These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#1241 - 2014-03-29 10:32:56 UTC
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
So let me get this straight, a very famous EvE Online blogger that's also a member of the CSM used his influence and power to start a witch-hunt on another player, for something that happened outside of the game that he condemns. In is moral high ground blog he harassed and persecuted the player, until a shitstorm thread started on the EvE Online forums, where he continued the witchcraft trial. The thread was closed and the player got banned.

This makes total sense to me...


Well that is a subjective way to view it, and a bit limited as well. It was just cause and effect, the cause being a players abuse of another in a way which broke every rule of decency and gameplay, the effect which you elude to happened because of that. Don't put the cart before the horse.


Again more moral high ground BS arguments, this events all took place outside of the game. Let's also ban players from EvE Online that get drunk and then beat their wifes. Or ban players that use iphones, i hate iphone and everyone that uses them should be banned.

The Tears Must Flow
Nalelmir Ahashion
Industrial Management and Engineering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#1242 - 2014-03-29 10:35:29 UTC
Events took place outside the game cause the "Victim" Thought he could get his "In-Game" stuff back from the schemer which made the victim thought so.

Very simple when you think of it.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1243 - 2014-03-29 10:35:49 UTC
Isky von Purps wrote:
Maybe CCP just got sick of being the guy who crosses the road when they see a dog getting beaten with a stick.
Morality transcends legal responsibility, rights and the provisions of the EULA. It has been interesting to see the almost universal amorality of the comments against CCP's statement.


That's a good way to look at it, problem is dogs will continue to get beat with a stick and one feel good moment won't stop that.

The root cause of all this is villainy (scamming in particular) being allowed and encouraged in the first place, and as long as that's true people will find more creative and nastier ways to play the bad guy.

So, maybe this imaginary line in the sand will protect the naive and weak in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1244 - 2014-03-29 10:36:13 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
So let me get this straight, a very famous EvE Online blogger that's also a member of the CSM used his influence and power to start a witch-hunt on another player, for something that happened outside of the game that he condemns. In is moral high ground blog he harassed and persecuted the player, until a shitstorm thread started on the EvE Online forums, where he continued the witchcraft trial. The thread was closed and the player got banned.

This makes total sense to me...


I prefer to think of it as he made the player base aware of what a raging psychopath was up to in the game we all play.

But sure, if you prefer the term witch hunt, then whatever.

Mr Epeen Cool
Big Lynx
#1245 - 2014-03-29 10:41:54 UTC
Dorn Val wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:

I think CCP merely enforced the rules as they saw them.


...by banning someone who didn't violate an existing rule (Erotica 1), and then did nothing to a player that made death threats (Sokar).



Again. Listen to the audio record, read shitstorm threadnaught, think, think again, puzzle together a very individual point of view before going with the narrow minded Ero defender thought-terminating cliché. Then, try to argue looking on both sides of the medal. Go!
Nalelmir Ahashion
Industrial Management and Engineering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#1246 - 2014-03-29 10:42:34 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:


I prefer to think of it as he made the player base aware of what a raging psychopath was up to in the game we all play.

But sure, if you prefer the term witch hunt, then whatever.

Mr Epeen Cool


pretty much.. I play Eve for year +- and I was never aware people did such things until I read that blog post.
Dorn Val
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1247 - 2014-03-29 10:42:50 UTC
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:

I think CCP merely enforced the rules as they saw them.


...by banning someone who didn't violate an existing rule (Erotica 1, and then did nothing to a player that made death threats (Sokar).

For the record: I am not a griefer, suicide ganker, or scammer on this character or via any alts. I will defend all forms of game play though because Eve is supposed to be a sandbox. The duality of that box of sand is spelled out in my signature...


I condone griefers and gankers and any other way people find to blow up spaceships and take ISK, its all part of Eve. But when it goes beyond that, which in this case it clearly did, we need to stand together and say 'not here, not in the game we love' and put an end to it. I find Sohkars reaction a bit puzzling but not shocking, alot of people snap under such strain. But that is aside the point, Eve should remain a game in new eden, not one that spills onto other media forms and turns to harassment. That is just my view, I don't want to argue it, I just wanted to express it.

(by griefers I mean within the CCP ruleset of gameplay, not by directed harassment).


But it wasn't harassment -Sokar volunteered to play Erotica 1's sick game.

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.

Sandbox: An enclosed area filled with sand for children engaged in open-ended, unstructured, imaginative play. Also a place for cats to urinate and defecate...
Bunnie Hop
Bunny Knights
#1248 - 2014-03-29 10:46:42 UTC
Dorn Val wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:

I think CCP merely enforced the rules as they saw them.


...by banning someone who didn't violate an existing rule (Erotica 1, and then did nothing to a player that made death threats (Sokar).

For the record: I am not a griefer, suicide ganker, or scammer on this character or via any alts. I will defend all forms of game play though because Eve is supposed to be a sandbox. The duality of that box of sand is spelled out in my signature...


I condone griefers and gankers and any other way people find to blow up spaceships and take ISK, its all part of Eve. But when it goes beyond that, which in this case it clearly did, we need to stand together and say 'not here, not in the game we love' and put an end to it. I find Sohkars reaction a bit puzzling but not shocking, alot of people snap under such strain. But that is aside the point, Eve should remain a game in new eden, not one that spills onto other media forms and turns to harassment. That is just my view, I don't want to argue it, I just wanted to express it.

(by griefers I mean within the CCP ruleset of gameplay, not by directed harassment).


But it wasn't harassment -Sokar volunteered to play Erotica 1's sick game.

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.


Well honestly the only thing making me go 'hmmm' is why I am still posting on a dead topic. CCP made the proper choice, the sun is shining and I have no desire to debate anything with you. I wish you well.Cool
Dorn Val
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1249 - 2014-03-29 10:47:31 UTC
Big Lynx wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:

I think CCP merely enforced the rules as they saw them.


...by banning someone who didn't violate an existing rule (Erotica 1), and then did nothing to a player that made death threats (Sokar).



Again. Listen to the audio record, read shitstorm threadnaught, think, think again, puzzle together a very individual point of view before going with the narrow minded Ero defender thought-terminating cliché. Then, try to argue looking on both sides of the medal. Go!


Actually I have done that and I reached the conclusions that have driven my posts. I still do not agree with how this situation was handled.

Sandbox: An enclosed area filled with sand for children engaged in open-ended, unstructured, imaginative play. Also a place for cats to urinate and defecate...
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1250 - 2014-03-29 10:47:39 UTC
Dorn Val wrote:

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.


Well - the nuggest here is "Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule?". Basically it's what the rules say and how CCP interpret them that matters - your opinion of them is irrelevant.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Nalelmir Ahashion
Industrial Management and Engineering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#1251 - 2014-03-29 10:48:46 UTC
Dorn Val wrote:

But it wasn't harassment -Sokar volunteered to play Erotica 1's sick game.

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.


Ero1 got all the stuff from that dude BEFORE the game started, are there any proofs online for that bonus room actually yielding winners? actual APIs showing facts and numbers and not random alts posting replies?
We don't have those, as far as I know.
so we take classic eve scammer approach and we say that the scam was concluded as soon that the victim gave all of his stuff to Ero1 and then we ask why to run this bonus room for over 2 hours when no further gain can be made in in-game assets? for Lol'z and Giggles for the scammer.

what's the point then?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1252 - 2014-03-29 10:49:24 UTC
Big Lynx wrote:
Why? Here!

That makes it perfectly clear. However, I can't use your common sense for you.
The problem is that all fine until it isn't. You'll use your common sense and you'll be playing along all fine, then one day you'll encounter the wrong person, then without even getting the chance to find out why, you're gone. It seems to me more like the rule is "don't **** people off too much, based on the level of tolerance the random person on the other end of the game has (who you don't know), and the tolerance of the GM that receives the ticket (who you also don't know)".

So to really use common sense and avoid getting banned entirely, you realistically have to stop all songs for ransoms and the like, since there's no way to tell if you are going to get banned for it. So why don't they just say that. Just rule it out entirely and be done with it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1253 - 2014-03-29 10:49:50 UTC
Dorn Val wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:

I think CCP merely enforced the rules as they saw them.


...by banning someone who didn't violate an existing rule (Erotica 1, and then did nothing to a player that made death threats (Sokar).

For the record: I am not a griefer, suicide ganker, or scammer on this character or via any alts. I will defend all forms of game play though because Eve is supposed to be a sandbox. The duality of that box of sand is spelled out in my signature...


I condone griefers and gankers and any other way people find to blow up spaceships and take ISK, its all part of Eve. But when it goes beyond that, which in this case it clearly did, we need to stand together and say 'not here, not in the game we love' and put an end to it. I find Sohkars reaction a bit puzzling but not shocking, alot of people snap under such strain. But that is aside the point, Eve should remain a game in new eden, not one that spills onto other media forms and turns to harassment. That is just my view, I don't want to argue it, I just wanted to express it.

(by griefers I mean within the CCP ruleset of gameplay, not by directed harassment).


But it wasn't harassment -Sokar volunteered to play Erotica 1's sick game.

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.

Because - customers who play eve are more important than meta-gaming scammers who never undock and who only work hard at making people quit and harming CCPs reputation?

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Dorn Val
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1254 - 2014-03-29 10:50:15 UTC
Bunnie Hop wrote:


Well honestly the only thing making me go 'hmmm' is why I am still posting on a dead topic. CCP made the proper choice, the sun is shining and I have no desire to debate anything with you. I wish you well.Cool


Fly safe :)

Sandbox: An enclosed area filled with sand for children engaged in open-ended, unstructured, imaginative play. Also a place for cats to urinate and defecate...
Dorn Val
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1255 - 2014-03-29 10:52:05 UTC
Ssieth wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.


Well - the nuggest here is "Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule?". Basically it's what the rules say and how CCP interpret them that matters - your opinion of them is irrelevant.


...and that's all fine and good until they ban you for something not clearly defined... :)

Sandbox: An enclosed area filled with sand for children engaged in open-ended, unstructured, imaginative play. Also a place for cats to urinate and defecate...
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1256 - 2014-03-29 10:53:47 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Big Lynx wrote:
Why? Here!

That makes it perfectly clear. However, I can't use your common sense for you.
The problem is that all fine until it isn't. You'll use your common sense and you'll be playing along all fine, then one day you'll encounter the wrong person, then without even getting the chance to find out why, you're gone. It seems to me more like the rule is "don't **** people off too much, based on the level of tolerance the random person on the other end of the game has (who you don't know), and the tolerance of the GM that receives the ticket (who you also don't know)".

So to really use common sense and avoid getting banned entirely, you realistically have to stop all songs for ransoms and the like, since there's no way to tell if you are going to get banned for it. So why don't they just say that. Just rule it out entirely and be done with it.


If that's what you really believe (rather than it being a ridiculous posture) then you've basically got a few options:
1. Continue to rant about it here, knowing that it won't change anything and that CCP couldn't care less about said rant.
2. Speak to CCP about it (via petitioning, twitter or whatever other channel you prefer)
3. Speak to your CSM representative about it.
4. Stand for CSM with the intent of making it your plat form
5. Decide that EVE is no longer for you and go find a game more to your liking.
6. Avoid bahviour you think will get you banned.
7. Continue to play as before and take what you percieve to be risks of getting banned.

Take your pick :)

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Bael Malefic
Doomheim
#1257 - 2014-03-29 10:54:50 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Because - customers who play eve are more important than meta-gaming scammers who never undock and who only work hard at making people quit and harming CCPs reputation?


This.

Rinse, repeat.
Dorn Val
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1258 - 2014-03-29 10:55:20 UTC
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:

But it wasn't harassment -Sokar volunteered to play Erotica 1's sick game.

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.


Ero1 got all the stuff from that dude BEFORE the game started, are there any proofs online for that bonus room actually yielding winners? actual APIs showing facts and numbers and not random alts posting replies?
We don't have those, as far as I know.
so we take classic eve scammer approach and we say that the scam was concluded as soon that the victim gave all of his stuff to Ero1 and then we ask why to run this bonus room for over 2 hours when no further gain can be made in in-game assets? for Lol'z and Giggles for the scammer.

what's the point then?


I'm not defending the way that Erotica 1was playing the game, but I am questioning CCP's reaction to it. Since Erotica1 was banned for breaking a fuzzy rule the Sokar should be banned for breaking one that was clearly defined (making a death threat).

Sandbox: An enclosed area filled with sand for children engaged in open-ended, unstructured, imaginative play. Also a place for cats to urinate and defecate...
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1259 - 2014-03-29 10:55:22 UTC
Dorn Val wrote:
Ssieth wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.


Well - the nuggest here is "Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule?". Basically it's what the rules say and how CCP interpret them that matters - your opinion of them is irrelevant.


...and that's all fine and good until they ban you for something not clearly defined... :)


I have exactly zero fear of being banned. The same level I had before this all kicked off. Why? I don't behave in a way that I believe will get me banned.

*shrugs*

See my previous post about your options. I suspect you'll take the "continue to whinge in here fruitlessly" though.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1260 - 2014-03-29 10:56:09 UTC
Dorn Val wrote:
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:

But it wasn't harassment -Sokar volunteered to play Erotica 1's sick game.

Could we not all "stand up" by going after people like Erotica 1 in game? Could we not station people in trade hubs and warn newbies about the scams? Why does CCP need to ban someone who, IMHO, did not violate any existing rule? Why did CCP not ban someone who clearly did violate an existing rule? Thing that make you go hmmm.


Ero1 got all the stuff from that dude BEFORE the game started, are there any proofs online for that bonus room actually yielding winners? actual APIs showing facts and numbers and not random alts posting replies?
We don't have those, as far as I know.
so we take classic eve scammer approach and we say that the scam was concluded as soon that the victim gave all of his stuff to Ero1 and then we ask why to run this bonus room for over 2 hours when no further gain can be made in in-game assets? for Lol'z and Giggles for the scammer.

what's the point then?


I'm not defending the way that Erotica 1was playing the game, but I am questioning CCP's reaction to it. Since Erotica1 was banned for breaking a fuzzy rule the Sokar should be banned for breaking one that was clearly defined (making a death threat).


I think that you're making rather a big assumption here - that Sokhar hasn't received any disciplinary action.

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