These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#701 - 2014-03-28 21:15:05 UTC
Ban Bindy wrote:
I think you missed the part where it's information and an answer even if you don't agree with it.
OK, so point me to "the answer". Point me to where it states what is considered by CCP as "too far". Since the definition varies wildly from person to person, scamming and messing with people will become the equivalent of spinning in circles with a blindfold on throwing darts in a crowded pub. If you don;t hit anyone, it's blind luck.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#702 - 2014-03-28 21:15:14 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 your flawed and made up assumptions are reason enough to hurl ad hominem? Tsk Tsk Malcanis, and here I thought you weren't so quick to being defensive.

As I said, I genuinely am not looking for something to attack, only for clarification. If you could link to the specific post which you feel covers my question then do so, I personally don't have the time to waste sifting through 40 pages of two CSM members sperging at other people who are sperging back.
Vance Armistice
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#703 - 2014-03-28 21:15:24 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
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 would like the definition of "bad touches'. Can you help?
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#704 - 2014-03-28 21:15:41 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...


Thats not what the CSM are for. Theyre supposed to watchdog CCP.


Oh wait...

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.

Alyth Nerun
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#705 - 2014-03-28 21:15:57 UTC
It looks to me like manipulating CCP into banning another player via external blog and a mad mob on the forums consisting of <0.1% of the player base is now officially part of EVE's meta game.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#706 - 2014-03-28 21:16:34 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?


Careful man, he may lose control, and youd get permabanned rofl

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.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#707 - 2014-03-28 21:16:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.

And yet society survives.

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

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Valda Abia
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#708 - 2014-03-28 21:17:56 UTC
Finally, Gevlon Goblin will get the justice he so rightfully deserves for being asked to sing to protect his assets. No longer will that yoke of oppression be cast around his pencil-thin neck!

That's what this is about, right?
Tyrant Scorn
#709 - 2014-03-28 21:17:56 UTC
Vance Armistice wrote:
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


How did they break the rules ?

The Tyrant King

YouTube | Twitter | Twitch
Vance Armistice
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#710 - 2014-03-28 21:19:26 UTC
Alyth Nerun wrote:
It looks to me like manipulating CCP into banning another player via external blog and a mad mob on the forums consisting of <0.1% of the player base is now officially part of EVE's meta game.


citation needed. This isn't the bonus room, Sonny. You can't just drop a stat and expect us to believe it. Where is your source? Produce it or go bump a miner.
Moja Hinken
State War Academy
Caldari State
#711 - 2014-03-28 21:19:32 UTC
Asia Leigh 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


LOL, had to laugh at this, best thing I have read in 400+ pages of garbage


I had a good laugh too but not for the same warped reasons you did. There has been a lot of great things in those 400 pages. Plenty of great people who came forward and would not let something as morally corrupt as what Erotica 1 did go un noticed. My faith in CCP and the community of this game has increased. You are mad for no reason. Nothing in the game has been changed only what you shouldn't do according to the existing rules have been enforced. Get over yourself.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#712 - 2014-03-28 21:19:58 UTC
Alyth Nerun wrote:
It looks to me like manipulating CCP into banning another player via external blog and a mad mob on the forums consisting of <0.1% of the player base is now officially part of EVE's meta game.


Mate, get another cushion for your chair 'cos all I'm hearing is butt hurt.

Jump in a ship, get out there and blow stuff up, scam, awox, commit corp theft ..... in time, you'll feel 100% better.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#713 - 2014-03-28 21:20:03 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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".

Rules which need to be examined in each individual case to see if they apply.

We now have a rule, don't push a 'victim" to the point of emotional distress... and that rule will be examined to see if it is applicable in each ticket they receive about an incident like this.

Even in the strictest laws, there are layers of interpretation to be considered and debated... ultimately to be decided upon by a jury or a judge.

Writing a thousand variations of a given rule (law) to cover every possible situation is impossible... there would always be loopholes and is an impractical concept to begin with. That's why laws and a system to interpret how applicable they are was developed long ago.

I don't have an issue with CCP using their discretion in this, after all it is their game and their rules... and frankly I can even escalate the issue higher if I feel I've been treated unfairly.

This is the wisest, and most practical way of addressing the problem as a whole instead of as a single specific incident.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#714 - 2014-03-28 21:20:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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?


Do you think you're capable of detecting when you're pushing another human being over the line?

"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
#715 - 2014-03-28 21:20:41 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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.



AAAAH I get it, you can do whatever you want, just torture the victim till he wont tattle.

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.

Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#716 - 2014-03-28 21:21:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Snupe Doggur
Lucas Kell wrote:
OK, so point me to "the answer". Point me to where it states what is considered by CCP as "too far". Since the definition varies wildly from person to person, scamming and messing with people will become the equivalent of spinning in circles with a blindfold on throwing darts in a crowded pub. If you don;t hit anyone, it's blind luck.


I don't know how many more times specific answers to vague hypothetical questions are going to be demanded, but real-life lawyers don't give or get those, not even in court. Amateur space lawyers aren't going to get them here.
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#717 - 2014-03-28 21:22:03 UTC
Alyth Nerun wrote:
It looks to me like manipulating CCP into banning another player via external blog and a mad mob on the forums consisting of <0.1% of the player base is now officially part of EVE's meta game.


More pew pew and less qq? Seriously, if you don't liek CCP's rules and the way that they apply them then there's plenty of other games out there...

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Jebediah Phoenix
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#718 - 2014-03-28 21:22:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
[quote=Lucas Kell][quote=Vance Armistice]Stuff....
More stuff


Hope this helps

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


The intention of the bonus room isn't reactions like Sokhar's, his was the extreme. For the most part people feel a bit silly that they were scammed and given the run around in a game where that is to be expected. At no point does Erotica or anyone else insult or threaten anyone (ie real harassment), nor do they even talk in a condescending tone, unlike your replies to most dissenting views. Hardly the same can be said of Sokhar. No one can predict reactions like Sokhar's, not to mention were totally omitting the part Sokhar plays in continuing to expose himself to terrifying, torturous song requests well after he knew he'd been scammed.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#719 - 2014-03-28 21:22:14 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
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.



AAAAH I get it, you can do whatever you want, just torture the victim till he wont tattle.


I hope you're not disappointed with the results if you try this.

Can you tell me what activity you're worried that you won't be able to do?

"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
#720 - 2014-03-28 21:22:18 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
Alyth Nerun wrote:
It looks to me like manipulating CCP into banning another player via external blog and a mad mob on the forums consisting of <0.1% of the player base is now officially part of EVE's meta game.


Mate, get another cushion for your chair 'cos all I'm hearing is butt hurt.

Jump in a ship, get out there and blow stuff up, scam, awox, commit corp theft ..... in time, you'll feel 100% better.


He sure seems delicate. I guess the CODE is recruiting based on sensitvity. Is this the kinder, gentler CODE?

Maybe it is now minerhugging.com?