These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#441 - 2012-06-15 21:42:42 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


If defining a "rookie" in an enforceable way is so simple, what's stopping you from doing it?

Here's my proposed enforceable definition of a protected "rookie." "Someone In a Starter System." This is simple, enforceable, and clear to all parties. It has some negative side effects, but it all errs on the side of protecting rookies.

You want to propose something that protects fewer people, define rookie more narrowly. But you're limited to publicly viewable information because we're trying to stop people from shooting rookies in the first place, not just ban them after the rookie's had a negative experience.


Go. Read.


I've been here the entire time. I've read. I've not seen any enforceable definition of rookie come from you.

"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
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#442 - 2012-06-15 21:45:55 UTC
This reminds me of the "define blobbing" discussion on the old forums. I think in the end we discovered that defining blobbing was impossible for game purposes... and we will likely find that true here.

Any definition picked will annoy someone.


For now, outside of Rookie systems (I avoid those for obvious reasons), I will kill/scam anyone I want/can who is more than 30 days old, and if they show a basic understanding of aggro mechanics, I'll kill them even if they are a week old.

Of course... this assumes that I woudl be able to kill anyone. I really do suck at combat.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#443 - 2012-06-15 21:54:19 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
For now, outside of Rookie systems (I avoid those for obvious reasons), I will kill/scam anyone I want/can who is more than 30 days old, and if they show a basic understanding of aggro mechanics, I'll kill them even if they are a week old.
…and that seems entirely reasonable. It doesn't solve the problem though: the rule of thumb you apply might not be the one someone else applies, and theirs might be just as reasonable. This makes the whole thing arbitrary as hell and a poor basis for control and adjudication.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#444 - 2012-06-15 21:54:43 UTC
You all seem to be missing Tippia's point (and maybe I am too but I'll give it a try).

So far every definition of rookie put forth has been terrible. And if it is as impossible to define as the GM said, then it makes for a poor rule.

Vagueness in the action of a rule is fine and workable. Vagueness in the subject is downright dangerous.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#445 - 2012-06-15 22:11:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Pretty much from the get-go. You accused me of wanting to define rookies, when what I wanted to do was not define rookies, because it couldn't be done…


Tippia wrote:
Define “rookie”.


To say a blind man is blind is an accusation now?

Tippia wrote:
The thing is, you never actually answered the question, even when I asked it: how do you break a definition that doesn't exist? You also never explained how to enforce such a non-existing definition.

Quote:
But I did help myself and I've been trying to tell you that for several pages now.
…except that the solution you picked are, by your own admission, not actually useful.



I did answer the question but it wasn't the answer you wanted so you ask again. And you ask again. And you ask again. I can retype the answer but I already know what will happen because it already has happened and it will come to pass again.

And I gave you the reason to that last statement as well but thank you for providing an excellent example of the repeatability of this thread.

Rubyporto wrote:

I've been here the entire time. I've read. I've not seen any enforceable definition of rookie come from you.


Then I can't help you.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#446 - 2012-06-15 22:11:36 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
You all seem to be missing Tippia's point (and maybe I am too but I'll give it a try).

So far every definition of rookie put forth has been terrible. And if it is as impossible to define as the GM said, then it makes for a poor rule.

Vagueness in the action of a rule is fine and workable. Vagueness in the subject is downright dangerous.


I to strongly believe we are nowhere closer to defining anything more then what we had before this topic even started.

I just want the game numbers to grow, Im tired of seeing the same JailCell crowd gonking the newbs, why don't they gank each other somewhere else?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#447 - 2012-06-15 22:20:37 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
To say a blind man is blind is an accusation now?
Did I want to or attempt to define rookies in that quote? No. So yes, saying a seeing man is blind is something of an accusation.

Quote:
I did answer the question but it wasn't the answer you wanted so you ask again.
…because you didn't actually answer the question: how can you break a definition that doesn't exist? How can you enforce such a non-existing definition?

Quote:
I can retype the answer
Please do.

Kara Books wrote:
I to strongly believe we are nowhere closer to defining anything more then what we had before this topic even started.
Nor will we ever get any closer, simply because we can't. That is the entire problem.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#448 - 2012-06-15 22:34:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
To say a blind man is blind is an accusation now?
Did I want to or attempt to define rookies in that quote? No. So yes, saying a seeing man is blind is something of an accusation.


Tippia wrote:
You can easily create a rule that offers the required protection while still being crystal clear and without creating all those exploits and loop holes.


I can do this all day.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
I did answer the question but it wasn't the answer you wanted so you ask again. I can retype the answer
…because you didn't actually answer the question: how can you break a definition that doesn't exist? How can you enforce such a non-existing definition?
Please do.



I already told you, the stupidly extreme scenario is not the one that I was discussing. Would you like me to type it again?

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Widow Cain
#449 - 2012-06-15 22:38:45 UTC
OP Grow a pair and leave the rookies alone, splitting hairs over what is and isn't allowed is lame.

OMG You are sooo pixel macho...
Widow Cain
#450 - 2012-06-15 22:41:05 UTC
Sentinel Smith wrote:
Maxpie wrote:
Why are you sitting in the starter system trying to go up to the line without crossing it? Leave the noobs alone. There will be plenty of time to grief those players later, if that's your thing. Don't make them quit before they get the opportunity to appreciate the game.

The only Noob I, or any of my alts ever killed, was when I was a noob myself.. If I, or my alts want a fight, I make my way to Null and get a real one :)

Why do I live in the starter system ? Cause when I'm docked up I rather enjoy helping rookies out with their questions, giving suggestions, etc.. People were nice enough to help me out when I was starting.. And because a Rookie system is big enough to always have an active local chat, without the crap that goes on at mission and trade hubs.. Plus the system is rather centrality located to where I mission, mine, and hauling to hubs..



Well since I started in Nov, I know what was enforced, and what GM's would say was okay/not okay from the many times they showed up in local.. Give what they said at the time, these are new rules, or at least directly contradict what GM's said was okay over Christmas.
Now as I said, I support stronger rules.. a lot of crap was done in Rookie systems "legally".. But I think it's important that the rules get spelled out.


lol, OMG, you L I V E in a rookies system.

And you admitted it in public? Big smile

OMG You are sooo pixel macho...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#451 - 2012-06-15 22:42:09 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
I can do this all day.
Do what? Show quotes where I'm not trying to define rookies? Yes, you've done well with that so far.

Quote:
I already told you, the stupidly extreme scenario is not the one that I was discussing.
Yeeeeees…? And that answers the questions of how to break a definition that doesn't exist and of how to enforce a non-existing definition, how exactly? Ugh
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#452 - 2012-06-15 23:05:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
I can do this all day.
Do what? Show quotes where I'm not trying to define rookies? Yes, you've done well with that so far.

Quote:
I already told you, the stupidly extreme scenario is not the one that I was discussing.
Yeeeeees…? And that answers the questions of how to break a definition that doesn't exist and of how to enforce a non-existing definition, how exactly? Ugh



I'm not answering a question about a invisible definition that is broken. We do however have an existing definition and the GM has asked us to help her define as to make it slightly better but stupidly...blah blah blah we know the rest.

Full circle once again.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#453 - 2012-06-15 23:21:36 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
I'm not answering a question about a invisible definition that is broken.
Why not?

You're the one claiming that we're trying to break the definition of ‘rookie’. Setting aside for a minute that we're not, the question remains: seeing as how the only common answer is that ‘rookie’ can't be defined (the GMs certainly refuse to do it), how can such a definition be broken — it doesn't exist? So how can you claim that we're trying to break this definition when all we know for certain is that it isn't defined?

Quote:
We do however have an existing definition and the GM has asked us to help her define as to make it slightly better but stupidly.
Actually, no we don't — that's the entire problem. We have no definition and the GMs are not willing to provide one, so we have to make one up using “common sense” to slot into the rule the GMs have provided… except that this provides no guidance for how they will interpret the rule and how we can and should act in accordance with it. They are also not asking us to define anything, but rather to provide a policy that protects rookies. This can be done without having to define rookies as a group, as we have shown, thus eliminating that entire problem.

Quote:
Full circle once again.
…because you can't answer simple questions and keep tossing out red herrings (and just general falsehoods) left right and centre. So we keep dragging you, kicking and screaming, back onto the topic at hand. If you don't want to discuss the topic, just stay away — your fallacies are quite useless.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#454 - 2012-06-15 23:24:40 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The Rookie Protection rule says it's illegal to mess with Rookies* in starter systems**.

*intentionally vaguely defined.
**Needs to be defined.


The protection from loopholes is in the "mess with Rookies" part. The protection from confusion is in the definition of "starter system"


Fixed that for you.


The current rule is that you cannot mess with Rookies in starter systems. Both parts of the protected class definition must be met to be eligible for protection. You can mess with Non-Rookies in starter systems. You can mess with rookies Outside starter systems.


That's right. Part of the definition is intentionally vague. The other part of the definition is concrete. The part of the rule that is intentionally vague is vague in order to prevent gaming of the rules by people who just want to find out where the line is that they shouldn't cross.

You can't define rookie by age of character, number of skill points, hours logged in or number of login sessions. Any of these do not indicate that a player has been through the tutorials or learned how to fly a ship. By the same token, having less than 1M SP doesn't mean that the player behind the character doesn't know what they're doing: that character could be intentional bait, it could be a disposable cyno alt: it could be anything other than a rookie.

Thus the definition of "rookie" falls to factors outside the qualities that you can perceive in-game, and thus the actual definition of rookie is meaningless to anyone who is not a GM. Attempting to find a definition that suits you as a player while still being useful to rookies and GMs is an exercise in futility: you are chasing an impossible dream.

