These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#481 - 2012-06-16 03:39:13 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
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.



Good read but I wouldn't use wikipedia personally, can be modified by anyone. Oh and speaking of off topic remarks.....

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#482 - 2012-06-16 03:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
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.



Good read but I wouldn't use wikipedia personally, can be modified by anyone. Oh and speaking of off topic remarks.....


Unfortunately, the full text of the article is behind a paywall, but the academic journal, Nature, published a study in 2005 on Wikipedia's accuracy which found that it was of similar accuracy to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

In addition, for that specific term, I can cite several other sources.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignoratio.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoratio%20elenchi
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

All of which agree on what the Fallacy is.

"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
#483 - 2012-06-16 03:56:33 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
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.



Good read but I wouldn't use wikipedia personally, can be modified by anyone. Oh and speaking of off topic remarks.....


Unfortunately, the full text of the article is behind a paywall, but the academic journal, Nature, published a study in 2005 on Wikipedia's accuracy which found that it was of similar accuracy to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

In addition, for that specific term, I can cite several other sources.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignoratio.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoratio%20elenchi
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

All of which agree on what the Fallacy is.



That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#484 - 2012-06-16 03:59:40 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:

That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?


It has to do with your conduct during this thread. Hopefully, calling attention to it will allow you to avoid the problematic conduct.

Now, the topic is "How to create a public policy to protect Rookies in Rookie systems with zero Dev time"

You have claimed that defining rookies is impossible. So how then would you create a public policy to define them?

"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
#485 - 2012-06-16 04:04:13 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:

That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?


It has to do with your conduct during this thread. Hopefully, calling attention to it will allow you to avoid the problematic conduct.

Now, the topic is "How to create a public policy to protect Rookies in Rookie systems with zero Dev time"

You have claimed that defining rookies is impossible. So how then would you create a public policy to define them?



I wrote a small portion back about a dozen pages or so ago, go look it up.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#486 - 2012-06-16 04:13:13 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:

That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?


It has to do with your conduct during this thread. Hopefully, calling attention to it will allow you to avoid the problematic conduct.

Now, the topic is "How to create a public policy to protect Rookies in Rookie systems with zero Dev time"

You have claimed that defining rookies is impossible. So how then would you create a public policy to define them?



I wrote a small portion back about a dozen pages or so ago, go look it up.


Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this:


THE L0CK wrote:
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?


Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed.

Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis.


You suggest that it's handled on a case by case basis. That is not a public policy.

If you're thinking of something else, link it.

"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
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#487 - 2012-06-16 04:19:03 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule.


I can't think of any "externally facing" rule that wouldn't be gamed by people to get innocent gankers such as yourself banned.

Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:

  1. Is flying a T1 frigate
  2. Is younger than three months
  3. Has fitting modules fitted (e.g.: coprocessor, MAPC, power diagnostic system)
  4. Is mining in a combat ship, or has weapons mounted on a mining ship (e.g.: someone trying to do the combat tutorials in a Navitas)
  5. Has civilian modules fitted
  6. Is carrying cargo only spawned in tutorial missions (encrypted codex or some such)
  7. Is a member of a starter NPC corporation


Of course, any definition that we as players come up with will necessarily conflict with whatever definition the GMs are using. At least this definition realistically allows any player to determine "rookie status" through in-game inspection of the other pilot. It can be gamed by having an older character flying a frigate with civilian modules and a PDS fitted: but then if you intentionally aggress a 4yo character flying a merlin with civilian modules fitted, you deserve what you get.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#488 - 2012-06-16 04:22:51 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this:


THE L0CK wrote:
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?


Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed.

Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis.


You suggest that it's handled on a case by case basis. That is not a public policy.

If you're thinking of something else, link it.


\o/ He found it! One step to betterment.

Yes, the terms can baiting and can flipping were one of the much discussed items as the GM's appeared to be flipping the terms around. We were on a couple of other discussions as well to which I added a little here and there, those are optional to look up but just remember this discussion isn't narrowed down to one sole topic. Good day to you sir and good work.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#489 - 2012-06-16 04:23:52 UTC
Does anyone here think,"Tippia" resembles Bill Clinton during the Monica Liwinski trials?

Personally I hate lawyers, and the like. My personal opinion is place them all on the "B" ark, and set them on there way.
All else can board the "A" ark. (inside joke). They haven't got a lick of common sense, as many of these discussions have demonstrated.

I personally find it pretty scary that these misconceived, argumentative, confused people are placed in so many high political positions in most country's. I personally think it's pretty horrifying.

We should give this a rest, and take the high ground. These two, have pretty single handed worked hard to keep this thread alive, only for one purpose. So once the thread settles, Tippia can simply call for the situation to be rolled back, to previous. Just watch.

To be honest, I alone do not have the time to focus on keeping these folks in check. Honestly I'm pretty proud many are holding there ground here, and picking up the ball to run with it. But to be honest I'm not certain we even need to do it.

The basic simple fact is, EvE is an institution created to make money. Really it is that simple. CCP isn't going to let Ruby, Tippia, or anyone for that matter jeopardize that. No matter what tact they take. You can rest assured of that.

If the new players are not allowed to get a foothold, and enjoy the game, and spend cash dollars to purchase there subscriptions. This is a loose loose situation for CCP, and they're not going to let this happen. I'm certain of it.

So I think a little quitness is in order. Have faith in CCP in this area. Serious money is at stake.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#490 - 2012-06-16 04:29:59 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule.


I can't think of any "externally facing" rule that wouldn't be gamed by people to get innocent gankers such as yourself banned.


I can. Ban (and enforce the ban) on ALL "messing with" of ALL characters in Rookie systems.

Quote:

Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:

  1. Is flying a T1 frigate
  2. Is younger than three months
  3. Has fitting modules fitted (e.g.: coprocessor, MAPC, power diagnostic system)
  4. Is mining in a combat ship, or has weapons mounted on a mining ship (e.g.: someone trying to do the combat tutorials in a Navitas)
  5. Has civilian modules fitted
  6. Is carrying cargo only spawned in tutorial missions (encrypted codex or some such)
  7. Is a member of a starter NPC corporation


Of course, any definition that we as players come up with will necessarily conflict with whatever definition the GMs are using. At least this definition realistically allows any player to determine "rookie status" through in-game inspection of the other pilot. It can be gamed by having an older character flying a frigate with civilian modules and a PDS fitted: but then if you intentionally aggress a 4yo character flying a merlin with civilian modules fitted, you deserve what you get.


That is a heck of a list of things, and while requiring both a ship scanner and a cargo scanner (and eidetic memory of the tutorial missions) is fairly onerous. That definition is a definition that works. It's clear, it's knowable by publicly viewable information, and it probably* covers the people we want to protect.

As for conflicting with GMs definition, that's fine. So long as the public set of protected person entirely includes the private set of protected persons, it's fine. The point is to give fair warning that you're doing something that makes the GMs mad.

The ideal is to simply protect all those in the public set so that people don't go ganking to probe out what the private set is.

*The GMs would have to figure out if there are any people in need of protection that wouldn't fall under your definition. If there are, they'd need to alter your definition to cover them

"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
#491 - 2012-06-16 04:35:07 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this:


THE L0CK wrote:
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?


Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed.

Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis.


You suggest that it's handled on a case by case basis. That is not a public policy.

If you're thinking of something else, link it.


\o/ He found it! One step to betterment.

Yes, the terms can baiting and can flipping were one of the much discussed items as the GM's appeared to be flipping the terms around. We were on a couple of other discussions as well to which I added a little here and there, those are optional to look up but just remember this discussion isn't narrowed down to one sole topic. Good day to you sir and good work.


The topic at hand is the one you quoted GM Hormonia on in the quote you're so excited I found. So the fact that you were (somewhat) on point does not mean you successfully answered the topic.

So, let me try your tack. Look Up. Read what you quote. Answer the nice GM lady's question.

EDIT: Also, "You suggest that it's handled on a case by case basis. That is not a public policy." this.

"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
#492 - 2012-06-16 04:36:20 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:

The basic simple fact is, EvE is an institution created to make money. Really it is that simple. CCP isn't going to let Ruby, Tippia, or anyone for that matter jeopardize that. No matter what tact they take. You can rest assured of that.

If the new players are not allowed to get a foothold, and enjoy the game, and spend cash dollars to purchase there subscriptions. This is a loose loose situation for CCP, and they're not going to let this happen. I'm certain of it.

So I think a little quitness is in order. Have faith in CCP in this area. Serious money is at stake.


When have we ever indicated anything other than a desire to protect newbies and help EvE?

"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
#493 - 2012-06-16 04:40:00 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this:


THE L0CK wrote:
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?


Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed.

Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis.


You suggest that it's handled on a case by case basis. That is not a public policy.

If you're thinking of something else, link it.


\o/ He found it! One step to betterment.

Yes, the terms can baiting and can flipping were one of the much discussed items as the GM's appeared to be flipping the terms around. We were on a couple of other discussions as well to which I added a little here and there, those are optional to look up but just remember this discussion isn't narrowed down to one sole topic. Good day to you sir and good work.


The topic at hand is the one you quoted GM Hormonia on in the quote you're so excited I found. So the fact that you were (somewhat) on point does not mean you successfully answered the topic.

So, let me try your tack. Look Up. Read what you quote. Answer the nice GM lady's question.


I alone cannot make such a heavy decision. As this would regulate what the people do it is up to the people as whole to come together and come up with what the GM asked for. I did but a small part here and elsewhere not seen by your eyes.

Now I said good day sir.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#494 - 2012-06-16 04:45:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
Ruby, You want to corral the new players in a specific area,

This implies to me that the second they get bored and venture out of that system there fair game so to speak. I just disagree with that basically, probably not completely though. No disrespect to you. However this settles out, you and I'll be just fine. I think Tippia may have a stroke though, if she doesn't get this rolled back.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#495 - 2012-06-16 04:46:19 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:


I alone cannot make such a heavy decision. As this would regulate what the people do it is up to the people as whole to come together and come up with what the GM asked for. I did but a small part here and elsewhere not seen by your eyes.

