These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
#1001 - 2014-03-28 23:35:02 UTC
Ban Bindy wrote:
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.
Yes, yes I do. I don't think racism should EVER be tolerated. I dunno, maybe I'm just an ******* that way.

Ban Bindy wrote:
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.
So when you give someone your ingame items, then you, by choice, go into their TS server then, by choice, sing songs and read selected texts staying, by choice, nearly 2 hours thinking you might get some isk out of it, then yo get told it;s all a scam, your reaction is to start hurling racist remarks around? That would really be your problem then, surely? At no point is the "victim" forced into doing anything, it's all by choice (which the "victim" has stated himself). And his choice of words again is his own choice.

Ban Bindy wrote:
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.
The participants sat there through greed and stupidity. They were greedy to try to multiply their isk in the first place and they were too stupid to Google the legitimacy of the person they were dealing with.

And like I've previously stated, if they don't want people doing out of game stuff, then they should clearly state that. I'll back any decision CCP wants to make on the matter as long as they make it clear where the line is drawn.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#1002 - 2014-03-28 23:35:35 UTC
Wesley Otsdarva wrote:
. . . .

If you do not understand the announcement made by CCP. I would ask them for clarification.

. . . .



Actually, I wouldn't. CCP has been crystal clear about what the guidelines are: whatever CCP decides they are. Just like before this; just like it will always be.

This is the best possible outcome. I was a little worried that CCP would over-do things and draw a clear line. They haven't, and they won't. This is a very good thing.

Kudos to both CCP and the CSM for handling this so well. I resubbed because of it.

Cheers, everyone. It's Friday evening where I am. Time to drink too much and get my spaceships blown up.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Jebediah Phoenix
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1003 - 2014-03-28 23:35:36 UTC
Bael Malefic wrote:
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.




I'm never foul in local, I would never host a bonus room. But that doesn't mean I want light hearted banter banned, whether it be making someone sing in TS or trash talking in local. And when I say trash talking, I certainly don't mean anything nasty, I mean stuff like recommending a permit tank.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1004 - 2014-03-28 23:35:50 UTC
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:
I'm talking about Sokhar's bonus room as this seems to be the direct reason for Erotica's ban.


Wait, I thought they werent bannable?

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.

Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1005 - 2014-03-28 23:35:51 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

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.


You make an excellent point there and this thread, along with the previous thread-nought is ample evidence of the degree of concern that a great number of the player-base have regarding the health and reputation of the community.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#1006 - 2014-03-28 23:36:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
So... I would like a little clarification from the powers that be:

Hypothetically, of course, would you get permabanned for something like this, or would it be like for a few months?

Nevermind... case-by-case... got it.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1007 - 2014-03-28 23:37:15 UTC
Bael Malefic wrote:
Guy with issues (greed, whatever) conned into the whole scam culminating in bonus room. Guy with issues (rage, whatever) stays in bonus room and says terrible things as he is deliberately humiliated for the entertainment of the scam's organizer and friends long after all his in-game assets are theirs. I note that the moment they had all his stuff, this no longer had anything to do with EVE.

The reason for keeping the mark in chat is so that the mark is always the one that gives up, and the scammer never goes back on their word. I will not disagree that it went too far in this case.
Bael Malefic wrote:

Scam organizer and friends publish recording outside of game for public LOLz. Most normal, reasonable people find this repugnant. Forum shitstorm ensues.

The mark agrees to this at the beginning of the bonus room. If can be argued that that agreement is under duress due to the scammers having his assets, but it is given, and for most people any concerns about voice chat being published would outweigh ingame items. I'm going to assume this was not a huge concern.
Bael Malefic wrote:

CCP and CSM, being for the most part normal, reasonable people, agree and take action.

Sorry...the fact that the scammer and friends conned said guy with issues to come back to their TS channel and say nice things (wonder what they offered him that was not on the TS chat they published) does not undue anything that went before. It does not excuse or erase anything.

