EVE General Discussion

Why do you need to be told and others do not?

Why can't you answer the question?

Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies.
Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite).
Because if the question can't be answered, then the entire rule is useless.

Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with.

So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies?

Why can't you answer the question?

We don't need what we can do defined. We need who we can do it to.

And we need it so defined because Vaguness has long been held to be a terrible thing in the rule of law.

Both in Europe:
"Legal certainty is a principle in national and international law which holds that the law must provide those subject to it with the ability to regulate their conduct. Legal certainty is internationally recognised as a central requirement for the rule of law."
And the US:
"Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague. In general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed."

Again, define "rookie."

We've offered definitions. They're very sensitive, but they lack specificity and would result in a fairly draconian set of rules in rookie systems.

Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo?

I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it.

It is like telling a boy not to hit his sister. So he kicks his sister instead then complains that the rule wasnt specific enough when the parents spanks ( bans ) him.

I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior.

Of course not. So what's the good of having a rule that doesn't provide any kind of enforceable limitations and no guidelines for when it's actually applicable?

By the way, you didn't comment on that rookie example: would you consider it illegal to blow up a rookie with 25bn ISK worth of tech in his cargo hold?

Because otherwise, it will be exploited and fail to serve its purpose.
Because otherwise, it will limit legitimate gameplay.
Because otherwise, it becomes almost completely useless.

We're straying into nirvana fallacy territory here, but that's just it: why construct a rule that is begging for that fallacy (and the opaque and/or unenforceable nature of any attempt to avoid the fallacy) when you could simply construct a rule that doesn't use those kinds of fuzzy and subjective definitions and still achieved the same goal?

And as Ruby keeps pointing out: it's not the behaviour that needs to be controlled — it's the context of that behaviour, without which any control, specific or otherwise, becomes meaningless.

So you want them to discriminate against rookies based on reasons we are not privy to and let us kill some rookies but not others, and you want them to include vets under the rookie protection umbrella because the rules are so opaque as to force people not to attack those vets.

Yeah, that seems reasonable compared to a rule that doesn't require anyone on either side of the fence to have to worry about what is and what isn't a rookie…

Whether you mean that or not, it's the situation the rules create, and if you do want to leave it as it is then fine — just realise what it is you want to leave as it is.

…so you still have absolutely no clue what the problem is then.

Yes, you probably should give up at this point if it's that difficult for you.

By the way, the rule you're asking for exists; it is not in any way relevant to the topic at hand, even as a simile.

So you subscribe to the "Hit the Dog until he heels" method of training. Actually, not even that; that method of training also includes guiding the dog to give it the basic idea. You're suggesting that we be forced to get accounts banned repeatedly until we empirically determine the rules of the game we play. Pissing off many multitudes of newbies in the process.

Good plan.