These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Salvos Rhoska
#5101 - 2014-03-27 13:09:42 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
You have lied, demonstrably and repeatedly, throughout this thread. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I definitely believe you when you claim to be a lawyer. But you're not a very good one.


That is demonstrably a lie. I have at no point anywhere claimed to be a lawyer.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5102 - 2014-03-27 13:10:37 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:
Crumplecorn wrote:
LordOfDespair wrote:
You are trying to rationalize a logical fallacy.

LOL
If you don't have an actual response I can't really follow up, so I guess we're done.


Can't reason with somebody who doesn't understand reason.

Cya.


You took the words right out of my mouth. That must be why you're impossible to reason with and why he's done with you.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#5103 - 2014-03-27 13:10:38 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Giovanni erkelens2 wrote:
Moloney wrote:
I would like to point out that it does not matter whether E1 broke the EULA or not.

The point being made by people in this thread is that we do not want to be associated with such a morally wrong and disgraceful example of a human being.

We would like to play Eve.

We would like to think that when such a disgraceful representative of our game boasts publicly about being the scum of the planet, that appropriate repercussions are handed out to state "this is not right, this will not be accepted by anyone and under no circumstances should anyone believe it a good idea to replicate this persons actions "


this. my sir. this is what i wnat to hear.


theres hope.


Hope for tyranny and injustice. Because that's what you people are asking for.

The existence of the witch hunt crowd should scare everyone here. Look at all these people willing to totally ignore rules, laws, important values of fairness and due process ect ect just to get at someone they don't like.

We've literally fought terrible wars against people who thought like this. Documents like the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution exist to stamp out arbitrary use of power (such as 'I don't like you, so now you get to go away').

But there are still plenty of people who think these vile ideas are valid when in fact it's these vile ideas are the true evil and people like E1 are just the side affect and consequence of our freedoms.


LOL, way to dramatize everything way out of proportion.


Not dramtizing anything.

I'm saying point blank, if you can hold these ideas about something so minor as a dude screwing with people over TS because of a video game, you'd probably think the same way about things IRL.


It's why we have so many bad laws and why there is so much violence against people who are different that 'we don't want in our community'.
Alana Charen-Teng
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#5104 - 2014-03-27 13:10:45 UTC
Danalee wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
just to get at someone they don't like.


Strawman. This is about his conduct, not him personally.


His conduct? You mean as a good spaceship captain creating content for all of us?
Or you mean the conduct of sokhar (you) as a reprehensible bigotted racist with a very short fuse?

D.
Bear

Sohkar is an air traffic controller AND a lawyer? God help us!

May this thread never die.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#5105 - 2014-03-27 13:11:13 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


Not wrong.

What? It works for you to just state 'wrong' without clarifying. I can play 5th grade "you're wrong and I'm right" as well as the next person.

Here's a real challenge for you though.

You say I'm wrong.

Prove it.

For the record, my arguments have been presented both with and without observations made of the person arguing with me. Or, what you call 'insults'. You can ignore the arguments and focus on your hurt feelings all you like, but that would be...


wait for it....


a logical fallacy.

You love pointing out logical fallacies, don't you.


The EULA is vague, there is nothing more to it.

EULAs are suppose to be vague so CCP can enforce anything and get away with anything else.

Having it be too specific will be a determent to them in case of unforseen circumstances, a vague EULA will give you alot of flexibility.

Not only is it common sense, it is also good business practice. I thought it was pretty obvious, guess not for some of you. What?

So again, you are wrong.... And I'm right. You here to speak reason or just attempt to make good sounding posts that have no real value?
PinkPanter
Valhalla Drinking Team
#5106 - 2014-03-27 13:11:30 UTC
lollerwaffle wrote:
PinkPanter wrote:
lollerwaffle wrote:
PinkPanter wrote:
lollerwaffle wrote:


Wow, you really, really don't understand what I've been posting despite my repeated emphasis. You must be as thick as that alt of Sokhar who needs things spelt out in black and white. Ok, final attempt:

A. Your feelings about the moral character of another player should not be justification that the person should be perma-banned by CCP.

B. If you think that personal feelings are sufficient grounds for CCP to ban another player, that implies that you are OK with CCP banning YOU if another player deems you to be offensive etc.

C. In this case, if I felt you were offensive, should CCP ban you too?

If you're still confused at this point, please read (A) above again to understand the point I'm trying to make. If you understand my premise now, well done, it only took 3 pages and 10 posts but we got there in the end.

Ok, to address your post itself: Humiliation of a player that can opt out at any time is more serious than issuing a RL death threat over a video game, because it is 'justified'? Does that mean that if I find your posting style offensive and it is driving me into a rage, I would be fully justified in issuing RL death threats to you?

(Sorry, I posted the above on the assumption you will get what I am inferring. To make it easy to understand what I'm talking about, I am responding specifically to your stated "One gets perma ban for doing this deliberately other gets a warning or a shortie for going bonanza (although he can be justified because he was simply pushed to the limit)")


A. if he goes telling how it's set up to bypass in game laws (he's luring people out of logged comms) to avoid ban then yeah he should get kicked because he knows his actions are wrong from the start and the only purpose he is to inflict some sort of harassment for personal amusement.

