These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rookie System Page Update

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pipa Porto
#21 - 2012-08-27 02:24:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
As I recall, the two of you already tried white-knighting the griefers over 33 pages.
You recall incorrectly.



You forget, wanting more stringent rules designed to actually protect new players is "white-knighting the griefers."

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tiberius Sunstealer
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-08-27 02:36:48 UTC
I don't agree with protecting new playets but why not give new players (< 1 month old) an icon that identifies them as a new player if we are going to punish people for attacking them? Then players know who not to hit (if CCP explicitly state it).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#23 - 2012-08-27 03:04:50 UTC
Tiberius Sunstealer wrote:
I don't agree with protecting new playets but why not give new players (< 1 month old) an icon that identifies them as a new player if we are going to punish people for attacking them? Then players know who not to hit (if CCP explicitly state it).
It's the classic problem of identifying an individual player.

In essence, it can't be done because unless they start asking for birth certificates and biometric IDs, there's no way of telling who's behind an account. There could be some correlation done — multiple accounts on the same credit card, for instance — but even then, there would be false positives and false negatives. There's also the even more intricate question of whether they'd actually be allowed to identify individuals like that, but my internet-lawyer-fu is too weak to delve into that particular point.

It's also a matter of exploitability: any such system will be exploited and then the question will be raised about what, where, and when the rules no longer apply and contrary to hope and good intention, common sense will not be enough to resolve it.

The solution Pipa and I argued for was to simply not try to define any particular group and protect them — because any such attempt will end up being vague, conflicting, and full of special cases and additional inclusions and exceptions that will be too numerous to count — but rather to make the group so simple and so crystal clear that absolutely no ambiguity was left: everyone is protected…

…but only in the select set of systems where newbies do their newbie stuff. The abuses and exploits an older player can get out of those systems are no more than he can get out of a single NPC-owned station. This leaves us with a second definition that needs to be made clear, and that's what counts as a newbie system. Again, this can be answered with absolute clarity if one so chooses (and that's where the whole discussion started: because they didn't want to make any such clarification but rather to let arbitrariness and non-enforceability rule the day). That leaves a vast degree of freedom for the GMs to pursue griefers and miscreants because it's still up to their discretion to determine whether any given action or activity counts as breaking the rules, and yet the rule is very clear because there is zero question as to who is covered by the protection. Everyone knows whom not to hit: anyone and everyone they encounter within the protected systems.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#24 - 2012-08-27 03:33:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:


The solution Pipa and I argued for was to simply....


Annoy GM Homonoia with such gems as:


GM Homonoia wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"

Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer.



Yeah, seems like you two are pretty sincere.

Mr Epeen Cool
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-08-27 03:51:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
I think that what CCP has actually said, over and over, is that they don't give specifics because it makes it easier for these losers to find the loopholes.
…and no matter how often they say it, it's an idiotic argument that is at complete cross-purpose to what they want to achieve. Their unwillingness to clearly state the rules they're going to enforce means they create loopholes because no-one will know what to report and what not to.


1.) I don't think you know what CCP wants to achieve.
2.) I don't think you know what "loophole" means in the context you're trying to use it.
Pipa Porto
#26 - 2012-08-27 04:34:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tippia wrote:


The solution Pipa and I argued for was to simply....


Annoy GM Homonoia with such gems as:


GM Homonoia wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"

Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer.



Yeah, seems like you two are pretty sincere.

Mr Epeen Cool


Context. Noun. A thing that is important in discussions.


For instance, that quote was in the middle of a discussion on Sorities paradox.
To summarize:
Clearly someone mining in a Hulk is not a Rookie. Clearly someone mining in a Rookie ship is. Thus there is a line somewhere between where a boy becomes a man (so to speak). Refusing to make that line clear is counterproductive, assuming the goal is to actually protect rookies from harm.

Simply banning "messing with people" in Rookie systems and monitoring the logs for easily detectable cases* (so you don't have to hope that rookies will report something they are unlikely to know to report) would actually protect rookies effectively.


Since you want to question motives, I'll join in: Why is it that you're so opposed to effective protections for rookies?


*Bonus point. Just doing the first is better than the current situation.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-08-27 13:15:13 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:

Since you want to question motives, I'll join in: Why is it that you're so opposed to effective protections for rookies?


