These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#981 - 2014-03-28 23:11:43 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
One Eyed Runner wrote:
with all the bitching going on, I can only assume that most of you have not been in the military. In the military rules change hourly depending on you commanding office and how he feels, get use to it and you will rarely be disappointed in life


Confirming. I was once a 13F.
One Infantry commander doesn't understand why there's Artillerymen in his unit, and thinks we're all Detail Specialists. Life sucks in FiSTerland.
He moves on, and a new commander takes over, who thinks his FO's are just plain ducky, and lets us train to our blackened hearts' content. Life is awesome in FiSTerland.

(please refrain from crude sexual jokes.... FiSTer stands for "Fire Support Team Member"... yes, I know it sounds funny. Deal with it)


In my unit in MWO we have guys who 'say' they were in the military, is it true that when firing a .50 cal belt fed that the way you keep it from overheating is to say/scream "die ************ die" when pulling the trigger? It was a funny thing they said that actually helped me in that game funnily enough

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.

Liese Shardani
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#982 - 2014-03-28 23:13:08 UTC
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:
olan2005 wrote:

ok where has anyone said that the racism and threats where allowed. Also in your opinion did this not go beyond a scam . Think about it the scammers got all his assets and still continued . At that point was this still a scam


Have I gone beyond a gank if I trash talk in local? Having the guy sing a few songs is not much different. Plenty of things in this game are not done for any real gain.
Then how is it that so many people upon listening to the, you know, two+ hours of audio have been disgusted by it? Or after listening to the other Bonus Round clips out there?

It's just hard to see how someone comes away from listening to those with an "Oh, it's just singing a few songs" conclusion.

I don't know if people

a) haven't listened to them,
b) *have* listened and think that stuff's reasonable, or
c) realize it's bad but keep posturing this way because they can't back down.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#983 - 2014-03-28 23:14:32 UTC
olan2005 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I have, and what I heard was the "victim" hurling real life threats, insults and racism around, as well as admitting to account sharing while the scammers were asking, quite politely, for the "victim" to perform various tasks. I mean **** me, if someone came up to me in the street and asked me to sing a few songs, I would start freaking out and screaming harassment at the top of my lungs.

So as far as I can see:
- Real life threats: Fine
- Personal Attacks: Fine
- Racism: Fine
- Account Sharing: Fine
- Asking for songs: Disallowed
- Asking for readings of selected texts: Disallowed

Seems like this can;t be right, so yeah, I'm gonna continue to ask for clarification. How many songs is "too many"?
ok where has anyone said that the racism and threats where allowed. Also in your opinion did this not go beyond a scam . Think about it the scammers got all his assets and still continued . At that point was this still a scam
Well since there were clearly threats and racism on the recording and the player involved was not banned, that tells me that they allowed it.

And I didn't say it wasn't more than a scam. At what point though do you think they crossed the line? He didn't get irate until very late into the recording, and shortly afterwards they terminated it after ensuring he knew they'd robbed him.

And in the same vein, when people ransom ships for songs, that's more than a scam too, so is that disallowed? It would seem to me that it is, right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#984 - 2014-03-28 23:14:49 UTC
H aVo K wrote:


Okay... I'll take the "Ssieth has liked your post" notification to mean "yes". Great... moving right along then:

It's **Definition Time** XD

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harass

Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation

So, by that definition, anyone in this game who subjects anyone else in this game to "aggressive pressure or intimidation" is skirting the harassment portions of the EULA.

Now name something you can do I N G A M E, in an adversarial context, that doesn't fit that definition.

Go on.

I'll wait.


Ahhh, here we go.

I've bolded, underlined and capitalised the important part of your question. That makes it not harrassment according to CCP's rules and proclimations (so long as it doen't extend to griefing or other TOS breaking activity of course).
Prince Kobol
#985 - 2014-03-28 23:15:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Well folks thats enough for me, pretty sure this thread has reached the end.

Think it was Antisocial Malkavian who finally broke me by saying that that being banned for telling a CCP employee to DIAF is wrong and that is proof of GM's showing bias.

Wow this community really does attract some strange people.

I think Lucas will be very happy with you for helping him show GM Bias Big smile
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#986 - 2014-03-28 23:15:42 UTC
Anomaly One wrote:
Danalee wrote:
How much for PinkPanter?

D.

Bear


tree fiddy



Damn you lockness monstah!

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
stoicfaux
#987 - 2014-03-28 23:15:52 UTC
To the people who are still "rules lawyering" over this. Rules lawyering does not trump common sense, basic human morals and/or the Game Master.

/dating_myself


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#988 - 2014-03-28 23:17:50 UTC
Liese Shardani wrote:
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:
olan2005 wrote:

ok where has anyone said that the racism and threats where allowed. Also in your opinion did this not go beyond a scam . Think about it the scammers got all his assets and still continued . At that point was this still a scam


Have I gone beyond a gank if I trash talk in local? Having the guy sing a few songs is not much different. Plenty of things in this game are not done for any real gain.
Then how is it that so many people upon listening to the, you know, two+ hours of audio have been disgusted by it? Or after listening to the other Bonus Round clips out there?

It's just hard to see how someone comes away from listening to those with an "Oh, it's just singing a few songs" conclusion.

I don't know if people

a) haven't listened to them,
b) *have* listened and think that stuff's reasonable, or
c) realize it's bad but keep posturing this way because they can't back down.
Have you actually listened to them? They are really not as bad as people make out. I can only think that a lot of people campaigning so hard against it are doing so because of the blog posts about it rather than first hand information. Anyone with a CSM member campaigning personally against them is going to stand little hope as so many people will side with them just because they are the CSM.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#989 - 2014-03-28 23:18:15 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
To the people who are still "rules lawyering" over this. Rules lawyering does not trump common sense, basic human morals and/or the Game Master.

/dating_myself




Pretty much this.

Ingame "funny stuff" against a pilot is what the game is about but people should have the common sense to KEEP it in game and not extend that to RL people.
Bael Malefic
Doomheim
#990 - 2014-03-28 23:19:32 UTC
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:


Have I gone beyond a gank if I trash talk in local? Having the guy sing a few songs is not much different. Plenty of things in this game are not done for any real gain.


Trash talking after a fight is all about your ego. Personally, I find players who feel the need to do that to be weak. They are just like children on a playground, trying to paper over their own insecurity with posturing. It's a waste of time. As is responding to it.

You say something repugnant enough while you are trash talking, you will find yourself wondering why that banhammer hit you so hard. Even if you personally can't understand. Seen people banned for stuff said/posted in local. And every time they acted surprised, as if they couldn't imagine why.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#991 - 2014-03-28 23:21:29 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
To the people who are still "rules lawyering" over this. Rules lawyering does not trump common sense, basic human morals and/or the Game Master.

/dating_myself
Nobody is "rules lawyering". We just want clarification so people won't get banned because they asked for a song and some random threw a fit, or that they will get banned for that, and know it. It's really not that big a deal, but so may people are so against Erotica 1 that they want to argue with anything that seems to be against the OP.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#992 - 2014-03-28 23:21:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well since there were clearly threats and racism on the recording and the player involved was not banned, that tells me that they allowed it.

And I didn't say it wasn't more than a scam. At what point though do you think they crossed the line? He didn't get irate until very late into the recording, and shortly afterwards they terminated it after ensuring he knew they'd robbed him.

And in the same vein, when people ransom ships for songs, that's more than a scam too, so is that disallowed? It would seem to me that it is, right?


So your theory is that the racism and threats that the victim spouted after how long in the bonus room? should get him a ban. What a good idea. Then the goal of the Bonus Room would be to get the victims to stay stuff that would get them banned, right? Because that would be even funnier and there would still be the delicious meltdown. Really? Ban somebody who was pushed into a meltdown for what he said when it happened. Very wise.

There's no point in repeating that the victim could walk away because the whole design of the Bonus Room is predicated on the fact that some of the victims would not be able to walk away and would provide the delicious emotional feast that the participants needed.