B. If I do it in a manner that deliberately tries to avoid in game laws yet you use this platform as a ignition of this whole process then yeah. No different that a botter.

C. I'm within CCP rules so your attempt is nothing but personal and has no ground for them to even look at it.

I'm not thick it's just you have no idea what are you talking about because E1 actions all base from within this game and it is his platform to lure targets out to avoid banhammer.

Despite laying it out in very easy to follow chunks, you can still throw random arguments which have NO bearing to my posts. I give up. Sorry, English isn't my first language too but you are just really really really too thick to talk to.


I answer questions you throw tantrums and wonder why I don't even bother in most cases.
Brainz need oil I'm telling you. Works wonders.

Do you even read what other people post? Do you know what tantrums mean?


Actually I do. It's just that commons sense and logic seem to be some sort of distant galaxy for quite a few around here.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5107 - 2014-03-27 13:11:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
You have lied, demonstrably and repeatedly, throughout this thread. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I definitely believe you when you claim to be a lawyer. But you're not a very good one.


That is demonstrably a lie. I have at no point anywhere claimed to be a lawyer.


What the actual **** dude? Yes you most certainly have, and watch this space cuz imma be linkin another post of yours real soon.

You are a despicable individual that I'd no sooner spit on for fear of dehydration.

EDIT: Well, it seems the post you claimed to be a lawyer/have legal training has been conveniently edited. How lucky for you. I stand by my claim. I don't have alzheimers you know.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Tor Norman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5108 - 2014-03-27 13:11:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tor Norman
LordOfDespair wrote:
Tor Norman wrote:
It's not a matter of whether Erotica 1's actions are right or wrong. It's a matter of how "ban people I don't like" can be turned against anyone, including you. Unless someone can present an argument that defines a legitimate reason to ban Erotica 1 that doesn't also adversely affect other players, nothing can be done about it.


It isn't "ban players that I don't like".

It is "ban players whos only purpose is to glorify bullying others".

So "ban players that I don't like". Got it.

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

For the ISK and the yarr!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5109 - 2014-03-27 13:13:26 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
You have lied, demonstrably and repeatedly, throughout this thread. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I definitely believe you when you claim to be a lawyer. But you're not a very good one.


That is demonstrably a lie. I have at no point anywhere claimed to be a lawyer.


What the actual **** dude? Yes you most certainly have, and watch this space cuz imma be linkin another post of yours real soon.

You are a despicable individual that I'd no sooner spit on for fear of dehydration.


He edited it out a while back when I pointed out that it's illegal to claim to be a lawyer in most developed nations.

"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.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#5110 - 2014-03-27 13:13:53 UTC
lollerwaffle wrote:


glorifying bullying others isn't against the rules though.

"I don't like people glorifying bullying"
"Ban players whose only purpose is to glorify bullying others"

ergo

"Ban players that I don't like"

To say otherwise would be to infer that you like people who glorify bullying.


Plato is rolling in his grave.
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#5111 - 2014-03-27 13:15:07 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
just to get at someone they don't like.


Strawman. This is about his conduct, not him personally.


No, this is ABSOLUTELY about him personally and has been since before this thread existed. People here weren't born yesterday. If this wasn't just about Ero, and about 'activities', then Sokhar would be copping it as well.

You have lied, demonstrably and repeatedly, throughout this thread. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I definitely believe you when you claim to be a lawyer. But you're not a very good one.


Do you have any evidence to back up those "facts"?

Personally I never knew the guy to be more than just a jita scammer before I heard the recordings. Got no problem with scamming, got a problem with internet bullies though.
Salvos Rhoska
#5112 - 2014-03-27 13:15:08 UTC
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:

Sohkar is an air traffic controller AND a lawyer? God help us!.


I am not Sohkar.
CCP can confirm this and I can prove it at any request to do so over voice.

Nor have I claiimed anywhere to be either an air traffic controller or a lawyer.

Keep trying.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#5113 - 2014-03-27 13:15:18 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Malcolm from Marketing wrote:


Your counter arguments are empty of content and pathetic at best.

Your point out Erotica broke no rules or laws, your quite correct. What he has done can be likened to bringing the game into disrepute by going above and beyond to push the boundaries of whats acceptable in the name of emergent gameplay.
CCP should consider very carefully if this is the type of behavior they want associated with their game as it's treading very dangerous grounds.
Ignoring all that, it's simply a case of morals, ( ironic in a game such as EVE i know ) yes its a game, yes he was a willing participant but that still doesnt excuse what's happened and has happened many times previous.

CCP should remove ALL his assets over ALL his accounts and give him a temp ban. Thats the right course of action in this case, but of course thats not what your interested in is it.


I'll ask again. How could CCP resist religious groups or the Russian government if they demanded that CCP remove people who engage in "unacceptable" behaviour that "bring the game into disrepute"?

After all, "it's simply a case of morals", right?


