These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

An Announcement Regarding Real Life Harassment

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#641 - 2014-03-28 20:46:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tell me where you think it is.


I'm asking you, given that you're privy to the CSM/CCP discussions about this matter where that line is determined at.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#642 - 2014-03-28 20:46:22 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
In general, where are we drawing the line, here?


I answered this question a few pages page.

The short answer is that the person controlling the situation has the responsibility to see that it doesn't go too far. I assume that you're sufficiently intelligent to determine when you're about to push someone over the line. This most specifically does not include in game actions: if someone goes into a screaming meltdown because you blew his ship up, then too bad for him. If you continue to interact with him and goad him for no reason other than to goad him, then you're in the red zone.

Scam all you like.
Gank all you like.
Spy all you like.
Awox all you like.

Excercise judgement & discretion when rubbing salt into the wound afterwards.

Is that so hard to understand?


That's what I'm talking about, right there.
I don't care how much he does or doesn't rage at me. If he keeps coming back into the lowsec system I live in, when he knows full-well, by now that he's going to be rewarded for it with a facefull of Ferox, I'm GOING to keep giving it to him.
Now, all he has to do at that point is petition me, and send the GM the EVEmails whereby he raged at me and demanded that I stop preventing him from encroaching on my home, breaking my ratting chain, and scaring off better targets, and I responded by sending him the lyrics to Particle Man.
Now, poor old Garamonde is temp banned for harassment, and the moron carebear that doesn't understand what lowsec means, gets pretty much "Lethal Weapon 2 Style Diplomatic Immunity" as a result. All he has to do is claim that I was deliberately targeting him, simply to harass him.

That's total crap and you know it.


Afaik, the GM's will ask him why out of thousands of star systems did he keep going to that particular star system in which you reside and will politely suggest he tries to pew/rat/mine elsewhere.

Now, if Garamonde is continually seeking to target this particular player - across multiple star systems - in an effort to prevent the player from enjoying the game, then that's griefing imho and I'd expect a difference response from the GMs.

Why aren't you understanding this already? This is how it has always been IN GAME and nothing has changed.Roll
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#643 - 2014-03-28 20:48:36 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:


I understood, full-well, what YOU were saying.
My point that you missed is what steps are going to be take to ensure that carebears understand, completely, that this is not a "can't touch me" card, and that GM's will be properly educated on the subject. Will there be actions taken against carebears for trying to cheat the system? Will GM's be disciplined for handing out bans against gankers?

I've debated with you, before, Malcanis... you're intelligent enough to be far above subtly calling someone stupid. Don't degrade yourself, like that.


If I misunderstood you then I apologise. It has been a long goddamb week and I'm tired.

I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have: your right to boatviolence and spacevillainy has not been reduced by one picometer. If anything, it has been encouraging to see CCP's unconditional commitment to continuing to allow these.

I have already stated above that anyone trying to claim "emotional trauma" merely for having their ship shot at or for accidentally buying a 5 billion ISK Iteron V or for handing over all their stuff to the helpful & friendly goonswarm recruiter whatever will get absolutely nowhere.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vance Armistice
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#644 - 2014-03-28 20:49:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Drone 16 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
In general, where are we drawing the line, here?


I answered this question a few pages page.

The short answer is that the person controlling the situation has the responsibility to see that it doesn't go too far. I assume that you're sufficiently intelligent to determine when you're about to push someone over the line. This most specifically does not include in game actions: if someone goes into a screaming meltdown because you blew his ship up, then too bad for him. If you continue to interact with him and goad him for no reason other than to goad him, then you're in the red zone.

Scam all you like.
Gank all you like.
Spy all you like.
Awox all you like.

Excercise judgement & discretion when rubbing salt into the wound afterwards.

