Sorry havent been paying attention - but … is there going to be some sort of compensation for 2 weeks of paying and not being able to play?
No. /endthread
3 Likes
As mentioned here, they had been discussing it, so I’m sure there will be an announcement at some point, hopefully sooner rather than later.
A response I got from a GM when I submitted a support ticket asking this very question:
We understand that compensation may not be your primary concern however we feel obliged to mention that any compensation for the disruption would be done globally, at the discretion of the developers, rather than by GMs to individual accounts. Once again, I understand this may not be your primary concern but felt obliged to mention it.
not supposed to share responses from GM’s or anyone from CCP
1 Like
This is wrong.
when did that change? I thought anytime you received a mail from ccp or GM’s you were not allowed to repost it??
- You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization
a response to a support ticket would, IMO be considered a private communication.
1 Like
Jerry Falcone is right: https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/terms-of-service-en/
It’s also mentioned in the forum moderation policy: https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/forum-moderation-policy-en/
they gave everyone the red dot w/sound. case closed
6 Likes
Both you and @Jerry_Falcone are wrong.
Clarification On Section 18 Of The Terms Of Service
In the discussions following our communication on botting, bans and other reprimands were discussed and some players brought up section 18 of EVE’s Terms of Service which states:
“You may not publish private communications from CCP, their agents or representatives or EVE Online volunteers without authorization.”
Whenever this clause is brought up, it’s obvious it carries with it a couple of misconceptions that we probably haven’t worked hard to adjust. Some argue that we set this rule to hide what happens between us and players, which is not possible and is absolutely not our goal.
The actual reason the rule was originally set was to protect our staff from out of context posting and partial reposting intended to foster misinformation without us jumping in and clarifying.
[…]
Another misconception is that we´ll ban people for posting ticket replies which is not accurate. Over 15 years we’ve very rarely banned players for violating this clause (single digit number) and it’s always been on the back of a stack of previous warnings or over a wilful attempt to falsify or misconstrue communication for nefarious purposes.
3 Likes
The rule does still technically exist so they aren’t ‘wrong’, but yeah, in this case it certainly doesn’t break the rule as it was intended to be used, since it’s not misrepresenting anything.
1 Like
Okay so we’re not actually wrong, you’re just a pedantic ****. Got it.
1 Like
Uh, why are you yelling at Scoots, he was yelling at the people trying to tell you off.
Reading to V should be compulsory for forum access.
Uh, you wanna try this again? Scoots was the one saying we’re wrong.
Both of you are wrong. Going around and telling people “you’re not supposed to share GM/CCP responses” is wrong. You can argue about me being pedantic, but at least point to the right issue.
I mean you’re definitively wrong - the question isn’t whether we’ll actually get in trouble for it (I was betting this wasn’t the case, anyway) it’s whether it’s against the rules… which it is.
1 Like
Another misconception is that we´ll ban people for posting ticket replies which is not accurate. Over 15 years we’ve very rarely banned players for violating this clause (single digit number)
So posting ticket replies is still a violation, but it isn’t usually acted upon.
1 Like
Oh right, I missed your pedantic post.
You are the one being pedantic here, Scoots isn’t.
Pedantic = insisting on fine detail letter of the law. Not simply referring the spirit of the law.
Imagine that… I responded to pedantry… with the same level of pedantry. Crazy.
Please take Scoots’ Chocoballs out of your mouth for a minute and read his post wherein he tries to say we’re wrong and he’s right, when neither is really the case.
LoL, trying to accuse me of being in Scoots camp, you clearly aren’t a forum regular.
And no matter what you want to try and argue with insults, Scoots certainly wasn’t being pedantic. Spirit of the law is pretty much never pedantic.
No,