These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

I love the EVE community.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#41 - 2014-03-16 14:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Seems the thread is off topic.

I love the community for the way every thread eventually turns into a discussion of good and evil. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Bacon too. EvE bacon is the best.
EvEa Deva
Doomheim
#42 - 2014-03-16 15:03:37 UTC
Give it time OP, you will learn to hate us.

You can only see the same people posting the same stuff for so long before it makes your eye twitch reading the forums.
Xander Delacroix
Doomheim
#43 - 2014-03-16 16:30:33 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Xander Delacroix wrote:
I'm not saying that everybody should play nice. Eve is a game of warfare and politics and both these things favour a certain degree of ruthlessness. It is true that one person's values are different to the next person, but does that excuse bad behaviour? Possibly. Just because you CAN behave like a ass, does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD. Every action has consequences, no matter how minor. Perhaps upsetting someone in game might get your corp a wardec, then again it probably won't. My concern is that some people take their 'emergent gameplay' a little too far, and if their victim has real life emotional issues, then the consequences of their actions may be much more severe. This is an extreme example, but Eve Online is full of extreme people (or at least people who play in an extreme way within the sandbox).


As I pointed out, and to which you agreed, what constitutes behaving like an ass, is subjective.
You and I can speak only for ourselves on what that is for us, we cannot presume that your or my own definition of that either extends to, binds, or supercedes that of any other individual.

Whatever behavior someone chooses, is their own responsibility and choice. As far as EVE goes, those are fine as long as theyndo not break the rules of EULA or the game. In such case where it does, that is up to CCP to act and judge upon, not you or I.

It is, from my perspective, absolutely none of my responsibility or concern, if some other individual in the game is suffering from a clinical psychological disorder. I am no more responsible for that, than I am for the diet of another player who has diabetes for exampl, or who plays EVE with their feet because for they have no hands.

If such a person plays EVE, that is their choice and responsibility. How they play the game, is also their choice and responsibility. How they personally react to what happens in the game, is again, their own choice and responsibility.

Xander Delacroix wrote:
I'm not asking you, or indeed anyone else, to conform to my standards of behaviour and common decency/courtesy. What I AM asking is that people put a little more thought into the possible consequences of their actions. In my previous post I gave a worst case scenario re: a potential player's self harm. The question I would ask anyone who engages in griefing (for their own amusement) is this: if the above scenario occured, and you realised that your actions in game could have contributed to a tragic chain of events, could you live with yourself? If you can, then fine. If not, perhaps give a small degree of thought to how your actions may impact others, and perhaps moderate your own behaviour? However, real life is the ultimate sandbox, you can choose to live your life howsoever you choose, including how you play with internet spaceships.


You can ask for that all you want. But nobody is under even the slightest obligation to act according to your personal morality.

As to your theoretical example, I present you with this hypothetical example.

Consider thatI demand that you transfer all your ingame assets to my character, or I will commit suicide.

What is your response? If you do not comply to my demand, I will be dead, and according to your rationale, you will he responsible dor that because you did not consider, or where unconcerned, with the outcome of your choice, ehich was concretely the fact that I actually then did kill myself.

So, what is your response to the hypothetical?


Ripard Teg made a very interesting analogy in his Jester's Trek blog between what many Eve players consider 'fair game' and 'reasonable' and what the Reavers from the Firefly tv show (the unreasoning cannibalistic space going monsters who were once human themselves) consider reasonable. This conversation has convinced me even further of the validity of his argument. As for the hypothetical posed to me; the main difference Eve's 'Reavers' have over their Firefly counterparts, as demonstrated on occasions such as this, are that they are simply capable of being more eloquent, but sadly no less unreasoning and destructive.
Salvos Rhoska
#44 - 2014-03-16 16:55:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Xander Delacroix wrote:
---


You did not answer the hypothetical.

My question was not rhetorical. I expect an answer to it, if you please.

Though the article you losely reference is intellectually entertaining, it fails on the crux that it is based on comparing reality to fiction.

Unless, that is, you actually believe that a part of the EVE population is adversely affected by a (spoiler) experimental chemical.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#45 - 2014-03-16 16:57:31 UTC
I like most of the part of the community I've met so far.

As for the "what if someone harmed themselves because of what I did ingame" .. well. I don't think we should be expected to consider everyone ingame we interact with a potential mentally instable person. Where to draw the line there?

The example above with the "give me all your stoff or I'll kill myself" may be very exaggerated, but who knows whether there are people who would cut themselves because you refused to join their fleet?

