EVE General Discussion

It shouldn't matter even if people go "technically" on them. They have final say.

Clear guidelines will tell people who don't know when to stop, when to stop. The average new order player really doesn't tick the same way as most other players in the game.

No. They're exactly the same as everyone else. Looking for loopholes and getting upset when CCP won't give them any.

Mr Epeen

CCP Falcon,

can we expect some clear-cut rules on what you would classify as 'real life harassment'?


For example, many Wormhole corporations have a tradition of asking tackled pilots to join their voice comms and sing them a song in exchange for letting them go. These recordings are sometimes posted publicly, and sometimes aren't. Would you classify this as 'real life harassment'?

In another example, the gentlemen over at CODE sometimes record themselves having after-the-fact 'discussions' about their actions and 'the Code' with their targets on voice comms, which are then published on their blog. This publishing may occur without the other party's explicit permission, yet - as CCP itself put it so eloquently in the recent announcement of the "send us your ears" incentive - one should always "[...] assume any voice comms are being recorded". Would you classify this as 'real life harassment'?


While I personally am not affected by the controversy, I am strongly in favor of what you'd call 'legal certainty', e.g. that one can ascertain whether or not their actions would be in violation of established rules and may thus carry punishment, and I am fairly sure that my dear friends, enemies and otherwise on the slightly less reputable side of New Eden will agree on this.

As such, I do not believe that stating something as basic as 'we do not allow real life harassment' without clarifying what, exactly, you mean by this term could in any way be considered as 'legal certainty' - seeing as social standards on what would be considered 'harassment' differ between societies, nay, even between members of the same society, and furthermore seeing that New Eden is a world that players hailing from all over the earth, stemming from all sorts of societies, will partake in.
And, in the same vein, I also dread that leaving the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over players' heads would certainly not serve to stimulate their creativity into continuing to make EVE into the wonderfully inventive, entertaining and enthralling game that we all play - and that New Eden as a whole would be poorer for it.

Best regards.

It's not CCPs job to tell you how to be a decent human to someone. If you struggle with this fact, being banned on EvE is the least of your concern, seeing as harassment is enshrined into public law by many countries.

People will always cry it's vague to their specific situation, they'll continue to attempt to weasel out of their situation and validate that they're not horrible people, in some sort of attempt to make themselves believe that. People attempt to weasel in court, so why wouldn't they do this in a game? So what's the alternative, just simply disregard rules altogether?

No, you let humans make a decision that's supportive on public consensus. Which is what they have done, and will continue to do so. If you don't like it, perhaps you should, what's the word... HTFU.

Conveniently you disregard the whole section where I describe Sunk Cost Investment, also known as the escalation of commitment. No dispute, just ignored to invoke victim blaming.

Taking someone's items doesn't imply by force, either. That's your interpretation of the context, perhaps a Freudian slip even. I merely meant it as in receiving the items, which is completely within definition of the word. Go grab a dictionary.

Oh and as you're referring to that image for both the "appeal to emotion", and "ad hominem", I raise you "the fallacy fallacy", "no true scotsman", and "tu quoque".

What's it got to do with anything? Sure, we can study the reasons why people don't walk away from bad situations, but that doesn't change the fact that they can walk away. Distinctly different from swatting, where the ordeal cannot be terminated with a single button press.

I don't interpret any contexts, I just look at what actually happened.
If you meant that someone received the items, why not say so instead of saying they were taken? Because it doesn't sound as good. "Oh no the evil sociopaths received all my items!!".

A very fancy way of saying I'm attacking your argument rather than your conclusion. Well, I am.

Thank you CCP for cleaning house.

Case in point?

I'd say you missed it entirely.

Not your job to maintain a standard, just your job to enforce the unmaintained standard.

GG.

This doesn't make sense.

You realise that those with a working brain and see the game for what is is and leave it in the game, are the exact people that don't call this harassment.