EVE General Discussion

This is a really good idea, reporting it every single time it happens until some concrete guidance is actually given or the people in question are banned, or CCP ban me for reporting things that break their "harassment" standard. As they don't wish to tell me exactly where the line is, I'll take an educated guess whenever I'm harassed. If that leads to a ban then sobeit.

Which is why no one plays Ts in CS

I've been trying to find the thread at least, cached somewhere, but the internet confounds me sometimes. I don't care anymore, I'm tired and need a few hours sleep.

EDIT: On that note, LS dug it up and linked it in one of her venomous attacks on me just the other day actually. It's probably bookmarked in a list of "Links that will **** Remiel off for my entertainment" folder somewhere. Your obsession with me is unhealthy, LS.

Before I go to bed, I thought I'd share this. Not sure if it has been already or not, but it highlights what I've been saying - it seems to me the biggest problem is a widening disconnect of clear and concise communication between CCP and the player base. Maybe there is no inconsistency, maybe we're wrong about it, but if that's the case, it's because of poor communication.

You just can't dismiss everyone as brainless, effectively engaging in the abuse you just banned a bunch of people for, and to go figure it out themselves. It's not good enough.

Operation Report All The Things will resume a few hours after I awaken. I will need coffee, and some time with my cockatiels. They are worth more to me than a game ever could be.

Goodnight.

Right so what is the solution?

When the rules are too tight it seems CCP are in the wrong for (apparently) banning innocents idling in the bonus room, and the net is going to catch people who maybe didn't deserve it.

When the rules are too lax CCP are in the wrong for letting nefarious gmail doxxers get away with their crimes.

Rules applied on a case by case basis will veer between the two and throw up inconsistencies.

You have to come down on one of three sides. Yea, the inconsistency is jarring, but there's only so many times you can yell "but ccp are inconsistent!" before it starts sounding like an Alex Jones youtube.

That's not what the analogy says either.

I resubscribed, it is important that CCP understand this will bring players back to the game.

CCP's attitude is commendable and the community management is welcome.

I can only hope CCP learn to continue down this path.

Congratulations Falcon, I'm proud of you.

Regards,
Riff.

The final result in that thread isn't the issue. The fact that a Senior GM told people at any time that my saying "I am also Pipa Porto" could be against the TOS indicates that dealing with the GMs is like playing roulette.

Compare that post to GM Karidor's post earlier in that same thread:

GM Karidor wrote:

What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account.

Again, that this interpretation was later retracted (thankfully) doesn't change the fact that a Senior GM made and publicly posted it. Nor does the reason why the GM's interpretation was overturned (whether because the GM was that muddled, the rules that unclear, or the new rules changed is interesting, but irrelevant).

But this is all wildly off topic, and I would have thought that the ISDs wouldn't dive into a discussion solely to engage in an off-topic tangent.

Even worse, deleting posts to make it seem as if they never happened. If you delete posts, you should certainly post that you are doing so and why to at least maintain some semblance of transparency. You know, just like every ISD does always (or at least, I hope).


EDIT: Can we get a button to advance to the next GM post already, cause finding that post was annoying.

1) Where is the CSM on fighting on behalf of the players banned (and the community) to ensure guilt-by-association bans were not done as some are claiming occurred? Prove to me the CSM aren't just koolaid drinkers afraid to jeopardize their fanfest tickets...

2) Did any of these bans for "real life harassment" actually involve someone calling the 'victims' real-life phone, cell phone, show up at real life residence or workplace, or take place in the context of their real-life persona? OR, did it all take just place in the gaming context of EvE toons, roleplay and EvE gaming assets?

If it is truly 'real life harassment', wouldn't there be real life criminal mechanisms to pursue that? The fact that CCP doesn't just refer such cases to the legal systems and execute bans based on the outcome of those legal findings is sadly telling, IMHO...

CCP *appears* to be banning people under blanket abstractions of 'real life harassment' announcements, to give them cover for banning people they don't LIKE, while avoiding the 'trouble' of having to defend such accusations in the real world.

(The pansies of EvE then give them additional cover by nodding sagely, as they reflect perhaps on personal past-life real bullying or butthurt angst they experienced...)

The key here though is this. CCP should sack up and ban people because they don't like them or their playstyle, and call it as such. Then, accept the community reaction to that.

Be honest.

If you are going with 'real world harassment' claims though, you should sack up and prove it in the real world...IMHO. Don't want to get into the legal business? Fine, stop calling it 'real life harassment' then, and ban them because you don't like them, and let the community know that.

Done.

F

So you and other people have said.
I have my doubts.