These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Is this harassment?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#121 - 2014-07-26 16:59:22 UTC
Look, guys... The line you have to cross to officially harass someone is clearly drawn. It's not up for debate. None of us can say whether that line was crossed because we're all just a bunch of blathering idiots who read something on a forum.

Shutup. There hasn't been a single legitimate argument in this entire vomit-fest of posting and you're just confusing people who're already unclear on the subject or definition of harassment. Please take 5 minutes to read and learn what harassment is by the rules CCP has written.

If the carebear was harassed and the ganker broke the rules, it's not hard for CCP to find out and act accordingly. It IS hard to read this thread and get anything useful out of it.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#122 - 2014-07-26 17:00:28 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
Again, as said before. There are miles between this case and the E1.
Not really. In both cases the problem is the intent to further upset another person. The problem isn't that the target spoke in caps and got shot, it's that the aggressor knew the target was upset, and knew that they could be upset even more. Ganking them the first time, fine, but leave it be. They were clearly over the edge and shouldn't be targeted to purposely upset them more. I really don't know why I should be explaining that this is not acceptable human behaviour.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dave Stark
#123 - 2014-07-26 17:00:43 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
It's not up for debate.

actually, ripard teg showed us that the line is entirely up for debate and moved whenever some one whines about it hard enough.
Dave Stark
#124 - 2014-07-26 17:01:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
In both cases the problem is the intent to further upset another person.

you seem to be mistaking "intending to upset some one" with "intending to play the game, which is unfortunately populated by people who get upset at losing video games"
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#125 - 2014-07-26 17:03:01 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
In both cases the problem is the intent to further upset another person.

you seem to be mistaking "intending to upset some one" with "intending to play the game, which is unfortunately populated by people who get upset at losing video games"


/thread

The Tyranny of the Thin Skinned must not be allowed to take hold.

"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.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2014-07-26 17:03:30 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Barton Breau wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
lol, it's got nothing to do with the caps and you know it. It's the intent of the aggressor. The intent was clear, to generate more tears from an already upset player.

So this is about morals? Please keep your social justice bullshit out of the game, I enjoy being a ****. In fact, I don't even agree with the ToS rules about racism and homophobia etc. While I understand their importance, I also feel they limit the potential of the game. i.e stop holding people's hands and let the players serve their own justice to people they hate.

Rules about RL harassment should remain, ofc.


The wild west is dead, deal with it.


Video games.


Then go play them, npcs dont mind to be insulter or harrassed and companies dont depend on npc revenue (maybe "yet").
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#127 - 2014-07-26 17:03:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The game doesn't stop running because someone gets upset. That's their own problem. Especially since this is an entirely voluntary participatory media.
Supposedly it does though. If it doesn't then when are they planning on unbanning E1?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It is their responsibility to just turn the game off if they don't want to deal with it anymore. They have both a right and a responsibility to walk away. Continuing to play is consent to the interactions that occur, plain and simple.
I don't disagree that in my idea world that would be the case. The HTFU days were good, but those days are gone.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#128 - 2014-07-26 17:05:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The game doesn't stop running because someone gets upset. That's their own problem. Especially since this is an entirely voluntary participatory media.
Supposedly it does though. If it doesn't then when are they planning on unbanning E1?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It is their responsibility to just turn the game off if they don't want to deal with it anymore. They have both a right and a responsibility to walk away. Continuing to play is consent to the interactions that occur, plain and simple.
I don't disagree that in my idea world that would be the case. The HTFU days were good, but those days are gone.


No, they're not, no matter that Ripard Teg tried to ban scamming and ganking.

These actions were entirely in game, and entirely legitimate in game actions. It is almost impossible for anything involved to constitute harassment.

"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.
Dave Stark
#129 - 2014-07-26 17:05:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
The HTFU days were good, but those days are gone.


no, they aren't.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#130 - 2014-07-26 17:05:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The game doesn't stop running because someone gets upset. That's their own problem. Especially since this is an entirely voluntary participatory media.
Supposedly it does though. If it doesn't then when are they planning on unbanning E1?

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It is their responsibility to just turn the game off if they don't want to deal with it anymore. They have both a right and a responsibility to walk away. Continuing to play is consent to the interactions that occur, plain and simple.
I don't disagree that in my idea world that would be the case. The HTFU days were good, but those days are gone.

No there not ,HTFU Lucas.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#131 - 2014-07-26 17:06:05 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
you're part of a coalition that goes out of it's way to **** on n3, who are perpetually in the state of "upset".

come on now...

i mean, replace "faylee" with "the mittani" and "player" with "coalition" and it applies as aptly for the cfc as it does for this case you pulled out of C&P.
When N3 started crying we backed off a bit. We didn't TEST them into the ground yet.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Paranoid Loyd
#132 - 2014-07-26 17:06:34 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Lucas is arguing just to argue. He knows this is not harassment.

Beginning to suspect we're being trolled, or at least debating a devil's advocate.

Lucas, is this true?


He liked my post if that tells you anything

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#133 - 2014-07-26 17:09:12 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
In both cases the problem is the intent to further upset another person.
you seem to be mistaking "intending to upset some one" with "intending to play the game, which is unfortunately populated by people who get upset at losing video games"
I dunno, it seems pretty clear that the aggressor was not just "playing the game". They saw the C&P tear post then hunted them down specifically to get their share of tears.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#134 - 2014-07-26 17:09:22 UTC
Just to add a little more to this very interesting topic, full of very informative and factual posts.

Is it wrong to feel sexually aroused by miner tears?
Sirinda
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
#135 - 2014-07-26 17:09:28 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Ugh, let me reword that. What I mean is, if players disagree with racism and homophobia, they should use in-game tools to oppose it, rather than relying on CCP to govern it.


You are aware that people have been found guilty for online harrassment/mobbing by RL courts?

Additionally, some people seem to disagree in the fact there are some lines that should not be crossed.

I mean, WTF. Leave the victim of in game racisn to fend for themselves, spouting HTFU along the way? What is wrong with you?
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#136 - 2014-07-26 17:11:26 UTC
Kaaeliaa wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Kaaeliaa wrote:
Which is absolutely wrong and makes it extremely difficult for people that need help to get it.

The only help that is required is for governments and global councils to do a better job of looking after the underprivileged.


I don't see what economics and brain chemistry have to do with each other.

Psychological disorders aren't (entirely) caused by living conditions or socioeconomic status.


I believe psychiatrists have the wrong perspective about ASPD. I don't think it's a psychological disorder at all, I think it's a natural human defense mechanism.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#137 - 2014-07-26 17:12:22 UTC
Sirinda wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Ugh, let me reword that. What I mean is, if players disagree with racism and homophobia, they should use in-game tools to oppose it, rather than relying on CCP to govern it.


You are aware that people have been found guilty for online harrassment/mobbing by RL courts?

Additionally, some people seem to disagree in the fact there are some lines that should not be crossed.

I mean, WTF. Leave the victim of in game racisn to fend for themselves, spouting HTFU along the way? What is wrong with you?


There's nothing wrong with me, what is wrong is when people believe that online avatars represent real life personalities.

Oh god.
Dave Stark
#138 - 2014-07-26 17:13:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
In both cases the problem is the intent to further upset another person.
you seem to be mistaking "intending to upset some one" with "intending to play the game, which is unfortunately populated by people who get upset at losing video games"
I dunno, it seems pretty clear that the aggressor was not just "playing the game". They saw the C&P tear post then hunted them down specifically to get their share of tears.


no, it's not "pretty clear" at all.

you just want it to be that way otherwise you're terrible trolling attempts have no ground to stand on.
Sirinda
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
#139 - 2014-07-26 17:13:45 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Sirinda wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Ugh, let me reword that. What I mean is, if players disagree with racism and homophobia, they should use in-game tools to oppose it, rather than relying on CCP to govern it.


You are aware that people have been found guilty for online harrassment/mobbing by RL courts?

Additionally, some people seem to disagree in the fact there are some lines that should not be crossed.

I mean, WTF. Leave the victim of in game racisn to fend for themselves, spouting HTFU along the way? What is wrong with you?


There's nothing wrong with me, what is wrong is when people believe that online avatars represent real life personalities.


Newsflash: Text is usually ambiguous. vOv
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#140 - 2014-07-26 17:14:42 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
In both cases the problem is the intent to further upset another person.
you seem to be mistaking "intending to upset some one" with "intending to play the game, which is unfortunately populated by people who get upset at losing video games"
I dunno, it seems pretty clear that the aggressor was not just "playing the game". They saw the C&P tear post then hunted them down specifically to get their share of tears.


no, it's not "pretty clear" at all.

you just want it to be that way otherwise you're terrible trolling attempts have no ground to stand on.
Nah, it's pretty clear.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.