These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#941 - 2014-03-25 21:19:06 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I find all of this thoroughly entertaining.

I can tell a lot of people haven't listened to the whole audio file. The end is the best part! Pirate


you mean when the poor ikkle victim starts spewing racism and real life threats?
i gotta admit, i lol'd at that.

Well... yah exactly? Erotica 1's actions are "debateable" at best. That 'victim's' reaction was a clear EULA violation. If you really wanted to come down to brass tacks, that guy would be banned. Because of the circumstances it's being overlooked, but if you press on the rules, if you are even talking/writing about having having Erotica 1 banned, than you would absolutely have to ban the victim here. It's crystal clear to me...

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Forum Clone 77777
Doomheim
#942 - 2014-03-25 21:20:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Forum Clone 77777
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Let me see if I can construct an analogy that is reasonably relevant and accurate to this:

...

Anyways, was worth an attempt. Take from it what you will.


Yea, but for this to be accurate, you need these details:

The casino chips cannot be exhanged into real money.
You can play the casino without the casino chips.
The scary men in the alley arent scary, theyre pulling a joke, and instead of being there with them personally, youre talking to them on the phone, having the ability to hang up at any time. And you litterally lose nothing.

Yes, then this scenario, unless I missed something, would be fairly correct.

EDIT: Im ignoring the "alert the casino police" bit as whats said on a private teamspeak server should not be tied to accounts on EVE when its CCP being involved.
Imo.
Dave Stark
#943 - 2014-03-25 21:20:40 UTC
Navi Annages wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I find all of this thoroughly entertaining.

I can tell a lot of people haven't listened to the whole audio file. The end is the best part! Pirate


you mean when the poor ikkle victim starts spewing racism and real life threats?
i gotta admit, i lol'd at that.


The end of the audio is just fantastic. I listened to it 3 times. My wife just lawled.


not sure that was the response jester predicted, but cool.
Salvos Rhoska
#944 - 2014-03-25 21:20:57 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Let me see if I can construct an analogy that is reasonably relevant and accurate to this:


You are in a casino.
You hold in your possession a stack of the casino's chips.
You are entitled to use these chips, though they nominally actually belong to the casino establishment.

In the course of your activities in the casino, you are approached by a shady individual offering to double your casino chips.
You are such an idiot, that you believe this claim, and hand over your chips to the guy.
He is now, legitimately, holding your chips. You gave them to him. Sucks to be you.

This part of the story ends there, and represents the initial ingame events.
So far, this is all kosher and legit. No problems.


The next part represents what happens OUT of the game, and is far harder to model on the analogy, but Ill try:

The same guy you gave your chips to, who is now holding your chips in HIS pocket, now informs you that in order for the rest of the your doubling to occur, you have to follow him out of the casino establishment, and into a dark alley.

This presents a real problem for you.
He is now legitimately holding your chips. You gave them to him. They are in his pocket.
You have no direct recourse to re-aquiring the chips, except to comply and follow him down that dark alley.
The only way that you can get them back, or have even a hope of getting them back, is to do as he says.

At this point you can either decline, and lose everything, or comply, in the hope that atleast you can get back your own stack of chips and the earlier latent promise of him doubling them is still being offered as an incentive.

The casino, however, does not allow customers to take their chips outside of the establishment.
So the other man deposits your chips, out of his pocket, at the casino door.

You then both leave environment that is the casino, as an establishment with its own set rules of conduct and security on its premises.

You follow him until eventually you reach a dark alley.

There, other shady men appear, and together, they begin demanding that you perform humiliating and demeaning tasks if you ever want to see your chips again. This continues for a full 2hrs and, because your wife is worried where you got to, she finds you in the alley with these men, being demanded to perform these humiliating tasks for return of your chips.

The men also record the entire activity for purposes of sharing with their "friends", for enjoyment.

All of this happened outside the casino, and the chips are still back in the casino.
They are still OWNED by the casino. The casinos rules have not changed in the meantime.


Now onto the part of what should happen now:

Now, it is informed to the casino staff that there is somebody going around on their business premises offering to double the chips of other clients, pocketing those chips from them, and then taking the victims down a dark alley for 2hrs of recorded humiliation and demeaning on the false promise of returning those chips to them (which dont actually belong to either of the participants).

I, as the casino manager, upon hearing this, immediately blackball and exclude the shady people from ever doing this to my customers again. I do it for the protection of my customers, for the protection of my chips and for the protection of the reputation of my establishment.

Anyways, was worth an attempt. Take from it what you will.
Can I have a TL:DR?


