Out of Pod Experience

If you live anywhere near San Francisco, you should have been doing this anyways.

Are people who are greedy when playing monopoly bad people in real life?

There is only one box I will fit in and that's a coffin when I'm dead. Preferably after having lived to a really old age.
Till then, don't fit in boxes, think out of them....

That said, I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.
The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

CCP Guard you make me lolled very hard you funny you

We all know that you have been short for a very long time since you started with CCP

Seems like you did get the short end of the stick hey CCP Guard

See, this is where you're flat out wrong, by your own explanation.
"When there are no consequences", I can't treat people like four asterixes, because that's a consequence.
So if I treat people IRL like I do ingame, I do them no harm or negative consequence.

Now, that's not the only reason why you're absolutely and entirely wrong on this point. The next is that you, when subscribing to EVE and log in, agree to a set of rules and expectations. Most of these are made obvious to you in stuff like the EULA, others are stated less direct, so when you log into EVE, you agree that one character in this game shooting and killing another character is within the rules of the game and you gave your express consent to having that act happen to you as well. If the shooter is a psychopath, then so are the shootee. Same goes for scamming, political pressure, social or psychological warfare etc. You gave your consent and desire to do and be done upon such acts when you logged in.
This is for all multiplayer, where another person is involved.

This "you are who you are in the dark", or "when relieved of consequences, you act on your darker desires" is simply fantasy used to demonise others to reinforce your view of your own moral high ground, or soften the blow of a loss. "He cheated, so it's okay" - well yeah, except he did not break any rules, so he didn't cheat.

The physical equivalent in martial arts is that some techniques can hurt a lot when used, or aren't fun when used against you, but when you signed up for the tournament you agreed to the rules, and the rules permitted some acts and denied others. Or in chess: I'm not a psychopath for taking opportunity of the En Passant rule even if you dislike it. It's entirely within the rules we both agreed to when we signed up for the chess tournament.
If you did not want to play a game with such a rule, I'd advise you to get other rules, or play another game.
In EVE, that's commonly referred to as "can I have your stuff?"

When there are these written rules or written accord in the game, and you break it (For instance, botting, RMT, lethal damage, moving the opponents pieces), that's another case. You broke the rules of the game, and that may tell something about your person. Maybe. My personal experience is that it's a bad trait that often but not automatically make the person distrusted, dishonest and disliked.

Now, a common counterargument to the "no rules were broken" point is to claim either unspoken/unwritten "community rules". Neat, but worthless. Making arbitrary rules up on the spot is more a sign of a person unable or unwilling to cope than any character flaw on the "psychopaths" side. Another common argument is to say that "you agreed to rule X" (Honourable PvP 1v1 @ sun, or to not spy on/AWOX the corporation you're a member of, or not steal the shares of the holding corp to the rental alliance...) - true, in a way befitting lawyer jokes.
You expect another person to follow your personal rules in addition to the game rules.
Do you have any good reasons to expect that? Maybe. Maybe not. There are no requirements to follow your additional rule(s) and, in EVE especially, the rules permit (And culture encourages) to act in a way where the other person assumes you're following the optional rules. This includes not breaking them, or covering breaches up, all the way to officially declaring that you will forevermore and on your word/honour follow the rules in question.
In this sandbox, "trust" is another form of sand, and another form of shovel.
Deception is part of the rules.

Now, internet personas or game avatars can muddle this slightly, so that "what I say as me" and "what I say as character X" can be confused by "what you hear as you" and "what you hear as character Y" - so when an RP'er can say "I RP a nasty mercenary without conscience" you're just out of luck.
If you meet someone who says something like "I, RL NAME, agrees to this legalese deal and sign it" and later breaks the agreement, then you have a case.
Until then, HTFU.

I please to aim.

Ahhh another "All miners must be maladjusted individuals because they mine alone in a game that allows that style of gameplay, while annoying those who believe that their style of gameplay is the only type" thread.

Some of us miners, accept the consequences, offer up a "well done", reship and go about our business...no permit bought either

Meh, it's a game, play it as you see fit.

For me, I look at Eve as a PvP game and scamming/griefing as a form of PvP.

The study doesn't surprise me as a certain fraction of players can't separate RL and video games and a fraction of them are dicks. So you would expect more scammers to be bad people.

whoe man whoe

Thread obviously needs more Zizek:



I can't stand Zizek, or Lacan for that matter.