These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Hall Of Shame! "REVISED TO A TAG SYSTEM" A request to CCP.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-03-03 00:48:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Sasha Azala
Rene Fullchest wrote:
I believe most of those here arguing against or justifying CCP's failure to do so, fail to grasp that we are not wanting REAL names, but character names, and not characters temp-banned, but those perma-banned.

There is only one reason we want this, and it doesn't involve shame at all. What we want is some concrete evidence that CCP is actually doing what they say they are doing. Notice I said concrete evidence, not hearsay from some other forums, not "I have noticed...", not "say, the overall concurrent player numbers seem to be down", not anything at all like that.

If CCP says they have banned 1000, provide a list of those character names so that we, the non-cheating players, can at least be able to tell if that character is still logging on or be able to act in coordination to come to the conclusion that such a player name never actually existed in the first place.


We want the names so that we can have faith, based on verifiable evidence, that CCP is not just paying lip service to the many who detest botting and botters.

Without that, none of their words or alleged actions means a damn thing.



Faith and concrete evidence don't actually go together. You don't have any faith in CCP or you would not be asking them for a list of names.

I'm a non-cheating customer and have no interest in seeing a list of names at all, it serves no purpose other than to satisfy the curious and nosey.

Their words might not mean a damn thing to you, but that's because you have no faith or trust in them. As for me I'll let them get on with their job without demanding pointless lists of names. Or even an equally stupid tag system.
Morrigu Storm
D'tael Contracts
#42 - 2012-03-03 02:46:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigu Storm
Mr Epeen wrote:
Morrigu Storm wrote:
Brand the *******!

Stick RMT a big "M" on their Avatars forhead for all to see depending what they have been caught doing!





Why stop there. Brand them with a G (rief) for can baiting noobs and brand them with a big I (diot) for stupid forum posts.

I'm sure y'all can come up with more.

Mr Epeen Cool



G should be for anyone who a goon!
Valentyn3
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#43 - 2012-03-03 02:51:27 UTC
Decorum, an idea as foreign to gamers as outdoor exercise.

I don't always use hax. But when I do, it's because I'm an NPC.. http://i.imgur.com/PUZou.jpg
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2012-03-03 04:14:09 UTC
oustade Habalu wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
What is the point of having some list of names public to everyone

It appears you may have some difficulty understanding the meaning of “Shaming” although I recon you are only trolling as some other couple figures in this thread.



Shame based over an "Acting" in video game. hmm interesting concept. Go on then.

I do not know about you but we all know the people in real life who made quite a great deal of wealth by "legal" or not so "legal" ways.
And we all know we are dumb as hell because we were not the ones...

Playing by the rules is great, but always the worst kind of play you can come up.
Bipolar Brock Nelson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-03-05 14:24:13 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Playing by the rules is great, but always the worst kind of play you can come up.



Hear Hear!!!

Welcome to the dark side!


PS: Just keep your bots away from me you bad capsuler.
Rixiu
PonyTek
#46 - 2012-03-05 15:47:43 UTC
People enjoy attention, giving it to them is more a carrot than anything else. Stupid idea is stupid.
Valei Khurelem
#47 - 2012-03-05 16:11:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
The problem is here is that people are forgetting in the end this is just a game, no one is realistically being hurt by this, it's a pain in the ass yes, but posting their personal details and lives up for all to see and attack? No, that's the kind of thing the media does in the UK and they think it's justifiable because doing something petty and daft is something to get lynched over.

Lets keep that kind of thing for people who truly deserve it thanks like people who think it's okay to post videos of them blatantly abusing animals or committing real crimes that actually harm others.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#48 - 2012-03-05 17:07:59 UTC
Rene Fullchest wrote:
I believe most of those here arguing against or justifying CCP's failure to do so, fail to grasp that we are not wanting REAL names, but character names, and not characters temp-banned, but those perma-banned.

There is only one reason we want this, and it doesn't involve shame at all. What we want is some concrete evidence that CCP is actually doing what they say they are doing. Notice I said concrete evidence, not hearsay from some other forums, not "I have noticed...", not "say, the overall concurrent player numbers seem to be down", not anything at all like that.

If CCP says they have banned 1000, provide a list of those character names so that we, the non-cheating players, can at least be able to tell if that character is still logging on or be able to act in coordination to come to the conclusion that such a player name never actually existed in the first place.


We want the names so that we can have faith, based on verifiable evidence, that CCP is not just paying lip service to the many who detest botting and botters.

Without that, none of their words or alleged actions means a damn thing.


OK let's just pretend for a minute that you really want this as confirmation of CCP's honesty.

CCP owns the ******* game, don't be an idiot. You want names? They can conjure them from thin air and add them to the DB. These "people" are "banned", how the **** would you know the difference?

Jackhole got banned.
Asshat420 got banned.
DipstickOne got banned.

See how easy this is?

If you don't believe they're telling the truth about banning people, how can you believe in the validity of a list of names from the same source? The names cannot be confirmed because they were allegedly banned.

*Grabs popcorn.*

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#49 - 2012-03-05 17:36:28 UTC
Pod Potato wrote:
Shaming and blacklisting people is wrong...

I just black listed u... you are no longer allowed to fleet with my corp in level 1 missions P
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
oustade Habalu
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2012-03-26 13:17:19 UTC
CCP Shreegs mentioned at FF he will start a thread about this...

Interesting that CCP has no problem tagging someone that do not want to be griefed and/or participate in someone's idea of fun by griefing others, however, they don't have the same treatment to botters...
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-03-26 13:25:59 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
I can't think of a single company that has ever named the characters or accounts banned for any reason. I wouldn't imagine it s a good policy at all to do so. I wouldn't expect this to happen. Frankly I don't care to even see any of that information. A devblog telling me that they did it is good enough for me. I doubt they would blatantly lie about it.

This was my original perspective on the matter. This perspective has since changed. It was stated at Fanfest as a question from one of the players to a CCP Dev that it would be good for corp leaders to be able to see who was flagged as a botter so they can choose not to recruit that person.

This is a good point. I can get behind flagging a player as a botter or for any other EULA breaking action if there is a good reason for it. This is one.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#52 - 2012-03-26 13:34:55 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
I can't think of a single company that has ever named the characters or accounts banned for any reason. I wouldn't imagine it s a good policy at all to do so. I wouldn't expect this to happen. Frankly I don't care to even see any of that information. A devblog telling me that they did it is good enough for me. I doubt they would blatantly lie about it.

This was my original perspective on the matter. This perspective has since changed. It was stated at Fanfest as a question from one of the players to a CCP Dev that it would be good for corp leaders to be able to see who was flagged as a botter so they can choose not to recruit that person.

This is a good point. I can get behind flagging a player as a botter or for any other EULA breaking action if there is a good reason for it. This is one.



It might seem like a good point but it's not.

If they're still in-game then CCP has decided to give them another chance, which is CCPs choice to make. As they are still customers of CCP they should not be flagged other than on the actual account as effectively 1 life used up.
SgtGoodEnd
BTSK
#53 - 2012-03-27 16:09:16 UTC
oustade Habalu wrote:
CCP Shreegs mentioned at FF he will start a thread about this...

Interesting that CCP has no problem tagging someone that do not want to be griefed and/or participate in someone's idea of fun by griefing others, however, they don't have the same treatment to botters...




https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=87030&find=unread

Let the dead horse die!
Previous page123