These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1041 - 2014-03-29 00:08:50 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
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



Wooo I broke him... wait does that mean IM gonna get banned?

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.

Salvos Rhoska
#1042 - 2014-03-29 00:08:54 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
The key tactical error in this was leaving evidence publicly available to everyone.


One of many.

After reviewing the full disclosure on what the Bonus Room entails, I can't get over how incredibly stupid its design was.

As much as I respect and admire that these people where able to get others to voluntarily transfer all their assets over, the Bonus Room itself is such a sub-par joke of goofiness and contrived crap, that it is imo unworthy of the standards of EVE.

Frankly, it was an insult and a travesty to the scamming profession.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1043 - 2014-03-29 00:09:37 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian 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 in game, in an adversarial context, that doesn't fit that definition.

Go on.

I'll wait.


CCP have their own policy on harassment.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition, or any other definition outside CCPs is irrelevant in terms of CCPs judgement, surely?
Ecrir Twy'Lar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1044 - 2014-03-29 00:09:38 UTC
PinkPanter wrote:
So move along pretty much.

Ok.

Watch my accounts.

Later.

*** not a rage quit.
Just disagreement and something I do not want to affiliate myself with.


You realize that if you are a E1 fan, most here would say "Don't let the door hit you in the @ss on your way out."
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1045 - 2014-03-29 00:09:47 UTC
Gregor Parud 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




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.


So if they did like I keep saying and kept it off TS theyd be fine?

Mind you, Im a few pages back atm so itll be a while before I catch up xD

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.

Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1046 - 2014-03-29 00:12:38 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.


I dunno; I think it comes from things that get you banned outright in other games are fair play here (IE the heart of the subject of this thread) and if you complain to the GMs you tend to get "welcome to EVE" as a reply.

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
#1047 - 2014-03-29 00:14:50 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I can't get over how incredibly stupid its design was.

Good for you, but I have no interest in what you think.

Finding joy in seeing someone physically assault anyone else is just as incredibly stupid.
Liese Shardani
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1048 - 2014-03-29 00:15:09 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
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?
Cuts both ways. Erotica 1 and his friends could've stopped it, too, and since they held the power in that situation, it would've been easier for them.

On the stream last night, Sohkar acknowledged that he could've left and that it was a mistake that he didn't.

Has anyone heard Erotica and his Escrow Agents do the same?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1049 - 2014-03-29 00:16:05 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
CCP have their own policy on harassment.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition, or any other definition outside CCPs is irrelevant in terms of CCPs judgement, surely?
Exactly, which is why they need to write their own definition so we know what one to use. It's clear the one they've had for a while is not the same, since Erotica 1 is now banned and previously wasn't, despite not changing his MO.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Mario Putzo
#1050 - 2014-03-29 00:16:34 UTC
Anomaly One wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Klyith wrote:

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!


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.



the final weird part here is that CCP actually (permanent) banned someone on account of a month old issue raised by riptard's hate propaganda.


Eh assuming he is permabanned. None of us can know for sure, the only ones who know are CCP and Erotica1 heck Erotica1 may not even know. CCP could simply have a 2 week ban, a 1 month ban, a 3 month ban. Heck could even just be a 24 hour ban.

But this is certainly due to Ripard Teg there is no doubt about that. Pretty shameful imho. He must have lost a bonus round at some point. He seemed to have a great deal of understanding of it having never actually talked to anyone who participated in a Bonus Round.

I wonder how many assets Erotica1 got of him, and what songs he had to sing while he gave them away willingly.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1051 - 2014-03-29 00:17:39 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:


(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)


Honestly, this bears on this thread quite heavily imo lol

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.

Salvos Rhoska
#1052 - 2014-03-29 00:18:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's clear the one they've had for a while is not the same, since Erotica 1 is now banned and previously wasn't, despite not changing his MO.


It clearly is the same, or they would have announced to have changed it.

You are speculating on things you do not know, namely how long CCP has (or has not been) investigating and following Erotica1's activities + time for deliberation on what action to take.

You are implying things you have no evidence for.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1053 - 2014-03-29 00:19:31 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
No out of game element

I would extend that.

The key tactical error in this was leaving evidence publicly available to everyone.

So the take away message is:

Don't post evidence of questionable aspects of EvE related behaviour on the internet.

No different to home movies really. If you don't want to be embarrassed and judged by them, don't make them public.


Ya, like I said before that actually, that MalCSMguy said "yeah do that an see what happens".

Ill go it one further then. You need to screw them up in the head so bad that they wont tattle on you AND dont use out of game coms to do it. CCP isnt making the game better for these morons, its making it so much worse lol

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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1054 - 2014-03-29 00:19:57 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
CCP have their own policy on harassment.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition, or any other definition outside CCPs is irrelevant in terms of CCPs judgement, surely?
Exactly, which is why they need to write their own definition so we know what one to use. It's clear the one they've had for a while is not the same, since Erotica 1 is now banned and previously wasn't, despite not changing his MO.


And also despite a month's time passing between the event, and the determination to ban for it. It was out in the open for a long time.

Am I going to find myself banned for some action I've forgotten about? Maybe when I made someone sing for their T2 exploration frigate out in nullsec last year? Someone unrelated to the event is going to decide that I'm evilbadfeelshatetorturebanned as a result? Or is it that only a CSM member can get someone banned like that?

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1055 - 2014-03-29 00:20:45 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's clear the one they've had for a while is not the same, since Erotica 1 is now banned and previously wasn't, despite not changing his MO.


It clearly is the same, or they would have announced to have changed it.


They said that about the New Terms of Service fiasco, too. Which was a lie.

"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
#1056 - 2014-03-29 00:21:21 UTC
olan2005 wrote:
But consider this . He was in a altered mental state thanks to erotica1 who,s aim it was to make him that way .


So will a high sec missioner/incursioner in his pimped out faction ship. So ganking them is off limits right? Cause theyll get mad and rage etc?

And because its mean

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.

Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1057 - 2014-03-29 00:25:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Liese Shardani wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
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?
Cuts both ways. Erotica 1 and his friends could've stopped it, too, and since they held the power in that situation, it would've been easier for them.

On the stream last night, Sohkar acknowledged that he could've left and that it was a mistake that he didn't.

Has anyone heard Erotica and his Escrow Agents do the same?


Right, then everyone should get punished IMO

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
#1058 - 2014-03-29 00:26:19 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
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.


Why is it you need so many effing words to talk crap? I have been reading two threadnaughts and your posts stick out like a dozen sore fingers. It is truly unusual to see a person talk so much and be consistently wrong about matters. Go away!


let me make it simple for you. All things in moderation. By not setting iron clad rules CCP have protected the metagame and your right to extort , or blow stuff up IN-game . But again all things in moderation. Just scam them , steal from them. spy on them. hold there ship to ransom in-game in exchange for isk . Just dont torment people for hours on end , for the sole purpose of breaking them .
Liese Shardani
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1059 - 2014-03-29 00:26:19 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
But this is certainly due to Ripard Teg there is no doubt about that. Pretty shameful imho. He must have lost a bonus round at some point. He seemed to have a great deal of understanding of it having never actually talked to anyone who participated in a Bonus Round.

I wonder how many assets Erotica1 got of him, and what songs he had to sing while he gave them away willingly.

Roll

Is it so hard to acknowledge that more than a few people have listened to those audios themselves and come to the same conclusion that the Bonus Round stuff was crap and needed to stop?

If you've read even a handful of Ripard's blog posts, you already know he's extremely unlikely to have ever fallen for a Jita ISK scam. That you're saying so is just another attempt to discount how much of the community has come out against what Erotica and his friends have been doing.
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1060 - 2014-03-29 00:26:53 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Am I going to find myself banned for some action I've forgotten about? Maybe when I made someone sing for their T2 exploration frigate out in nullsec last year? Someone unrelated to the event is going to decide that I'm evilbadfeelshatetorturebanned as a result? Or is it that only a CSM member can get someone banned like that?


Can you be held to the ToS/EULA despite having forgotten that you breached them? Yes, clearly. A poor memory is very rarely much of a defence for anything.

Going to an extreme real world example (as it's often easiest to demonstrate a general principal at extremis): if you killed someone 20 years ago and burried the bodies, you could ewell expect to be hauled to jail when they dug them up regardless of a hell of a lot of time passing.

You can't expect chronological distance to be a defence for breaching the rules. The simple rule of thimb should be to stay clear of EULA/ToS violation if you want to stay clear of trouble and don't rely on burrying the evidence long enough that folks thing it's a past transgression not worth digging up.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.