These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Josef Djugashvilis
#4521 - 2014-03-27 07:01:54 UTC
It was the making fun of a person's speech impediment which crossed the line, not the scam.

It is for this reason that I would like to see Ero banned from the game, it would also serve as a line in the sand (box) to let folk know that there are some types of behaviour which are beyond the pale even for Eve Online.

This is not a signature.
Icylce
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4522 - 2014-03-27 07:03:38 UTC
Hello Monument Visitor wrote:
I just want to summarize a bit for my own sake and maybe others. There really are a lot of posts about this now! Please indicate where I may have gone wrong...


  1. E1 baits gullible and / or vulnerable people in EvE with a scam.
  2. Once a potential victim is found and has shown sufficient vulnerability, they are invited to continue out of game on TS (the bonus room).
  3. The scam continues for a few minutes on TS until the victim has been scammed out of all in-game assets.
  4. E1 then ransoms the victim's assets through a series of humiliating & escalating non-game related actions & tasks, picking up on any possible weaknesses the victim may have (speech impediment for example).
  5. E1 continues this process for as long as it takes for the victim to display alarming levels of psychological torment & distress and snap into outrage.
  6. The whole process is recorded and sometimes made public.


What I gather from reading many (but not all) comments is that the player base in general are OK with 1 & 2 as it's all a part of the game we play. Most are still OK with 3 but some don't like taking it out of game (mainly due to subsequent steps I think, might be wrong here though).

4 is beginning to push certain limits that people have, mainly based around extending an EvE scam into real world actions. 5 is seen as thoroughly reprehensible. 6 isn't mentioned too much - some see it as pawn for E1's pleasure, some as further psychological torment of the victim.

That's my rough summary of the most common views from the players.

A minority try to validate E1's actions with things like "the victim should be banned for making threats", "HTFU, it's EvE", "he deserved it", "It's not illegal or in contravention of the EULA" (that's possibly the most common one) and possibly the most outstandingly appalling one is "E1 only did it to this extent once, other times weren't as bad so it's an outlier and is therefore OK".

For what it's worth, I'd say the majority of the EvE player base are morally sound people. The poor reputation that EvE's player base has is undeserved and is based on a very small minority. Reading this thread is evidence of this.


6. IS illegal if u dont have consent of person u record.
Lazrim
Doomheim
#4523 - 2014-03-27 07:04:20 UTC
The whole time you guys have been talking here, I've been mining alot of the Veldspar in low sec. I normally can't access.
I think I just beat you all at Eve the past two days!
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#4524 - 2014-03-27 07:09:23 UTC
Congratz! I invite you to my private belt where you can mine asteroids big as planets. You just have to show faith and contract all you already mined to me.

Invalid signature format
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4525 - 2014-03-27 07:09:34 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
getting them to gamble their stuff and then using that EvE virtual property as leverage to coerce them onto a team speak server where they are humiliated and harassed. They then post the recorded conversation on EvE forums to further humiliate that player.

In real life, people choose to go to casinos, even though it is well established that mathematically, the house always wins. It is a loosing game, but greed or other motivations lead them to choose to play.

So too here. Every step of the way, the "victim" had a choice.
He chose to get his isk doubled, though he suspected a scam.
He chose to enter the bonus room.
He chose to read the articles provided to him.
He chose to sing.
He chose to leave.
He chose to return.
He chose to threaten.
He chose to leave again.
He chose to return again.

You can disagree with his choices, but they were his to make every step of the way. At every step he could stop. And he did, not once, not twice, but thrice.

You can say that E1 manipulated him into staying and returning, but that disenfranchises the victim in our analysis. It removes his agency as an actor. You turn him from being a human being to being merely cattle, and I do not believe that is the case here. My opinion of the victim is not so low.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4526 - 2014-03-27 07:11:20 UTC
Lazrim wrote:
The whole time you guys have been talking here, I've been mining alot of the Veldspar in low sec. I normally can't access.
I think I just beat you all at Eve the past two days!

Veldspar mining automatically results in disqualification from ever winning EvE.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4527 - 2014-03-27 07:11:45 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lazrim wrote:
The whole time you guys have been talking here, I've been mining alot of the Veldspar in low sec. I normally can't access.
I think I just beat you all at Eve the past two days!

Veldspar mining automatically results in disqualification from ever winning EvE.


Chribba disagrees.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Erica Dusette
Division 13
#4528 - 2014-03-27 07:16:09 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
getting them to gamble their stuff and then using that EvE virtual property as leverage to coerce them onto a team speak server where they are humiliated and harassed. They then post the recorded conversation on EvE forums to further humiliate that player.

In real life, people choose to go to casinos, even though it is well established that mathematically, the house always wins. It is a loosing game, but greed or other motivations lead them to choose to play.

So too here. Every step of the way, the "victim" had a choice.
He chose to get his isk doubled, though he suspected a scam.
He chose to enter the bonus room.
He chose to read the articles provided to him.
He chose to sing.
He chose to leave.
He chose to return.
He chose to threaten.
He chose to leave again.
He chose to return again.

You can disagree with his choices, but they were his to make every step of the way. At every step he could stop. And he did, not once, not twice, but thrice.

You can say that E1 manipulated him into staying and returning, but that disenfranchises the victim in our analysis. It removes his agency as an actor. You turn him from being a human being to being merely cattle, and I do not believe that is the case here. My opinion of the victim is not so low.

The thing is though that in RL (at least here) Casinos are now bound by law to stop problem gamblers and addicts from gaming when they're spotted. Same with pubs and alcohol - the establishment is ultimately responsible for how drunk they allow someone to become.

We're seeing the same thing creep in online, where the sites are ultimately being asked to take responsibility for people who cannot meter their own interactions within the game.

Jack Miton > you be nice or you're sleeping on the couch again!

Part-Time Wormhole Pirate ツ Full-Time Supermodel

▷ worмнole dιary + cнaracтer вιoѕ ▷ вσss
Big Lynx
#4529 - 2014-03-27 07:17:00 UTC
OMG, it's a THRITAN!!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4530 - 2014-03-27 07:18:23 UTC
Erica Dusette wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
getting them to gamble their stuff and then using that EvE virtual property as leverage to coerce them onto a team speak server where they are humiliated and harassed. They then post the recorded conversation on EvE forums to further humiliate that player.

In real life, people choose to go to casinos, even though it is well established that mathematically, the house always wins. It is a loosing game, but greed or other motivations lead them to choose to play.

So too here. Every step of the way, the "victim" had a choice.
He chose to get his isk doubled, though he suspected a scam.
He chose to enter the bonus room.
He chose to read the articles provided to him.
He chose to sing.
He chose to leave.
He chose to return.
He chose to threaten.
He chose to leave again.
He chose to return again.

You can disagree with his choices, but they were his to make every step of the way. At every step he could stop. And he did, not once, not twice, but thrice.

You can say that E1 manipulated him into staying and returning, but that disenfranchises the victim in our analysis. It removes his agency as an actor. You turn him from being a human being to being merely cattle, and I do not believe that is the case here. My opinion of the victim is not so low.

The thing is though that in RL (at least here) Casinos are now bound by law to stop problem gamblers and addicts from gaming when they're spotted. Same with pubs and alcohol - the establishment is ultimately responsible for how drunk they allow someone to become.

We're seeing the same thing creep in online, where the sites are ultimately being asked to take responsibility for people who cannot meter their own interactions within the game.


If Sohkar is as emotionally unstable as he displayed in the chat, then "taking responsibility" for him pretty much just means IP banning him.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#4531 - 2014-03-27 07:19:10 UTC
Erica Dusette wrote:

Hmm, more good point from you! Smile

Is nice to have some reasonable discussion in this thread lol Seems most posters here are closer to "idiots" than anyone involved in the original bonus room issue were. P

You're absolutely correct with most of your points I think (I still disagree with your assesment of these emotional gamers as being unstable though - least not all of them). People will always rage in any game, no matter the circumstance of the game. But I feel it should come down to allowing only what is reasonable. Lost ISK to a scam? Got ganked? Then raged afterward? Too bad imo, those are reasonable circumstances within the boundaries of the game.

Allow yourself to be dragged through a silly thing on TS, acting out humiliating scenarios, affecting others around you IRL? Then have the whole episode made public for further humiliation? Hmmm. I think this begins to step into unreasonable territory, despite the 'victim' being able to end it at anytime. Chicken or the egg, I guess. Should we allow people to be placed in that situation to begin with when we know there will always be people who will come out the other side hurt in RL, regardless of their mental stability?

I dunno. But I look forward to hearing CCP's take eventually.

I, and I'm sure plenty of other 'hardcore' pvpers have raged at some stupid losses. Some people do it privately, some take it out on their fleetmates/corpmates watevs. The point it, most of the anger is at one's own stupidity for doing something stupid resulting in a setback in the game. It happens, but most sane people tend to shrug it off.

It's when you blame someone else for choices you made resulting in a loss, and persist, and then subject yourself to repeated humiliation and embarassing yourself. That's when it gets to be a problem and people like that should not be allowed to be unsupervised.

As you said, the victim could end it at any time, yet he did not choose to and chose to vent his anger with some very naughty language, returning to be humiliated repeatedly. Does that sound like a sane person to you?

And yes, we should allow people to place THEMSELVES in that kind of situation, because at the end of the day, restricting their choices is worse than allowing things like this to happen.

Plus it's great entertainment value.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4532 - 2014-03-27 07:21:20 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
getting them to gamble their stuff and then using that EvE virtual property as leverage to coerce them onto a team speak server where they are humiliated and harassed. They then post the recorded conversation on EvE forums to further humiliate that player.

In real life, people choose to go to casinos, even though it is well established that mathematically, the house always wins. It is a loosing game, but greed or other motivations lead them to choose to play.

So too here. Every step of the way, the "victim" had a choice.
He chose to get his isk doubled, though he suspected a scam.
He chose to enter the bonus room.
He chose to read the articles provided to him.
He chose to sing.
He chose to leave.
He chose to return.
He chose to threaten.
He chose to leave again.
He chose to return again.

You can disagree with his choices, but they were his to make every step of the way. At every step he could stop. And he did, not once, not twice, but thrice.

You can say that E1 manipulated him into staying and returning, but that disenfranchises the victim in our analysis. It removes his agency as an actor. You turn him from being a human being to being merely cattle, and I do not believe that is the case here. My opinion of the victim is not so low.

Doesn't change the facts - they broke the rules in regards to harassment and harming CCPs reputation.

Regarding the choice thing it's not accurate. You left out the coercive element. You're also ignoring the fact he was deliberately led along a path designed to keep him engaged.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Roggle
Tactically Euthanized
#4533 - 2014-03-27 07:22:04 UTC
A racist, homophobic, who threatens to commit murder is scammed. Ya he is a real innocent victim here...
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4534 - 2014-03-27 07:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Erica Dusette wrote:
The thing is though that in RL (at least here) Casinos are now bound by law to stop problem gamblers and addicts from gaming when they're spotted. Same with pubs and alcohol - the establishment is ultimately responsible for how drunk they allow someone to become.

We're seeing the same thing creep in online, where the sites are ultimately being asked to take responsibility for people who cannot meter their own interactions within the game.

To be fair, Erotica 1 has said time and time again that he will stop if CCP tells him to stop. If CCP dislikes a particular aspect of the bonus room he will (and has in the past) cease and desist. He fully and openly in cooperation with CCP "regulations" as it were.

That is why I can't support a ban for E1, much as I'd like to. Everything you say is true, casinos are regulated by the government. And the bonus room IS "regulated" by CCP.
Icylce
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4535 - 2014-03-27 07:23:31 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:

In real life, people choose to go to casinos, even though it is well established that mathematically, the house always wins. It is a loosing game, but greed or other motivations lead them to choose to play.

So too here. Every step of the way, the "victim" had a choice.
He chose to get his isk doubled, though he suspected a scam.
He chose to enter the bonus room.
He chose to read the articles provided to him.
He chose to sing.
He chose to leave.
He chose to return.
He chose to threaten.
He chose to leave again.
He chose to return again.

You can disagree with his choices, but they were his to make every step of the way. At every step he could stop. And he did, not once, not twice, but thrice.

You can say that E1 manipulated him into staying and returning, but that disenfranchises the victim in our analysis. It removes his agency as an actor. You turn him from being a human being to being merely cattle, and I do not believe that is the case here. My opinion of the victim is not so low.


Yes, lets not analyze events in all their complexity but pick isolated parts to make our judgement.

"Ad absurdum" By your logic someone who kills other person will alway be charged for murder and circumstances of the case will be ignored because even if he had to choose between death of his family and death of unknown person, the responsibility for the choice is solely his . The ppl who made him choose dont have anything to do with it.

Ofc it is obvious the victim did wrong too with his unnecerilly expresive language at the end, but bear in mind, he eventually apologizes. Erotica and his croonies just make excuses and shift blame.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#4536 - 2014-03-27 07:23:39 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
they broke the rules in regards to harassment and harming CCPs reputation.

No to both of those.

Oh god.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4537 - 2014-03-27 07:24:20 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Infinity Ziona wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:

You can say that E1 manipulated him into staying and returning, but that disenfranchises the victim in our analysis. It removes his agency as an actor. You turn him from being a human being to being merely cattle, and I do not believe that is the case here. My opinion of the victim is not so low.

Doesn't change the facts - they broke the rules in regards to harassment and harming CCPs reputation.

Regarding the choice thing it's not accurate. You left out the coercive element. You're also ignoring the fact he was deliberately led along a path designed to keep him engaged.

Cite the precise rule E1 broke and reread my last, bolded paragraph regarding coercion and manipulation. Please. I didn't ignore it, I attacked it head on. You chose not to read it.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#4538 - 2014-03-27 07:25:17 UTC
Erica Dusette wrote:
The thing is though that in RL (at least here) Casinos are now bound by law to stop problem gamblers and addicts from gaming when they're spotted. Same with pubs and alcohol - the establishment is ultimately responsible for how drunk they allow someone to become.

We're seeing the same thing creep in online, where the sites are ultimately being asked to take responsibility for people who cannot meter their own interactions within the game.

This is the part of RL that I don't agree with. People are beginning to lose all sense of personal responsibility and demanding that other people take responsibility for their actions. Which is wrong. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and choices. This shirking of responsibility and accountability for one's own action is a plague on this world.
Cha'ka Khan
Dark Skies Dojo
Wrong Hole.
#4539 - 2014-03-27 07:25:32 UTC
Maxpie wrote:
If true, this crosses way over the line. CCP, this is okay with you? Really?



Silly White Knight Carebear.... Blink

The only thing we have to fear, is new pilots and AFK miners. 
Space Juden
Supermassive Potato Pancake
#4540 - 2014-03-27 07:26:05 UTC
Roggle wrote:
A racist, homophobic, who threatens to commit murder is scammed. Ya he is a real innocent victim here...


Even if what you said is true, if homo"phobia" was a real fear and "racism" wasn't innate in everyone in at least the pretense of social outgrouping. What does it matter?

Do juries decide sentencing based on the pathology of the victim?