These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

CSM Feedback to CCP

First post First post First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1 - 2014-03-29 10:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Please can you help the CSM by choosing which of the three courses of action the CSM should recommend to CCP as the way forward.

As you are all no doubt aware, CCP Falcon, the leader of the EVE Community Team, yesterday published a communication on the subject of player harrassment. As might be expected, this issue, and CCP's reply, has caused a certain amount of contention. The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.

In other to get some actual numbers into the discussion, please can you select from one of the following three options for the CSM to present to CCP as the opinion of the community.:

(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.

(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.

(3) CCP should stand back and allow without comment the members of the community complete free reign in using CCP's IP and property to engage in and facilitate whatever activities they desire, regardless of damage done and regardless of the clear trend of escalating unpleasantness. This option, so far as I am aware, is not available anywhere and may in fact contravene the laws of quite a few nations including several which comprise large sections of the EVE playerbase.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

I Riven I
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2014-03-29 10:17:57 UTC  |  Edited by: I Riven I
- 3


- CCP should never step in neither use power beyond measure (bans off a click because yolo), in order to change "something" in the game.
- CCP should never be of a help for the whining ones, rather they should let them grow by their own mistakes.
- CCP should never try to force the community to act in a certain way, by using yet again, bans. They may monitor where the game is going and if its falling apart from ccp desired standards, but shouldn't use the "banned cause eula" option, rather they should implement game mechanics or even create events that would incentivate players to act differently.

THE ONLY time CCP should intervene in the community would be within legal range, where the companys name is in the call.


Also, the EULA is outdated, extremely over thought and yet with no integrity.
Should make it a lot simpler and shorter, and keep the legal conditions to one line.


I forgot to add, since this is a more if an official thread and chances ccp will actually read it drastically increase, to bring up a suggestion from my thread, of creating a tribunal system where PLAYERS vote about harassment reports, and not GMs. They can however have the final decision obviously, based on the community feedback, votes and/or actual voicing over cases.
Tollen Gallen
Glory of Reprisal Enterprise
#3 - 2014-03-29 10:19:33 UTC
2




I like Battleships.

Zimmy Zeta - I f*cking love martinis. the original ones, with gin, not that vodka martini crap. Your old Friends can use me for 7 days, free!!!

Tesco Ergo Sum
#4 - 2014-03-29 10:20:32 UTC
2) please.

Many thanks for your efforts, it brought me back to the game.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#5 - 2014-03-29 10:20:33 UTC
Needless to say, my strong preference is for option 2. If CCP are forced to give a rigid definition of what is acceptable, then they will have to set the bar at a far lower level than we're used to operating within.

I prefer to be treated like an adult and to be trusted to be able to use my judgement.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Darkopus
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-03-29 10:21:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.
.


This is quite clearly the only real workable solution.

Option 1 would provide an environment whereby people really intent on griefing will study the rules in detail and devise potential heinous ways of griefing people that aren't necesarilly against the revised ruleset. That would simply lead to another "crackdown" or chnage in rules again by CCP. Which in turn mean each time it happens we lose a little more of the freedoms we so enjoy in this game.

Option 3 would never happen as this would have some serious ramifications for CCP and their business if something positively perverse happened on the back of their IP and the 2 could be directly correlated in a court of law.
Aivo Dresden
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-03-29 10:22:10 UTC
In an ideal world I would say 2.

However, it's been shown plenty of times that some people just can't be given that responsibility and others just are little sh*ts, so I'm going to have to go with 1.

3 can not be allowed because then we could potentially end up in situations where CCP's image gets damaged. There are also a bunch of incidents which inherently require CCPs intervention. Some actions make CCP legally liable and they need to isolate themselves against that.
Boomtown Jones
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#8 - 2014-03-29 10:22:51 UTC
Somewhere between 1 and 2, open but fair, but of course I think CCP exists somewhere between 1 and 2 already so perhaps we should just call it 1.

3 is anarchy and also impossible.
Nalelmir Ahashion
Industrial Management and Engineering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#9 - 2014-03-29 10:22:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.



This is best option.

Eve is game about spaceships, about economy and simulation of economical environment (everything comes down to isks).
Latest event showed us that people in this game are not able to (Not 100% of them but major part enough) behave in an adult manner and limit themselves.

Place a red line, set the boundaries.
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#10 - 2014-03-29 10:23:50 UTC  |  Edited by: handige harrie
(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.

Is the only workable answer and it's a good one. Option 1 will cause people to dodge rules and create edge cases which require more rules which makes people causes more dodging and more rules ad infinitum and option 3 well, we just saw what came from that and it's not pretty.

Baddest poster ever

WouldYouEver HaveSexWith aGoat
Doomheim
#11 - 2014-03-29 10:25:28 UTC  |  Edited by: WouldYouEver HaveSexWith aGoat
I would say #1 for personal comments and actions.
I would say #2 for non-personal comments and actions.

Two examples to illustrate:

Example 1:
*Player A kills Player B*
Your fit is pathetic, you are total trash. Go back to high-sec.
- This should result in disciplinary action.

Example 2:
*Squad A kills Squad B*
Awful fits, you guys are trash! Go back to high-sec.
- This should be allowed to stay.

Some people may argue EVE is a game all about freedom and this would infringe on such. I do not agree. EVE is a game where the gameplay mechanics allow for such freedom. I do not believe social freedom is part of that package. In essence, you are free to do whatever you want but not free to say whatever you want.

It should be noted most of these rules in regards to player conduct should be used as guidelines. There are always exceptions to rules at both ends; this applies to everything from murder to embezzlement to drug possession. As such I do not believe we can have a set of rules that are observed in a black and white fashion. Ultimately I think CCP should be trying their best to determine the intent of players as they commit perceived infractions. If the intent is negative beyond all reasonable doubt, this should be the main motivator to take action more than any pre-conceived set of arbitrary rules put in place.




While your thread is likely related to Erotica1, I do not believe the options you've described truly address the issue.
Erotica used EVE to fascilate actions out of game that would currently be considered a TOS/EULA infraction in-game. The debate in regards to that needs to be if using in-game tools to fascilate EULA/TOS breaking activities out of game is a breach of the EULA/TOS. This thread does not address that.


-------------------------
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#12 - 2014-03-29 10:26:07 UTC
Quote:
The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.


Eh, kinda. For myself, I want assurances that processes to determine GM action taken against a player is as objective as possible, with as little subjectivity as possible.

Here's an example. If we're supposed to always be thinking about "the person behind the keyboard", blah blah blah, then how are we, within any reason, to know where to draw the line?

If I gank someone, and he rages out in local, does he get a "hissy fit shield", and I can't gank him anymore because it would upset him in real life? Am I supposed to take whatever he says at face value, if that is the case?

My ideal response would be: Too damn bad, if you can't deal with legitimate in game actions, then log off and cool down.

So while my answer to your question would be that 2 is what I want, what I think we have after last night is a 1.5.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

flakeys
Doomheim
#13 - 2014-03-29 10:27:00 UTC
This is gonna give you so many different opinions that i really don't understand why you'd even try it .Plus it will only show the idea's a certain but small percent of the actuall eve players has as a lot of people don't frequently follow the forums.


On a sidenote there have ALLWAYS been double standards ingame in regards to certain rules that can not be fully outlined , this will not be an exception as it is allmost impossible to outline what does or does not cross the line .

It is no different from reall life , judges do this every day .

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.

Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#14 - 2014-03-29 10:28:02 UTC
#2.


The rules are fine as is and any increase of rules or their explanation will just result in bad wording, E lawyering and creating precedents where none are needed. We're fine to leave decisions in these kinds of situations in the hands of CCP making an arbitrary call in individual cases.

E1 is a simple case of "don't be stupid" taking his actions far beyond what's morally acceptable in the real world, and that really is the thing... "in the real world". He went beyond the boundaries ingame and pulled the situation into real life in a way that's so terrible you don't need special rules for it other than "don't be an idiot".


Leave it as is, CCP is capable of handling situations like these just fine.
Catherine Wolfisheim
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2014-03-29 10:28:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Wolfisheim
So basically you narrowed down most of the ideas in three main ones. I am having a hard time choosing between all three, because all of them are extreme in their own particular way. I guess in this current condition anybody would say that (2) is the best option.

Perhaps it's also the way these options are presented.
Nalelmir Ahashion
Industrial Management and Engineering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#16 - 2014-03-29 10:28:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
42


I think they mean dialog and verbal comunications not stuff you can do via the game client like shooting people.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#17 - 2014-03-29 10:33:41 UTC
2 is the only workable option.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

mr ed thehouseofed
Wrought iron Industries
#18 - 2014-03-29 10:34:52 UTC
as this is the only mmo i play , i'm curious on how other mmo's drawn the line in the sand . anyone care to enlighten me?

option 2 is where i'm leaning to.

i want a eve pinball machine...  confirming  CCP Cognac is best cognac

embrel
BamBam Inc.
#19 - 2014-03-29 10:34:59 UTC
2
Ambo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2014-03-29 10:39:16 UTC
Of the options you present, only 2 is remotely viable.
123Next pageLast page