These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#2141 - 2014-04-07 18:20:29 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If you don't like it, you can leave.


So could have Sokhar

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
#2142 - 2014-04-07 18:45:40 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
I just thought of something funny:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=335085

If everything you do has to have profit or its harassment, is popping pods in high sec harassment (unless they have a bounty, and if they do just add a bounty to them lol)

Ramona McCandless wrote:


Both have been punished


Sohkar got punished?

Link?


Didnt he lose all his isk and items bar 6m he had stashed in his shoe?

Thats one way the moronic get punished.

He was also ejected from his corp for a while 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
Brusanan
Free State Project
#2143 - 2014-04-07 19:09:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Brusanan
I'm in the camp that Sohkar did nothing wrong as well. He was on a private TeamSpeak server, so he was allowed to be as racist as he wanted. The only one who had any right to punish him was the owner of the TS server (who would have immediately kicked him if he was around at the time).

But if you're in the camp that believes CCP should become the NSA and listen-in on TS chatter or punish people based on TS recordings, then Sohkar should have gotten a ban alongside Erotica. Either all of the TOS and EULA applies, or none of it does.

But it wouldn't have looked good in the press if CCP banned the "victim" of the story. Plus there were no CSM members with a grudge against Sohkar.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2144 - 2014-04-07 19:17:29 UTC
Brusanan wrote:
he was allowed to be as racist as he wanted


Im just going to let this stand for what it is.

"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.
#2145 - 2014-04-07 19:44:59 UTC
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:
Here's my opinion. Scam, gank, whatever all you want within the game. Everyone knows that EVE allows such things. If you fall for it, chalk it off as a learning experience and move on. If you can't deal with it, find another game. I hear Star Citizen is going to be pretty popular.

However... When you take someone out of game into online voice chat and you F!@# with their head and involve their family... Then that's crossing the line. Obviously CCP agrees. You can say that the victim was naive or whatever. But the real problem is that this guy wasn't just scamming, he was enjoying causing another person mental anguish outside of the game and if you think that is ok, you are scum.

I keep hearing "The death of the Sandbox!" That's a load of crap. You can still do everything you could do before within the game. Scammers are just butt hurt over the fact that someone got their hands slapped. In the mean time I'll check into this thread once in a while and enjoy the tears.
So following that, all singing ransoms, and eve-radio singing competitions and such should be banned right? All of those "F!@# with" people as much as E1 did, the reaction just depends on the person.

Also, what abotu non-voice chat? Can I F!@# with your head on twitter for example?

Ramona McCandless wrote:
Didnt he lose all his isk and items bar 6m he had stashed in his shoe?

Thats one way the moronic get punished.

He was also ejected from his corp for a while too
Not only did he make back plenty in the month that's passed, he's been donated overall more than he lost from members of the community. The corp kicking him did so just to keep away war decs. He's still openly allowed in that corp as soon as he feels it's safe for him to come back without getting instantly wardecced.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2146 - 2014-04-07 19:46:25 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Not only did he make back plenty in the month that's passed, he's been donated overall more than he lost from members of the community. The corp kicking him did so just to keep away war decs. He's still openly allowed in that corp as soon as he feels it's safe for him to come back without getting instantly wardecced.


Hes back in the corp, and the corp never left the alliance and its back in its coalition.

What is it that you are saying?

That he shouldnt have lost his assests in a 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
#2147 - 2014-04-07 19:57:38 UTC
Ramona made me do it.

@Lucas Kell

No we are not clear. I was saying that I won't use previous unrelated events to judge the situation at hand. I might use it when considering the punishment ( already said that straight ban was a bit harsh but that's the problem with the forums- fragmentation). If CCP failed to act on this type of situation before, is on them not on me and I do agree (concede if you will) that their actions in this case seem to have bad publicity as a reason amongst other reasons.

I won't listen to lame excuses and consider them versions of the truth. Maybe I'm just stupid that way but it seems like a bad case of time waisting. And I will be gracious enough not to go into "What behavior?" remark. Singing and reading is all fine and dandy until somebody uses the "n" word or starts making RL threats. At that point the sane person stops the charade.

Yes other people were involved and I'm not sure they didn't get any repercussion but hey if they didn't, they should consider themselves lucky.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#2148 - 2014-04-07 19:58:35 UTC
Loko Crackhead wrote:
Ramona made me do it.

@Lucas Kell

No we are not clear. I was saying that I won't use previous unrelated events to judge the situation at hand. I might use it when considering the punishment ( already said that straight ban was a bit harsh but that's the problem with the forums- fragmentation). If CCP failed to act on this type of situation before, is on them not on me and I do agree (concede if you will) that their actions in this case seem to have bad publicity as a reason amongst other reasons.

I won't listen to lame excuses and consider them versions of the truth. Maybe I'm just stupid that way but it seems like a bad case of time waisting. And I will be gracious enough not to go into "What behavior?" remark. Singing and reading is all fine and dandy until somebody uses the "n" word or starts making RL threats. At that point the sane person stops the charade.

Yes other people were involved and I'm not sure they didn't get any repercussion but hey if they didn't, they should consider themselves lucky.


This

"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
Anslo
Scope Works
#2149 - 2014-04-07 20:36:56 UTC
On that note, who's up for a pint?!

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2150 - 2014-04-07 20:43:02 UTC
Tysun Kane wrote:
Man I am just learning about this incident from the Cap Stable podcast I listen to. IMO this RL harassment just went to far BUT I also believe that the only thing that CCP seems to think is wrong is that it made it to there forums and that brings it to to the large audience and including all the new players we have had lately...

That's not the position taken in the OP:

CCP Falcon wrote:
...CCP, in collaboration with the CSM, have agreed and would like to state in the strongest possible terms and in accordance with our existing Terms of Service and End User License Agreement, that real life harassment is morally reprehensible, and verifiable examples of such behavior will be met with disciplinary action...


That the perp brought it to the forum himself just made it easily verifiable, obviating questions such as "Did it really happen?" and "Who was involved?" Things could have turned out very differently, but despite all the CSM-blaming tears, the perp did it to himself. For that we can be grateful.
Brusanan
Free State Project
#2151 - 2014-04-07 20:52:25 UTC
Snupe Doggur wrote:
Tysun Kane wrote:
Man I am just learning about this incident from the Cap Stable podcast I listen to. IMO this RL harassment just went to far BUT I also believe that the only thing that CCP seems to think is wrong is that it made it to there forums and that brings it to to the large audience and including all the new players we have had lately...

That's not the position taken in the OP:

CCP Falcon wrote:
...CCP, in collaboration with the CSM, have agreed and would like to state in the strongest possible terms and in accordance with our existing Terms of Service and End User License Agreement, that real life harassment is morally reprehensible, and verifiable examples of such behavior will be met with disciplinary action...


That the perp brought it to the forum himself just made it easily verifiable, obviating questions such as "Did it really happen?" and "Who was involved?" Things could have turned out very differently, but despite all the CSM-blaming tears, the perp did it to himself. For that we can be grateful.

Right. The problem is when banning someone for Real Life Harassment, you should also be asking questions like "Is it actually harassment?" and "Did it happen in real life?". CCP didn't seem to be too concerned with the answers to those two questions.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2152 - 2014-04-07 21:59:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Hes back in the corp, and the corp never left the alliance and its back in its coalition.

What is it that you are saying?

That he shouldnt have lost his assests in a scam?
No, I'm saying that overall he made isk following the bonus room, and the corp kicking thing was something he and his corp leader agreed. that was just in response to the "Everybody was punished" thing earlier.

Loko Crackhead wrote:
No we are not clear. I was saying that I won't use previous unrelated events to judge the situation at hand. I might use it when considering the punishment ( already said that straight ban was a bit harsh but that's the problem with the forums- fragmentation). If CCP failed to act on this type of situation before, is on them not on me and I do agree (concede if you will) that their actions in this case seem to have bad publicity as a reason amongst other reasons.

I won't listen to lame excuses and consider them versions of the truth. Maybe I'm just stupid that way but it seems like a bad case of time waisting. And I will be gracious enough not to go into "What behavior?" remark. Singing and reading is all fine and dandy until somebody uses the "n" word or starts making RL threats. At that point the sane person stops the charade.

Yes other people were involved and I'm not sure they didn't get any repercussion but hey if they didn't, they should consider themselves lucky.
OK, so if someone asks me to sing, I call them a "n" word and f they don't stop, they get banned. Sounds... fair.

And no, nobody that wasn't targeted by Teg's hate campaign received any kind of punishment. So it was just E1.

And they aren't lame excuses, they are first hand accounts of the facts. The audio file you listened to wasn't even the whole bonus room...

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2153 - 2014-04-07 22:09:33 UTC
Brusanan wrote:
Snupe Doggur wrote:
Tysun Kane wrote:
Man I am just learning about this incident from the Cap Stable podcast I listen to. IMO this RL harassment just went to far BUT I also believe that the only thing that CCP seems to think is wrong is that it made it to there forums and that brings it to to the large audience and including all the new players we have had lately...

That's not the position taken in the OP:

CCP Falcon wrote:
...CCP, in collaboration with the CSM, have agreed and would like to state in the strongest possible terms and in accordance with our existing Terms of Service and End User License Agreement, that real life harassment is morally reprehensible, and verifiable examples of such behavior will be met with disciplinary action...


That the perp brought it to the forum himself just made it easily verifiable, obviating questions such as "Did it really happen?" and "Who was involved?" Things could have turned out very differently, but despite all the CSM-blaming tears, the perp did it to himself. For that we can be grateful.

Right. The problem is when banning someone for Real Life Harassment, you should also be asking questions like "Is it actually harassment?" and "Did it happen in real life?". CCP didn't seem to be too concerned with the answers to those two questions.
You also have the question "Did it happen at all". In the beginning I've asked that question, and DJ FunkyBacon has stated how simple a task it would be to offer someone in game to "take it to teamspeak" then record and edit an audio file to make it sound like someone identifying themselves as the target is being abusive. There would be no way to tell it was really them, and so no way to realistically enforce the new stance on third party harassment.

In this case, Erotica 1 made it clear as he wasn't hiding, since his intention was not to harass. So the reason he was banned was by being up front about it. If he'd not posted it there would be no way for someone to prove it was him. So realistically what is being stated here is that if you harass people out of game, don't publicly post it in a place that can be verified as you. If CCP take the other stance and ban without verification, then they open themselves up to someone setting someone up for a ban who did nothing wrong.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2154 - 2014-04-07 22:49:09 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2155 - 2014-04-08 12:07:55 UTC  |  Edited by: IIshira
Brusanan wrote:
[quote=Snupe Doggur]Right. The problem is when banning someone for Real Life Harassment, you should also be asking questions like "Is it actually harassment?" and "Did it happen in real life?". CCP didn't seem to be too concerned with the answers to those two questions.

If you haven't noticed CCP has been moving Eve away from a hardcore PVP game to something more mainstream. Basically it's about $ and the more of the mainstream audience they can tap into means more subscriptions.

I'm not against CCP banning people for whatever but they should make it clear in the TOS as to what's okay and what's not. Making someone an example to show what gets you banned is not the way to do it.

Simply add something like "Communication with other Eve players using out of game applications such as Teamspeak and Ventrilo in a manner to cause emotional distress is prohibited.".
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2156 - 2014-04-08 12:36:31 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Simply add something like "Communication with other Eve players using out of game applications such as Teamspeak and Ventrilo in a manner to cause emotional distress is prohibited.".
How would they enforce this? I mean in this situation it's clear cut, but how would they ensure they aren't acting on false evidence if it didn't have the user posting on the forum to state it was him?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#2157 - 2014-04-08 14:03:04 UTC
Brusanan wrote:
I'm in the camp that Sohkar did nothing wrong as well. He was on a private TeamSpeak server, so he was allowed to be as racist as he wanted. The only one who had any right to punish him was the owner of the TS server (who would have immediately kicked him if he was around at the time).

But if you're in the camp that believes CCP should become the NSA and listen-in on TS chatter or punish people based on TS recordings, then Sohkar should have gotten a ban alongside Erotica. Either all of the TOS and EULA applies, or none of it does.

But it wouldn't have looked good in the press if CCP banned the "victim" of the story. Plus there were no CSM members with a grudge against Sohkar.


You realize all this could be applied to Erotica as well being that the only things he did were on TS and thats what he got banned for, yes?

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
#2158 - 2014-04-08 14:05:11 UTC
Brusanan wrote:
Snupe Doggur wrote:
Tysun Kane wrote:
Man I am just learning about this incident from the Cap Stable podcast I listen to. IMO this RL harassment just went to far BUT I also believe that the only thing that CCP seems to think is wrong is that it made it to there forums and that brings it to to the large audience and including all the new players we have had lately...

That's not the position taken in the OP:

CCP Falcon wrote:
...CCP, in collaboration with the CSM, have agreed and would like to state in the strongest possible terms and in accordance with our existing Terms of Service and End User License Agreement, that real life harassment is morally reprehensible, and verifiable examples of such behavior will be met with disciplinary action...


That the perp brought it to the forum himself just made it easily verifiable, obviating questions such as "Did it really happen?" and "Who was involved?" Things could have turned out very differently, but despite all the CSM-blaming tears, the perp did it to himself. For that we can be grateful.

Right. The problem is when banning someone for Real Life Harassment, you should also be asking questions like "Is it actually harassment?" and "Did it happen in real life?". CCP didn't seem to be too concerned with the answers to those two questions.


OR "does the victim think it was harassment" or "did the victim even ticket this event?"

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.

Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2159 - 2014-04-08 17:12:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Of course it's relevant. The whole point of this decisions is based around how upset the victim is. Of course his point of view is relevant, as is the point of view of Erotica 1. The recording is only 1 part of the situation. Even while that was going on, they were communicating via text based chat, so all you've got is a single point of view. Making a decision purely off that is pretty silly.


Under normal circumstances you would be correct: you wouldn't base it off of a single voice recording from one person because of the threat of editing and tampering. That is part of the reason why companies like CCP don't accept recorded "evidence" when answering tickets unless it is demonstrably proven to be unedited, which can be impossible under normal circumstances.

With that being said, what they had here was perfection. The antagonist was Ero1, and Ero1 is the one that provided the evidence used against him to justify the punishment. In essence, the blame lies with Ero1 for being that stupid, and try as he might to paint this as some type of CCP screw-up he has no one to blame but himself. He thought he was getting the last laugh. Well, CCP and Sohkar did.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Brusanan
Free State Project
#2160 - 2014-04-08 18:30:29 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
He thought he was getting the last laugh. Well, CCP and Sohkar did.

You mean CCP and Ripard Teg. Because publicly, Sohkar is on Erotica's side on this whole issue.