These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] To make accusations of EULA violations a violation of its own

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Small Beer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2013-01-30 18:09:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Small Beer
So in answer to my last question about whether or not I ignore someone who is about to do something that I know is in contravention of the EULA:

Whitehound wrote:
The decision is for you to make.


But earlier when I asked about discerning the difference between a warning and a threat when the possibility of assisting a player eventuates...

Whitehound wrote:
You do not tell the difference. You play the game...


Those statements conflict.

On the one hand it sounds like you're saying that I should use my discretion as to whether or not to warn a player, but on the other hand you're saying that I should completely ignore them.
Whitehound
#42 - 2013-01-30 18:20:04 UTC
Small Beer wrote:
So in answer to my last question about whether or not I ignore someone who is about to do something that I know is in contravention of the EULA:

Whitehound wrote:
The decision is for you to make.


But earlier when I asked about discerning the difference between a warning and a threat when the possibility of assisting a player eventuates...

Whitehound wrote:
You do not tell the difference. You play the game...


Those statements conflict.

On the one hand it sounds like you're saying that I should use my discretion as to whether or not to warn a player, but on the other hand you're saying that I should either completely ignore them.

If you cannot make the decision then just play the game. This is why we are here and we should not concern ourselves with the EULA. If a violation is serious enough will CCP notice it eventually. I believe CCP uses detection systems and in cases where it has got a victim will the victim report it. You are not required to do anything about it nor should this ever become the case. If you must help CCP then do it discretely to protect those who might be innocent and leave the rest to CCP.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Small Beer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2013-01-30 19:39:28 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
If you cannot make the decision then just play the game. This is why we are here and we should not concern ourselves with the EULA. If a violation is serious enough will CCP notice it eventually. I believe CCP uses detection systems and in cases where it has got a victim will the victim report it. You are not required to do anything about it nor should this ever become the case. If you must help CCP then do it discretely to protect those who might be innocent and leave the rest to CCP.


So, from the answers to my questions it seems clear that the proposal: "To make accusations of EULA violation a violation of it's own" would contain no distinction of what would constitute an 'accusation', and that merely attempting to discus the possibility of an EULA violation would therefore be petitionable.

The net effect of the introduction of such a proposal would be to discourage more experienced players from giving suggestions to newer players to help them avoid issues with the EULA arising from their actions, as fear of misinterpretation of intent, for which no provision is intended to be made, would effectively create an environment where any discussion of the EULA could be construed as harassment.

This proposal is not in any way beneficial to newer players and would in fact be detrimental to them, for the reasons stated above.

Furthermore, in it's current state, this proposal infringes upon the inalienable human right of freedom of speech.

If Iceland is indeed seeking to become a member of the European Union as the OP has stated, then I can see the introduction of this proposal constituting a major stumbling block to that process and I would encourage CCP, for the good of Eve, Iceland, the European Union and indeed the wider international community to summarily dismiss it on humanitarian grounds.
Whitehound
#44 - 2013-01-30 20:04:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Small Beer wrote:
So, from the answers to my questions it seems clear that the proposal: "To make accusations of EULA violation a violation of it's own" would contain no distinction of what would constitute an 'accusation', and that merely attempting to discus the possibility of an EULA violation would therefore be petitionable.

The net effect of the introduction of such a proposal would be to discourage more experienced players from giving suggestions to newer players to help them avoid issues with the EULA arising from their actions, as fear of misinterpretation of intent, for which no provision is intended to be made, would effectively create an environment where any discussion of the EULA could be construed as harassment.

This proposal is not in any way beneficial to newer players and would in fact be detrimental to them, for the reasons stated above.

Furthermore, in it's current state, this proposal infringes upon the inalienable human right of freedom of speech.

If Iceland is indeed seeking to become a member of the European Union as the OP has stated, then I can see the introduction of this proposal constituting a major stumbling block to that process and I would encourage CCP, for the good of Eve, Iceland, the European Union and indeed the wider international community to summarily dismiss it on humanitarian grounds.

Know that ranting on the forums is not allowed. I can write this even without being a moderator and simply to inform you of the forum rules.

Freedom of speech is not the highest of the human rights and it has rights above it like the right on dignity. If you violate the higher rights with your speech then you can be denied your right of freedom of speech. For this reason can you not say whatever you like and racists remarks, hate speeches, ranting and trolling can all have consequences for you.

Other than this will I respect your opinion and treat your comment as such and not argue about it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Small Beer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2013-01-30 20:13:04 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Know that ranting on the forums is not allowed.


Thanks for the warning.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#46 - 2013-01-30 21:48:30 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
I am sure this proposal will not go down easily, but I believe it needs to be made and implemented at some point in the future.

CCP seems to be getting better and better at chasing down botters and RMT. If we find any, and we have good reasons to believe someone is breaking the EULA, do we use petitions to report them. Nothing further needs to be said at this point.

The sandbox principle works fine for all matters that take place inside of it. Players need not fear the loss of their ships and playing with a player's fear (of a ship loss) is part of the game. However, players do need to fear the loss of their accounts as a means to prevent EULA violations and it is not a matter of the game play within the sandbox itself. Accusations of EULA violations are not required to have fun in EVE.

In EVE there are players who use accusations of EULA violations as a means to PvP. While players are being harassed with spaceships are they often accused of being bots and to be breaking the EULA. Because this is a play style, which leaves the sandbox, should players be protected from it, to give a good meaning to the fear of EULA violations and to preserve the good fun within the sandbox. To stay with the sandbox analogy - it does not need kids in the sandbox, who shout "Give me your shovel or I'll tell your Dad!"

As such do I propose that any such accusations, by means other than with petitions, should be taken as a violation of its own and receive recognition by CCP. Meaning, players who make such accusations as part of their play style, to grief and harass other players, should receive a warning in-game as well as when done on the forums.

I believe by giving it more recognition will it not only lead to a better game play, but also to more players taking EULA violations more seriously.


I think this idea is terrible.... It essentially discourages players from reporting Eula breakers in case they are "wrong" or in case the person they are accusing is "well connected".

I think a more detailed Report Violator Petition would solve most of the erroneous petitions. With specific questions designed to flesh out "why" you think this person is a BOT, or "why" you think this person is violating the EULA...

Furthermore... if someone "overpetitions" or what not, the GM's can deal with the overzealous culprit on their own.... Perhaps they can create an internal list of complainers with low credibility.... but they shouldn't ban someone for reporting a perceived EULA violation.
Whitehound
#47 - 2013-01-30 22:20:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I think this idea is terrible.... It essentially discourages players from reporting Eula breakers in case they are "wrong" or in case the person they are accusing is "well connected".

We already have plenty of encouragement with the "PLEX for snitches" program, where players can get a free PLEX when their petitions on bots prove to be right. It does not need any more encouragement than this.

Anyone who throws accusations on chats and forums will more likely do this out of malice or revenge. It is unnecessary, and especially because EVE is a PvP game is it important that players learn not to act like this, but to find other ways to deal with it, i.e. by shooting spaceships.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#48 - 2013-01-30 22:46:59 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


I think this idea is terrible.... It essentially discourages players from reporting Eula breakers in case they are "wrong" or in case the person they are accusing is "well connected".

I think a more detailed Report Violator Petition would solve most of the erroneous petitions. With specific questions designed to flesh out "why" you think this person is a BOT, or "why" you think this person is violating the EULA...

Furthermore... if someone "overpetitions" or what not, the GM's can deal with the overzealous culprit on their own.... Perhaps they can create an internal list of complainers with low credibility.... but they shouldn't ban someone for reporting a perceived EULA violation.


I think you need to understand that what is being proposed is not a penalty for filing a false petition. The proposer wants you to be in violation of the EULA for saying someone is violating the EULA in local. Just for saying it. Like in saying "You are a bot."

Lets just pull a random example from out of the air. Say an Agent of the Old Chaos approaches a, oh, a person , ok I can't think of anything but mining... so he approaches a person mining and talks to them in local. When the person doesn't answer, the Agent says, in local, "so and so is a bot". Under the proposed rule change, THIS would be a EULA violation on the part of the speaker. Not reporting them to CCP as a bot. Not putting them on a bot list somewhere and asking CCP to clean them up... no, just saying "so and so is a bot".

Its an attempted gag order on the New Order of Highsec. A totalitarian solution to a libertarian movement. It boils down to ""Shut up" he explained".

BBB

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#49 - 2013-01-30 23:33:48 UTC
Bing Bangboom wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


I think this idea is terrible.... It essentially discourages players from reporting Eula breakers in case they are "wrong" or in case the person they are accusing is "well connected".

I think a more detailed Report Violator Petition would solve most of the erroneous petitions. With specific questions designed to flesh out "why" you think this person is a BOT, or "why" you think this person is violating the EULA...

Furthermore... if someone "overpetitions" or what not, the GM's can deal with the overzealous culprit on their own.... Perhaps they can create an internal list of complainers with low credibility.... but they shouldn't ban someone for reporting a perceived EULA violation.


I think you need to understand that what is being proposed is not a penalty for filing a false petition. The proposer wants you to be in violation of the EULA for saying someone is violating the EULA in local. Just for saying it. Like in saying "You are a bot."

Lets just pull a random example from out of the air. Say an Agent of the Old Chaos approaches a, oh, a person , ok I can't think of anything but mining... so he approaches a person mining and talks to them in local. When the person doesn't answer, the Agent says, in local, "so and so is a bot". Under the proposed rule change, THIS would be a EULA violation on the part of the speaker. Not reporting them to CCP as a bot. Not putting them on a bot list somewhere and asking CCP to clean them up... no, just saying "so and so is a bot".

Its an attempted gag order on the New Order of Highsec. A totalitarian solution to a libertarian movement. It boils down to ""Shut up" he explained".

BBB


Ok... this is even more terrible than I originally thought...

Social pressure is one of the strongest ways to combat botting... and trying to gag people for calling so & so a bot is just ridiculous... Besides... the accused can always speak in local and to waylay any accusations.

Besides... where would you ever draw the line?
"Bob is a Bot"
"I think bob is a bot"
"I fear bob is a bot"
"Bob is acting like a bot"
"I wonder if bob is a bot"

You can't sensor all of these, and social ingenuity will allow you to bypass any directly bannable offenses...
Whitehound
#50 - 2013-01-30 23:36:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Bing Bangboom wrote:
Lets just pull a random example from out of the air. Say an Agent of the Old Chaos approaches a, oh, a person , ok I can't think of anything but mining... so he approaches a person mining and talks to them in local. When the person doesn't answer, the Agent says, in local, "so and so is a bot". Under the proposed rule change, THIS would be a EULA violation on the part of the speaker. ...

Or when you gank a player and the player then retaliates with accusing you of being a griever and threatening to petition you. You can then point out to the player that what he does is against the rules and he needs to make a petition or to suck it up.

I can only guess why this is not in your interest. Perhaps the blog is your way of fighting back, which would not make much sense, because you would only fear of losing your fight here when really you gain a new tool.

Explain why this is bad for you so we can understand you.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#51 - 2013-01-30 23:45:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Social pressure is one of the strongest ways to combat botting...

While this is only your opinion do know that bots do not care for what you say. Only banning gets rid of them or else do they keep coming back. So you are only putting social pressure onto fellow players, who enjoy a bot-free game just as much as you do, and for no good reason.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2013-01-31 04:40:01 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Know that ranting on the forums is not allowed. I can write this even without being a moderator and simply to inform you of the forum rules.



Whitehound wrote:
An accusation can be made directly or indirectly. It does not change what it is.



Whitehound wrote:

This is why we are here and we should not concern ourselves with the EULA. If a violation is serious enough will CCP notice it eventually.



This is an obvious contradiction. If you can't even hold to the principle you are espousing, in the thread in which you present it, how do you expect anyone else to ever follow it? I hope that CCP realizes this proposal is hopelessly paradoxical and straight out of 1984: a rule, which it to even mention, breaks that same rule. We will all call it the Fight Club rule, which will itself be bannable to say once this meaning is established, et cetera.
Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2013-01-31 06:14:50 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

An accusation can be made directly or indirectly. It does not change what it is.

There is a difference between the two.

You're assuming that I believe they are a bot without reasonable doubt. The player in question could very well be afk. Still, I'm not going to wait around for an unknown amount of time to confirm and even if I did, that still doesn't prove anything. You're walking into this thinking that people assume players who don't interact are automatically considered bots and those "bots" are then reported. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but like I said I've never seen another player come out right in local chat accusing another player of being a bot and threatening to report them, ever.

If someone doesn't respond, I don't automatically thing they're a bot and I don't believe most people do either.


Whitehound wrote:
If you then are aware of what you are doing or not does not matter, but it may only be unfortunate for you when you do not know how your accusations are being perceived.

Are you sweet talking me? Blink
I am aware of what I'm doing and it does matter, I don't believe you are aware of what I'm/other people are doing concerning this topic.

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet
Whitehound
#54 - 2013-01-31 06:35:11 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
This is an obvious contradiction. If you can't even hold to the principle you are espousing, in the thread in which you present it, how do you expect anyone else to ever follow it? I hope that CCP realizes this proposal is hopelessly paradoxical and straight out of 1984: a rule, which it to even mention, breaks that same rule. We will all call it the Fight Club rule, which will itself be bannable to say once this meaning is established, et cetera.

Why is it a contradiction?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#55 - 2013-01-31 07:06:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Capt Starfox wrote:
There is a difference between the two.

You're assuming that I believe they are a bot without reasonable doubt. The player in question could very well be afk. Still, I'm not going to wait around for an unknown amount of time to confirm and even if I did, that still doesn't prove anything. You're walking into this thinking that people assume players who don't interact are automatically considered bots and those "bots" are then reported. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but like I said I've never seen another player come out right in local chat accusing another player of being a bot and threatening to report them, ever.

If someone doesn't respond, I don't automatically thing they're a bot and I don't believe most people do either.

Like I said before, it does not change what it is. Nor does it matter what you think or what you believe when you make the accusation.

For example, even when I a do not think of myself as a racist would it still be racism if I accused somebody of being a "N-word". I could think about myself whatever I wanted and it would not change a thing, but I'd still be a racist.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2013-01-31 08:49:20 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
This is an obvious contradiction. If you can't even hold to the principle you are espousing, in the thread in which you present it, how do you expect anyone else to ever follow it? I hope that CCP realizes this proposal is hopelessly paradoxical and straight out of 1984: a rule, which it to even mention, breaks that same rule. We will all call it the Fight Club rule, which will itself be bannable to say once this meaning is established, et cetera.

Why is it a contradiction?



You tell others not to concern themselves with pointing out the rules to others, to let CCP deal with it. You point out the rules to others. This is a contradiction. I thought it was pretty clear already.
Whitehound
#57 - 2013-01-31 09:05:49 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
You tell others not to concern themselves with pointing out the rules to others, to let CCP deal with it. You point out the rules to others. This is a contradiction. I thought it was pretty clear already.

I felt it to be necessary for this particular discussion. Do you think I was wrong?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Small Beer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2013-01-31 11:24:07 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
You tell others not to concern themselves with pointing out the rules to others, to let CCP deal with it. You point out the rules to others. This is a contradiction. I thought it was pretty clear already.

I felt it to be necessary for this particular discussion. Do you think I was wrong?


Based on the moral stand you're taking, yes, what you did was wrong.

It clearly contradicts what you have been arguing. The situation is different, but as you have argued, that shouldn't change the application of the standards you seek to uphold.

Whitehound wrote:
Know that ranting on the forums is not allowed.


Is this a threat, or a warning? You've contradicted your own moral stance by posting, albeit with the best of intentions, a statement that could be perceived as threatening.

You have beautifully illustrated precisely why the proposal you've made is impracticable.
Whitehound
#59 - 2013-01-31 11:36:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Small Beer wrote:
Based on the moral stand you're taking, yes, what you did was wrong.

In which case you would be using the proposal against me and proven its success.

Small Beer wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Know that ranting on the forums is not allowed.


Is this a threat, or a warning? You've contradicted your own moral stance by posting, albeit with the best of intentions, a statement that could be perceived as threatening.

You have beautifully illustrated precisely why the proposal you've made is impracticable.

It was neither a threat or a warning. It was an explanation and a trap for you. if you were honestly against the proposal then you would not have used it. Yet you did and you seem to be enjoying it!

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Small Beer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2013-01-31 12:17:44 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
In which case you would be using the proposal against me and proven its success.


You're mistaken, I'm not saying that I think that what you did was wrong, I'm saying that based on the moral stand you're taking, what you did was wrong.

You contradicted your own moral stance by doing something that you believe to be morally wrong. Based on your arguments, if you believe what you're saying, you must believe that what you did was wrong.

Whitehound wrote:
It was neither a threat or a warning. It was an explanation and a trap for you. if you were honestly against the proposal then you would not have used it. Yet you did and you seem to be enjoying it!


On the contrary, what you actually did, was to make a mistake. See above.