something…there, I said something.  Yeah, not much there, right?

I have a problem.  A lot of people both in and out of game have been asking me about a particular CSM candidate.  People have been commenting on his EVE Forum thread in the CSM section.  Some of these comments have been very ‘rough’ and calling out various truths about this individual.

I am aware of what has been said and I honestly did not want to contribute to the discussion.  A friend and I were discussing the thread Friday evening and I have been quoted on why I’ve not contributed to the discussion.  I am not very happy that I was quoted on the thread, but as her post states, I did not say that I was speaking “off the record”.  Needless to say, I am not pleased but it’s my own fault for not ensuring that I was speaking off the record.

I honestly don’t care if this individual runs for the CSM.  I could care less.  His publicly documented lack of integrity, honor and blatant illegal activities in the real world are more than enough to put any chances of this individual actually winning a seat on the CSM on par with a snowball surviving in the depths of hell for an extended period of time.

I have the faith that  EVE Online community is smart enough to understand that this individual has no place representing the EVE player’s collective interests. I have faith in the community that they know he can not be trusted regardless of which corporation and/or alliance he currently enjoys membership. It is a bit shocking that his current alliance did not do the research on this individual to know what they brought into the midst, but I am sure they will learn how much of a problem they have brought into the fold.  Perhaps they have plans to hang him out to dry and he’s not aware of how he is being played in game as he has done to so many people who trusted him.  That would be some fitting  justice.

For everyone who has urged me to stand up and actively speak out against this individual, I do thank you all for your support, however, I will not allow this person to continue to impact my game time nor my real life.  This post will be all I will be willing to day as he’s simply not worth any other effort.

Enough said, now, go vote for the other candidates who are worthy of your attention.

Related posts

• “It’s just a game you know?…” (11)
• WHAT?!?! We are losing an hour?!?!? (2)
• Web techie time… (0)
• The Bleeding Rose (1)
• So, you want that light saber, eh? How many Daktari credits do you have? (2)

Yup, Band of Brothers disbands, becomes Kenzoku and now they become Band of Brothers Reloaded.

As usual, the EVE forums are rife with discontent over the name change.  Supposedly Kenzoku leadership put in a petition to have the alliance name changed.  EVE GM’s received the petition and changed the name.  GM Grimmi even went so far to make a post on the EVE forums.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1032494

GM Grimmi:

Yesterday we changed the name of the alliance KenZoku to Band of Brothers Reloaded as the result of a petition by their leadership. It has come to our attention that this was not a popular decision among some of our players and we’d like to take this opportunity to address those issues.

We have previously changed names provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe and the situation warranted such action. The leadership of KenZoku/Band of Brothers did petition us immediately after they were disbanded and their name was taken. While we worked on the petition for about two months we do not feel that they should suffer because of that. Having them disband and lose sovereignty again was not deemed appropriate in this case.

This action was limited to changing their name, as we have done before for others – we did not assist them in regaining their sovereignty after the Band of Brothers alliance was disbanded, nor did we assist with that now. Any other corporation or alliance finding themselves in the same situation would get the same treatment.

Now, I understand what this says and on the surface it looks fine.  Read the threadnaught that follows his post and you will learn that everyone is calling foul and claiming ‘dev misconduct’.  Many people want CCP to simply show an example of a petition for an alliance name change that was granted.  Many people are citing examples of such petitions that were simply denied.

The EVE forums are NOT a place to find truth as they are a cesspool that continues to fester with discontent, however, I have to agree with the rabble so far.  CCP needs to provide examples of where they have changed an alliance’s name in the past as they did for Kenzoku.

However, there is a post from Lem2J to consider:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1031624&page=20#585

When Cult of War (COW) didnt pay the bill, the alliance was disbanded. A third party took the corp name in order to block the re-creation of Cow. I petitioned this, the corp was re-named and we paid the fee to recreate the alliance…
The same rules should apply to BOB imo, Sov should have been lost (as they did) but they should be able to retain the name.

Granted, this is not evidence provided by CCP, but rather a player bringing to light another incident of an alliance name change petition being granted.  CCP confirming the Cult of War example should difuse this situation.  I do hope they do so soon.

UPDATE:  Kenzoku name change has been reversed!!

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1033628

GM Grimmi:

We appreciate the feedback from everyone. After reviewing all of these very valid concerns, we were compelled to go back over the information we’d collected in this case and carefully weighed it again against the precedents set in the past. Ultimately, we felt we had no other recourse than to reverse the name change, the key factor being that during this re-investigation we learned that the KenZoku alliance was created several months before the BoB alliance leadership switched hands. That being the case, the name change request was not submitted within a timely manner, as it had been in the legacy cases we were holding up as examples.

We will be contacting the CSM for input regarding our naming policies.

Well, well, seems that CCP messed up on this one.  At least they fixed this in the end.  I do hope that they do bring naming issues to the next CSM meeting as they say they will.  This is obviously something that needs to be looked at and worked again.

Related posts

• The Question of Life, The Universe and Everything…ahem, CCP Zulupark knows all? (0)
• Rest in Peace (0)
• EVE has a sewer, it’s called ‘forums’ (4)
• EVE Forums changes (0)
• “Who the hell are they?….” (4)

Yup, all manner of people are running for the CSM this time around, including a friend of mine.

Larkonis Trassler has thrown his hat into the ring (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1026577).  Now, a quick read of this thread and you see that he’s serious.  Internet Spaceships is serious business and he means to make a difference.

For more information on his viewpoints and goings on, please see his website, http://www.larkonisforcsm.com.

Related posts

• Wow, that must have hurt…running into writer’s block (0)
• Web techie time… (0)
• Tags anyone? (5)
• Summer time is a busy time (0)
• Suicide roam (0)

The CSM meeting notes are up at http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=948936.

I have read the minutes and as you can all guess, the EVE forums are already filling with the “total whitewash” and “nothing new, coverup” posts.  Honestly, there is really nothing new here save the re-afirmation that CCP is still looking into the issue.  CCP does admit that they have some issues, that to identify some of the older data, it will take time.  To think that they could review everything in less than a week is absurd.  This issue will not be resolved quickly, it will take at least a few weeks.  I would expect that we will not really have anything truly useful until the end of January.

As for the veracity of the claims of the abuse going on for 4 years, I had this thought.  Remember the changes to ghost training?  CCP admitted that it had been going on for a long time, but one of the reasons for the change was the sudden increase in abusing the exploit.  I truly believe that is the case here.  The POS exploit existed for a long time and there was an increase in activity according to the CSM notes.  So, they took action when it became widespread and truly noticeable.  As to exactly when this exploit came into existence, well, without a complete review of all data it will take some time.

Until then, I urge everyone to, as my CEO says, “Calm your passions.”  We will learn all that we need to learn about this exploit and exactly how far reaching the abuse truly reached.

Related posts

• “…1 plus 2 plus 2 plus 1… (0)
• T20, take two? (3)
• WHAT?!?!? EVE HAS SOUND?!?!?!? (8)
• Weapons get together, Alliances can submit again, the ‘Space Whale’ is born… (1)
• Too much E-Peen is bad, m’kay? (1)