I can understand your issues with this. Sohkar actually sought Ero out, not the other way around. Late in the stream Ero did contract Sohkar around 1.5 bill in assets.

I'm not going to respond you your conclusion because you are entitled to your opinion, but I did want to clear those points up.

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

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1008 - 2014-03-28 23:38:46 UTC
Liese Shardani wrote:
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.
There's levels of creepiness sure, and if it were up to me, the practice of out of game comms to get people singing songs and such would just be banned outright and clearly shown as so. I wouldn't consider what was done specifically as harassment though. The "victim" always had the option to walk away and it's not like the identity of the person running the show couldn't be easily checked. If people choose to do that then choose to sing songs and read stuff, that's their problem.

If someone came up to me in the street asking me to sings song and read books to them, I wouldn't start singing and reading, then start screaming "Help! I'm being harassed!", I'd walk away. Now if at that point they contnued to hound me, then I'd claim harassment.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Bael Malefic
Doomheim
#1009 - 2014-03-28 23:41:26 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:

I can understand your issues with this. Sohkar actually sought Ero out, not the other way around. Late in the stream Ero did contract Sohkar around 1.5 bill in assets.

I'm not going to respond you your conclusion because you are entitled to your opinion, but I did want to clear those points up.


Fair enough. Everybody is always free to form their own opinions and judgements but unless you are able to interpret those in the right context, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't have to agree with the way CCP has come down on this issue. I have a choice: accept it as given and carry on or take my toys someplace else.

Simplez.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1010 - 2014-03-28 23:43:45 UTC
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:
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?


Thin skin and lack of understanding of the game he's playing.


He failed his HTFU roll

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.

MajorBean
HandelsGilde-De
Outsmarted
#1011 - 2014-03-28 23:46:13 UTC
With that ban our loved sandbox lost alot of sand, Erotica 1 you will be remembered.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1012 - 2014-03-28 23:46:25 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


Yeah, pretty much this. In a game where players have ransomed the developers themselves for a song, I'd like to know about things like that.

Especially, as I have seen mentioned in the thread, "Trust the GMs" isn't really something I can do. Considering they've done and said such self contradictory things as "You can be banned for impersonating yourself". And I'm supposed to trust their objectivity?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1013 - 2014-03-28 23:46:30 UTC
LOL

You know what all of this says to me?

If you embarrass CCP or get publicity they dont like, they ban you and pretend you did something bad. See: Kugutsumen.

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.

Asia Leigh
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#1014 - 2014-03-28 23:48:03 UTC
Vance Armistice wrote:


Please explain in detail the thought process behind asking another player to dribble mayo on their mouth and take a picture. Then explain why E1 got so upset when people found personal details about his purchasing habits from info he left in public. Then tell us about his peanutbutter fetish. Explain why he was too extreme to remain in GS and was kicked. Why does he get his kicks from humiliating others. Then tell us all why we should give a rat's ass about another random weirdo that got caught out there fapping to other's misery.

You can't ,can you? You have to stick to the talking points you were issued.


I'm still waiting on that proof by the way? Any chance it will show up before i go to sleep?

Apply the damn rules equally >.>
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1015 - 2014-03-28 23:49:14 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:


The game he was playing, I thought Eve was about shooting space pixels, I didn't realise it also involved being humiliated and then having a recording of it all placed on the internet.

Must of missed that part on the advertising, need to ask CCP to make a promo vid.


I must have missed the part where HE HIMSELF could have stopped that treatment AT ANY TIME and yet didnt.

DC from game, DC from TS, chalk it up to being stupid and start over. Why is this not HIS fault at all for not doing this? Why are we absolving the poor dumb guy of all responsibility for doing this? Is this the new EVE?

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.

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1016 - 2014-03-28 23:50:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
LOL

You know what all of this says to me?

If you embarrass CCP or get publicity they dont like, they ban you and pretend you did something bad. See: Kugutsumen.

And that's totally their right to do so.

While I don't agree with what I know of the punishment handed out, I have only read a few things, so can't form a full opinion on it yet.

I just hope that out of this, the sandbox is not affected any further.

I also hope that while the character of Erotica 1 has presumably been banned indefinitely, the player behind the character hasn't been.
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1017 - 2014-03-28 23:51:29 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:

I honestly believe there was never any intent on The Mittani's part for theWiz to actually commit suicide and the ban he received was fair.

E1's actions however were premeditated. His single goal was not the scam itself but to cause as much humiliation as he could

I don't care whether or not Mittens' or Erotica's bans are "fair". I don't care if either was premeditated or caused by jajerbombs. I don't care if humiliation or suicide was intended or not.

I would be ok with CCP banning Erotica1 even if Sohkar didn't petition, if the reason they gave was just that he was detrimental to the game and they were using the "we reserve the right to ban at any time even if you didn't violate TOS" clause. They can do that. Banned for being an a--hole and pain in their neck is a thing, and if I suspected that I caused CCP more expense in GM time than I paid in subscriptions I wouldn't be surprised if CCP said I wasn't welcome.


But given that this announcement is not just about Erotica1, I strongly care about whether
CCP wrote:
clear and extraordinary levels of real life harassment

can be interpreted without a claim of harassment by a presumptive victim. A denial by that person that they felt harassed makes it difficult!
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1018 - 2014-03-28 23:52:20 UTC
Man, when Star Citizen changed their forum (as theres no game yet, cant wait to see how THAT translates - KOS lists are also not allowed there lol) rules to where if you say anything negative at all, about the person you are talking to you can get banned, I thought coming back here would be so much more fun because they couldnt do stupid **** like that in THIS 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.

olan2005
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1019 - 2014-03-28 23:53:40 UTC
MajorBean wrote:
With that ban our loved sandbox lost alot of sand, Erotica 1 you will be remembered.








the sandbox gained in my opinion. A precedent was set on how far you can go with regards to your interaction with others. It is fine as stated by CCP to scam . thief , spy and all the usual meta gaming. The majority of people agree with this(me included)

The problem comes when you intentionally set out to cause someone psychological distress to breaking point , and harass them for HOURS OR DAYS ON END . When you go out of your way to do NOTHING MORE THAN INFLICT PAIN ON ANOTHER WITHOUT ANY OTHER OBJECTIVE IN MIND

All virtual communities , forums, other MMOS, Social media have guidelines meant to moderate behaviour within their community . A member of this community did something which the bulk of the community do not agree with and stated that fact. This is a game, but like all games people are involved . There are limits to what you can do to another human being
Salvos Rhoska
#1020 - 2014-03-28 23:54:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Freedom, and responsibility, are two diametrically opposed elements that nonetheless are intrinsically linked.

There can never be one, without the other.

What this means in practice for EVE and the sandbox, is that the more responsible everyone is for their own conduct, the greater freedom all of us can enjoy, commensurately.

It is bad apples like in this case that force restrictions on the rest of us, because of those people abusing the freedom they had in ways that are ultimately irresponsible.

What Erotica1 was doing, has placed a great deal of non-rule violating conduct and "emergent gameplay" in EVE, at risk.
He did that, with the ridiculous extremes he chose to violate the games inherent freedoms with.
This is not some martyr of freedom. Its someone who's irresponsible conduct placed all of our freedom at risk.

This supports why it is good that CCPs statement, though clear on the conditions it does stipulate, still keeps a wide margin of interpretation.

Some of you are perceiving that wide margin as a threat, in terms of being afraid you might fall into it accidentally.
But you are not realising that that wide margin of interpretation also protects you from exactly that, by allowing CCP room to maneuver and interpret on individual cases, whereas if the rules where absolute and very rigidly defined, youd be SOL.

I wouldn't worry that this statement significantly narrows anyone's freedom in the game.
It is however, a reminder that there is such a thing as "too far", and though that point where action exceeds that is intentionally vague, that is exactly to allow greater freedom. But it does come with responsibility attached, meaning you should not deliberately try to push the limits of that vagueness.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent