These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

I got drunk and accidently my powerpoint...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-03-27 07:15:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Chokichi Ozuwara
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Eve is about killing, thieving and backstabbing. Thats part of the game.

So is building stuff, exploring, team work, friendship and goodwill.

It is annoying to see people try to paint the game as some sort of training ground for sociopathic behavior. Almost as bad as people trying to claim that blatant harassment is not harassment, or that the EULA they agreed to, isn't something they agree with.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Kara Roideater
#42 - 2012-03-27 07:17:29 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Kara Roideater wrote:
Wow! You are really good at inconsistency. Tell me more about how morality is subjective and how that fits in with your 'fundamental human rights'.

Without the right to say any dumb thing that pops into your mind, every single one of us ends up guilty of offending someone.
This is why its critical people be allowed to say anything they want. If they're not allowed to, **** Germany happens. Consider China today, and its censorship. A man is beaten by his government simply for painting the wrong things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_Weiwei#Shanghai_studio_controversy

This is what happens when you're not allowed to speak your mind.


Nope. You're still illegitimately conflating freedom from legal persecution with complete freedom from consequences. Do you really think that a salesman should be free to insult his customers, drive away business, and trash his boss without getting fired? The fact that he should be able to do such things without the state taking action against him is a completely different matter. Similarly, is your girlfriend impinging on your right to free speech if she leaves you because you call her a ***** everyday and tell her she's a 'worthless piece of ****'? No, of course not. Freedom from the acts of violence implicit in state regulation of speech is NOT the same thing as freedom from all consequences for what you say. In this particular case, we're talking about a call for a purely social consequence for a speech act, not a legal one, so the rhetoric of 'free speech', which applies only to legal situatios, doesn't apply.

By the way, if I were you I'd drop the moral relativism schtick and go down the moral nihilism route. It's the only consistent approach. But once you lose the crutch of appeals to things like 'human rights' you end up with no moral codes but social codes instead.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-03-27 07:20:04 UTC
Kara Roideater wrote:
But once you lose the crutch of appeals to things like 'human rights' you end up with no moral codes but social codes instead.

I want to love you forever and always.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2012-03-27 07:20:37 UTC
Chokichi Ozuwara wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Eve is about killing, thieving and backstabbing. Thats part of the game.

So is building stuff, exploring, team work, friendship and goodwill.

It is annoying to see people try to paint the game as some sort of training ground for sociopathic behavior. Almost as bad as people trying to claim that blatant harassment is not harassment, or that the EULA they agreed to, isn't something they agree with.

The game wasnt designed to be like most other games. In most other games there are rules to protect you from scams and people killing you repeatedly.

Eve was designed from the ground up to be a sandbox, for better or worse. It is up to the players to decide what they do in the game. It allows, and caters to people who want to 'ruin your day'.
Its true that it also provides PvE opportunities. But you're still thinking like a PvE player. You are free to do your PvE activities inside the same sandbox with the guys doing their PvP activities. This means you're going to get blown up and robbed.


If you came to eve just for the PvE content, you will not find it enjoyable. You must, by game design, be subjected to the possibility that your day will be ruined.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-03-27 07:25:12 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Eve was designed from the ground up to be a sandbox, for better or worse. It is up to the players to decide what they do in the game. It allows, and caters to people who want to 'ruin your day'.

That's also a cost of doing business for people doing PVE.

I really think the bittervets and PVPers have a super distorted view of what is really going on with thousands of players in hisec. A lot of us just like building stuff and making money, and accept the possibility of getting ganked as part of the bargain.

That doesn't mean we're justified in becoming sociopaths or homicidal in-game.

Terminal Insanity wrote:
If you came to eve just for the PvE content, you will not find it enjoyable.

Nonsense, there are literally tens of thousands of players who love the PVE content.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2012-03-27 07:26:50 UTC
Kara Roideater wrote:

Nope. You're still illegitimately conflating freedom from legal persecution with complete freedom from consequences. Do you really think that a salesman should be free to insult his customers, drive away business, and trash his boss without getting fired? The fact that he should be able to do such things without the state taking action against him is a completely different matter. Similarly, is your girlfriend impinging on your right to free speech if she leaves you because you call her a ***** everyday and tell her she's a 'worthless piece of ****'? No, of course not. Freedom from the acts of violence implicit in state regulation of speech is NOT the same thing as freedom from all consequences for what you say. In this particular case, we're talking about a call for a purely social consequence for a speech act, not a legal one, so the rhetoric of 'free speech', which applies only to legal situatios, doesn't apply.

By the way, if I were you I'd drop the moral relativism schtick and go down the moral nihilism route. It's the only consistent approach. But once you lose the crutch of appeals to things like 'human rights' you end up with no moral codes but social codes instead.

You are indeed subject to social consequences. That is fine. Banning someone in a game would be the equivalent of putting someone in jail or giving them the death penalty. That is a legal persecution. The 'authority' or governing body is punishing you by removing all of your rights, simply for speaking your mind.

Now for the democratically elected CSM position, he should be subjected to social consequences. If the players really don't want him representing them anymore, he should be dismissed, as he is supposed to represent their interests. (Much like the salesman is supposed to represent his company's interests). But in this case i think if you held another election, he'd be voted right back into place. (Similarly, if the salesman's employer is a racist *******, he might choose not to fire the salesman)

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2012-03-27 07:31:43 UTC
Chokichi Ozuwara wrote:
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Eve was designed from the ground up to be a sandbox, for better or worse. It is up to the players to decide what they do in the game. It allows, and caters to people who want to 'ruin your day'.