Now I said good day sir.



We're fine on banning can games in newbie systems.

The problematic suggestion is handling things on a case-by-case basis. What benefit does that have over a blanket prohibition of "messing with" in newbie systems, or a sensitive* definition of a newbie?


*in case you're wondering why I use this word a lot, read up on Sensitivity vs Specificity using whatever source you prefer.

"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
#496 - 2012-06-16 04:51:12 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
Ruby, You want to corral the new players in a specific area,

This implies to me that the second they get bored and venture out of that system there fair game so to speak. I just disagree with that basically, probably not completely though. No disrespect to you. However this settles out, you and I'll be just fine. I think Tippia may have a stroke though, if she doesn't get this rolled back though.


That's the rule as it is currently written (as far as not being safe outside listed newbie systems). This is EvE. The general guiding principle is that nobody is safe anywhere. The newbie systems are an exception to that, a safe haven so to speak, to protect those who are, as GM Hormonia said, learning to right click in space.

I want to provide newbies with just enough safety that they can figure out how to work the ships, then boot them out soon so that their first losses are small and easy to recover from. Someone who learns about can-flip mechanics by dying in a free Bantam on day 3 is much more likely to stay in the game than someone wh first learns about them by dying in their first Hulk on day 70.

"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
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#497 - 2012-06-16 04:53:04 UTC
I think I agree with your position there. Have a nice night Love Boat Captain. Twisted
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#498 - 2012-06-16 04:58:23 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
I think I agree with your position there. Have a nice night Love Boat Captain. Twisted


Sweet. We have a starting point. Now we just need to hammer that into a workable policy.

Aye-Aye, it's time to sleep. Policy-wonkery can wait until tomorrow.

"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
#499 - 2012-06-16 05:03:08 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:


I alone cannot make such a heavy decision. As this would regulate what the people do it is up to the people as whole to come together and come up with what the GM asked for. I did but a small part here and elsewhere not seen by your eyes.

Now I said good day sir.



We're fine on banning can games in newbie systems.

The problematic suggestion is handling things on a case-by-case basis. What benefit does that have over a blanket prohibition of "messing with" in newbie systems, or a sensitive* definition of a newbie?


*in case you're wondering why I use this word a lot, read up on Sensitivity vs Specificity using whatever source you prefer.


When I wrote that it was in regards to a blanket ban comment made by a dev which implied that the can games on anyone in the system will get you a ban. However not everybody in a newbie system is a newbie as the OP of this thread has pointed out. The other half of that remark went to spread on to those running the EAM. Just as was ppointed out the ban was overturned according to the other poster so circumstances arose that changed the result. If CCP believes it is was the better judgement then great. If they believe somebody is specifically targeting week old numbs, and as a fellow scanner of ships I know they would be, then perhaps a ban would be appropriate. But that is where my leniency for newbies ends.
Hauling goods, mining, running regular missions, exploring, piracy, whatever, they're fair game just like the rest of us.

As I said many times in this thread, many of us are on the same page, we just can't agree on how to get to it.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#500 - 2012-06-16 05:35:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Grinder2210
RubyPorto wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule.


I can't think of any "externally facing" rule that wouldn't be gamed by people to get innocent gankers such as yourself banned.


I can. Ban (and enforce the ban) on ALL "messing with" of ALL characters in Rookie systems.

Quote:

Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:

  1. Is flying a T1 frigate
  2. Is younger than three months
  3. Has fitting modules fitted (e.g.: coprocessor, MAPC, power diagnostic system)
  4. Is mining in a combat ship, or has weapons mounted on a mining ship (e.g.: someone trying to do the combat tutorials in a Navitas)
  5. Has civilian modules fitted
  6. Is carrying cargo only spawned in tutorial missions (encrypted codex or some such)
  7. Is a member of a starter NPC corporation


Of course, any definition that we as players come up with will necessarily conflict with whatever definition the GMs are using. At least this definition realistically allows any player to determine "rookie status" through in-game inspection of the other pilot. It can be gamed by having an older character flying a frigate with civilian modules and a PDS fitted: but then if you intentionally aggress a 4yo character flying a merlin with civilian modules fitted, you deserve what you get.


That is a heck of a list of things, and while requiring both a ship scanner and a cargo scanner (and eidetic memory of the tutorial missions) is fairly onerous. That definition is a definition that works. It's clear, it's knowable by publicly viewable information, and it probably* covers the people we want to protect.

As for conflicting with GMs definition, that's fine. So long as the public set of protected person entirely includes the private set of protected persons, it's fine. The point is to give fair warning that you're doing something that makes the GMs mad.

The ideal is to simply protect all those in the public set so that people don't go ganking to probe out what the private set is.

*The GMs would have to figure out if there are any people in need of protection that wouldn't fall under your definition. If there are, they'd need to alter your definition to cover them


Well i personaly dont belave the guy flying a faction fit bc or bs a few weeks or even days into the game should be concidered a rookie ...