So settle for the concrete fact that you are at risk of getting banned if you bait players in starter systems. Move your PvP elsewhere. If you must "PvP" in starter systems, be prepared to accept the possibility that the person who bought that hulk mining character has no idea about the rules of the game and has only been playing for a few hours.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#455 - 2012-06-15 23:34:01 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
If you must "PvP" in starter systems, be prepared to accept the possibility that the person who bought that hulk mining character has no idea about the rules of the game and has only been playing for a few hours.


All except for this.
If someone is flying a T2 ship I seriously doubt you will get banned or in trouble by ANY GM.

Sorry but if someone has enough skills to fly a T2 then they should know the game by then.
And if they bought the character, OH well.


EVERYBODY KNOWS
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#456 - 2012-06-15 23:39:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
Full circle once again.
…because you can't answer simple questions and keep tossing out red herrings (and just general falsehoods) left right and centre. So we keep dragging you, kicking and screaming, back onto the topic at hand. If you don't want to discuss the topic, just stay away — your fallacies are quite useless.



I already discussed the topic. I just made a comment today about the fact that I was surprised that a certain scenario was still being tossed around after so many pages which of course leads to the use common sense answer which of course leads to the who's common sense do we use which of course leads to the varying levels of common sense discussion. I never intended to actually post in this thread after that but you kept responding so I decided to go with it and have fun playing last post. I tried to drop a hint with the like a mule reference but that blew right by you twice. I know that nothing I say will get around that wall of yours so I wasn't even trying.

BTW you still never answered the question I askedBig smile

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#457 - 2012-06-15 23:50:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mara Rinn wrote:
Thus the definition of "rookie" falls to factors outside the qualities that you can perceive in-game, and thus the actual definition of rookie is meaningless to anyone who is not a GM. Attempting to find a definition that suits you as a player while still being useful to rookies and GMs is an exercise in futility: you are chasing an impossible dream.

So settle for the concrete fact that you are at risk of getting banned if you bait players in starter systems. Move your PvP elsewhere. If you must "PvP" in starter systems, be prepared to accept the possibility that the person who bought that hulk mining character has no idea about the rules of the game and has only been playing for a few hours.
…and that's pretty much what we're saying: the protection of rookies is actually better served by a rule that doesn't mention rookies at all and that doesn't try to make any kind of distinction like that.

The problem comes when they are now leaning towards applying the same rule outside of the starter systems. That means the concrete part of the rule is gone and all we're left with is the intentionally vague bit — now the entire rule becomes meaningless to anyone who isn't a GM. There is no concrete fact left to settle for.

Moreover, this intentionally vague part is a later development: for a while, it was completely crystal clear since they had answered in petitions that all kinds of “messing with” was out of line in the rookie systems. It's that move from a crystal clear set of people in a crystal clear context from an intentionally vague set of people in any context that is troubling. Going back to the crystal clear version would be far better.

THE L0CK wrote:
I already discussed the topic. I just made a comment today about the fact that I was surprised that a certain scenario was still being tossed around after so many pages
…which isn't the topic. The topic is how to create a rule that protect rookies, and the scenarios you're referring to are illustrations of how easily any rule based on undefinable terms will stray into subjective interpretations and thus becomes useless for control and adjudication purposes.

Quote:
I never intended to actually post in this thread after that but you kept responding so I decided to go with it and have fun playing last post. I tried to drop a hint with the like a mule reference but that blew right by you twice.
That's because I'm actually discussing the topic, unlike you, who are just playing posting games.

Quote:
BTW you still never answered the question I asked
Because you never specified which one when I asked.
Barbelo Valentinian
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#458 - 2012-06-15 23:53:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
We have no definition and the GMs are not willing to provide one, so we have to make one up using “common sense” to slot into the rule the GMs have provided… except that this provides no guidance for how they will interpret the rule and how we can and should act in accordance with it.


But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense?
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#459 - 2012-06-15 23:59:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
[
THE L0CK wrote:
I already discussed the topic. I just made a comment today about the fact that I was surprised that a certain scenario was still being tossed around after so many pages
…which isn't the topic. The topic is how to create a rule that protect rookies, and the scenarios you're referring to are illustrations of how easily any rule based on undefinable terms will stray into subjective interpretations and thus becomes useless for control and adjudication purposes.

Quote:
I never intended to actually post in this thread after that but you kept responding so I decided to go with it and have fun playing last post. I tried to drop a hint with the like a mule reference but that blew right by you twice.
That's because I'm actually discussing the topic, unlike you, who are just playing posting games.

Quote:
BTW you still never answered the question I asked
Because you never specified which one when I asked.



I told you, it's back around page 12 or 13. I feel like I've posted this before. As for the other stuff above, yeah, I already discussed that.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#460 - 2012-06-16 00:05:08 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
I told you, it's back around page 12 or 13.
So what was the question?
You never specified one when I asked.

Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense?
Because common sense is not common in either sense of the word, as the conflicting versions of common-sense interpretations in this thread show.