These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#661 - 2014-03-28 20:57:20 UTC
It's pretty obvious what they mean. Go and do another bonus room in the same vein as the one that started this. I bet you won't because it's likely to blow up again and there's a good possibility of you getting a ban.

It's not a cave in its a warning to check yourself before you try to outdo the last sociopaths sad little event.

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..... :)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#662 - 2014-03-28 20:57:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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?


You've got all the clarity you're going to get. Suck it up, buttercup.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#663 - 2014-03-28 20:57:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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.



Thank you for clarifying. As a fellow player, though, I would caution you to outline for everyone's benefit, clear-cut examples of when the player claiming to be harassed is, in fact, "doing it to themselves".
That was my argument during the E1 Threadnought, and that remains my primary argument, here.

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

    [#savethelance]
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#664 - 2014-03-28 20:58:25 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
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.
But it's not though is it. The speed limit is variable, enforced when the public demands it. It's clear from all of these threads that people definitions of "too far" vary to an absolutely staggering degree, so the rule of "don't go too far" is simply not clear enough. If they want to say "No taking scamming out of game" then they can say that. I'll back them whichever way they want to do it but they must be clear.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#665 - 2014-03-28 20:58:31 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
It's pretty obvious what they mean. Go and do another bonus room in the same vein as the one that started this. I bet you won't because it's likely to blow up again and there's a good possibility of you getting a ban.

It's not a cave in its a warning to check yourself before you try to outdo the last sociopaths sad little event.


Will wonders never cease: an IZ post that doesn't leave me facepalming.

"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
#666 - 2014-03-28 20:58:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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?


Yes, it is too much to ask. Leave the guy out of it and contact a GM with your concerns. The guy isn't your personal intermediary to CCP.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#667 - 2014-03-28 20:58:42 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
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".


Well, given your clarification that you wouldn't be following the player around, SMERG will continue to enjoy the loving embrace of Garamonde in your pod built for two, without GM attention.Smile
Anslo
Scope Works
#668 - 2014-03-28 20:59:18 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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

Why are you so mad? It's only a game. Perhaps you should step away for being so emotionally invested in a game.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#669 - 2014-03-28 21:00:26 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
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


Ah, the CSM position is "if they want to ban you they will and Im fine with that" Why didnt you just say that?


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
#670 - 2014-03-28 21:00:29 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
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".


Well, given your clarification that you wouldn't be following the player around, SMERG will continue to enjoy the loving embrace of Garamonde in your pod built for two, without GM attention.Smile


What makes you think there are only two people in SMERG? :p

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

    [#savethelance]
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#671 - 2014-03-28 21:00:42 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
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?
You've got all the clarity you're going to get. Suck it up, buttercup.
Thanks so much for the clarity there Mr representative of the player base. Thanks for addressing the concerns that several members of the eve community have and presenting them to CCP, and relaying information back to us.

Oh wait...

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaius Fero
#672 - 2014-03-28 21:00:56 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Malcanis may have not been the CSM you wanteed but he was the one you deserved and I agree

He has been a hero in these threads.

Read back. He stood in front of the mob, demanding due process and then has been tryiong to explain to you that due process has now taken place

When things don't go your way don't blame Atticus Finch

m

A hero? A hero you say?!

Now... can I ask this hero Malkanis and his wife in a round of glory hole? No mayo tho!

Anselmo & The Illegals
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#673 - 2014-03-28 21:02:05 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.

What matters is demonstration of intent, the same as in criminal court.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#674 - 2014-03-28 21:02:48 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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


Well you've already stated you're not voting under any circumstances, so, you know, whatever.

Also CCP aren't going to disband the CSM no matter how mad you get. I bet that makes you pretty mad, huh?

"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
#675 - 2014-03-28 21:03:19 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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?


Apparently, yes. They just want their free reign to ban for anything at any time. Dont CCP already have that though?

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.

Vance Armistice
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#676 - 2014-03-28 21:03:43 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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

Why are you so mad? It's only a game. Perhaps you should step away for being so emotionally invested in a game.


His play-style that isn't being threatened is being fake threatened in his own mind and he has come on here to vent his insecurities over what will happen when CCP doesn't ban ganking.

It's very real to him. What you see here is a sub-conscious venting of insecurity mixed with a cry for help.

A.K.A whining, crying, whingeing

See also: tear extraction
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#677 - 2014-03-28 21:04:43 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
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.
What matters is demonstration of intent, the same as in criminal court.
And again, that will rarely be clear cut.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#678 - 2014-03-28 21:04:44 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
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?
You've got all the clarity you're going to get. Suck it up, buttercup.
Thanks so much for the clarity there Mr representative of the player base. Thanks for addressing the concerns that several members of the eve community have and presenting them to CCP, and relaying information back to us.

Oh wait...


Hope this helps

Sorry that EVE criminal law isn't any more clear cut that real life.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#679 - 2014-03-28 21:05:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Well you've already stated you're not voting under any circumstances, so, you know, whatever.

Also CCP aren't going to disband the CSM no matter how mad you get. I bet that makes you pretty mad, huh?



But but but.. he said it in the form of a play. It must be true!

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#680 - 2014-03-28 21:05:10 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:


Ah, the CSM position is "if they want to ban you they will and Im fine with that" Why didnt you just say that?




Because that is not what I said or meant.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