These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Harrassment of new players

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arcelian
0nus
#141 - 2014-02-13 22:30:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Arcelian
Marie Trudeau wrote:
In EVE you have to be careful not to judge what people are doing in the game by the standards of ethics in the real world, outside the game.

By design, EVE is a universe that encourages people behaving in ways that they would otherwise not do in real life, for ethical reasons. Theft, murder, scamming, monopolization, protection rackets -- the works. This is, again, by design. It's part of the fun for quite a significant percentage of the players precisely because it is different from how they behave in real life.

Real world ethics don't apply in a video game environment until you are actually dealing with someone outside the game (i.e., out of game commerce, out of game communication, out of game meetings and so on). Inside the gameworld, there is no ethical system that applies, because it is all virtual and has no connection to anything in the real world other than your paid sub (if you do pay one).

It's not unsurprising that many players, old and new, make this mistake of applying real world ethics in this environment. I think it's perhaps other MMOs try to import some real world ethics into their own game designs through restrictions that, in some ways, are designed to match some real world ethical conceptions of fairness and appropriateness and so on. EVE was not designed like that -- by contrast, it was designed to be a world without many restrictions at all, and with an emphasis on consequences rather than restrictions. ]This is a very deliberate design. Unfortunately some people have a hard time accepting this and adjusting to it. That's okay, because it probably means they're a bad fit for the game.



Ganking a miner within his first two weeks of the game, which then makes that player quit, is perfectly acceptable in eve. It is not acceptable for me to load my 9 mil and start gunning down children(even though people do just that these days lol). What's the difference? Well, ones a video game, the other is not. But getting to the root of it, both actions have consequences, whether they are viewed as acceptable or not.

The problem is in the culture of eve, retaining new players isn't as important as getting your jollies off whenever you see fit. We seem to have the mentality of only the best and smartest people can play eve, and if they can't survive the tribulations I put them through, then oh well, good riddance. Which is fair for someone who has an understanding of how eve works, but not someone new to the game.
Anslo
Scope Works
#142 - 2014-02-13 22:32:44 UTC
Arcelian wrote:
We seem to have the mentality of only the best and smartest people can play eve, and if they can't survive the tribulations I put them through, then oh well, good riddance.


"We" is too many people. Some of us actually want to see newbro's stay.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Mario Putzo
#143 - 2014-02-13 22:33:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Divine Entervention wrote:

The people who play EvE are real people. Why should you not treat them as such?


Acting. You would be surprised how easy it is to don a personality that does not actually represent you in the real world, when you can hide behind a fictional avatar. There has been numerous studies that indicate a lot of people play video games because it allows them to embody characteristics that they normally would not in their day to day lives.

Being a crafty smuggler, the shady pirate, the puppet-master. People often pretend they are something they are not, because it actually is healthy. Some people play COD to release anger, it allows them to walk into a mall and shoot the place up, without actually going to a real mall and shooting the place up.

You would be surprised how many passive aggressive people use video games to unwind behind the guise of aggressive "bosstier" dudes. You would probably be equally surprised how many people harbor aggression in their daily lives but when they are online can be the sweetest, kindest individuals in the world.

The long and short of it.

Anonymity allows you to behave however you want, regardless of how your "real" self behaves socially, and doing so is one of the best things you can do for mental health. (as with everything though: in moderation)
Marie Trudeau
Trudeau Industrie SA
#144 - 2014-02-13 22:33:25 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Marie Trudeau wrote:
In EVE you have to be careful not to judge what people are doing in the game by the standards of ethics in the real world, outside the game.

By design, EVE is a universe that encourages people behaving in ways that they would otherwise not do in real life, for ethical reasons. Theft, murder, scamming, monopolization, protection rackets -- the works. This is, again, by design. It's part of the fun for quite a significant percentage of the players precisely because it is different from how they behave in real life.

Real world ethics don't apply in a video game environment until you are actually dealing with someone outside the game (i.e., out of game commerce, out of game communication, out of game meetings and so on). Inside the gameworld, there is no ethical system that applies, because it is all virtual and has no connection to anything in the real world other than your paid sub (if you do pay one).

It's not unsurprising that many players, old and new, make this mistake of applying real world ethics in this environment. I think it's perhaps other MMOs try to import some real world ethics into their own game designs through restrictions that, in some ways, are designed to match some real world ethical conceptions of fairness and appropriateness and so on. EVE was not designed like that -- by contrast, it was designed to be a world without many restrictions at all, and with an emphasis on consequences rather than restrictions. This is a very deliberate design. Unfortunately some people have a hard time accepting this and adjusting to it. That's okay, because it probably means they're a bad fit for the game.



The people who play EvE are real people. Why should you not treat them as such?


Outside the game, sure. Inside the game, it's a game. Games have rules. You play by them and don't inflict out-of-game rules inside the game. EVE is a game that happens to have relatively few rules compared to others.

For example, American football is a game with rules. It allows the players to commit violent assaults against each other that would be crimes in the real world outside football. In many cases, these would, particularly if repeat offenses, result in jail time in addition to financial penalties. And this in fact happens when American football players forget that they can't treat people outside of the game like they do in the game, even slightly so. But at the same time, those real world rules on assault and battery do not apply inside the game -- the game permits it, according to its rules, and players, by playing the game, consent to play according to these rules (or lack thereof, in the case of no rule against assault). The football players know that they are all real people, but they do NOT treat each other in the context of the game according to the rules they would need to abide by outside a football game.

EVE is similar -- it has rules, and then a lack of rules (which means these things are permitted). There is no ethical case against these acts that are permitted by the rules -- they are simply baked into the design of the game. Ganking is a design in EVE. CCP spent quite some time coming up with the rules about it, the systems that create consequences for it (or not so many) and so on. Including restrictions on newbie space and so on. But generally speaking, it has few rules compared to other games, by design. So, inside the game, that's how things roll, just like you're allowed to assault people in a football game without being arrested.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#145 - 2014-02-13 22:33:31 UTC
Arcelian wrote:


Ganking a miner within his first two weeks of the game, which then makes that player quit, is perfectly acceptable in eve. It is not acceptable for me to load my 9 mil and start gunning down children(even though people do just that these days lol). What's the difference? Well, ones a video game, the other is not. But getting to the root of it, both actions have consequences, whether they are viewed as acceptable or not.

The problem is in the culture of eve, retaining new players isn't as important as getting your jollies off whenever you see fit. We seem to have the mentality of only the best and smartest people can play eve, and if they can't survive the tribulations I put them through, then oh well, good riddance.


I would ask what the problem is with this? This game has survived to be one of the very few subscription based games still on the market.

And the ones that are, unlike EVE, are going up in flames.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#146 - 2014-02-13 22:34:46 UTC
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.
Mario Putzo
#147 - 2014-02-13 22:37:08 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


This is entirely subjective. I could just as easily claim that you are walking the lower path, while I walk the higher path. EVE after all is primarily a PVP based game, ergo if you do not PVP you are a drag on the community and causing it to become toxic.

I think you should get off your high horse now. You are looking quite the fool.
Galen Darksmith
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#148 - 2014-02-13 22:37:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Arcelian wrote:


Ganking a miner within his first two weeks of the game, which then makes that player quit, is perfectly acceptable in eve. It is not acceptable for me to load my 9 mil and start gunning down children(even though people do just that these days lol). What's the difference? Well, ones a video game, the other is not. But getting to the root of it, both actions have consequences, whether they are viewed as acceptable or not.

The problem is in the culture of eve, retaining new players isn't as important as getting your jollies off whenever you see fit. We seem to have the mentality of only the best and smartest people can play eve, and if they can't survive the tribulations I put them through, then oh well, good riddance.


I would ask what the problem is with this? This game has survived to be one of the very few subscription based games still on the market.

And the ones that are, unlike EVE, are going up in flames.



Which is really the rub, isn't it? It's simply ludicrous to claim that EVE is dying because of scammers/gankers/whatever killed your ship or took your space money, because they are not somehow new to EVE. They've been here since day one, and ten years later the game is still going strong. Obviously, if anything is going to kill EVE it's not the things that have been present since its birth.

"EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for." -CCP Wrangler
Marie Trudeau
Trudeau Industrie SA
#149 - 2014-02-13 22:39:56 UTC
Arcelian wrote:
Marie Trudeau wrote:
In EVE you have to be careful not to judge what people are doing in the game by the standards of ethics in the real world, outside the game.

By design, EVE is a universe that encourages people behaving in ways that they would otherwise not do in real life, for ethical reasons. Theft, murder, scamming, monopolization, protection rackets -- the works. This is, again, by design. It's part of the fun for quite a significant percentage of the players precisely because it is different from how they behave in real life.

Real world ethics don't apply in a video game environment until you are actually dealing with someone outside the game (i.e., out of game commerce, out of game communication, out of game meetings and so on). Inside the gameworld, there is no ethical system that applies, because it is all virtual and has no connection to anything in the real world other than your paid sub (if you do pay one).

It's not unsurprising that many players, old and new, make this mistake of applying real world ethics in this environment. I think it's perhaps other MMOs try to import some real world ethics into their own game designs through restrictions that, in some ways, are designed to match some real world ethical conceptions of fairness and appropriateness and so on. EVE was not designed like that -- by contrast, it was designed to be a world without many restrictions at all, and with an emphasis on consequences rather than restrictions. ]This is a very deliberate design. Unfortunately some people have a hard time accepting this and adjusting to it. That's okay, because it probably means they're a bad fit for the game.



Ganking a miner within his first two weeks of the game, which then makes that player quit, is perfectly acceptable in eve. It is not acceptable for me to load my 9 mil and start gunning down children(even though people do just that these days lol). What's the difference? Well, ones a video game, the other is not. But getting to the root of it, both actions have consequences, whether they are viewed as acceptable or not.

The problem is in the culture of eve, retaining new players isn't as important as getting your jollies off whenever you see fit. We seem to have the mentality of only the best and smartest people can play eve, and if they can't survive the tribulations I put them through, then oh well, good riddance. Which is fair for someone who has an understanding of how eve works, but not someone new to the game.


