These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2241 - 2014-04-14 17:39:51 UTC
Do you have actual proof that CCP has looked into the Bonus Room before?

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2242 - 2014-04-14 17:52:46 UTC
CCP is using intentionally-vague wording with its reponse, just like any other company does. You see, every game--from World of Warcraft to EvE Online--has rules lawyers. It's not everyone, mind you, though EvE certainly has more than its fair share because of its sandbox nature. In EvE specifically, if you give players a foot, they'll take a mile. As such, making the wording ambiguous at best still allows them to maintain their game as they see fit without overly compromising the integrity of the GMs and developers.

Simply put, you won't get specific answers because of that. Giving any type of specificity would mean that people would fall with-in those lines but push the boundaries of others, and in EvE we all push those boundaries. That is the norm for us. On top of that, it has already been said that part of the reason certain questions are being asked is to have someone banned. In fact Lucas, you have admitted that you want him gone because you think he stepped over his boundaries as a member of the CSM simply for posting a blog hat had Erotica 1 banned. However, you never actually answer my questions concerning if you think he purposely went out and promoted it. So let's try this again:

Since you, Lucas Kell, want to see Ripard Teg banned because he wrote a blog posting that eventually saw Erotica 1 banned for real-life harassment, can you validate with reasons as to why he should be banned, and cite specific evidence to back-up your position?

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2243 - 2014-04-14 18:30:50 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
Do you have actual proof that CCP has looked into the Bonus Room before?
Yes, go back and look at the old threads on this subject, of which there are many. CCP responded to a fair few, including one specific case where the "victim" had his SP restored because he stated that he shared his account with his brother and his brother did it. So a GM investigated what occurred there specifically.

Anya Klibor wrote:
CCP is using intentionally-vague wording with its reponse, just like any other company does. You see, every game--from World of Warcraft to EvE Online--has rules lawyers. It's not everyone, mind you, though EvE certainly has more than its fair share because of its sandbox nature. In EvE specifically, if you give players a foot, they'll take a mile. As such, making the wording ambiguous at best still allows them to maintain their game as they see fit without overly compromising the integrity of the GMs and developers.
That's horse ****. CCP along with every other company has been explicit in stating that they do not deal with things that occur on third party sites or services. Now they break from that and suddenly choose to be fuzzy. All of this "rules lawyer" stuff is utter crap. It's just been imagined up to defend CCP for a decision which is clearly out of place with their rules. There are countless other rules in the EULA and ToS which are very specific, and they don't all get "rules lawyered". Making it ambiguous means that people are forced to take a carebear stance and avoid any grey area behaviour without CCP having to state "Yeah, we're killing the sandbox". It's the cowards way of dealing with the situation. One way or another they should just be clear in how they want the community to interact.

Anya Klibor wrote:
Simply put, you won't get specific answers because of that. Giving any type of specificity would mean that people would fall with-in those lines but push the boundaries of others, and in EvE we all push those boundaries. That is the norm for us. On top of that, it has already been said that part of the reason certain questions are being asked is to have someone banned. In fact Lucas, you have admitted that you want him gone because you think he stepped over his boundaries as a member of the CSM simply for posting a blog hat had Erotica 1 banned. However, you never actually answer my questions concerning if you think he purposely went out and promoted it. So let's try this again:

Since you, Lucas Kell, want to see Ripard Teg banned because he wrote a blog posting that eventually saw Erotica 1 banned for real-life harassment, can you validate with reasons as to why he should be banned, and cite specific evidence to back-up your position?
What evidence do I need to back an opinion. The CSM members have a responsibility to act with a certain level of professionalism, and where they don't, they should at the very least be removed from CSM positions. Rather than go through any of the channels available to regular player or the ones available specifically to CSM members, he chose to make a public spectacle of the situation. That was irresponsible, and forced CCP to act swiftly and against their usual rules as a form of damage control. No player could have survived a targeted hate campaign from someone in a position of power like Ripard. CSMs should not abuse their positions in that way, and if this is a sign of what is to come in the future, I'd fully support dismissing the idea of the CSM altogether.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2244 - 2014-04-14 18:52:27 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
Do you have actual proof that CCP has looked into the Bonus Room before?
Yes, go back and look at the old threads on this subject, of which there are many. CCP responded to a fair few, including one specific case where the "victim" had his SP restored because he stated that he shared his account with his brother and his brother did it. So a GM investigated what occurred there specifically.


Did the victim claim this, or did CCP? Because if CCP says they reimbursed the character's skill points (instead of banning the account outright for account-sharing, which is in the EULA) then they violated their own rules about making public actions they take concerning tickets and petitions. If it was a victim, how can you validate his claim?

Once again, what proof do you have that CCP has looked over previous Bonus Room material and deemed it acceptable?

Lucas Kell wrote:
That's horse ****. CCP along with every other company has been explicit in stating that they do not deal with things that occur on third party sites or services. Now they break from that and suddenly choose to be fuzzy. All of this "rules lawyer" stuff is utter crap. It's just been imagined up to defend CCP for a decision which is clearly out of place with their rules. There are countless other rules in the EULA and ToS which are very specific, and they don't all get "rules lawyered". Making it ambiguous means that people are forced to take a carebear stance and avoid any grey area behaviour without CCP having to state "Yeah, we're killing the sandbox". It's the cowards way of dealing with the situation. One way or another they should just be clear in how they want the community to interact.


Blizzard Entertainment has nothing on their TOS or EULA concerning third-party application of their TOS or EULA. In fact, one of the things I found out is that Blizzard can and does take action against streamers and YouTube video makers when it comes to their games, and that according to their policy if you violate their IP or requirements, they can take actions against you out-of-game and in-game (source: Blizzard Video Policy). Now, I'm making a leap when I say they can respond in-game to out-of-game issues, but if you violate their policies and refuse to C&D, it's pretty much guaranteed that they will ban you permanently in-game as well as go after you monetarily for copyright infringement.

What you are saying is that they every company is hands-off when it comes to third-party sites and what is posted. That is not, and has never been, the case. These companies reserve the right to stop you at the source, and the source is their product. Stop getting bent out of shape at the fact that companies have rights to cut you off from their product because you don't like it.

Lucas Kell wrote:
What evidence do I need to back an opinion. The CSM members have a responsibility to act with a certain level of professionalism, and where they don't, they should at the very least be removed from CSM positions. Rather than go through any of the channels available to regular player or the ones available specifically to CSM members, he chose to make a public spectacle of the situation. That was irresponsible, and forced CCP to act swiftly and against their usual rules as a form of damage control. No player could have survived a targeted hate campaign from someone in a position of power like Ripard. CSMs should not abuse their positions in that way, and if this is a sign of what is to come in the future, I'd fully support dismissing the idea of the CSM altogether.


You need evidence when you're attempting to pass that opinion off as fact. So provide it for everyone to see.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#2245 - 2014-04-14 20:28:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
It's not the line that's blurry, it's your comprehension.

The line is perfectly clear. Not that 'the line' has anything to do with the rules except in the most general sense. The rules, as CCP has told you, are specifically non-specific for a very good reason. One that I accept as making sense and keeping things under control without trying to force gameplay.

You want to destroy that player latitude by having CCP make hard and fast rules. It's you that wants to ruin the game by restricting sandbox play.

Mr Epeen Cool
No, I don;t want hard and fast rules, I just want more clarity than "if another player gets upset, stop". Since some players get upset about almost anything, while others you could murder their families without worry, that's incredibly subjective and impossible to gauge. Then add onto that the fact that prior to this CCP state EXPLICITLY that they DO NOT deal with third party tools. Now they at least deal with some, so WHICH do they now deal with.

It's not a hard set of questions and it's not unreasonable to ask. Look at what has happened here. Something that last year was perfectly acceptable, and hasn't changed at all is not unacceptable because a CSM member started a hate campaign. Asking for an explanation of the extent to which their rules have changed, or just clarification that this was a once off due to abuse of a CSM power would be nice to know. I don't want to be responding to someone on twitter then suddenly find my account banned because some random CSM thought my words were too harsh for their liking.


This.

What if someone feels humiliated if I post a video of me destroying his shiny ship and laughing about it whilst I narrate the thing. Will I get a ban then, or will that happen if a csm member decides to include it in a crusade of his?


Theres WAAAAAAY too much butthurt caused by pixel destruction to gauge your in game behavior on that level of butthurt

Btw, how much longer are these replies gonna get lol

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.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2246 - 2014-04-14 20:53:17 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
Did the victim claim this, or did CCP? Because if CCP says they reimbursed the character's skill points (instead of banning the account outright for account-sharing, which is in the EULA) then they violated their own rules about making public actions they take concerning tickets and petitions. If it was a victim, how can you validate his claim?

Once again, what proof do you have that CCP has looked over previous Bonus Room material and deemed it acceptable?
The victim stated it, but it was verified though the API key that the player had handed over to Erotica 1. And it was verified publicly, not through screenshots and such, the key was completely public for anyone to check, and check we did.

The fact that CCP have responded to not only that case but a few others, and closed petitions that were opened for other bonus rooms cases shows that they accepted it. You want me to show you some link where CCP state explicitly that they are OK with it, which obviously won;t be possible, but that's ludicrous to request and you know it. The fact that they with certainty have responded on these cases and that petitions have been raised in the past with Erotica 1 receiving not even a warning shows that they have considered it acceptable.

Anya Klibor wrote:
Blizzard Entertainment has nothing on their TOS or EULA concerning third-party application of their TOS or EULA. In fact, one of the things I found out is that Blizzard can and does take action against streamers and YouTube video makers when it comes to their games, and that according to their policy if you violate their IP or requirements, they can take actions against you out-of-game and in-game (source: Blizzard Video Policy). Now, I'm making a leap when I say they can respond in-game to out-of-game issues, but if you violate their policies and refuse to C&D, it's pretty much guaranteed that they will ban you permanently in-game as well as go after you monetarily for copyright infringement.
All companies will respond to copyright issues, but that's a far cry from responding to player interaction out of game. That's a legal issue, not a ToS issue. I'd very much expect CCP to respond if someone violated their copyright. But nothing on that recording is copyrighted material.

Anya Klibor wrote:
What you are saying is that they every company is hands-off when it comes to third-party sites and what is posted. That is not, and has never been, the case. These companies reserve the right to stop you at the source, and the source is their product. Stop getting bent out of shape at the fact that companies have rights to cut you off from their product because you don't like it.
Of course they are! I've never played a single MMO where anything said on a TS/Vent server was moderated by the owners of the game. The only comms they moderate is their own comms as that could affect their game's legal rating. And I've never disputed that CCP don't have the right to do it. But having the right to do something doesn't mean that's fair and certainly doesn't mean that a consumer just have to lay down and take it. And don't forget, we have a right to protest against what we feel is unfair.

Anya Klibor wrote:
You need evidence when you're attempting to pass that opinion off as fact. So provide it for everyone to see.
Which part did you need evidence for? That CSMs should be responsible? I assumed that was a given. Or did you want evidence that Ripard teg started a hate campaign? Head on over to his blog and read it, where he specifically names a player then equates what they do to geneva convention style torture.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2247 - 2014-04-14 23:29:52 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
...All companies will respond to copyright issues, but that's a far cry from responding to player interaction out of game. That's a legal issue, not a ToS issue. I'd very much expect CCP to respond if someone violated their copyright. But nothing on that recording is copyrighted material...


Still fighting the good fight, I see, and still wrong:

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 against game accounts in accordance with our Terms of Service.

Harassment poses a potential problem in any virtual world, and CCP has dealt with cases of this nature for more than a decade. We will continue to monitor and evaluate claims of harassment based on our policies and acceptable standards of behavior...


It's really no good continuing to claim that the harassment cases before us aren't TOS/EULA matters, when CCP clearly says they are in post #1.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2248 - 2014-04-15 10:57:48 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2249 - 2014-04-16 08:36:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Erutpar Ambient
At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, what we really need here is a strongly outlined definition of what Harassment consists of in the eyes of CCP.

"That depends on what the meaning of "is" is." - Bill Clinton

Someone made a post in EVE General Discussion that an ISD member labeled as a "Rant". The post was about the naming of stations and some people just in general giving away Game of Thrones spoilers.