Why did the participants sit there with this guy for two hours? Waiting for the bonanza of his meltdown. No other reason. If you don't already see what's wrong with that picture, you never will.
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#993 - 2014-03-28 23:22:30 UTC
H aVo K wrote:
H aVo K wrote:
Ssieth wrote:

CCP aren't changing any rules just restating them and urging people to be cautious when sailing close to the edges of the EULA/ToS.


Can I summarize your posts thusly:

"If you're a player who chooses to skirt the harassment portions of the EULA, you risk getting banned, and that is completely your fault for choosing to play in such a manner"

That distill it all down?


Okay... I'll take the "Ssieth has liked your post" notification to mean "yes". Great... moving right along then:

It's **Definition Time** XD

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harass

Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation

So, by that definition, anyone in this game who subjects anyone else in this game to "aggressive pressure or intimidation" is skirting the harassment portions of the EULA.

Now name something you can do in game, in an adversarial context, that doesn't fit that definition.

Go on.

I'll wait.


I think you're confusing your definition of harrassment with CCPs. Skirt your's and there's no problem. Skirt CCPs and you risk banning. Those are the EULA and ToS you've singed up to and if you want to risk violating them in the eyes of CCP and I'm not to argue that you shouldn't. You know the consequences and if you didn't before then this incident has been a reminder/useful prompt. If you don't agree those rules you've basically got a range of choices:

1. ***** about it uselessly here (and provide those that are interested in harvesting your tears amusement - no, I'm not one of them).
2. Speak to CCP and see if you can persuade them to change their mind.
3. Speak to your CSM representatives and see if you can persuade them to speak to CCP on your behalf.
4. Stand for CSM, get elected and speak to CCP direct.
5. Take your chances with the EULA/ToS and see if you get banned.
6. HTFU and accept that this is CCP's game and they make the rules and they decide how to articulate them.
7. Find a game more to your liking.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#994 - 2014-03-28 23:27:01 UTC
Ssieth wrote:
Danalee wrote:
I give up on all you sheeple.


We need something akin to Godwin's Law that states, "In any internet debate, where one side can't be convinced of a conspiracy theory, someone will refer to them as sheeple".




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssieth%27s_Law



You're welcome. Big smile

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Wesley Otsdarva
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#995 - 2014-03-28 23:27:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Wesley Otsdarva
EDITED: I'm not even going to try with this thread. The same old topics have been brought up, beat to death and then revived.
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#996 - 2014-03-28 23:29:47 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Ssieth wrote:
Danalee wrote:
I give up on all you sheeple.


We need something akin to Godwin's Law that states, "In any internet debate, where one side can't be convinced of a conspiracy theory, someone will refer to them as sheeple".




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssieth%27s_Law



You're welcome. Big smile


Yay! I have a law! And it has an oblique reference to sheep.... which look like clouds on legs :D

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Salvos Rhoska
#997 - 2014-03-28 23:30:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Liese Shardani wrote:
I don't know if people

a) haven't listened to them,
b) *have* listened and think that stuff's reasonable, or
c) realize it's bad but keep posturing this way because they can't back down.


Funny thing related to this, from my perspective, is that EVE's reputation as a den of antisocial evil monsters, is actually remarkably misplaced, and a result of confusing it with the levity in aggressing other players that are possible in it.

Other MMOs have communities that, atleast imo, are orders of magnitude more toxic than ours here.
MOBAS and FPS also are filled with language and treatment of other people that it is so foul, it would be unconscionable if you where actual face to face with the people you are shouting them at.

Out there, b), is a very common answer to equivalent questions out there.

People have become very desensitized, as demonstrated by the difficulty of quite a few posters here to understand what the statement from CCP means. I don't entirely blame them for this. Its "normal" in a lot of ways these days.

Because online behavior has become so dehumanising, I guess it is reasonable that people might indeed need to have it "explained" to them more concisely what exactly is allowed and what isn't. They genuinely may not be able to distinguish the difference because online behavior overall has become so far removed from what is allowed in "real life".

I'm probably not articulating myself very well on this as I'm quite tired.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries
#998 - 2014-03-28 23:32:46 UTC
Ssieth wrote:
H aVo K wrote:
H aVo K wrote:
Ssieth wrote:

CCP aren't changing any rules just restating them and urging people to be cautious when sailing close to the edges of the EULA/ToS.


