These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
evepal
Scholar of Rationality
#741 - 2014-09-12 15:45:07 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Sure, where you accused me of anecdote. The evidence was posted earlier in the year, and I get to say "I told you so" no matter what you wanna call it, but if you're gonna call it something it's not, then we have nothing to discuss.

There are other examples, but since that's enough to have nothing to discuss, we're done.


If the evidence isn't accessible now, then it's anecdotal evidence, sorry you feel that it isn't. It's this way, because no one can provide falsifiability or verification.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#742 - 2014-09-12 15:47:11 UTC
evepal wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Sure, where you accused me of anecdote. The evidence was posted earlier in the year, and I get to say "I told you so" no matter what you wanna call it, but if you're gonna call it something it's not, then we have nothing to discuss.

There are other examples, but since that's enough to have nothing to discuss, we're done.


If the evidence isn't accessible now, then it's anecdotal evidence, sorry you feel that it isn't. It's this way, because no one can provide falsifiability or verification.


I don't need to prove it, that's not my goal here. How are you not getting this?

“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
Marc Callan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#743 - 2014-09-12 15:47:17 UTC
Strangely enough, the dev posts in this thread, or on this topic, not only don't state why anyone was banned, they don't state whether anyone was banned. We've got people who claim to have been banned, assumptions as to why they were supposedly banned, and a lot of talk about what is and is not harassment, that might be suitable for a philosophy symposium, but doesn't have a universally applicable, objective definition.

As far as I can tell, CCP really only has two choices: decide on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances, or draw a bright line that will be far too restrictive for the tastes of a lot of people in this discussion. (I talked about the various do-not-cross depth lines for submarines about twenty pages back in this thread; this would be equivalent to drawing a line at "test depth" and saying "do not cross or you will be banned".)

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#744 - 2014-09-12 15:53:24 UTC
Marc Callan wrote:
Strangely enough, the dev posts in this thread, or on this topic, not only don't state why anyone was banned, they don't state whether anyone was banned. We've got people who claim to have been banned, assumptions as to why they were supposedly banned, and a lot of talk about what is and is not harassment, that might be suitable for a philosophy symposium, but doesn't have a universally applicable, objective definition.

As far as I can tell, CCP really only has two choices: decide on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances, or draw a bright line that will be far too restrictive for the tastes of a lot of people in this discussion. (I talked about the various do-not-cross depth lines for submarines about twenty pages back in this thread; this would be equivalent to drawing a line at "test depth" and saying "do not cross or you will be banned".)

Well said, sir.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#745 - 2014-09-12 15:54:52 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:

I see that you're trying very hard, which is always hilarious. And the answer is no, they don't nor do they have to. If the rule is "don't be a **** or we'll kick you off the bus" and they see you being a **** just outside the bus they're perfectly within their right to say "stay out of my bus, I don't want your money".

Really not difficult to comprehend. But keep threadnaughting and e-lawyering because it's entertaining as hell.


Your analogy is flawed. A better one would be that you've been riding the bus for a couple of years. While on the bus you engage in some form of behavior every day. Every day you do the same thing on the bus, and the bus driver doesnt seem to have a problem with it. Then, out of the blue one day, the bus driver kicks you off the bus. He doesnt give a reason, but the following day he makes a vague statement about the form of behavior you had always engaged in was now against the rules. A couple of weeks later he kicks your friends off the bus, too.

I am but a passenger on that bus. I'd like to know what the rules are so that I don't get a surprise kick off the bus as well.



"Your Honour, when we robbed that bank no one told us we shouldn't have done it. No police officer came to our door telling us to stop so we just assumed that made it ok to do and kept doing it. It's just not fair [stamp foot] that you send us to jail for something no one told us to not do!"
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#746 - 2014-09-12 16:03:02 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:

I see that you're trying very hard, which is always hilarious. And the answer is no, they don't nor do they have to. If the rule is "don't be a **** or we'll kick you off the bus" and they see you being a **** just outside the bus they're perfectly within their right to say "stay out of my bus, I don't want your money".

Really not difficult to comprehend. But keep threadnaughting and e-lawyering because it's entertaining as hell.


Your analogy is flawed. A better one would be that you've been riding the bus for a couple of years. While on the bus you engage in some form of behavior every day. Every day you do the same thing on the bus, and the bus driver doesnt seem to have a problem with it. Then, out of the blue one day, the bus driver kicks you off the bus. He doesnt give a reason, but the following day he makes a vague statement about the form of behavior you had always engaged in was now against the rules. A couple of weeks later he kicks your friends off the bus, too.

I am but a passenger on that bus. I'd like to know what the rules are so that I don't get a surprise kick off the bus as well.



"Your Honour, when we robbed that bank no one told us we shouldn't have done it. No police officer came to our door telling us to stop so we just assumed that made it ok to do and kept doing it. It's just not fair [stamp foot] that you send us to jail for something no one told us to not do!"


Noticeably, robbing a bank being illegal is actually written down somewhere, if someone wanted to look at it.

Which is not the case here.

"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.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#747 - 2014-09-12 16:20:39 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
so racism

Lady Spank wrote:
classic ransoming

Veers Belvar wrote:
bonus rooms

Much harrassement
Such EvE

Wow!

"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
Dave Stark
#748 - 2014-09-12 16:22:58 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
so racism

Lady Spank wrote:
classic ransoming

Veers Belvar wrote:
bonus rooms

Much harrassement
Such EvE

Wow!


well done on the hilarious selective quoting.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#749 - 2014-09-12 16:30:48 UTC
Marc Callan wrote:


As far as I can tell, CCP really only has two choices: decide on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances, or draw a bright line that will be far too restrictive for the tastes of a lot of people in this discussion. (I talked about the various do-not-cross depth lines for submarines about twenty pages back in this thread; this would be equivalent to drawing a line at "test depth" and saying "do not cross or you will be banned".)


I liked your submarine analogy, it illustrated how many choices CCP has and how they pretend not to have them. If the bright line they would draw, at "test depth", would be too restrictive for the tastes of many people; then so be it--at least they would be honest about their restrictions. I simply can't agree that being shady and underhanded with the rules makes them more acceptable to anyone. Not only that, but they could draw the line lower than "test depth", they can draw the line anywhere they want. There are pros and cons to any level they would choose, just as in your analogy.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#750 - 2014-09-12 16:32:57 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:

Most people are reasonable and smart enough to know when they're near that line you shouldn't cross. And they're sensible enough to steer clear from there.

The problem arises when you have people that make it a point to dance and pounce around the line and see how far they can test the limits and still get away with it. This is akin to primary school kids threatening to slap someone while waving a hand in front of your face saying "I haven't touched you, so you can't do anything about it!".

In other words, the only people that are legitimately affected by this "ambiguousness" in the rules are those intent in coming close to the line to begin with. All this "but what if I gank!1! will I be banned?1?!" and "OMG scamming is bannable now!1!" are just idiotic distractions and foolishness meant to fuel their own personal agenda. Nothing more.

Also, I don't think we need to know for what reasons they got banned. That is dirty laundry that needs to stay in the hamper and between CCP and the banned. If the banned party truly doesn't know why he has been banned (I very highly doubt this) then he needs to sort that out with CCP. Like I said, the rest of us know where that line lies and are not interested in coming near it.

My own personal opinion? They know exactly why they got banned. They want to know how much CCP knows. They want to build a case defense based on technicalities to wiggle themselves out of whatever mess they got themselves into. Unfortunately for them, this isn't court where your ticket may get dismissed if the street where you were 30 miles over the limit was misspelled precisely because CCP gives itself space to review the issue. CCP knows better than to entrap itself with technicalities.

This also allows players that may, for whatever reasons genuinely and unknowingly come close to the line an opportunity to have their case reviewed individually without a habitual perp with ill-intent claiming they should also get the ban because "it's in the rules".


No, I disagree. There are several edge cases imaginable where people are partial or unknowing participants in something that eventually crosses "the line". It is not black and white. I could make up plenty of scenarios but there is no point - it is just speculation.

This isn't the main point though. The fact is they don't know why they are banned. We the community don't know why they are banned. If it is because they were all involved in Erotica 1's bonus room then just make a statement to that effect. Then we will know not to participate in bonus rooms (which to be fair, we already know this is verboten since Erotica 1's ban). But the problem is, several of those banned claim not to have been involved at all. You perhaps don't believe them, but there are enough of them that I have my doubts as to the precision of this ban wave or even if "bonus room participant" is the specific reason for these mass bans. And if I was mistakenly caught up in such a ban wave, or even if I full well knew which rules I broke, I would still want the specific actions I took provided to me so I could move on with a complete understanding of what had happened, or, use those details to point out that there is a mistake if that is the case.

There is no wiggling free. They can squirm all they want but CCP can just say no, you are out of here. I don't see why giving your customer the courtesy of a full reason for the termination of your relationship is a problem at all - in fact I see it as the only respectful thing to do. Sharing this reason with the community I can see as a more debatable point as it will make more work for the GMs dealing with rule lawyering (although this could be avoided if GMs were more consistent with applying the rules), but to me it seems it will only serve to provide an additional data point of behaviour that is not allowed and better define the sandbox, not handcuff CCP's future responses in anyway.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#751 - 2014-09-12 16:50:30 UTC
I have decided what I'm going to do about it all, though.

No more just letting people abuse me in mails, and local, and the forums, etc. Oh I'm still gonna shoot em, and extract the tears. It's how they choose to apply the tears that I'm interested in.

Because I get abused in game on a daily basis. I'm sure plenty of people do, and refrain from reporting because they find it more amusing than actually upsetting. Well, I'm done with amusing. I'm reporting each and every single one of them as it happens.

Someone posted a thread that the other day about what statistics we'd like to see. I'd like to see statistics on how many people doing the abusing because I'll bet with enough reporting of ALL the abuse that's actually taking place, most are actually the carebears, not the pirates, gankers, or 'villains' in general. I know we won't because "privacy policy" but, those are still the stats I'd like to see the most.

LS makes a perfect case in point.

Commence Operation REPORT ALL THE THINGS!! Pirate

“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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#752 - 2014-09-12 16:55:31 UTC
Remiel, I think I may join you in that endeavor.

Granted, I know the results ahead of time. They will be reported for saying vile, disgusting, ToS violating things in local, and they will keep on playing the game.

"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.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#753 - 2014-09-12 16:57:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Remiel, I think I may join you in that endeavor.

Granted, I know the results ahead of time. They will be reported for saying vile, disgusting, ToS violating things in local, and they will keep on playing the game.


Keep records, add to watchlist, etc etc. If things don't improve, I'll be leaving and in my wake, a nice big long trail of CCP failure.

“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
Pleistarchus Shikkoken
Doomheim
#754 - 2014-09-12 17:03:42 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
It isn't our job to dictate to people how to maintain a base standard of human decency toward one another, and we're not going to do so.

So don't scam or gank, as these aren't acts of human decency.

CCP Falcon wrote:
The bottom line is that it's down to members of the community to know where the line crosses from common decency to harassment.

Really? That's cute, because a good portion of your community believes that scamming and ganking constitute harassment.



So you have these 2 situations.

a) You destroy a ship from a guy in space and get going.

b) You destroy a ship from a guy in space, then convo him saying that you will give him a brand new fitted ship if he goes to a certain TS, and in there you start humilliating him always with the promisse that hif the guy supports the humilliation, he will be having the ship back. In the meanwhile you're recording the "conversation" and in the end, publish the entire "session" in the internet.

For you the situation is the same. There is no diference at all between both.

You either are just arguing because you want to be against or you're just stupid (sorry if you feel harrassed here). Probaly both.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#755 - 2014-09-12 17:03:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
What concerns me (and frankly should concern everyone) is people are being banned because of who their friends are.


Show me your friends and I will tell you who you are - unknown

No tears shed for anyone who got banned.


Yeah so I went to school with this guy who decided to go to Syria this year & cut off peoples heads because of religion. We got along pretty well so by your definition I'm definately a terrorist.


Sure why not. I don't particularly care whether you are innocent or not - should have kept better company dude. Hang with bad people - get treated as such. Welcome to the real world.
This coming from a poster who has repeatedly condoned real world violence as retaliation for actions carried out in the context of a virtual world, involving virtual assets that ultimately belong to nobody but CCP. Roll

You're far worse than those you despise, and your "holier than thou" attitude is delusional at best.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Josef Djugashvilis
#756 - 2014-09-12 17:14:12 UTC
How many players were banned, or are folk just assuming, 'lots' because it makes all the forum rage more fun?

What do folk know about the actual reasons for the alleged mass bans, rather than idle speculation on the forums because it is more fun than the possible reality of the alleged mass bans?

'I know someone, who met someone, who said he knew someone who was banned because they never ever did anything wrong, is not really good enough, even though it is more fun to post about in this threadnaught'.

This is not a signature.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#757 - 2014-09-12 17:22:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Epeen
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
How many players were banned, or are folk just assuming, 'lots' because it makes all the forum rage more fun?

What do folk know about the actual reasons for the alleged mass bans, rather than idle speculation on the forums because it is more fun than the possible reality of the alleged mass bans?



From what I've been able to find out, about six were banned. So it was a MASSIVE BAN WAVE!!!!!!!

No actual reasons have been forwarded by CCP. So it was BANNING FOR NO REASON!!!!!!!

Nothing like a good hysterical forum meltdown to something that happens every day in this game.

Mr Epeen Cool
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#758 - 2014-09-12 17:52:52 UTC
There is a perfect example of the kind of reprehensible conduct I'm talking about at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&p=27

After using bumping to trap a freighter, and the pilot choosing to self destruct rather than pay a ransom, the pilot came on the Eve forums to complain about the bumping mechanic and state that he was quitting the game. Instead of the ganker just being happy with the loot and moving, he came to the forum to rub it in with the comment "Can i haz ur stuffs?. The sole purpose is to further antagonize an already upset person for "tear harvesting" purposes. That's the kind of garbage that serves no purpose, leads to the kind of insults, etc... that we would like to avoid, and should have no place in the game.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#759 - 2014-09-12 17:56:26 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
There is a perfect example of the kind of reprehensible conduct I'm talking about at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&p=27

After using bumping to trap a freighter, and the pilot choosing to self destruct rather than pay a ransom, the pilot came on the Eve forums to complain about the bumping mechanic and state that he was quitting the game. Instead of the ganker just being happy with the loot and moving, he came to the forum to rub it in with the comment "Can i haz ur stuffs?. The sole purpose is to further antagonize an already upset person for "tear harvesting" purposes. That's the kind of garbage that serves no purpose, leads to the kind of insults, etc... that we would like to avoid, and should have no place in the game.


It's in game, against the in game character and persona and as such it's fine.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#760 - 2014-09-12 17:57:18 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
There is a perfect example of the kind of reprehensible conduct I'm talking about at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&p=27

After using bumping to trap a freighter, and the pilot choosing to self destruct rather than pay a ransom, the pilot came on the Eve forums to complain about the bumping mechanic and state that he was quitting the game. Instead of the ganker just being happy with the loot and moving, he came to the forum to rub it in with the comment "Can i haz ur stuffs?. The sole purpose is to further antagonize an already upset person for "tear harvesting" purposes. That's the kind of garbage that serves no purpose, leads to the kind of insults, etc... that we would like to avoid, and should have no place in the game.


Really reaching for straws today aren't you Beers.

“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