These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tesco Ergo Sum
#2061 - 2014-04-04 06:30:21 UTC
Ginseng Jita wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Liese Shardani wrote:
When Erotica posted the link to the Sohkar Bonus Round on the EVE forums in late February, that cleared up any question of the audio possibly being doctored to frame him.

It also brought an incident that occurred on a third party platform here onto CCP property. His posting of it, since he was the instigator, could be seen as further harassment of the victim.


So when they learned about it happening in their game in November....

Between then and Feb, they did nothing because...........


Well clearly they did nothing because they didn't care...it wasn't until a CSM that wants to be a self-righteous Inquisitor wrote about it.


I like the sound of that - I endorse this Inquisitor product and/or service and believe we need more of this.

Metagaming is encouraged so I believe we should add this to http://www.eveonline.com/sandbox/personality-analysis/
Josef Djugashvilis
#2062 - 2014-04-04 07:02:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Mario Putzo wrote:
You folks need to get of the Erotica1 ****. Whats done is done. The issue is what precedent CCP has established.

Which is cave to mob mentality.


I am not sure it qualifies as a precedent, but CCP have made it clear that they find some behaviour unacceptable.

For those who keep saying that they want clarification about what is and what is not considered to be acceptable in-game, the action taken by CCP should be a great help to them.

It would be impossible for CCP to come up with a comprehensive, all defining set of rules to which players must adhere at all times, those who keep asking for this are simply trolling and they know it.

Each of us (the relatively few) who have any opinion on the matter will apply their own personal values to what happened and opine on the forums accordingly.

For me, Ero crossed the line with the 'speech impediment' part.

To give Ero any isk, is foolish, to go into the bonus room is seriously foolish, but given how many players brag about how stupid other players are and how they take advantage of them, the mark was not alone in his stupidity.

If I owned CCP Smile I would have given Ero a three month ban, and made it very clear to him that any similar behaviour by him in the future would mean that we would just have to manage without him playing our game, forever.

This is not a signature.
Danalee
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#2063 - 2014-04-04 07:19:28 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis with inline comments by Danalee wrote:

I am not sure it qualifies as a precedent, but CCP have made it clear that they find some behaviour unacceptable.
They have every right to that, nobody is arguing the opposite.

For those who keep saying that they want clarification about what is and what is not considered to be acceptable in-game, the action taken by CCP should be a great help to them.
New people and 99% of the player base don't read these forums.

It would be impossible for CCP to come up with a comprehensive, all defining set of rules to which players must adhere at all times, those who keep asking for this are simply trolling and they know it.
Nobody is asking this. It's a given that making a list of everything CCP thinks is bad is impossible.

Each of us (the relatively few) who have any opinion on the matter will apply their own personal values to what happened and opine on the forums accordingly.
We all have the right to form and vent these opinions, again; Nobody is arguing the opposite.

For me, Ero crossed the line with the 'speech impediment' part.
Your opinion is noted and I'll defend your right to vent it.

To give Ero any isk, is foolish, to go into the bonus room is seriously foolish, but given how many players brag about how stupid other players are and how they take advantage of them, the mark was not alone in his stupidity.
Agreed.

If I owned CCP Smile I would have given Ero a three month ban, and made it very clear to him that any similar behaviour by him in the future would mean that we would just have to manage without him playing our game, forever.
And here we arrive at the crux of the matter; A warning with a temp ban at first is what you ask? Newsflash: It's what everyone asks.


D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Josef Djugashvilis
#2064 - 2014-04-04 09:56:46 UTC
With regard to the Ero 'saga'

I read on, I think it was Eurogamer, 'nerd world stuff'

This is not a signature.
Loko Crackhead
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2065 - 2014-04-04 10:38:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Loko Crackhead
CCP, how about instead of occasionally banning people that prefer being a crook as a play style, you introduce a in-game business transaction certificate that becomes editable only for players that concluded a contract with the owner of the certificate. It should only be editable also when the contract is more then 70% off balance and only negative grades can be posted (the party that got the 70% hit is the only one that can grade). Contract goes through as off now but the grade sticks to the scam-er.
Direct money transfer stays as it is now.

Don't flame me too hard, it is a rushed idea to insert some in-game risk for the nice scamming community.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2066 - 2014-04-04 10:41:25 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:
CCP, how about instead of occasionally banning people that prefer being a crook as a play style, you introduce a in-game business transaction certificate that becomes editable only for players that concluded a contract with the owner of the certificate. It should only be editable also when the contract is more then 70% of balance and only negative grades can be posted (the party that got the 70% hit is the only one that can grade). Contract goes through as off now but the grade sticks to the scam-er.
Direct money transfer stays as it is now.

Don't flame me too hard, it is a rushed idea to insert some in-game risk for the nice scamming community.


Because I would abuse the system to buy contracts off people I dont like or am in competition with, and slam bad feedback on them each time and drive their seller-score into the dirt

"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
Loko Crackhead
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2067 - 2014-04-04 10:51:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Loko Crackhead
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Loko Crackhead wrote:
CCP, how about instead of occasionally banning people that prefer being a crook as a play style, you introduce a in-game business transaction certificate that becomes editable only for players that concluded a contract with the owner of the certificate. It should only be editable also when the contract is more then 70% of balance and only negative grades can be posted (the party that got the 70% hit is the only one that can grade). Contract goes through as off now but the grade sticks to the scam-er.
Direct money transfer stays as it is now.

Don't flame me too hard, it is a rushed idea to insert some in-game risk for the nice scamming community.


Because I would abuse the system to buy contracts off people I dont like or am in competition with, and slam bad feedback on them each time and drive their seller-score into the dirt


If the contract is fair you don't get to grade. Estimates should be run against Jita prices and if the value of the sold items properly fits inside the 70% margin of value I've iterated previously then the contract is considered legit by default and no grading takes place.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2068 - 2014-04-04 11:00:11 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Loko Crackhead wrote:
CCP, how about instead of occasionally banning people that prefer being a crook as a play style, you introduce a in-game business transaction certificate that becomes editable only for players that concluded a contract with the owner of the certificate. It should only be editable also when the contract is more then 70% of balance and only negative grades can be posted (the party that got the 70% hit is the only one that can grade). Contract goes through as off now but the grade sticks to the scam-er.
Direct money transfer stays as it is now.

Don't flame me too hard, it is a rushed idea to insert some in-game risk for the nice scamming community.


Because I would abuse the system to buy contracts off people I dont like or am in competition with, and slam bad feedback on them each time and drive their seller-score into the dirt


If the contract is fair you don't get to grade. Estimates should be run against Jita prices and if the value of the sold items properly fits inside the 70% margin of value I've iterated previously then the contract is considered legit by default and no grading takes place.


And? how does this stop me abusing the system?

I place good grades on people who are known scammers then, in exchange for whatever we decided was a fair recompense for "falling" for the scam

"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
Loko Crackhead
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2069 - 2014-04-04 11:12:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Loko Crackhead
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Loko Crackhead wrote:
CCP, how about instead of occasionally banning people that prefer being a crook as a play style, you introduce a in-game business transaction certificate that becomes editable only for players that concluded a contract with the owner of the certificate. It should only be editable also when the contract is more then 70% of balance and only negative grades can be posted (the party that got the 70% hit is the only one that can grade). Contract goes through as off now but the grade sticks to the scam-er.
Direct money transfer stays as it is now.

Don't flame me too hard, it is a rushed idea to insert some in-game risk for the nice scamming community.


Because I would abuse the system to buy contracts off people I dont like or am in competition with, and slam bad feedback on them each time and drive their seller-score into the dirt


If the contract is fair you don't get to grade. Estimates should be run against Jita prices and if the value of the sold items properly fits inside the 70% margin of value I've iterated previously then the contract is considered legit by default and no grading takes place.


And? how does this stop me abusing the system?

I place good grades on people who are known scammers then, in exchange for whatever we decided was a fair recompense for "falling" for the scam


Please read carefully. No good grade. 0 is the sum grade of the most honest virtual businessman. Good grades are too easy to abuse through alts and the like.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2070 - 2014-04-04 11:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
Loko Crackhead wrote:


Please read carefully. No good grade. 0 is the sum grade of the most honest virtual businessman. Good grades are too easy to abuse through alts and the like.


