Crime & Punishment

It is entirely about interaction. Bumping is one form of it, and I've yet to see anyone explain how it is bad for the game, rather than simply inconvenient for the individual. I'd offer an example, as I realise English isn't your first language and I really do want to help you get your point across, but I'm concerned of running afoul of ISD Whatshisname a second time in one thread.

Also, killing people who don't comply with my in-game demands is entirely within the current EULA. Filing a petition when I could instead use in-game tools to resolve the issue myself simply clogs up the petition queue and means GMs spend their time on nonsense instead of real issues.



Until CCP take the nerfhammer to them, lies and scams are perfectly acceptable in Eve. So is bumping and ganking people regardless of whether they're AFK or not. As for what you call spam, most of it is actually good-natured roleplay, banter and some fairly interesting conversation.

I actually think what New Order is doing is ingenious, and a great display of creativity by a group of players in finding a way to generate an income by creating a whole new profession "Mining permit sales & inspection".

The miners who pay the measily 10mil for a permit, are left alone to go about their business, and enjoy the benifit of a less contested system (more ore to go around) by New Order encouraging 'poachers' to move somewhere else.

I think repeatedly targeting an individual and doing it constantly already falls under harassment.

As for some Agents being in npc corps to avoid wardecs, well that's a mechanic that is abused by a lot of people - I'd wager that it's miners who abuse it the most though. I don't care for that mechanic in general, I'd rather the npc corps be training schools new players are in for a short period, then they're out on their own. Either in a player corp or not being part of any corp at all - but in a state that you can pay concord for the right to shoot them (wars in the case of corporations, perhaps "bribe" is a better term if you'd be going after a solo player who is not in any corp)

i like bumping orcas and capitals away from the wormhole so they're not in jump range

it's the space equivalent of ramming someones car off the road

All aspects of this so called "problem" can be dealt with current ingame means.
The issues we see the handful of people actually complaining about are:

1) They have to react to other people. Usually in one system. Out from all the systems.
2) They are angry because they got ganked. This is not relevant to the discussion.
3) They feel verbally abused. This is not relevant to the discussion.

We should keep in mind that the scope of the "problem" is really quite limited. There are in the order of magnitude around 10 people total crying out for change. A change which would most of all be philosophical. No more Eve, the dark spaceship game.

If CCP chooses to solve problem 1 by somehow making miners even more invulnerable to player interaction, we all have truly lost the game we all came to love.

Shaka, when the walls fell.

I imagine that they feel that miner bumping has caused enough drama and upset and commotion to be worth a reevaluation of policies regarding harrassment.

Which, if I'm reading this right, just further justifies my stance that I believe this problem should be solved at a social level and not by changing gameplay mechanics.


Let's start simple: you said, and I quote, "opens a chat window". That's a 1:1 chat, i.e. PM. What NO is doing is not done in PM. Does it matter? In my opinion, absolutely. Especially when people in Local -- people who aren't even miners -- are sick and tired of seeing the same rhetoric spewed out for 12-16 hours, often by the same characters (this does not mean "go make an alt and do it", BTW -- don't try to spin it).

The language barrier does not definitively mean a player is being harassed, I will absolutely agree with you. However, what makes it harassment is when someone persistently, insistently, keeps speaking to them in English for hours on end, in Local. While other players are simultaneously stating publicly "you're still here?!". There are even posts like this one where players admitted what NO was doing at first was amusing but watched it turn into harassment.

So here's a question for you: why doesn't NO attempt extortion via 1:1 chat / PMs? As I see it, that would address a lot of my concerns, as well as provide a potential way for NOA to determine if someone is AFK or not (while simultaneously allowing a player a way to ignore/block if they feel harassed -- and if NOA blows them up and they're angry about it, they can file a petition -- but they'd have evidence that their attacker tried to talk to them first (I think? I forget if this is shown somewhere)). I'd really love to know why PMs aren't being used 100% of the time.

As for the latter part of your paragraph, the answer is is no. And I already covered that here (see 2nd bulletpoint from bottom). Please shoot ships! Please suicide gank! Please induce CONCORD appearance! Please do this instead of what is currently being done. That might surprise you too, given that my corpmate has a very different view on the subject. But that's okay -- he and I differ in that regard, and we're both cool with that.


Already answered that too (see 5th bulletpoint from top).

You will find that in general, despite "being a miner", I have a very different view on this matter. However, I am very tired / out of energy at this point. The spin being used to justify NO's in-game excessive behaviour as described here (and even confirmed as "mostly accurate" (see quoted section, as ISD edited out the original post from BB)) is mind-blowing. Again: this is why I think some players need to be spanked, and hard, by GMs/CCP, rather than changing game mechanics.

I absolutely feel that the extortion scheme used by NO and its approach/methods can still be accomplished without the existing model being done in excess (keywords are the last 4). I provided a list of recommendations already. I call this "asking someone [or in this case NOA] to be reasonable". And if you ask me to define reasonable, that's akin to asking me to explain moral fibre to you -- most people, aside from sociopaths, know what that is -- but those who ask for a definition are almost almost certainly doing it to anger someone (i.e. trolling). It is that kind of trolling that needs to cease.

I could amend the example thus: the pirate demands a ransom in Localchat and, after failing to receive a timely response, destroys your ship. Obviously this is not harassment - you didn't see his message, bad luck. The same holds for bumping miners after failing to receive a response in Localchat. The pirate/bumper is not obligated to patiently await your response before taking actions to influence you.


We choose to use Localchat. Sometimes we use private messages, sometimes we use evemail. None of this has any bearing on whether miner bumping is 'harassment'. You seem preoccupied with the fact that some agents may have claimed that they will only bump miners that are unresponsive, but subsequently bump miners that *are* responsive. Honestly, the reason behind the bumping, and whether the so-called 'New Order' even consistently adheres to its own stated purpose, is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.



