These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Effect One
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5761 - 2014-03-27 17:34:03 UTC
Big Lynx wrote:
Effect One wrote:
This player could have walked away at any given moment. He chose not to. The end.



Would you go away so easily, when a douche takes all your money and items you have worked for?


Your post serves only to prove my reasoning.

Whether I would go away so easily when someone takes something that I consider to belong to me is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that I have the choice to do so and, if I choose not to do so, I remain on the plateau of potential humiliation by my own decision.

The fact remains that items within Eve Online do not belong to you and, aside from the investment of time (if you wish to look at it as an 'investment'), have no real world value unless you partake in real money trading (which I wouldn't recommend). You are confusing the morality of the real world and associated laws of property with the rules of a video game. The former may impact on the latter in your head, but there is no legal (in terms of the law of property) or civil (in terms of the contract you enter into with CCP) basis for it.

You do not own anything associated with your account other than the diminishing non-transferable license to play the game you acquired by way of your subscription fees.

'This might be internet spaceships, but it's not rocket science to protect yourself and fly with a little common sense' - CCP Falcon
LordOfDespair
Deep Dark Fantasy.
#5762 - 2014-03-27 17:35:11 UTC
"The National Crime Prevention Council defines cyberbullying as “the process of using the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."

Hes a cyberbully, records it for his other cyberbully friends to see. Simple as that.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#5763 - 2014-03-27 17:36:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Its really quite simple.

In order for Erotica1 to win, he must force the victim to leave the Bonus Room.

In order for the victim to win, he must fulfill every single demand that Erotica1 places upon him.

Erotica1 then applies psychological torture to the victim, to force them to leave the Bonus Room, whereupon he wins the Bonus Room.

This isn't rocket science.

Elaboration in my sig.

That is very true, although your definition of "psychological torture" is a bit ludicrous considering the torture in question was singing the gummy bear song. Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smile

However, if we use your definition, your continued relentless posting of ridiculous internet lawyer wisdom is psychologically torturing me. If you do not stop RIGHT NOW I will call for your immediate banning from EVE.

And no, I will not simply leave or stop responding because according to you that doesn't change a thing. Blink

You have been warned.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#5764 - 2014-03-27 17:36:21 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
lollerwaffle wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Let me ask this question.

If E1 was actually serious about running for CSM and proceeded to gain a seat his real name would become public.

What if then one of the people who he recorded and posted on the internet decided to get revenge and found out were he worked and proceeded to inform then of what he does and they found it to be distasteful and it impacted on his real life would this be acceptable?

After all it was E1 who posted the material to begin with and E1 would of been well aware that his real name would be made available to all.

Taking something from a virtual world to cause real impact to an individual, when the initial 'humiliation' was performed voluntarily?

I'd say he'd have a case to sue and likely win.

Physical harm? No brainer.


Well it was E1 who made this material in the first place, then posted it, surely he must take responsibility for his actions?

Unfortunately, the material was made with the consent of the supposed 'victim'. If the 'victim' did not want this, he should have practiced more responsibility in granting his consent. Wouldn't you agree that we are each personally responsible for ourselves once we are adults?
PinkPanter
Valhalla Drinking Team
#5765 - 2014-03-27 17:36:51 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:
"The National Crime Prevention Council defines cyberbullying as “the process of using the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."

Hes a cyberbully, records it for his other cyberbully friends to see. Simple as that.


QFT
Big Lynx
#5766 - 2014-03-27 17:36:55 UTC
Effect One wrote:
Big Lynx wrote:
[quote=Effect One]This player could have walked away at any given moment. He chose not to. The end.





You do not own anything associated with your account other than the diminishing non-transferable license to play the game you acquired by way of your subscription fees.


Excuse me, but.. ( there is always a but :D) You are right, but one thing you forgot. He invested time and passion to build up his wealth he lost in one second. Is that so hard to understand? And Ero hits that vulnerability like a meteor with a devilsmile.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#5767 - 2014-03-27 17:37:00 UTC
Anomaly One
Doomheim
#5768 - 2014-03-27 17:37:46 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Its really quite simple.

In order for Erotica1 to win, he must force the victim to leave the Bonus Room.

In order for the victim to win, he must fulfill every single demand that Erotica1 places upon him.

Erotica1 then applies psychological torture to the victim, to force them to leave the Bonus Room, whereupon he wins the Bonus Room.

This isn't rocket science.

Elaboration in my sig.



apparently it is, because you just don't get it.

Psychotic Monk for CSM9 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 you want content in highsec? vote Monk
Salvos Rhoska
#5769 - 2014-03-27 17:37:58 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

False.

Being able to walk away from a situation in which you are being subjected to torture, does not stop the actions being taken against you from being torture.

Being restrained from leaving the situation is furthermore not a pre-condition to something fulfilling the definition of torture.

