These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Crimes for Unposted Policies?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2012-06-12 22:06:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Darth Gustav wrote:
While logically I agree with Tippia, the unfortunate truth is we will never have the GM's side as it pertains to this case.

CCP do not discuss disciplinary actions due to their privacy policy.
Occasionally they do. In this case, for instance, they could confirm that they have indeed expanded the newbie system rule to cover additional systems (and list them), or they could say that no, that wasn't what the warning/ban was for and confirm that yes, can flipping/baiting is still allowed in the systems in question.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#42 - 2012-06-12 22:13:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I'm quite sure GM's do their job
…enforcing rules that don't exist?
Are you really sure you think that their job?

Quote:
in between what a random dude write in this epic forum and the real reason why some GM banned said guy, I pick the GM side.
That's a slightly different problem: you don't have the GM side.
You have this guy's side, and if he was indeed warned and banned for the reason he says he is, then the GMs are in the wrong because the rule in question doesn't exist.


Seems there's one rule that should be quite obvious for everyone, GM's don't discuss about bans on this forum so, once again, I'll stick to GM's decision and don't have to know other thing. The guy posting should even get another ban for insisting and it's what probably he's going to get at the end.

Play rat/cat games means at some point you pass the limits and something happens, I know something about it, got Tanya forum banned for something stupidly simple and not even insulting someone or whatever alike when you daily see posts/comments that really deserve bans.
However seems someone with his army of alts whatsoever reported numerous times said post. Asked why, CCP Guard answered me and that's it, wouldn't insist no longuer, I just did what I had to: suck it up man up and move on.

If this account gets banned I'll ask why try to understand their point but will not insist and I've got an awesome news, It's -1 sub account for CCP and 15€ month saved for me. I see no problem with this if they think they do their job correctly.

brb
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#43 - 2012-06-12 22:15:27 UTC
I think what the OP is asking for is for a GM to set clear expectations in terms of what is wtfbannable and what is not. If what he did is in fact ban-worthy then that information needs to be shared with the community as a whole. If GMs are handing out bans for unclear or unwritten rules I see that as kind of an overreach on their part.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#44 - 2012-06-12 22:17:37 UTC
This debacle comes down to just one thing I guess, which CCP seems hesitant to answer:

What does or doesn't constitute a newbie and/or newbie-protected content?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#45 - 2012-06-12 22:18:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
While logically I agree with Tippia, the unfortunate truth is we will never have the GM's side as it pertains to this case.

CCP do not discuss disciplinary actions due to their privacy policy.
Occasionally they do. In this case, for instance, they could confirm that they have indeed expanded the newbie system rule to cover additional systems (and list them), or they could say that no, that wasn't what the warning/ban was for and confirm that yes, can flipping/baiting is still allowed in the systems in question.



Imho and really, quite imho, if they did not comment this "new rule" it's probably because this banned guy just said what he wanted. Until CCP says something about baiting newbs in SOE hig sec systems, you're clearly not transgressing a rule that doesn't exist.
Maybe someone can go through EULA and TOS to figure it out.

brb
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#46 - 2012-06-12 22:19:43 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
This debacle comes down to just one thing I guess, which CCP seems hesitant to answer:

What does or doesn't constitute a newbie and/or newbie-protected content?



Or maybe everyone is making an ocean of suppositions about something some random dude chose to say when perhaps he forgot to say "everything" he should Blink

brb
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2012-06-12 22:20:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I see no problem with this if they think they do their job correctly.
That is exactly why I see it as a problem: if they warn or ban people for offences that don't exist, then they aren't doing their job correctly. Making sure they know that is imperative.

I don't care one whit what the OP actually did — I care about the claim of impropriety on behalf of the GMs. This is one area where EVE needs very clear rules that don't change on the whim of the individual. If this makes people skirt the very edge of those rules, then so be it.

In particular, as is the allegation in this case, when there already is a well-defined rule, they need to be exceedingly clear if and when they change it.

Quote:
Imho and really, quite imho, if they did not comment this "new rule" it's probably because this banned guy just said what he wanted. Until CCP says something about baiting newbs in SOE hig sec systems, you're clearly not transgressing a rule that doesn't exist.
And imo, that's why they need to comment on it and say that either yes, the rules have changed (and here are the new ones) or no, the rules remain the same (and bait away). Being silent rather makes it seem like they screwed up and are hoping it will blow over.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-06-12 22:26:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
I see no problem with this if they think they do their job correctly.
That is exactly why I see it as a problem: if they warn or ban people for offences that don't exist, then they aren't doing their job correctly. Making sure they know that is imperative.

