These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#461 - 2012-06-16 00:15:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
I told you, it's back around page 12 or 13.
So what was the question?
You never specified one when I asked.


The question was in response to your statement here.

So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him?


Tippia wrote:
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense?
Because common sense is not common in either sense of the word, as the conflicting versions of common-sense interpretations in this thread show.


And we're back to the common sense discussion.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#462 - 2012-06-16 00:17:48 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him?
He doesn't.

Quote:
And we're back to the common sense discussion.
…since that's what lies at the centre of the undefined-rookies rule.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#463 - 2012-06-16 00:35:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him?
He doesn't.




Exactly. the original discussion dealt with the pilot who was scanning down players in Hek (?) who were flying the epic arc mission and he was getting them to aggress so he could pop them. This led to a supposed warning. Now he claimed that he only went after cruisers and BC's which of course takes some training time which many of us agreed upon was outside of the realm of rookies. However, evidence was brought forth that this was not in fact the case and he was in fact hitting week old players in frigates.
Then we got on to other scenarios when trying to define a rookie and it turns out that many of us are in fact on the same page with ruling out certain factors like an actual number of days to declare what is and what isn't a rookie and this discussion led to the far out there scenario's and what not. But I wasn't asking about those I was asking about the above. In fact most people in the thread agree on the conclusion, its the path going there that we can't agree on.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#464 - 2012-06-16 00:48:21 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
But I wasn't asking about those I was asking about the above.
…you mean the scenario that you never really referred to since it wasn't part of the discussion at the time, and which was also thoroughly irrelevant to the statement you were asking about.

So what's your point?
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#465 - 2012-06-16 01:20:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
THE L0CK wrote:
Words

Some information for you:

1. The OP of the previous thread wasn't the person who was the subject of the petition.
2. The outcome of the petition was later reversed.

People took tremendous liberties with the very limited information that was available and built a story out of it that wasn't even remotely close to reality because they wanted to make the OP out to be Satan. Talking about the contents of GM correspondence is bad and talking about petitions in ways that doesn't hideously violate TOS is always going to result in vagueness, but it would be super awesome if people didn't just make **** up because it fits the narrative that they have in their head.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#466 - 2012-06-16 01:34:34 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
Would you like me to type it again?


Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.

"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
#467 - 2012-06-16 01:48:32 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Mara Rinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


The current rule is that you cannot mess with Rookies in starter systems. Both parts of the protected class definition must be met to be eligible for protection. You can mess with Non-Rookies in starter systems. You can mess with rookies Outside starter systems.


That's right. Part of the definition is intentionally vague. The other part of the definition is concrete. The part of the rule that is intentionally vague is vague in order to prevent gaming of the rules by people who just want to find out where the line is that they shouldn't cross.

You can't define rookie by age of character, number of skill points, hours logged in or number of login sessions. Any of these do not indicate that a player has been through the tutorials or learned how to fly a ship. By the same token, having less than 1M SP doesn't mean that the player behind the character doesn't know what they're doing: that character could be intentional bait, it could be a disposable cyno alt: it could be anything other than a rookie.

Thus the definition of "rookie" falls to factors outside the qualities that you can perceive in-game, and thus the actual definition of rookie is meaningless to anyone who is not a GM. Attempting to find a definition that suits you as a player while still being useful to rookies and GMs is an exercise in futility: you are chasing an impossible dream.

So settle for the concrete fact that you are at risk of getting banned if you bait players in starter systems. Move your PvP elsewhere. If you must "PvP" in starter systems, be prepared to accept the possibility that the person who bought that hulk mining character has no idea about the rules of the game and has only been playing for a few hours.



You keep missing the thrust of what I'm saying.

The goal is not "ban people who mess with rookies." The goal is to protect rookies from being "messed with" in the first place. Banning people is an unhappy requirement to effectively achieve the goal.

To do that, you define the protected class, so that everyone knows who they can't mess with. It's the plot to Dr. Strangelove.
Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?


The whole point of keeping the banhammer close by the rookies is lost if you keep who you're protecting a secret.


Making the definition of "rookie" hidden from view means that rookies will be "messed with" by people with an honest belief that their actions were legal. It's basically making PvP around the rookie systems one of those Goosebumps Choose your own death Adventure novels.

If your assertion is that PvP should simply be banned from rookie systems because defining "rookie" is troublesome, then you've actually agreed with Tippia and my suggestions.

If your assertion is that legal landmines that will cause bans to people who honestly have no intention of harming rookies are good, please explain why.

I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule.

"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
#468 - 2012-06-16 01:51:32 UTC
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
Tippia wrote:
We have no definition and the GMs are not willing to provide one, so we have to make one up using “common sense” to slot into the rule the GMs have provided… except that this provides no guidance for how they will interpret the rule and how we can and should act in accordance with it.


But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense?


Common sense is simply not common (as in nobody gets the same result when applying it, not as in nobody has it). And Tippia never said it was common sense.

"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

Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#469 - 2012-06-16 02:30:37 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible.

1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list.
3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way.
4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded.
5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly.
6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias.
7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game.

The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing.



except now they're protected in systems outside that list..... #4

If game masters can see which players are NEW, and you want us to not pick on them, then let us see it too! And while you're at it, just make them invulnerable for first 30 days of new accounts or something. Let them opt out of course, if they want, just make sure they have to click like 5 confirmation screens in order to opt out. Shocked

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#470 - 2012-06-16 02:31:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
But I wasn't asking about those I was asking about the above.
…you mean the scenario that you never really referred to since it wasn't part of the discussion at the time, and which was also thoroughly irrelevant to the statement you were asking about.

So what's your point?


It was part of my discussion with others while you continued on about the hauler thing, remember how I said we moved on? Circling around yet again, we should just make a bunch of links to previous posts and communicate that way as it would be just as effective as this.

Some information for you:

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
1. The OP of the previous thread wasn't the person who was the subject of the petition.
2. The outcome of the petition was later reversed.

People took tremendous liberties with the very limited information that was available and built a story out of it that wasn't even remotely close to reality because they wanted to make the OP out to be Satan. Talking about the contents of GM correspondence is bad and talking about petitions in ways that doesn't hideously violate TOS is always going to result in vagueness, but it would be super awesome if people didn't just make **** up because it fits the narrative that they have in their head.


Yes thank you, I thought it was a heard it through the grapevine situation but I couldn't remember. I don't remember anyone other than the OP calling the OP satan though, I believe he brought that on himself. My point does still stand that he was called out on some of his other actions.
For the liberties I quite agree and would even like to point out that it is happening again here with people coming up with stupidly extreme scenario's. We see it in most threads, from war dec claims to financial situations. In any case that thread was locked and this thread was dug up to replace it with the same crap that the other thread had. Quite frankly I'm surprised this one hasn't met the same fate either as it's truly going nowhere but circles.


RubyPorto wrote:
Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.


I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong.

Go. Read.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?

Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#471 - 2012-06-16 02:32:05 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple.


No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria.



then give us a way to do so!



Basically you're saying this:

Don't break the speed limit when driving your car!

Then you don't post the speed limit.

wtf, we all go 5 miles per hour?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#472 - 2012-06-16 02:34:02 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:


If a "rookie" like that can take these actions he is obviously not a rookie and is thus not protected. Common sense; apply it.



And who wants to get that ban while the logs are being checked?


Can't we just make it simpler? It's obviously of great importance to you. Threatening customers with bans is not the way to manage this.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#473 - 2012-06-16 02:34:31 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:


RubyPorto wrote:
Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.


I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong.

Go. Read.


How is it wrong? Unless, of course, you're trying to send up yet another red herring to distract from the topic, as set by GM Hormonia of "How to Create a Public Policy to protect New Players."

"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

Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#474 - 2012-06-16 02:36:00 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
There are many many situations where a "new player", either a legitimate new player or a veteran with an axe to grind and a trial account, can exploit the system resulting in others becoming banned.

