EVE General Discussion

Callyuk was, he's said it several times already, yeah.



Victim of what? His own foolishness? I made the analogy a while ago of wearing a suit made of meat in a tiger cage. Do you blame the tiger for taking a bite? Or do you blame the fool who made himself such a attractive target?

At some point, the actions of the "victim" have to come into play. Especially if those actions were the direct cause.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1608182
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1682724
ect.



Is your memory so bad that you don't remember the icon, or did you not bother to look the first time?

If he thinks someone from a forum posting community will tire of forum posting he's got a lot to learn. I mean, he has a lot to learn but I don't think he realizes he's locked himself into everyone calling him dumb over and over. It's fun because every post he makes takes another step along the adolescent arguing path -- at some point we will be hearing about his father's ability to fight mine, I am sure.

Yeah, but I torpedoed this mate. You linked a couple of things which were about algorithms classifying data, something I am fully aware of the ability to do.
What you failed to do was show a computer model which could spit out why the data was in which category - i.e. show causation.
Bumping isn't against the rules, so having a computer model which shows someone was definitely bumping is just step 1 - you then need it to tell you why. To show intent.
I know, you don't like me mentioning that because it sinks your argument. Tough luck, really. Stamping your feet, wailing and telling everyone you don't need to prove someone wrong is just frankly bizarre, to say nothing of the logical fallacy of claiming I can't be right unless I prove a negative. Your grade-school debate ability, littered with such things, as well as ad-hominem attacks and poor appeals to (your own) authority are demonstrably meaningless. I think you even know this, which makes me wonder why you continue.

Sure - this was my point. There was nothing stopping him from pressing align or warp, and nothing stopping those commands being accepted. His ship couldn't achieve either state because he was being bumped. He can, however, take any number of hundreds of possible actions which prevent him from being bumped, at which point he will notice his ship warps.
It's really not our fault he sat there for an hour trying to exploit logoff mechanics and mashing a button instead of thinking his way out of it.

And it's really not our fault your alliance is useless, really. If CCP balanced the game by finding the most inept people and helping them, I'm pretty sure they would just give all of 0.0 to goonswarm. I mean, look at us taking an hour to kill you. You died to a complete fuckup. Man, embarrassing, right?

"A gank squad that fails on first attempt and takes an hr to complete the gank should be penalized"

And we/they often are, by the potential victim having more than enough time to rally a support crew. You'd be surprised what logi, ECM or counter bumping a webbed ship will do. You can get a freighter align time down to be similar to a cruiser, and it's inordinately hard to keep it persistently bumped in that condition. Many escape when the attacked party is competent.

Waaah waaah ccp I'm incompetent and want to solo an mmo save me from a coordinated group of players so I don't have to get help waaaah waaah


That's all I got from that. Relying on ccp to save you is the pinnacle of carebeary bs. If a freighter pilot can't get help in an hour but instead goes to the forums to cry about it should be penalized harshly.

Of course they should be affected by the aggression mechanic. The whole reason for it's inception, was due in part to these things logging off to save their skin. So to close that loophole/exploit, CCP introduced the timer.
Freighters are not and should not be due special treatment in this regard, because they cannot aggress. If they wish to avoid aggression, they have options. Use corp mates to scout/web and utilize other routes.

The justification remains the same for all ships in space. They can all be shot to hell and back and not avoid such things with a log off. Freighters are no different.

Bumping someone for an hour isn't excessive and therefore doesn't require GM/Dev intervention. Especially when they can simply stay logged off, wait for an hour or so and avoid it completely. You need to read their ruling and understand what they have said. They have already gotten involved in this mechanic and ruled.

But you just agreed with me and obviously Tippia, then disagreed. Which is kind of odd tbh. You really should follow what you and others post.

No I meant he shouldn't have died because he didn't need to die in that situation. He could have avoided getting his ship blown up simply by doing the none stupid thing first. The GMs and Devs wouldn't even get involved, as no exploit took place and no rules were broken.

Well, no it isn't. For as much as you have ignored the point - bumping is not against the rules.

Bumping for 2 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping for 15 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping for 30 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping for 60 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping for 90 minutes is not against the rules.
Bumping with the intent to harass is against the rules.

You are therefore looking at causation (in the legal sense, law here being CCP's statute), to which there are two established parts, actus reus and mens rea -- you're able to show actus reus (a fact I have not disputed at any point) but to date, no computer analysis has been able to form a judgement on issues of mens rea. If you're able to show I am wrong on this .. then great! Do so and I will look like a complete idiot for saying it's impossible over and over.

However, if you're saying you can't understand why you're wrong here because you lack the ability to think outside of black and white classifications, then I will accept that. I will even explain why you're wrong (again) if you like. The answer is in all my previous posts but I don't think you're reading them, or are reading them and willfully ignoring their content.

Harassment is against the rules; again, nothing to do with intent. The bumper who follows a miner halfway across highsec isn't immune because he thought he could get a ransom out of the guy and was only in it for the ISK.



CCP has no obligation to show mens rea. Further, even in court, mens rea doesn't play out the way you seem to think; primarily because people lie.



Oh, allow me to write you an AI that does:

printf("Guilty.\n"); // Or, if you prefer: printf("Innocent.\n");

The task of making a judgement is trivial; the task of imitating a human decision is notably harder, but you can typically achieve a decent amount of accuracy with naive analysis and a training set (which, if you'll recall, is all I claimed).

Do you people live in some sort of bubble on mars?

Being locked out of ANY game for 90 minutes would be considered BAD GAMEPLAY by any sane person.

I also recall reading another comment saying DAYS would constitute harassment, not hours. Are you people serious? I just won't even say anything more about that one. Speaks for itself.

I think the difference being, he has no hope of escape.....

What semantics? It doesn't matter if he was trying to make ISK or to actually harass the guy because the only person who can make that distinction is him (and even then it's subjective and largely philosophical).



FTFY



In which case,

A. The GM can't tell the difference

or

B. The GM uses contextual information to distinguish between them

In the case of B, the algorithm will have the same contextual information and it's reasonable to assume that some trend/relation (no, I can't tell you which without the data because finding them is the whole point of data mining) can be used to predict the GM's ruling.

You seem to be running out of steam mate.