Assembly Hall

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):

• Ways to stop AFK Game play
• Greifers vs CCP, Hulkageddon is winning. Time for CCP to code changes.

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:

• http://www.minerbumping.com/2012/11/ccp-publicly-endorses-miner-bumping.html
• https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2188751#post2188751
• http://www.minerbumping.com/2012/11/shareholder-vote-should-ccp-eterne-and.html
• https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=173341

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.

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...

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.

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 !

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).


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?

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.

@ OP

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

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

I'll attempt to answer some of your questions on the matter.

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.

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

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

I answered this above.


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.