These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Jester is pulling the plug on his blog

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#301 - 2014-06-03 13:04:05 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
LOL UMAD?

i have a feeling this is why people aren't taking you very seriously.
you've made several wild assertions and been refuted by evidence several times, then you resort to "u mad?"

you can do better than this, i'm sure.


No, in this case with clowns like you portray yourself to be it is indeed the acceptable and proper response.


again with personal attacks rather than any kind of evidence or moderately thought out argument.
Prince Kobol
#302 - 2014-06-03 13:04:37 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gotta love the audacity of people who claim that "CCP had no choice but to ban E1."

Yeah okay, cause CCP is definitely known for being a company that caves to player outrage that they feel is unwarranted.



Considering I have said a number of times CCP had no choice I will answer.

If it stayed on the Eve Forums then sure, CCP didn't have to do anything however it didn't.

First it was a prominent member of the CSM who created the blog which unfortunately gave it more attention then it ever warranted..

Secondly a number of 3rd party gaming websites picked up the story so it become something more then just a normal Eve scam.

Thirdly in today's world where Cyber Bullying is a massive problem and a hot topic no gaming company wants to be associated with. The incident which Riptard highlighted and the way it was reported was talked about in the vain as Cyber Bully / Harassment.

When you put those things together you have a choice, ban 1 player who many will admit went to far and was doing something which many people would not agree with, whilst at the same time make a stand saying to all outside press that they do not support any in game harassment or Cyber bullying or will not let their product become a vehicle to find vulnerable and stupid people to harass and bully outside of their product, or do nothing.

So yeah, CCP really didn't have a choice.



Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#303 - 2014-06-03 13:06:54 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
I'll let you figure that out for yourself, it's not that difficult.
LOL
So in other words you can't answer it because whichever way you go you'll look like an asshat, because you've backed yourself into a corner by spewing horseshit.
Not at all, it's because you make dumb statements that any 12 yearold with an IQ of over 85, while not being a sociopath, could figure out. I'd just end up repeating myself anyway.

Perhaps you I should use language more suited to you;

LOL UMAD?
lol, well if it's so easy, it won't be that hard to explain then. You want to draw an arbitrary distinction by saying "this is RL, this is not", when behaviour is the same in both situations and both situations are in character. You do this because you don't really know why you care so strongly about one and not the other. And the reason for that is that your position is weak. Realistically the only thing that makes one set of behaviour acceptable and another unacceptable is intent, not whether or not it happens on teamspeak.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#304 - 2014-06-03 13:08:16 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gotta love the audacity of people who claim that "CCP had no choice but to ban E1."

Yeah okay, cause CCP is definitely known for being a company that caves to player outrage that they feel is unwarranted.



Considering I have said a number of times CCP had no choice I will answer.

If it stayed on the Eve Forums then sure, CCP didn't have to do anything however it didn't.

First it was a prominent member of the CSM who created the blog which unfortunately gave it more attention then it ever warranted..

Secondly a number of 3rd party gaming websites picked up the story so it become something more then just a normal Eve scam.

Thirdly in today's world where Cyber Bullying is a massive problem and a hot topic no gaming company wants to be associated with. The incident which Riptard highlighted and the way it was reported was talked about in the vain as Cyber Bully / Harassment.

When you put those things together you have a choice, ban 1 player who many will admit went to far and was doing something which many people would not agree with, whilst at the same time make a stand saying to all outside press that they do not support any in game harassment or Cyber bullying or will not let their product become a vehicle to find vulnerable and stupid people to harass and bully outside of their product, or do nothing.

So yeah, CCP really didn't have a choice.





Or perhaps the perfect **** storm happened BECAUSE it was out of line even within EVE's settings, not because someone made a blog out of it?

Not logical? No?
Big Lynx
#305 - 2014-06-03 13:08:33 UTC
When does Gevlon pull the plug of his blog?

goodbye jester!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#306 - 2014-06-03 13:10:10 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:


Or perhaps the perfect **** storm happened BECAUSE it was out of line even within EVE's settings, not because someone made a blog out of it?

Not logical? No?


Disney songs really are going too far. I entirely agree.

Opera songs for CSM 10.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Prince Kobol
#307 - 2014-06-03 13:11:55 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gotta love the audacity of people who claim that "CCP had no choice but to ban E1."

Yeah okay, cause CCP is definitely known for being a company that caves to player outrage that they feel is unwarranted.



Considering I have said a number of times CCP had no choice I will answer.

If it stayed on the Eve Forums then sure, CCP didn't have to do anything however it didn't.

First it was a prominent member of the CSM who created the blog which unfortunately gave it more attention then it ever warranted..

Secondly a number of 3rd party gaming websites picked up the story so it become something more then just a normal Eve scam.

Thirdly in today's world where Cyber Bullying is a massive problem and a hot topic no gaming company wants to be associated with. The incident which Riptard highlighted and the way it was reported was talked about in the vain as Cyber Bully / Harassment.

When you put those things together you have a choice, ban 1 player who many will admit went to far and was doing something which many people would not agree with, whilst at the same time make a stand saying to all outside press that they do not support any in game harassment or Cyber bullying or will not let their product become a vehicle to find vulnerable and stupid people to harass and bully outside of their product, or do nothing.

So yeah, CCP really didn't have a choice.





Or perhaps the perfect **** storm happened BECAUSE it was out of line even within EVE's settings, not because someone made a blog out of it?

Not logical? No?


What was out of line..

Something which had be going on for months if not longer?

Something which even the CCP Devs knew happening?

Something which E1 was telling everybody who would listen, even those who didn't want to know and kicked him out of his alliance what he was doing?

Also.. what is EVE Settings?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#308 - 2014-06-03 13:12:13 UTC
And also your claim that Sohkar could have just easily walked away doesn't really stand up to inspection. The difference between the Bonus Room and every other scam in EVE is the premise, which furthermore happened to be true at least in some cases, that successful completion would allow the participant (i.e. the mark) to regain all of their lost possessions, ISK, and then some bonus. It's a carrot and stick approach, furthermore compounded by the fact that the "rules" could be adjusted at any time by E1 and his companions. Repetitively coercing someone to do something that they find extremely unpleasant and humiliating for no purpose other than your own enjoyment certainly qualifies as psychological harassment. That is a violation of the very first listed item in the EVE Terms of Service. The severity of this harassment warranted the permanent ban.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#309 - 2014-06-03 13:12:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
I'll let you figure that out for yourself, it's not that difficult.
LOL
So in other words you can't answer it because whichever way you go you'll look like an asshat, because you've backed yourself into a corner by spewing horseshit.
Not at all, it's because you make dumb statements that any 12 yearold with an IQ of over 85, while not being a sociopath, could figure out. I'd just end up repeating myself anyway.

Perhaps you I should use language more suited to you;

LOL UMAD?
lol, well if it's so easy, it won't be that hard to explain then. You want to draw an arbitrary distinction by saying "this is RL, this is not", when behaviour is the same in both situations and both situations are in character. You do this because you don't really know why you care so strongly about one and not the other. And the reason for that is that your position is weak. Realistically the only thing that makes one set of behaviour acceptable and another unacceptable is intent, not whether or not it happens on teamspeak.


- kill someone in a car accident you couldn't have foreseen
- kill someone in an accident that where your actions contributed to the situation (drunk driving, driving way too fast, doing silly stuff)
- kill someone in self defense with your gun
- kill someone in cold blood with your gun


I'd say that intent and personal responsibility will play a big part in the community's perception and, more importantly, the judge & jury's decision. don't you think?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#310 - 2014-06-03 13:13:40 UTC
So actually yes, you're right, their own terms of service didn't really give them a choice.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Dave Stark
#311 - 2014-06-03 13:15:44 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Or perhaps the perfect **** storm happened BECAUSE it was out of line even within EVE's settings, not because someone made a blog out of it?

Not logical? No?


no, that's not logical.

due to the fact that this wasn't the first bonus room, nor were the contents of the bonus room unseen or in any way unique.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#312 - 2014-06-03 13:16:49 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:


Or perhaps the perfect **** storm happened BECAUSE it was out of line even within EVE's settings, not because someone made a blog out of it?

Not logical? No?


How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

What I saw was a group of grown men playing an online game and talking to each other over the internet. Just like 'cyber-bullying' is BS (as someone who experienced a relatively minor amount of real bullying as a kid in the 1980s, I know for a fact grown folks can't be bullied over something you can turn off at will) , so was CCP's response to this event.

What CCP should have down was said "meh, life is harsh, don't like it don't come here" (consistent with their actions in the past) and let that be the end of it.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#313 - 2014-06-03 13:17:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Yeah, unacceptable behavior does have a tendency to generate bad press. Is that really a surprise?
As does perfectly acceptable behavior being described in outrageous ways by people in a position of power.

Well I guess that's a good thing that didn't happen, then.

It was described in outrageous ways, yes. Torture it was not. Harassment and abuse, sure. That's more than enough. I'll chalk it up to Ripard not knowing how to use words that properly describe what he means.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#314 - 2014-06-03 13:17:53 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

EVE has never actively encouraged harassment.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#315 - 2014-06-03 13:18:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:


Or perhaps the perfect **** storm happened BECAUSE it was out of line even within EVE's settings, not because someone made a blog out of it?

Not logical? No?


How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

What I saw was a group of grown men playing an online game and talking to each other over the internet. Just like 'cyber-bullying' is BS (as someone who experienced a relatively minor amount of real bullying as a kid in the 1980s, I know for a fact grown folks can't be bullied over something you can turn off at will) , so was CCP's response to this event.

What CCP should have down was said "meh, life is harsh, don't like it don't come here" (consistent with their actions in the past) and let that be the end of it.


No, the GAME is harsh, that's the difference.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#316 - 2014-06-03 13:18:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

EVE has never actively encouraged harassment.


Good thing harassment is impossible in this setting. I arrest people for harassment, you obviously don't know what that word means.
Dave Stark
#317 - 2014-06-03 13:19:32 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

EVE has never actively encouraged harassment.

people whining about cloaky campers disagree.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#318 - 2014-06-03 13:20:07 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

It was described in outrageous ways, yes. Torture it was not. Harassment and abuse, sure. That's more than enough. I'll chalk it up to Ripard not knowing how to use words that properly describe what he means.


Since this is EVE, the old adage is reversed.

Never chalk up to stupidity what you can attribute to malice.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Prince Kobol
#319 - 2014-06-03 13:20:44 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
And also your claim that Sohkar could have just easily walked away doesn't really stand up to inspection. The difference between the Bonus Room and every other scam in EVE is the premise, which furthermore happened to be true at least in some cases, that successful completion would allow the participant (i.e. the mark) to regain all of their lost possessions, ISK, and then some bonus. It's a carrot and stick approach, furthermore compounded by the fact that the "rules" could be adjusted at any time by E1 and his companions. Repetitively coercing someone to do something that they find extremely unpleasant and humiliating for no purpose other than your own enjoyment certainly qualifies as psychological harassment. That is a violation of the very first listed item in the EVE Terms of Service. The severity of this harassment warranted the permanent ban.


Or quite simply he could of never got involved in E1 to begin with.

Look I am not defending E1 and I am glad he was banned, however he should not of been banned because of somebody on the CSM decided to start a personal vendetta and use their position to create a blog which was full of language designed to cause the most amount of outrage as possible.

CCP knew what he was doing long before Riptard ever made his blog and whilst they might of not been fine with it, the main issues happened outside of the game on 3rd party applications.

CCP were right not to ban him for those actions as it is outside there remit.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#320 - 2014-06-03 13:21:23 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:


Or perhaps the perfect **** storm happened BECAUSE it was out of line even within EVE's settings, not because someone made a blog out of it?

Not logical? No?


How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

What I saw was a group of grown men playing an online game and talking to each other over the internet. Just like 'cyber-bullying' is BS (as someone who experienced a relatively minor amount of real bullying as a kid in the 1980s, I know for a fact grown folks can't be bullied over something you can turn off at will) , so was CCP's response to this event.

What CCP should have down was said "meh, life is harsh, don't like it don't come here" (consistent with their actions in the past) and let that be the end of it.


No, the GAME is harsh, that's the difference.


And playing the game is a life choice. If you can't handle it, why choose to play in it? Why choose to download teamspeak if you get upset at words?

Or does actually knowing yourself and acting accordingly require too much personal responsibility for you types?