No, you cannot.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Xander Delacroix
Doomheim
#945 - 2014-03-25 21:23:52 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I find all of this thoroughly entertaining.

I can tell a lot of people haven't listened to the whole audio file. The end is the best part! Pirate


you mean when the poor ikkle victim starts spewing racism and real life threats?
i gotta admit, i lol'd at that.

Well... yah exactly? Erotica 1's actions are "debateable" at best. That 'victim's' reaction was a clear EULA violation. If you really wanted to come down to brass tacks, that guy would be banned. Because of the circumstances it's being overlooked, but if you press on the rules, if you are even talking/writing about having having Erotica 1 banned, than you would absolutely have to ban the victim here. It's crystal clear to me...


Much as I hate to break your little trollish bubble, but as has been noted many times by those coming to E1's defence, said verbal outburst by the victim happened OUTSIDE Eve. Therefore no EULA violation. You can't have it both ways...
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#946 - 2014-03-25 21:24:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

There, other shady men appear, and together, they begin demanding that you perform humiliating and demeaning tasks if you ever want to see your chips again. This continues for a full 2hrs and, because your wife is worried where you got to, she finds you in the alley with these men, being demanded to perform these humiliating tasks for return of your chips.


CCP offers the ability to run our own roulette tables with the chips, the casino on the other hand is both CCP and erotica. and will break the legs of anyone seen running a roulette table on their premises, and couldn't care less what you did in a dark alley.

At which point I'm going to have to declare your analogy terrible.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#947 - 2014-03-25 21:25:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Let me see if I can construct an analogy that is reasonably relevant and accurate to this:


You are in a casino.
You hold in your possession a stack of the casino's chips.
You are entitled to use these chips, though they nominally actually belong to the casino establishment.

In the course of your activities in the casino, you are approached by a shady individual offering to double your casino chips.
You are such an idiot, that you believe this claim, and hand over your chips to the guy.
He is now, legitimately, holding your chips. You gave them to him. Sucks to be you.

This part of the story ends there, and represents the initial ingame events.
So far, this is all kosher and legit. No problems.


The next part represents what happens OUT of the game, and is far harder to model on the analogy, but Ill try:

The same guy you gave your chips to, who is now holding your chips in HIS pocket, now informs you that in order for the rest of the your doubling to occur, you have to follow him out of the casino establishment, and into a dark alley.

This presents a real problem for you.
He is now legitimately holding your chips. You gave them to him. They are in his pocket.
You have no direct recourse to re-aquiring the chips, except to comply and follow him down that dark alley.
The only way that you can get them back, or have even a hope of getting them back, is to do as he says.

At this point you can either decline, and lose everything, or comply, in the hope that atleast you can get back your own stack of chips and the earlier latent promise of him doubling them is still being offered as an incentive.

The casino, however, does not allow customers to take their chips outside of the establishment.
So the other man deposits your chips, out of his pocket, at the casino door.

You then both leave environment that is the casino, as an establishment with its own set rules of conduct and security on its premises.

You follow him until eventually you reach a dark alley.

There, other shady men appear, and together, they begin demanding that you perform humiliating and demeaning tasks if you ever want to see your chips again. This continues for a full 2hrs and, because your wife is worried where you got to, she finds you in the alley with these men, being demanded to perform these humiliating tasks for return of your chips.

The men also record the entire activity for purposes of sharing with their "friends", for enjoyment.

All of this happened outside the casino, and the chips are still back in the casino.
They are still OWNED by the casino. The casinos rules have not changed in the meantime.


Now onto the part of what should happen now:

Now, it is informed to the casino staff that there is somebody going around on their business premises offering to double the chips of other clients, pocketing those chips from them, and then taking the victims down a dark alley for 2hrs of recorded humiliation and demeaning on the false promise of returning those chips to them (which dont actually belong to either of the participants).

I, as the casino manager, upon hearing this, immediately blackball and exclude the shady people from ever doing this to my customers again. I do it for the protection of my customers, for the protection of my chips and for the protection of the reputation of my establishment.

Anyways, was worth an attempt. Take from it what you will.
Can I have a TL:DR?


No, you cannot.
What's the matter, can't think of a TL;DR for bullshit?

I'll help you out, the TL;DR for what you wrote is BS

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#948 - 2014-03-25 21:25:12 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hands up everyone who can see a problem with demanding the CCP ban people on the basis of "They haven't broken any game rules, and they haven't broken any laws, but I find them personally distasteful"
Hands up anyone who missed the point of "Isn't that the game where...?"

Well, CCP is officially aware of the incident upthread. Let's see what they choose to do about it before someone dies.
Malcolm from Marketing
Klaatu Technologies
#949 - 2014-03-25 21:25:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Malcolm from Marketing wrote:
Sirinda wrote:
I am appaled at what he's doing, but I also get Malcanis' point of view, if it is the one I think it is.

Basically, you can't punish somebody who hasn't broken any rules, and doing so in spite of it would create a dangerous precedent. In that regard, CCP's hands are more or less tied unless they want to invoke their TOS' arbitrary savior clause.

What a lot of people on the pages 1-5 are apparently forgetting is the fact CCP created those rules; there is no reason they couldn't adapt them to the situation.
Failure to do so would border on criminal negligence, IMHO.


Ive said it multiple times to multiple people in this thread.

The Mittani + Fan fest.

It happened, he broke no rules, yet he got a temp ban and was forced from his position. That was the right thing to do in that situation, its also my opinion that Erotica should have all his assets/isk removed and also receive a ban, but i have morals so i guess im in the minority.


A member of BATs was recorded by nulli singing the theam tune to my little pony (badly). They attempted to use it to get us to kick him out of goons. We laughed at this as did our corp member.

We have in the past told people who messed up in a fleet to sing on comms to make amends.

We have gotten people to place plungers on their heads and apologise via a photo of them doing it for crimes they have committed.

I guess you consider these bullying too?


No, i consider those acts as punishment for being dumb in a fleet, it's in good taste and doesnt go too far and cross in to purposeful and prolonged bullying with the intent to inflict as much hurt and distress on that individual. Theres no malice involved in singing on comms to your corp mates to make up for never not shooting blues.

Erotica got that guys assets/isk in that recording, but instead of kicking him and moving on, decided instead to prolong his humiliation for his own and his hangers on amusements.

Theres a very clear difference, you know it too, but your choosing to play devils advocate.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#950 - 2014-03-25 21:25:53 UTC
Xander Delacroix wrote:


Much as I hate to break your little trollish bubble, but as has been noted many times by those coming to E1's defence, said verbal outburst by the victim happened OUTSIDE Eve. Therefore no EULA violation. You can't have it both ways...


No you cant.

Either they are both punished, or neither is.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Dave Stark
#951 - 2014-03-25 21:26:10 UTC
Xander Delacroix wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I find all of this thoroughly entertaining.

I can tell a lot of people haven't listened to the whole audio file. The end is the best part! Pirate


you mean when the poor ikkle victim starts spewing racism and real life threats?
i gotta admit, i lol'd at that.

Well... yah exactly? Erotica 1's actions are "debateable" at best. That 'victim's' reaction was a clear EULA violation. If you really wanted to come down to brass tacks, that guy would be banned. Because of the circumstances it's being overlooked, but if you press on the rules, if you are even talking/writing about having having Erotica 1 banned, than you would absolutely have to ban the victim here. It's crystal clear to me...


Much as I hate to break your little trollish bubble, but as has been noted many times by those coming to E1's defence, said verbal outburst by the victim happened OUTSIDE Eve. Therefore no EULA violation. You can't have it both ways...


but that's kinda the point; those calling for ero's ban because "it did breach the eula/tos/whatever" even though it was outside of the game seem to overlook that in that full recording, nothing ero said or did was worse than the amount of profanity, racism, and real life threats that erupted forth from the "victim" in the space of about 60 seconds towards the end of the recording which is far more ban worthy.
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#952 - 2014-03-25 21:27:18 UTC
Mag's wrote:
You do know CCP allows pilots to offer services for ISK, right?

So again, please point to the RMT as I seem to have missed it. No rush, take your time.


Lets look at the RMT clause of the EULA and find that lovely spot where services are allowed!

Quote:
B. Selling Items and Objects

You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction. The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions, newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game.


Oh wait, it never says services are allowed. You may be referring to a common practice of CCP allowing people to send isk to certain people for EVE related services. That is CCP choosing not to enforce their EULA in certain circumstances. So far they have not made a definitive ruling on humiliating singing being an acceptable service.

It does make it clear that you cannot offer to transfer in game items. But that is too broad! Well obviously CCP has written it broadly so that they can ban people when they want to. The whole question of banning comes down to whether CCP wants to ban, not whether they can find part of the EULA to ban them with.

For my part I will consider Erotica1 to be involved in offers (although probably not transfers) of in game items in trade for humiliating singing for his sick pleasure.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#953 - 2014-03-25 21:27:30 UTC
Snupe Doggur wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Hands up everyone who can see a problem with demanding the CCP ban people on the basis of "They haven't broken any game rules, and they haven't broken any laws, but I find them personally distasteful"
Hands up anyone who missed the point of "Isn't that the game where...?"

Well, CCP is officially aware of the incident upthread. Let's see what they choose to do about it before someone dies.


I would like to slap you with a fish for that one.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#954 - 2014-03-25 21:28:42 UTC
Kadl wrote:


It does make it clear that you cannot offer to transfer in game items. But that is too broad! Well obviously CCP has written it broadly so that they can ban people when they want to. The whole question of banning comes down to whether CCP wants to ban, not whether they can find part of the EULA to ban them with.

For my part I will consider Erotica1 to be involved in offers (although probably not transfers) of in game items in trade for humiliating singing for his sick pleasure.


So.... you cant send isk to other players. Ever.

Uh huh.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#955 - 2014-03-25 21:29:45 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Xander Delacroix wrote:


Much as I hate to break your little trollish bubble, but as has been noted many times by those coming to E1's defence, said verbal outburst by the victim happened OUTSIDE Eve. Therefore no EULA violation. You can't have it both ways...


No you cant.

Either they are both punished, or neither is.



Or CCP takes it as a wake-up call to modify the TOS/EULA.

Mr Epeen Cool
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#956 - 2014-03-25 21:29:46 UTC
Cool, almost to page 50. I have the greatest level of respect for this awesome game CCP lets us play. If Hilmar posted in this thread something like "Hey Ero, a lot of us think the bonus rounds are really funny, but we would prefer if you did xzy differently, maybe start a bank instead," I would totally honor his request.

So many people up in arms over something that happened awhile ago (and widely read on www.minerbumping.com in a 4 part series) because some guy named Ripard? posted something.

Instead of the "to the stakes!" talk, let's do what CCP falcon asked early on and remain civil. Thanks.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#957 - 2014-03-25 21:30:14 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Xander Delacroix wrote:


Much as I hate to break your little trollish bubble, but as has been noted many times by those coming to E1's defence, said verbal outburst by the victim happened OUTSIDE Eve. Therefore no EULA violation. You can't have it both ways...


No you cant.

Either they are both punished, or neither is.



Or CCP takes it as a wake-up call to modify the TOS/EULA.

Mr Epeen Cool


That too.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Forum Clone 77777
Doomheim
#958 - 2014-03-25 21:30:15 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Xander Delacroix wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I find all of this thoroughly entertaining.

I can tell a lot of people haven't listened to the whole audio file. The end is the best part! Pirate


you mean when the poor ikkle victim starts spewing racism and real life threats?
i gotta admit, i lol'd at that.

Well... yah exactly? Erotica 1's actions are "debateable" at best. That 'victim's' reaction was a clear EULA violation. If you really wanted to come down to brass tacks, that guy would be banned. Because of the circumstances it's being overlooked, but if you press on the rules, if you are even talking/writing about having having Erotica 1 banned, than you would absolutely have to ban the victim here. It's crystal clear to me...


Much as I hate to break your little trollish bubble, but as has been noted many times by those coming to E1's defence, said verbal outburst by the victim happened OUTSIDE Eve. Therefore no EULA violation. You can't have it both ways...


but that's kinda the point; those calling for ero's ban because "it did breach the eula/tos/whatever" even though it was outside of the game seem to overlook that in that full recording, nothing ero said or did was worse than the amount of profanity, racism, and real life threats that erupted forth from the "victim" in the space of about 60 seconds towards the end of the recording which is far more ban worthy.

Im pretty sure if I made fun of someones inability to pronounce certain words quite properly or being a grammar nazi in EVE I wouldnt be banned, I dont see why Erotica 1 should be banned for doing just this on the teamspeak? Unless we're onto the whole "BLACKMAILING" thing which is obviously not what happened, for reasons mentioned earlier.
If anything, the so called "victim" is the one who could potantially be found as crossing the line of whats OK to say to another person.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#959 - 2014-03-25 21:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
malc i got the outmost respect but would this action not fall under duress? http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/duress

from what i get.

the indivdual is put under duress to be compelled to do these actions. the reason for this is the hostage of CCP assests. Be it in game or out of game.

such actions should be seen as null and void and any proof of this suplied to CCP should be enough for a temp ban and reversal of in game transactions.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Xander Delacroix
Doomheim
#960 - 2014-03-25 21:31:14 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Xander Delacroix wrote:


Much as I hate to break your little trollish bubble, but as has been noted many times by those coming to E1's defence, said verbal outburst by the victim happened OUTSIDE Eve. Therefore no EULA violation. You can't have it both ways...


No you cant.

Either they are both punished, or neither is.



Or CCP takes it as a wake-up call to modify the TOS/EULA.

Mr Epeen Cool


This. So much this.