Jita Park Speakers Corner

2

2,35 but round it down to 2 for simplicity

None of those options unfortunately.

Option 2 please.

Drawing a clear line - like in option 1 - would:
a) Ruin a special aspect of Eve.
b) Not be of any help anyways; since people would just try to tip-toe the line as close as possible.

Option 3 is impractical.

Let's please trust ourselves in our judgement; even if we disagreed on "The Bonus Round".

The options given are pretty bad, since clearly (2) is the only realistic option and they all seem to be besides the point anyway. The point of the objections to the announcement seem to be inconsistency of application, which in turn creates requests of further clarification and a sense of arbitrary use of power by CCP, which in turn creates feelings of insecurity and injustice. Some people don't get why doing relatively harmless things on their own are a perma ban offense, while death threats and racism are seemingly being excused by pleading to an emotional state. This seems silly to some, since that will include about 99% of all death threat cases. Each case of course separate, but surely there are a lot of shared criteria that influence the decision making process.

That in mind what I would propose is that the current rules are fine, but try to get CCP to expand on what things are considered when making such decisions. So instead of trying to argue where the fuzzy line should be placed, get them to talk about the criteria at least a little and maybe give few major ones as examples of things taken to account when deciding such cases. This would not make the line clear, but it would help provide a compass for the people struggling with using their own common sense. Is emotional state a big factor in general or is it only considered when the target has intentionally goaded the other side? What about one time events versus behavior that has continued for an extended period of time? Is the humane behavior of the accused a mitigating factor after it has become clear, that the other player is in anguish? You get the general idea.

within the context of eve, 2.

2

There is only one valid option 2.

Option1 will have to be so restrictive that it will kill the that unique part of Eve where some people find new stuff to perform scams/actions.

Option3 is not reallly acceptable to me

But option 2 needs to be worked out.. The current situation only leads to conflict.
CCP does not have to draw a fix line in the sand, but there must be a line.
But it should give public examples of correct and non-correct behavior instead of hiding behind 'privacy issues'.
There still will be people that will cross that line that is not so fixed and get punished for it...but hey : that's life.

To prevent conflicts CCP (and/or CSM) should have a service where people can request advice on their idea upfront.
And maintain a list of approved things.

Can I ask someone to sing for 3 mibutes to save his ship? ===> yes
Can I keep someone busy for hours to save his assets => no

2, with shade of 1 in it. Let the banhammer hit sometimes, let the tear addicts live in fear that the harassment they do in real life may end their gaming in EVE for good. Normal adult can scam, joke, rage and so forth without crossing the line, but those who do feel the need to toe the line constantly should, sometimes, find themselves in search of other game where they can test such boundaries.

In an ideal world I'd like option 3 because of free speech etc, but realistically option 2 is the best way forward.