Off of the top of my head:
- Using a 1 day player/alt in a frigate to fight wartargets in a rookie zone
- Hauling overly expensive gear in a small frigate or industrial

Also you have situations where rookies who do not know what they are doing end up doing things like can flipping other rookies resulting in hilarious consequences and liberal use of the banhammer.

It's better to have people learn lessons the hard way than to coddle them through the game, because they will end up being griefed at one point or another. And if you're going to have player immunity, make it so that the rookies can't do any harm either, because you should know that eve players will take every advantage they can get to **** people off.


If a "rookie" like that can take these actions he is obviously not a rookie and is thus not protected. Common sense; apply it.


It's not out of line for a rookie to join a corporation that is wardecced or to haul something between stations for money. There are many other situations where a new player could legitimately enter a scenario where they could blow up or blow someone else up due to the hands of another player in EvE Online, a spaceship game designed around blowing other spaceships.


And this is why we will not define what a rookie is. Once again, common sense; a rookie involves himself in a war, perhaps not so rookie anymore. Now, stop coming up with hypothetical situations and apply some common sense.


Or just ban remove the flagging for jetcans in those systems? There has to be a way to make this self-managing. That' make it easier for both us and you!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#475 - 2012-06-16 02:36:47 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:


RubyPorto wrote:
Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.


I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong.

Go. Read.


How is it wrong? Unless, of course, you're trying to send up yet another red herring to distract from the topic, as set by GM Hormonia of "How to Create a Public Policy to protect New Players."



Well first of all, you put enforceable definition. Show me where I said that. Once we figure that out I'll go on to the next incorrect portion.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?

Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2012-06-16 02:37:11 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?



First, if it's that important, then it probably deserves some development time.


Conversely if it deserves zero development time, then it is not that important, and just let it go.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#477 - 2012-06-16 02:38:25 UTC
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.



people get kicked out of noobie help chat after 30 days, so I would assume they're not a noob anymore by your defintion.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#478 - 2012-06-16 02:45:01 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:


RubyPorto wrote:
Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.


I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong.

Go. Read.


How is it wrong? Unless, of course, you're trying to send up yet another red herring to distract from the topic, as set by GM Hormonia of "How to Create a Public Policy to protect New Players."



Well first of all, you put enforceable definition. Show me where I said that. Once we figure that out I'll go on to the next incorrect portion.


That's the topic at hand. If you're simply making off topic remarks, see sentence 2 of my earlier post.

"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
#479 - 2012-06-16 03:19:32 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:


RubyPorto wrote:
Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.


I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong.

Go. Read.


How is it wrong? Unless, of course, you're trying to send up yet another red herring to distract from the topic, as set by GM Hormonia of "How to Create a Public Policy to protect New Players."



Well first of all, you put enforceable definition. Show me where I said that. Once we figure that out I'll go on to the next incorrect portion.


That's the topic at hand. If you're simply making off topic remarks, see sentence 2 of my earlier post.



See, you couldn't find me saying that. Second issue is that you do not understand the meaning of I cannot help you. You took my quote to Tippia and thought that it somehow applied to you. I already told you to go read. Now go. Read.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#480 - 2012-06-16 03:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
THE L0CK wrote:

See, you couldn't find me saying that. Second issue is that you do not understand the meaning of I cannot help you. You took my quote to Tippia and thought that it somehow applied to you. I already told you to go read. Now go. Read.


You. Read.




THE L0CK wrote:

Tippia wrote:

QUOTE: I did answer the question but it wasn't the answer you wanted so you ask again. I can retype the answer/QUOTE*

…because you didn't actually answer the question: how can you break a definition that doesn't exist? How can you enforce such a non-existing definition?
Please do.


I already told you, the stupidly extreme scenario is not the one that I was discussing. Would you like me to type it again?


Tippia asks you a question about enforcement based on a definition. She calls you out on your earlier willingness to retype your answer. You claim again your willingness to type the answer to her question again.


RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Would you like me to type it again?


Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.


I call you on that willingness.


*Stupid quote limits.

"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