These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Crimes for Unposted Policies?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#121 - 2012-06-13 02:18:04 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Just to repeat myself, yet again, I am making nothing up.
Ok. let's repeat what you said:

“THIS GUY GOT HIS BAN/WARNING FOR SCREWING WITH ROOKIES.”

Made up. The quote you keep using is as irrelevant as the first time you posted it because it only applies to your made-up case. The quote answers nothing. Repeating it answers nothing — it just shows you've not understood what the question is.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#122 - 2012-06-13 02:18:06 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
I just want to know whether or not CCP is officialy calling the SOE Epic Arc Systems rookie systems. The warnings/bans I originally spoke of specifically mentioned that they were for griefing in a rookie system, and that the event took place in Arnon. Specifically, the warnings were issued for griefing non-rookies in the epic arc systems, not for killing 2 week-old rookies.

Hunting week old characters is not worth anyone's time, and is not the point of the post. The problem is that the rookie system rule prevents me from killing the several month old dumbass flying a vindicator. CCP needs to clarify if these systems are now protected by the 'rookie-griefing' blanket ruling that prevents all non-war based pvp in those systems.



Strange that you say hunting rookies is not worth anyone's time. Considering the guy you killed 3 times in a row is only ten days old. Kinda makes people not believe anything else that comes out of your mouth.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#123 - 2012-06-13 02:19:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Just to repeat myself, yet again, I am making nothing up.
Ok. let's repeat what you said:

“THIS GUY GOT HIS BAN/WARNING FOR SCREWING WITH ROOKIES.”

Made up. The quote you keep using is as irrelevant as the first time you posted it because it only applies to your made-up case. The quote answers nothing. Repeating it answers nothing — it just shows you've not understood what the question is.


And if you had bothered doing any background research in to this guy you would clearly see what so many others have. The guy likes to hunt rookies. It really doesn't take a genius grade intellect to work out what he got his ban/warning for. Honestly, I am disappointed in you Tippia, I thought you were above **** posting.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#124 - 2012-06-13 02:21:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
And if you had bothered doing any background research in to this guy
…it would still not make your “fact” any less made up. You're trying to answer a question that is not being asked because you assume that this answer will be the right one based on a completely different assumption about the facts of the case.

The actual question being asked is whether the rookie-system rules has been expanded to include a whole new set of systems, and your precious quote doesn't answer this.

Quote:
Honestly, I am disappointed in you Tippia, I thought you were above **** posting.
Tough break. I am indeed above making stuff up and then going on a rant against those assumptions. That's why I'm explaining to you that what you're saying is an assumption and that the quote you drag out as a result of this assumption doesn't answer the actual question.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#125 - 2012-06-13 02:25:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
And if you had bothered doing any background research in to this guy
…it would still not make your “fact” any less made up. You're trying to answer a question that is not being asked because you assume that this answer will be the right one based on a completely different assumption about the facts of the case.

The actual question being asked is whether the rookie-system rules has been expanded to include a whole new set of systems, and your precious quote doesn't answer this.



The question is coming from someone who has clearly lied, is most likely still lying and is quite clearly someone who has no problems killing rookies, despite his assertion that they are "not worth anyone's time". Why is it that you automatically believe him when he says that his warning was issued for something unrelated? Wool pulled over eye's much?

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#126 - 2012-06-13 02:27:07 UTC
I really like arguing with you, its frikken hysterical.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#127 - 2012-06-13 02:27:43 UTC
Tah'ris Khlador wrote:
So warnings and temp bans are being issued for doing anything with cans or the SOE Epic Arcs now, but as far as I've seen, nothing has been posted. If someone has a link for the updated policies, I'd appreciate it. I wouldn't want to get banned for rules that CCP are making up, enforcing, and not making public.

Can we get an official list of your new classification for "rookie systems" since the GMs are now responding to can baiting in places like Arnon (0.6), Hek (0.5), and other parts of the Epic Arc chain?


if ccp wants to protect new players, then give them a system where noone can go except new players, and don't let other folks in, and warn the new folks with a popup when they try to leave.

period.
'
otherwise, they need to htfu sooner or later, why not sooner?

mamby pamby is the phrase that comes to mind, and I hate that it's associated with EvE

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#128 - 2012-06-13 02:27:52 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
The question is coming from someone who has clearly lied
About what?

More to the point: so what? Don't go for the ad hominem. It's still a question worth asking, and it's still worth a proper answer.
Assuming that a different rule is being applied doesn't answer the question.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#129 - 2012-06-13 02:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
And if you had bothered doing any background research in to this guy
…it would still not make your “fact” any less made up. You're trying to answer a question that is not being asked because you assume that this answer will be the right one based on a completely different assumption about the facts of the case.

The actual question being asked is whether the rookie-system rules has been expanded to include a whole new set of systems, and your precious quote doesn't answer this.

There is no evidence to suggest the rookies systems have been expanded.

There is just an OP who by the looks of it kills a lot of rookie ships, who got a ban that he thinks isn't for killing a rookie. Despite recently killing the same rookie three times in a row in that particular system, not to mention killing pretty much nothing but crappy frigates and noob ships in the system full stop.

I can tell you first hand when you get a warning CCP do not tell you who petitioned you, if OP claims he "knows" it was not a rookie, he is lying.

Unless there is any evidence the rules have changed, the rules haven't changed. OP is just mad so he's forum raging over a warning.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Lord Maagnus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2012-06-13 02:28:08 UTC
Everywhere you go in life, you will meet stupid people. There are those who genuinely lack inteligence (i.e. Children) and those who are ignorant (all other stupid people). Penalizing people for popping noobs is completely ********. While I do not specifically target noobs, I will shoot one if one goes red to me. I will shoot a noob as fast as I would shoot anyone else who is red to me. This being said, there is a warning message when someone does something that could potentially cost them their ship. You get one when you go into low-sec. You get one when you attempt to fire on the station in a high-sec system. You also get one when you open a can and attempt to loot the contents when said contents belong to someone else. How about make that warning message huge. Make it the size of the entire screen in huge capital letters that says, "HEY STUPID. IF YOU TAKE THE CONTENTS OF THIS CAN, YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO POD YOUR ASS BACK TO THE STATION BECAUSE THE OWNER WILL LIKELY KILL YOUR STUPID ASS BECAUSE YOU ULTIMATELY WILL CLOSE THIS WARNING BOX AND ATTEMPT TO LOOT IT ANYWAYS AND THUS LOSE YOUR SHIP TO THE OWNER OF THIS CAN ONLY SO YOU CAN SUPPLY CCP WITH A CONSTANT INFLUX OF PETITIONS FOR YOUR OWN STUPIDITY. "

Then when they loot that **** anyways, there should be another message that pops up after their ship 'splodes saying, "I TOLD YOU SO YOU STUPID F**K. CONGRATULATIONS ON BEING A DUMBASS. NOW DOCK UP IN STATION AND GET YOUR NEW ROOKIE SHIP. HAVE A NICE DAY."

I think this will fix the problem. It makes just as much sense as someone who flies their 1 week old character into low-sec with a mammoth because they want to afk mine in a belt. You can't fix stupid people. Let them be stupid, let me kill them, let us all laugh. There are carebears who will disagree with this and someone will try to flame me for it but ultimately I don't care. I don't play in rookie systems but I do stay in Arnon most of the time. I hope I have pissed some of you off while making others laugh. Really though, I f**king mean it.
Kiteo Hatto
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2012-06-13 02:29:03 UTC
The rules are vague for a reason, its there to tend to special cases, just like this one. GMs get to decide if the guy has griefed rookies CONSTANTLY or not, if they do then they get the banhammer, like the OP.

SOE is the first thing that comes up under agent finder after you do all 5 career agents.


CCP can't have strict 100% crystal clear rules about arnon and no griefing because not only rookies stay there.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#132 - 2012-06-13 02:30:02 UTC
Just remember you two, you are more often on the same side than not.

Just sayin'.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#133 - 2012-06-13 02:32:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
The question is coming from someone who has clearly lied
About what?

More to the point: so what? Don't go for the ad hominem. It's still a question worth asking, and it's still worth a proper answer.
Assuming that a different rule is being applied doesn't answer the question.



This entire thread is based on the word of a liar. He states that he got a specific type of warning for a specific type of action, what I am saying is that he got an entirely different warning for an entirely different type of action. There is more proof of what actually happened, than what he SAYS happened. Thus his question is invalid, and arguing in support of having it answered is an exercise in futility and an example of gross stupidity.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#134 - 2012-06-13 02:33:15 UTC
Lord Maagnus wrote:
Everywhere you go in life, you will meet stupid people. There are those who genuinely lack inteligence (i.e. Children) and those who are ignorant (all other stupid people). Penalizing people for popping noobs is completely ********. While I do not specifically target noobs, I will shoot one if one goes red to me. I will shoot a noob as fast as I would shoot anyone else who is red to me. This being said, there is a warning message when someone does something that could potentially cost them their ship. You get one when you go into low-sec. You get one when you attempt to fire on the station in a high-sec system. You also get one when you open a can and attempt to loot the contents when said contents belong to someone else. How about make that warning message huge. Make it the size of the entire screen in huge capital letters that says, "HEY STUPID. IF YOU TAKE THE CONTENTS OF THIS CAN, YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO POD YOUR ASS BACK TO THE STATION BECAUSE THE OWNER WILL LIKELY KILL YOUR STUPID ASS BECAUSE YOU ULTIMATELY WILL CLOSE THIS WARNING BOX AND ATTEMPT TO LOOT IT ANYWAYS AND THUS LOSE YOUR SHIP TO THE OWNER OF THIS CAN ONLY SO YOU CAN SUPPLY CCP WITH A CONSTANT INFLUX OF PETITIONS FOR YOUR OWN STUPIDITY. "

Then when they loot that **** anyways, there should be another message that pops up after their ship 'splodes saying, "I TOLD YOU SO YOU STUPID F**K. CONGRATULATIONS ON BEING A DUMBASS. NOW DOCK UP IN STATION AND GET YOUR NEW ROOKIE SHIP. HAVE A NICE DAY."

I think this will fix the problem. It makes just as much sense as someone who flies their 1 week old character into low-sec with a mammoth because they want to afk mine in a belt. You can't fix stupid people. Let them be stupid, let me kill them, let us all laugh. There are carebears who will disagree with this and someone will try to flame me for it but ultimately I don't care. I don't play in rookie systems but I do stay in Arnon most of the time. I hope I have pissed some of you off while making others laugh. Really though, I f**king mean it.

Everywhere you go in life, there will be those who cannot use paragraphs.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#135 - 2012-06-13 02:34:21 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
And if you had bothered doing any background research in to this guy
…it would still not make your “fact” any less made up. You're trying to answer a question that is not being asked because you assume that this answer will be the right one based on a completely different assumption about the facts of the case.

The actual question being asked is whether the rookie-system rules has been expanded to include a whole new set of systems, and your precious quote doesn't answer this.



The question is coming from someone who has clearly lied, is most likely still lying and is quite clearly someone who has no problems killing rookies, despite his assertion that they are "not worth anyone's time". Why is it that you automatically believe him when he says that his warning was issued for something unrelated? Wool pulled over eye's much?



There's a difference between hunting newbs, and shooting the red impairor on the undock. You keep implying that I somehow get my ***** and giggles actively killing new players. I get my ***** and giggles killing battleships and battlecruisers and faction ships in a rifter. I am however, not above shooting someone who is red to me, on the undock of a station, while I'm chilling there to begin with.

Also, I am clearly the devil. ♥

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#136 - 2012-06-13 02:34:57 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Just remember you two, you are more often on the same side than not.

Just sayin'.


Yeah I know Ranger, but thank you for saying so. Like I said I do usually agree with Tippia, and even on subjects where I believe the opposite, I can still respect his opinion. However in this instance it seems to me that he has allowed his feelings toward CCP and their rules to blind him to the clear and obvious truth.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#137 - 2012-06-13 02:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Simi Kusoni wrote:
I can tell you first hand when you get a warning CCP do not tell you who petitioned you, if OP claims he "knows" it was not a rookie, he is lying.
He doesn't claim to know that.

He claims that he got a reason and a location, for which that reason does not apply.

Cutter Isaacson wrote:
This entire thread is based on the word of a liar.
What has he lied about? And again, why does it matter for the question being asked? His question is not invalid just because of his history. In fact, his history makes the question very interesting…
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#138 - 2012-06-13 02:35:21 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
The answer: No.
Incorrect. The answer is: we don't know; could the GMs please clarify.

Cutter Isaacson wrote:
The OP did NOT say that he was warned/banned because the systems where the SOE systems are now covered by the rookie system rules, he just wants to know if that IS the case.
Now you're getting it.



Don't cherry pick my posts Tippia, it only serves to make you look inarticulate and incapable of holding up your end of a discussion.


That is however the gist of you, you dumbass.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#139 - 2012-06-13 02:36:13 UTC
Lord Maagnus wrote:
holy wall of text Batman.



What in the actual F?

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#140 - 2012-06-13 02:36:19 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
The question is coming from someone who has clearly lied
About what?

More to the point: so what? Don't go for the ad hominem. It's still a question worth asking, and it's still worth a proper answer.
Assuming that a different rule is being applied doesn't answer the question.



This entire thread is based on the word of a liar. He states that he got a specific type of warning for a specific type of action, what I am saying is that he got an entirely different warning for an entirely different type of action. There is more proof of what actually happened, than what he SAYS happened. Thus his question is invalid, and arguing in support of having it answered is an exercise in futility and an example of gross stupidity.


Regardless of whether or not the OP lied, the GMs should explicitly state whether or not the SOE epic arc systems are covered by the rookie system rule.

I realize that you have trouble understanding this, and you're clinging onto anything you can because your ego will be destroyed by being wrong on the internet, but the question posed by the OP, regardless of whether or not everything in the OP was 100% accurate, needs to be answered.