Apologies, I missed that somehow.

So does your idea only count if the request amount is above market value?

and whats the best grade someone can give? Zero for a statisfactory transaction? And the score would be aggregate, average or sum of grades given?

"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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2071 - 2014-04-04 11:42:12 UTC
The problem with a negative only rating system is that it in the end still show someone who has no or few negatives as "good", a moderate amount of negatives as "OK", and a lot of negative as "bad". People who contract more will have more exposure to ratings so will end up looking bad, while scammers will just control their volumes. If there's no cap on how far back the ratings go, you'll also get to the issue where it would be impossible for an older player to have a rating as good as an unused alt.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Loko Crackhead
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2072 - 2014-04-04 12:29:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Loko Crackhead
Didn't really refine the idea but let's see how it goes on the fly. Let's call the grade, flag. One can only give one flag / contract (all above stated conditions apply). And the sum of flags (negative feedback) should be displayed on the character info panel along side with the total number of transactions. So an older character that has 100 transactions (corp or inside account transactions should not be included) and 5 flags should be considered more trustworthy then a new character that has 10 transactions and 3 flags. The flags should only caution over the nature of the character and should not impede in any way his ability to run business using in-game mechanics.

If we are taking into account the ease to renew characters I doubt a perfect system can be put in place (or I fail to think of such system). Maybe such a grading should be applied account wide or some negative in game perks should derive from this statistic.

(rant mode on) CCP developers should really start looking in adding some type of risk for this type of game-play as long as they allow it. I'm just annoyed that these guys operate in-game right now under no or very little risk vs big in-game rewards and they cry baby how others want to transform EVE in Barbie online (rant mode off).
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2073 - 2014-04-04 12:39:00 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:

(rant mode on) CCP developers should really start looking in adding some type of risk for this type of game-play as long as they allow it. I'm just annoyed that these guys operate in-game right now under no or very little risk vs big in-game rewards and they cry baby how others want to transform EVE in Barbie online (rant mode off).



Ok, well, apart from the next point, I think youve made a reasonably cast-iron case for your ratings post.

However, I wouldnt vote for it for the same reason that I disagree that contract-scamming should have added risk;

The terminally stupid should not be mollycoddled or protected in any way at all IMHO. The rating should apply to the buyer too if anything.

The occassional mis-click or buying something on the market for 10 times the value because you didnt put it in lowest-to-highest order is all very well, but when someone buys a Merlin for 20 mill thinking its a Worm (or whatever), two things happen. 1) HE learns about risk vs reward because he has suffered the risk for trading when the deal is too good to be true. 2) If it happens again he is being punished for his stupidity to teach him that being a moron is unacceptable.

Would YOU feel happy about flying in a fleet to protect your POS or Sov or Miners or whatever with someone who had been scammed half a dozen times?

I know I wouldnt.

Vote Peter Griffin for Mayor.

"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
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#2074 - 2014-04-04 12:46:43 UTC
Liese Shardani wrote:
When Erotica posted the link to the Sohkar Bonus Round on the EVE forums in late February, that cleared up any question of the audio possibly being doctored to frame him.

It also brought an incident that occurred on a third party platform here onto CCP property. His posting of it, since he was the instigator, could be seen as further harassment of the victim.


We're going to ban people based on what happens in the metagame now? The metagame can get really nasty and sometimes downright illegal.

Suppose a group of players believe that it isn't enough to blow up your enemy's assets, but the way to win is to destroy enemy communities, and they proceed to take actions that undermine player relationships, can such things be moderated? Forums can be hacked into, websites and servers of major alliances have been DDOSed, sometimes when alliance leaders go rogue, accusations of hacking will fly wildly, does CCP really want to get that involved in the meta game?

The meta-game spills over to real-life on many levels, because players have real lives. Alliance security is a nasty maze of out-of-game tools. The game of espionage can be far more brutal and is capable of crossing real-life legal boundaries in more drastic ways than simply humiliating someone on a soundcloud recording. Does CCP want to regulate this too?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2075 - 2014-04-04 12:50:39 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:

We're going to ban people based on what happens in the metagame now? The metagame can get really nasty and sometimes downright illegal.

Suppose a group of players believe that it isn't enough to blow up your enemy's assets, but the way to win is to destroy enemy communities, and they proceed to take actions that undermine player relationships, can such things be moderated? Forums can be hacked into, websites and servers of major alliances have been DDOSed, sometimes when alliance leaders go rogue, accusations of hacking will fly wildly, does CCP really want to get that involved in the meta game?

The meta-game spills over to real-life on many levels, because players have real lives. Alliance security is a nasty maze of out-of-game tools. The game of espionage can be far more brutal and is capable of crossing real-life legal boundaries in more drastic ways than simply humiliating someone on a soundcloud recording. Does CCP want to regulate this too?


Yes, this is in the EULA

You will be banned if found to have used out of game mechanisms in this manner

And you should count yourself lucky that if you DDOS they dont call Johnny Law on you too.

"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
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#2076 - 2014-04-04 13:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


I am not sure it qualifies as a precedent, but CCP have made it clear that they find some behaviour unacceptable.



Yes, if you do something in game and arent reported, but someone ELSE takes it upon themselves to champion the victim's cause (without asking, telling or even TALKING to the victim about it) and whips up the mob, then you can be banned for whatever it was you did (without so much as a report from the victim).

Quote:
Nobody is asking this. It's a given that making a list of everything CCP thinks is bad is impossible.


Noone except Malcanis (while using that option as option #1 to force people into picking the option he wanted from his own troll thread) is asking this

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
#2077 - 2014-04-04 13:15:44 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


If I owned CCP Smile I would have given Ero a three month ban, and made it very clear to him that any similar behaviour by him in the future would mean that we would just have to manage without him playing our game, forever.


Where would you fall on someone who is throwing around racist insults or real life threats? OR is part of a really big corporation and wants those in said corporation to pester someone till they off themselves IRL?

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
#2078 - 2014-04-04 13:22:50 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:

We're going to ban people based on what happens in the metagame now? The metagame can get really nasty and sometimes downright illegal.

Suppose a group of players believe that it isn't enough to blow up your enemy's assets, but the way to win is to destroy enemy communities, and they proceed to take actions that undermine player relationships, can such things be moderated? Forums can be hacked into, websites and servers of major alliances have been DDOSed, sometimes when alliance leaders go rogue, accusations of hacking will fly wildly, does CCP really want to get that involved in the meta game?

The meta-game spills over to real-life on many levels, because players have real lives. Alliance security is a nasty maze of out-of-game tools. The game of espionage can be far more brutal and is capable of crossing real-life legal boundaries in more drastic ways than simply humiliating someone on a soundcloud recording. Does CCP want to regulate this too?


Yes, this is in the EULA

You will be banned if found to have used out of game mechanisms in this manner

And you should count yourself lucky that if you DDOS they dont call Johnny Law on you too.


Riiiiiiight, and CCP calling local authorities on those people (or other players) wont get this game shut down faster than the behavior E1 did left unchecked would have....

I can see THAT headline "Local man jailed for behaving badly in a video game" - because the headlines are always misleading

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.

Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2079 - 2014-04-04 13:40:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:

Riiiiiiight, and CCP calling local authorities on those people (or other players) wont get this game shut down faster than the behavior E1 did left unchecked would have....

I can see THAT headline "Local man jailed for behaving badly in a video game" - because the headlines are always misleading


What part of "you should count yourself lucky that they dont" did you fail to grasp?

Or are you riding so high on your righteous indignation that you are now attacking everyone, even those who sympathise with your point of view.

But yeah, DDOSes are illegal. That is an actual fact.

"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
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#2080 - 2014-04-04 14:19:04 UTC
It's very clearly a player with a privileged csm position doing his own personal axe-grinding, and nothing else.

I mean, nothing actually happened two months ago when this incident went down, it was only after ripard raising it to ccp, them rebuffing him, and then his little media blitz that anything happened