These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaius Fero
#681 - 2014-03-28 21:05:41 UTC
Malcanis 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


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?

I fukin love you! And your family! :) Yes.. I'm a perv ... I should be a goon, a lite bee :)

Anselmo & The Illegals
Asia Leigh
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#682 - 2014-03-28 21:06:27 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


LOL, had to laugh at this, best thing I have read in 400+ pages of garbage
Apply the damn rules equally >.>
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#683 - 2014-03-28 21:07:03 UTC
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
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.


I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I think you're lying because I've repeatedly explained how the line is defined, and you've ignored that because you want a definition you can attack.

Don't worry, your FCs aren't going to be banned for... emphatically criticising you on alliance comms. That specific issue was definitely covered.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries
#684 - 2014-03-28 21:07:04 UTC
Asia Leigh wrote:

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.


Why no answer as to "why now?"

simple: because there's a fine line between "listening to their customers" and "caving to the masses"

Just like the fine line between immoral behaviour, and immoral behaviour that warrants a ban
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#685 - 2014-03-28 21:07:19 UTC
Bravo CCP. Bravo.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#686 - 2014-03-28 21:08:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hope this helps

Sorry that EVE criminal law isn't any more clear cut that real life.
Except in real life, they have laws, you know, rules. They don't just say "don't be mean".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#687 - 2014-03-28 21:09:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Looks like E1 is banned, at least temporarily, at least on that account. Guess it was kind of inevitable given the bonus rounds continued despite the warning e1 got over that Rayne guy. I'm still not convinced that being mean to someone on your own teamspeak constitutes real life harassment, but I do understand that CCP is not pleased someone would use Eve assets and the eve environment as a lever to ... engage in that kind cruel behavior. I'm disappointed that our communal understanding of harassment is no clearer now than it was before, and that the best explanation we could get came from the CSM rather than a blue. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with CCP dealing with such things on a case by case basis and reserving for themselves as much leeway as possible.

Malcanis wrote:

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


More like, continue abusing people on TS all you want, just be sure to not brag about it and also DENY EVERYTHING. This case was a bit unusual in that there was never any question of the veracity of the recording.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries
#688 - 2014-03-28 21:09:16 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Not willfull ignorance.

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


or they want a clear line so that they don't accidentally plow through it?
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#689 - 2014-03-28 21:10:50 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
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


Ooops, my bad! I thought you were RP'ing a space romance and not talking about a corp.Oops
Danalee
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#690 - 2014-03-28 21:10:55 UTC
Malcanis 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


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?


Why are you torturing your fellow player? I'm sure it not only makes him feel very sad/bad it also makes me sad/mad.

Anyhow, So you invented new lines, don't want to tell the players where they are or they might try and sidestep them, tell the players to go out and be the villan and when someone does: BAM, BANNED!
On top of that, the CSM members that have spoken on the subject all seem to be either trolling or completely oblivious on what the problem is.

A sad day indeed.

Well, as long as your lowlife trolling and BS doesn't become the norm, I'm still happy to have
CCP Guard wrote:

In almost all instances similar to what you describe, we would advise you to contact local authorities if you feel threatened or if you feel that laws have been broken. It's not common that events taking place outside the game or our websites result in disciplinary action from us due to obvious reasons, but we do reserve the right to restrict access to your services when we find them to be used for violating the EULA. Players are of course always welcome to contact us and ask for advice or assistance.


Eula hasn't been violated. Nobody has been threatened and no laws have been broken.
The ban is just an early April's fool's joke, I'm sure.

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#691 - 2014-03-28 21:11:02 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Looks like E1 is banned, at least temporarily, at least on that account. Guess it was kind of inevitable given the bonus rounds continued despite the warning e1 got over that Rayne guy. I'm still not convinced that being mean to someone on your own teamspeak constitutes real life harassment, but I do understand that CCP is not pleased someone would use Eve assets and the eve environment as a lever to ... engage in that kind cruel behavior. I'm disappointed that our communal understanding of harassment is no clearer now than it was before, and that the best explanation we could get came from the CSM rather than a blue. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with CCP dealing with such things on a case by case basis and reserving for themselves as much leeway as possible.

Malcanis wrote:

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


More like, continue abusing people on TS all you want, just be sure to not brag about it and also DENY EVERYTHING. This case was a bit unusual in that there was never any question of the veracity of the recording.


Not getting caught is a pretty good defence until it isn't.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#692 - 2014-03-28 21:11:26 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
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.


I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I think you're lying because I've repeatedly explained how the line is defined, and you've ignored that because you want a definition you can attack.

Don't worry, your FCs aren't going to be banned for... emphatically criticising you on alliance comms. That specific issue was definitely covered.
So if you've clearly defined the lines, is it against the rules to ransom for a song, and if a "victim" of the ransom were to feel harassed, would that mean it's over the line? How many songs are "too many"?

If it's so clear, it will be pretty straightforward to answer right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#693 - 2014-03-28 21:11:53 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...


I think you missed the part where it's information and an answer even if you don't agree with it.
Tyrant Scorn
#694 - 2014-03-28 21:11:55 UTC
Ok, here is a question for all of you.

So, the debate has been going on ever since that Erotica1 thing happened and half the community is in an uproar over what he's done to this poor guy... But he used fair game mechanics and he never used any hostile language doing it all.

The guy who got scammed is actually the one who is offensive and using all sorts of threats and curse words.

Who is actually breaking the rules in this particular case ?

The Tyrant King

YouTube | Twitter | Twitch
Jack Lennox
Grove Street Families
#695 - 2014-03-28 21:12:39 UTC
Test post to make sure I can still post

Been ganked? Robbed? Space feelings hurt?  Now there's something you can do! Fill out a Customer Service Comment Card!  EIther that or contact everyone's favorite Space Detective for an instant ban!
Vance Armistice
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#696 - 2014-03-28 21:13:03 UTC
H aVo K wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
Not willfull ignorance.

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


or they want a clear line so that they don't accidentally plow through it?



I saw someone write this earlier "If the scam feels too good than it's probably too good to be legal"
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#697 - 2014-03-28 21:13:40 UTC
And I have to say, having sat through pages and pages of tripe about the tears being shed for the victims of harrassment and the tears soon to be shed by those who favour vaguely civilized behaviour IRL the irony (in the modern rather than classical sense) is bitterly amusing here given the tears being shed by folks who want a line drawn in the sand so they can walk just one side of it be be not-quite-abhorrent-enough-to-ban.

Seriously, as with most of life, if the answer to "will I get into deep trouble for doing this?" is "I don't know". They the response should probably be not to do it. Or expect to suffer the consequences. Seriously - is that so hard a concept? Or is it just to gritty a thought that you have to cope with a little bit of grey rather than black or white?

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#698 - 2014-03-28 21:13:53 UTC
I'd like to think that the definition of "harassment" involves at least a little non-consent beyond "he used jedi mind tricks on me." Since E1 has said he's been banned, that apparently isn't so. So it seems whether you harrased someone or not mostly (entirely) depends on how they felt about the experience.

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."
Vance Armistice
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#699 - 2014-03-28 21:14:28 UTC
Tyrant Scorn wrote:
Ok, here is a question for all of you.

So, the debate has been going on ever since that Erotica1 thing happened and half the community is in an uproar over what he's done to this poor guy... But he used fair game mechanics and he never used any hostile language doing it all.

The guy who got scammed is actually the one who is offensive and using all sorts of threats and curse words.

Who is actually breaking the rules in this particular case ?



Hellman's, Ready Whip and Jiffy all broke rules as I understood the thread
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#700 - 2014-03-28 21:15:02 UTC
This thread is proof that no matter how many times and how hard you explain simple things to some people, they, wanting things to be a certain way, will never reach an understanding.


I expect to see someone post of video of themselves holding their breath and stomping their feet.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!