These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

EVE ethics and metagaming - my dissertation - survey responses needed!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
#21 - 2015-03-13 20:07:14 UTC
I did your survey. Yet, I also have some issues with it. On the one hand, you speak about laws as abstract concepts, on the other hand, several of your questions imply a predefined judgement. This leads to places where you put different behaviors into a common set and you ask for a common position on them. I think you only do so, because you use your own values to pre-judge these behaviors. This taints your survey.
You even mix behaviors forbidden by the EULA with such which are legal by the EULA. So, the one reference frame given by EVE is also neglect.

On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid.
Valkin Mordirc
#22 - 2015-03-13 20:14:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
Q 42 Regarding ransoms:

I have always honoured ransoms
I have always dishonoured ransoms
I would honour a ransom
I would dishonour a ransom


You should another tickbox for both, as if I honor or dishonor ransoms is completely up to how I'm feeling at that time


EDIT: completed the Survey. The 80 some odd questions didn't take that long to do in case anybody was worried.
#DeleteTheWeak
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#23 - 2015-03-13 20:26:01 UTC
Question 15 is ridiculous.

Show me where the EULA allows you to intentionally cause someone distress?
21217197
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2015-03-13 20:48:57 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Question 15 is ridiculous.

Show me where the EULA allows you to intentionally cause someone distress?


The poor definition provided for griefing is a common complaint, it'll be one of the things mentioned in the full paper.

I meant a more colloquial use of the term - eg bumping a freighter so it can't warp in highsec for extended periods of time could be considered griefing by the freighter pilot, though is not griefing under the EULA as far as I understand (depending on how you justify it)
Serene Repose
#25 - 2015-03-13 20:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
21217197 wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:

Would that I were your prof. I'd be honing a red pen right now.

Oh! Criminal Psychology! Nevermind.



If you wish to discuss my project further constructively, then I am available, but sniping when you apparently can't bring yourself to click the link seems silly. I wish you good day.

Fixed quoting. ISD Ezwal.
Oh. Sorry. I wasn't being clear. It's not worthy of discussion. Thanks for the offer, such that it is.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
21217197
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2015-03-13 21:02:11 UTC
Altessa Post wrote:
I did your survey. Yet, I also have some issues with it. On the one hand, you speak about laws as abstract concepts, on the other hand, several of your questions imply a predefined judgement. This leads to places where you put different behaviors into a common set and you ask for a common position on them. I think you only do so, because you use your own values to pre-judge these behaviors. This taints your survey.
You even mix behaviors forbidden by the EULA with such which are legal by the EULA. So, the one reference frame given by EVE is also neglect.


Would you mind if I mail you to discuss this further? I'm interested to hear more but want to avoid posting questions from the survey in the thread
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#27 - 2015-03-13 21:15:22 UTC
This thread has been moved to Out of Pod Experience.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2015-03-13 21:15:22 UTC
Some of the questions were a little too open in their scope. "...by any means" to me doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "...by any means necessary".

One means for example, "is there a method by which you would feel comfortable doing a < distasteful thing >"... the other, "...to accomplish < distasteful thing > are you willing to do everything necessary including break the law and or the EULA." Slightly different but impacted my answers significantly.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
21217197
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2015-03-13 21:16:38 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
This thread has been moved to Out of Pod Experience.


Thank you, I pondered over which area it was most appropriate to. Got that one wrong :P
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#30 - 2015-03-13 21:24:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
21217197 wrote:
The poor definition provided for griefing is a common complaint, it'll be one of the things mentioned in the full paper.

I meant a more colloquial use of the term - eg bumping a freighter so it can't warp in highsec for extended periods of time could be considered griefing by the freighter pilot, though is not griefing under the EULA as far as I understand (depending on how you justify it)

Fair enough on what you meant. Clearly though there is a defined policy on grief play. Straying outside that use is obviously going to lead to misunderstanding, especially where the survey doesn't explain that.

It's clear, this survey was written by someone with English as a first language, but delivered to a community comprising many people who have English as a second or third language.

I won't quote all the examples here because you don't want the questions quoted, however use of colloquial english terms like 'shrink from', using double negatives and some of the word choices might be difficult for other people to interpret and understand in the same way that you wrote them.
Erik Kalkoken
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#31 - 2015-03-13 21:28:06 UTC
I like this project and support it !!

Looking forward to the results.

Alliance Facebok page - Check out my blog - Find me on zKillboard
21217197
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2015-03-13 21:28:49 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
21217197 wrote:
The poor definition provided for griefing is a common complaint, it'll be one of the things mentioned in the full paper.

