Assembly Hall

Unlike people like to think, what is "ingame" and what is not is not always clear.

For example, you are invited to speak on stage because of your ingame character is some high honcho in some famous alliance. You speak of another player character. You then refer to that player character's ingame mail to you about his out-of-game situation and encourage, while you are on stage and out of game, other players to take part in an ingame action in order to cause an out-of-game consequence. You are not clearly in or out of the game there, but a little bit of both.

As another example, I do not consider pointing and laughing in the game on local channels at someone who is obviously out-of-game upset about ingame matters, like losing a ship, to be "just ingame". There is a real-life out-of-game person trying to make another real-life out-of-game person upset for real, and it has gone beyond just blowing up their (completely ingame) pixelated spaceship. I know not everyone agrees with me, but that just proves my point: the rule "if it's ingame it's fair game" is meaningless, because it does not mean the same thing to everyone.

I am a roleplayer and I would rather you did not involve roleplay as an argument in this.

What makes roleplayer a roleplayer, instead of just someone who plays a role because in EVE you cannot avoid, is the separation between in-character and out-of-character, even when playing. An actual roleplayer is the one who is able to step aside when banter gets too hot for one guy, and drop the (verbal) being an *******, and go do something else. It's people who don't have a real grasp of roleplaying who think they should be allowed to do anything as long as they claim "it wasn't really me!!!!"

Again, I am in favour of that agremeent as long as it concerns gameplay. I think the idea that we must let anyone say anything to anyone else as long as they do so using the game client is laughable. Not to mention it is probably illegal in most countries - such an agreement would not be binding.

I can''t completely agree on this because this is the best way to let some important things loose their value and for some this should never happen.

How or when should we consider that calling a native born german SS is a cause or a reason to open legal sanctions?

How or when should we consider the Shoa and when can we aloud ourselves to use "words that don't hurt your flesh or bones" to play with and say whatever?

How or when should we consider as pejorative term the regular adjectives used to point someone's colour, origin or culture?

So to make it simple and to return to latest "biased thread" about Fanfest events, how and why should we consider collectively where the line is when we are already incapable to accept others differences and always think our own point of view is the only that should prevail?

Edit: while I'm a defender of liberty on the internet and in general because I think we're in a far police ruled world where our simple liberties are being lost by stuff like this discussion brings up, I also agree something must be done against people that have no limits or are incapable to impose themselves certain limits.

This conscience of what is good or bad being inherently dependant of each one's education, collective responsibility and charge of that education is as different as you can have nations or ethnic colours even if some traits are common we don't share the same values of life and we should start by admitting this simple fact.

But then I'll have to do a wall of text no one cares, witch is one of the many problems we can also add.

Without attempting to defend Mittens' remarks during fanfest, though it's in the same vein that we need to address;

'Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.'

Mittens didn't literally ask thousands of people to convince this guy to kill himself, he was using this literary device when making the comments (though I'm sure he wasn't thinking such while he was saying it per se, though the underlying thought was there). He was, through hyperbole, making a joke [albeit in very poor taste] about the fact that it is indeed just a game, and that one shouldn't get so broken up over losses.

Again, I am not trying to defend Mittens, I am merely trying to discern a line of thought which could be applied both in practice and hypothetically.

Which is the root of the issue -- who says what's ok and what's not ok? I'm on the side of the fence that says there shouldn't be anyone setting that precedent.

Which is why we need some language on the subject -- There needs to be a framework for those judgement calls, with additional language outlining EXACTLY -- and that's key -- what is a bannable offense, especially in-game.

I know there are international speech laws that are supposed to protect against cyber-bullying (though I am loathe to use the term because of it's blanket implications against negative language), and I know that CCP is legally incapable of nulling those things, however, as CCP DOES own the space, the isk, the ships and we are simply lessees; and that as a game with unique interactions between it's players, they can stand as landlords and inform those entering their space (read: New Eden) should expect x, and case y (i.e. making direct real-life, physical threats(e.g. 'If you don't drop that can I will come to your house and kill you')) will get them banned for z days.

To take this particular case, the gist of what Mittens said was to harass the pilot because it's fun to stress people out in EVE. That's the whole core appeal of the game -- Risk and stress management. Get too stressed, and someone will ragequit; but that is wholly and completely at the discretion of the person stressed out. The same goes for suicide -- it's wholly at the discretion of the person who is contemplating it to go through with it, and, quite frankly, if they fail to grasp the gravity of that situation, then they have external problems that stem way beyond the scope of the game.

The closest thing I can think of that can apply to this kind of subject would be the epilepsy warning that some games carry to alert those with epilepsy to the possible health risks that come with playing the game. I'd like to see something similar implemented in EVE to the tune of the present discussion.

Excellent find. I would just move it into it's own Window, by itself, to give it better visibility.

Productive thread is productive?

In most games there is a clear distinction between acceptable behaviour in public vs in private.

In private, Corp/Alliance/Private Channels be as bad as you want to be, it is up to the people in charge of those channels to set and enforce the rules for them.

In public, Local/Constellation/Help/Trade chat channels there are standards set and enforced by the operating company, and these usually reflect IRL norms for acceptable behaviour modified slightly for the game environment (what would EvE be without smack-talk in Local? but even such banter can cross lines of acceptability.)


Because words can hurt people, for real. Anybody who says differently is fooling themselves.

was mittani roleplaying up on stage? he had his +1 sexterity hat on, right? Maybe he was rp'ing a sparkly vampire? i hear WOW will let you rp. is that where he will get his rp'ing fix while on his "VACATION"?

Now what I keep asking me is: Why should some weirdo, who has some 20 accounts and real life issues and who is so connected to the game that he threatens to kill himself when things don't go his way be the responsibility of a player anyway? When CCP see a mail of a player telling some other player, that he wants to kill himself, isn't it THEIR duty to react?

I wonder, if people ingame start crying and tell me how sad their lives are and how they only want to kill themselves, what am I as a player expected to do? Stop playing the game like I want, just to comfort those random internet people that I will probably never even know by name? No sir, I don't think so. I will keep shooting and camping and suiciding or whatever it is that got the guy mad in the first place, and and I will invite all my scumbag-comrades to the party, because that is, what I do. Welcome to Eve Online, Buddy.

If someone can't cope with an internet spaceship game and wants to kill himself, thats a case for a psychiatrist or even the local authorities, but not for the csm, not for the players and not for me.