I think you can make an argument that the rules should be changed (although there are counterarguments for that as well, and CCP has certainly put a lot of thought into the current ruleset, even as it concerns new pilots), but that's different from saying people who play according to the current rules are "bad people" for doing so -- which was suggested upthread by a few people.
Marie Trudeau
Trudeau Industrie SA
#150 - 2014-02-13 22:42:03 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


It doesn't make a lot of sense to do that when all the others are doing are things that are allowed by the rules of the game. I don't think it makes much sense to think of oneself as a better person, in the context of the game, because one self-restricts beyond what the rules permit. Everyone has mixed motives for their behavior, and no-one is pure -- not even close. A truly "high" approach is to accept that in a game context the rules *are* the ethics of the game, full stop.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#151 - 2014-02-13 22:42:13 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


And what we are saying is that there is no moral or immoral act in a video game. Or a game in general for that matter.

Only what is, or is not allowed by the rules of the game. Breaking those rules is immoral, abiding by them is moral.

In real life it's immoral to charge a usurious rate of interest to your tenants. In Monopoly it's not just a good idea, but the best idea.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Marsha Mallow
#152 - 2014-02-13 22:43:45 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
I think you should get off your high horse now. You are looking quite the fool.

He didn't actually state whether he was on the lower or higher, and you're starting to look equally foolish.

Would it kill Eve if new players had a longer time in safer areas to get to grips with the game anyway?
I do understand ways this can be circumvented by older players rolling new accounts, but just for the sake of argument.
Is is a wholly invalid argument?

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Mario Putzo
#153 - 2014-02-13 22:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
I think you should get off your high horse now. You are looking quite the fool.

He didn't actually state whether he was on the lower or higher, and you're starting to look equally foolish.

Would it kill Eve if new players had a longer time in safer areas to get to grips with the game anyway?
I do understand ways this can be circumvented by older players rolling new accounts, but just for the sake of argument.
Is is a wholly invalid argument?


Actually he did. When he says "us" that includes him. English isn't that hard is it?

Quote:
us
pronoun
1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#154 - 2014-02-13 22:47:02 UTC
Marie Trudeau wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


It doesn't make a lot of sense to do that when all the others are doing are things that are allowed by the rules of the game. I don't think it makes much sense to think of oneself as a better person, in the context of the game, because one self-restricts beyond what the rules permit. Everyone has mixed motives for their behavior, and no-one is pure -- not even close. A truly "high" approach is to accept that in a game context the rules *are* the ethics of the game, full stop.


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Anslo
Scope Works
#155 - 2014-02-13 22:47:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


And what we are saying is that there is no moral or immoral act in a video game. Or a game in general for that matter.


Then I'd say that's an impasse. Also WE do not think that way. YOU and a certain group of players do. There are those of us who call douchebaggery as it is, game or not.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#156 - 2014-02-13 22:48:00 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

You should think about that statement the next time you go to hit the Post button.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#157 - 2014-02-13 22:48:29 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Marie Trudeau wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


It doesn't make a lot of sense to do that when all the others are doing are things that are allowed by the rules of the game. I don't think it makes much sense to think of oneself as a better person, in the context of the game, because one self-restricts beyond what the rules permit. Everyone has mixed motives for their behavior, and no-one is pure -- not even close. A truly "high" approach is to accept that in a game context the rules *are* the ethics of the game, full stop.


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


And whom else's judgement on "should" is appropriate in a game, if not my own?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Galen Darksmith
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#158 - 2014-02-13 22:48:49 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:

He didn't actually state whether he was on the lower or higher,


Divine Entervention wrote:


All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


There ya go Mr. B.

"EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for." -CCP Wrangler
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#159 - 2014-02-13 22:49:32 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


And what we are saying is that there is no moral or immoral act in a video game. Or a game in general for that matter.


Then I'd say that's an impasse. Also WE do not think that way. YOU and a certain group of players do. There are those of us who call douchebaggery as it is, game or not.


No, there are those of you who chose to restrict behavior for yourselves beyond what the game itself restricts. That's called RP.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Anslo
Scope Works
#160 - 2014-02-13 22:49:58 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Marie Trudeau wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
I'm not saying the option to kill and steal should not exist.
I understand the game is a sandbox and it's appeal happens to be the ability to choose.
I fully appreciate this aspect.

All I'm saying is:
Those who have chosen to walk the lower path cannot be upset when those of us who have chosen to walk the higher, look down upon those beneath us.


It doesn't make a lot of sense to do that when all the others are doing are things that are allowed by the rules of the game. I don't think it makes much sense to think of oneself as a better person, in the context of the game, because one self-restricts beyond what the rules permit. Everyone has mixed motives for their behavior, and no-one is pure -- not even close. A truly "high" approach is to accept that in a game context the rules *are* the ethics of the game, full stop.


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


And whom else's judgement on "should" is appropriate in a game, if not my own?


And why is your judgement appropriate or worthy of accepting?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]