I meant a more colloquial use of the term - eg bumping a freighter so it can't warp in highsec for extended periods of time could be considered griefing by the freighter pilot, though is not griefing under the EULA as far as I understand (depending on how you justify it)

Fair enough on what you meant. Clearly though there is a defined policy on grief play. Straying outside that use is obviously going to lead to misunderstanding, especially where the survey doesn't explain that.

It's clear, this survey was written by someone with English as a first language, but delivered to a community comprising many people who have English as a second or third language.

I won't quote all the examples here because you don't want the questions quoted, however use of colloquial english terms like 'shrink from', using double negatives and some of the word choices might be difficult for other people to interpret and understand in the same way that you wrote them.



Indeed, the sample is going to be skewed entirely towards those that speak English, which is unfortunate. Were it not for the pressing matter of time constraints I'd have attempted to have it translated into a few other popular languages. Ideally it would have been expressed in terms of griefing (breaking the EULA) and griefing (without breaking the EULA), which is admittedly harder to define.
Francis Inch
Kador Defence Initiative
#33 - 2015-03-13 21:29:25 UTC
21217197 wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Question 15 is ridiculous.

Show me where the EULA allows you to intentionally cause someone distress?


The poor definition provided for griefing is a common complaint, it'll be one of the things mentioned in the full paper.

I meant a more colloquial use of the term - eg bumping a freighter so it can't warp in highsec for extended periods of time could be considered griefing by the freighter pilot, though is not griefing under the EULA as far as I understand (depending on how you justify it)



I would argue that people only complain griefing is poorly defined when they want to do something they know would cause harm or distress to the player not the character. It's used by players to justify why they sometimes act like complete tools.

I would also like to note there are some questions I found difficult to answer because I did not feel they were clearly worded.

For example, with a stolen POS password.

If it is stolen by spying as a member of the group - this is permitted and I believe it is acceptable.

If it is stolen by accounting hacking, keylogger or other genuine real life act of theft or computer misuse, I do not believe this is acceptable.

The lines are more clearly drawn in your later questions, but something that I found harder to read your intent in the questions around the middle of the survey.
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2015-03-13 22:08:23 UTC
You should invite Goons, and the entire C&P community to participate, for more flavour.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
21217197
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2015-03-13 22:11:42 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
You should invite Goons, and the entire C&P community to participate, for more flavour.


Goons are more than welcome, and readily invited to take part :)
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2015-03-13 22:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Amyclas Amatin
Lumping Plex price manipulation with RMT... what!

I do see the two as entirely different.

Also mixing up positive and negative statements one after another could lead to some false answers.



Cripes:

68) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

How many negatives do you really need in one statement? "Do not do what you do not want" wtf is this ****?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
21217197
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2015-03-13 22:23:39 UTC  |  Edited by: 21217197
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Lumping Plex price manipulation with RMT... what!

I do see the two as entirely different.

Also mixing up positive and negative statements one after another could lead to some false answers.



They formed a short section of actions that had financial motivations.

By positive/negative statements you mean

"One should blah blah"

followed by

"One should not blah blah"?

If so, this was done to avoid giving the impression that there is a right or wrong answer. Beginning every question/statement positively could be viewed as leading

That last quote is the fault of Richard Dawkins :p
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2015-03-13 22:27:19 UTC
Well, goons would do organized scamming, price manipulations, but murder their own if they were found botting or selling isk.

We love the game and the freedom it gives us. We want to ruin YOUR game, not the game itself. No one wants to play a bad game. It would be a terrible game if botting or isk selling were rampant. Or if some very vague out-of-game lines were crossed.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#39 - 2015-03-13 22:31:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
21217197 wrote:
Indeed, the sample is going to be skewed entirely towards those that speak English, which is unfortunate. Were it not for the pressing matter of time constraints I'd have attempted to have it translated into a few other popular languages. Ideally it would have been expressed in terms of griefing (breaking the EULA) and griefing (without breaking the EULA), which is admittedly harder to define.

Translation isn't necessarily required and often just creates more work.

Using formal, plain English is often enough.

When people learn a second language, it starts as formal language and often stops there unless they have the opportunity to practice often, where conversational language gets picked up very quickly. Colloquial language takes a long time and technical language applies only in specific situations.

So just writing questions in formal, plain English will be much easier to understand by people who have ESL, even if they don't regularly speak English.
Josef Djugashvilis
#40 - 2015-03-13 23:21:07 UTC
Kamahl Daikun wrote:
Pretty neat questionnaire.
I feel like some of the questions should have a neutral option, however.


This ^^^

This is not a signature.
Previous page123Next page