These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP - Rookie System Rules Clarification

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#421 - 2012-06-15 20:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Olleybear wrote:
Create a place where people, when war decced, can run when things get tough and still fly their shiny ships.
…and do nothing, since there's nothing for them to do there that they can't do by just staying where they were and not undocking.

Quote:
A place where people can mine, belt rat, run missions, in 100% safety.
No. We're talking about the starter systems here. Aside from possibly some veldspar (which can be removed and the rookies can get their mining on in special mining tutorial missions which, afair, are illegal to scan down), there is none of what you just listed. So yes, you missed that little detail.

Again: turn the rule back to what everyone (including some GMs, I might add) thought it was before. Very simple, very clear, very void of any kind of vagueness stemming from undefinable distinctions between equally undefinable classes of players, and void of any impact on the universe as a whole.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#422 - 2012-06-15 20:14:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Right, you cherry picked your argument and we continued on without you.
No, my argument has been very clear from the get-go — very little cherry-picking there (well, aside from you picking up a few words and creating a massive straw-man out of them).

Quote:
And I'm not making any rules
…except that, again, you have to, because no-one else will provide them to you with the current rule set. You are the one who had to determine — without guidance — what a rookie is, thus contributing the missing piece of the puzzle. In fact, the rest of that sentence show how you are making up the rules as you go, thereby contradicting what you just said:
Quote:
I'm just using common sense while I feel my way through the gray.
…which isn't a useful foundation for a rule since common sense isn't common in any sense of the word.



Yes your argument has been very clearly one sided. Trust me, I've noticed how you have purposefully stuck to the one scenario and avoided questions pertaining to other aspects of the situation as a whole, hence why I moved along and continued with other people while you stayed and repeated the same thing time and time again, which is what I said the first time.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Olleybear
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#423 - 2012-06-15 20:14:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Olleybear wrote:
Create a place where people, when war decced, can run when things get tough and still fly their shiny ships.
…and do nothing, since there's nothing for them to do there that they can't do by just staying where they were and not undocking.

Quote:
A place where people can mine, belt rat, run missions, in 100% safety.
No. We're talking about the starter systems here. Aside from possibly some veldspar (which can be removed and the rookies can get their mining on in special mining tutorial missions which, afair, are illegal to scan down), there is none of what you just listed. So yes, you missed that little detail.



So we have a system(s) that dont have anything to do except for rookie missions and we can limit that to letting them do the tutorials once, twice or even three to four times to encourage them to leave those systems as there will be nothing else for them to do.

Is there value in having preset systems where a person can run to when things get tough? Or is it more like being docked and playing station games, which I can see the two being similar from a game mechanic point of view.

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#424 - 2012-06-15 20:22:36 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
So we have a system(s) that dont have anything to do except for rookie missions and we can limit that to letting them do the tutorials once, twice or even three to four times to encourage them to leave those systems as there will be nothing else for them to do.
Afaik, the missions are already limited to once, and then you're sent (or advised to go) to the career agent systems, which are covered by the same rule.

Quote:
Is there value in having preset systems where a person can run to when things get tough? Or is it more like being docked and playing station games, which I can see the two being similar from a game mechanic point of view.
For those running from a tough time, it will be no different than being docked up. If anything it will be worse since the “undock ramp” will be the far end of the outgoing gate from the system, where you pop up 15km away from safety, compared to 0m away when undocking from most stations.

It might be siiiightly easier to stave off boredom compared to just staying docked, since you can always go out and fly a few circles around the station instead of (or in addition to) spinning your ship.

THE L0CK wrote:
I've noticed how you have purposefully stuck to the one scenario and avoided questions pertaining to other aspects of the situation as a whole
Such as…?
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#425 - 2012-06-15 20:26:48 UTC
This is a remarkable example of one person deciding to be right no matter what. Tippia could argue with a stump about bark. If you can't define what a rookie is in your own mind, leave anything that looks like a rookie alone. It's not that hard. You only have to lean on arguments this hard if you want to break them or you want to prove yourself right. Some people won't be satisfied with any rule, that's clear from the fact that this debate just goes on and on being driven by one player.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#426 - 2012-06-15 20:32:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ban Bindy wrote:
This is a remarkable example of one person deciding to be right no matter what. Tippia could argue with a stump about bark. If you can't define what a rookie is in your own mind, leave anything that looks like a rookie alone.
No, this is me explaining a very simple problem over and over again to people who cannot read.

The issue is not whether or not (or how) I defined what a rookie is. The issue is that thus definition is subjective, non-universal, arbitrary, and without any commonality. It is therefore highly unsuitable as both guidance and a control mechanism — the two purposes a proper rule should be able to serve.

Quote:
Some people won't be satisfied with any rule, that's clear from the fact that this debate just goes on and on being driven by one player.
…except of course, that what I'm arguing for a very simple rule that would satisfy everyone except griefers. I don't what what that says about the people who so adamantly are against such a rule…
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#427 - 2012-06-15 20:44:10 UTC
I'm sure CCP reads this for what it is. Simply stop responding. I'm done
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#428 - 2012-06-15 20:55:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ban Bindy wrote:
This is a remarkable example of one person deciding to be right no matter what. Tippia could argue with a stump about bark. If you can't define what a rookie is in your own mind, leave anything that looks like a rookie alone.
No, this is me explaining a very simple problem over and over again to people who cannot read.


Which is exactly what Ban Bindy said. And what I said

I think my questions were around page 11 or 12. The original one to you was removed by the ISD guy which I don't understand why because he kept another guys same but worded differently there. but I asked it again to somebody else later on, who also conveniently ignored it. Funny enough, they've been on your 'team', if there is such a thing on the forums.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Haulie Berry
#429 - 2012-06-15 20:57:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Tippia wrote:

Haulie Berry wrote:
Why do people keep saying things like this? The GM in this thread has explicitly said that, while they would prefer you would not mess with rookies in general, it is NOT against the rules in systems that are not "rookie" systems.



Because they've said in other places, that it might not be ok — the the rookie system rule might apply outside of rookie systems. This creates maximum ambiguity for maximum confusion and maximum unenforceability: you are not allowed to attack a group of people (that can't be defined) in some set of systems (that can't be defined), except occasionally you might be (according to rules of judgement that can't be defined).

What he's describing is the logical conclusion of the “don't mess with rookies” rule. Yes, reasonably, he should have no problems with that incident, but as this thread has shown “reasonably” isn't a universal constant… So the whole idea of building a rule around that measure of “reasonable” is flawed to the core, and yet it's what people are arguing in favour of.


I haven't seen that said, exactly (though I'm sure I haven't read every GM post in every related thread there has ever been about this).

What I have seen said is more, "This is definitely not against the rules as they presently exist, but we still don't like it, so if you do it we'll just go ahead and make it against the rules," which is not quite the same thing... but is extremely silly in its own right, as it does create a very ambiguous setup in which something is defined as being legit on a micro scale, but illegal on a macro scale.

Tangent:

There's a thread over in Newb Q&A right now in which the OP (not sure of his age, but a retriever pilot) was invited into what was ostensibly a mining corporation. When he flew his retriever out to join his new corpmates on a "mining op", they locked him up, demanded an 8m ransom (Lol) and blew him up when he couldn't pay.

The player in question was clearly not yet familiar with things like corpkilling and aggression mechanics, so by at least some definitions, something of a rookie. On the other hand, he was old enough to fly a retriever (not that that implies more than 2-4 weeks of experience), so by the definition of other people, not so much a rookie.

The killers were not veterans (as i would define "veteran"), just based on the comedy ****-fits in their loss mails. It's a corporation of about 17 members, and I'm quite certain almost any of the posters in this thread could individually squish the corporation as a whole like a very, very tiny bug. They were definitely *more* knowledgeable about the game than the guy they duped, but not knowledgeable relative to even the average Eve player.

If the rule which (allegedly) should simply be understood is "don't mess with rookies", which side of the rule does this fall on?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#430 - 2012-06-15 21:04:56 UTC
Grinder2210 wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition


That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while.



But she also said this a few pages later


And missed that that part is OPTIONAL. If you miss some exceptions, and accidentally protect a few non-rookies, so what?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#431 - 2012-06-15 21:06:27 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie.
…and others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?



The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.


You have yet to define "rookie" with anything approaching rigor. How can we break a definition that doesn't exist?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#432 - 2012-06-15 21:08:09 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
Hey Tippia.

What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations?

Just curious what someone with better debating skills than I can come up with.


The enforceable definition I've come up with (that I think is what Tippia came up with as well) is "anyone in a rookie system." It can be applied fairly and equally in all situations.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#433 - 2012-06-15 21:09:21 UTC
Trappist Monk wrote:
Olleybear wrote:
Hey Tippia.

What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations?

Just curious what someone with better debating skills than I can come up with.

14 days or less, no player corps in history, no pvp history, no older characters on the account

pretty simple really


Not public information. The definition must be something players can use during target selection, if you're going to allow shooting non-rookies in rookie systems.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#434 - 2012-06-15 21:10:57 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie.
…and others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?



The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.


You have yet to define "rookie" with anything approaching rigor. How can we break a definition that doesn't exist?



Jeez, another one. Considering how many times we've had to repeat myself I'll just say to read any 5 pages in order as this thread is simply a broken record at this point. Other than that I can't help those who won't help themselves.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#435 - 2012-06-15 21:15:56 UTC
Ruby this is for you and Tali

Three women are about to be executed. One's a brunette, one's a redhead and one's a blonde. The guard brings the brunette forward and the executioner asks if she has any last requests. She says no and the executioner shouts, ''Ready! Aim!'' Suddenly the brunette yells, ''EARTHQUAKE!!!'' Everyone is startled and throws themselves on the ground while she escapes. The guard brings the redhead forward and the executioner asks if she has any last requests. She say no and the executioner shouts, ''Ready! Aim!'' Suddenly the redhead yells, ''TORNADO!!!'' Everyone is startled and looks around for cover while she escapes. By now the blonde has it all figured out. The guard brings her forward and the executioner asks if she has any last requests. She says no and the executioner shouts, Ready! Aim!'' and the blonde yells, ''FIRE!!!'''
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#436 - 2012-06-15 21:18:10 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie.
…and others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?



The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.


You have yet to define "rookie" with anything approaching rigor. How can we break a definition that doesn't exist?



Jeez, another one. Considering how many times we've had to repeat myself I'll just say to read any 5 pages in order as this thread is simply a broken record at this point. Other than that I can't help those who won't help themselves.


If defining a "rookie" in an enforceable way is so simple, what's stopping you from doing it?

Here's my proposed enforceable definition of a protected "rookie." "Someone In a Starter System." This is simple, enforceable, and clear to all parties. It has some negative side effects, but it all errs on the side of protecting rookies.

You want to propose something that protects fewer people, define rookie more narrowly. But you're limited to publicly viewable information because we're trying to stop people from shooting rookies in the first place, not just ban them after the rookie's had a negative experience.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#437 - 2012-06-15 21:20:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
THE L0CK wrote:
Jeez, another one.
No, he's been here pretty much all along.

Quote:
Considering how many times we've had to repeat myself I'll just say to read any 5 pages in order as this thread is simply a broken record at this point.
So in other words, you're going to accuse him as well of doing something he's not doing?

Quote:
Other than that I can't help those who won't help themselves.
That's the entire problem: you can't help yourself with the solution you've picked.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#438 - 2012-06-15 21:34:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Jeez, another one.
No, he's been here pretty much all along.

Quote:
Considering how many times we've had to repeat myself I'll just say to read any 5 pages in order as this thread is simply a broken record at this point.
So in other words, you're going to accuse him as well of doing something he's not doing?

Quote:
Other than that I can't help those who won't help themselves.
That's the entire problem: you can't help yourself with the solution you've picked.



Yes, I know. That white captains jacket is very striking and it makes one stand out.

When did I start accusing? Was it when I was making rules? I find it easier to just have people go back over the material rather than write yet another 3 pages discussing what we have already discussed for the past 18. But as I said earlier, like a mule.

But I did help myself and I've been trying to tell you that for several pages now. Did I not say that several of us agreed on terms and moved on? Is this thing on?

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#439 - 2012-06-15 21:36:26 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


If defining a "rookie" in an enforceable way is so simple, what's stopping you from doing it?

Here's my proposed enforceable definition of a protected "rookie." "Someone In a Starter System." This is simple, enforceable, and clear to all parties. It has some negative side effects, but it all errs on the side of protecting rookies.

You want to propose something that protects fewer people, define rookie more narrowly. But you're limited to publicly viewable information because we're trying to stop people from shooting rookies in the first place, not just ban them after the rookie's had a negative experience.


Go. Read.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#440 - 2012-06-15 21:42:30 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
When did I start accusing?
Pretty much from the get-go. You accused me of wanting to define rookies, when what I wanted to do was not define rookies, because it couldn't be done…

Quote:
I find it easier to just have people go back over the material rather than write yet another 3 pages discussing what we have already discussed for the past 18.
The thing is, you never actually answered the question, even when I asked it: how do you break a definition that doesn't exist? You also never explained how to enforce such a non-existing definition.

Quote:
But I did help myself and I've been trying to tell you that for several pages now.
…except that the solution you picked are, by your own admission, not actually useful.