The online character was publicly associated with his real name prior to their statement. As I’ve mentioned before, with that association in place, claiming ‘CCP didn’t use his real name’ is like saying that Ramón Estévez can’t sue for defamation, because the tabloid only referred to ‘Martin Sheen’.
thats like trying to file a libel case against someone that said elton john was gay… two months after elton john came out as being gay. Honestly, good luck with that.
Also
is a really stupid analogy, especially as ramon would be suing a paper that put his face in print; which CCP has not done.
Go on keep on typing, your entitled to an opinion afterall.
Now you’re assuming there’s a picture involved. Good job. You’re also assuming, again, that Brisc did it. As I’ve said: if he did it, and they can prove it, then he’s getting what’s deserved.
1 Like
with tabloids there are always pictures. Theyre basically newspapers for people who can only read if theres a picture.
and again, im fairly certain he must be as i cant actually see ccp banning him without proper cause; that just seems too retarded to believe tbvh.
100% sure? no, not in the world we live in.
Bono from U2 if he was a newb EVE player, I guess?
It is simple:
The CCP has questioned the integrity of a person and now must prove his allegations or withdraw it and apologize…
1 Like
He should stand public trial! Let us “the people” decide his fate! Bring forth the EVEdence!
1 Like
1 Like
Muhahahaha
“Public” can not trial US citizen…
1 Like
So CCP, it’s now after the holidays and we are all waiting with intent on the outcome…
Wait wait Waaaiiiiit!!!..
I can’t find mah pitchfork 
Has anyone seen it? I swear I was using it last week (for that thing we were up in arms over), and now it’s just gone! 
Ahh well if anyone sees it, please let me know. Let the Trials begin!!!
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
Like this?
I named no names. >.>
I agree with what you said, however, courts have overturned many cases where the EULA was the core issue. EULA is not legally binding anymore due to precedents set pretty recently.
3 Likes
Soon™
1 Like
lol, the ramification of this would be that you can’t be banned as long as you link your name to the character… and are some sort of public persona - e.g. own a business
2 Likes
Why?
CCP doesn’t normally identifty ‘we banned these accounts’. CCP doesn’t normally make any comment about disciplinary actions or bans against specific individuals. The only reason, for example, that we knew GigX was banned was GigX said so, on Talking in Stations.
Nor, for that matter, is the ban even at issue, as far as ‘can CCP do this?’ Of course they can. They can ban Brisc for having a dumbass name, if they want. They don’t even need that much of a reason. They don’t need a reason at all for a ban. The ban isn’t what made this a ‘thing’.
CCP similarly hasn’t offered information about why people have been removed from the CSM, in the past. They’ve just done it, and said ‘we removed X, and anything more about it is between us and them’. And if they’d done that this time, there’d be no potential issue now, either.
What made this a ‘thing’ was the public statement of ‘hey, the person behind this specific identity, which is already publicly identified as that guy, violated confidentiality where a legal contract (the NDA) was involved’. And they didn’t need to make that statement at all. But having made it, they need to be able to back it up, if challenged.
2 Likes