These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A serious question for the EVE community RE: Player Conduct.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#81 - 2014-06-23 17:11:52 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

Seriously. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say things that cruel and disparaging about Lee Harvey Oswald, publicly.


LHO? The man who provably didnt do anything, but was considered the murderer of a racist adulterer? That LHO?

I wouldnt know anything about him.....

"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
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2014-06-23 17:14:10 UTC
Lucy Ferrr wrote:
Mistah Ewedynao wrote:
This kind of crap about VR has no place in eve.

freedom of speech is one thing, freedom to insult the dead, especially one who died in the service of his country certainly should not exist in this game.

Ban the offender and any related accounts..FOR LIFE.

The thing about free speech is that all speech is free, not just speech you approve. Restricting speech is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what speech is allowed and what isn't? CCP, you, me?


Within the realm of Eve Online, and it's server environment, CCP does. That's part of both the EULA and the TOS. Seriously, why can't anyone effing understand that very simple concept.

I'll make it very clear.

This is not a public forum. This is a private forums, owned and operated by a private entity.
Ergo, you are not entitled to free speech here.
CCP can ban you for any reason they like, or no reason at all if they're feeling especially capricious.

Stop making this about free speech. It's not. It's about showing some ******* courtesy to people and not be an IRL douchebag over someone's in game activities.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2014-06-23 17:14:23 UTC
DJ,

The speaker in Local made some comments which I agree are in very bad taste. And though these comments are deplorable, I think it's probably true that the speaker didn't actually do some harm to VR himself, or VR's own (which would be a separate discussion altogether).

If you feel that the things E1 did didn't warrant a ban (I certainly don't), then I think that it's not consistent for you to think that someone simply saying something, or doing something in internet pixel space warrants a ban. If that were so, people dissatisfied with the behavior of your corp, for example, would happily take up pitchforks and isolate you from the game you love. And who is to say that your feeling of disgust and hatred is somehow more important than theirs?

Being offended is not enough of a reason to want an extreme punishment (I feel) such as a ban. You have a block function, and just like it is suggested to a lot of folks who get offended by things, I too suggest that you use it. But calling up an emotionally heated witchhunt is not a proper forum for making rational decisions (as we have seen).

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2014-06-23 17:15:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Komi Toran wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Who's principles?

There's no "who." It's simply "the." The principle of freedom of speech. This isn't rocket science.


No, it isn't, but rocket science is actually a pretty easy science. As for 'the' principle of free speech, that's going to be different depending on who you ask, therefore making 'it' subjective.

To me, free speech is about free expression, not just speech itself, and the free exchange of information and ideas, with consequences for misleading and/or false information, or ideas that incite or condone harm, hatred or violence in any way.

For someone else, it might just be about being allowed to say whatever they want and to hell with the consequences.

In any case, free speech in relation to EVE online remains irrelevant, because house rules always override it. In my house, for example, if you try to proselytise to me about religion, you get the garden hose. More than one fancy looking bible has been ruined by my atheistic wrath that way, not to mention some nicely pressed suits.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2014-06-23 17:15:35 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Who's principles?

There's no "who." It's simply "the." The principle of freedom of speech. This isn't rocket science.


There is no universal principle of freedom of speech, demonstrably. If there were, everyone would have it.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Jebediah Phoenix
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2014-06-23 17:16:07 UTC
Blah blah blah free speech, the individual in questions comments on VR weren't just horrid for the obvious reason, but because it implied that he thought we deserved to die for how we were playing the game. Now I don't mind a bit of smack talk, god knows I engage in my fair share of it, but when I come to have some fun in a game I enjoy the last thing I want to see is how I deserve to die for it.

This is where the free speech argument really falls flat, at least in my country no one would be allowed to say that to me in real life. I blow up spaceships in a game about blowing up spaceships, I don't mug old ladies. They may not be arrested, but they would certainly be prevented from bothering me. It certainly has no place in a moderated online community where people are trying to enjoy themselves.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2014-06-23 17:20:04 UTC
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:
Blah blah blah free speech, the individual in questions comments on VR weren't just horrid for the obvious reason, but because it implied that he thought we deserved to die for how we were playing the game. Now I don't mind a bit of smack talk, god knows I engage in my fair share of it, but when I come to have some fun in a game I enjoy the last thing I want to see is how I deserve to die for it.

This is where the free speech argument really falls flat, at least in my country no one would be allowed to say that to me in real life. I blow up spaceships in a game about blowing up spaceships, I don't mug old ladies. They may not be arrested, but they would certainly be prevented from bothering me. It certainly has no place in a moderated online community where people are trying to enjoy themselves.


Well, at least someone gets it. Straight

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2014-06-23 17:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Sibyyl
Jebediah Phoenix wrote:
Blah blah blah free speech, the individual in questions comments on VR weren't just horrid for the obvious reason, but because it implied that he thought we deserved to die for how we were playing the game. Now I don't mind a bit of smack talk, god knows I engage in my fair share of it, but when I come to have some fun in a game I enjoy the last thing I want to see is how I deserve to die for it.

This is where the free speech argument really falls flat, at least in my country no one would be allowed to say that to me in real life. I blow up spaceships in a game about blowing up spaceships, I don't mug old ladies. They may not be arrested, but they would certainly be prevented from bothering me. It certainly has no place in a moderated online community where people are trying to enjoy themselves.

Suffice to say, you don't understand the "free speech argument". Free speech doesn't cover speech that results in endangerment and injury/death ("fire" in a crowded theater). Free speech also wouldn't protect online speech which *consistently* implies and threatens physical harm, or anything illicit (such as with underage users). Free speech does protects anything that may be distasteful and abhorrent (in a verbal context).

There is no "free speech" inside and on CCP's property which is this forum, the game, their offices, and anything else covered by EULA and NDAs. CCP is not a country with a constitution, nor obligated to protect any rights that your specific country may allot you. On the flip side, CCP is not obligated to pander to your feeling of being offended by someone saying that they want to *do something horrible* to you. CCP has standards for judging what is a significant breach of the EULA or not, and the execution is entirely up their discretion.

Edit: Grammar is hard.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Jebediah Phoenix
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2014-06-23 17:37:32 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

Suffice to say, you don't understand the "free speech argument". Free speech doesn't cover speech that results in endangerment and injury/death ("fire" in a crowded theater). Free speech also wouldn't protect online speech which *consistently* implies and threatens physical harm, or anything illicit (such as with underage users). Free speech also protects anything that may be distasteful and abhorrent (in a verbal context).


In what way do I not understand it? I think you'll find I disagreed with it, I didn't misunderstand it.
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#90 - 2014-06-23 17:38:02 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Free speech doesn't cover speech that results in endangerment and injury/death ("fire" in a crowded theater). Free speech also wouldn't protect online speech which *consistently* implies and threatens physical harm, or anything illicit (such as with underage users).

So why doesn't that imply, for you, that saying that the murder of VR was justified, i.e., that murder is in principle always justifiable if the guy "deserved it", ought to be out of bounds?

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2014-06-23 17:41:24 UTC
Morihei Akachi wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Free speech doesn't cover speech that results in endangerment and injury/death ("fire" in a crowded theater). Free speech also wouldn't protect online speech which *consistently* implies and threatens physical harm, or anything illicit (such as with underage users).

So why doesn't that imply, for you, that saying that the murder of VR was justified, i.e., that murder is in principle always justifiable if the guy "deserved it", ought to be out of bounds?

Because it's an opinion on something that's happened in the past, and not an imminent threat made against a living person.

It's in very bad taste, and I really don't like living in a world where people say these things but I think it's a very slippery slope if I let these feelings dictate who gets gagged and who doesn't.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#92 - 2014-06-23 17:44:05 UTC
Maybe I'm jaded, but, "Some D-grade troll said something intended to upset people," doesn't so much as make the needled on my outrage-meter twitch.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#93 - 2014-06-23 17:46:24 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
There is no universal principle of freedom of speech, demonstrably. If there were, everyone would have it.

Why would everyone have it, considering that there are people who disagree with it?

The principle of freedom of speech is quite apparent, and I'll run an experiment right here to prove it:

Which of the following decribes the principle of freedom of speech:
A) The solution to bad speech is firing.
B) The solution to bad speech is shunning.
C) The solution to bad speech is more speech.
D) The solution to bad speech is imprisonment.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say 90% of people would choose C, and that's simply because there's always 10% of the population that will tell you 2+2=5.

The thing is, people adhere to this to different degrees, because people aren't one dimensional and hold multiple principles, and the more principles you have, the more they conflict. It is how those conflicts play out that is subjective (which is why you have to be careful of "rights" creep, because the more things that are considered rights, the more conflicts emerge, and the less meaning any individual "right" has), not the principles themselves.
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#94 - 2014-06-23 17:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Morihei Akachi
Sibyyl wrote:
Morihei Akachi wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Free speech doesn't cover speech that results in endangerment and injury/death ("fire" in a crowded theater). Free speech also wouldn't protect online speech which *consistently* implies and threatens physical harm, or anything illicit (such as with underage users).

So why doesn't that imply, for you, that saying that the murder of VR was justified, i.e., that murder is in principle always justifiable if the guy "deserved it", ought to be out of bounds?

Because it's an opinion on something that's happened in the past, and not an imminent threat made against a living person.

It's in very bad taste, and I really don't like living in a world where people say these things but I think it's a very slippery slope if I let these feelings dictate who gets gagged and who doesn't.

Fair enough. I think we're coming from different ethical or constitutional traditions here. In my view, approving of a murder in the past necessarily implies support, in principle, for murders in the future; if VR "deserved" what happened to him, then so, one day, will others. Fostering a climate of belief in the "deservability" of murder (or sexual violence against women [a certain four-letter word is being censored here] or whatever) in RL is a bad thing to do. It doesn't seem to me that this is a question of taste; I think it's a question of ethical principle. Which is why I'd be in favour of public statements like this carrying a heavier penalty than just being blocked.

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)
KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
#95 - 2014-06-23 17:59:39 UTC
hedge betts Shiyurida wrote:
Only difference is goons made a massive thing out of it.


Do I really need to show you the multitudinous ways you are wrong?

Forbes, Playboy, every gaming news outlet from IGN to TMC.

A bunch of probes into the Benghazi situation. Which has still yet to reach it's final conclusion.

A lot of people made a big deal out of this and still do. Kinda like Sean Smith's wife and two children.

Just saying.


As for those bleating about "free speech" or "Ero"......get over yourselves.


The issue at hand is the vitriol that the "perfect little upstanding snowflakes" throw about with impunity, while people like Ero, who was used as an example, never did anything but hold complete composure specifically for the endgame of an elaborate scam.*

No, there are those of us who would like to know when these "carebears" under the guise of "morally upstanding" citizens in New Eden will actually stop being pandered to consistently, and those who actually value the actual moral integrity of the sandbox actually start being heard.

*Unrelated Note:

If at any point, you seem to think this is not the case, try perusing some of the other blog's out there, rather than blindly following the words of an idiot who abused his power for clickbait. An idiot who made his intentions clear, if you actually objectively look at his posting.

Inciting post attacking the "most visible" member of CODE.

Backpedal post saying "whoops." Roll

Further backpedaling posts saying..."I am not dealing with 'side issues,' like the fact that I have never even spoken to sohkar."

Couple posts after Ero was wrongfully attacked....."CODE. cannot be brought down, boohoo."

A month and a half later...."Well it's been fun, but I am no longer blogging."

People need to realize when their talking points and Holy White Knight have vanished, and when they have to start thinking for themselves.

A good place to start, would be with the half-dozen other people who actively participated in the Bonus Round nightly, and helped equally to bring further structure to an elaborate scam.

And keep it to in-game correspondence, because a lot of us are tired of the fact that any time this is used as an example, the actual issue at hand is glanced over in favor of the brainwashing that Ripard Teg used to rope in those incapable of thinking for themselves. Thanks.

ffs.

Roll


Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#96 - 2014-06-23 18:06:35 UTC
KnowUsByTheDead wrote:

The issue at hand is the vitriol that the "perfect little upstanding snowflakes" throw about with impunity, while people like Ero, who was used as an example, never did anything but hold complete composure specifically for the endgame of an elaborate scam.*



Very much this. The rampant verbal abuse being thrown around every freaking day by carebears is almost as disturbing as the seeming silent approval of it.

"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.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2014-06-23 18:14:31 UTC
Morihei Akachi wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Morihei Akachi wrote:
So why doesn't that imply, for you, that saying that the murder of VR was justified, i.e., that murder is in principle always justifiable if the guy "deserved it", ought to be out of bounds?

Because it's an opinion on something that's happened in the past, and not an imminent threat made against a living person.

It's in very bad taste, and I really don't like living in a world where people say these things but I think it's a very slippery slope if I let these feelings dictate who gets gagged and who doesn't.

Fair enough. I think we're coming from different ethical or constitutional traditions here. In my view, approving of a murder in the past necessarily implies support, in principle, for murders in the future; if VR "deserved" what happened to him, then so, one day, will others. Fostering a climate of belief in the "deservability" of murder (or sexual violence against women [a certain four-letter word is being censored here] or whatever) in RL is a bad thing to do. It doesn't seem to me that this is a question of taste; I think it's a question of ethical principle. Which is why I'd be in favour of public statements like this carrying a heavier penalty than just being blocked.

We can discuss my reply to your post in private, if you'd like.. but I feel that somehow this thread has a close association with VR and I think that another reply from me on the matter would tip me over the threshold of having bad taste.

We are such a small community, relatively, and the passing of an EVE player pushes out large ripples and waves that catch us emotionally off guard.

RIP VR, I wish I had the chance to be caught up in your political intrigues in EVE.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2014-06-23 18:16:44 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
There is no universal principle of freedom of speech, demonstrably. If there were, everyone would have it.

Why would everyone have it, considering that there are people who disagree with it?



The fact that people disagree with it, or disagree about the exact definition is what demonstrates that the idea of a universal principle exists. That's sort of the definition of universal.

It's like universal ethics - it's a great idea, and quite laudable, but in real life where things get sticky and messy, it's more often a liability than a benefit.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
#99 - 2014-06-23 18:22:30 UTC  |  Edited by: KnowUsByTheDead
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
KnowUsByTheDead wrote:

The issue at hand is the vitriol that the "perfect little upstanding snowflakes" throw about with impunity, while people like Ero, who was used as an example, never did anything but hold complete composure specifically for the endgame of an elaborate scam.*



Very much this. The rampant verbal abuse being thrown around every freaking day by carebears is almost as disturbing as the seeming silent approval of it.


No kidding.

And the worst part is...

There are openly active members of the "anti-ganking" movement in this thread, blatantly condemning the same actions.

Then there are the openly ignorant "Ripardites" who come to the thread and use everything from the Ero situation to notions of "free speech," to deflect the actual issue or derail the thread to a lock.

That the "morally reprehensible," as CCP put it, are in reality, the same bunch who rallied behind Teg, or sit in their backwater systems, mining, thinking this is a single player game.

Let's use an example here...

You have lurkers in NPC corps that actively tell newbies not to join player corps, because "they might be a scam."

And on the other hand, you have a BU dude write a Reddit post openly inviting newbros to come join BU, so that they can try or learn about the aspects of EvE that the developers fail to educate about, instead leaving it to players who actually care about the health of the game.

The diminishing logic in the game is beginning to give me a migraine, lol.

Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#100 - 2014-06-23 18:23:14 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
The fact that people disagree with it, or disagree about the exact definition is what demonstrates that the idea of a universal principle exists. That's sort of the definition of universal.

No such thing as a universal principle, as the adoption of principles is a subjective process. Instead, principles are absolute. "All things of man must work for the glory of turtles" would be an absolute principle, but not universal, as only someone seriously in need of medication would hold it.