Voluntarily entering into a situation in which you are then subjected to torture, is also not a pre-condition to it fulfilling the definition of torture.


Cite one example where a court (ANYWHERE) agreed with this nonsense, when discussing TORTURE.


Cite one example where a court (ANYWHERE) requires that in order for actions taken against someone to constitute torture they must:

-Be restrained or otherwise incapable of leaving the circumstances in which their are being tortured.
-Where if they voluntarily entered a situation where it later culminates into torture, that that initial act negates the subsequent actions taken against the victim from being classifiable as torture.

The definition of torture, does not require the victim to be restrained, nor that they have been brought involuntarily into the circumstances where torture occurs.

Thats just how it is.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5770 - 2014-03-27 17:38:10 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
See the elaboration in my sig, for the specifics of how this conduct constitutes torture.


"Guys it fits the most open-ended, most vague definition of torture there is therefore it it is torture"

~ some sheltered kid from suburbia

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#5771 - 2014-03-27 17:38:16 UTC
Big Lynx wrote:
I bet Ero and co. are changing panties every hour. Twisted

I agree, this is probably a HUGE turn on for them. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5772 - 2014-03-27 17:38:39 UTC
LordOfDespair wrote:
"The National Crime Prevention Council defines cyberbullying as “the process of using the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."

Hes a cyberbully, records it for his other cyberbully friends to see. Simple as that.


Nope.

That definition requires intent.

Prove Ero's intent, and you have a case. Until then, you've just got mouth froth.

“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
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#5773 - 2014-03-27 17:38:40 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Also, if you (salvos), as a self-described lawyer

I have not anywhere claimed that I am a lawyer.

And how do you know I have not already spoken at TED?


Because no stupid people have ever spoken at TED.

And yes, you did claim to be a lawyer, and then edited the claim out after being notified that claiming to be a lawyer when you're not one can land you in a world of legal hurt.


Ooo juicy!!!

Can you link his comment please?

You should be able to find the original comment of EVE-Files copy of this message board, the one Chribba runs. If it still works that way.


ELI5

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#5774 - 2014-03-27 17:40:00 UTC
Waiting for Salvos to weigh in on "reasonable expectation". He takes a while to answer my questions, and usually goes on a tangent instead. :)

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Big Lynx
#5775 - 2014-03-27 17:40:42 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Big Lynx wrote:
I bet Ero and co. are changing panties every hour. Twisted

I agree, this is probably a HUGE turn on for them. Smile


Excellent! hot coffee over my balls.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5776 - 2014-03-27 17:41:13 UTC
NPC Alts Say The Dumbest Things

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Salvos Rhoska
#5777 - 2014-03-27 17:41:37 UTC
Andski wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
See the elaboration in my sig, for the specifics of how this conduct constitutes torture.


"Guys it fits the most open-ended, most vague definition of torture there is therefore it it is torture"

~ some sheltered kid from suburbia


You are demeaning the severity of the act of torture with this.

It is as wrong, and as illegal, no matter what the degree of pain inflicted, as long as the victim experiences it as acute, according to the definitions of Amnesty International.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5778 - 2014-03-27 17:42:14 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

False.

Being able to walk away from a situation in which you are being subjected to torture, does not stop the actions being taken against you from being torture.

Being restrained from leaving the situation is furthermore not a pre-condition to something fulfilling the definition of torture.

Voluntarily entering into a situation in which you are then subjected to torture, is also not a pre-condition to it fulfilling the definition of torture.


Cite one example where a court (ANYWHERE) agreed with this nonsense, when discussing TORTURE.


Cite one example where a court (ANYWHERE) requires that in order for actions taken against someone to constitute torture they must:

-Be restrained or otherwise incapable of leaving the circumstances in which their are being tortured.
-Where if they voluntarily entered a situation where it later culminates into torture, that that initial act negates the subsequent actions taken against the victim from being classifiable as torture.

The definition of torture, does not require the victim to be restrained, nor that they have been brought involuntarily into the circumstances where torture occurs.

Thats just how it is.


The very broad definition that you provided and based your assertions on contains the premise that a victim of torture is a victim against their will. That explicitly requires that the victim be entirely powerless and unable to escape or avoid the torture. Why do you keep contradicting yourself, defeating your own arguments and just generally proving yourself stupid? You've already made your point, dude, we all know you're a complete moron. You don't have to keep proving it over and over again.

“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
Anomaly One
Doomheim
#5779 - 2014-03-27 17:42:35 UTC
Andski wrote:
NPC Alts Say The Dumbest Things


I can confirm this.

Psychotic Monk for CSM9 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 you want content in highsec? vote Monk
Salvos Rhoska
#5780 - 2014-03-27 17:42:36 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Waiting for Salvos to weigh in on "reasonable expectation". He takes a while to answer my questions, and usually goes on a tangent instead. :)


What are you talking about.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent