These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP - Rookie System Rules Clarification

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Olleybear
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#261 - 2012-06-14 23:54:57 UTC
You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?

Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.

The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"

The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up.

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#262 - 2012-06-14 23:58:15 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
No. We're using it as an illustration why any rule that relies on that kind of inherently unclear determination is destined to cause nothing but grief and increased GM workload.

Quote:
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up.
The GMs also asked for better policy suggestions. Deal with it.
Olleybear
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#263 - 2012-06-15 00:00:01 UTC
I've been told now! Lol

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2012-06-15 00:01:29 UTC
Think we could all agree that if a two day old player joined any player owned corp, that there kinda taking there training wheels off and throwing them away. LOL. Honestly wouldn't that be pretty obvious.
Olleybear
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#265 - 2012-06-15 00:05:43 UTC
But your honor, unless the law says I cant go 250kpm, on the berm, at night, riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back, then I clearly CAN do this and should not be ticketed.

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#266 - 2012-06-15 00:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda.

Let me repeat leave the new players alone! Per CCP

I'm leavin bye

PS Olleybear, I love that guy! your turn to work with the village wise men, (and women) for a while.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#267 - 2012-06-15 00:10:01 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda.
Oh really? What agenda is that, exactly?
Haulie Berry
#268 - 2012-06-15 00:12:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Think we could all agree that if a two day old player joined any player owned corp, that there kinda taking there training wheels off and throwing them away. LOL. Honestly wouldn't that be pretty obvious.


Why would that be the case?

I was once "recruited" into a corp whose recruitment strategy consisted of email-spamming anyone in Amarr who was in an NPC corp. The CEO was a hulk pilot, but most assuredly did not know his head from his ass. After the third or fourth spam email, I joined the corp and proceeded to indiscriminately* pop my new corpmates... some of whom were, in fact, legitimate rookie players (in the "haven't yet figured out how to work the overview" sense). Knowledge of gameplay was not magically conferred upon them by the act of having joined a corp. Most of them probably figured, "Hey, these people are promising to help me out with isk and experience if I join them - sounds like a pretty sweet deal, why not?" The notion that one of their fellow corpmates could - or would - blow them up hadn't so much as been mentioned to them yet... so why, exactly, would you define those players as not being rookies?



*I did start with the CEO's hulk, though.
Orly Rly
Ship vs Rock
#269 - 2012-06-15 00:17:10 UTC
Pretty pathetic that a simple question that quickly get's answered can devolve into a 14 page saga of technicalities and smarm.

It's almost as though the cries of 1,000 nerds were heard at the same time, then, silence.

There are never any nullsec fight threads that are this popular. It makes it clear that much of the playerbase lives off attacking rookies and mining ships. Epic bravery, playerbase is stale and showing off the games age.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#270 - 2012-06-15 00:18:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
Haulie Berry, you make a damn good point. I too have committed that same act of sin, on more than a few occasions. Damn and I thought I had this all figured out.

Bye for real this time

It is pretty sad indeed
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#271 - 2012-06-15 00:20:41 UTC
Orly Rly wrote:
Pretty pathetic that a simple question that quickly get's answered can devolve into a 14 page saga of technicalities and smarm.
It's not particularly pathetic, or even the slightest bit strange, when the answers are inconsistent with the published rules and when they cause as many problems as they solve.
Olleybear
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#272 - 2012-06-15 00:35:06 UTC
Anyone who wonders why the real world has so many laws that the lawmakers dont even know the total number doesnt have to go any further than reading these threads to understand why.

Some people need the clarity of laws ( rules ) in their lives because they dont have that bone in their head that tells them the difference between what is wrong and what is right.

Others just want to be left alone so they dont have to keep reading law after law that outlaws walking backwards, down a sidewalk, with an icecream cone in their back pocket.

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#273 - 2012-06-15 00:40:05 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
Others just want to be left alone so they dont have to keep reading law after law that outlaws walking backwards, down a sidewalk, with an icecream cone in their back pocket.
…which is exactly what the current ruleset forces you to do, but just to make your job even harder, it does it without telling you about the ice-cream cone.

That's why it would be far better to have a rule that doesn't need those kinds of details, differentiations and discriminations.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#274 - 2012-06-15 00:41:52 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?

Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.

The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"

The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up.


No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving".

Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them.

If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#275 - 2012-06-15 00:43:24 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda.

Let me repeat leave the new players alone! Per CCP

I'm leavin bye

PS Olleybear, I love that guy! your turn to work with the village wise men, (and women) for a while.


I repeat. Define new player. Is it younger that 1 year? 6 months? 3 months? 1 month? 2 weeks? 13 days? Define "rookie."

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#276 - 2012-06-15 00:46:12 UTC
Reading this thread, my utter contempt for those scrubs styling themselves as (fail-wana-be) hi-sec pvper’s continues unabated.

The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!!

Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#277 - 2012-06-15 00:54:56 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:
The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!!
…so, in other words, you haven't really read the thread and understood what the issue is.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#278 - 2012-06-15 00:55:06 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:

Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.


'Cause WhySo's the bastion of elite PvP.

Would you enjoy it if you were to, on occasion, receive a GM warning or Ban because of your target selection? And have no useful information with which to avoid said warning or ban because the protected target class is ill-defined?

We want the protected class to be well defined. We recognize that the prohibited actions will necessarily be broadly defined, but the protected class must be well defined.

Both mine and Tippia's last suggestions were to say that due to the difficulty in concretely defining the protected class, the class will be expanded to include EVERYONE in the protected area. We want newbies protected. We do not want people banned for doing things to people they had no way of knowing were protected.

Again, if you think it's easy to define rookie, define it.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Olleybear
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#279 - 2012-06-15 00:56:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Olleybear
RubyPorto wrote:
Olleybear wrote:
You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?

Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.

The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"

The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up.


No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving".

Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them.

If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us.



I figure Its more like getting a ticket for being on the freeway because noone defined what a car is and the person that got the ticket claims they dont know that riding a donkey in 100kph traffic is dangerous.

Or to be a tad more clear, for some reason a great number of people need to be told what is right and what is wrong in every single situation that can occur in life. They do not practice any form of self control. This creates what we have today both in game and in the real world where people shift the blame for their actions to others "because they werent told that punching a 10 day old baby ( rookie ) is wrong".

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#280 - 2012-06-15 01:06:27 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Olleybear wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Olleybear wrote:
You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?

Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.

The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"

The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up.


No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving".

Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them.

If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us.



I figure Its more like getting a ticket for being on the freeway because noone defined what a car is and the person that got the ticket claims they dont know that riding a donkey in 100kph traffic is dangerous.


If the statute neglected to include a donkey, then the action was not illegal under that statute. Danger has nothing to do with strict liability laws. You could go after the donkey rider for reckless endangerment though.

You have yet to define rookie.

Wikipedia wrote:

Certain rules have traditionally been given for this particular type of definition.

  1. A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.
  2. Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as 'a member of the species equus' would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locking adds that a definition of a term must not comprise of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define 'antecedent' without using the term 'consequent', nor conversely.
  3. The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).
  4. The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity.
  5. A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define 'wisdom' as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. We cannot define a point except as 'something with no parts', nor blindness except as 'the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted'.


We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.

Positively define "rookie" for me.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon