These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zen Guerrilla
CTRL-Q
Ushra'Khan
#1261 - 2014-03-29 10:57:51 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
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.

There there, calm down boy. We all know iphone users are far worse than people who beat their wives. Don't generalize please.

Seriously tho, how about some arguments that make sense?

pew pew
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1262 - 2014-03-29 10:58:37 UTC
Mr Epeen 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...
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
The player base was well aware of this situation before hand, there werere threads about it before. And remember, the "victim" of this particular case stated clearly that he didn't think E1 should be banned and that he was well aware it was his choices and his words, and that he'd just lost his temper at the time. So yes, witch hunt.

Teg has some kind of stick up his ass about E1 and decided to take out his personal issues on hi. He should be dropped from the CSM. A CSM hold an awful lot of power, since so many people will blindly support him in whatever he says just because he's a CSM so they feel that's what they are supposed to do. Picking up a personal vendetta against a player is unfair and he should be responsible by addressing issues in private with CCP if he has them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dorn Val
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1263 - 2014-03-29 10:59:55 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 then 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.
#1264 - 2014-03-29 11:00:18 UTC
Zen Guerrilla wrote:
Seriously tho, how about some arguments that make sense?


These are the EVE forums. You can't go throwing away long-held traditions like that... If you did that then people might read them and then where would we be? We'd all know stuff without having to read blogs and then we wouldn't have bloggers to blame for the consequences of the actions of psychopaths and... well - you can see the spiral of doom you're proposing....

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1265 - 2014-03-29 11:04:06 UTC
Dorn Val wrote:
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


He was? Could you link the post where it is explained on what grounds Erotica got banned?
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1266 - 2014-03-29 11:04:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ssieth
Lucas Kell wrote:
The player base was well aware of this situation before hand, there werere threads about it before.


What you mean is that you and the people you regularly associate with were aware of this situation. I, for one, wasn't and neither were the folks I tend to associate with. You're generalising your own experiences to those of the entire player base. You need to be aware that the vast majority of EVE players rarely visit the EVE forums (I'll leave the answer as to why that is as an easy exercise for the reader) and prefer to consume their EVE news via various dedicated bloggers, podcasts etc. For those people this issue was new when the thread-nought started.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
olan2005
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1267 - 2014-03-29 11:07:54 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 then Sokar should be banned for breaking one that was clearly defined (making a death threat).


you don't know that he wasn't unlike erotic1 he has not made any public statement. And again E1 got what he wanted the guy snapped said some very reprehensible things , but circumstances mean he should not receive the same level of punishment as E1
General Lemming
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#1268 - 2014-03-29 11:08:25 UTC
Does this include using out of Eve websites to scam and haras people in game ? Like Goonswarm does ?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1269 - 2014-03-29 11:10:04 UTC
Ssieth wrote:
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 :)
I'm already doing 1,2,3 and either 6 or 7. The reason it's either 6 or 7 is that I dont; perform any task I think would be bannable anyway. I don't ransom for songs or anything like that. Believe it or not, I care about the game as a whole, not just specifically the parts that I play.

It even to cover the other side too. One "victim" might get his petition ignore while another sees the banhammer drop. Why should they be treated different if the circumstance are the same just because a GM is adhering to a rule that has no boundaries?

Why do you think it's so hard for CCP just to make a ruling though? Why do you want a massive grey area where people might get banned for stepping on a line that is arbitrarily chosen at the point the GM receive the petition? It's not even about which way they go with the ruling, whatever they choose I'm behind 100%, but from my point of view, they have to choose something. It's unfair not to, to both "victims" and perpetrators.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1270 - 2014-03-29 11:10:52 UTC
General Lemming wrote:
Does this include using out of Eve websites to scam and haras people in game ? Like Goonswarm does ?
And literally hundreds of other websites. Good luck getting that one signed off. Your leaders blog will be gone too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1271 - 2014-03-29 11:12:42 UTC
olan2005 wrote:
you don't know that he wasn't unlike erotic1 he has not made any public statement. And again E1 got what he wanted the guy snapped said some very reprehensible things , but circumstances mean he should not receive the same level of punishment as E1
So to be clear, you're saying that racism and death threats are OK under some circumstances? Especially when someone got your internet space pixels. I disagree, there is NEVER a reason for that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Big Lynx
#1272 - 2014-03-29 11:15:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Big Lynx
Lucas Kell wrote:
General Lemming wrote:
Does this include using out of Eve websites to scam and haras people in game ? Like Goonswarm does ?
And literally hundreds of other websites. Good luck getting that one signed off. Your leaders blog will be gone too.


You are so far away from the point. Slowly I begin to believe that the creepy voice of Ero has manipulated more people than I thought.
Auraka Sith
JPG Industries
#1273 - 2014-03-29 11:17:17 UTC
Quick question before my real post... . why do some character portraits have a RED - or BLUE + in the top right corner?


Ok onto the post...

By page 26 I had to skip to the end, so sorry if this has been posted...
But what I don't understand is, how in the world do people not understand where the line was crossed?

A very quick search found that in June 2012 there were over 2.5 billion people connected to the Internet.

