These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP - Rookie System Rules Clarification

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jack Parr
Kzinti Hegemony
#301 - 2012-06-15 04:19:18 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.



You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income".

It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon."      - The Mittani
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#302 - 2012-06-15 04:20:56 UTC
Jack Parr wrote:
You can't define it.
…and that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#303 - 2012-06-15 04:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Jack Parr wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.



You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income".

It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread.


http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.html

The IRS defines Income very carefully, very sensitively, and very publicly.


Besides that, Income would be the thing we don't mind being loosely defined. "Money" would be the class that we want to have concretely defined.


If you can't define it, you can't protect it.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
InternetSpaceship
State War Academy
Caldari State
#304 - 2012-06-15 04:24:05 UTC
I remember joining GoonSwarm as a day old rookie. The moment I went blue to goons, local erupted, and when i undocked intending to self destruct my pod to podjump to VFK, I was targeted by 6 people and just blown apart. I wasn't even in a newbie ship, it was just my pod.

I knew then I was going to love this game.

Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.

If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.  If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you.
Jack Parr
Kzinti Hegemony
#305 - 2012-06-15 04:24:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jack Parr wrote:
You can't define it.
…and that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.


That's a great idea. Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Let us know how that works out for ya.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon."      - The Mittani
Jack Parr
Kzinti Hegemony
#306 - 2012-06-15 04:27:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Jack Parr wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.



You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income".

It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread.


http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.html

The IRS defines Income very carefully, very sensitively, and very publicly.


Besides that, Income would be the thing we don't mind being loosely defined. "Money" would be the class that we want to have concretely defined.


If you can't define it, you can't protect it.


ROFL. That made me chuckle quite a bit. You don't understand the concept of income.

Keep inflating that post count.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon."      - The Mittani
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#307 - 2012-06-15 04:28:41 UTC
Jack Parr wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jack Parr wrote:
You can't define it.
…and that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.


That's a great idea. Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Let us know how that works out for ya.


You are also being intentionally obtuse.

Your analogy is poor and doesn't fit the case at hand.


Once again, to make a rule that protects a CLASS from certain CONDUCT, you may define the CONDUCT vaguely or specifically, depending on your goals, but assuming your goal is to protect the CLASS, you must define the CLASS well, or the rule will end up hurting members of the CLASS you are trying to protect.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#308 - 2012-06-15 04:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Jack Parr wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Jack Parr wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.



You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income".

It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread.


http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.html

The IRS defines Income very carefully, very sensitively, and very publicly.


Besides that, Income would be the thing we don't mind being loosely defined. "Money" would be the class that we want to have concretely defined.


If you can't define it, you can't protect it.


ROFL. That made me chuckle quite a bit. You don't understand the concept of income.

Keep inflating that post count.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity

I think I have a fair idea of what I'm saying. Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.

Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous.

EDIT: What's a post count, and why do you want to compare them?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#309 - 2012-06-15 04:35:45 UTC
Jack Parr wrote:
That's a great idea.
I know.

Quote:
Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income".
Looks like they defined it quite well. Beyond that, get a better country, because around here, it's pretty thoroughly defined.
Jack Parr
Kzinti Hegemony
#310 - 2012-06-15 04:48:08 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

...Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.

Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous.


It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. It's painfully obvious you are just looking to create loopholes to game the system. I doubt if CCP falls for your sophomoric attempt. I think I'm making you and Tippia mad, so I'll just stop replying after this.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon."      - The Mittani
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#311 - 2012-06-15 04:53:08 UTC
Jack Parr wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

...Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.

Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous.


It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. It's painfully obvious you are just looking to create loopholes to game the system. I doubt if CCP falls for your sophomoric attempt. I think I'm making you and Tippia mad, so I'll just stop replying after this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Read this. Try again.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#312 - 2012-06-15 04:55:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jack Parr wrote:
It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined.
…except, of course, that we are not the ones trying to define anything. We are asking you to define the category of people that needs to be defined in order for the standing rule to work as intended.

Since the consensus is that this cannot be done, we are simply saying that that the rule is inherently flawed both as a control mechanism and as a tool for adjudication.

Your saying that it can't be defined reinforces our point. So thank you for your support.
InternetSpaceship
State War Academy
Caldari State
#313 - 2012-06-15 04:57:36 UTC
I don't see what the problem is here. What he is saying is reasonable. If the devs don't want us messing with rookies, it makes perfect sense that we should have a solid definition of what they consider to be a rookie.

I personally don't really mess with anyone under three months old. Is that a rookie? How can I be sure?

Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.

If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.  If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you.
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#314 - 2012-06-15 05:27:49 UTC
You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what
stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there.
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#315 - 2012-06-15 05:29:39 UTC
Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.

1.
Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.

2.
Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.

That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#316 - 2012-06-15 05:32:46 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what
stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there.


You want to protect a class, define it. You've skipped right over what Tippia and I have said and gone right to impugning our motives.

Here's my set of premises.
1) EvE is a place that allows non-consensual PvP without restrictions
2) Because newbies are new, they should be protected
3) 2 should not compromise 1

This means that it must be made crystal clear WHO is protected and WHERE. The WHAT that they are protected from can be somewhat vague.

Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#317 - 2012-06-15 05:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mrr Woodcock
Kara Books Like a breath of fresh air.

It doesn't need to be crystal clear, this is simply your opinion, nothing more.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#318 - 2012-06-15 05:34:42 UTC
Kara Books wrote:
Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.

1.
Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.

2.
Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.

That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter.


We agree. But you have to tell those players who want to shoot other players which players they're not allowed to shoot.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#319 - 2012-06-15 05:37:21 UTC
And no you don't, it can be implied
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#320 - 2012-06-15 05:39:14 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit?


On the flip side, getting concrete definitions is what you hire lawyers for. Does CCP want to get into space lawyering and trying to nail that slab of jelly to the wall?

How about this: if you want to gank people risk-free, stay out of rookie systems. The definition of rookie needs to be vague otherwise the wannabe gankers will attempt to game the system at the rookie's expense.

Day 0 Advice for New Players