These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Jester Trek Latest Blog

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Druthlen
The Carlisle Group
#5341 - 2014-03-27 15:03:39 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Druthlen wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Druthlen wrote:


Torturing a person in TS is not a playstyle. Its just sick.


Tell me....

Have you ever been tortured?

Do you understand what torture is?


People don't normally submit to it willingly like Sokhar did. If anything, the fact that he consented to everything indicates he was enjoying himself.



It wasn't willing. E1 had a hostage(the pixels) which Sokhar felt he could save. Was Sokhar irresponsible with the pixels yes but he still cared for them.


In order for Ero to have them, what does Sokhar need to do?

Huh? Think about it a moment.

That's right, HE HAS TO HAND THEM OVER WILLINGLY YOU DUMB CHUMP.


Just because he is of questionable intelligence doesnt mean he deserved to be tortured. He still thought he could recover the pixels and thought he could even multiply them. that is why he was in the TS3 and that is why he stayed. Out of game. OUT OF GAME. What do you not understand about that??
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5342 - 2014-03-27 15:03:41 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Quote:

The problem with your position is that its based on Slippery Slope Fallacy.

1) Erotica1s actions are only "out of game" in the most pedantic sense. They are a final step in a progression of events that takes place in game, and directly relate to and concern the disposition of in game assets. Out-of-game software is used only to evade obvious violations of CCPs terms, and allow the sort of amateurist legal argument you are making. Even in real life law there are principles of equity and fairness in application; not just a linguistic battle to see who is closer to the letter of the law or contract, hence why we have lawyers argue cases rather than linguists.

2) It is a Slippery Slope Fallacy to claim that CCP would be open to any and all calls for bans by any group becaus they banned oneplayer based on a generalized community reaction. "People who don't like Erotica 1" are not a group in any meanngful sense; their unity is solely around the issue at hand. CCP could just as easily be pressured to ban gays by homophobes or Russians whether or not they ban Erotica; th dollar vote is equally strong. CCP on the other hand has absolutely no obligation to listen to those groups just because they ban Erotica 1; it is not as if homophobes or Russians have any right to demand "consistency", andCCCP would not be inconsistent in the first place. Being gay is unrelated to game play; Erotica's performance is directly connected to it, pedantic claims that its "out of game" notwithstanding.

You make a poor attempt at reducio ad absurdm based on slippery slope and pedantry. Neither vays nor scammers are at any risk if Erotica 1 gets banned.



LOL, the 'claim it's all fallacy' fallacy. Do you not see the glaring logic hoops you just jumped through to make what you want to believe make any kind of sense at all?


There is no such thing as the "claim it's all a fallacy fallacy." All that is, is you not liking the fact that Malcanis's error in reasoning has been identified and addressed. You utterly failed to address any of my points at all, all you did was LOL as if that's an argument.

There are no "logic holes" (whatever that's supposed to be) either. That's why you didn't identify them, and just asked a rhetorical question about whether I saw them or not - in other words, trying to get people to just accept the assumption that they exist, when in fact, they don't. It's a classic dishonest debate technique from people who don't understand how to construct proper argument.

You, in fact, clearly don't. You've been on the "but then they can ban anyone that anyone else doesn't like!" side the entire time. Actually, they can ban anyone any time and in any case, they won't ban anyone just because someone else doesn't like them; that clearly WOULD be very bad for their business and in any case, "I don't like this other person, ban them" is not the same as "This behavior is clearly unacceptable by established standards, and they are evading punishment by means of legalistic maneuvering (namely, using different software."

If that weren't the case, people wouldn't be trying to have it both ways by arguing CCP shouldn't punish out-of-game behavior, but then also claiming this is "emergent gameplay".

Come back when you understand how to respond to and address points rather than relying on rhetorical games that make no points at all, and inventing "logical fallacies" that don't actually exist. Until you can do that you have no business having your own opinion, much less stating it.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5343 - 2014-03-27 15:03:59 UTC
PinkPanter wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:



Dude, let's go back to the start where Sokhar WILLINGLY GAVE ERO THOSE ASSETS TO BEGIN WITH.

Okay, now that we're at the beginning, let's try some rational thought shall we?

Go.


AND THAT"S WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO END AND ALL WOULD BE FINE.

Like caps? Hope you can read it now cause damn you are one braincell away from reaching veggie level of thinking.


Caps are for emphasis. When used appropriately, they provide clarity rather than crazy. I'm a little frustrated though at the sheer stupidity of people. How is Sokhar going to win his stuff back, plus win the five billion isk prize of the bonus round, if it ended there?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5344 - 2014-03-27 15:04:02 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
It's a combination of gambling and a game show.


There is no game that's is just a scam, and the "show" is just a vulgar display of power when the victim desperately tries to save his items, and this is where the creepy stuff starts.. and some borderline perverted stuff has happened in the bonus room.

In the end it's all done so E1 can produce a humiliating recording, which is then published on the internet.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#5345 - 2014-03-27 15:04:53 UTC
Druthlen wrote:
tortured
You do a disservice to everyone who has ever been tortured and you should feel bad.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5346 - 2014-03-27 15:05:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Druthlen wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Druthlen wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Druthlen wrote:


Torturing a person in TS is not a playstyle. Its just sick.


Tell me....

Have you ever been tortured?

Do you understand what torture is?


People don't normally submit to it willingly like Sokhar did. If anything, the fact that he consented to everything indicates he was enjoying himself.



It wasn't willing. E1 had a hostage(the pixels) which Sokhar felt he could save. Was Sokhar irresponsible with the pixels yes but he still cared for them.


In order for Ero to have them, what does Sokhar need to do?

Huh? Think about it a moment.

That's right, HE HAS TO HAND THEM OVER WILLINGLY YOU DUMB CHUMP.


Just because he is of questionable intelligence doesnt mean he deserved to be tortured. He still thought he could recover the pixels and thought he could even multiply them. that is why he was in the TS3 and that is why he stayed. Out of game. OUT OF GAME. What do you not understand about that??


You keep using this word 'torture'. Again, I ask you, who submits to this willingly?

And why would you question Sokhar's intelligence? Are you saying that a speech impediment indicates poor intelligence?

I had a speech impediment until I was about twelve. I was fortunate enough to get a good speech therapist. Maybe is is very intelligent, but never got a good speech therapist.

What's your problem with speech impediments?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Prince Kobol
#5347 - 2014-03-27 15:06:13 UTC
Tor Norman wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Tor Norman wrote:
Kaius Fero wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
...

A cop can put a gun to your head, sure.

Ero didn't put a gun to Sokhar's head, doesn't wear a badge and doesn't carry state-sanctioned authority that Sokhar was bound to obey.

A drug dealer will also not draw a gun in order to force you to buy his ****.

So space money is narcotics, now?


Lol of course not, however if your space pixels and space money mean nothing to you, just give away everything you have to the some random guy and start over again.

After, it just a bunch if pixels

My space pixels mean something to me, so I don't want to just give them away. That doesn't mean I'm addicted to them.


but they are just space pixels so what is the big deal
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries
#5348 - 2014-03-27 15:06:36 UTC
Druthlen wrote:
H aVo K wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:

Its not about Eve its about being a decent human being.


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18375933

What did that poor Caracal pilot do to deserve being ganged up on and killed by you and your friends?

How could a decent person kill another just because they had wandered into "the wrong" space?


Oh we have someone that is using ingame villainy to try to justify out of game villainy. So because someone did it in a game should E1 be allowed to hurt others in rl? Please do tell.


And if I hurt your real-life feelings by smacking in local after I blow up your ship, am I now just as guilty?

Don't get me wrong, I think that the whole concept of a "bonus room" crosses a line. The problem lies in the fact that not a single person in this thread has been able to define where that line lay, and I don't want to find myself getting banned for saying "lol noob" after blowing up someone's **** just because, through some magical combination of E1's sadism, and Sohkar's utter stupidity, this shitshow came about and made everyone nauseous.
PinkPanter
Valhalla Drinking Team
#5349 - 2014-03-27 15:06:36 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
PinkPanter wrote:
AND THAT"S WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSE TO END AND ALL WOULD BE FINE.
Then why didn't Sohkar end it there?


He wanted it back.
Question is what E1 wanted since he already got it and knew it's all that guy had?

Yeah I know and we all do apart from few illiterate idiots that have issues with 1+1.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#5350 - 2014-03-27 15:06:43 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
For that I believe he should be perma banned, of course many disagree which is there right.

Good post with solid reasoning. I disagree with the above, but let's just agree to disagree on that.

I do however have one thing to bring up. You believe that Erotica 1 should be banned based on what he did, rather than if he broke any rules. On the other hand, I find it distasteful that no less than a CSM, someone who should be objective in presenting his views, is inciting a hate campaign against one player. In addition, he is actually giving EVE a bad name by posting this on various blogs/internet posting sites etc. This would mean he may be at fault for breaching the following term of the EULA (no matter how vaguely it is written):
ToS wrote:

You may not organize nor be a member of any corporation or group within EVE Online that is based on or advocates any anti-ethnic, anti-gay, anti-religious, racist, sexist or other hate-mongering philosophies

Would Sokhar's racist and anti-ethnic views be considered as advocated by said CSM by omission?

Would you support a ban on the CSM in light of the above? Just curious to know where you stand on this.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#5351 - 2014-03-27 15:07:23 UTC
dexington wrote:
There is no game that's is just a scam
Then it's a scam disguised as a gameshow. Great, so what?

dexington wrote:
and the "show" is just a vulgar display of power when the victim desperately tries to save his items
Actually saving your items from E1 is easy. In fact, I'm doing it right now, and so are you. Guess how?

dexington wrote:
and this is where the creepy stuff starts.. and some borderline perverted stuff has happened in the bonus room.
[citation needed] + relevance?

dexington wrote:
In the end it's all done so E1 can produce a humiliating recording, which is then published on the internet.
If a person chooses to 'humiliate' (arguable) themselves when they know they are being recorded, what harm is done?

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Kikusama
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5352 - 2014-03-27 15:07:34 UTC
After reading about this story and after reading parts of this thread I am terribly saddened that a disturbing part of the EvE Online player community is actually naming what this player did a "play style". I know (and hope) this isn't the majority of this community, as I've witnessed EvE players doing wonderful things (the typhoon relief PLEX thing being one of them).

There is no such thing when you are purposely applying psychological torture to a person and prolong it for hours, then posting the recording on the internet. Even if it took place out of the game, it is still related to EvE by the assets which started it all, so there is no denying that CCP should take action. From what we've seen so far, I trust them completely to apply common sense to the problem and act decisively. And I might add here that usually when there's so much quietness coming from CCP, the decision will be properly hammered-in, so to speak.

I would also recommend Erotica 1 to take up an appointment with a psychiatrist, and this is in no way an attack, but a really friendly and concerned suggestion. In-game tear extraction is different from the out of game (but game-related) harassment and this should be a concern to anyone, especially the developer.

Guns make the news. Science doesn't.
Josef Djugashvilis
#5353 - 2014-03-27 15:07:43 UTC
There is a lot of talk about how the mark could have stopped the whole thing at any point.

So could Ero, either Ero did not know he was taking it too far, in which case well... or, he did know and chose to continue, in which case he would be no loss to Eve Online should he be removed from the game.

This is not a signature.
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#5354 - 2014-03-27 15:08:40 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


Dude, let's go back to the start where Sokhar WILLINGLY GAVE ERO THOSE ASSETS TO BEGIN WITH.

Okay, now that we're at the beginning, let's try some rational thought shall we?

Go.


It's quite hard to go rational after an irrational start.
Salvos Rhoska
#5355 - 2014-03-27 15:08:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
"Since 1973Amnesty International has adopted the simplest, broadest definition of torture:

"Torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain by one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter."

Erotica1 inflicts systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, through means of several hours of subjecting the victim to demeaning and humiliating tasks alongside harassment and insulting from himself and his peers, in order to accomplish their purpose of causing the victim to leave the situation, against the will of the victim to fulfill the Bonus Rooms demands for the reward promised in the contract of the Bonus Room between the victim and the perpetrators.

It is not necessary to be restrained or prevented from being able to remove oneself from the situation, for it to constitue torture, and in this incidence, it is exactly that which the perpetrators are leveraging against the victim.

An analogy would be a wife remaining in an abusive relationship with a husband who inflicts upon her systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, because she knows that if she files for divorce, all the assets, including the house, would remain in the property of her husband, as they are in his name. What the husband is doing to her, though superficially enabled by her remaining, nonetheless constitutes torture, as he is accomplishing the purposes of his will, namely of her remaining there for him to torture, against the will of the latter to leave the situation, as he knows full well she can and will not because then she is homeless and destitute.

In Erotica1s Bonus Room torture itself is the MEANS whereby they accomplish their goal of, sooner or later, forcing the victim to leave the situation, at which point Erotica1 wins the Bonus Room. This is achieved by inflicting on the victim systemaric and deliberate acute psychological pain.

That Erotica1 causes the victims acute psychological pain, is evidenced by the psychological state the conduct they are subjected to in the Bonus Room results in. The victims are obviously suffering from it. Of that there is no question.

A Dev has been made to sing for his ship. But he did not suffer acute psychological pain in the process.
It is evident from the recording, however that Sohkar and his wife, did.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#5356 - 2014-03-27 15:09:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
If you repeat something enough, no matter how big of a lie it is, it becomes the truth.

I learned that from the George Bush Jr administration, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the 3rd Reich, and Rippard's Lynch Mob.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#5357 - 2014-03-27 15:10:51 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Quote:

The problem with your position is that its based on Slippery Slope Fallacy.

1) Erotica1s actions are only "out of game" in the most pedantic sense. They are a final step in a progression of events that takes place in game, and directly relate to and concern the disposition of in game assets. Out-of-game software is used only to evade obvious violations of CCPs terms, and allow the sort of amateurist legal argument you are making. Even in real life law there are principles of equity and fairness in application; not just a linguistic battle to see who is closer to the letter of the law or contract, hence why we have lawyers argue cases rather than linguists.

2) It is a Slippery Slope Fallacy to claim that CCP would be open to any and all calls for bans by any group becaus they banned oneplayer based on a generalized community reaction. "People who don't like Erotica 1" are not a group in any meanngful sense; their unity is solely around the issue at hand. CCP could just as easily be pressured to ban gays by homophobes or Russians whether or not they ban Erotica; th dollar vote is equally strong. CCP on the other hand has absolutely no obligation to listen to those groups just because they ban Erotica 1; it is not as if homophobes or Russians have any right to demand "consistency", andCCCP would not be inconsistent in the first place. Being gay is unrelated to game play; Erotica's performance is directly connected to it, pedantic claims that its "out of game" notwithstanding.

You make a poor attempt at reducio ad absurdm based on slippery slope and pedantry. Neither vays nor scammers are at any risk if Erotica 1 gets banned.



LOL, the 'claim it's all fallacy' fallacy. Do you not see the glaring logic hoops you just jumped through to make what you want to believe make any kind of sense at all?


There is no such thing as the "claim it's all a fallacy fallacy." All that is, is you not liking the fact that Malcanis's error in reasoning has been identified and addressed. You utterly failed to address any of my points at all, all you did was LOL as if that's an argument.

There are no "logic holes" (whatever that's supposed to be) either. That's why you didn't identify them, and just asked a rhetorical question about whether I saw them or not - in other words, trying to get people to just accept the assumption that they exist, when in fact, they don't. It's a classic dishonest debate technique from people who don't understand how to construct proper argument.

You, in fact, clearly don't. You've been on the "but then they can ban anyone that anyone else doesn't like!" side the entire time. Actually, they can ban anyone any time and in any case, they won't ban anyone just because someone else doesn't like them; that clearly WOULD be very bad for their business and in any case, "I don't like this other person, ban them" is not the same as "This behavior is clearly unacceptable by established standards, and they are evading punishment by means of legalistic maneuvering (namely, using different software."

If that weren't the case, people wouldn't be trying to have it both ways by arguing CCP shouldn't punish out-of-game behavior, but then also claiming this is "emergent gameplay".

Come back when you understand how to respond to and address points rather than relying on rhetorical games that make no points at all, and inventing "logical fallacies" that don't actually exist. Until you can do that you have no business having your own opinion, much less stating it.


LOL, I got this vision of you typing furiously at the keyboard in fine 'that'll show him" fashion.

The only important thing here is bolded. What established standard?

And how do you know that E1 was using TS to avoid anything when lots of people who play EVE use TS because eve voice sucks?

You didn't understand what Mal was saying, you should go back and spend the same time analyzing your mistake as you do analyzing others.
Tor Norman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5358 - 2014-03-27 15:11:50 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Tor Norman wrote:
My space pixels mean something to me, so I don't want to just give them away. That doesn't mean I'm addicted to them.


but they are just space pixels so what is the big deal

There isn't one. Hence why calls to have Erotica 1 banned are unjustified.

I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog.

For the ISK and the yarr!
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#5359 - 2014-03-27 15:12:05 UTC
Kikusama wrote:
After reading about this story and after reading parts of this thread I am terribly saddened that a disturbing part of the EvE Online player community is actually naming what this player did a "play style". I know (and hope) this isn't the majority of this community, as I've witnessed EvE players doing wonderful things (the typhoon relief PLEX thing being one of them).

There is no such thing when you are purposely applying psychological torture to a person and prolong it for hours
Well done on listening to the recording yourself and drawing conclusions based on direct evidence and rational thought.

Oh, wait...

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5360 - 2014-03-27 15:12:45 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
"Since 1973Amnesty International has adopted the simplest, broadest definition of torture:

"Torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain by one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter."

Erotica1 inflicts systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, through means of several hours of subjecting the victim to demeaning and humiliating tasks alongside harassment and insulting from himself and his peers, in order to accomplish their purpose of causing the victim to leave the situation, against the will of the victim to fulfill the Bonus Rooms demands for the reward promised in the contract of the Bonus Room between the victim and the perpetrators.

It is not necessary to be restrained or prevented from being able to remove oneself from the situation, for it to constitue torture, and in this incidence, it is exactly that which the perpetrators are leveraging against the victim.

An analogy would be a wife remaining in an abusive relationship with a husband who inflicts upon her systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, because she knows that if she files for divorce, all the assets, including the house, would remain in the property of her husband, as they are in his name. What the husband is doing to her, though superficially enabled by her remaining, nonetheless constitutes torture, as he is accomplishing the purposes of his will, namely of her remaining there for him to torture, against the will of the latter to leave the situation, as he knows full well she can and will not because then she is homeless and destitute.


Comparing real world assets with real value to virtual assets with no value.

This is the highest quality of argument supporting the assertion of torture regarding this case.

Which means you still got nothing.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104