These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

An Announcement Regarding Real Life Harassment

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2261 - 2014-04-17 04:54:44 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:

Any clear cut definition of such would be immediately open to gaming by determined harassment-merchants.
Which would have as a consequence even more rules and definitions, strangling the game.
Definitions and rules such as this would put the ball firmly in the griefer's court, making CCP permanently reactionary.
Instead, the TOS and EULA are right there for you to read, CCP reserves the right to ban players temporarily or permanently as they see fit, without getting dragged into some childish haggle about rules which could drain resources or even endanger the bottom line.
Now that i've made it plain and country simple, anybody asking for definitions of RL harassment must be considered a troll.

Edit: TV show spoilers as RL harassment, you are unlikely to garner much sympathetic support on that one. Unless you were joking, in which case 5/10 for making me respond.


Support or not, the TV show spoilers are definitely a type of harassment targeting players in Real Life because of the fact that the TV show does not exist in game. The players are gaining the leverage through EVE Online to execute this harassment upon persons in Real Life. And i promise you, the reactions of this kind of harassment will at the very least match equally the reactions of the very worst bonus room incidents.

Here's the point, which you seem to have over looked in your excitement to recite possible legal consequences, CCP has made a decision based upon their TOS and EULA that sets a precedent as to how they interperate what Real Life harassment consists of. You see, by making this decision they have put themselves in the position of haggling about rules, and it has definitely drained resources.

So now we're at this point where a definite action has been taken based on this interpretation of the TOS/EULA and now we can make comparisons. Trash talking is a harassment type of player action directed at another player in real life. Should this be bannable? What if i trash talk someone at work about their EVE situations? What if i scam someone i know in real life and make them do things outside of EVE or even the internet entierly? Here we are at that point where this Ruling is strangling the game.

My ultimate point is this. CCP should not get involved with the decisions people make, however poor or self destructive they are. The bonus room is all about decision making.

The first decision is to gamble away all of your assets on faith.
The second decision is to "play" the game while being recorded.
The third decision is to continue to "play" the game for hours and not give up on your lost assets.

There is not a clear line between in game and real life because EVE is real. EVE is human interaction in a sci-fi setting. Nothing more and nothing less. Real Life harassment is intrinsic to the nature of human interaction.
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#2262 - 2014-04-17 06:51:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Chopper Rollins
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
...

My ultimate point is this. CCP should not get involved with the decisions people make, however poor or self destructive they are. The bonus room is all about decision making.
...
There is not a clear line between in game and real life because EVE is real. EVE is human interaction in a sci-fi setting. Nothing more and nothing less. Real Life harassment is intrinsic to the nature of human interaction.



The bonus room is all about decision making huh? So the victim is at fault.
Save that wall o text you just dropped and read it again the day some poor dingbat flips out and kills himself over something like this. It's only a matter of time. Better yet, imagine what that poor dingbat's loved ones would think about your superior vulcan logic.
The line between in-game and RL is not clear and CCP is allowed to be as arbitrary as they want to be.
Real Life harassment is intrinsic to the nature of human interaction? My what a morally neutral thing to say. So is cannibalism. Intrinsic to the nature of human interaction covers a lot of ground, most of it morally reprehensible. Which brings us back to square one, CCP reserves the right to flush you away if you act in a way they don't like.
You agree to that when you log on.

Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Loko Crackhead
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2263 - 2014-04-17 07:23:45 UTC
This thread is getting more absurd by the minute. Let's try another approach of the situation.

Premise 1:
- Ripard Teg is a CSM member which posted a blog about an event that he found reprehensible.
- All CSM members are elected by EVE players but they can be Vetoed by CCP.

Question:
- Why did CCP aligned their view of the event in concordance with Ripard Teg?

Answer:
Variant 1 - CCP considers that Ripard Teg view on the event is correct and they also find the said event reprehensible.
Variant 2 - CCP doesn't consider that Teg is right but they acknowledge that the majority of its costumers/potential costumers supports Tegs views and they were forced into action by economics and marketing reasons.

Addendum - Bad vs Good publicity is an assertion made with the public view in mind.
Premise 2:
- Rules and regulations are adopted in order to limit some behaviors and to bring uniformity in society, they are part of the so called social contract.
- Humans have an intrinsic fear of unknown.

Question:
- Adopting rules and regulation in order to better define the world and reduce the unknown, results in more or less freedom of action?

Answer:
Reasoning
- Rules and regulation will create hard barriers which will limit the freedom of action. Fear of unknown is not an universal constant and while is true that it can determine human behavior it doesn't absolutely deny certain actions.
Conclusion
- Rules and regulations limit freedom of action while fear of unknown is merely a risk assessment tool.
Premise 3 (Captain Obvious):
- CCP is a software company that provides a service of entertainment to its costumers.
- CCP operates under the rules of free market.

