Jita Park Speakers Corner

CCP enforcing the rules.

Should they enforce the rules to everyone the same way or should they be easier going on some than on others?

Do you believe that every account/player should be faced with the same consequence or does having a certain reputation or status give more leeway in rule enforcement?

If you say there should be more leeway for more prominent figures or longer term players or whatever, how would that look in your point of vieuw?

If you are for one equal enforcement for everyone then please explain why someone who might have contributed a lot to the game shouldn't get away easier with transgressions than others.

Judge Judy.

Judge Mittani

He is a lawyer afterall.

He can't tell you that - needs the verdict and sentencing before knowing if the confession is worth it.

This sounds suspicious

It's a pretty simple question yet answering it seems to be too hard.

My personal opinion is same rule applies same for everyone. No exceptions, no leeway.
It doesn't matter if you are a few months into the game or if you are Chribba.

Rules can be read by everyone before joining the game and those who haven't read up on them have done so by choice.

Be it they expect to see the same rules as in other MMO's or be it they are just too lazy to read them. The fact remains that when they are available and you don't read up on them then it's by choice.

Therefor not following them is also by choice.

Nowhere in the rules it says that there are special cases for special people, so being milder on some than on others is not an option and wouldn't serve CCP in regards to crowd managing the community.

The fact that some people are much longer in the game does not mean they should be punished harsher or milder in any wway.
Not harsher because they have more gametime and thus being more knowledgeable and not milder because of big contributions to the community.

Only possible leeway in my opinion is for new players.

This however isn't a hallpass but merely a small time gap since knowing the rules takes a bit of time. However obvious transgressions like real life threats, trying to hack the server and such should be met with the harshest repurcussion possible.


As you can see, it's pretty easy and straight forward to answer a simple question on a personal basis.

But it seems to me that dodging the socalled "loaded" questions triggers "evasive maneuvering rank 10" .

The question isn't loaded. It's been made loaded by those who chose not to answer it.

EULA, ToS, ToU and forum policy to be a tad more exact.

I read them plus I read them again after every game update since I have to scroll down and agree with it again.

The question asked wasn't directed at CCP. There can be a whole new thread for that if people are so anxious to see how they respond. However they are not as free in answering as CSM's are since the CSM are only bound to a NDA. CCP employees have a bit different sort of contract. Just so you know.

And a CSM is build upon opinions, if you fail to see that you missed more than you can ever fathom.

You keep failing to see my point.

Being bound to something doesn't mean it represents your personal point of vieuw. And just that I am asking for.

Having a different point of vieuw doesn't mean you act on it.

I am not asking them to break any rules, I am asking for their own personal take on it. Because let's face it. Every country has laws and rules which some people see as ridiculous, outdated or plain wrong, yet they don't break those laws/rules because of their different take on them.

Isn't the whole CSM debate focussed on getting also personal points of vieuw of the candidates? Doesn't it say a bit more about people if they also dare to express their own visions on things considered controversial by some? Be it in line with the ruling crowd or being at a different stance?

One could say that the one who dares to express his or her own point of vieuw which reflects another side than the mainstream is less of a sheep than the rest.
In my own experience the only way to evolve a game but also in real life is to stay open for alternate stances and visions and discuss about them if there are other streams to be considered which can be build on a solid foundation.

I myself are more of a mainstreamer. One of those sheep who hold the rules in high regard.

Yet I am also open for discussion to adjust rules if a new concept is brought forward which has a good backbone and interesting criteria to look at.

Allthough some CSM (candidates) pride themselves being masters at controversy I see no evidence of that.

A simple " All rules apply the same for everyone" , or " in my personal opinion the infractions should be looked upon case by case" would have sufficed.

Yet I see no CSM stating their own personal point of vieuw besides one.

Does this mean the personal opinions are void in the CSM or the playerbase?

Is one not allowed to voice his or her personal opinion, even if it goes against or for the rules?
Being against certain rules or being willing to discuss certain merits which could result in more soft handling of certain players doesn't automaticly mean we also have to act on it.

However in my own personal experience the only way to look and work forward is by also discussing those things which a lot of people don't dare to discuss.
Discussion is the foundation of change.
Change is what makes things evolve.

It doesn't mean everything which gets discussed is also open to change, but the avoidance of discussion does merit other things.
I am not sure however if that what doesn't get discussed out of fear, neglect or whatever reason benefits from it being hushed down.