Is that so hard to understand?
Yes. 2 Questions:
1. Say a player gets pirated, and is requested to sing on teamspeak to save their pod. They then choose to do so. If after that they decide they are upset by the situation. If they report that to CCP, will CCP act?
2. In the above situation, does the willingness of the pirate to honour his deal weight in as a factor in any way?
Hey,

While you are being called on to answer all these fringe questions by well...the fringe...please describe the color blue. As soon as you successfully accomplish that the other non-sense questions should stop as well.
It's not really a fringe question. Singing for ransom is a VERY common practice, but it's also an out of game action and could just as easily be called harassment. How is calling for a ruling on a specific and common case anything to do with describing colours?


You are being obtuse. Intentionally or not I have no idea. It has been a weird few days between the mayo revelations and all of the other headshakers forgive me if I seem skeptical.

Put plainly, you are asking a PLAYER rep who is on here to give us information to the best of his ability to answer complex hypothetical issues about rules. He is a player not a GM, thank him and move on.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#645 - 2014-03-28 20:49:47 UTC
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Tell me where you think it is.


I'm asking you, given that you're privy to the CSM/CCP discussions about this matter where that line is determined at.


Well I'm not as smart as you so it would be super helpful to have your definition of where it lies; one that can't be rules-lawyered around or meta-gamed.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tyrant Scorn
#646 - 2014-03-28 20:50:32 UTC
I am just going through that soundcloud recording with Erotica1 and I can't fault anyone for trying to scam. I think its more amazing that the guy who got scammed was so patient with all of it. It took him like an hour and 45 minutes to go berserk.

The Tyrant King

YouTube | Twitter | Twitch
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#647 - 2014-03-28 20:50:47 UTC
There's a lot of folks here seeming to say they haven't got a clue what is and isn't acceptable despite numerous pretty clear explanations.

Seriously I can't see the difficulty here and I can only assume that the ignorance is willful ignorance in the hope of making a point. If you simply can't get your head around the difference between legitimate game play and harrassment - between what is reasonable in game-play and what is deliberately subjecting another person to misery for your own amusement and outside the paramters of the game then you're probably best staying well away from the keyboard.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#648 - 2014-03-28 20:50:55 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's not really a fringe question. Singing for ransom is a VERY common practice, but it's also an out of game action and could just as easily be called harassment. How is calling for a ruling on a specific and common case anything to do with describing colours?


The ruling specifically does not touch specific actions. CCP has not done anything against singing ransoms. This seems more targeted at prolonged interactions asking for more and more of the mark each time. Asking them to sing a song or two? Fine. Having them sing the song, demanding two more, then once those are finished, three more, and continuing until they refuse? Probably not so fine.
!!!! Even in your little paragraph there! "probably". You can't have a rule of probablys. People definition of "over the line" varies wildly, as these threads prove. How can you possibly have a rule that is so loose and expect people to adhere to it? That's like driving down the road seeing lot's of speed signs that say "not too fast, but pretty fast", then getting pulled over for a ticket. It's just not reasonable.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#649 - 2014-03-28 20:51:26 UTC
H aVo K wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
If you continue to interact with him and goad him for no reason other than to goad him, then you're in the red zone.



So anyone that kills miners/missioners in high sec is what youre saying. The guys that "farm tears" so Burn Jita, Hulkageddon, all that is forbidden now?

Because "for no reason other than to goad [them], IS the ADVERTISED reason FOR those things.


I guess it's that fine line between trying to torment them until they snap by absolving them of their isk/assets, vs. trying to torment them until they snap by rubbing salt in the wound for having done the former


Kinda the point Im making. Thats a pretty fine line theyre trying to walk

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Josef Djugashvilis
#650 - 2014-03-28 20:53:25 UTC
To those of you who are concerned about what CCP regards as going too far, the solution is simple, if you think you are crossing the line, you probably are, and if you are still not sure, do something a bit 'iffy' and let CCP know.

I am sure they will be glad to let you know if you are in compliance with the Eve Online CODE.

This is not a signature.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#651 - 2014-03-28 20:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Azariah
Not willfull ignorance.

