These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#4101 - 2014-03-27 00:29:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
dexington wrote:


Which is expected when left with two choices, where you lose no matter which you pick...

I think many don't like the idea of touching one of the core elements of eve, which is the right to scam people without ccp getting involved. We know what we have at the moment, if ccp decides to get involved and implement rules, it will affect more people then just E1 and the bonus room.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Don't really know if that applies to this situation, but in the end ccp can't really protect anyone from people like E1, no matter what rules they make. There are still going to be fools who are going to get scammed out of everything they own, but maybe in a less publicly humiliating way.

If CCP decides to get involved everyone playing eve is going to lose a little of the freedom we currently have in eve, and i don't really think anyone wants that.

Exactly this, especially the bolded part. I wish I had more than one like to give.

Some of us are not defending Erotica, we're defending the right to relieve the careless of their stuff. The effects of changing that could be immense.

I've made it plain that I find the bonus room to be in bad taste, I've also made it plain that I feel the colourful rant by the victim was unacceptable as are some of the comparisons I've seen bandied about, that trivialise what the victims of torture, child abuse and sexual assault go through.

Racism is not acceptable, regardless of the EULA.
Everyone is a human being, regardless of their colour.

I'm now staying away from this thread, before it gets any worse.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#4102 - 2014-03-27 00:30:04 UTC
Dieterlin wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jill Chastot wrote:




Last i checked it's not illegal to be rascist or homophobic, just socially unacceptable,

Oh wait thats what this entire thread is about....

Cultural and social acceptabilities in an online game...

...

...
/enlightenment



it IS illegal (against the rules) in EVE online to be racist and homophobic. If the person who didn't break the rules (E1) should be punished, the guy who did break the rules should be punished more severly.

And death threats are illegal (against the law) everywhere I know of.


In the EULA, under "Specifically Restricted Conduct":

EULA wrote:
You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.


Now, if Ero1's teamspeak falls under this section of the EULA, both Ero1 and the victim should be banned. Ero1 is clearly harassing other players ("behaviour intended to disturb or upset" outside of normal gameplay) and the victim is clearly making threats.

If Ero1's teamspeak isn't covered by the EULA, then it's completely up to CCP's judgement what happens next.

But you really can't say that E1 is "the person who didn't break the rules", because either they both did or they both didn't.



Winner
Winner
Winner

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
Mario Putzo
#4103 - 2014-03-27 00:30:04 UTC
did they ban ripard yet?
Tor Norman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4104 - 2014-03-27 00:30:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tor Norman
For those of you just joining us and are a little confused where this threadnaught came from, allow me to explain the cycle of arguments that have been repeating until now.

Erotica 1 is mean and should be permabanned.
Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.
He's forfeiting his space cash because he got scammed. Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.

As of this writing, the cyclical argument has entered its 206th iteration. So far, nobody seems to have caught on.

I talk about EVE trading and general space violence in my blog.

For the ISK and the yarr!
Genseric Tollaris
Hard Cog Industry
#4105 - 2014-03-27 00:31:21 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Genseric Tollaris wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Dribble


You're a weasel and a grass. You should be removed as csm and given a temp ban for dragging other players into the public light, namely Sohkar and his racist ranting and racial abuse of another Eve player. Whatever happens out of this, if Ero gets it, you and Sokhar had better bloody well get it too.


He better get a ******* medal for having the balls to call bullshit as it is. But keep trying to be edgy bro, you'll get it on day.

Ripard, you done good.


It doesn't surprise me that a pubbie scrub like yourself would support Riptard. Keep supporting racism bro, you'll get it one day.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#4106 - 2014-03-27 00:31:22 UTC
Dieterlin wrote:


Victims don't have to be innocent, or intelligent. This is irrelevant to the discussion about Ero1, but seems to be repeated every second post for some reason - probably because what Ero1 did is indefensible, and his supporters need to divert the conversation to something else.

Now, the victim is clearly also guilty of using slurs and making threats, and may deserve a ban as well, but that's a separate issue entirely.


Yeah, telling someone to sing "Gummy Bears to the Rescue" is indefensible. Roll

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Anslo
Scope Works
#4107 - 2014-03-27 00:33:55 UTC
Genseric Tollaris wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Genseric Tollaris wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Dribble


You're a weasel and a grass. You should be removed as csm and given a temp ban for dragging other players into the public light, namely Sohkar and his racist ranting and racial abuse of another Eve player. Whatever happens out of this, if Ero gets it, you and Sokhar had better bloody well get it too.


He better get a ******* medal for having the balls to call bullshit as it is. But keep trying to be edgy bro, you'll get it on day.

Ripard, you done good.


It doesn't surprise me that a pubbie scrub like yourself would support Riptard. Keep supporting racism bro, you'll get it one day.


Coming from a PL pet that doesn't mean much.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#4108 - 2014-03-27 00:34:06 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Drone 16 wrote:
I mean he volunteered the info, who could be that stupid?! The TOS wasn't violated, he VOLUNTARILY left his personal info out on the internet so also no laws were broken. He is going to man up and take the consequences.

Damned shame really... remind me to tell you again how thin that blanket you cling to is...
I'm not sure we have enough information either way to confirm the facts?

After all, what we have is the comment of a former GSF member and the comment of a current Goon.

Does that really give us enough information to know the truth and be able to sling mud in either direction?


We had a post earlier by E1 stating that a "DJ" was "blackmailing" him over personal info that "DJ" "dug" up on him. I can't be bothered to find it, but it seems to corroborate what the Goons are saying.

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits
Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#4109 - 2014-03-27 00:34:14 UTC
Tor Norman wrote:
For those of you just joining us and are a little confused where this threadnaught came from, allow me to explain the cycle of arguments that have been repeating until now.

Erotica 1 is mean and should be permabanned.
Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.
He's forfeiting his space cash because he got scammed. Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.

As of this writing, the cyclical argument has entered its 206th iteration. So far, nobody seems to have caught on.



EULA wrote:
You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#4110 - 2014-03-27 00:34:44 UTC
Jill Chastot wrote:
Dieterlin wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jill Chastot wrote:




Last i checked it's not illegal to be rascist or homophobic, just socially unacceptable,

Oh wait thats what this entire thread is about....

Cultural and social acceptabilities in an online game...

...

...
/enlightenment



it IS illegal (against the rules) in EVE online to be racist and homophobic. If the person who didn't break the rules (E1) should be punished, the guy who did break the rules should be punished more severly.

And death threats are illegal (against the law) everywhere I know of.


In the EULA, under "Specifically Restricted Conduct":

EULA wrote:
You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.


Now, if Ero1's teamspeak falls under this section of the EULA, both Ero1 and the victim should be banned. Ero1 is clearly harassing other players ("behaviour intended to disturb or upset" outside of normal gameplay) and the victim is clearly making threats.

If Ero1's teamspeak isn't covered by the EULA, then it's completely up to CCP's judgement what happens next.

But you really can't say that E1 is "the person who didn't break the rules", because either they both did or they both didn't.



Winner
Winner
Winner



ERT! Wrong.

Erotic 1 did not submit any content (etcetc) to any chat room (etcetc) WITHIN THE GAME that is harassing, abusive, (etcandsoforth). The interaction happened over TeamSpeak.

Be very careful here. Your logic can set a precedent wherein people can be banned on EVE for yelling at corp mates over private Mumble servers.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#4111 - 2014-03-27 00:35:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Dieterlin wrote:

Victims don't have to be innocent, or intelligent. This is irrelevant to the discussion about Ero1, but seems to be repeated every second post for some reason - probably because what Ero1 did is indefensible, and his supporters need to divert the conversation to something else.

Now, the victim is clearly also guilty of using slurs and making threats, and may deserve a ban as well, but that's a separate issue entirely.

Unfortunately it isn't separate or irrelevant.

Every other thread related to this has been shut down with instructions to discuss it all here.

The whole lot of it from the motivations of Ripard to post, to the motivations and behaviour of Erotica 1 and escrow agents, th behaviour of Sokhar and in general what is acceptable by the community is all part of this thread.
Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#4112 - 2014-03-27 00:36:15 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Splerg




T_______________________________________T

Read the last line you flaming nitwit

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#4113 - 2014-03-27 00:36:50 UTC
Jill Chastot wrote:
Tor Norman wrote:
For those of you just joining us and are a little confused where this threadnaught came from, allow me to explain the cycle of arguments that have been repeating until now.

Erotica 1 is mean and should be permabanned.
Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.
He's forfeiting his space cash because he got scammed. Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.

As of this writing, the cyclical argument has entered its 206th iteration. So far, nobody seems to have caught on.



EULA wrote:
You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-party’s intellectual property rights.


You're very bad at interpreting this sort of language, aren't you?

Linking a TeamSpeak server is not "submitting content to any chat room within the Game that is harassing, abusive, (etcetc)."

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#4114 - 2014-03-27 00:37:35 UTC
Jill Chastot wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Splerg




T_______________________________________T

Read the last line you flaming nitwit


I did. It's irrelevant to the point I was making. Get madder.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#4115 - 2014-03-27 00:38:20 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Jill Chastot wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Splerg




T_______________________________________T

Read the last line you flaming nitwit


I did. It's irrelevant to the point I was making. Get madder.



The entire quote is pointing to the fact that either they both did wrong or none did wrong.... so your big high and mighty post is literally pointless

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
Simyaldee
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4116 - 2014-03-27 00:39:09 UTC
Tor Norman wrote:
For those of you just joining us and are a little confused where this threadnaught came from, allow me to explain the cycle of arguments that have been repeating until now.

Erotica 1 is mean and should be permabanned.
Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.
He's forfeiting his space cash because he got scammed. Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.

As of this writing, the cyclical argument has entered its 206th iteration. So far, nobody seems to have caught on.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4396444#post4396444


As said in my post, Sohkars ability to leave does not in any way remove blame from Erotica 1 and Co. for their actions. They also had the choice to end the humiliation at any time but they did not so the blame must lie on them.

Member, Fighter and FC for The Great Harmon Institute of Technology 
Genseric Tollaris
Hard Cog Industry
#4117 - 2014-03-27 00:39:18 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Genseric Tollaris wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Genseric Tollaris wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Dribble


You're a weasel and a grass. You should be removed as csm and given a temp ban for dragging other players into the public light, namely Sohkar and his racist ranting and racial abuse of another Eve player. Whatever happens out of this, if Ero gets it, you and Sokhar had better bloody well get it too.


He better get a ******* medal for having the balls to call bullshit as it is. But keep trying to be edgy bro, you'll get it on day.

Ripard, you done good.


It doesn't surprise me that a pubbie scrub like yourself would support Riptard. Keep supporting racism bro, you'll get it one day.


Coming from a PL pet that doesn't mean much.


Says the pubbie scrub.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#4118 - 2014-03-27 00:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuixien
Jill Chastot wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Jill Chastot wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Splerg




T_______________________________________T

Read the last line you flaming nitwit


I did. It's irrelevant to the point I was making. Get madder.



The entire quote is pointing to the fact that either they both did wrong or none did wrong.... so your big high and mighty post is literally pointless


My point is that you misinterpreted the portion of the EULA you posted.

The same way you misinterpreted what I posted.

I'm noticing a pattern here.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4119 - 2014-03-27 00:40:22 UTC
Genseric Tollaris wrote:
It doesn't surprise me that a pubbie scrub like yourself would support Riptard. Keep supporting racism bro, you'll get it one day.


If you are so concerned about racism, i can point you on the direction of some **** on kugu recordings where players who seem to be involved in sniggerdly/WAFFLES./SniggWaffe/PL are freely throwing around racist remarks.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#4120 - 2014-03-27 00:41:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Jill Chastot wrote:
The entire quote is pointing to the fact that either they both did wrong or none did wrong.... so your big high and mighty post is literally pointless

I'm a defender of Sokhar in that I don't for a second believe he actually meant any of what he said and he made a great decision not to go to work in the state he was in. It was an emotional outburst. Nothing more.

However, at the same time I don't think it's possible to defend him to the extent of saying he did nothing wrong. He clearly did. Even as a non-American I understand the limits on certain language that apply in that country.

So even if the EULA doesn't apply (I don't see that it does but it's not my call, so that means nothing), then Sokhar still acted in a manner that was extremely offensive and bigoted, irrespective of the reasons.

On Ero's side, if the EULA applies, then CCP can rule on that (I'm sure their legal department is looking at that aspect as part of the discussions internally).

If the EULA doesn't apply, then it's not clear that Erotica 1 did anything wrong unless you conclude the motivation was to deliberately demean Sokhar, in which case it's an issue of human decency.

I don't believe we can conclude that we know with 100% certainty what the motivation was. There appear to be bonus room winners as well, so it may well be a tightly rule bound activity that people can actually get through successfully.