As soon as CCP have conceded the right of any group to demand the removal of a player simply because they dislike what he does out of game, then they're wide open to every pressure group out there who thinks they have a duty to make sure you and I live our lives as they think we should.

"it's simply a case of morals"


The problem with your position is that its based on Slippery Slope Fallacy.

1) Erotica1s actions are only "out of game" in the most pedantic sense. They are a final step in a progression of events that takes place in game, and directly relate to and concern the disposition of in game assets. Out-of-game software is used only to evade obvious violations of CCPs terms, and allow the sort of amateurist legal argument you are making. Even in real life law there are principles of equity and fairness in application; not just a linguistic battle to see who is closer to the letter of the law or contract, hence why we have lawyers argue cases rather than linguists.

2) It is a Slippery Slope Fallacy to claim that CCP would be open to any and all calls for bans by any group becaus they banned oneplayer based on a generalized community reaction. "People who don't like Erotica 1" are not a group in any meanngful sense; their unity is solely around the issue at hand. CCP could just as easily be pressured to ban gays by homophobes or Russians whether or not they ban Erotica; th dollar vote is equally strong. CCP on the other hand has absolutely no obligation to listen to those groups just because they ban Erotica 1; it is not as if homophobes or Russians have any right to demand "consistency", andCCCP would not be inconsistent in the first place. Being gay is unrelated to game play; Erotica's performance is directly connected to it, pedantic claims that its "out of game" notwithstanding.

You make a poor attempt at reducio ad absurdm based on slippery slope and pedantry. Neither vays nor scammers are at any risk if Erotica 1 gets banned.



LOL, the 'claim it's all fallacy' fallacy. Do you not see the glaring logic hoops you just jumped through to make what you want to believe make any kind of sense at all?
Danalee
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#5114 - 2014-03-27 13:15:35 UTC
PinkPanter wrote:


Hey hey hey, I have a carrot for you BUT you have to follow me to a place where CCP can't ban me because I know I will **** you up good else why would I leave logged comms?

Now I will hear TS Bette yadda yadda yadda.

This is how people get scammed because even this simple TS excuse sounds so good that you put no doubt about its actual meaning.

So go repost like a turd. It's all you can do bot. Click, post, copy,, paste click post (so opinionated and clever!)


See, thick as rock.

The scamming happened ingame. CCP encourages people to do it. So stick your head up your ass and keep telling yourself how great you are. Bigot.

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#5115 - 2014-03-27 13:16:04 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:
lollerwaffle wrote:


glorifying bullying others isn't against the rules though.

"I don't like people glorifying bullying"
"Ban players whose only purpose is to glorify bullying others"

ergo

"Ban players that I don't like"

To say otherwise would be to infer that you like people who glorify bullying.


Plato is rolling in his grave.


Evelyn Hall definitely is.

"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.
Danalee
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#5116 - 2014-03-27 13:16:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:

Sohkar is an air traffic controller AND a lawyer? God help us!.


I am not Sohkar.
CCP can confirm this and I can prove it at any request to do so over voice.

Nor have I claiimed anywhere to be either an air traffic controller or a lawyer.

Keep trying.

Wait, are you trying to lure people out of the game by ingame means to hurt their feelings?
BULLY!

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#5117 - 2014-03-27 13:16:33 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:

It isn't "ban players that I don't like".

It is "ban players whos only purpose is to glorify bullying others".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVsgsUS66Tk

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#5118 - 2014-03-27 13:16:53 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
LordOfDespair wrote:
Crumplecorn wrote:
LordOfDespair wrote:
You are trying to rationalize a logical fallacy.

LOL
If you don't have an actual response I can't really follow up, so I guess we're done.


Can't reason with somebody who doesn't understand reason.

Cya.


You took the words right out of my mouth. That must be why you're impossible to reason with and why he's done with you.


If by "reason" you mean strawmanning and insulting every opposing viewpoints... then yeah.. You can't "reason" with me.
Salvos Rhoska
#5119 - 2014-03-27 13:17:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
]He edited it out a while back when I pointed out that it's illegal to claim to be a lawyer in most developed nations.


That is false and a lie.

CCP can confirm that I have never made the claim here to be a lawyer, nor edited out any such claim.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#5120 - 2014-03-27 13:17:32 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
just to get at someone they don't like.


Strawman. This is about his conduct, not him personally.


No, this is ABSOLUTELY about him personally and has been since before this thread existed. People here weren't born yesterday. If this wasn't just about Ero, and about 'activities', then Sokhar would be copping it as well.

You have lied, demonstrably and repeatedly, throughout this thread. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I definitely believe you when you claim to be a lawyer. But you're not a very good one.


Do you have any evidence to back up those "facts"?

Personally I never knew the guy to be more than just a jita scammer before I heard the recordings. Got no problem with scamming, got a problem with internet bullies though.


Ok, lets go there.

What is your problem with "internet bullies"? Which btw is a stupid term as I don't see how you bully someone over something you can turn off at will.

but anyways, please tell us how internet bullies are the scourge of the universe, then tell us where they touched you,