Questions:
- Should CCP have the right to deny service to any individual that they consider a threat to their business model?
- Should costumers that don't approve CCP policies deny CCP their particular business?

Answers:
- Yes
- Yes
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2264 - 2014-04-17 07:46:36 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
2) What change? I am against hard and fast rules that limit CCP actions, they can do what they want and that is a GOOD THING.
They already have several hard and fast rules, and they've never done them badly. They do;t need their action limited by them either as such, just guidelines on approximately when they will act and when they won't. Like what mediums they will cover, etc.

Chopper Rollins wrote:
3) Citation needed for common sense. Right.
This doesn;t even make sense, did you even read what I wrote? It's not "common sense" to assume that people will "rules lawyer" with absolutely no evidence that such a phenomenon even exists. Or is this just your way of conceding that such a thing is completely made up?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2265 - 2014-04-17 08:01:07 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Answer:
Variant 1 - CCP considers that Ripard Teg view on the event is correct and they also find the said event reprehensible.
Variant 2 - CCP doesn't consider that Teg is right but they acknowledge that the majority of its costumers/potential costumers supports Tegs views and they were forced into action by economics and marketing reasons.
Variant 3 - CCP had previously decided the situation was fine but due to bad publicity brought on by the Vice Chair of the CSM making absurd statements, decided to take action against a single player to stem the wound. (note, majority of it's consumers has yet be de demonstrated, it's a couple of hundred at most).

Loko Crackhead wrote:

Questions:
- Should CCP have the right to deny service to any individual that they consider a threat to their business model?
- Should costumers that don't approve CCP policies deny CCP their particular business?
Should CCP operate under fair rules and provided oversight on what those views entail to allow all players to make educated decisions in game rather than guessing and hoping (you know, like they do for all the other rules, and did up until now on their third party comms rules)?

Answer:Yes

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Salvos Rhoska
#2266 - 2014-04-17 09:32:49 UTC
CSM have stated they are satisfied Erotica1 received due process and consideration.
CSM support the CCP Statement.
The Statement reinforces pre-existing sections of the EULA and TOS. It does not change them.
Ripard was completely within his rights to blog whatever he wants, barring NDA breach.
It is irrelevant that CCP did not act earlier. What is relevant, is that they have acted now.

You have no case, and no grounds on which to base one.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Loko Crackhead
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2267 - 2014-04-17 10:09:34 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Lucas Kell wrote:
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Answer:
Variant 1 - CCP considers that Ripard Teg view on the event is correct and they also find the said event reprehensible.
Variant 2 - CCP doesn't consider that Teg is right but they acknowledge that the majority of its costumers/potential costumers supports Tegs views and they were forced into action by economics and marketing reasons.
Variant 3 - CCP had previously decided the situation was fine but due to bad publicity brought on by the Vice Chair of the CSM making absurd statements, decided to take action against a single player to stem the wound. (note, majority of it's consumers has yet be de demonstrated, it's a couple of hundred at most).


That's 2 with other words. To state that CCP will bow to absurd claims alone with out any other reasons is not valid. CCP previously denied other players sits in CSM, if I'm not mistaken. You didn't quote the addendum, wonder way?

Lucas Kell wrote:
Loko Crackhead wrote:

Questions:
- Should CCP have the right to deny service to any individual that they consider a threat to their business model?
- Should costumers that don't approve CCP policies deny CCP their particular business?
Should CCP operate under fair rules and provided oversight on what those views entail to allow all players to make educated decisions in game rather than guessing and hoping (you know, like they do for all the other rules, and did up until now on their third party comms rules)?

Answer:Yes


What is fair or not is a matter of opinion. CCP doesn't have to abide to your understanding of fair. You have your right to ***** and moan about it, even on the CCP forums if CCP allows you too Blink.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2268 - 2014-04-17 10:23:43 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Answer:
Variant 1 - CCP considers that Ripard Teg view on the event is correct and they also find the said event reprehensible.
Variant 2 - CCP doesn't consider that Teg is right but they acknowledge that the majority of its costumers/potential costumers supports Tegs views and they were forced into action by economics and marketing reasons.
Variant 3 - CCP had previously decided the situation was fine but due to bad publicity brought on by the Vice Chair of the CSM making absurd statements, decided to take action against a single player to stem the wound. (note, majority of it's consumers has yet be de demonstrated, it's a couple of hundred at most).


That's 2 with other words. To state that CCP will bow to absurd claims alone with out any other reasons is not valid. CCP previously denied other players sits in CSM, if I'm not mistaken. You didn't quote the addendum, wonder way?
No, that's not 2 with other words, because your 2 states "the majority of its costumers/potential costumers", which is false. It's a vocal minority that are in support. Unless you can evidence at least 25000 different people being in support. And I didn;t feel the addendum was relevant to my quote.

Loko Crackhead wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Should CCP operate under fair rules and provided oversight on what those views entail to allow all players to make educated decisions in game rather than guessing and hoping (you know, like they do for all the other rules, and did up until now on their third party comms rules)?

Answer:Yes


What is fair or not is a matter of opinion. CCP doesn't have to abide to your understanding of fair. You have your right to ***** and moan about it, even on the CCP forums if CCP allows you too Blink.

P.S. Do you enjoy trying to spin everything about? Is this your choice of meta-gaming? Well, it looks that you are losing Cool.
How is there spin? You've stated it right there, I have the right to ***** and moan, and I do and will. I feel that the rules they make paying consumers abide by should be fair and transparent.

And what is all this bullshit about losing? You can't "lose" at having an opinion. If CCP chooses not to change a thing, they have every right to do so, but that won't change my opinion about the situation. People on this forum are so eager to be able to go "look at me, look how right I am, look how wrong the other guy is MUA HA HA HA HA", grow the **** up. It's not about being right or wrong, it's all subjective. Some people support this change, others don't. CCP need to weigh up whether the decisions they make will cause too much outcry. People being free and able to voice their opinions on the matter allow them to make those decisions in an informed manner.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Loko Crackhead
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2269 - 2014-04-17 10:43:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, that's not 2 with other words, because your 2 states "the majority of its costumers/potential costumers", which is false. It's a vocal minority that are in support. Unless you can evidence at least 25000 different people being in support. And I didn;t feel the addendum was relevant to my quote.


So you claim CCP are stupid people that will take a controversial game action with out proper research. OK, it is your opinion. I've taken it is as the non-sense I believe it is but did take it in.

Lucas Kell wrote:


And what is all this bullshit about losing? You can't "lose" at having an opinion. If CCP chooses not to change a thing, they have every right to do so, but that won't change my opinion about the situation. People on this forum are so eager to be able to go "look at me, look how right I am, look how wrong the other guy is MUA HA HA HA HA", grow the **** up. It's not about being right or wrong, it's all subjective. Some people support this change, others don't. CCP need to weigh up whether the decisions they make will cause too much outcry. People being free and able to voice their opinions on the matter allow them to make those decisions in an informed manner.


Already stated you have the right to an opinion. CCP already weighted the situation and the thing is in the bag.
You are asking what you are losing? Time, my friend, and credibility. And don't get fired up because we think you are wrong (subjective or not) it happens to the best of us at some point.

One last thing, there is no change what so ever. One douche got slapped, end of story. Upon one thing I agree with you "If peeing against the wind make sure you don't wear your pants and shoes". CHILAX and go play the game.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2270 - 2014-04-17 10:44:14 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


False.

I have explained all my reasoning.

It is what I have been taught to do.
State your argument, then explain it and furthermore, if possible, add evidence to support it.
I have done so on every point I have made.
Is this an unfamiliar format for you? Its generally a REQUIRED format for passing any kind of intellectual hurdle, from exams, to essays, to informed and structured discussion.

Ah i understand now, when i'm asking you to explain your reasoning, i'm asking about very specific statements.

What you seem to be talking about when you said you have explained all of your reasoning is that you made the statements you wanted to make in regards to the issue the statements are about.

I'm not asking you to make more statements on why you think the stance CCP took is correct in your opinion. I'm asking you to to explain the reasoning you used to make the statements.

If you have explained all your reasoning already, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain your reasoning again right?
Please explain how you came to the conclusion that the Analogy of someone being raped and the bonus room is a sound comparasion even though the main qualifying issue with both is the difference in consent.

I'd also like you to explain how you go to this conclusion.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
[...]If someone is so pathetic and weak that they kill themselves over losing space pixels in a chat room they had full control of leaving, then the world is better of without them....


This is despicable and repulsive.

Yet this is the natural order. Natural Selection. Though i guess only if it's prior to procreation.

Regardless of the morality of that specific instance, a person with that level of instability should not be playing EVE.


By that logic, I submit that you should never have been born, and should not be playing EVE.

Going on comms does nothing to validate anyone's point. I'm looking for the answer here infront of anyone who reads this.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2271 - 2014-04-17 10:56:06 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.


26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2272 - 2014-04-17 10:58:25 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, that's not 2 with other words, because your 2 states "the majority of its costumers/potential costumers", which is false. It's a vocal minority that are in support. Unless you can evidence at least 25000 different people being in support. And I didn;t feel the addendum was relevant to my quote.
So you claim CCP are stupid people that will take a controversial game action with out proper research. OK, it is your opinion. I've taken it is as the non-sense I believe it is but did take it in.
Where did I even remotely claim that? I've claimed that there aren't 25000 people complaining about Erotica 1, which I think it's plain to see there isn't. Whatever else you derived from that has been made up in your head.

Loko Crackhead wrote:
Already stated you have the right to an opinion. CCP already weighted the situation and the thing is in the bag.
You are asking what you are losing? Time, my friend, and credibility. And don't get fired up because we think you are wrong (subjective or not) it happens to the best of us at some point.
I don;t consider this time consuming and I'm not worried about credibility. It's important to stand by what you believe in, and if you back down because random people jump into the thread and throw personal attacks at you until the ISD cleans it up, then you lack conviction. Aside from that, I'm in the CFC. Do you really think I'm worried about what other people think of me?

Loko Crackhead wrote:
One last thing, there is no change what so ever. One douche got slapped, end of story. Upon one thing I agree with you "If peeing against the wind make sure you don't wear your pants and shoes". CHILAX and go play the game.
I'm relaxed, and I'm sorta playing the game while I code. Believe it or not, I don't get worked up about games and forums, and definitely not when a forum alt is talking at me, even if I do use the occasional profanity (I'm British, they just mix in with your regular speech).

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Danalee
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#2273 - 2014-04-17 18:23:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Hello CCP (and also hello EVE players).

Quite some pages ago, I posed some questions as suggested in the OP.
They remain unanswered.

*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.
But this message serves just as a reminder that we are still waiting for some answers.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#2274 - 2014-04-17 20:04:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
...

My ultimate point is this. CCP should not get involved with the decisions people make, however poor or self destructive they are. The bonus room is all about decision making.
...
There is not a clear line between in game and real life because EVE is real. EVE is human interaction in a sci-fi setting. Nothing more and nothing less. Real Life harassment is intrinsic to the nature of human interaction.



The bonus room is all about decision making huh? So the victim is at fault.


When he could have DCed at any time, yes.

What better destroys your argument is that the 'victim' doesnt think he's a victim and disagrees that any harassment even occurred

*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#2275 - 2014-04-17 20:26:58 UTC
Danalee wrote:
Hello CCP (and also hello EVE players).

Quite some pages ago, I posed some questions as suggested in the OP.
They remain unanswered.

Since refrasing my questions is interpreted by the mods as spamming, I won't do that.
But this message serves just as a reminder that we are still waiting for some answers.

Meanwhile I feel very sad about some things Salvos Rhoska keeps moaning about, I'd appreciate it if he'd just stop being such a big fat troll and behaves like a normal person does. Not troll-like Shocked

D.

Bear


mail em to me an ill ask them. I havent asked them before XD

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2276 - 2014-04-17 22:39:49 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.


26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#2277 - 2014-04-18 02:18:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Cygnet Lythanea
Let me try it this way, as far as I can tell this question in no way violates any rule of the forum:

The grounds as outlined seem very broad and vague. What assurance do we have that this will not be abused?
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#2278 - 2014-04-18 03:11:23 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Let me try it this way, as far as I can tell this question in no way violates any rule of the forum:

The grounds as outlined seem very broad and vague. What assurance do we have that this will not be abused?


none

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#2279 - 2014-04-18 19:51:39 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Let me try it this way, as far as I can tell this question in no way violates any rule of the forum:

The grounds as outlined seem very broad and vague. What assurance do we have that this will not be abused?


You either trust that it won't or you leave the game.

Or you use the Malkavian option. Keep paying a sub for the express purpose of whining in a forum.

Either way, CCP wins. You lose.

Mr Epeen Cool
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#2280 - 2014-04-19 13:58:28 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Let me try it this way, as far as I can tell this question in no way violates any rule of the forum:

The grounds as outlined seem very broad and vague. What assurance do we have that this will not be abused?


You either trust that it won't or you leave the game.

Or you use the Malkavian option. Keep paying a sub for the express purpose of whining in a forum.

Either way, CCP wins. You lose.

Mr Epeen Cool



I'll be honest, I stay subbed just for the eventual lawsuit. They might win in the short term via my sub money, but I think the payoff will be worth it in the end to drink CCP tears when they find out that I was right about something I've posted warning them about repeatedly. Yet Again.