These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Echo Belly
#1861 - 2014-04-01 12:32:27 UTC
It seems CCP have their very own definition of "harassment".

In Erotica 1's case it was nothing but adults agreeing to make fools of themselves for video game money.
And for some of them it obviously helped them to become less foolish and greedy in their real lives.

It's unbelievable some ****** can call out a player and get him banned for fake reasons. I'm deeply, deeply disappointed by CCP's behaviour on this case.

Erotica 1 is such an iconic figure in EvE, i can't believe the people in charge dared to ban him. By this decision they chose to show us, the players, that there is no room for fun and laughs in this game. And it is instead blind greed and hate that should get you where you want. How insulting. How sad.

Reopen the case and lift the ban. This cannot not be a big misunderstanding.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#1862 - 2014-04-01 12:38:03 UTC
New today:


NJ judge's ruling may spur more schools to sue bullies, families

Parents of 11 students can be named as defendants in school-bullying suit, judge rules


"Superior Court Judge Yolanda Ciccone ruled earlier this month that districts being sued by victims of harassment and bullying can bring the bullies and their parents into the case to share any potential financial liability."

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1863 - 2014-04-01 12:45:29 UTC
arabella blood wrote:

I will try with to explane with an extreme example:
4 people are covicted of murder.
1 is an old person, has cancer and is 90 years old.
2 is a young lady, pregnant with a baby, first offence.
3 is a criminal, 2nd murder for him.
4 is a guy who were threatend and extorted to commit the murder.

All were convicted. Should they all gate same jail time?


I think so.

1 - So your'e old and dying. Thats a license to commit murder, or to suffer lesser consequences than anyone else who commits murder? I think not.

2 - "But your honor, this is the first time I've killed someone! Don't I get a break?" Please. As for the pregnancy, if thats an excuse or cause for leniency, then any wicked woman who wanted to commit murder could effectively lessen the consequences she faces by getting herself pregnant first. That's downright diabolical. I cant believe anyone would really think that could possibly be used as a mitigating circumstance.

3 - Should have been put to death or locked up for life the first time. The "justice" system that set him free to kill again bears some responsibility for the 2nd death, imo.

4 - I'm a LITTLE more sympathetic, but the bottom line is that coercion or not, he still CHOSE to go thru with the act. It's only defensible if his own life were in danger, in which case he wouldn't justly be convicted anyway.

So yeah, equal time for equal crimes, I say. Moral relativism is a contributing factor to the decline of civilization and a big factor in the culture of irresponsibility in which we now find ourselves living. People aren't held accountable for their own actions often enough anymore. If you live in the U.S. as I do, take a good look around and tell me how that's working out for us?




\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1864 - 2014-04-01 12:47:05 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
New today:


NJ judge's ruling may spur more schools to sue bullies, families

Parents of 11 students can be named as defendants in school-bullying suit, judge rules


"Superior Court Judge Yolanda Ciccone ruled earlier this month that districts being sued by victims of harassment and bullying can bring the bullies and their parents into the case to share any potential financial liability."


It's also illegal to threaten somebody with bodily harm. That doesnt just bear a financial cost, it gets you JAIL TIME.

So what's your point?


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Loko Crackhead
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1865 - 2014-04-01 12:49:22 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:


I could maybe live with that, although I'm not comfortable with the idea that crossing the line is accepted or dealt with less harshly simply because someone else was, in essence, trolling you, even if to an extreme degree. Once you sink to your antagonists level you become no better than him.




All people have breaking points and our banned scam-er knew that. That's what he aimed for in order to get a reason to discard Shokar's bonus room claim. People tend to believe that the bonus room was nothing more then a way to get giggles but I don't hear the main scam-er giggle that much, do you? Don't fool yourself, the main thrust is seizing someone else's assets and giving it a flavor of legitimacy, nothing more.
Now ask yourself, should we punish Shokar harshly for delivering what was expected of him?

You know it was more then trolling, don't you? Virtual assets agreed, but they have value for the player that invested time in getting them and that is RL time we are talking about. "Value" rarely has an intrinsic attribute if we are talking about it in human context ;).
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1866 - 2014-04-01 12:51:20 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:

Where I come from...


Dunno if you get it but when you said that I thought of this

http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article8466005.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Jeremy+Kyle+Show.jpg

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#1867 - 2014-04-01 13:11:05 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
arabella blood wrote:

I will try with to explane with an extreme example:
4 people are covicted of murder.
1 is an old person, has cancer and is 90 years old.
2 is a young lady, pregnant with a baby, first offence.
3 is a criminal, 2nd murder for him.
4 is a guy who were threatend and extorted to commit the murder.

All were convicted. Should they all gate same jail time?


I think so.

1 - So your'e old and dying. Thats a license to commit murder, or to suffer lesser consequences than anyone else who commits murder? I think not.

2 - "But your honor, this is the first time I've killed someone! Don't I get a break?" Please. As for the pregnancy, if thats an excuse or cause for leniency, then any wicked woman who wanted to commit murder could effectively lessen the consequences she faces by getting herself pregnant first. That's downright diabolical. I cant believe anyone would really think that could possibly be used as a mitigating circumstance.

3 - Should have been put to death or locked up for life the first time. The "justice" system that set him free to kill again bears some responsibility for the 2nd death, imo.

4 - I'm a LITTLE more sympathetic, but the bottom line is that coercion or not, he still CHOSE to go thru with the act. It's only defensible if his own life were in danger, in which case he wouldn't justly be convicted anyway.

So yeah, equal time for equal crimes, I say. Moral relativism is a contributing factor to the decline of civilization and a big factor in the culture of irresponsibility in which we now find ourselves living. People aren't held accountable for their own actions often enough anymore. If you live in the U.S. as I do, take a good look around and tell me how that's working out for us?






Thats pretty much sums up the difference in our views.
What i tryed to describe is a tradition and a practice as old as humans started walking the earth. I know it does not make it perfect, or right, but it is working up till now and perhaps the "lesser evil" of all other choices.

I do believe in it. I like the idea of "everyone is equal before the law" - and in my view all 4 murderers were equal when they got convicted. After that starts the sentecing process - when each individual get sentenced according to their own circumstances.

Mind that there are so much more depth in this subject besides the basics we are discussing, and many more circumstances, rules, guidelines etc play a role in both the conviction and sentencing.

I wonder why didnt you ask for bigger punishment for n# 3.

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.

Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1868 - 2014-04-01 13:29:27 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:


I have not seen an answer to this:



You are typing words, so I know you are probably not blind. I can think of no other explanation as to how you missed the many DEV and CSM answers to this.

Mr Epeen Cool


I must be blind. In case I have missed it (hey, maybe so, its a huge thread, in which case youll have to pardon my mistake), nothing has been posted as to how someone can volunteer to be harassed, and how in fact that is anyone's problem but the idiot that volunteered.


If you volunteer to be waterboarded, is it still torture?


Yes. But its not harrasment. The asshat could have disconnected at any time.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1869 - 2014-04-01 13:40:54 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Leto Thule wrote:
tasman devil wrote:

Now... what happens to our two lovebirds?

Namely:
Erotica1 - who has committed harassment of bannable to life proportions
Sohkar - who -although enraged beyond measure at that point- posted life threats on the voice chat

So what now?
To punish them both (Ero1 - life ban, Soh - 30 days ban) would be a hard but justifiable course of action.


Woah... I did miss a bit. This gem in particular.

From what I understand here:

Ero made a jackass out of some jackass. Ha ha. This = life ban.

Sohkar made a DEATH THREAT and that only gets a 30 day ban?? WTF? Youll have to explain that one.


I am not aware that sokhar has been banned, I might have missed that. Can you link a source please, if sokhar has been banned then I for one am happy as both participants have been punished for their actions.

All we need to do now is punish ripard teg by not voting for him in future csm elections, I don't want anyone crusading on my behalf, especially when his machinations are all centred on removing political opponents such as erotica1 who was about to stand as a csm candidate.

He wasnt banned. It was a discussion on possible consequences.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1870 - 2014-04-01 13:42:06 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:

All people have breaking points and our banned scam-er knew that.


And this is precisely why Sokhars murderous threats are such a serious matter. As you say, he was at his breaking point. It is when people are in this hyper-emotional state that they are most apt to actually commit an act of violence, as they are no longer thinking rationally. It is at this point that one's threats of violence should be taken most seriously.

Had he threatened ME like that, and he lived within a couple hundred miles of me, I'd have his ass arrested, drive that far to show up in court to press charges, and believe you me, he would be convicted. I know this for a fact because in my younger days I was a bail bondsman for several years, I've seen it. Being verbally taunted, even mercilessly and extremely, is not an accepted defense, especially when Sokhar had the power to stop the taunts by just walking away at any time. His ass could sit in jail for (in this state) up to 11 months, 29 days, with a couple of years probation afterwards, plus fines and court costs. His only hope would be to get a sympathetic judge who might give a lesser sentence out of pity for the ordeal he agreed to be subjected to (because, as the judge would be aware, he could have simply walked away at any time.)

Quote:

That's what he aimed for in order to get a reason to discard Shokar's bonus room claim. People tend to believe that the bonus room was nothing more then a way to get giggles but I don't hear the main scam-er giggle that much, do you? Don't fool yourself, the main thrust is seizing someone else's assets and giving it a flavor of legitimacy, nothing more.
Now ask yourself, should we punish Shokar harshly for delivering what was expected of him?


Of course it's about seizing assets, it's an elaborate scam. And yes, we should punish Sokhar for violating the TOS just like we're punishing E1 for violating the TOS. Hell, what E1 (who I will reiterate I think is a douchebag) did wasn't even illegal, though it may be morally reprehensible. Sokhar actually committed a crime, at least it is under the laws where I live. But it's not CCP's job to enforce the law, of course. However, he should be held accountable for violating the TOS just like anybody else should be held accountable for violating the TOS.

Quote:

You know it was more then trolling, don't you? Virtual assets agreed, but they have value for the player that invested time in getting them and that is RL time we are talking about. "Value" rarely has an intrinsic attribute if we are talking about it in human context ;).


I understand the value of our pixelated assets. My time is valuable to me, too, and I directly tie the value of my isk and assets to the time it takes me to acquire that much isk. I get it. That said, it was a combination of naivete (which is excusable) and greed that kept Sokhar in the hellish Bonus Room. He wanted to get a free quintupling of his assets, he wanted it so badly that he was willing to endure the button-pushing. He should have just left before he lost control of himself, and it is precisely because he CHOSE not to leave before reaching that state that he should be held accountable for his violations of the TOS that took place while he was in that state.

So yeah, E1 is a douche, and possibly even a true sociopath (and I do mean that.) He violated the TOS. Ban him. Good. Sokhar also violated the TOS. As my sig says, either the rules apply to everyone, or they don't justly apply to anyone.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1871 - 2014-04-01 13:45:38 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:

Where I come from...


Dunno if you get it but when you said that I thought of this

http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article8466005.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Jeremy+Kyle+Show.jpg



Teehee! +1

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1872 - 2014-04-01 13:47:49 UTC
Ive got a solution!

Ban everyone who gets scammed! That way, we dont enable either scammers OR the stupid!

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1873 - 2014-04-01 13:54:19 UTC
arabella blood wrote:

I wonder why didnt you ask for bigger punishment for n# 3.


Guess I should have been a little more specific. I think he already should have been serving life in prison for the 1st murder, therefore, I believe, well, that he shoudl get life. They all should, imo. I personally believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a far worse punishment than being put to death. I know if faced with and given the choice, I'd choose death. The old guy is the one that effectively beats the system, he's going to die before suffering any significant length of time, anyway. He "gets away with it" moreso than the other 3.



\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1874 - 2014-04-01 13:56:09 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:

Guess I should have been a little more specific. I think he already should have been serving life in prison for the 1st murder, therefore, I believe, well, that he shoudl get life. They all should, imo. I personally believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a far worse punishment than being put to death. I know if faced with and given the choice, I'd choose death.


