These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

High-sec miner bumping and "griefing" definition

First post First post
Author
87102-6
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-11-20 20:32:22 UTC  |  Edited by: 87102-6
I am sure this topic has come under scrutiny in the past on other forum subsections, but having reviewed eve-search.com I found no proposals or past topics in the Assembly Hall pertaining to this subject. I did look quite thoroughly, and the only (extremely remote) topics I have seen brought up were the following (and do seem indirectly relevant):

These previous topics/proposals were with regards to unrelated subjects, but both contain points that relate to the subject I'm about to discuss: miner bumping.

Preface

There is presently a dedicated number of players who are, in character, following a "belief system" called the "New Order" (no relation to Joy Division, much to my disappointment), herein referred to as NO, proposed and enforced by a single player (James 315), but with many independent "followers". Activities have historically been specific to Halaima, but have now expanded to Abudban (which is how/where I became I aware of the practise), lasting for multiple hours multiple times a day.

Socially this manifests itself as multiple characters going into a single system and proceeding to bombard Local chat with demands, mandating short response time limits (usually between 30 seconds and 3 minutes) before "bumping" a miner up to 100km in distance. Demands require requestee to send 10M ISK to the requester else be bumped. Failure to comply can result in potentially more severe action (see code).

The official "code" is here. Please read carefully, and "between the lines" (if you know what I mean): http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html

The act of bumping is defined as being predominantly used as a combat-focused manoeuvre. It is not defined as being used for social malevolence relating to mining. That malevolence is what has driven me to Assembly Hall.

Issues

  • Behaviour and model lacks centralised corporation that manages this operation, making it impossible for players to deal with it in the same way they would historic/classic griefing.
  • Socially and through conduct is portrayed as "affecting only AFK miners or bots", however in practise this is not the case, i.e. players are bumped regardless if AFK or not.
  • Amount of time given to respond in Local chat makes assumptions that every player is watching Local chat at all times, which is an unreasonable demand. Does not take into consideration that some players have health issues (such as myself) or physical disabilities that do often require them to step away from the keyboard for 5-10 minutes at a time. (Ed. op. I will admit I tend to dock if this is needed, but given my health condition sometimes I do not have time to do that).
  • Enforcement method assumes all players speak English. Followers enforcing NO regulations (from what I have seen) only speak English. Common languages in EVE (which I have seen) are English, Russian, Norwegian, Swedish, Japanese, and Korean. Thus I worry such acts could convey harassment.
  • NO Code demands miners not use vulgarity while allowing their own followers to do so; vulgarity is both permitted (to some degree) per CCP EULA Section (2)(d), while simultaneously not permitted per Section (6)(a)(5).
  • Driving force behind movement so far appears to be unknown/unstated. Terms such as "profit" are socially used, which is bizarre behaviour for a dog-eat-dog game such as EVE (i.e. why would multiple characters give 10M ISK to another single character?). (Ed. op: I am left with the impression there is no profit, and that this is done purely for entertainment / "for teh lulz").

CCP Involvement Complexity

The current defence mechanism used to justify NO code is a result of a few posts from CCP employees who declared that certain behaviours were considered legitimate:

WRT the last two URLs, I'm worried this begins to establish something bordering on the CCP employee t20 + BoB incident back in 2006, just in a different way.

The statement given by CCP Falcon uses the term "bumping" in combat-oriented context, not mining. Furthermore, it states "... the people that are doing this for the best part are in player corporations ..." (implying declarations of war could be performed), which is not the case with NO followers.

Proposal

I am looking for one or more CSMs to endorse this proposal, solely with the intention of having a very verbose and documented discussion with CCP about this matter. While I appreciate EVE's open-ended player-oriented nature, this type of behaviour borders on harassment given the above.

To make it clear: I am not requesting or endorcing "miner nerfing" (I want no such thing!). What I want is an official CCP statement, from someone high up (I'm looking at you Hilmar), as to whether or not this behaviour is truly considered permissible. I ask CCP kindly: think about the big picture before answering.
Toran Farol
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-11-20 23:37:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Toran Farol
As enchanted as I am with this devious use of a shaky in-game mechanic, The NO groupies need to shape up a little, havign gone through their "CODE" which apparently is still a WIP, and therefore may require some epic retconning , a few things irk me.

"Since the Code is a living, breathing document, it's not possible to fully enumerate all of the rules. But here are some examples of the rules, to help everyone get a sense of its spirit:"

So you have rules, but you're not going to share them, how can a) your followers, or b) those who pay your tithe know when they do or do not break it? We're not playing poker gents and ladies.

"Prejudice toward minorities is not permitted. For the sake of clarity, this cannot apply to all groups claiming minority status, but only discrete and insular minorities, which are defined as suicide gankers, Goons, and others who oppose highsec mining."

So those with nothing better to do that throw away ships and fits are fine, but non-English speakers are fair game? I do believe that constitutes racial discrimination, a simple fix is to add a page to minerbumping.com with some copypasta in variosu languages for your ravenous horde to hurl around in local; you ever know, they might even learn some new languages in the process.

Moreover this could be considered an act of sociological racism too.

Also, from the EVE site:

"A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making others’ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. "

found here

Which can be span so many ways, but can be considered to cover the acts of the NO. They try to extort isk from characters, and then proceed to bump the characters ship out of range if they do not pay.

Of course the mighty CCP whom have furnished us with the EVE verse have also fernisshed themselves with ' At our discretion'. Yay for case by case basis.

By all means bump away, especially those bloody bots. Although I'm not sure a few dozen people will have as big an effect on the minerals market / gold shop alts, as you would like; just make sure you cover your asses in the process.

As amusing as it would be to see your empire come down around your ears because one of your enforcers inadvertently hurled a profanity at someone writing in cyrillic, EVE is about emergent gameplay, and as long as the bumping mechanic is not considerd an exploit in this case, here are some counter-bumping mechanics the miners can use in retalliation.

o/

all I ask for is a bait ship, and a blob to sail her into!

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#3 - 2012-11-21 11:43:27 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Did you miss the posts where CCP employees explicitly stated the New Order is absolutely in the right, is not considered griefing and petitions and the like complaining about it are invalid?

Edit: Sorry, missed the bit where you actually did mention those posts.

However, you seem to misrepresent a few things. You state that CCP only gave legitimacy to bumping in the context of combat, not mining. Last time I checked, mining barges were not immune from combat. They, like any other ship, may be involved in combat. Additionally, there are many ways to engage in player-vs-player activities - all of which are valid. Employing bumping in these activities (and not just in shooty shooty combat) is also valid.

Secondly, you state that CCPs statements about the vast majority of bumpers being in player corps is incorrect. I think the devs know the statistics on this better than you, and since you didn't provide any evidence at all to even attempt to support your claim...
Temmu Guerra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-11-21 14:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Edit: Rule 24 - Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#5 - 2012-11-21 15:00:42 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
87102-6 wrote:
The act of bumping is defined as being predominantly used as a combat-focused manoeuvre. It is not defined as being used for social malevolence relating to mining.


Edit: Rule 24 - Off-topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

Invalid signature format

Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#6 - 2012-11-21 17:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
87102-6 wrote:
Behaviour and model lacks centralised corporation that manages this operation, making it impossible for players to deal with it in the same way they would historic/classic griefing.

Edit - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

Quote:
Socially and through conduct is portrayed as "affecting only AFK miners or bots", however in practise this is not the case, i.e. players are bumped regardless if AFK or not.

Edit - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

Quote:
Amount of time given to respond in Local chat makes assumptions that every player is watching Local chat at all times, which is an unreasonable demand. Does not take into consideration that some players have health issues (such as myself) or physical disabilities that do often require them to step away from the keyboard for 5-10 minutes at a time.

Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

[quote]NO Code demands miners not use vulgarity while allowing their own followers to do so; vulgarity is both permitted per [url=http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.asp]CCP
Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

[quote]as to whether or not this behaviour is truly considered permissible.[/quote
Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword

Nevryn Takis
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-11-21 17:45:20 UTC
Temmu Guerra wrote:
Oh look another one of these threads.

Yes and until CCP makes bumping an aggressive act that starts an agression timer so the bumper can be retaliated against without the bumpee getting Concorded they will keep appearing.
This tactic is an exploit as there is no defense against it .. even in the context of Goons bumping freighters in the same way. The escorts have no recouse against the agressors as there is no act of aggression.
And the undock situation can be resolved exceedingly easisly by ignoring any bumping that occurs between ships with undock timers (say that run for 30s after undock).
Note - there is no mention here of any Concord response to bumping. It's not required. Bumping is an act of agression and should be treated as such.
87102-6
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-11-21 19:27:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Lykouleon wrote:
Quote:
NO Code demands miners not use vulgarity while allowing their own followers to do so; vulgarity is both permitted per CCP EULA Section (6)(a)(5), and not permitted per CCP EULA Section (2)(d).

You've misread § 6 (a)(5) to the point that I don't even believe you actually read it.

Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
Anslo
Scope Works
#9 - 2012-11-21 19:43:59 UTC
Nice analysis. You've laid out your argument rather well, and I agree with you on all points. Sadly though, it seems CCP won't be doing anything until there' more outcry against bumping than there is for. If you really want to get this looked at by CCP, you'd need to get any affected miner looking at this thread and commenting on it. Otherwise, you'll just have an influx of goons/pro bumpers coming in and saying "deal with it" and tossing around broad accusations that all miners are afk all the time while touting around miner hate like a new form of racism.

P.S. thanks for the shout out to proveldtariat.wordpress.com !Smile

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#10 - 2012-11-21 20:01:29 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Edit quote for containing off-topic posting - ISD Tyrozan
Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword

87102-6
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-11-21 20:03:01 UTC  |  Edited by: 87102-6
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
However, you seem to misrepresent a few things. You state that CCP only gave legitimacy to bumping in the context of combat, not mining. Last time I checked, mining barges were not immune from combat. They, like any other ship, may be involved in combat. Additionally, there are many ways to engage in player-vs-player activities - all of which are valid. Employing bumping in these activities (and not just in shooty shooty combat) is also valid.


The existing definition of "bumping", per official EVE Wiki, only discusses bumping as a methodology used as a combat tactic. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you're completely right, mining barges are not immune from combat. But that's a straw man argument of sorts for two reasons: 1) nobody I've ever seen treats a mining barge as a combat ship -- and that isn't what the miners in these systems are doing, and 2) (more importantly) "combat miners" are not the demographic NO is focused on. NO is focused on miners who sit in mining belts mining quietly -- no act of aggression (socially or technically) are being solicited by the majority of the miners being bumped (and if they do get aggressive, it's a result of the unsolicited bumping).

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Secondly, you state that CCPs statements about the vast majority of bumpers being in player corps is incorrect. I think the devs know the statistics on this better than you, and since you didn't provide any evidence at all to even attempt to support your claim...

I'll try to explain, and end it with 2 questions for you:

CCP Falcon's statement explicitly states, verbatim: "... the people that are doing this for the best part are in player corporations. If you don't like what they're doing, declare war on them so that you can punish them, or pay a merc corp to do so on your behalf if you don't want to fight."

This solution works fine for PvP-centric operations or situations (I want to say "low-sec or null-sec" but that isn't completely accurate); situations where you have corporations or a few corporations going up against players of a corporation or a few corporations. So yes, in that situation, that "punishment" works. No argument.

This isn't the situation with NO. With NO, there is no centralised corporation or "pairs or sets" of corporations endorsing it -- all NO members are in separate corporations, and are acting on their own behalf. If you are a miner being repeatedly bumped by 8-10 players for (quoting NO folks) "refusing to show your mining permit", one cannot accomplish what CCP Falcon proposes as a solution. It just won't work, not on this scale anyway. It would be different if all the NO members were in some centralised corporation that James 315 ran -- in that case yes, CCP Falcon's recommendation would work just fine. But that isn't the case. This is a situation where multiple players are presenting themselves independently, except en masse, "on behalf of" (so-to-speak) a single character (James 315). Hell, James 315 is in (maybe was in? I really don't care to look him up) an NPC corp himself (and there was an official NO FAQ item about that fact, but it has since been removed). All of this is why CCP Falcon's recommendation isn't plausible for this situation.

I guess one workaround would be to put a bounty on the individual's heads. Sure, that might work, but the risks of that (for the miner) greatly outweigh the benefits (in this specific situation), would you not agree?

So when you say things like "I think the devs know the demographic better", my response would be to smile and say "No, I don't really think they do, at least not for a situation like this. This one is quite different."

My question for you is this: regarding "providing evidence of my claim", which claim is it you'd like me to provide evidence of? The fact that all the characters involved are in separate corporations? How would I do that; a large index of screenshots of Info tabs for every bumper? You can get a list of the common ones (that I've seen anyway) by looking at list of "Supporters" on the left of the minerbumping.com home page. Or maybe chat logs with the names of every character? If not that claim, which claim? And to whichever claim that is: how would you like me to provide that evidence?
87102-6
Doomheim
#12 - 2012-11-21 20:18:14 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Lykouleon wrote:
6(a)(5) states that naughty language and images are not permitted; 2(d) only states that, because EVE is an MMO and CCP can't be expected to monitor all our communications 24/7, bad language and naughty images MAY be presented. It does not permit it, it simple states that it MIGHT happen despite CCP's best efforts, and acceptance of the EULA means you understand that people use big-boy, mean words and post boobie pictures.

Yup, understood completely. So then circling back to my OP, would you care to explain to me how this fits into the picture?

Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#13 - 2012-11-21 22:53:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-11-22 12:53:28 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

#4.) Don't post some chickenshit Assembly hall thread hoping that CCP will bumping your exhumer against the rules. Man up and protect yourself.... either by moving your operation to a new system, paying the extortioners, or finding a way to fight back....

Please provide a method of fighting back that doesn't involve the miner or any supporting fleet from getting Concorded..
You've already acknowledged that they're hdiing behind the inability to wardec an NPC corp and I can't see CCP changing that mechanic.
Nobody is asking to make bumping exhumers against the rules ...
What we want is the bumping exploit loop hole closed so that deliberate bumping is treated as exactly what it is "a deliberate act of agression"
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#15 - 2012-11-22 13:52:13 UTC
If CCP changed the bump mechanic to take into account the mass of the ships it would help this problem.

Bigger ships move slower and are harder to keep bumping.

Small ships would bounce off a good distance due to mass difference.

With no defense or counter to this action, I agree that this level and type of bumping is considered griefing and should be treated as such by CCP and other players.

Even have a CONCORD tackler show up and lock you down for 5 minutes after detecting more than 3 bumps per minute. Add the new suspect flag at the same time so if you want to play bump games you are stuck and suspect at the same time.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#16 - 2012-11-22 19:41:22 UTC
Nevryn Takis wrote:
Please provide a method of fighting back that doesn't involve the miner or any supporting fleet from getting Concorded.

Orbit the asteroid/ice block at close range... or squeeze yourself into a tight cluster of rocks/iceblocks so the bumper doesn't have a clear run at you... or watch the bumpers and move right as he/she gets up to speed.

It's not rocket science. I have been doing this on my alt and have been having few problems over in Abudban.
James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#17 - 2012-11-22 19:46:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
@ OP

After careful consideration, I've decided not to endorse your proposal.

Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#18 - 2012-11-22 20:14:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Edit: Off topic quote deleted - ISD Tyrozan
Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#19 - 2012-11-22 20:42:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
I'll attempt to answer some of your questions on the matter.

87102-6 wrote:

  • Behaviour and model lacks centralised corporation that manages this operation, making it impossible for players to deal with it in the same way they would historic/classic griefing.
Sure they can deal with it in exactly the same way; wardecs. It just costs more for them if they want to wardec us all in one go. Sorry for not lining up like cardboard ducks on a shooting range, but that's a perfectly legitimate way of playing; we forgo the benefits of all being in the same corp in exchange for the benefits of all being in different corps.

87102-6 wrote:
  • Socially and through conduct is portrayed as "affecting only AFK miners or bots", however in practice this is not the case, i.e. players are bumped regardless if AFK or not.
  • Amount of time given to respond in Local chat makes assumptions that every player is watching Local chat at all times, which is an unreasonable demand. Does not take into consideration that some players have health issues (such as myself) or physical disabilities that do often require them to step away from the keyboard for 5-10 minutes at a time. (Ed. op. I will admit I tend to dock if this is needed, but given my health condition sometimes I do not have time to do that).
Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

87102-6 wrote:
  • Enforcement method assumes all players speak English. Followers enforcing NO regulations (from what I have seen) only speak English. Common languages in EVE (which I have seen) are English, Russian, Norwegian, Swedish, Japanese, and Korean. Thus I worry such acts could convey harassment.
Edit: - Rule 24 - Off topic posting prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

87102-6 wrote:
I answered this above.

87102-6 wrote:
  • Driving force behind movement so far appears to be unknown/unstated. Terms such as "profit" are socially used, which is bizarre behaviour for a dog-eat-dog game such as EVE (i.e. why would multiple characters give 10M ISK to another single character?). (Ed. op: I am left with the impression there is no profit, and that this is done purely for entertainment / "for teh lulz").

Yeah, but again; this doesn't concern CCP or the CSM or whatever. Why we're doing it is up to us, except for the slightly wobbly provision in the EULA that griefing constitutes repeatedly targeting someone without a profit motive - which we do have.
87102-6
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-11-23 05:35:09 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
I'll attempt to answer some of your questions on the matter.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. Some of your answers I understand (this does not mean I am in agreement with them, just that I see the logic/thought process involved), while some others are very slyly/cleverly worded (similar to how the Code is written; I'm trying to keep it terse in my reply here). Likewise I also appreciate James 315 dropping by (hello!).

Rather than continue to go back and forth with rebuttals and make this thread an endless void of arguments (I have already made my statements in my initial post and those are what I am sticking to), I'll instead let players decide via the standard method of voting, so that a CSM can pick the proposal and bring it to CCP. No, I'm not stepping out of the ring or putting my tail between my legs -- I would rather let the existing Assembly Hall system work how it's designed. Sadly most players don't know about Assembly Hall, and that's a problem I can't solve easily. :(

I've had a couple private messages in-game, and one EVE Mail, from players somewhat confused by what it is I'm trying to accomplish here (and more weren't sure how to vote in favour, or abstain for that matter). So I'll rephrase/recap -- and this is for folks on both sides:

The point of my proposition is to gain CSM endorsement so that the matter can be brought to executive level attention at CCP. This is significantly different than a CCP developer making a remark that is interpreted by some as "it's perfectly fine"; this situation is different that bumping used in combat-oriented situations. In effect my proposal is to go above the heads of the devs and go straight to the executive level.

I do not want mining ships or aspects involving mining "nerfed" in any way -- I do not think that is the right way to go about addressing this issue. This issue is a social problem, not a technical problem. I do not like solving social problems with technical methods. I will admit that some of the technical solutions I've read sound interesting (such as a bump aggression timer), but I don't think those will put a damper on this.

If Hilmar and crew issue a statement that what is transpiring in-game is in fact permissible per EULA/TOS, then that's that -- no tears, no sad panda, no whining, just pure acceptance (at least on my part). At least I gave it a shot, even if it fails. On the other hand, if Hilmar and crew issue a statement that what's transpiring is a form of harassment, then the risks for New Order "Agents" and those engaging in said behaviour instantly become extremely high (and as bizarre as it may sound, I worry for the people whose accounts could be impacted by that).

Given that the New Order insists their behaviour is permitted within EULA/TOS, I am surprised that key NO members like James don't endorse my proposal. What have you got to lose by doing so? If you're in the right -- as you say you are -- then NO has everything to gain since CCP would "rule" in your favour, and the miners would have everything to lose. Please do not say "because there's no need, it's already been endorsed [by CCP Falcon]" or something to the effect of "if it were a problem, CCP would already have done something about it" -- those are pure, classic straw man arguments.
123Next pageLast page