People want a clear line so they can dance right up to it, Xenos paradox style

No, The line is in shadow, determined on a case by case basis. Dance near it and accept the risk or exercise some retraint and be risk free. You cvan still scam, strill explode ships, still awox

What I do not understand is why you WANT to do more

m

I won't fixc the typos but I apologize for them, migraine in day 2 mode

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Asia Leigh
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#652 - 2014-03-28 20:53:43 UTC
Asia Leigh wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Asia Leigh wrote:
Khan D'Amarr wrote:


From what I understand t was ongoing. He was actually kicked form Goons for being too extreme. There are several recordings out there that have him asking people to do various things with peanut butter and/ or mayo. Read the thread.


Yet about 100 pages ago, I asked for someone to link that recording as proof... Oddly enough im still waiting for said links. Also Goons arent know for their trustworthiness either. When it comes to believing Ero, or someone from goons, its really a coin flip for me >.>


Mynnna is a sufficiently authoritative source for me.

If you're really concerned, get an alt into goonswarm and check. it's not that hard.


Sure, like no one has ever heard of the goon recruitment scam, You must think I'm an idiot don't you. Proof or GTFO


Sorry this may have been over the top but this thread is driving me nuts. People have been saying links of this and links of that and not giving them up.

I actually am trying to look at this from a neutral stand point. I have stated that ero's behavior wasn't great and borderline harrassment where I believe the line was stepped over on a few occasiond. I've just been trying to get my concerns addressed regarding this issue for about 300 pages now and all I get in respond is trolling from "White Knights"

1) You cant tell me that CCP didn't know what has been going on in the bonus round before now. The scam has been all over the forums since I started playing the begining of last year. Hell there is even a thread over in C&P that got locked a few weeks ago that linked this particular bonus round.

So for the 100th time between the 2 threads, Why the out cry now and not a long time ago?

2) Given from a neutral position of not caring either way. Both by the evidence presented here and the other thread (That being the origional recording, The blog post, CCP origional knowledge (Or should have been anyway) and the various replies to the thread (Minus the trolling), I think the only reasonable conclusion is this is a witch hunt.

Seriously as stated earlier in this thread and in the other, both by myself and others this was known issue long before this recording was ever taken. And if CCP wasn't they should have been when ISD was locking those threads. I mean ISD is suposed to be a volunteer group that is an extension to CCP right? Then if this was all god awful and CCP didn't know, why wasn't ISD forwarding copies of those threads to the game masters for investigation?

This is obviously a witch hunt for ero's head by the dude that wrote that blog for personal reasons. He stirred up a **** storm that incited a riot not only be alot of the eve community, but other gaming communities as well. Then CCP was pretty much forced into actioning ero's account weather they wanted to or not. This probably got the victims account actioned as well too...

If I am wrong I'm all ears for any counter proof you may have that doesn't involve taking a goons word for it. Its all I have been after this entire thread. Instead I end up getting stuck in circular arguments with everyone.
Apply the damn rules equally >.>
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#653 - 2014-03-28 20:53:44 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
H aVo K wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
If you continue to interact with him and goad him for no reason other than to goad him, then you're in the red zone.



So anyone that kills miners/missioners in high sec is what youre saying. The guys that "farm tears" so Burn Jita, Hulkageddon, all that is forbidden now?

Because "for no reason other than to goad [them], IS the ADVERTISED reason FOR those things.


I guess it's that fine line between trying to torment them until they snap by absolving them of their isk/assets, vs. trying to torment them until they snap by rubbing salt in the wound for having done the former


Kinda the point Im making. Thats a pretty fine line theyre trying to walk


As I said above; if you're unsure, then err on the side of caution.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#654 - 2014-03-28 20:54:08 UTC
Toshiro Ozuwara wrote:

Your example is total crap, as nothing has changed wrt what you can do in game. What has been made clear is that taking it out of game and circumventing the EULA won't stop CCP from taking in game action.

Thanks for the tears though.


So dont use TS and youre good.

Then its all in game

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#655 - 2014-03-28 20:54:15 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:


Now, if Garamonde is continually seeking to target this particular player - across multiple star systems - in an effort to prevent the player from enjoying the game, then that's griefing imho and I'd expect a difference response from the GMs.




If Garamonde is being paid to hunt him down wherever he may be found, or he has done something unforgivable to Garamonde's beloved SMERG, Garamonde will shoot him no matter where he is.

I'm too lazy to go chasing him 20 jumps away, unless someone is giving me ISK to do it.

That is not griefing. That's called rivalry and/or revenge. I think you misunderstand what does or does not constitute "preventing him from enjoying the game".

That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...

    [#savethelance]
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#656 - 2014-03-28 20:54:45 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Tell me where you think it is.


I'm asking you, given that you're privy to the CSM/CCP discussions about this matter where that line is determined at.


Well I'm not as smart as you so it would be super helpful to have your definition of where it lies; one that can't be rules-lawyered around or meta-gamed.


Again, I asked you. I'm not trying to rules-lawyer around something or meta-game. If you're more concerned with being a condescending prick because someone asked you a question be my guest.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#657 - 2014-03-28 20:55:37 UTC
So freedom of speech is supported up until someone's feelings get hurt, then its hate speech and pitchfork time? Pretty much sum it up from a CCP and pansy CSM perspective?

I offer a closing scene from 'A Few Good [Scammers]'...

Col. Erotica1: "Son, we live in a [sandbox], and that [sandbox] has to be guarded by men with [guts]. Who's gonna do it? You [Malcanis]? You, Lt. [Ripard]? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for [Sohkar], and you curse the [scammers]. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That [Sohkar's bonus room], while tragic, probably [entertained many]. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, [entertains many].

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me [in that sandbox], you need me [in that sandbox]. We use words like [awox], [scam], [metagame]. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very [content] that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a [teamspeak client], and [scam someone]. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Col. Erotica1: "[contemptuously] You f#ckin' people... you have no idea how to defend a [sandbox]. All you did was weaken [the meta game] today, [pansies]. That's all you did. You put people's [sandbox] in danger. Sweet dreams, son."

Guardians of the players my arse, CSM should be disbanded immediately.

F

Would you like to know more?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#658 - 2014-03-28 20:56:19 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's not really a fringe question. Singing for ransom is a VERY common practice, but it's also an out of game action and could just as easily be called harassment. How is calling for a ruling on a specific and common case anything to do with describing colours?


The ruling specifically does not touch specific actions. CCP has not done anything against singing ransoms. This seems more targeted at prolonged interactions asking for more and more of the mark each time. Asking them to sing a song or two? Fine. Having them sing the song, demanding two more, then once those are finished, three more, and continuing until they refuse? Probably not so fine.
!!!! Even in your little paragraph there! "probably". You can't have a rule of probablys. People definition of "over the line" varies wildly, as these threads prove. How can you possibly have a rule that is so loose and expect people to adhere to it? That's like driving down the road seeing lot's of speed signs that say "not too fast, but pretty fast", then getting pulled over for a ticket. It's just not reasonable.

The speed limit is 70, enforceable at our discretion.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Vance Armistice
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#659 - 2014-03-28 20:56:21 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
So can we get all emotional and act crazy to get people to vacate a station camp?


Weren't you quitting if E1 got banned?

No courage to stand behind your convictions?

Ripard agree with him or not did, Malcanis who stood in front of the galloping horde did...you ....are still here.

Let me dig through your posts, I could swear it was you.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#660 - 2014-03-28 20:56:22 UTC
Vance Armistice wrote:
You are being obtuse. Intentionally or not I have no idea. It has been a weird few days between the mayo revelations and all of the other headshakers forgive me if I seem skeptical.

Put plainly, you are asking a PLAYER rep who is on here to give us information to the best of his ability to answer complex hypothetical issues about rules. He is a player not a GM, thank him and move on.
No, I'm asking a representative of the players who has spoken directly to CCP regarding this very matter to relay what he would consider their position to be. IF he does not know, it's his responsibility to say that and seek an answer from CCP. The players deserve to be given clear and concise ruling on matters where an infraction could cost them their ability to play.

All I want is clarity. Is that so much to ask?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.