These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Reminder Regarding Real Life Harassment

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#461 - 2014-09-11 22:18:11 UTC
evepal wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Because, in my experience, doxxing, stalking, and threatening my life are just fine, nothing was done to punish my attacker.

But singing songs on teamspeak, and laughing about people who get scammed is a perma ban, or even having talked to them that week is a perma ban.


You have no fault with the actual ban, you just can't tell right from wrong, from being in the spirit of eve to taking it into the realms of harassment?
So he's defective because he can't see that "doxxing, stalking, and threatening my life" is in the spirit of EVE?

Your posts just keep getting better, for some definition of the word better.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#462 - 2014-09-11 22:20:08 UTC
evepal wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Heh, you want to know why I want the line defined?

Because I don't think it exists. I think that these kind of things are 100% a coin toss based on what GM you get.

Because, in my experience, doxxing, stalking, and threatening my life are just fine, nothing was done to punish my attacker.

But singing songs on teamspeak, and laughing about people who get scammed is a perma ban, or even having talked to them that week is a perma ban.

That is NOT consistent. Not even a little bit. And that's why I want the line defined, that's why I say that it's not clear. Because to me, it is not clear even a little bit. You have allowed people to go above and beyond anything that this thread is about, at me and at people I know.

I am not in the wrong for wanting this inconsistency explained.


So, it's just self admitted personal incredulity. You have no fault with the actual ban, you just can't tell right from wrong, from being in the spirit of eve to taking it into the realms of harassment? That does sound a lot like a personal problem.


Your determination to be obtuse aside, I am pointing out an inconsistency that has personally effected me.

CCP claims that RL harassment is unacceptable. They refuse to define what that is. They shadow ban people.

Meanwhile, I have been doxxed, stalked and threatened in real life.

So it's not hard to see that CCP does not draw the line at actual real life threats and crimes.

So WTF is the deal then? If it's completely subjective to the petty whims of the GMs, just freaking say that already.

"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.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#463 - 2014-09-11 22:20:36 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Yes, EVE is designed to be harsh and unforgiving, but there's a blatant difference between that and outright harassment....


those people who're saying that the lines are blurred and they don't understand the definition of harassment are looking for clarification so that they know how much they can bend the rules and push the boundaries before we'll take action, with a view to using any statement we make as ammunition for an appeal should they fall foul of the rules and be slapped with account action.


Sometimes things are obvious to oneself, but they aren't obvious to others. When you claim firstly that the difference between intentionally harsh play and harassment is "blatant", it implies that you can easily lay down a clear boundary, and probably that the clear boundary is already obvious. But then in your second sentence, you decry the negative consequences that will ensue if that clear boundary were to exist. Do you not see the contradiction that this creates? The difference cannot be both blatant and unspoken, that simply does not compute.

Let me suggest a simple solution. Let's simplify the situation down to a 1-10 scale. If you currently are banning for a '6' on the scale, but don't want to encourage people to go right up to 6, simply announce that the threshold is 5, or even 4. Continue banning at 6 as you always have, and mainly warn people at 5 that they are now on probation. If you're not ok with people slithering right up to almost 5, then continue adding more thresholds to reflect your opinion.

Let's look at a not very analogous situation: speed limits. If the speed limit is 100 kilometers per hour, and someone slithers right up to 99 km/h, there's nothing wrong with that-that's normal behavior. Now, you would probably respond that this isn't analogous, that behavior is more diverse than speed. I agree--but the speed limit is only 1 point on the scale, as you go higher and higher over the limit, additional penalties accrue, higher fines, losing one's license, jail time, etc--and different areas have different limits. You are dealing with a situation that is more complicated than speeding, but the clear system of boundaries you propose and reject is much simpler and inferior to the system used to govern speeds--so of course it fails, it was an inferior straw man of a suggestion from the start. You must propose a system that is firm and clear, while still accounting for some people's tendency to slide right up to the limits, for people to believe that you've proposed and ruled out a reasonable alternative.
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
#464 - 2014-09-11 22:20:43 UTC
I'm glad CCP is taking action against a subset of the players who abuse their game and I am sure this agenda of non-harassment is furthered by their policy of being 100% cryptic all of the time ~

Hey! I don't know about you

but I'm joining CTRL-Q
evepal
Scholar of Rationality
#465 - 2014-09-11 22:23:06 UTC  |  Edited by: evepal
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
evepal wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Heh, you want to know why I want the line defined?

Because I don't think it exists. I think that these kind of things are 100% a coin toss based on what GM you get.

Because, in my experience, doxxing, stalking, and threatening my life are just fine, nothing was done to punish my attacker.

But singing songs on teamspeak, and laughing about people who get scammed is a perma ban, or even having talked to them that week is a perma ban.

That is NOT consistent. Not even a little bit. And that's why I want the line defined, that's why I say that it's not clear. Because to me, it is not clear even a little bit. You have allowed people to go above and beyond anything that this thread is about, at me and at people I know.

I am not in the wrong for wanting this inconsistency explained.


So, it's just self admitted personal incredulity. You have no fault with the actual ban, you just can't tell right from wrong, from being in the spirit of eve to taking it into the realms of harassment? That does sound a lot like a personal problem.


Your determination to be obtuse aside, I am pointing out an inconsistency that has personally effected me.

CCP claims that RL harassment is unacceptable. They refuse to define what that is. They shadow ban people.

Meanwhile, I have been doxxed, stalked and threatened in real life.

So it's not hard to see that CCP does not draw the line at actual real life threats and crimes.

So WTF is the deal then? If it's completely subjective to the petty whims of the GMs, just freaking say that already.


So you complain on the forums, instead of posting evidence to CCP and taking it to the authorities? Nice, real believable. The sheep are out for round two of their rhetoric, and the anger has built up inside them. I slept well last night guys, knowing those who take it into the realm of harassment were punished accordingly.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#466 - 2014-09-11 22:24:37 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

There is, but the problem here seems to be that you're banning people who weren't even involved in outright harassment at all. Permanently. No realistic chance of appeal. It's absurd.

.


How do you know those player were not involved in either the case everyone seem to think this ban wave is related to or any other less publicly known case? Are we supposed to believe their version because :reasons:?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#467 - 2014-09-11 22:26:53 UTC
evepal wrote:
So you complain on the forums, instead of posting evidence to CCP and taking it to the authorities? Nice, real believable. The sheep are out for round two of their rhetoric, and the anger has built up inside them. I slept well last night guys, knowing those who take it into the realm of harassment were punished accordingly.


and on what do you base this assumption that he didn't actually attempt to contact CCP about this?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#468 - 2014-09-11 22:27:48 UTC
evepal wrote:

So you complain on the forums, instead of posting evidence to CCP and taking it to the authorities? Nice, real believable. The sheep are out for round two of their rhetoric, and the anger has built up inside them. I slept well last night guys, knowing those who take it into the realm of harassment were punished accordingly.


I have. Years ago, it's why I post on an alt now, among other things.

But yes, I did notify CCP. They did nothing.

I did notify my local law enforcement. In between laughing, they told me that they don't care if someone on a videogame made death threats. Welcome to small town American cops.

Now, are you actually going to address what I said, or keep trying to blame me for being stalked?

"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.
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#469 - 2014-09-11 22:29:24 UTC
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#470 - 2014-09-11 22:30:18 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
evepal
Scholar of Rationality
#471 - 2014-09-11 22:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: evepal
Andski wrote:
evepal wrote:
So you complain on the forums, instead of posting evidence to CCP and taking it to the authorities? Nice, real believable. The sheep are out for round two of their rhetoric, and the anger has built up inside them. I slept well last night guys, knowing those who take it into the realm of harassment were punished accordingly.


and on what do you base this assumption that he didn't actually attempt to contact CCP about this?


I never stated that, I just said with evidence. That's the assumption here, because without evidence there's nothing the authorities nor CCP could do. However, if he had evidence then the ban would have happened and he wouldn't be using the strawman to support the rhetoric. Which in itself is addressing what you said. There's no other point you made that I haven't addressed before.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#472 - 2014-09-11 22:33:05 UTC
evepal wrote:
I never stated that, I just said with evidence. That's the assumption here, because without evidence there's nothing the authorities nor CCP could do. However, if he had evidence then the ban would have happened and he wouldn't be using the strawman to support the rhetoric. Which in itself is addressing what you said. There's no other point you made that I haven't addressed before.


And you're making even more baseless assumptions to support your baseless assumptions.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
evepal
Scholar of Rationality
#473 - 2014-09-11 22:35:52 UTC
Andski wrote:
evepal wrote:
I never stated that, I just said with evidence. That's the assumption here, because without evidence there's nothing the authorities nor CCP could do. However, if he had evidence then the ban would have happened and he wouldn't be using the strawman to support the rhetoric. Which in itself is addressing what you said. There's no other point you made that I haven't addressed before.


And you're making even more baseless assumptions to support your baseless assumptions.


So you're saying he submitted it with evidence to both the authorities and CCP and nothing was done? Why wasn't there outcry before this post, if it was so many years ago? Nice tu quoque.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#474 - 2014-09-11 22:36:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Heh, you want to know why I want the line defined?


No. Not really.

I also don't think I'm alone in not caring to hear your hysterical opinions on stuff. It wears a little thin after a while.

Mr Epeen Cool
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
#475 - 2014-09-11 22:36:26 UTC
evepal wrote:
I never stated that, I just said with evidence. That's the assumption here, because without evidence there's nothing the authorities nor CCP could do. However, if he had evidence then the ban would have happened and he wouldn't be using the strawman to support the rhetoric. Which in itself is addressing what you said. There's no other point you made that I haven't addressed before.


isn't faith a beautiful thing

Hey! I don't know about you

but I'm joining CTRL-Q
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#476 - 2014-09-11 22:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
If you don't want to get banned you have some very simple solutions. Stop making the focus of your gameplay hurting/angering/humiliating others. Tear collection is not a legitimate objective in Eve. Focus on accomplishing things that help you, not on accomplishing things that hurt others. Now, if in the process of helping yourself and you suicide gank or scam someone, and they get angry, that is fine. Just take your win and move on. Don't look to revel in the moment, collect tears, mock them, try to get them on coms, etc.... Just take your winning, give a GF and go. If the focus of your game is to see how mad you can make other people get, and what kind of reactions you can elicit, then yes, you are doing it wrong, and potentially could get banned. If you just focus on helping yourself, and don't engage with people you are harming, then no, you are not really at risk of a ban. To me that is a clear enough line already.
Mira Robinson
#477 - 2014-09-11 22:38:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mira Robinson
Veers Belvar wrote:
If you don't want to get banned you have some very simple solutions. Stop making the focus of your gameplay hurting/angering/humiliating others. Tear collection is not a legitimate objective in Eve. Focus on accomplishing things that help you, not on accomplishing things that hurt others. Now, if in the process of helping yourself and you suicide gank or scam someone, and they get angry, that is fine. Just take your win and move on. Don't look to revel in the moment, collect tears, mock them, try to get them on coms, etc.... Just take your winning, give a GF and go. If the focus of your game is to see how mad you can make other people get, and what kind of reactions you can elicit, then yes, you are doing it wrong, and potentially could get banned. If you just focus on helping yourself, and don't engage with people you are harming, then no, you are not really at risk of a ban. To me that is a clear enough line already.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Time to close your Tear Museum blogs down, gankers, if you want to be truly safe from the hammer.

And in my mind he's even more correct by how much the New Order folk mock him on Miner Bumping.

Earlier today, the Dixon Mining Guild and the Butz Manufacturing Corporation formed a coalition.

It's hard to tell if there is a light at the end of the tunnel for the Dixon-Butz Alliance.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#478 - 2014-09-11 22:40:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
evepal wrote:

So you complain on the forums, instead of posting evidence to CCP and taking it to the authorities? Nice, real believable. The sheep are out for round two of their rhetoric, and the anger has built up inside them. I slept well last night guys, knowing those who take it into the realm of harassment were punished accordingly.


I have. Years ago, it's why I post on an alt now, among other things.

But yes, I did notify CCP. They did nothing.

I did notify my local law enforcement. In between laughing, they told me that they don't care if someone on a videogame made death threats. Welcome to small town American cops.

Now, are you actually going to address what I said, or keep trying to blame me for being stalked?


Are you going to actually address questions i have asked you today?

Because i'm beginning to think you're just a troll full of crap.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#479 - 2014-09-11 22:40:49 UTC

What you have is a bunch of carebears so happy to see CCP banning gankers. They're not worried about asking CCP what's can get you banned because they don't do anything other than PVE.

It's all good though. I'm actually going to dedicate another one of my pilots to ganking. I'll do my part to make sure Eve stays a PVP focused game. If I get banned for this then it wasn't a game I wanted to play anyway.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#480 - 2014-09-11 22:40:53 UTC
Maybe we should stop suicide ganking, scamming, and stealing if we want to be safe, then. Since if being incidentally connected to a harassment case is cause for a permanent ban, then obviously causing distress to another player of any kind is also grounds for a ban. Clearly we shouldn't do anything that has the potential to make someone upset.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)