EVE General Discussion

You're basing this on what exactly? I get the impression GM's have been consistently inconsistent on the issue.



Now you're just being silly; computers are quite smart, especially when analyzing something already broken down into 1's and 0's. Your inability to come up with a naive solution doesn't indicate much of anything.

It's just one instance, so no, it does not apply.

The whole “follow around” bit relates to the basic idea of harassment that they are specifically targetting you on multiple occasions no matter what you do: try to do your business elsewhere, and they follow you; try to do it at other times, and they start changing their log-on schedule; present them with juicier and easier target, and they still go after you. We're talking multiple instances over a long period of time.

A single gank is never harassment because it's a single gank. You don't have to bite anything — you just have to understand the concept of context. I'm sure you''ll fail miserably.

He had the option to keep conjuring CONCORD; he had the option to get warp help; he had the option to wait out the aggression timer (without which this tactic doesn't work — if he had none, he didn't even need that); he had an hour to it all in order, which means the gankers ****** up somehow, but that he ****** up even more in playing into their hands.

…in other words, they're pretty much useless for these kinds of judgement calls.

You tried to use logoffsky to escape, they found your logoff location and were still there when you came back. Nothing wrong with that.

You seem confused.



Eve is a computer simulation mate.

Implying humans make consistent moral decisions? Incidentally, data mining would mimic human judgement with an extremely high degree of accuracy in a scenario like this. Computers are smart; people are bad at utilizing them.

Am I too late to point and laugh?

Classifications tend to be quite fast once you've sorted the training set. In any case, I didn't say I thought it was appropriate, just that I took exception to the thought that computers are somehow inept in this regard.

Yet, they are. I mean, you can keep saying "no, they're not" but you've misunderstood what you're asking them to define, and so do not understand why you're wrong on this.

Bumping with malicious intent is fine, so what use would a simulation that showed whether it was accidental or deliberate be?

Metadata for procedural classifications = judgement; matching human results with a high degree of accuracy = mimicking

Dunno what you're trying to get at

No, metadata is just data about data. It's still two steps of refinement away from actionable knowledge.

…the fact that the categorization of data is not the result you're trying to mimic.

The result is not trivial, and it is also pretty useless. It's a ton of processing to create something the GMs don't need to make their judgement call. So what good is it?