So.... justice isnt just, and thats ok? Is that what you said? The punishment should outweigh the crime?

(And no, I dont believe in the death penalty)

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1875 - 2014-04-01 13:56:52 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Ive got a solution!

Ban everyone who gets scammed! That way, we dont enable either scammers OR the stupid!


Aww cmon, Ramona, you're better than resorting to straw man arguments. I am disappoint Cry


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1876 - 2014-04-01 13:57:48 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:

Guess I should have been a little more specific. I think he already should have been serving life in prison for the 1st murder, therefore, I believe, well, that he shoudl get life. They all should, imo. I personally believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a far worse punishment than being put to death. I know if faced with and given the choice, I'd choose death.


So.... justice isnt just, and thats ok? Is that what you said? The punishment should outweigh the crime?

(And no, I dont believe in the death penalty)


In what way does the punishment outweigh the crime?

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1877 - 2014-04-01 14:00:41 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:

Guess I should have been a little more specific. I think he already should have been serving life in prison for the 1st murder, therefore, I believe, well, that he shoudl get life. They all should, imo. I personally believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a far worse punishment than being put to death. I know if faced with and given the choice, I'd choose death.


So.... justice isnt just, and thats ok? Is that what you said? The punishment should outweigh the crime?

(And no, I dont believe in the death penalty)


In what way does the punishment outweigh the crime?



You said that life in prison was worse than being put to death

The crime was putting someone to death

Therefore, the punishment is a worse fate than the crime was.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1878 - 2014-04-01 14:10:53 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:


Do you agree that Sokhar should also be banned for making threats of rl violence and murder against another player, as well as his use of racial slurs? Both are violations of the TOS. If you ban one you have to ban the other.



NO! There are extenuating circumstances that should be applied when ruling about Shokar's behavior. He did cross the line but it is not very hard to asses his state of mind (irrational discourse) . He should be warned and maybe banned for a few days so he gets time off to realize the gravity of his behavior even if he didn't rationally meant it.


So its OK to be a racist bigot if you're distraught?
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#1879 - 2014-04-01 14:12:57 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:

Guess I should have been a little more specific. I think he already should have been serving life in prison for the 1st murder, therefore, I believe, well, that he shoudl get life. They all should, imo. I personally believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a far worse punishment than being put to death. I know if faced with and given the choice, I'd choose death.


So.... justice isnt just, and thats ok? Is that what you said? The punishment should outweigh the crime?

(And no, I dont believe in the death penalty)


In what way does the punishment outweigh the crime?



You said that life in prison was worse than being put to death

The crime was putting someone to death

Therefore, the punishment is a worse fate than the crime was.



BOOM! I have to agree. You're right.

That said, (and here we go off on a tangent, but what the hell) I am pretty much opposed to the death penalty anyway, soooo, whats the most just course of action? I suppose, were it possible to determine how many more years the murder victim would have lived, we could incarcerate the murderer for that period of time... idk, still somehow doesn't seem right that the murderer, who would then be released, still gets to enjoy life for a while, while the other person was deprived of that.

Idk, but I do concede your point. You got meh!


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#1880 - 2014-04-01 14:18:11 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:

BOOM! I have to agree. You're right.

That said, (and here we go off on a tangent, but what the hell) I am pretty much opposed to the death penalty anyway, soooo, whats the most just course of action? I suppose, were it possible to determine how many more years the murder victim would have lived, we could incarcerate the murderer for that period of time... idk, still somehow doesn't seem right that the murderer, who would then be released, still gets to enjoy life for a while, while the other person was deprived of that.

Idk, but I do concede your point. You got meh!


HUGS! Friendship IS magic!

And as for the rest of your post up there, well thats the moral dilemma that has befuddled progressive thinkers regarding dealing with real issues of anti-social behaviour for the last 150 years or so.

I come from a place where criminals can plead political angles on their crimes and got put in special parts of the prisons with others of their creed, and when peace were hammered out all got let out again, so Im utterly unsure what the choice is.

But killing is not justice for killing.

This is nothing to do with the OP and Im sorry for wandering off in a bright yellow tangent

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann