol
#1057 - 2014-08-20 17:15:57 UTC
Suzie Swindle wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Suzie Swindle wrote:


Does CCP need to do some internal work to make sure someone doesn't try to pull this type of crap again... yes... but thats internal and they will most likely be doing this now (or I hope so),


You would of though after what happened last time they would have but apparently they haven't.. big surprise...



Going to the vp of sales is abit different then going through a gm, and when someone put up a proposal that says "I wont give any extra isk", well you kind of have to wait for them to actually do this... you cant (or atleast almost none of us can) see what will happen when someone does a 180 on that...



What I mean is that yet again lack of communication is the root cause to all this drama.

Even Falcon alluded to it before that

"Basically, a breakdown in communication with people not knowing who to contact during the transition of the Community Team's leadership to me, and a few other factors"

It is the same sorry story with CCP and it is getting pretty tiring.

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1058 - 2014-08-20 17:27:46 UTC
dexington wrote:
The images are linked from external sites, i hope they never enable that feature for monkey class users, but i guess it would be fun to datamine ip/browser info and try and match it to users to detects alts and other fun stuff.


If that's the primary concern they can simply require images posted on the forums to be hosted on imgur, tinypic, eve-files etc.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Garai Nolen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1059 - 2014-08-20 17:28:59 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
What I mean is that yet again lack of communication is the root cause to all this drama.


Welcome to business reality?

Here's a not-secret; the source of 99% of business drama/issues/problems/failures is a LACK OF COMMUNICATION. Reasonable people (which is all a business is; a lot of individual, reasonable people) when in possession of ALL the facts tend to come to pretty similar, sane, and reasonable conclusions. Ergo, the most likely reason poor decisions happen is because some of the people involved do NOT possess all of the information. The most likely culprit for that? Poor communication.

As a result, every business failure you ever analyse is going to have, at its root, "lack of communication" as a major contributing factor, if not THE primary factor, for that failure to occur.

This will never change, and it will never be fixed. CCP, like every other business on planet Earth, will continue to struggle with internal communication and will occasionally screw up as a result of missing something in this process.

It is in no way indicative of a fault specific to CCP nor does it imply they are somehow a below-average company. In fact, it makes them pretty ordinary and typical.
Prince Kobol
#1060 - 2014-08-20 17:31:45 UTC
Garai Nolen wrote:


will continue to struggle with internal communication and will occasionally screw up as a result of missing something in this process.


You need to replace occasionally with constantly