EVE General Discussion

The OP's posts is fairly well written, though holds a hint of a lack of understanding of the basic game principles, a continual alluding to a distinct, though imaginary, injustice is present in all of your posts

The core argument being brought fourth centers on the case of a person using suicide, or physical harm, as a shield in game. The argument goes that if a person is lying, it is unfair to players to maintain a level of responsibility on the offending party. However, on a deeper analysis of the situation, you find a fundamentally flawed argument. Take, for example, a case in which a miner is being attacked and says he will kill himself if you continue. The offending party now has several options, broken into two categories; they can continue the fight or they can cease fire, lock and clear weapons.

Addressing cease firing first, the offending party now has many ways to approach the problem. Friendly in-game dialogue is always an option, though typical in-game dialogue usually results in a "u mad bro?" post. Emphasis is on friendly; reacting to someone threatening to kill themselves, developing a dialogue in which support and friendly assistance is given. The offending party then has the option of referencing the CCP in-game tool in which CCP can notify suicide hot-lines and other resources to provide assistance to the individual. Of course it is always possible to just fly on to greener pastures, there are many players in game looking for a fight or not willing to resort to such tactics to gain advantage. In summery, after cease firing, the offending party can degrade into a hate/flame war over someone using suicide as a shield, provide assistance or simply move on to another target

If the offending party decides to continue the fight, there are still many ways to resolve the situation. The typical "u mad bro?" reply, very common in game, can be used; sometimes devolving into a flame war/ posting that gets posted on the panel by drunks. A friendly dialogue in which explanation, truthful explanation not manipulation resulting in greater grief later, for the attack and friendly suggestions on how to better enjoy the game within the acceptable risk tolerances of the individual can be brokered. How many players have engaged into a friendly dialogue after an intense fight? It would also be very advisable to utilize CCP's reporting mechanism to further assist the player, doubly coupling it with friendly dialogue to support their RL problems. Or the offending party can continue, business as usual and move on without speak a word, as is often in many null sec fights, the offending party gets popped then podded, leaves the system without saying a word or any significant conversation

Ultimately, the worst case scenario becomes the individual is serious, commits suicide. The offending party is then brought into potential legal battles regarding the circumstances of the death. If the offending party used abusive language in posts, e-mailed threats or abusive comments to the player, or pursued them through the game world with the strict intent of causing harm, then there are a number of laws within several countries (some states within the United States, many European countries have these laws as national laws) that the offending party can be brought to trial under. Never mind that the transition from in-game to RL has become obvious and is in clear violation of the ToS/EULA.

Some murky cases are cases in which the player doesn't say anything or continues the notified abusive behavior while attempting to provide help to the player. Most of these would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. External evidence, such as OOG forums and other media regarding the player would be used in a court of law; such as creating a website or forum specifically focused on the harassment/griefing of a specific player. Many states within the United States have specific laws against these devices ranging from misdemeanor with minor fines to felonies with several years in prison.

The best case scenario (or worse case if you want to look at it in terms of the OP's argument) is that the individual is lying and achieves his/her goal by getting the offending party to cease fire, lock and clear weapons. The opportunity cost of this is the denial of a limited amount of fun, regarding the interaction with said player. There is the potential for this to begin to damage the fabric of the sandbox style play that has defined EVE, however, mitigation is possible through the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome, i.e. CCP attempting to identify players abusing the system. This would obviously have to be considered on a case by case basis, and a series of notifications regarding the nature of EVE and resources to help the individual with reported problems. On the event that a player is found abusing the system, punishment should be dealt with the same as any other exploit of established game systems

Basically, on one end of the spectrum you have the possibility that the individual will die, as well as possible jail time for the offending party. On the other hand you have the possibility of an in game exploit. I may be slightly canted in one direction or the other with my moral compass, by a human life is so significantly more important than a potential exploit of game/management mechanics that probability densities for the decision tree are irrelevant



Simply put, anything you do that has the potential to cause harm or push someone to cause harm to themselves is in no way mitigated by any rationalization of the conservation of the "fun factor" of your gaming experience. The idea that it is, frankly, is so far off my moral compass I cannot fathom a mind in which this would exist.

I'll just leave this here.

The term abusive behavior would be the behavior that induced the threat of suicide in the initial case. The intent was to describe the cases in which the offender continue to preform the action (this would be an element of EVE game play). In the case of market, it would be continually undercutting. However, with the market there are some caveats. As I understand it (someone with more knowledge of market functions may correct me) it is not possible to see the source of market posts, and therefore anonymity ensures that the individual is threatening suicide against the system not a specific player harassing him. However, for the case of contracts, the same rules apply as they do for combat. The pretense is that undercutting, targeting a specific player, is the same type of player interaction as combat is


However, my post was focused on the game play mechanics and choices that players have when encountering other players who initiate the threat of suicide, since that was the topic of the original OP and how ToS/EULA violations are interpreted
Abusive behavior (defined in the case as any behavior against another individual) can be focused outside of the game and have resounding influence inside the game. For example, a group of individuals creating a forum to establish bounties on an individual, coordinating payments/locations and other information, and utilizing then game as the vehicle for the harassment. The abusive behavior in this case is the focused targeting of an individual, though occurring outside of regular gameplay.

Edit: Because apparently I suck at quoting.

The existence of forums and selection of targets, victims, for griefing or focused targeting by itself does not constitute harassment, nor breaching the line in which in-game actions correlate into RL consequences. I brought them up in my post to introduce elements of arguments concerning CCP's actions against players who utilize OOG means to coordinate, and thus actively participate, in the abusive behavior. Instructing a group of players to attack another player, causing that individual to commit suicide, is a case. Each player, within the confines of the game universe may be an isolated incident. They may be across different corporations and have no in-game relation whatsoever. However, their collaboration to push the individual into harming themselves (the individuals in question would have to have known about the threat of suicide) in an outside media constitutes the harassment, and there are laws in many states in the United States about such constructs.

When these tools are utilized for coordination and collaboration in friendly/competitive fashion, they do not breach any form of law or ToS/EULA. It is when they are utilized to target, for the purpose of malicious intent, an individual that it becomes harassment and a breach of ToS/EULA.

Of couse , killing people over intraweebs spaceships fine, CCP said so

No , that you seem to think CCP have given you 'permission' to do this in no way makes it right , moral, or just

Alright. I think I got that, but need to clarify the next bit. For now, let's say that "abusive" behavior is enacted through some in-game mechanism - be it a Contract scam, space combat or other activity that pits a player against other players where the other player has threatened self-harm in some form



If I understand all of this correctly you are saying

(a) If this all happens in-game, it is okay to keep playing the gam
(b) If this is coordinated outside of the game, it should be stopped.

I'm not 100% clear on (a) so would appreciate it if you could clarify.

CCP has repeatedly said regarding the incident that any suicide threat they hear of will be reported to the local authorities of that player, who will then take care of the matter. I would not oppose temporarily banning them, too, myself.

However, that does not mean that verbally abusing players who are / claim to be suicidal is ok. It does not mean you can publicly humiliate them, or encourage other people to drive him to feel even worse.

If you really care about treating suicidal players right, then what The Mittani should have done when he received that mail was to
- forward it to CCP,
- not talk to that player again,
- continue playing normally, and
- not mention it to anyone else.
Did he do any of that stuff? Yea, did not think so.

So, if I have somebody down to hull after the third or fourth gank attempt and they claim they are suicidal I can carry on without a worry?

Depends wether you worry is one of general humanity or fear of infracting CCP's useless rules?