EVE General Discussion

So how do you define the difference between harassment of a real person and hurt feelings?

Can you provide an example to back up this claim where this line has moved?

This thread.

True on both accounts, my apologies.

Yes, I am have been in the process of cleaning this thread and forgot to post as such as we normally do.

I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. This time I let a lot of edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

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.

12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

Thread re-opened.

See, this is where I disagree. I don't think you need to know the person, in order to attack them out of game. If you remove the question of whose identity it is, then I agree. The points following doxxing, are examples of harassment and in the one case "See Ya Soon" can be be extended as far as threats, and those are clearly a case for the judicial system, and not just a ban in a video game.

Such as: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/29/police-officer-arrested-facebook-trolling

(Incidentally in this case, it's a person who didn't know the victim prior to the trolling, who was found guilty.)




I too agree that laughing at another persons misfortune isn't grounds for harassment.

Though, suppose this completely hypothetical: I invited you onto a VOIP program, insulted you for 6 hours ranging from your nationality to implying the way you talked inferred your sexual orientation, and then uploaded that with the intent to share to others, for them to laugh.

In that hypothetical situation, would you deem them harassing the character, or the person behind it? Should CCP ban me for having met each other on the forums, and escalating it from there?



Whilst I appreciate the sentiment you have, could you post an example of where the line once was and then has moved, in the case of harassment?

Or maybe they're people playing the game as intended who want to make sure they're not breaking the rules.
Stop ascribing spurious motivations to people and then using that as your argument against them. That's like, a combination of ad hominem and strawman.

Ok I'll bite. The Bonus Room itself. Last November CCP was well aware of this scam Erotica 1 was running. We know this because of the public re-awarding of skill points to a "victim" who consented to multiple poddings in an alpha clone while in the Bonus Room, which is documented in public comments on the forums and on the minerbumping website at that time. In March, CCP responded to an outcry raised by a certain blogger and banned Erotica 1 and presumably the Bonus Room for the same behavior.

Sure, you can argue that CCP didn't actively consent or approve of the Bonus Room last November, but by doing nothing when they were well aware of what was going on, they at least implied that this was within the rules. If a player made that interpretation because of CCP's previous tolerance of these scams and refusal to say one way or another their opinion on them despite being asked, they may have joined a subsequent Bonus Room thinking that it was ok. When CCP later decided the Bonus Room was actually harassment, they were now in violation of the EULA.

I think CCP is well within their rights to change their minds or policies on anything, but you should also see how dropping permabans on those who may have been caught out by this effective change in policy isn't exactly fair or reasonable.

I am not trying to troll, if you think that about me because of the posts above, then you're coming in with a pre-misconception of what I'm trying to achieve. I just want to have a rational discussion, so we can see this follow through to a conclusion. When it gets irrational, sadly it becomes cyclical and nothing is achieved. People lose effort in the discussion because of the attacks, and drop the issue altogether.

As for this example, I don't think it relates to a change in harassment policy.

As above, I myself and others have expressed that the actions done to an in game character, are not harassment of the person -- an expression held by people on opposing views of the discussion. I think the difference between those two examples is the harassment, specifically the mocking of a speech impediment on a different individual. I find that relates to a person, and not his character in game.

To make that clear, the consistent pod explosions isn't harassment. It was probable he got reimbursed at the discretion of the GM for personal inexperience. The mocking of a speech impediment, is harassment on the player, as it has nothing to do with the character nor EvE for that matter.

I have no issue with scamming, laughing at some ones in game misfortune, awoxing etc. That hasn't ever been the focus of this discussion, at least to my knowledge. Perhaps some people may have the intent to remove that from the game, but I do not. I have stated why I support that activity before.




It isn't exactly fair or reasonable, you're right. What would you propose in the situation where someone was to do something that general consensus/CCP didn't want, and they introduce a new policy because of it?



Whilst I appreciate the attempt, it's unfortunate that the cleaning removed your examples. There's a lot of context to my quote, as it's following a series of questioning, building upon the latter. It's most probable that you had that in mind when responding, but the clearing has lost the contextual meaning of that chain of reasoning.

Why is that? If I don't know anything beyond the character name, then who I am actually attacking?

If the only interaction between two players can only be defined in terms of their game identities, then so long as the in game interaction is permissible, there is no issue.

Now, the terms of service also forbid sending unsolicited evemails to insult someone, which is an entirely separate clause of in game harassment.

But "real life harassment"? There are not many instances in which this can occur without one party having determined the real life identity of another.




Quite a few of the people agreeing with you think otherwise. There has been more than one post in this thread, and dozens on the EVE subreddit, that suggest that the "winner" of an in game confrontation is not permitted to have any satisfaction from his victory whatsoever, or CCP should ban them.

Those are the people that we are lining up to tell to **** off.




If you stayed for six hours in a voluntary voice chat, you did so of your own free will.

As for insulting nationality, if you're around me and you're Canadian, you've gotten it from me more than once. "You put the duh in Canaduh", and various references to Kraft Dinner and curling. We're all adults, some ribbing is well within bounds, and what is not is already covered under the rules against trolling.