I don't care one whit what the OP actually did — I care about the claim of impropriety on behalf of the GMs. This is one area where EVE needs very clear rules that don't change on the whim of the individual. If this makes people skirt the very edge of those rules, then so be it.

In particular, as is the allegation in this case, when there already is a well-defined rule, they need to be exceedingly clear if and when they change it.



Well I actually care about what that dude said. He's making himself a victim while only him and the GM know exactly what happened and since this "rule" doesn't exist it's quite obvious he's just trying to confuse people reading/believing his crap.

brb
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#49 - 2012-06-12 22:28:29 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
This debacle comes down to just one thing I guess, which CCP seems hesitant to answer:

What does or doesn't constitute a newbie and/or newbie-protected content?


I wouldn't say it's hesitance. The thread has barely been up a couple of hours. For all we know they're drafting an official response...or a "this thread violates forum rules" sticker. I'm not making any assumptions.

I am not discussing specific warnings/bans. That is not my point and it just gets threads locked anyhow. I just want to know how far the rabbit hole goes in as-far as extending the "rookie system" envelope and anything similar so that I or my associates don't get wrapped up in future "random" sanctioning. If I was simply ignorant about something, then I wouldn't have posted.

I'm not out to "kill EVE" by killing off new players, but if my participation in things I've been doing for over a year is suddenly being viewed as against the EULA and might cause me to no longer be able to play internet spaceships, I want to know about it.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#50 - 2012-06-12 22:29:25 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
This debacle comes down to just one thing I guess, which CCP seems hesitant to answer:

What does or doesn't constitute a newbie and/or newbie-protected content?



Or maybe everyone is making an ocean of suppositions about something some random dude chose to say when perhaps he forgot to say "everything" he should Blink

The question of what does or does not constitute a newbie is valid regardless of the OP's independent situation. Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#51 - 2012-06-12 22:30:43 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
This debacle comes down to just one thing I guess, which CCP seems hesitant to answer:

What does or doesn't constitute a newbie and/or newbie-protected content?


I wouldn't say it's hesitance. The thread has barely been up a couple of hours. For all we know they're drafting an official response...or a "this thread violates forum rules" sticker. I'm not making any assumptions.

I am not discussing specific warnings/bans. That is not my point and it just gets threads locked anyhow. I just want to know how far the rabbit hole goes in as-far as extending the "rookie system" envelope and anything similar so that I or my associates don't get wrapped up in future "random" sanctioning. If I was simply ignorant about something, then I wouldn't have posted.

I'm not out to "kill EVE" by killing off new players, but if my participation in things I've been doing for over a year is suddenly being viewed as against the EULA and might cause me to no longer be able to play internet spaceships, I want to know about it.

In 9 years CCP has never, to my knowledge, defined what constitutes a "newbie."

I call that hesitance.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Alara IonStorm
#52 - 2012-06-12 22:32:19 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

Well I actually care about what that dude said. He's making himself a victim while only him and the GM know exactly what happened and since this "rule" doesn't exist it's quite obvious he's just trying to confuse people reading/believing his crap.

No it isn't obvious and yes CCP can respond to this. They don't even have to mention the word ban.

All they have to do is tell us if it is or is not a rule and if it is then where it is posted. Any action taken on this particular incident can be done in private such as unbanning the player or banning him further for posting lies.

No one knows what happened and no one but you is taking sides. Everyone just wants to know if there is a change in the rules and that is not against forum policy.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#53 - 2012-06-12 22:34:42 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
This debacle comes down to just one thing I guess, which CCP seems hesitant to answer:

What does or doesn't constitute a newbie and/or newbie-protected content?



Or maybe everyone is making an ocean of suppositions about something some random dude chose to say when perhaps he forgot to say "everything" he should Blink

The question of what does or does not constitute a newbie is valid regardless of the OP's independent situation. Roll



/agree with you my space friend.

However we are supposed to read Eula for game changes that might change without advertisement.

Just my opinion.

brb
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#54 - 2012-06-12 22:39:13 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Everyone just wants to know if there is a change in the rules and that is not against forum policy.


You can, all you have to do or people interested in that kind of activity is read Eula and see if it's changed or not. My guess is "not" and the real reason of ban is probably something else, but I do admit I might be wrong since I'm not interested at all in that kind of activity in game.

brb
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-06-12 22:41:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Sorry, but if what he did got him a ban or a warning, it seems you've been ganked by reality.
No. It means he got wrongfully banned and warned, if that was the reason given.

Can flipping is allowed in all systems, with the exception of the starting systems. The SOE arc does not take place there.


You will pardon me but:

1.) You don't actually know what happened.
2.) You're significantly less of an authority than a GM.
3.) Making absolute declarations about situations in light of (1) and (2) is pathetic.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Ignorance is no excuse and whatnot.
The problem here is that there is no ignorance, except on the part of the GM in question since (s)he is enforcing a non-existing rule.


Again, not to harp on the ignorance thing, but you don't know what happened. That is to say, you are ignorant of the facts. Now I'm sure this won't slow you down a whit, but do try not to lose sight of the facts and what you've made up. They're not the same.

Tippia wrote:
This is spectacularly stupid since, if they want to warn and ban people just like that, they are allowed to do so according to a completely different rule that wasn't applied here


Really? A completely different rule?

What rule and sanction was applied, and how do you know that?
Alara IonStorm
#56 - 2012-06-12 22:41:41 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Everyone just wants to know if there is a change in the rules and that is not against forum policy.


You can, all you have to do or people interested in that kind of activity is read Eula and see if it's changed or not. My guess is "not" and the real reason of ban is probably something else, but I do admit I might be wrong since I'm not interested at all in that kind of activity in game.

This is not covered by the EULA and has always been considered fare game. If the pilot is lying then all they have to do is say so, if he isn't then they need to tell players something that wasn't previously against the rules now is.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#57 - 2012-06-12 22:44:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
You can, all you have to do or people interested in that kind of activity is read Eula and see if it's changed or not. My guess is "not" and the real reason of ban is probably something else, but I do admit I might be wrong since I'm not interested at all in that kind of activity in game.
No, because the original rule was never in the EULA to begin with.

Malphilos wrote:
You will pardon me but:

1.) You don't actually know what happened.
What happened is irrelevant. The allegation is that rules that only apply to newbie systems are suddenly applied to non-newbie systems. This means they're applying a non-existing rule, and that they're being stupid since they have rules in place to deal with such cases and don't need to use non-existing ones.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#58 - 2012-06-12 22:46:41 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
When I'm "hunting" epic arc missioners, I will target BC and above ship classes and normally this means the character is 1 month or greater. Quite often it's more than 2-4 months. I am not out killing the 1 week - 2 week old newbs flying vexors and catalysts because there isn't any sport in that kind of "fishing."

But regardless the point of the post isn't for "killing teh noobs! I'm a terrible person!" I just want clarification on current rules that are being enforced that aren't posted anywhere as being rules. Prior to this, Arnon and other epic arc systems have not been considered a rookie system via the "anti rookie" policy. Enforcing policies that aren't made available is just bad taste because then how do we know we're breaking a rule if it was never declared a rule in the first place?



Yeah because your a vet after a month or 2 Roll

Unbelievable


Tal
Varesk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2012-06-12 22:48:13 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
How about this... Don't harass the noobs doing the sister's of eve epic, grow a set, and fight people who can and will fight back?



If they are running SOEs EPIC arc, they are not noobs.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-06-12 22:50:53 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Everyone just wants to know if there is a change in the rules and that is not against forum policy.


You can, all you have to do or people interested in that kind of activity is read Eula and see if it's changed or not. My guess is "not" and the real reason of ban is probably something else, but I do admit I might be wrong since I'm not interested at all in that kind of activity in game.

This is not covered by the EULA and has always been considered fare game. If the pilot is lying then all they have to do is say so, if he isn't then they need to tell players something that wasn't previously against the rules now is.



I understand your point of view and probably those gaming rules are somewhere else like TOS or whatever name it is.

However there's no public announce of changes for this precise fact as they usually do (like can flipping newbs in newbie systems), and at the end of the day it's up to us to trust or not this guy post. Until this supposed change is announced I don't, that simple.

Have you tried to petition about this specific stuff?

brb