These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

exploit the game machanics

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2012-04-27 23:15:05 UTC
Immortis Vexx wrote:

A) The server stayed online
Your note about crashing the server from the EULA doesn't work. CCP had plenty of warning for this event and gave their full and complete blessing for it. The only way you wouldn't have known this was coming is if you live under a rock.



I would agree with you if not for the fact the very first thing goons did when they arrived at Jita was drop 100's and 100's of empty shuttles around the stations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the reasoning behind that. If that is not a very deliberate "action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System," I don't know what is.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#42 - 2012-04-27 23:22:53 UTC
Arathella wrote:
Immortis Vexx wrote:
Couple things...
B) Griefing does not equal harassment


Until somebody is pissed (and rich) enough to challenge it in the court. Based on recent rulings in the internet harassment cases all you need to do is to demonstrate "certain minimum contact" (e.g. intent to inflict emotional harm to the person behind the in-game character) in order for court to assert special personal jurisdiction upon the defendant based on his or her internet activity. What it means in practical terms is that the harassment lawsuit will not be thrown out by the judge and the griefer will face significant legal expenses and plenty of other unpleasant challenges regardless of the outcome.

That is, if the product or service being used didn't have a disclaimer that lays out the rules relating to the use of the product or service. There is no chance it would ever have to go that far for EVE, as long as the EULA clearly states game rules and policies. You can sue me all you like, I will simply print out the EULA, highlight the applicable sections with a marker, send it back to your lawyers, and never show up to court. Good luck.

OP, in response to your "legitment" question, there's no griefing going on. In EVE, nowhere is safe; you can be killed anywhere and everywhere. There's no exploitation going on either, as everything being done falls squarely within game rules.

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
Raging Beaver
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2012-04-27 23:45:27 UTC
Five Thirty wrote:
Vaal Erit wrote:

Wrong again. CCP states that all space is free for players to cause chaos and do whatever they want. High sec is not safe space never was and never will be. Nothing is being disrupted, travel and trade are happening per normal and people are warping and shooting and exploding per normal. It's called a sandbox, if you don't like it then the door is ------> way


While I happen to wholeheartedly agree with you here, saying "it's a sandbox" isn't an excuse for everything.


If you agree with what the man said, then you shouldn't be looking for an excuse.
LinearBurn Aideron
Hells legion
#44 - 2012-04-28 00:03:50 UTC
Lucy Ferrr wrote:
Immortis Vexx wrote:

A) The server stayed online
Your note about crashing the server from the EULA doesn't work. CCP had plenty of warning for this event and gave their full and complete blessing for it. The only way you wouldn't have known this was coming is if you live under a rock.



I would agree with you if not for the fact the very first thing goons did when they arrived at Jita was drop 100's and 100's of empty shuttles around the stations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the reasoning behind that. If that is not a very deliberate "action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System," I don't know what is.



that is what i was refering to thank you for pointing that out
Arathella
Corpus Hermeticum Inc
#45 - 2012-04-28 00:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Arathella
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

That is, if the product or service being used didn't have a disclaimer that lays out the rules relating to the use of the product or service. There is no chance it would ever have to go that far for EVE, as long as the EULA clearly states game rules and policies. You can sue me all you like, I will simply print out the EULA, highlight the applicable sections with a marker, send it back to your lawyers, and never show up to court. Good luck.


First, EULA (if it is enforceable to begin with and it is a big if) regulates the relationship between a player and a company - CCP in this case. Therefore it can be successfully argued that EULA is not relevant in regulating conflicts between players and should not rejected as a guidance in the case. Secondly, if you don't show up you are in danger of default judgement that almost certainly will not be in your favor even if the case doesn't have enough merit for such judgement. You lose the case and the claimant will have the right to collect the damages. I admit there may be challenges collecting it but you will have the pleasure of dealing with collection actions.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#46 - 2012-04-28 01:02:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Arathella wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

That is, if the product or service being used didn't have a disclaimer that lays out the rules relating to the use of the product or service. There is no chance it would ever have to go that far for EVE, as long as the EULA clearly states game rules and policies. You can sue me all you like, I will simply print out the EULA, highlight the applicable sections with a marker, send it back to your lawyers, and never show up to court. Good luck.


First, EULA (if it is enforceable to begin with and it is a big if) regulates the relationship between a player and a company - CCP in this case. Therefore it can be successfully argued that EULA is not relevant in regulating conflicts between players and should not rejected as a guidance in the case. Secondly, if you don't show up you are in danger of default judgement that almost certainly will not be in your favor even if the case doesn't have enough merit for such judgement. You lose the case and the claimant will have the right to collect the damages. I admit there may be challenges collecting it but you will have the pleasure of dealing with collection actions.

So you're saying that I can still sue McDonald's after chugging a cup of their lava-like coffee, even after they started putting "caution: product HOT" disclaimers on the cups?

The point is, the case is going to be thrown out after the judge reads the primer. You can't sue someone for damages caused in a video game, the whole point of which is to cause damage to other players. Well, you can try. The EULA clearly states what you're signing up for. Once you accept it, you're bound by it, much in the same manner as when you sign up for military service, or an MMA/poker tournament.

Edit: Yes, I know I won't actually not defend myself. But I won't fly over to another country/state to do so either. Australia or Zimbabwe can award the plaintiff billions of dollars in damages for all I care. Good luck collecting.

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
Arathella
Corpus Hermeticum Inc
#47 - 2012-04-28 01:20:13 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Arathella wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

That is, if the product or service being used didn't have a disclaimer that lays out the rules relating to the use of the product or service. There is no chance it would ever have to go that far for EVE, as long as the EULA clearly states game rules and policies. You can sue me all you like, I will simply print out the EULA, highlight the applicable sections with a marker, send it back to your lawyers, and never show up to court. Good luck.


First, EULA (if it is enforceable to begin with and it is a big if) regulates the relationship between a player and a company - CCP in this case. Therefore it can be successfully argued that EULA is not relevant in regulating conflicts between players and should not rejected as a guidance in the case. Secondly, if you don't show up you are in danger of default judgement that almost certainly will not be in your favor even if the case doesn't have enough merit for such judgement. You lose the case and the claimant will have the right to collect the damages. I admit there may be challenges collecting it but you will have the pleasure of dealing with collection actions.

So you're saying that I can still sue McDonald's after chugging a cup of their lava-like coffee, even after they started putting "caution: product HOT" disclaimers on the cups?

The point is, the case is going to be thrown out after the judge reads the primer. You can't sue someone for damages caused in a video game, the whole point of which is to cause damage to other players. Well, you can try. The EULA clearly states what you're signing up for. Once you accept it, you're bound by it, much in the same manner as when you sign up for military service, or an MMA/poker tournament.


You probably need to familiarize yourself with the recent libel and harassment cases related to internet activity before making broad statement like "you can't sue someone for damages caused in a video game...". Also can you provide a reference to a document stating that the whole point of EVE "is to cause damage to other players"? Not avatars and virtual property but the actual person behind in-game character.
Foxy Ferret
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2012-04-28 01:33:23 UTC



Dear OP,

The Mittani got on the blower to CCP and said

"My ego is such that I must rally the troops in an event which will cause many tears and put me at the center of all attention for atleast a week"

CCP: "How do you propose to do this Mr Mittani?"

The Mittani: "I fully intend to burn Jita"

CCP: claps hands together in glee "My god thats brilliant! Here's the matches! pick a date so we can test this ****"

The Mittani: "How's the 27th sound to you?"

CCP: "Fuq'n perfect, we will prep the servers and have concord at the ready"

CCP to their staff: "Boys, get ya spandex out, its potty time!"

And the new crimewatch system gets a full stress test free of charge in real time.

I don't know what game you have been playing OP, but it certainly isnt eve online. You poor thing Roll
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#49 - 2012-04-28 01:36:51 UTC
Arathella wrote:
You probably need to familiarize yourself with the recent libel and harassment cases related to internet activity before making broad statement like "you can't sue someone for damages caused in a video game...". Also can you provide a reference to a document stating that the whole point of EVE "is to cause damage to other players"? Not avatars and virtual property but the actual person behind in-game character.