So how is people have not realised that posting a voice recording of someone experiencing a mental breakdown for billions to listen too (note: The Internet is FOREVER); instead of leaving the knowledge / details of the breakdown private to those in the voice channel at the time it happened?


Regardless of the this persons statements that they have moved on and hold no ill will; reality is the voice channel recording is out there forever; and it will impact this persons future negatively, it will impact their partner, their family, their friends.


So regardless oh how greedy and foolish this person was to put themselves in the position, limits where reached and breached.
Its the actions which follow that is at the heart of the issue of 'Real Life Harassment', not would led there.....


Kind Regards

Every bully walking the face of the earth needs your fear to survice. Without your fear, they are nothing.

Inside of each bully is a pathetic, sad, pitiful shell of a human being, who seeks out people they feel they can intimidate and control.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1274 - 2014-03-29 11:17:59 UTC
General Lemming wrote:
Does this include using out of Eve websites to scam and haras people in game ? Like Goonswarm does ?


Did you actually read the OP or are you just throwing words around?
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1275 - 2014-03-29 11:18:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm already doing 1,2,3 and either 6 or 7. The reason it's either 6 or 7 is that I dont; perform any task I think would be bannable anyway. I don't ransom for songs or anything like that. Believe it or not, I care about the game as a whole, not just specifically the parts that I play.


I really don't mean to be critical here - just trying to understand. Why are you doing 1? It seems rather pointless and counterproductive.

Lucas Kell wrote:
It even to cover the other side too. One "victim" might get his petition ignore while another sees the banhammer drop. Why should they be treated different if the circumstance are the same just because a GM is adhering to a rule that has no boundaries?


Do you have an evidence that these rules are going to be applied inconsistently? I've not seen any.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Why do you think it's so hard for CCP just to make a ruling though? Why do you want a massive grey area where people might get banned for stepping on a line that is arbitrarily chosen at the point the GM receive the petition? It's not even about which way they go with the ruling, whatever they choose I'm behind 100%, but from my point of view, they have to choose something. It's unfair not to, to both "victims" and perpetrators.


I don't think it's hard for them to produce something that 99% of the playerbase can interpret perfectly well and in fact I believe that they already have. It seems that there's a tiny minority of folks who can't seem to ge their head around it.

Why can't CCP write a definitive set of rules that leave every situation unambiguous? To do so would require something in such extremis that the player base would never except it.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Ssieth
Celestial Inc
Dracarys.
#1276 - 2014-03-29 11:20:51 UTC
Auraka Sith wrote:
Quick question before my real post... . why do some character portraits have a RED - or BLUE + in the top right corner?


Those indicate what standing the character posting has for you, your corp, your alliance etc

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.
Big Lynx
#1277 - 2014-03-29 11:22:09 UTC
Auraka Sith wrote:

But what I don't understand is, how in the world do people not understand where the line was crossed?




mysteries in the dark...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1278 - 2014-03-29 11:22:51 UTC
Big Lynx wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
General Lemming wrote:
Does this include using out of Eve websites to scam and haras people in game ? Like Goonswarm does ?
And literally hundreds of other websites. Good luck getting that one signed off. Your leaders blog will be gone too.
You are so far away from the point. Slowly I begin to believe that the creepy voice of Ero has manipulated more people than I thought.
What? I'm far away from the point by saying the rules shouldn't extend to scam websites? Or are you talking at that guy and quoting me?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1279 - 2014-03-29 11:29:12 UTC
Ssieth wrote:
I really don't mean to be critical here - just trying to understand. Why are you doing 1? It seems rather pointless and counterproductive.
***** and giggles. I generally don't just shut up because a bunch of people disagree with me. I have freedom of speech, and until CCP strip that from me forcefully I'll continue to exercise my rights.

Ssieth wrote:
Do you have an evidence that these rules are going to be applied inconsistently? I've not seen any.
Different people have different levels at which they would consider something as harassment, and that's evidenced in these threads. It's even evident from CCP, since this issue occurred months ago and they responded then too and nothing was done. So with different people having different definitions of harassment, it's wishful thinking at best to think that the rules will be applied in the same way every time.

Ssieth wrote:
I don't think it's hard for them to produce something that 99% of the playerbase can interpret perfectly well and in fact I believe that they already have. It seems that there's a tiny minority of folks who can't seem to ge their head around it.

Why can't CCP write a definitive set of rules that leave every situation unambiguous? To do so would require something in such extremis that the player base would never except it.
OK, so it's clear to you right?

Are songs allowed as ransoms?
How many songs are allowed?
How many are too many?

These are very very simple questions, so if the rules are easy to interpret, you should have no problem answering those, and 99% of the playerbase should agree with your response, right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1280 - 2014-03-29 11:29:27 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Thus the statement from CCP is deliberately vague: the people who are clearly "over the line" know they're over the line and expect punishment, the people who are clearly "inside the line" know they're inside and are safe from punishment, while the people in the grey area will either retreat to safety or double down. Once that happens, the enforcers can prune off the people who doubled-down because they're clearly evil, rotten apples and the community is obviously better off without them around.

CCP, like the renowned Belgian philosophers Vroomfondel and Majikthise, insists upon "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty". As one of the GMs noted to me, "it's a problem of demarcation, but if we get it right, we'll be on the gravy train for life."

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery