These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The long reach of James 315's New Order

First post
Author
Agent Trask
Doomheim
#161 - 2013-04-10 17:59:00 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:

What like one of those six year olds kicking you in the balls??

That would be funny.

"leave me alone you big meany"... thunk... Down goes the 30 year old virgin that never should have left his momma's basement.


Thank you for these tears. They are delicious.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

Agent Trask
Doomheim
#162 - 2013-04-16 17:28:31 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It is perfectly possible to be extremely skilled at punching six year olds in the face. It might appear easy to just go in there and start throwing punches, but being able to get those faces punched with a minimal expenditure of energy and while avoiding the people that don't want you punching children is a different story.


And some of those kids can be pretty dangerous gankers.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#163 - 2013-04-16 18:33:51 UTC
Agent Trask wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It is perfectly possible to be extremely skilled at punching six year olds in the face. It might appear easy to just go in there and start throwing punches, but being able to get those faces punched with a minimal expenditure of energy and while avoiding the people that don't want you punching children is a different story.


And some of those kids can be pretty dangerous gankers.


So you necroed a 6 day old thread to post a link to a video from December of 2011? Oh yeah, so not seeking attention.
Hazzim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2013-04-19 05:32:00 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
Hazzim wrote:

A risky endeavor is a costly one and vice versa.

Actually, a risky endeavor is one that has a CHANCE of having an outcome and not a guaranteed result.

What you are writing about has nothing to do with increasing risk - it has to do with increasing the guaranteed penalty. That's a fundamental difference.

Carry on.


Fundamentally the applications of law where law is applied, stipulates that an action i.e robbery, assault, guarantees a reactive consequence to that action if caught. In example, a robbery is a risky endeavor which fundamentally guarantees an outcome of two (A) getting away with it (B) getting caught. No ifs or buts. Get caught equates to Jail time, getting away with it you're bound to get caught. Apply that to crimes committed in High-sec. Same action. sane consequences.

My point have been Risk vs Reward vs Consequences. High-sec as the name would suggest, is a place where an active and neutral Law is applied for the safety of its denizens. Trying to deviate away from that conceptual understanding does not make sense. If laws don't guarantee consequences what then?


rswfire
#165 - 2013-04-19 08:25:20 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Don't think you can defy the law and run away. And James 315 is the law.

A particularly non-compliant miner who has trashtalked the NO on multiple occasions was observed to have moved to Syndicate non-sovereign nullsec.

I took a small fleet of NO supporters out to deliver justice and the purifying flames of Navy Antimatter to the escape capsule.

The moral to this story: Buy your permit.


Sounds to me like you "broke the law" -- you harassed a miner who was fleeing from you, in direct contradiction to CCP's stance on that issue, as noted here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2536157#post2536157

You publically admit to this; you should be banned for your actions.

Moral to the story: You're a dumbass.
ZZEZ 'Murika
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2013-04-19 08:36:40 UTC
rswfire wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Don't think you can defy the law and run away. And James 315 is the law.

A particularly non-compliant miner who has trashtalked the NO on multiple occasions was observed to have moved to Syndicate non-sovereign nullsec.

I took a small fleet of NO supporters out to deliver justice and the purifying flames of Navy Antimatter to the escape capsule.

The moral to this story: Buy your permit.


Sounds to me like you "broke the law" -- you harassed a miner who was fleeing from you, in direct contradiction to CCP's stance on that issue, as noted here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2536157#post2536157

You publically admit to this; you should be banned for your actions.

Moral to the story: You're a dumbass.



Heres the issue with your theory,:that link is talking about bumping and Sabriz is talking about ganking, pay close attention to the letters to understand the fundamental difference between them, as far as I know tracking people down and repeatedly ganking them has never been a bannable offense.
rswfire
#167 - 2013-04-19 08:51:18 UTC
ZZEZ 'Murika wrote:
rswfire wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Don't think you can defy the law and run away. And James 315 is the law.

A particularly non-compliant miner who has trashtalked the NO on multiple occasions was observed to have moved to Syndicate non-sovereign nullsec.

I took a small fleet of NO supporters out to deliver justice and the purifying flames of Navy Antimatter to the escape capsule.

The moral to this story: Buy your permit.


Sounds to me like you "broke the law" -- you harassed a miner who was fleeing from you, in direct contradiction to CCP's stance on that issue, as noted here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2536157#post2536157

You publically admit to this; you should be banned for your actions.

Moral to the story: You're a dumbass.



Heres the issue with your theory,:that link is talking about bumping and Sabriz is talking about ganking, pay close attention to the letters to understand the fundamental difference between them, as far as I know tracking people down and repeatedly ganking them has never been a bannable offense.


I think it's open to a semi-broader interpretation. I'm aware the subject was bumping, but it was also greatly focused on the harassment of an individual miner, and largely centered around their crusade. I think intent matters. A lot of emphasis was placed on the words harassment and evasion. That miner took it upon himself to actively evade them and they took it upon themselves to follow him, and only him. I think that is treading a line that was being established in that post. I stand by what I said.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#168 - 2013-04-19 09:01:27 UTC
rswfire wrote:
ZZEZ 'Murika wrote:
rswfire wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Don't think you can defy the law and run away. And James 315 is the law.

A particularly non-compliant miner who has trashtalked the NO on multiple occasions was observed to have moved to Syndicate non-sovereign nullsec.

I took a small fleet of NO supporters out to deliver justice and the purifying flames of Navy Antimatter to the escape capsule.

The moral to this story: Buy your permit.


Sounds to me like you "broke the law" -- you harassed a miner who was fleeing from you, in direct contradiction to CCP's stance on that issue, as noted here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2536157#post2536157

You publically admit to this; you should be banned for your actions.

Moral to the story: You're a dumbass.



Heres the issue with your theory,:that link is talking about bumping and Sabriz is talking about ganking, pay close attention to the letters to understand the fundamental difference between them, as far as I know tracking people down and repeatedly ganking them has never been a bannable offense.


I think it's open to a semi-broader interpretation. I'm aware the subject was bumping, but it was also greatly focused on the harassment of an individual miner, and largely centered around their crusade. I think intent matters. A lot of emphasis was placed on the words harassment and evasion. That miner took it upon himself to actively evade them and they took it upon themselves to follow him, and only him. I think that is treading a line that was being established in that post. I stand by what I said.


So the carebear scum now want CCP to actively prevent people from attacking the in-game ships of people that verbally abuse their friends/corpmates/allies?

What next, a rule against shooting someone for putting a bounty on you? Bans for shooting the ships of people that provide resources to your in-game rivals?

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

ZZEZ 'Murika
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2013-04-19 09:20:54 UTC
rswfire wrote:
ZZEZ 'Murika wrote:
rswfire wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Don't think you can defy the law and run away. And James 315 is the law.

A particularly non-compliant miner who has trashtalked the NO on multiple occasions was observed to have moved to Syndicate non-sovereign nullsec.

I took a small fleet of NO supporters out to deliver justice and the purifying flames of Navy Antimatter to the escape capsule.

The moral to this story: Buy your permit.


Sounds to me like you "broke the law" -- you harassed a miner who was fleeing from you, in direct contradiction to CCP's stance on that issue, as noted here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2536157#post2536157

You publically admit to this; you should be banned for your actions.

Moral to the story: You're a dumbass.



Heres the issue with your theory,:that link is talking about bumping and Sabriz is talking about ganking, pay close attention to the letters to understand the fundamental difference between them, as far as I know tracking people down and repeatedly ganking them has never been a bannable offense.


I think it's open to a semi-broader interpretation. I'm aware the subject was bumping, but it was also greatly focused on the harassment of an individual miner, and largely centered around their crusade. I think intent matters. A lot of emphasis was placed on the words harassment and evasion. That miner took it upon himself to actively evade them and they took it upon themselves to follow him, and only him. I think that is treading a line that was being established in that post. I stand by what I said.


No its not, the thread is talking about bumping not ganking.
rswfire
#170 - 2013-04-19 09:38:28 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
So the carebear scum now want CCP to actively prevent people from attacking the in-game ships of people that verbally abuse their friends/corpmates/allies?

What next, a rule against shooting someone for putting a bounty on you? Bans for shooting the ships of people that provide resources to your in-game rivals?


In my opinion, you bullied that person. That is where I personally draw the line. Bullying is not the same as non-consensual PvP or even griefing. Those things I expect to be a part of Eve. Bullying I do not. You say nowhere is safe for that man; he evaded you all the way to NPC null and you followed him there. You warn others that they could suffer the same fate.

The bottom line is you'll use any excuse to justify your bullying of others. You claim you're on a crusade to remove bots and that you do this by bumping them. This is not the case though. You can be in a system and a person can outright talk to you in local, clearly demonstrating they're not a bot, and you'll still harass them and bump them and gank them if they do not comply with your demands to bow down to your sacred leader, follow your rules, and post something in their bio to help advertise your cause.

I assume you're an adult, yet you go around calling another adult your saviour...in a video game. All I can do is shake my head. I'm not advocating that highsec be nerfed. I'm fairly happy with it the way it is. There is more whining from people like you than there will ever be from the so-called carebears of Eve.

That said, this is a game I care about. I enjoy it here, and I'd like to see it last another ten years. And your actions have consequences. When you bully someone, they don't stick around to be bullied, as that guy clearly demonstrated to you. If you keep bullying him, he'll just leave...and I don't accept the notion that he should have to because he isn't playing the game the way you want him to.

Why don't you just pick a fight with someone who can fight back? It's not like there is a shortage of them around here.
rswfire
#171 - 2013-04-19 09:39:30 UTC
ZZEZ 'Murika wrote:

No its not, the thread is talking about bumping not ganking.


Your opinion is wholly irrelevant to me.
Go back to Jita and try to destroy some freighters to remind everyone your alliance still exists.
ZZEZ 'Murika
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2013-04-19 09:51:37 UTC
Thats comical, its now bullying to track down players and gank them.
ZZEZ 'Murika
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2013-04-19 09:54:07 UTC
rswfire wrote:
ZZEZ 'Murika wrote:

No its not, the thread is talking about bumping not ganking.


Your opinion is wholly irrelevant to me.
Go back to Jita and try to destroy some freighters to remind everyone your alliance still exists.


Unfortunately for you its not an opinion, take a look at that thread's title, I'll even quote the important bit for you
Quote:
CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit. However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
rswfire
#174 - 2013-04-19 11:13:09 UTC
ZZEZ 'Murika wrote:
Thats comical, its now bullying to track down players and gank them.


You're over-simplifying this individual's actions, but I won't waste the time explaining it to you in detail. I'll simply say the progression of events is relevant.

We've all gone through high school, so we know a bully when we see one. If you need a refresher though, a bully is someone who picks on and attacks those that are weaker than himself because he's too afraid to take on someone his own size. Dressing it up and making it sound "noble" is (apparently) the only way one can justify to themselves they're not bullies, when in reality that's exactly what they are.

I consider these people worse than carebears. They're beyond risk-averse. They blow up throwaway ships and advocate awoxing as (apparently) the only legitimate methods of killing miners (I mean bots). There is no challenge in this. There is no risk. They follow a few simple steps to train a throwaway character for the sole purpose of bullying players, all the while making it sound like they're doing God's work (rolls eyes).
ZZEZ 'Murika
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2013-04-19 12:03:20 UTC
rswfire wrote:
ZZEZ 'Murika wrote:
Thats comical, its now bullying to track down players and gank them.


You're over-simplifying this individual's actions, but I won't waste the time explaining it to you in detail. I'll simply say the progression of events is relevant.

We've all gone through high school, so we know a bully when we see one. If you need a refresher though, a bully is someone who picks on and attacks those that are weaker than himself because he's too afraid to take on someone his own size. Dressing it up and making it sound "noble" is (apparently) the only way one can justify to themselves they're not bullies, when in reality that's exactly what they are.

I consider these people worse than carebears. They're beyond risk-averse. They blow up throwaway ships and advocate awoxing as (apparently) the only legitimate methods of killing miners (I mean bots). There is no challenge in this. There is no risk. They follow a few simple steps to train a throwaway character for the sole purpose of bullying players, all the while making it sound like they're doing God's work (rolls eyes).



Tracking and destroying internet spaceships in a vendetta ≠ bullying
Lin Suizei
#176 - 2013-04-19 12:18:54 UTC
rswfire wrote:
I consider these people worse than carebears. They're beyond risk-averse. They blow up throwaway ships and advocate awoxing as (apparently) the only legitimate methods of killing miners (I mean bots). There is no challenge in this. There is no risk. They follow a few simple steps to train a throwaway character for the sole purpose of bullying players, all the while making it sound like they're doing God's work (rolls eyes).


Please, tell us about how shooting unfit battleships from the seat of your T1 vindicator in Jita is the epitome of elite pvp.

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.

James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#177 - 2013-04-19 16:13:40 UTC
rswfire wrote:
ZZEZ 'Murika wrote:

No its not, the thread is talking about bumping not ganking.


Your opinion is wholly irrelevant to me.
Go back to Jita and try to destroy some freighters to remind everyone your alliance still exists.

lmao SICKEST BURN 2013
i bet he mad ahahahahah LOLE;)

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

Agent Trask
Doomheim
#178 - 2013-04-19 16:45:41 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
Agent Trask wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It is perfectly possible to be extremely skilled at punching six year olds in the face. It might appear easy to just go in there and start throwing punches, but being able to get those faces punched with a minimal expenditure of energy and while avoiding the people that don't want you punching children is a different story.


And some of those kids can be pretty dangerous gankers.


So you necroed a 6 day old thread to post a link to a video from December of 2011? Oh yeah, so not seeking attention.


The video link was relevant to her response. And awesome.

And of course I am keeping this CODE thread active.

Worked, didn't it?

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

Manny Moons
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2013-04-20 01:05:08 UTC
If tracking someone is harassment, why did CCP explicitly provide a game mechanic to allow locating other players?

The next time someone follows me through a gate I think I'll threaten them with a petition.

Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#180 - 2013-04-21 19:55:13 UTC
rswfire wrote:

Your opinion is wholly irrelevant to me.


Fair enough, you don't want to deal in opinions, only cold hard facts. That seems reasonable.

rswfire wrote:

I consider these people worse than carebears.


Oops, you accidentally made an argument which was purely opinion here, instead of sticking to facts. I'm sure this was just a one-time mistake, surely you wouldn't intentionally be so hypocritical?

rswfire wrote:

In my opinion, you bullied that person. That is where I personally draw the line.


Roll