If they didn't want players getting shot, they wouldn't have maintained the game's ability to enable this behavior. Killing other players in EVE is a feature, and not an oversight. Anyone is able to kill everyone, as many times as they want, wherever they want, as long as they do so within the confines set by the game's rules. This has been explicitly stated by the developers. So while maybe "whole point" isn't entirely accurate, "one of the main draws" is.

Also, I don't know the people behind their in-game characters. When I play EVE, I kill Arathella and take her ISK and modules; I don't kill Joe McRandom and take his dollars and car/house. This is a video game, and everything that happens in this video game stays inside this video game. If players can't deal with that, then they shouldn't agree to the EULA, create accounts, and play the video game. You can't objectively equate killing someone in an online game with cyber-bullying, which is, for the most part, now a real felony. Do note that ALL MMO publishers outlaw making real-life threats against other players, which is similar to threatening someone's life on Facebook, and not similar to threatening the life of an in-game avatar.

Most western courts seem to agree with this line of thought, as I'm still able to blow up your Bestower/kill your gnome warlock without my car and house being repossessed. Maybe in China this isn't the case, but then again, I'm not Chinese, and neither is this game.

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
DU1 -Sia
Lamorei Prosapia Vexillum
#50 - 2012-04-28 02:51:33 UTC
Hmm lotta legal talk.. as for the eula nullifying legal action the goons own motta "Here to ruin your game" damns them.

If they had said here to blow up your ships... fine thats the intention, but ruining someone's game is admitting guilt to griefing to the point of causing upset/emotional stress on purpose.

But it wont be seen that way due to devswarm.

Yeah reality is favoritism nearly every major change in the last few years has directly made goons have an advantage because they cried so hard.

Oh and no I don't live in highsec, all I do is pvp in null, weirdly with goons, but I'm sick of the bitching its worse than carebears.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-04-28 03:02:02 UTC
LinearBurn Aideron wrote:
I would like to know how its ok for a corp or a aliance to overwelming concord giving them free reign to gank people in empire. If i found a way to adviod concord, I would be warned or baned. Why is it not the same for them? Empire is a simi safe place for new and old players, however the players involved in the jita gank fest ther actions disrupted gameplay and created a bad experance for many players that do not want to be involved in there combat or war. I thought it is our choice or right weither we want to go in to low sec or not , however this was forced upon us with out any warning or concideration from CCP. I did not lose any ship or was even fired on. I am asking a legitment question how is it ok for one group to exploit the system, and not any one else. I would like a offical responce to this. Im not flaming or gripeing im asking a legitment question.



He just kept talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic so that no one had the chance to interrupt him.

But really quite hypnotic.



















and full of mistakes too.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Corbin Blair
Doomheim
#52 - 2012-04-28 03:20:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Corbin Blair
LinearBurn Aideron wrote:
I would like to know how its ok for a corp or a aliance to overwelming concord giving them free reign to gank people in empire. If i found a way to adviod concord, I would be warned or baned. Why is it not the same for them? Empire is a simi safe place for new and old players, however the players involved in the jita gank fest ther actions disrupted gameplay and created a bad experance for many players that do not want to be involved in there combat or war. I thought it is our choice or right weither we want to go in to low sec or not , however this was forced upon us with out any warning or concideration from CCP. I did not lose any ship or was even fired on. I am asking a legitment question how is it ok for one group to exploit the system, and not any one else. I would like a offical responce to this. Im not flaming or gripeing im asking a legitment question.

They didn't avoid concord. Bring proof next time you accuse someone of exploiting or shut the **** up. It's also not CCP's job to save you from other players. Do your shopping in Amarr for a day or two.

LinearBurn Aideron wrote:
the players involved in the jita gank fest ther actions disrupted gameplay and created a bad experance for many players that do not want to be involved in there combat or war.

They were warned well in advance and decided to stay in Jita anyway. Doesn't sound like they "do not want to be involved" to me.
Corbin Blair
Doomheim
#53 - 2012-04-28 03:35:48 UTC
LinearBurn Aideron wrote:
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Translation: JITA IS BURNING! CCP DO SOMETHING! NO ONE TOLD ME IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN!



well thats not realy my point ...... I just wondering why its ok for a group of people to disrupt game play and exploit the system is all if i did it as a private individual i would be punished or baned

Banned has two n's, and no you wouldn't. Know what system has the highest average ships killed per day? Jita. People have been doing this for ages, but on a smaller scale. It's never been against the rules and never will be because this isn't Hello Kitty Online.
Emoh Aidem
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-04-28 04:01:41 UTC
This event just shows the drawback to an over centralized market system. So those that don't tie themselves to a single system or small handful of systems won't even see it as a blip.
Immortis Vexx
Onyx Moon Industries
#55 - 2012-04-28 04:03:11 UTC
Emoh Aidem wrote:
This event just shows the drawback to an over centralized market system. So those that don't tie themselves to a single system or small handful of systems won't even see it as a blip.


Bah, thats all it was anyway. A nice, bright, and shiney fizzle.

Vexx
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2012-04-28 04:47:37 UTC
8/10

Very good job

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#57 - 2012-04-28 05:02:35 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
He just kept talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic so that no one had the chance to interrupt him.

But really quite hypnotic.



















and full of mistakes too.

I don't know about hypnotic, but full of mistakes is definitely true.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Arathella
Corpus Hermeticum Inc
#58 - 2012-04-28 05:47:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Arathella
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Arathella wrote:
You probably need to familiarize yourself with the recent libel and harassment cases related to internet activity before making broad statement like "you can't sue someone for damages caused in a video game...". Also can you provide a reference to a document stating that the whole point of EVE "is to cause damage to other players"? Not avatars and virtual property but the actual person behind in-game character.

If they didn't want players getting shot, they wouldn't have maintained the game's ability to enable this behavior. Killing other players in EVE is a feature, and not an oversight. Anyone is able to kill everyone, as many times as they want, wherever they want, as long as they do so within the confines set by the game's rules. This has been explicitly stated by the developers. So while maybe "whole point" isn't entirely accurate, "one of the main draws" is.

Also, I don't know the people behind their in-game characters. When I play EVE, I kill Arathella and take her ISK and modules; I don't kill Joe McRandom and take his dollars and car/house. This is a video game, and everything that happens in this video game stays inside this video game. If players can't deal with that, then they shouldn't agree to the EULA, create accounts, and play the video game. You can't objectively equate killing someone in an online game with cyber-bullying, which is, for the most part, now a real felony. Do note that ALL MMO publishers outlaw making real-life threats against other players, which is similar to threatening someone's life on Facebook, and not similar to threatening the life of an in-game avatar.

Most western courts seem to agree with this line of thought, as I'm still able to blow up your Bestower/kill your gnome warlock without my car and house being repossessed. Maybe in China this isn't the case, but then again, I'm not Chinese, and neither is this game.


Again if you make broad statements like "most western courts seem to agree with this line..." you have to be prepared to support it with the references to at least multiple court rulings on the subject that support this assertion. To my knowledge there hasn't been any judgement that established legal boundaries between virtual and real world. There are very few cases that addressed the issue indirectly - I may refer you to the Bragg vs Linden Labs case and the ruling in that case was actually against your line of thinking. A very interesting read if you enjoy this kind of stuff.

Anyway, the point here is there are quite a few grey areas that haven't been tested in the court and assertions like "griefing is not harrassment" or "everything that happens in this video game stays inside this video game" are uneducated guesses at best. What about ill famous singing ransom incidents? Do they also stay inside this video game? Or for argument sake let's say I make a racially charged remark towards an avatar that looks like a black person. Can I argue that it doesn't have real life implications and should stay in the game simply because I don't know the person behind the avatar? Where do you draw the line and stop applying real world moral and legal principles?
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2012-04-28 06:10:26 UTC
I'm taking the title of this thread as a command.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
GeneralDisturbed
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2012-04-28 07:22:58 UTC