EVE General Discussion

Sindel Pellion emotionally bullied her husband into not playing Eve one day.

http://crossingzebras.com/b-r5rb-the-sky-is-falling/

Sorry honey, banhammer for you.

Nobody has said that, there's a very very real difference between being a greedy dumbass who loses their virtual stuff by falling for Eroticas spiel and being the victim of a violent sexual assault.

Get some perspective, learn where the line is drawn.

I find myself liking this Malcanis guy. His no holds barred posting is a bit bullish and his confrontational approach elicits a fiery response from some, but I think his posts are the most level-headed here.

The New Order used to have ganker whose husband was a rebel fighting us. I always wondered how sexy time went. I bet it was hot frankly. "You ganked me!" "I'm sorry, lets makeup!"

I'm not so sure he didn't break any laws. It's cyberbullying, in some states its illegal.

Though the real problem is that even if all eve community banded together, there's nothing we can do against him. He is 100% safe in his scamming.

Thanks for the unwarranted judgement . Good to see your playing an MMO with "the worst gamers" you've ever met. Your pretty sheltered for a 50 yr old hey? Head on over to LoL forums if you want to see toxic.

Let me return the favor. You seem like an irrelevant anti social moron who plays an mmo by himself and only opens his mouth when he has something ****** to say about the community. I suspect you have very few friends, and that if you were to leave this community not a single soul would miss you.

I wouldn't say any of that stuff though because I'm not a judgemental ****. Like you.

Please, just stop this. At least pick a different metaphor. Your argument, as far as I can tell, is:

1. It's ethically wrong to banish or otherwise punish people for consensual gay sex.
2. All possible acts and speeches are ethically equivalent to consensual gay sex.

Therefore 3. It's ethically wrong to banish or otherwise punish people for their behaviour.

I don't think ANYBODY holds to proposition 2, which is hidden in your metaphor, or to the conclusion itself. Or maybe you aren't talking about all behaviour (though it certainly sounds like it). Maybe you're just trying to argue:

1. It's ethically wrong to banish or otherwise punish people for consensual gay sex.
2. Erotica1's bonus room activity is ethically equivalent to consensual gay sex.

Therefore 3. It's ethically wrong to banish or otherwise punish Erotica1 for their bonus room behaviour.

In this case, proposition 2 is a really contentious point that you seem to be sweeping under the rug (not to mention the fact that it's on the face of it insulting to any gay people who don't agree with you). What makes Erotica1's behaviour ethically equivalent to consensual gay sex? I would love it if you would spell out your reasoning for that before continuing to use this metaphor.

Sure, I can. "Is this guy costing us subscriptions?"

For someone who usually posts intelligently, you have completely missed the point. You're stuck in the "ideals of the sandbox" mindset. This topic isn't about ideals or the sandbox, it's about brand identity. CCP is free to do whatever they like. But they're a business. There are consequences for allowing these sorts of things to continue. Right or wrong, real or unreal, sandbox or no sandbox, sooner or later one of these incidents is going to end with someone doing something REALLY crazy. That's the day EVE will become "that game where..." that Ripard is talking about. All the petty arguments about sandbox ideals won't mean a thing when the press has a field day pointing out the inevitable result of sociopathic behavior.

Bittervets had better wake up; the sci fi MMO genre is taking off and competition is heating up. The EVE sandbox is totally and utterly dependent on a critical mass of players. Every player they lose and every player they gain is critical to the ecosystem. Everything they can do to preserve the hardcore nature of the game while tempering the asshattery is a good thing. You can pretend otherwise, but EVE's day of reckoning is coming. It won't be dramatic. It will be a slow, steady bleed of players tired of the status quo, the asshattery, and the never ending defense of the indefensible. It will be a slow, steady bleed of players who realize that they can get online and have immediate space fighting fun without the torturous grinding and clicking that EVE offers.

I don't agree with everything Ripard writes or with every solution he proposes. But he has a generally good point in this current posting theme, EVE has a toxic brand identity. That's not a good thing, no matter how you spin it.

In my opinion your examples are a bit of a stretch Malcanis. This is disapproval of psychological abuse, arguably bordering on torture, and not someone's personal disapproval of another individual's lifestyle. That being said, harassment is still against the law in the US (even if it's only a misdemeanor).

Guys...

First and foremost Jester Trek's report on the bonus round is bias and not completely accurate. So while you're getting all upset try to remember this and the fact this guy willingly gave all his assets away multiple times. At any point he could have left, but chose to stay. And even after everything that happened, at the very end he still considered singing MORE SONGS!

Torture? Are you serious? I wonder why Jester didn't mention waterboarding, or the breaking of fingers/limbs, or the pulling out of teeth.. etc. Oh, probably because it wouldn't fit into his nice comparison. Again, the person had the choice to stay, or continue. It was always up to him; he and he alone. No one tied him down with rope and forced him to play.

I'm not saying this person in particular didn't go through a difficult time, but comparing it to IRL torture is ********, sad and screaming for attention.