They feel lonely and rejected and just want to kill that Dagan guy and can't manage it and are frustrated and ask you in local to help them, yet you want to get to your corpmates for your mining operation and thus the person asking for help attempts suicide. Far-fetched, true, but impossible? I don't know.

So if you start assuming everyone you interact with is that fragile your freedom of choice, even to choose things not related to "mean" acts, is severely reduced.
That can't be expected from me. So when I get the opportunity to blow someone up and I feel like it, I'll do it. No second thoughts. I draw a line at scamming, that's just not my thing, but I don't expect others to do like I do.

If someday my actions should cause someone else to harm themselves, and I really really hope this'll never happen, then I'll feel bad about it. But I'll also know it is not my fault.

It's a different matter if you are out to specifically hurt someone IRL. That's just despicable.
Doireen Kaundur
Doomheim
#46 - 2014-03-16 17:01:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Doireen Kaundur
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
I like most of the part of the community I've met so far.

As for the "what if someone harmed themselves because of what I did ingame" .. well. I don't think we should be expected to consider everyone ingame we interact with a potential mentally instable person. Where to draw the line there?

The example above with the "give me all your stoff or I'll kill myself" may be very exaggerated, but who knows whether there are people who would cut themselves because you refused to join their fleet?


Best way to deal with that is to ignore and block such people. Give no response, just block and go away.

@OP: The EVE community loves you too. In fact, the EVE community loves you looong time. Give you happy ending, Joe.
That's how much the EVE comunity loves you. Blink

_[center]For your Freighter **sized shipping needs, contact _[u]Lord Chanlin[/u].** _ Fast, affordable, reliable service._

https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Lord%20Chanlin[/center]
Xander Delacroix
Doomheim
#47 - 2014-03-16 18:01:55 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Xander Delacroix wrote:
---

Though the article you losely reference is intellectually entertaining, it fails on the crux that it is based on comparing reality to fiction.


You are aware of the irony of that statement aren't you?

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Xander Delacroix wrote:
---

You did not answer the hypothetical.

My question was not rhetorical. I expect an answer to it, if you please.


You can expect all you like, but I'm done feeding this particular troll.
AGORAPHOBIC NOSEBLEED
Perkone
Caldari State
#48 - 2014-03-16 18:14:50 UTC  |  Edited by: AGORAPHOBIC NOSEBLEED
I like the mix here with the Eve community. It's better than a lot of different game forums. There is a lack of imagination that leaves other forums as dry as a saltine cracker. You get a little of everything a little facts, some ribbing and nice dry humor like this. >>

From: Been gone since ~2011... Anything change? >> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325194

"#14Posted: 2014.02.26 19:17 | Report
Like
Goonswarm merged with CVA and became NRDS
Jita 4-4 station guns went Skynet; CCP claims they're working as intended
New licensing deal with Lucasfilm allowed CCP to introduce Star Wars ships into the game, but only the ****** ones
Gallente were removed from the game
"The door" in all captains quarters opened for one day. The door lead to a featureless white room with an old Jove man inside. If players attempted to interact with him, he would say "What took you so long?" and shoot the player in the head. CCP explained this was a metaphor for the pointlessness of desire."

Thanks Tran Tuyen
Amadio Family Enterprises,

it made the thread.
Mandarine
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2014-03-16 18:31:24 UTC
I agree 100% with Xander: this game is going to be trammelized into oblivion, and the griefers griefing within the EULA rules will have brought it upon themselves.

Extremely ironic that some people who herp and derp about freedom in the sandbox are in the end the people who, through abusing it and bringing their RL repressed sadistic tendencies in online interaction, force sandox managers to impose severe restrictions on player-to-player interaction.
Salvos Rhoska
#50 - 2014-03-16 18:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Xander Delacroix wrote:
You are aware of the irony of that statement aren't you?


I'm afraid its rather you who is seemingly not aware of the irony of trying to explain the conduct of real people based on a fictional televison series and movie...

Catch my meaning?

Xander Delacroix wrote:
You can expect all you like, but I'm done feeding this particular troll.


It is normal and polite to reciprocate answers posed to you in discussion.
There is nothing trolling about it.

Since you refuse to answer, I will infer the reason for your choice to be that you know what your answer would obviate about your actual position, and you have neither the integrity or the respect for truth necessary to bear that burden.

Your choice, but it is also one that condemns you and shows you for what you actually are.

Lets see now. This makes you the 3rd (or 4th?) alt so far to fail to overcome the same hurdle.
The puppeteer really isn't learning from his mistakes, is he.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Previous page123