Based on the definition of the word Harassment, that "Rant" post would be much more easily recognizable as "real life harassment." Because it is the act of disturbing, pestering and troubling repeatedly. Naming stations as a spoiler to a book or moving has no other intent than to harass people in real life. And yes i have been a victim of said harassment and i didn't have the option to avoid it.

That being said, the issue this discussion is about did have an "opt-out" decision available. The "victim" of the scam was a victim of his own poor decision making.
He chose to give all his assets away.
He chose to go on team speak and be recorded.
He chose to continue time and time again.
He chose not to believe that he had been scammed.

To be tortured requires that the victim not have the ability to leave. If this were not the case then Television shows such as "Fear Factor" or "Naked and Afraid" would be in a compromising situation wouldn't they? (though i suppose they're required to pay up when their criteria is met, though 21days is quite longer than a few hours.) Though it may seem like torture, the victims (aka contestants) are subjecting themselves to the conditions, not the network. Just like with S & M (Sadism and Masochism) there is a "torturer" but it is on the permission of the masochistic party. The same cannot be said about the Spoilers floating around.

So here I ask,

What is considered "real life harassment" in the eyes of CCP in accordance with the TOS and EULA?
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#2250 - 2014-04-16 15:01:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Chopper Rollins
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
...

What is considered "real life harassment" in the eyes of CCP in accordance with the TOS and EULA?


Any clear cut definition of such would be immediately open to gaming by determined harassment-merchants.
Which would have as a consequence even more rules and definitions, strangling the game.
Definitions and rules such as this would put the ball firmly in the griefer's court, making CCP permanently reactionary.
Instead, the TOS and EULA are right there for you to read, CCP reserves the right to ban players temporarily or permanently as they see fit, without getting dragged into some childish haggle about rules which could drain resources or even endanger the bottom line.
Now that i've made it plain and country simple, anybody asking for definitions of RL harassment must be considered a troll.



Edit: TV show spoilers as RL harassment, you are unlikely to garner much sympathetic support on that one. Unless you were joking, in which case 5/10 for making me respond.

Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#2251 - 2014-04-16 15:42:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
...

What is considered "real life harassment" in the eyes of CCP in accordance with the TOS and EULA?


Any clear cut definition of such would be immediately open to gaming by determined harassment-merchants.


Sorry, thats neither an excuse nor our problem

If CCP think that clear rules will create more problems that shows a much larger problem in this game and with this company in general.

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.

Cathy Mikakka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2252 - 2014-04-16 15:56:16 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
I have refrained from public comment on this issue because of all the ongoing CSM/CCP consultations, but now that CCP has issued their statement, I feel it is only appropriate to give my perspective.

Lying, cheating, general douchebaggery and the harvesting of tears are all part of the "sandbox" that is the game of EVE Online.

But that said, all of us have a responsibility to recognize when a fellow player is starting to lose emotional control -- when things stop being a game -- and respond in a humane manner. And deliberately trying to induce and deepen that loss of control is reprehensible conduct that should shock and dismay the vast majority of the community.

So the tl/dr for me is: Feel free be a douchebag inside the sandbox, but if you kick the sand outside of the sandbox, don't be surprised if CCP kicks you out of the sandbox as well.

Stuff like losing your sh*t on comms and bitching out the people in your fleet is not something I would worry about. Nor is making people sing for their ship.

But if you make someone sing for their ship and then sadistically wratchet up the psychological pressure until they are a total wreck, then you're a real-life scumbag, and I won't shed a tear if CCP decides they no longer care to do business with you.



This makes no sense. So you can do it and the moment target goes apeshit, you are supposed to do what? Disconnect/Kick him? Apologize and return his stuff? Neither of those two options seems plausible. Why return his stuff? And if you kick/disconnect then that might agitate them even more. What E1 did was trying to calm him down and that *is* the most appropriate thing to do. And that netted him ban. Go figure....
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#2253 - 2014-04-16 16:05:41 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
...

What is considered "real life harassment" in the eyes of CCP in accordance with the TOS and EULA?


Any clear cut definition of such would be immediately open to gaming by determined harassment-merchants.


Sorry, thats neither an excuse nor our problem

If CCP think that clear rules will create more problems that shows a much larger problem in this game and with this company in general.



LOL i swear there's some people in this thread who sound exactly like people who've just been removed from a nightclub.
They stand around telling security staff how the club should be run, get into plainly ridiculous conversations about their rights and the law, noisily chewing a bit of air before leaving.
Here's why more/clearer rules would make more problems: You can't legislate for common sense.





Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2254 - 2014-04-16 16:28:26 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Chopper Rollins wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
...

What is considered "real life harassment" in the eyes of CCP in accordance with the TOS and EULA?
Any clear cut definition of such would be immediately open to gaming by determined harassment-merchants.
Sorry, thats neither an excuse nor our problem

If CCP think that clear rules will create more problems that shows a much larger problem in this game and with this company in general.
LOL i swear there's some people in this thread who sound exactly like people who've just been removed from a nightclub.
They stand around telling security staff how the club should be run, get into plainly ridiculous conversations about their rights and the law, noisily chewing a bit of air before leaving.
Here's why more/clearer rules would make more problems: You can't legislate for common sense.
Don't be ridiculous. You have a game full of multiple players of multiple languages, cultures, ages and temperaments. This is why CCP needs to state hat THEY think is harassment, since it's their rules we are supposed to abide by. Just look at this damn thread and you can see that people limits are vastly different.

Suggesting the "rules lawyer" thing is utter bull and you know it. There are plenty of rules that CCP have stated explicitly in their ToS and EULA, including their rules on third party comms up until this point, and there's not been complaints about rules lawyering before. And it's not like people can't rules lawyer right now, they just have to ensure they don't post up proof under their name and shazzam, they can harass all they want.

I get why you are arguing against it though. You want to keep the line as fuzzy as possible, so people are constrained by fear into doing absolutely nothing to upset people, that way you can live in carebear land and just scream at people if they do anything you don't like, knowing they have to back off or be unsure of whether they'll get banned.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2255 - 2014-04-16 19:10:38 UTC
Removed some off topic posts. Please keep it on topic and civil. Thanks.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#2256 - 2014-04-16 22:26:22 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
It's not the line that's blurry, it's your comprehension.

The line is perfectly clear. Not that 'the line' has anything to do with the rules except in the most general sense. The rules, as CCP has told you, are specifically non-specific for a very good reason. One that I accept as making sense and keeping things under control without trying to force gameplay.

You want to destroy that player latitude by having CCP make hard and fast rules. It's you that wants to ruin the game by restricting sandbox play.

Mr Epeen Cool
No, I don;t want hard and fast rules, I just want more clarity than "if another player gets upset, stop". Since some players get upset about almost anything, while others you could murder their families without worry, that's incredibly subjective and impossible to gauge. Then add onto that the fact that prior to this CCP state EXPLICITLY that they DO NOT deal with third party tools. Now they at least deal with some, so WHICH do they now deal with.

It's not a hard set of questions and it's not unreasonable to ask. Look at what has happened here. Something that last year was perfectly acceptable, and hasn't changed at all is not unacceptable because a CSM member started a hate campaign. Asking for an explanation of the extent to which their rules have changed, or just clarification that this was a once off due to abuse of a CSM power would be nice to know. I don't want to be responding to someone on twitter then suddenly find my account banned because some random CSM thought my words were too harsh for their liking.


This.

What if someone feels humiliated if I post a video of me destroying his shiny ship and laughing about it whilst I narrate the thing. Will I get a ban then, or will that happen if a csm member decides to include it in a crusade of his?


Theres WAAAAAAY too much butthurt caused by pixel destruction to gauge your in game behavior on that level of butthurt

Btw, how much longer are these replies gonna get lol



No Butthurt here lol, the fact remains however that all was well in the world of Eve until Ripard Teg began his campaigning. Do we infer from this that we can do anything we like until someone blogs about it? This is the core of the issue. Do you only get banned when CCP get bad publicity? Is that the invisible line, because if so there's no way of knowing if you've crossed it until someone popular blogs about it afterwards.

Hardly a fair way to run a company is it?

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Salvos Rhoska
#2257 - 2014-04-16 22:39:16 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Do you only get banned when CCP get bad publicity?

Not the only way to get banned, but a pretty likely way.

Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Hardly a fair way to run a company is it?

Lol, please.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#2258 - 2014-04-16 23:45:39 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
...

No Butthurt here lol, the fact remains however that all was well in the world of Eve until Ripard Teg began his campaigning. Do we infer from this that we can do anything we like until someone blogs about it? This is the core of the issue. Do you only get banned when CCP get bad publicity? Is that the invisible line, because if so there's no way of knowing if you've crossed it until someone popular blogs about it afterwards.

Hardly a fair way to run a company is it?


I don't know about Ripard Teg's influence but it sure sounds like he garnered some serious support. I wonder how?
It seems to me that if you spend months on end griefing people in highsec and doing nothing else, you leave yourself open to exactly that sort of metagame.
Also the contention that i want the rules fuzzy so i can be a sleepy carebear is a weak way to turn it around.
Griefers want to have clear rules they can pick apart, solid rules that limit CCP actions.
I live in lowsec and kill FW farmers and the shiny people that try to kill them, it's great. None of this has changed that one bit.
But this disgraceful nonsense is why i've always said: get out of highsec.









Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2259 - 2014-04-17 01:05:22 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
I don't know about Ripard Teg's influence but it sure sounds like he garnered some serious support. I wonder how?
It seems to me that if you spend months on end griefing people in highsec and doing nothing else, you leave yourself open to exactly that sort of metagame.
I'm sure him being vice chair of the CSM had nothing to do with it right? Roll

Chopper Rollins wrote:
Also the contention that i want the rules fuzzy so i can be a sleepy carebear is a weak way to turn it around.
You are supporting a change which does just that. How else can it be seen?

Chopper Rollins wrote:
Griefers want to have clear rules they can pick apart, solid rules that limit CCP actions.
Citation needed. Really. I've not seen ANY evidence whatsoever that this is the case. I've seen you guys state it, but I've never actually seen any evidence that this situation exists. And that's because it's rubbish. It's made up to give you an artificial footing.

And think about it, if people actively want to harass, they still can by distancing themselves from it. Making a ruling or not doesn't change that for people that actually aim to harass. The only people hit by this change are people who want to play the villain (as suggested by CCP) and RP with it. Now they have no way of knowing if the random guy they just blew up and laughed at is going to cry harassment. Now they don't know if someone going apeshit over their space pixels means they have to immediately stop or not.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#2260 - 2014-04-17 01:34:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Chopper Rollins wrote:
I don't know about Ripard Teg's influence but it sure sounds like he garnered some serious support. I wonder how?
It seems to me that if you spend months on end griefing people in highsec and doing nothing else, you leave yourself open to exactly that sort of metagame.
I'm sure him being vice chair of the CSM had nothing to do with it right? Roll

Chopper Rollins wrote:
Also the contention that i want the rules fuzzy so i can be a sleepy carebear is a weak way to turn it around.
You are supporting a change which does just that. How else can it be seen?

Chopper Rollins wrote:
Griefers want to have clear rules they can pick apart, solid rules that limit CCP actions.
Citation needed. Really. I've not seen ANY evidence whatsoever that this is the case. I've seen you guys state it, but I've never actually seen any evidence that this situation exists. And that's because it's rubbish. It's made up to give you an artificial footing.

And think about it, if people actively want to harass, they still can by distancing themselves from it. Making a ruling or not doesn't change that for people that actually aim to harass. The only people hit by this change are people who want to play the villain (as suggested by CCP) and RP with it. Now they have no way of knowing if the random guy they just blew up and laughed at is going to cry harassment. Now they don't know if someone going apeshit over their space pixels means they have to immediately stop or not.


1) CSM position had everything to do with it, that's exactly what i said. Also said griefing hisec for months on end leaves you vulnerable to that. Read, dude.
2) What change? I am against hard and fast rules that limit CCP actions, they can do what they want and that is a GOOD THING.
3) Citation needed for common sense. Right.
4) Seems like you actually mean all this and won't listen to anyone.

Again, none of this affects my playstyle, or will. If hisec gets changed so griefers have to move to low or null i would welcome that. Judging from their playstyle, it would mean they would disappear. Hazing the rookie pond, meh.


Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.