These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cutout Man
Doomheim
#381 - 2012-06-15 17:38:12 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence


GM Homonoia wrote:
Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible.

1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list.
3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way.
4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded.
5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly.
6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias.
7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game.

The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing.


The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............

too bad you didn't bother to scroll down further in the thread, where the same GM revisits those rules time and again
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#382 - 2012-06-15 17:43:48 UTC
Thread is overall ******** if you ask me.

Is it really that hard to simply stay away from new players and the newbie systems and leave it at that? Or does this whole thread stem from the fact that there is a bunch of players present here who suck so much that you get kicks from blowing newbies up?

Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating.
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#383 - 2012-06-15 17:50:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Simetraz
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.

I was having a frigate duel with a guy and realized within the first few seconds that he was VERY new. I was trying to help him understand how to start the duel when he fired on me without first getting aggression. I thought the duel had started, so I began firing, only to have him suddenly pop when CONCORD shot him.

My point here is that anyone anywhere, even in rookie systems, may accidentally and unintentionally cause grief to a new player. No matter how strongly you believe it is cut and dry, it isn't. The rules should not only be clearly stated, but any changes in what is considered a bannable offense should be announced at startup so everyone can see it.


Can't believe this thread is still going on.
But here is another example why there will never be a hard fast rule.
Like any and all rules and laws, intent plays a big part.

Reaver did not have a intent to kill the newbie.
If anything this was more of a training session, sadly the mistake cost the new player more then just there ship as there standing was also effected.

I seriously doubt the newbie petitioned you and if they did a Nice GM MIGHT have reset the newbies standings and let it go at that as lesson learned depending on how new the character really was.

You can't define hard rules with this stuff cause you can't define every scenario.

The whole reason for a GM to begin with.

The more stringent the rules the less power a GM has to help those in need and go after those who are trying to use the rules to abuse the system.

GM's need room to do there jobs, and yes sometimes that means the wrong person will be punished, but guess what, that is life and you can always escalate if you feel you need too.

EVERYBODY KNOWS
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#384 - 2012-06-15 17:58:44 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............
No. You missed the really important part:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
As part of this, we're pointing out that the whole idea of having a rule that depends on something that cannot and will not be defined will inherently be much worse in a number of ways than a rule that doesn't require those kinds of distinctions.

Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating.
Common sense is the rarest commodity in the universe. Common-sense-based rules have a frightening tendency to fall apart when faced with senseless activities.

In this case, the common-sense approach stumbles by turning a rule that is supposed to protect rookies into a rule that doesn't fully protect rookies, but unduly protects vets…
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#385 - 2012-06-15 18:02:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
[quote=THE L0CK] We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is.



I'd exercise a little discretion when using the word stupid, and GM in the same sentence. Just a friendly piece of advise.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#386 - 2012-06-15 18:08:33 UTC
Mrr Woodcock wrote:
I'd exercise a little discretion when using the word stupid, and GM in the same sentence. Just a friendly piece of advise.
Not needed unless the GMs can't follow a simple sentence and trace the referent of the stupidity in question.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#387 - 2012-06-15 18:12:22 UTC
Cutout Man wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence


GM Homonoia wrote:
Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible.

1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list.
3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way.
4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded.
5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly.
6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias.
7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game.

The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing.


The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............

too bad you didn't bother to scroll down further in the thread, where the same GM revisits those rules time and again



Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there?

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#388 - 2012-06-15 18:13:57 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there?
Yes. You ignored the GM quote.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#389 - 2012-06-15 18:20:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix.
No. We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is.

We're doing exactly what the GMs asked us for. We are also not trying to define what a rookie is — we're asking those who prefer the rule that requires a definition of rookie to do that. They can't. That means the rule is no good.

Simple enough, or do you want to keep wilfully misunderstanding what “no” means?


Exactly what I said, you keep reverting to the stupidly extreme scenario to break the definition of a rookie. We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Sasha Deathcabin Yvormes
The Mistwraith
#390 - 2012-06-15 18:23:57 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Thread is overall ******** if you ask me.

Is it really that hard to simply stay away from new players and the newbie systems and leave it at that? Or does this whole thread stem from the fact that there is a bunch of players present here who suck so much that you get kicks from blowing newbies up?

Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating.



So whats the difference between noobs and miners, or mission runners? How can you exempt one group and not others?
Its a sandbox, take the rough with the smooth, getting blown up is the way we all learnt.
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#391 - 2012-06-15 18:25:36 UTC
Ive read this threed over and over every post

And that fact is ive still got no idea what can and cant be done
I still only know if i break the rules Its my ***

Fact is we need more CCP imput on this issue and i hope thay see that just as clearly as i do
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#392 - 2012-06-15 18:28:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there?
Yes. You ignored the GM quote.


My point is that having said they wouldn't discuss it any further, they then did exactly that.

Clear enough?

EDIT: I think you and a few others need to take a break from posting, its affecting your ability to read.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#393 - 2012-06-15 18:29:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
THE L0CK wrote:
Exactly what I said
No. What you said is that we're trying to defined what a rookie is. We're not.

Quote:
We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages.
…which, along with the inability to define rookies, is why it's not a sound basis for this kind of rule set. It is also completely unnecessary for reaching the same goal.

Cutter Isaacson wrote:
I think you and a few others need to take a break from posting, its affecting your ability to read.
Nah. It's affecting the ability to notice your switch away from the “GM says so, obey!”-stance you've previously tended towards.
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#394 - 2012-06-15 18:31:05 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition


That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while.



But she also said this a few pages later
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#395 - 2012-06-15 18:35:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Exactly what I said
No. What you said is that we're trying to defined what a rookie is. We're not.

Quote:
We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages.
…which, along with the inability to define rookies, is why it's not a sound basis for this kind of rule set. It is also completely unnecessary for reaching the same goal.



pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie, not our fault is some of you continue being the donkey.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#396 - 2012-06-15 18:39:12 UTC
this link deals with can fliping

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Can_Flipping

if you follow the wording all pvp in rookie systems expect for wardes is offlimits

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems


This is the problem this is what need to be cleared up Because the Gm Clearly Said that it isnt True
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#397 - 2012-06-15 18:39:45 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie.
…and others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#398 - 2012-06-15 18:44:28 UTC  |  Edited by: THE L0CK
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie.
…and others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?



The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.

Quote:
This is the problem this is what need to be cleared up Because the Gm Clearly Said that it isnt True


She didn't say it wasn't true. She asked what we could do to improve it verbally as we would have 0 dev hours to improve it technically.

Also, the word excellent is very subjective.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#399 - 2012-06-15 18:51:16 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie.
…and others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?



The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.

Really? Are you sure? Is what's 'Common Sense' to me common to both of us? Common to three parties? More?

Fact: 'Common Sense' isn't common - in the sense of "shared understandings and concepts." A causual glance a this thread will demonstrate that most convincingly. This is why definitions are good - they put everyone in the same place with the same understanding.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#400 - 2012-06-15 18:55:38 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie.
…and others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?



The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.

Really? Are you sure? Is what's 'Common Sense' to me common to both of us? Common to three parties? More?

Fact: 'Common Sense' isn't common - in the sense of "shared understandings and concepts." A causual glance a this thread will demonstrate that most convincingly. This is why definitions are good - they put everyone in the same place with the same understanding.



That's what I already said about 6 posts up. It's like there is an echo in this thread today.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?