This was obviously a rhetorical question. As I've stated previously, other players are not obligated to wait on you before proceeding with the game. Other players are not obligated to ensure that you have seen their messages before interacting with you - either through bumping or through shooting. It's astonishing that you expect them to, and accuse them of 'harassment' when they fail to.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=176555&find=unread was a dicussion on frieghter bumping which was locked By CCP Falcon with a message to discuss it here. Every topic on Frieghter bumping brought up in this thread has been edited by CCP or removed for being off topic.. Can we get some clarity if we can post on the frieghter issue here or not?????

I see the freighter issue as being much larger than the miner issue. Miners can still warp, move to another sytem ect. Freighter Pilots who are forced to take choke points to move goods are then bumped into basic warp scrammed state and ganked. The losses Freighter pilots are seeing are much higher than what the mining community does. Miners are being annoyed frieghter pilots are being crushed. Losing billions of more isk in the process.

I suppose I should say that after reading all of the thread that the pirates vs carebears attitudes shouldn't surprise me. This is my first post as an eve player, but I had some thoughts I'd like to add to the conversation. I have a mining alt, whom I rarely use, when I do use them, I do it because inherently, I'm mining for something that I intend to use with a purpose. I understand COMPLETELY why so many players do it for so much money, and why it is so profitable. That is my position and my statement of where I'm coming from.

Theres been quite a bit of talk about risk reward relationships, and how ice mining is too easy, and etc etc etc. Also about how EVE is a PVP game and if you think its not you should just leave or not play or a hundred more vile or deprecating comments, to which I say this. Every person plays every game that they sit down to with their own goals in mind. Not the developers, not the other players, no ones goals but their own. Your approval of those goals is just as valid to them as their approval of your goals is to you; ie not at all. PVP in EVE exists as a RESULT of two people having different goals, and PVP in high sec is no different than PVP elsewhere, except that CONCORD will destroy any aggressor. All of your arguments about emergent gameplay and its value are just rationalizations for the simple fact that you feel you are entitled to do X. You are absolutely correct, you are entitled to do X, provided you are WILLING to accept the repercussions.

This brings up a remarkable solution, nearly instantly when viewed in this perspective. Bumping in this case is being used as a no-risk version of PVP. the player mining wants to mine, the player bumping doesn't want anyone to mine without paying him "protection money" or some other form of extortion, which is COMPLETELY allowable. These two players have conflicting goals, the bumper obviously in this case is the aggressor, and we have entailed a PVP scenario. This should mean a couple of things, A. the aggressor (the bumper) is flagged, and B. that concord will arrive and execute the offender... the result here? suicide gank them or don't, but don't bump them. Now obviously since bumping COULD occur accidentally we could do a few things. One is, as many people have suggested, implement a module that makes bumping ineffective, which ultimately won't change the fact that Person A wants to mine and person B doesn't want them too, and we get back to suicide ganking, which is also fine. Another solution may simply be a module that immobilizes a ship (or not) and includes a cycle and a bump-o-meter, monitoring how often a ship is bumped, and two (or more) consecutive bumps within the same cycle gives the bumper an aggression meter, this means the same thing.

I believe people play EVE for the same reason as they play any game, whether they play AFK or not, they play for themselves, to enjoy themselves, and CCP by creating the game has created a place FOR people to enjoy themselves, either in a group or alone, AS BEFITS THEIR OWN CHOICES. I don't believe anyone should be able to, encouraged, or allowed to use "emergent gameplay" "your playing a game with other people" or any of a hundred OTHER reasons to bypass the simple (and primary) mechanic of the sandbox contract: "If someone is doing something you don't want them to do, fight them, shoot them, trick them, but one way or another confront their actions, and suffer the consequences". Bumping allows PVPers to PVP players without the consequences, without the risk, and without the resulting reactions from CONCORD in high sec. I realize the mechanic exists for a reason, and I agree that in most situations it should be allowed, but now it is being abused by a group of people who believe that another LARGE group of people should not be able to participate in a specific activity AND allows them to bypass the risks of having to actively PVP the players their harassing in order to do so. This violates the contract of high-sec, and it violates the contract of the sandbox, and it should be stopped, whether through the addition of a module, an anti-bumping system, or some other in game mechanic.

Now, to all the griefers I say this. Grief, make our lives miserable, make the people you detest because they won't play the game the way you believe they should miserable, and sacrifice your assets to the altar of CONCORD in doing so. THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. What is not your right is to grief and harass other players without having to suffer the consequences of doing so. The website that so many of you redirect to has SPECIFIC guidelines and tips and tricks laid out for avoiding the consequences of what it is your doing, whether its changing corps, or being in NPC corps, or whatever else. The fact that those tips and tricks exist and are a primary part of your strategy tips your hands. By saying that at all times we will avoid all of the consequences of the PVP interactions we engage in, this ceases to be "emergent gameplay" and becomes an exploit or an attempt at one.

This then points to the final possible solution, one which CCP can and should also consider, make miner bumping and/or kill rights something that prohibit you from leaving a company and/or make a kill right/miner bumping attachable to a wardec, so that the specific infringer is both stated and so prohibited, and similarly prohibit killrighted players from joining an NPC company, or in any other way avoiding the consequences of thier actions.

Lastly, the sheer fact that this group of people PUNISHES players for seeking redress through petitions strikes me as something which CCP should actively prohibit. No game company at any time should want their players to feel threatened, pressured, extorted or otherwise from asking for assistance or requesting feedback from the owners, and especially not a game that prides itself on its community as much as EVE does.