Can I summarize your posts thusly:

"If you're a player who chooses to skirt the harassment portions of the EULA, you risk getting banned, and that is completely your fault for choosing to play in such a manner"

That distill it all down?


Okay... I'll take the "Ssieth has liked your post" notification to mean "yes". Great... moving right along then:

It's **Definition Time** XD

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harass

Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation

So, by that definition, anyone in this game who subjects anyone else in this game to "aggressive pressure or intimidation" is skirting the harassment portions of the EULA.

Now name something you can do in game, in an adversarial context, that doesn't fit that definition.

Go on.

I'll wait.


I think you're confusing your definition of harrassment with CCPs. Skirt your's and there's no problem. Skirt CCPs and you risk banning. Those are the EULA and ToS you've singed up to and if you want to risk violating them in the eyes of CCP and I'm not to argue that you shouldn't. You know the consequences and if you didn't before then this incident has been a reminder/useful prompt. If you don't agree those rules you've basically got a range of choices:

1. ***** about it uselessly here (and provide those that are interested in harvesting your tears amusement - no, I'm not one of them).
2. Speak to CCP and see if you can persuade them to change their mind.
3. Speak to your CSM representatives and see if you can persuade them to speak to CCP on your behalf.
4. Stand for CSM, get elected and speak to CCP direct.
5. Take your chances with the EULA/ToS and see if you get banned.
6. HTFU and accept that this is CCP's game and they make the rules and they decide how to articulate them.
7. Find a game more to your liking.



o.O

We're well into dead horse territory, and I think I'm done.

Back to nullbearing it, I go.

For the record, I'm having to be a filthy renter *because* hisec is so broken that groups like CODE and E1 & Co. have been able to turn it into a cesspit.

It's akin to that old saying: I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Liese Shardani
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#999 - 2014-03-28 23:34:14 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Liese Shardani wrote:
Then how is it that so many people upon listening to the, you know, two+ hours of audio have been disgusted by it? Or after listening to the other Bonus Round clips out there?

It's just hard to see how someone comes away from listening to those with an "Oh, it's just singing a few songs" conclusion.

I don't know if people

a) haven't listened to them,
b) *have* listened and think that stuff's reasonable, or
c) realize it's bad but keep posturing this way because they can't back down.
Have you actually listened to them? They are really not as bad as people make out. I can only think that a lot of people campaigning so hard against it are doing so because of the blog posts about it rather than first hand information. Anyone with a CSM member campaigning personally against them is going to stand little hope as so many people will side with them just because they are the CSM.
Yes, I've listened to them. Those are a few hours of my life I can't get back. Heh.

You may be right that some people haven't and are basing their opinions on what others say happened. Hell, that happens IRL with people wholesale adopting opinions from their shouty radio personality of choice.

I've listened to them, and so have a number of others.

I stand by my opinion that some of what's going on in those sessions is 10 shades of creepy. You may not see it that way (item b above), and that's your prerogative.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1000 - 2014-03-28 23:34:31 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:


Sokhars was the exception, not the rule. Most victims felt disgruntled but accepted they were scammed and given the run around. And as far as I can tell those bonus rooms would not be bannable, it's only because Erotica has been interpreted to have gone too far by continuing to ask for songs after Sokhar flipped out. I disagree that it was too far because it was Sokhar who acted unreasonably in response to being scammed. Further I do not approve of how personal you are getting over a minor disagreement over something in an online game, either you want a debate or you want insult throwing, decide.


So are you saying that so long as it only one person who has been humiliated or harassed then its okay?


If you read the rest of my post you'll see that while I admit Sokhars reaction was extreme it was not because I believe Erotica went too far.


Fair enough, if you believe Sokhars reaction was extreme, but was not caused by any actions by Erotica, then what do you believe caused such an extreme reaction from Sokhar?


Bipolar disorder, Im guessing, along with an already present rage issue. Is that the scammer's fault as well?

Cause then you get back to ganking the miner/missioner and having the same reaction.

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.