Rules, like CONCORD, don't protect anyone. They provide for punishment of the guilty.

What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies, it's protection from sanctions for the guilty.

If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk.
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#28 - 2012-08-27 14:27:03 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

Since you want to question motives, I'll join in: Why is it that you're so opposed to effective protections for rookies?


Rules, like CONCORD, don't protect anyone. They provide for punishment of the guilty.

What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies, it's protection from sanctions for the guilty.

If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk.


Okay, I'm just going to wait for the day you somehow stumble upon an undeclared rule and you get immediately banned for it without a warning stating that "we actually don't like this behavior."

Again, I'm all for the protection of rookies but when EVE supports nefarious activities and then random situations start occurring where some nefarious activities get you banned and some don't, and there is no way to know prior to said banning that such actions would incur those sanctions why would I keep playing EVE? I've left other MMOs for **** poor moderation of GMs where they arbitrarily banned people because they didn't like people.

The entirety of the SOE epic arc was not a protected mission set for rookie players previously. Now it is being enforced as such, but it is not listed. I don't even care about the definition of rookie, I just care for at least the consistency to state that the SOE Epic Arc is in fact off limits.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
ShipToaster
#29 - 2012-08-27 14:37:23 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

Since you want to question motives, I'll join in: Why is it that you're so opposed to effective protections for rookies?


Rules, like CONCORD, don't protect anyone. They provide for punishment of the guilty.

What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies, it's protection from sanctions for the guilty.

If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk.


Okay, I'm just going to wait for the day you somehow stumble upon an undeclared rule and you get immediately banned for it without a warning stating that "we actually don't like this behavior."

Again, I'm all for the protection of rookies but when EVE supports nefarious activities and then random situations start occurring where some nefarious activities get you banned and some don't, and there is no way to know prior to said banning that such actions would incur those sanctions why would I keep playing EVE? I've left other MMOs for **** poor moderation of GMs where they arbitrarily banned people because they didn't like people.

The entirety of the SOE epic arc was not a protected mission set for rookie players previously. Now it is being enforced as such, but it is not listed. I don't even care about the definition of rookie, I just care for at least the consistency to state that the SOE Epic Arc is in fact off limits.


It becomes a little more blurred when you realise that noobs can be at war and get killed by their war targets in a noob system while doing the SOE arc. Do you get a ban for killing war targets who are so stupid they go do the noob arc while at war?

.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#30 - 2012-08-27 14:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Epeen wrote:
Annoy GM Homonoia
You recall incorrectly, still.

Malphilos wrote:
1.) I don't think you know what CCP wants to achieve.
2.) I don't think you know what "loophole" means in the context you're trying to use it.
1. Yes I do. We've discussed it at length and we've demonstrated that what they say they want to achieve isn't achieved by what they're doing.
2. Yes I do. You're just confused because you think loopholes are something one-sided that only the ebil nasty people create.

Quote:
What you and Tippia are arguing for isn't protection for rookies
Incorrect. We're arguing for protection of those that need to be protected and open season on those who try to hide behind that protection when they're not entitled to it. We want the guilty to be sanctioned. We also don't want cowards to hide behind CCP's skirts.

Quote:
If you can't tell what a rookie is ( or want to pretend that's the case), screw with people at your own risk.
It's not the rookies that are the problem. It's the old players who will (and do) exploit any protection afforded to the rookies in order to extend that protection to themselves, when the protection isn't meant for them.

So why are you so afraid of getting rid of exploits?
Why are you against giving rookies solid and easily enforcible rules to protect them (and yes, rules do protect people if the punishment for breaking those rules are made clear)?
Why do you feel that old players should be protected by the newbie rules?
Torvin Yulus
Doomheim
#31 - 2012-08-27 14:40:04 UTC
you sre the rookies liten to the ccp crulebook

rhe ccp rulebook gives rhem the ideas

so whaT WE need to do is make the rulebookm thicker so that it cant be listend to as fast and then its fized

im a pubby and im proud
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#32 - 2012-08-27 14:40:43 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:

It becomes a little more blurred when you realise that noobs can be at war and get killed by their war targets in a noob system while doing the SOE arc. Do you get a ban for killing war targets who are so stupid they go do the noob arc while at war?


No, previously it was stated that a rookie who joins a corp that is at war (or goes to war) is not subject to the same protections as any rookie not participating in a corp that has war activities. Similarly, a faction warfare rookie is still subject to dying to faction warfare.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
stoicfaux
#33 - 2012-08-27 14:50:41 UTC
HTFU and adapt. The griefers should start trial accounts (aka "newbies,") run the SOE arc, loot the griefer's can, get exploded, and then petition to get the griefer banned.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2012-08-27 15:03:08 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
No, previously it was stated that a rookie who joins a corp that is at war (or goes to war) is not subject to the same protections as any rookie not participating in a corp that has war activities. Similarly, a faction warfare rookie is still subject to dying to faction warfare.
…and this was the origin of Pipa's and my argument for clarity. The exceptions are part of the problem.

CCP wants to reserve the right to toss people out at their own discretion for messing with the company's long-term livelihood (i.e. new players). What we're saying is that they can do this and still maintain a crystal clear definition of what's allowed and what isn't. The way to go about this is to very clearly define who the protected class is, and all the kind of “common sense” arguments do indeed blur that line. Sure, a newbie that is in a corp is logically a legal target, so that's a sensible exception, but how many of those are there? Before long, the list of exception will be quite large and will, in and of itself, blur the line even if each exception on its own is clear enough.

Now add in the simple fact that older players will try to take advantage of those newbies to piggy-back on their protection and/or expose them to dangers they should really be protected against. Is the poor newbie I've tricked into carrying 50 PLEX for me a legal target or are you messing with newbies when you blow him up and take his stuff? So our solution was to simply not try to define the category based on player or toon characteristics that will require any such exceptions, and in such a way that there is nothing left for older players to exploit. Thus we arrived at that final suggestion: define the protected class by geography, not by character. Explain to the rookies that right now, they are protected. Beyond these borders, that protection ceases, please press [Yes] / [No] to take the leap (or not).

We can have it both ways, but for some reason, CCP wants to make everything unclear even though they'd still have full discretion even with clear rules… because the rules already clearly give them that discretion.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-08-27 15:07:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Their unwillingness to clearly state the rules they're going to enforce means they create loopholes because no-one will know what to report and what not to.

What game are you playing...

can't say that i have seen anything that would indicate a willingness of players to hit the petition button in the EVE I play - derped and lost your super? petition for reimbursement; afk cloaky in system? everybody report him as bot; lottery ads in local too annyoing? report isk spam; hostiles spamming local? report all of them for profanity - CCP's bar for "abuse of the petition system" seems to be very high and as a result players tend to report all the things.

Claiming that they will not report something that might give them even a slight in-game advantage or cause some other person grief if the report is acted upon just because they are not 100% certain if it really does violate the rules is absurd.

.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#36 - 2012-08-27 15:11:21 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
What game are you playing...
I'm talking about the newbies who already don't know their rights. The explicit decision to not tell them this is why the problem exist.

You're talking about older players who have learned to play the system (something that they can do in part due to the lack of clarity).
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#37 - 2012-08-27 15:19:14 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#38 - 2012-08-27 16:55:41 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
This thread again?

CCP - Rookie System Rules Clarification


While I appreciate your posting in this thread, maybe read a bit? Last time Arnon was officially listed as a rookie system following the thread. The rest of the Arc is now being officially treated as rookie friendly, without the page being updated. The rookie system rules clarification does not apply in this case because those same rookie rules are being enforced in all aspects of the Epic Arc, not just the defined rookie systems.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#39 - 2012-08-27 16:56:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
What game are you playing...
I'm talking about the newbies who already don't know their rights. The explicit decision to not tell them this is why the problem exist.

You're talking about older players who have learned to play the system (something that they can do in part due to the lack of clarity).


I would argue that they probably won't find the page listing the rookie system and those rules when they first start regardless, unless it's shoved in their face on day one.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#40 - 2012-08-27 17:00:02 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
I would argue that they probably won't find the page listing the rookie system and those rules when they first start regardless, unless it's shoved in their face on day one.
…as indeed it should be.