These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Jester Trek Latest Blog

First post First post
Author
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#401 - 2014-03-25 16:41:33 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Erotica1, fighter for freedom and against Tyranny. Who in hell would have thought that LOL.


As I said before, it's not when the popular handsome hero is on trial that our dedication to justice is tested. It's when the unpopular, ugly, awful unpleasant defendant needs a fair hearing.

That's when we really see who cares about doing what's right.

It should speak volumes about the community's state when a CSM candidate is defending these kind of actions.


Yes it does, it means the community was smart enough to elect a CSM who values reason over emotion.
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#402 - 2014-03-25 16:41:34 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Malcolm from Marketing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
18 pages in and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where they think CCP's responsibility to police our out of game actions ends.





No player will participate in any out of game actions with the intent to cause emotional distress for their own enjoyment and gain.

Hows that?


So, if there is someone I don't like at work - and I bring in a pie for my coworkers, of which is a flavor that he doesn't enjoy, and CCP gets wind of it - I should be banned? ...Oh it's for another EvE player? What if I'm married to an EvE player... you think there is ever a married couple that hasn't toyed emotionally with eachother playfully that would violate this rule?


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.

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."

Malcolm from Marketing
Klaatu Technologies
#403 - 2014-03-25 16:42:38 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


So basically, there are literally no rules and the only determining factor is being "offensive" to you.

If I hook up with another EVE player and form a relationship with her, should I be banned if Prince Kobol thinks she's too young for me?

How about if our alliances fight and you are offended by some of my propoganda posts on a 3rd party site?

Seriously, if you can't see why arbitrary banning for "offending" people - especially in a game like EVE - wouldn't be a huge whirlwind of a shitstorm, I don't know what to say to you. This isn't just a slippery slope: it's a 4km Luge ride straight to hell.


There you go again, presenting ridiculously extreme examples to try and make comparisons with the current issue.

There's only one major factor needed to judge where the line needs to be drawn, shall i tell you what it is as you appear to be devoid of realizing it yourself, or you do know what it is but prefer to pretend you dont just to provoke other posters.

It's Morality.

Plain and simple, maybe include a dash of common sense in there too, in which case we can dismiss every post you've made in this thread and we can all carry on wondering how you even became a CSM.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#404 - 2014-03-25 16:43:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
arabella blood wrote:
Since most of us agree that its the victim fault in this scenario. Can we also all agree that women with mini skirts are responsible for their R*pe?
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.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#405 - 2014-03-25 16:43:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Well...

I saw the comment violent video games makes you violent in one of the other post he did. I can now with certainty say... the dude is a moron.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

Tuscor
13.
#406 - 2014-03-25 16:44:35 UTC
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.

Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#407 - 2014-03-25 16:44:49 UTC
Pashino wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
18 pages in and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where they think CCP's responsibility to police our out of game actions ends.





Oh, I don't think they can 'police' anything out of game. No bearing on current issue presented in the thread, either.

The problem is, once you become aware of something, you're on notice. And then if something bad happens, you can end up being held legally liable. If you are aware of a risk and don't take reasonable precautions, that falls under the definition of negligence.
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2014-03-25 16:45:09 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
You ganked me, no sex for you tonight!

*BANNED*


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]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."

Drone 16
Holy Horde
#409 - 2014-03-25 16:45:44 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Drone 16 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Tuscor wrote:
Just ban Erotica1. The community does not need poisonous twats like that - and I for one am happy for the sandbox and 'emergent gameplay' to take second seat to cleaning the community of such filth.


People talk about gays in very similar terms to the ones you have used in your post.

Come to that, so have insane monogonadal austrian dictators.



What a ridiculous position to take. Why use your position in the community to stick up for an obvious piece of filth?


Plenty of people are happy to call homosexuals "obvious piece(s) of filth".

If CCP set a precedent that they'll ban someone who has broken no game rule or national law, but merely because some people think he's an "obvious piece of filth" then how do they deal with requests to ban gays? Interracial relationships? Ukranians? People who criticise the Scientologists?

"Er yucky" simply isn't a good enough reason.


You are obfuscating. You took a poor position on something and instead of just copping to it you are still attempting to justify it. Sounds like a certain former Austrian dictator...your stubbornness could cost lives...see what I did there? Sigh...

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits

Jaari Val'Dara
Grim Sleepers
#410 - 2014-03-25 16:46:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Drone 16 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Tuscor wrote:
Just ban Erotica1. The community does not need poisonous twats like that - and I for one am happy for the sandbox and 'emergent gameplay' to take second seat to cleaning the community of such filth.


People talk about gays in very similar terms to the ones you have used in your post.

Come to that, so have insane monogonadal austrian dictators.



What a ridiculous position to take. Why use your position in the community to stick up for an obvious piece of filth?


Plenty of people are happy to call homosexuals "obvious piece(s) of filth".

If CCP set a precedent that they'll ban someone who has broken no game rule or national law, but merely because some people think he's an "obvious piece of filth" then how do they deal with requests to ban gays? Interracial relationships? Ukranians? People who criticise the Scientologists?

"Er yucky" simply isn't a good enough reason.


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.
Malcolm from Marketing
Klaatu Technologies
#411 - 2014-03-25 16:46:16 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Malcolm from Marketing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
18 pages in and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where they think CCP's responsibility to police our out of game actions ends.





No player will participate in any out of game actions with the intent to cause emotional distress for their own enjoyment and gain.

Hows that?


So, if there is someone I don't like at work - and I bring in a pie for my coworkers, of which is a flavor that he doesn't enjoy, and CCP gets wind of it - I should be banned?


In which part of this example do you gain anything in game? This makes literally zero sense.

This is a bad post and you should feel bad for posting it.
Winchester Steele
#412 - 2014-03-25 16:47:37 UTC
mr ed thehouseofed wrote:
my 23 yr old son asked me why i did'nt join a corp and i play alone , i made him read every post in this thread . he thinks most of you are freaking idiots and now he understands why i play this game alone. i'm nearly 50 and some of you are the worst gamers i've ever come across in 30 years of gaming , if it wasn't for the fact nearly everyone has mutipile accounts i doubt this game would have lasted this long .

my 2 cents worth



Thanks for the unwarranted judgement Roll. 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.

...

Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#413 - 2014-03-25 16:49:44 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
You ganked me, no sex for you tonight!

*BANNED*


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!"


Come to daddy, I will bump you like there's no tomorrow...

Invalid signature format

Machagon
Amamake Anarchist Community College
#414 - 2014-03-25 16:51:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Machagon
Malcanis wrote:
Plenty of people are happy to call homosexuals "obvious piece(s) of filth".


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.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#415 - 2014-03-25 16:51:45 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
You ganked me, no sex for you tonight!

*BANNED*


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!"


Come to daddy, I will bump you like there's no tomorrow...

Docking request refused.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Qalix
Long Jump.
#416 - 2014-03-25 16:51:57 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Can you give me a reliable method of distinguishing them that doesn't boil down to "stuff that you personally dislike

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.
Spurty
#417 - 2014-03-25 16:52:07 UTC
The only funny thing going on in this thread is the "chewbacca defense" squad of white knights defending abhorant human being playing the same game as I play.

/me ignores questions from friends that don't play this game who have caught wind of it. Could be a big stink for CCP to deal with in the press soon.

Roll on March 27th I guess.


There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP

ShipSpin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#418 - 2014-03-25 16:52:11 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Is it CCP's responsibility to police out of game interaction between their players where no law has been broken?

If so, where does that responsibility end? Should they ban a player when his wife complains about him playing EVE instead of doing the chores?

If I hook up with another EVE player who happens to be from say Japan, should CCP have the right and duty to ban me if the GM involved disapproves of inter-racial relationships? What about homosexual relationships?

What if I encourage another player to log in to fleet and miss church on sunday?

Where exactly does CCP's "responsibility" end?


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).

Quote:
§ 11.443 Harassment.
A person commits a petty misdemeanor if, with purpose to harass another, he or she:
(a) Makes a telephone call without purpose or legitimate communication; or
(b) Insults, taunts or challenges another in a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response; or
(c) Makes repeated communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language; or
(d) Subjects another to an offensive touching; or
(e) Engages in any other course of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose.
Wesley Otsdarva
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#419 - 2014-03-25 16:52:37 UTC
Sent it to massively. Tiptoeing around the TOS and EULA so you can have fun by tormenting a player. Willingly or not. Getting on an emotional rollercoaster is easy, getting off is hard. And having people pressuring you to keep going down that path makes it even harder.
Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#420 - 2014-03-25 16:52:40 UTC
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.

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet