These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Reminder Regarding Real Life Harassment

First post First post First post
Author
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2014-09-11 01:39:00 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
So is the line for real-life harassment going to remain vague?

Some of us enjoy harming other players with a passion, and the boundaries between character and person are bound to be crossed without clear guidelines on what isn't allowed.

If you think you might have crossed a line, you probably did. Clear lines would only be abused and make a mess for the GMs. With a grey area, they can better decide on a case by case basis without internet lawyers going "technically" on them.



It shouldn't matter even if people go "technically" on them. They have final say.

Clear guidelines will tell people who don't know when to stop, when to stop. The average new order player really doesn't tick the same way as most other players in the game.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#42 - 2014-09-11 01:42:57 UTC
evepal wrote:
If that's not true (despite the countless articles stating otherwise versus your word), the rest of what I said is true. The quantity of what is taken is regardless of the fact that they took it further than to seek in game profit - to which you don't deny.
Nothing is taken, only given freely. Anything you read otherwise was lying.

evepal wrote:
You wish to discredit the entire post by the means of critiquing one point, as if that somehow invalidates the rest - but I think anyone with a modicum of human decency will acknowledge with the basis of my response.
Is this an ad hominem or an appeal to emotion? I'm not quite sure, but either way, declaring anyone who disagrees with you to be subhuman doesn't hold much water.

As regards the rest of your post being right, you compare SWAT teams getting sent to someone's house, which is wrong for various reasons and about which nothing can be done once it is set in motion, to a pseudo-gameshow where the person has to voluntarily give up their stuffs and thereafter has the option to leave at any time - at only the cost of t he stuff previously voluntarily forfeited.


If what the likes of E1 does is so bad, you'd think you'd be able to criticise what was actually done, rather than relying on false analogies and misrepresentations.

This post brought to you by Insomnia™.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#43 - 2014-09-11 01:43:41 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:

The average new order player really doesn't tick the same way as most other players in the game.


No. They're exactly the same as everyone else. Looking for loopholes and getting upset when CCP won't give them any.

Mr Epeen Cool
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#44 - 2014-09-11 01:44:46 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
So is the line for real-life harassment going to remain vague?

Some of us enjoy harming other players with a passion, and the boundaries between character and person are bound to be crossed without clear guidelines on what isn't allowed.

CCP prefers to be as vague as possible...

It gives them unlimited wiggle room to handle any situation that may crop up.

...

Titus Tallang
EVE University
Ivy League
#45 - 2014-09-11 01:45:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Titus Tallang
CCP Falcon,

can we expect some clear-cut rules on what you would classify as 'real life harassment'?


For example, many Wormhole corporations have a tradition of asking tackled pilots to join their voice comms and sing them a song in exchange for letting them go. These recordings are sometimes posted publicly, and sometimes aren't. Would you classify this as 'real life harassment'?

In another example, the gentlemen over at CODE sometimes record themselves having after-the-fact 'discussions' about their actions and 'the Code' with their targets on voice comms, which are then published on their blog. This publishing may occur without the other party's explicit permission, yet - as CCP itself put it so eloquently in the recent announcement of the "send us your ears" incentive - one should always "[...] assume any voice comms are being recorded". Would you classify this as 'real life harassment'?


While I personally am not affected by the controversy, I am strongly in favor of what you'd call 'legal certainty', e.g. that one can ascertain whether or not their actions would be in violation of established rules and may thus carry punishment, and I am fairly sure that my dear friends, enemies and otherwise on the slightly less reputable side of New Eden will agree on this.

As such, I do not believe that stating something as basic as 'we do not allow real life harassment' without clarifying what, exactly, you mean by this term could in any way be considered as 'legal certainty' - seeing as social standards on what would be considered 'harassment' differ between societies, nay, even between members of the same society, and furthermore seeing that New Eden is a world that players hailing from all over the earth, stemming from all sorts of societies, will partake in.
And, in the same vein, I also dread that leaving the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over players' heads would certainly not serve to stimulate their creativity into continuing to make EVE into the wonderfully inventive, entertaining and enthralling game that we all play - and that New Eden as a whole would be poorer for it.

Best regards.

Director of Education - EVE University - http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/

Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2014-09-11 01:47:19 UTC
What the minerbumping and belligerent undesirables communities don't understand is that we have not published any bonus room recordings since the ero1 incident.

I may be able to dig up the odd clip of gamer-rage though.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

evepal
Scholar of Rationality
#47 - 2014-09-11 01:47:29 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
So is the line for real-life harassment going to remain vague?

Some of us enjoy harming other players with a passion, and the boundaries between character and person are bound to be crossed without clear guidelines on what isn't allowed.

If you think you might have crossed a line, you probably did. Clear lines would only be abused and make a mess for the GMs. With a grey area, they can better decide on a case by case basis without internet lawyers going "technically" on them.



It shouldn't matter even if people go "technically" on them. They have final say.

Clear guidelines will tell people who don't know when to stop, when to stop. The average new order player really doesn't tick the same way as most other players in the game.


It's not CCPs job to tell you how to be a decent human to someone. If you struggle with this fact, being banned on EvE is the least of your concern, seeing as harassment is enshrined into public law by many countries.

People will always cry it's vague to their specific situation, they'll continue to attempt to weasel out of their situation and validate that they're not horrible people, in some sort of attempt to make themselves believe that. People attempt to weasel in court, so why wouldn't they do this in a game? So what's the alternative, just simply disregard rules altogether?

No, you let humans make a decision that's supportive on public consensus. Which is what they have done, and will continue to do so. If you don't like it, perhaps you should, what's the word... HTFU.
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#48 - 2014-09-11 01:52:09 UTC
evepal wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
So is the line for real-life harassment going to remain vague?

Some of us enjoy harming other players with a passion, and the boundaries between character and person are bound to be crossed without clear guidelines on what isn't allowed.

If you think you might have crossed a line, you probably did. Clear lines would only be abused and make a mess for the GMs. With a grey area, they can better decide on a case by case basis without internet lawyers going "technically" on them.



It shouldn't matter even if people go "technically" on them. They have final say.

Clear guidelines will tell people who don't know when to stop, when to stop. The average new order player really doesn't tick the same way as most other players in the game.


It's not CCPs job to tell you how to be a decent human to someone. If you struggle with this fact, being banned on EvE is the least of your concern, seeing as harassment is enshrined into public law by many countries.

People will always cry it's vague to their specific situation, they'll continue to attempt to weasel out of their situation and validate that they're not horrible people, in some sort of attempt to make themselves believe that. People attempt to weasel in court, so why wouldn't they do this in a game? So what's the alternative, just simply disregard rules altogether?

No, you let humans make a decision that's supportive on public consensus. Which is what they have done, and will continue to do so. If you don't like it, perhaps you should, what's the word... HTFU.



We blow up internet spaceship assets and harvest as much tears as possible. The more whining, crying and screaming that occurs as a result of that, the happier we are.

As far as the EULA goes, this is not wrong in itself. But when does this cross into real-life harassment? We don't stalk people in real life and ask them to hand over their assets, we have people screaming at us on our own coms, is this wrong?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

evepal
Scholar of Rationality
#49 - 2014-09-11 02:02:07 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
Is this an ad hominem or an appeal to emotion? I'm not quite sure, but either way, declaring anyone who disagrees with you to be subhuman doesn't hold much water.

As regards the rest of your post being right, you compare SWAT teams getting sent to someone's house, which is wrong for various reasons and about which nothing can be done once it is set in motion, to a pseudo-gameshow where the person has to voluntarily give up their stuffs and thereafter has the option to leave at any time - at only the cost of t he stuff previously voluntarily forfeited.


If what the likes of E1 does is so bad, you'd think you'd be able to criticise what was actually done, rather than relying on false analogies and misrepresentations.

This post brought to you by Insomnia™.


Conveniently you disregard the whole section where I describe Sunk Cost Investment, also known as the escalation of commitment. No dispute, just ignored to invoke victim blaming.

Taking someone's items doesn't imply by force, either. That's your interpretation of the context, perhaps a Freudian slip even. I merely meant it as in receiving the items, which is completely within definition of the word. Go grab a dictionary.

Oh and as you're referring to that image for both the "appeal to emotion", and "ad hominem", I raise you "the fallacy fallacy", "no true scotsman", and "tu quoque".



CCP Falcon
#50 - 2014-09-11 02:22:46 UTC
Titus Tallang wrote:
can we expect some clear-cut rules on what you would classify as 'real life harassment'?


It isn't our job to dictate to people how to maintain a base standard of human decency toward one another, and we're not going to do so.

The bottom line is that it's down to members of the community to know where the line crosses from common decency to harassment. We will not draw a line in the sand so that people can skirt on the edge of it and bend the rules as much as possible.

This isn't a debate about what constitutes "harassment". If you're not familiar with the word, find the definition in a dictionary and that will satisfy your question.

What we will do, is continue to use best judgement on a case by case basis to ensure that real life harassment is kept out of the game, and ensure that those who choose to involve themselves in such activities are no longer permitted to be part of our community.

Cut and dried, that's all we have to say on the matter.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#51 - 2014-09-11 02:23:15 UTC
evepal wrote:
Conveniently you disregard the whole section where I describe Sunk Cost Investment, also known as the escalation of commitment. No dispute, just ignored to invoke victim blaming.
What's it got to do with anything? Sure, we can study the reasons why people don't walk away from bad situations, but that doesn't change the fact that they can walk away. Distinctly different from swatting, where the ordeal cannot be terminated with a single button press.

evepal wrote:
Taking someone's items doesn't imply by force, either. That's your interpretation of the context, perhaps a Freudian slip even. I merely meant it as in receiving the items, which is completely within definition of the word. Go grab a dictionary.
I don't interpret any contexts, I just look at what actually happened.
If you meant that someone received the items, why not say so instead of saying they were taken? Because it doesn't sound as good. "Oh no the evil sociopaths received all my items!!".

evepal wrote:
Oh and as you're referring to that image for both the "appeal to emotion", and "ad hominem", I raise you "the fallacy fallacy", "no true scotsman", and "tu quoque".
A very fancy way of saying I'm attacking your argument rather than your conclusion. Well, I am.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#52 - 2014-09-11 02:27:25 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Titus Tallang wrote:
can we expect some clear-cut rules on what you would classify as 'real life harassment'?


It isn't our job to dictate to people how to maintain a base standard of human decency toward one another, and we're not going to do so.
...
Cut and dried, that's all we have to say on the matter.

No, it kind of is your job to do this.

Case in point: if I am ransoming someone, and they tell me that while they're going to pay the ransom, this will also cause them to cut back on their food expenditures for the month and/or skip meals, does this constitute as harassing someone out of the game? Is this something that can get me punished, were my victim to make such a claim in a support petition?

Because I don't see any better example of affecting someone's real-life well-being than this. Causing someone to do something detrimental to their health as a result of my in-game actions appears to be as much of a real-life effect as something can be.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2014-09-11 02:28:23 UTC
Thank you CCP for cleaning house.

Aiwha
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#54 - 2014-09-11 02:33:48 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Titus Tallang wrote:
can we expect some clear-cut rules on what you would classify as 'real life harassment'?


It isn't our job to dictate to people how to maintain a base standard of human decency toward one another, and we're not going to do so.

The bottom line is that it's down to members of the community to know where the line crosses from common decency to harassment. We will not draw a line in the sand so that people can skirt on the edge of it and bend the rules as much as possible.

This isn't a debate about what constitutes "harassment". If you're not familiar with the word, find the definition in a dictionary and that will satisfy your question.

What we will do, is continue to use best judgement on a case by case basis to ensure that real life harassment is kept out of the game, and ensure that those who choose to involve themselves in such activities are no longer permitted to be part of our community.

Cut and dried, that's all we have to say on the matter.




tl;dr to scammers/gankers. If you can't figure out where the line is, that's a personal problem and you should probably see about some counseling irl. Because the rest of us know when and where we have to stop.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Ilaister
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-09-11 02:34:02 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Titus Tallang wrote:
can we expect some clear-cut rules on what you would classify as 'real life harassment'?


It isn't our job to dictate to people how to maintain a base standard of human decency toward one another, and we're not going to do so.
...
Cut and dried, that's all we have to say on the matter.

No, it kind of is your job to do this.

Case in point: if I am ransoming someone, and they tell me that while they're going to pay the ransom, this will also cause them to cut back on their food expenditures for the month and/or skip meals, does this constitute as harassing someone out of the game? Is this something that can get me punished, were my victim to make such a claim in a support petition?

Because I don't see any better example of affecting someone's real-life well-being than this. Causing someone to do something detrimental to their health as a result of my in-game actions appears to be as much of a real-life effect as something can be.


Case in point?

I'd say you missed it entirely.
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#56 - 2014-09-11 02:37:53 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Titus Tallang wrote:
can we expect some clear-cut rules on what you would classify as 'real life harassment'?


It isn't our job to dictate to people how to maintain a base standard of human decency toward one another, and we're not going to do so.

The bottom line is that it's down to members of the community to know where the line crosses from common decency to harassment. We will not draw a line in the sand so that people can skirt on the edge of it and bend the rules as much as possible.

This isn't a debate about what constitutes "harassment". If you're not familiar with the word, find the definition in a dictionary and that will satisfy your question.

What we will do, is continue to use best judgement on a case by case basis to ensure that real life harassment is kept out of the game, and ensure that those who choose to involve themselves in such activities are no longer permitted to be part of our community.

Cut and dried, that's all we have to say on the matter.


Share: Cite / link:
ha·rass (h-rs, hrs)
tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es
1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

"Harassment" isn't the issue. We harass each other in-game ALL THE TIME. A hell-camp is harassment. Suicide ganking is harassment. We've recently hell-camped some inhabitants of 5zxx-k until they are no-longer able to live in that system. (Thank you CCP, for the wonderful mordus legion ships, now in CFC control)

What we want to know is when it crosses the fourth wall into REAL LIFE harassment.

The people involved in the bonus room do not persistently target anyone over days or weeks. Nor do we follow anyone home or stalk anyone. Though I have no doubt that the tear collection is an intense experience, it is done in a single incident of scamming, and no one is forcing anyone to stay on our coms. People have left our coms on their own you know.

If you do not give clarification, there will be no end to the speculation, and that in itself can do more harm to your public image than any debate over rules and rule-skirting can.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Kristalll
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#57 - 2014-09-11 02:38:43 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Titus Tallang wrote:
can we expect some clear-cut rules on what you would classify as 'real life harassment'?


It isn't our job to dictate to people how to maintain a base standard of human decency toward one another, and we're not going to do so.


Not your job to maintain a standard, just your job to enforce the unmaintained standard.

GG.

“Die trying” is the proudest human thing.

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-09-11 02:38:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
halp, i have been harassed. someone called me names on teamspeak. how do i get him banned? i also heard some people cried after loosing a titan. do you ban everyone who's on the killmail, the one with the final blow, the top damage dealer or the fc ?
Kristalll
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#59 - 2014-09-11 02:40:29 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I don't really know what the bonus room thing is, nor do I care. But does this announcement mean that we can no longer ransom and/or extort players as part of pirate activities? Because that's what it sounds like.


We can ransom, scam, repeatedly kill, steal, laugh at, point fingers and whatever you want to do (within the EULA)... INGAME against the CHARACTER. The second you start to target the PERSON behind the character is where the problem potentially will arise and then it depends on the intent, severity and CCP's discretion what, if any, the implications will be.

So people who have a working brain and see the game for what it is and leave it all in game, no problems there, go have fun. But for the few folks who apparently have issues making that clear distinction between a game and RL (or do this on purpose for whatever psychiatric evaluation-worthy reason) it, again, needs to be made official and public that CCP doesn't accept that ****.


This doesn't make sense.

You realise that those with a working brain and see the game for what is is and leave it in the game, are the exact people that don't call this harassment.

“Die trying” is the proudest human thing.

Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#60 - 2014-09-11 02:41:10 UTC
Will people really not figure the line out until CCP literally write a rule saying "No harassment severe enough to draw gaming press attention"?

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment