EVE General Discussion

Mittani's action was in a CCP venue where CCP had direct evidence of the problem.

Erotica1's harassment was on a separate service that has to be brought to CCP's attention for them to know about it. I only want to know if the standard is now that 3rd-party reporting of out-of-game violations is sufficient for action.




(Also he probably had petitioned Mittani before that and been rejected. The whole story behind The Wiz was that he got scammed and then sent a lot of mails to people in GF about killing himself because of it. Mittens and other people had reposted those mails for mockery, which likely led to distributed harassment from lots of people in GSF. Should he have been banned months before the drunken fanfest outrage?)

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.

Considering your signature, your response to this is particularly entertaining.

ok where has anyone said that the racism and threats where allowed.

1: You pay EVE online to harvest tears? Interesting.

2: You are aware that real people play the game right? That a flesh and bone human being controls that rifter?

3: Ah, the curse of English as a second language strikes again! Or perhaps it's irony. The number of times I've seen someone criticizing someone's else "intellegence" (sic)... I guess it was bound to happen to me.

No out of game element

Doesn't matter, CSM Ripard Teg started a fire in the MMO community and CCP had to pour water on the burn. They probably gave Erotica1 a ban and will allow him to resurface on one of his other accounts unbeknownst to the community as a whole outside his friends.

Ripard got his wish, CCP puts out a fire, and Erotoca1 comes back in a few weeks when the community is back to Grring Goons and Gankers.

That's actually all crew served weapons, not just Ma Deuce.
3-5 second burst is the way to go. You only go "rock and roll" in movies.... or if you're suffering from a mid-firefight emotional break, and have totally lost your crap.

(Note: that was the way I learned, but since then, Drill Sergeants aren't allowed to say that, anymore, because Congress told us to be nicer and not remind these kids that they've literally signed up to kill people for money)

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.