These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Dev Blog: Alliance Panel at Fanfest 2012: The Conclusion

First post First post
Author
John Zorg
State War Academy
Caldari State
#901 - 2012-03-29 12:48:41 UTC
Kai Pirinha wrote:
[quote=John Zorg][quote=Marduua Damman]studies have shown that most victims of suicide never cry out publically, and those that do are mostly attention seekers. What happens in EVE stays in EVE, if you have a problem don't call out in public for help, go to someone you trust and that you know can help you. And to say it again, to shout "I am going to commit suicide" over a game... really... grow up

I have been there so I know what it's really about

CCP instead of just ignoring it and letting it blow over has over reacted, made it known to all and now there is a shitstorm over it. PR needs to learn when to do what..

Banning him yes I can understand that, but kicking him from the CSM, after he saved your game last year, that was the dumbest thing CCP did since the T20 saga...[/quote
Great, try to downplay it all you want. Just another goons ... who cannot see what really happened and how serious this is

Hey I got news for you, buddy, the guy you voted for and you are trying to defend has a different opinion about it than you. He accepted it and saw that he was wrong. You don't

So you are even worse than him

Can I haz your stuff when you quit?


He admitted that he did wrong, which is good right? And how am I downplaying it? What is serious about it?

Either you are new to the game and therefore you have less of an idea about the history or you havn't got the common decency to post with a main. Hide behind a alt. Real pro of you.

Based on that alone your comments are invalid.

And no, I have no stuff...
cap Mal
Defense Advanced Research Program Agency
#902 - 2012-03-29 12:53:32 UTC
HTFU Goons. This is not your game. Vote for him next time and deal with the fact that the world has consequences.
Della Monk
Monastery of Drakes
#903 - 2012-03-29 12:54:04 UTC
Just a reminder, since the dev blog is twistingly worded and some people seem a bit off.
Mittens resigned the chairmanship willingly.
Being removed from CSM7 was not his choice.
Carry on with your arguing.
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#904 - 2012-03-29 12:54:32 UTC
I love it this is all absolutely hilarious. As if any of theis means anything of importance in the long run. Melodramatic drivel from basement dwelling fools:

"Jita is gonna Burn"

"The beginning of the end of EVE"

"Bla bla bla"

You couldn't make this **** up....

Hilarious....
SolusLunes
Goosefleet
#905 - 2012-03-29 12:58:21 UTC
I am reasonably certain I could make this all up.

Hell, I'm making it up now as I go along.
Captain Thunk
Explode. Now. Please.
Alliance. Now. Please.
#906 - 2012-03-29 12:58:41 UTC
10,058 Goons and Goon Alts should've split their vote, if Mitanni's ego would have allowed it.

That way you have a spare representative incase one chokes to death on his own foot (ingame)

Mitanni's Hubris has taken Goons out of the political arena for the next year. I am however pleased to see Goons return to their roots.
SolusLunes
Goosefleet
#907 - 2012-03-29 12:59:06 UTC
Doc Severide wrote:
I love it this is all absolutely hilarious. As if any of theis means anything of importance in the long run. Melodramatic drivel from basement dwelling fools:

"Jita is gonna Burn"

"The beginning of the end of EVE"

"Bla bla bla"

You couldn't make this **** up....

Hilarious....


BOLD TEXT GUYS, BOLD TEXT, WE GOT A BADASS OVER HERE
SolusLunes
Goosefleet
#908 - 2012-03-29 13:00:22 UTC
Captain Thunk wrote:
10,058 Goons and Goon Alts should've split their vote, if Mitanni's ego would have allowed it.

That way you have a spare representative incase one chokes to death on his own foot (ingame)

Mitanni's Hubris has taken Goons out of the political arena for the next year. I am however pleased to see Goons return to their roots.


Nobody else wanted a CSM seat.

But rest assured, Lyris Nairn and I will campaign for CSM9: Sky Captains of your Heart.
Lt Pizi
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#909 - 2012-03-29 13:01:23 UTC
Valryon wrote:
How do you ban someone for something they did outside your game? That's messed up.


NEWSFLASH

1 CCP can ban anyone if they want

2 he used INGAME material t harass an INGAME player calling for INGAME actions



Goon Tears are best tears, because they're 25% alcohol by volume!

Zixie Draco
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#910 - 2012-03-29 13:04:53 UTC


..I tried to tell you all to vote for Skippermonkey. Yep I did.

Would you like a kitten?

Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#911 - 2012-03-29 13:13:19 UTC
Hi,CCP Spitfire brought me here.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#912 - 2012-03-29 13:13:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
There is a good point being talked about in the SA forums -- and maybe it's been brought up in the last 47 pages but I'm not going to read them all.

Why should CCP be able to punish players for out of game actions?

No I'm not sure it entirely applies in Mittens' case but it is a good question. Should CCP really be able to enforce EULA on its players outside of the game? If you encourage players to harass someone outside the game and they take it inside the game, then shouldn't the punishment be directed soley at those committing the in-game rule violation?

Obviously players are punished for RMT which is an out of game act - though clearly the bots or macros that generate the isk are violating the rules and those accounts should be banned. And you could argue that isk generated by way of rule violations is invalid. But should CCP be able to punish you because you paid someone money outside the game and they gave you isk in game? What if that isk wasn't generated with a bot account?

How far does this go? I remember when Helecity was banned because he leaked an internal CCP memo. But he didn't do it on the CCP forum - he did it on his own website. Why was his action outside the game punished? Should it have been?

Let's say you attended a KKK rally wearing an Eve Online t-shirt with your username. Would it be appropriate for CCP to ban you?

I guess it all boils down to - shouldn't EULA only be enforced for acts committed on CCP servers where the players agreed to the EULA?
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
Get Off My Lawn
#913 - 2012-03-29 13:17:10 UTC  |  Edited by: John McCreedy
From the TOS:

Quote:

If you are between 13 and 18 years of age, you must have the permission of your parent or guardian to before providing the personal information required to create an EVE Online game or website account.


Not to excuse what was said but how about some responsibility accepted for the debacle by CCP for allowing the presentation participants to get blind drunk before going "on air"?

CCP's actions where hardly responsible when 13 year old kids (well below the legal drinking age in many countries) where able to legally access the live feed but where subjected to constant references to the glorification of irresponsible drinking, therefore CCP need to issue an apology for their part in this and review their policies towards these issues before the next Fanfest.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.

Lt Pizi
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#914 - 2012-03-29 13:17:54 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
There is a good point being talked about in the SA forums -- and maybe it's been brought up in the last 47 pages but I'm not going to read them all.

Why should CCP be able to punish players for out of game actions?

No I'm not sure it entirely applies in Mittens' case but it is a good question. Should CCP really be able to enforce EULA on its players outside of the game? If you encourage players to harass someone outside the game and they take it inside the game, then shouldn't the punishment be directed soley at those committing the in-game rule violation?

Obviously players are punished for RMT which is an out of game act - though clearly the bots or macros that generate the isk are violating the rules and those accounts should be banned. And you could argue that isk generated by way of rule violations is invalid. But should CCP be able to punish you because you paid someone money outside the game and they gave you isk in game? What if that isk wasn't generated with a bot account?

How far does this go? I remember when Helecity was banned because he leaked an internal CCP memo. But he didn't do it on the CCP forum - he did it on his own website. Why was his action outside the game punished? Should it have been?

I guess it all boils down to - shouldn't EULA only be enforced for acts committed on CCP servers where the players agreed to the EULA?


as long as you use any CCP property CCP is involved and they have the right to deny you acess to their sevice at any point without refund or discussion

easy as that

get that into your head

Goon Tears are best tears, because they're 25% alcohol by volume!

Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#915 - 2012-03-29 13:18:30 UTC
Who is to say that those 10k+ players that voted for The Mittani had any clue that he was going to do something like this? Thankfully, I voted for Seleene. But let's assume for the sake of this argument what would have happen if it was Seleene, or any other elected member of the CSM for that matter, who was inebriated, wearing the wizard hat and told players to grief the miner to suicide himself in real life. I probably would've been outraged that my vote went to someone like that.

My point is, who are we to judge what those 10k+ voters had in mind when they voted for The Mittani?

Adapt or Die

Lt Pizi
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#916 - 2012-03-29 13:19:41 UTC
John McCreedy wrote:
From the TOS:

Quote:

If you are between 13 and 18 years of age, you must have the permission of your parent or guardian to before providing the personal information required to create an EVE Online game or website account.


Not to excuse what was said but how about some responsibility accepted for the debacle by CCP for allowing the presentation participants to get blind drunk before going "on air"?

CCP's actions where hardly responsible when 13 year old kids (well below the legal drinking age in many countries) where able to legally access the live feed but where subjected to constant references to the glorification of irresponsible drinking, therefore CCP need to issue an apology for their part in this and review their policies towards these issues before the next Fanfest.



read the devblog
they already said that
FF will never be the same , sadly , because of one adult that couldnt handle alk

Goon Tears are best tears, because they're 25% alcohol by volume!

Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#917 - 2012-03-29 13:21:11 UTC
Lt Pizi wrote:


as long as you use any CCP property CCP is involved and they have the right to deny you acess to their sevice at any point without refund or discussion

easy as that

get that into your head


Sure, they have a right to. The question is - should they be banning people for actions committed out of game?
Lt Pizi
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#918 - 2012-03-29 13:28:40 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Lt Pizi wrote:


as long as you use any CCP property CCP is involved and they have the right to deny you acess to their sevice at any point without refund or discussion

easy as that

get that into your head


Sure, they have a right to. The question is - should they be banning people for actions committed out of game?


in the case we are discussing now absolutely
other cases may differ

Goon Tears are best tears, because they're 25% alcohol by volume!

Catho Sharn
Don't Die Interstellar Enterprises
#919 - 2012-03-29 13:33:36 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Lt Pizi wrote:


as long as you use any CCP property CCP is involved and they have the right to deny you acess to their sevice at any point without refund or discussion

easy as that

get that into your head


Sure, they have a right to. The question is - should they be banning people for actions committed out of game?


Pure speculation on my part, but the presentation was live-streamed via the Eve site, which is covered by the EULA/TOS. I suspect that's their reasoning.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#920 - 2012-03-29 13:34:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Jada Maroo wrote:
Lt Pizi wrote:


as long as you use any CCP property CCP is involved and they have the right to deny you acess to their sevice at any point without refund or discussion

easy as that

get that into your head


Sure, they have a right to. The question is - should they be banning people for actions committed out of game?


You have to look at it from a business and legal perspective. Remember that CCP, Nvidia and Sony are in a partnership and on-air incidents like this can potentially derail the relationship since all this happened on CCP's watch and considering that almost all of the major gaming websites caught wind of this incident that has resulted in a PR nightmare for CCP. This is not what they had in mind when they hosted Fanfest 2012 especially considering the up-coming release of Dust 514 which will expand CCP's player base which could potentially be easily turned away by debacles like this.

EDIT:

In regards to the legal perspective, the victim could have sued Alex 'The Mittani' since his actual name and face was shown for all to see when he acted like that and considering that CCP allowed drunks to be on a live broadcast like that. But the victim was a good sport as per the conversation I had with him. Therefore, Alex should consider himself lucky.

Adapt or Die