That's also a cost of doing business for people doing PVE.

I really think the bittervets and PVPers have a super distorted view of what is really going on with thousands of players in hisec. A lot of us just like building stuff and making money, and accept the possibility of getting ganked as part of the bargain.

That doesn't mean we're justified in becoming sociopaths or homicidal in-game.

Terminal Insanity wrote:
If you came to eve just for the PvE content, you will not find it enjoyable.

Nonsense, there are literally tens of thousands of players who love the PVE content.


And you're free to enjoy your PvE experience in eve, but you must accept the possibility that someone is going to come blow you up. That is what the game is about. Everyone's freedom to do whatever they want. You chose to play in this sandbox, and so you have to play beside the bullies. If you dont like the bullies, you can find a different sandbox.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Dhakgar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2012-03-27 07:47:15 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
Revolution Rising wrote:
He didn't say it in the USA for one. And guess what, the rest of us shouldn't have to put up with it even if he did.

And if he thought it was reasonable behaviour - then I just have one question ...

Why'd he apologise at all ?


WHERE he said it is entirely beside the point. Regardless of what part of the planet he was standing on, he should have the right to say whatever he wants.

Guess what, We shouldnt have to put up with a bunch of people dragging a suicidal guy's private business through the news simply to get someone else removed from our internet spaceship game. I'm offended. I'm offended that you've abused this player as cannon fodder for your selfish goals. YOU should be banned. YOU offended me.

Should you be banned because of your position? I think if we took a vote, the MAJORITY would agree mittani should remain. So that leaves you in the minority. Should the majority mob rule over you and your freedom of speech? This is why its important that people be allowed to say ANYTHING they want - Otherwise you end up oppressing people simply for not sharing the same views as you.

People have the right to say ignorant bullshit. Because if they don't, then we have no rights at all.



just wanna get this straight. if you're going through a tough time, your mother gets cancer, your wife leaves you and sells all your ****, and you get fired, so you're barely surviving in an apartment with a working internet connection just playing a game to relax, would you like to have someone stand up in front of thousands of people and say, "hey, harass this guy until he commits suicide"

btw, the right to be an ignorant **** isn't a right--- thats what civilization is for.
Kara Roideater
#49 - 2012-03-27 07:50:22 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:

You are indeed subject to social consequences. That is fine. Banning someone in a game would be the equivalent of putting someone in jail or giving them the death penalty. That is a legal persecution. The 'authority' or governing body is punishing you by removing all of your rights, simply for speaking your mind.


No. That analogy is flawed. If I say I won't play chess with you because you are rude to me I'm freely exercising my ability to choose my own social relationships. I have not done anything equivalent to the state using the threat of violence and imprisonment against you in order to force you to behave in certain ways. You don't play nice, I withdraw my cooperation. Similarly, whilst you are right that there are some analogies between the social structure of the game and that of a state, the analogies are weak, particularly at the level of consequences (I have argued before that there are genuine issues at the level of dignity and recognition though). Comparing the consequence of terminating a business/social relationship to the effect of giving someone the death penalty fails to make the relevant point because the death penalty has a very different, absolute effect. The death penalty does not just remove you from one voluntarily chosen social grouping, as removal from a game does. A ban from a game is not 'legal persecution' just because there is a relationship of authority (better 'dependence', since the relationship is entirely freely chosen), for the same reason that being fired from a job may derive from authority but not from law.

Quote:

Now for the democratically elected CSM position, he should be subjected to social consequences. If the players really don't want him representing them anymore, he should be dismissed, as he is supposed to represent their interests. (Much like the salesman is supposed to represent his company's interests). But in this case i think if you held another election, he'd be voted right back into place. (Similarly, if the salesman's employer is a racist *******, he might choose not to fire the salesman)


a) Votes are not at present genuinely representative in eve, at least not in the structure of the current elections where a 3% share of the vote can get you elected chair and where isk can directly and legitimately buy you votes. Eve is not a 'mature' democracy. That aside, I think you would find the result might be rather different if cast in terms of an up or down vote.

b) The social consequences need not be limited to deriving from the 'society of players'. Far more important is the social relationship of the particular player with the business, which needs to be set in the context of the business' social relationships with future potential customers, investors and the media. If they feel that they have been 'hurt' by these comments then they may well choose to take action by excluding him from their social group.
Kara Roideater
#50 - 2012-03-27 07:53:36 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:

And you're free to enjoy your PvE experience in eve, but you must accept the possibility that someone is going to come blow you up. That is what the game is about. Everyone's freedom to do whatever they want. You chose to play in this sandbox, and so you have to play beside the bullies. If you dont like the bullies, you can find a different sandbox.


This is a completely different issue and I don't mean these comments to be taken in the context of the Mittani stuff but there is a third option: drive the bullies out of the sandbox. If it is to be a sandbox, and not an institution for the protection and preservation of bullies, then there is no reason to suppose that they own the place. Now, how you would drive them out is another matter entirely ...
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-03-27 07:57:56 UTC
Kara Roideater wrote:
Now, how you would drive them out is another matter entirely ...

CCP is already working on this. There are a limited number of a-holes to grow their business around, every software company trends towards the "normal" customer over time.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
CCP Guard
C C P
C C P Alliance
#52 - 2012-03-27 08:14:17 UTC
Threads should have content before they are posted and they should be for discussing things like grown ups do. We even have rules to make that happen and everything. Locked.

CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer | @CCP_Guard
Previous page123