EVE General Discussion

Does anyone else notice that the people who complain about certain interactions in EVE (interactions this cold harsh game is world renowned for and that have been around since EVE was but a twinkle in some Icelandic psycho's eye) the to be incredibly emotional and judgmental all at the same time? They seem to think other people are supposed to conform themselves to some arbitrary form of morality and when they don't they treat them like they broke some rule.

I just don't get it. I don't gank or scam or miner bump even though the game allows it, but since I know what EVE is (a mosh pit masquerading as an mmo), it doesn't surprise me in the least that others do partake in those activities.

It's like those new order folks, i find the idea of a pseudo-religious cult/terrorist organization which is probably a front for some shadowy New Eden figures to not only be hilarious, but totally fitting with the theme and tone of EVE online. Yet I've seen people display real, honest to God, not-the-least-restricted-to-ingame, hatred towards these folks, Same with Goons. All for playing a game that not only allows what other games would call 'griefing', but encourages it.

I think the bottom line is that there are people who are really mentally unsuited to play EVE who chose to do so anyways, imo akin to a person with epilepsy who can't help but play 'FlashFlash McBlinky Lights Online' (then complains on the forum about the blinky lights being sociopaths)..

You can even go a step further. Looking at some of the responses of miners blown up by the New Order, you see a trend of the worst insults, profanity, and just utter bane and disdain. My guess is this happens because they did not consent to being blown up. I suppose if they just acknowledged that they could be blown up, they would be all the more happier about it.



But I doubt it...

Like I keep saying, the real irritant is not the blowing up of ships.

It's the douched up immature manner of those making the attacks that makes the game feel like a playground full of aspergers.

If I want to babysit, I can go babysit real brat kids and make $$.

There's a reason why, in the days of olde, men of likewise social status bothered to duel with each other and heed to the societal demands and standards of their caste but when someone they outclassed got out of line, they either outright ignored them or beat them senseless and with little remorse.

When people feel like they outclass the "average eve player" from their perspective - because more likely the average gate camper, noob harvester/scammer, or noob ganker, do they want to invest energy in them (people who have proven inferior in character) and endeavor to play with them or do they move on where they find their own class of player?

Usually it's the latter, as new players who are not alts and who stay past the trial period appear to be as rare as unicorns these days (probably an exaggeration there).

As the old saying goes: if you win the Special Olympics, you still ride home in the same short bus as your competitors. So why bother? (The southern version is: if you wrestle in the mud with a hog, you'll both be filthy, but the hog will have enjoyed it)

We know otherwise and perhaps cannot fathom it because the real average Eve player is in fact up to better things and can be very helpful and generous with noobs no matter what play style they engage in. I have seen pirates and highsec carebears alike help new players for all kinds of things. The more successful nullsec power blocs got that way by being more open to new players. Get past the noob harvesters and people looking to exploit a new players lack of knowledge and you find what is probably the best caliber of MMO player anywhere. Even the other Eve players I don't like, I still respect more than most players of other MMOs.

Actually, you are half right, favorability is actually irrelevant regarding consenting, but rather consent is the voluntary permitting of something. In the case of a sport, I think your be hard pressed to find players routinely volunteering to be injured. Injury does happen, whether by intent or accident not mattering, but it's not consent to be injured.

Changing the analogy shouldn't change the meaning. Why do you think it should?

Edit: To be specific, why is playing a sport in relation to injury different from driving of a road where fatal accidents occur, or do you believe driving on that road is consenting to be in a fatal accident?

Edit 2: Tried to add a bit of Clarity/grammar/etc

I don't have much to add to this thread except to say it's obvious CCP needs to get some new content, pronto.

When you have six pages arguing over something as stupid as the difference between consent and acknowledgment, you know people are running out of stuff to do in game.

Mr Epeen

Is it pedantic to point out that oranges are not apples?
Is it pedantic to point out that just because I see an orange, that doesn't mean I want it shoved down my throat?
It's called NON-CONSENSUAL PVP. What kind of ***hat do you have to be to argue that non-consensual PVP is consensual? What's next? Will you argue that banks must want to get robbed because they put all that money in their vault? Are we going to have to have ****-walk parade around Jita 4-4 in our Mackinaws and Hulks to get the point across?

Can you blow up a noob in a Retriever with your Catalyst or whatever? Yes.
Does he consent? NO!

George Orwell would **** on himself if he read this thread.

I acknowledge my spaceship may be violenced upon undocking. I do NOT consent to that. Acknowledgement is not the same as consent. There is no argument. Either you are intelligent enough to comprehend that or you are not.

You know, ************ ... two things.

First ... your portrait looks like you're sucking on 'a big straw'. ;)
Second ... you've killed my reply before I sent it. I was going for the very same thing!

Cheerio! ;)

Yes, eve is a game and sports are games, but your analogy distorts the meaning of consent. The meaning of the word doesn't change when referring to a game, be it a sport or computer game. Again, why do you think it should?

Regarding goals in eve, lets look at something with the statement in question:

"You consent to PvP when you undock"

That "You" refers to the person undocking, not the person engaging. Your reasoning somehow concludes that consent in the context of eve is somehow granted by someone else's intent despite what your own may be. That by definition is not consent.

Also, there is no stated goal in eve save that which you choose. Blowing people up and being blown up are not mandated nor even expressly encouraged by game mechanics. It is simply, like everything else, allowed and people by virtue of their own choices and nothing else chose to partake in it.

And before anyone asks, no that is not a PVP'ers are antisocial/sociapaths/psychopaths/etc statement. We all play for fun and do what we feel is fun.

Seriously, if this conversation offends you so much why are you still participating in it?

And within the context of the game my assets function as if owned by me till CCP says otherwise. If they want to change the rules, fine. Till they do, we're free to have this conversation. Even if they do, we're free to have the conversation about the revised rules, as has happened in the past and likely will happen again.

Everyone has acknowledged consent isn't necessary as well, but there are ways for me to explicitly give or evidence consent, so clearly it is ones to give, it just usually doesn't matter if you do.

Why would I feel obligated to say that? We should both have already been aware that my consent was not needed.