These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Proposal] To make accusations of EULA violations a violation of its own

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#21 - 2013-01-24 01:10:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Whitehound wrote:
what will happen when Goons make it a method to accuse players of EULA violations is that we then have a means to stop you. Or what would be the purpose of Goons going around and threatening to get players banned if not for you to take away the accounts of other players? You would only be trying to get others kicked out of the sandbox. If you do this for joy or if it breaks your heart is really of no relevance.

1. Just because they threaten people with the EULA... doesn't mean that it carries any weight. They are only trying to scare people through their own ignorance... which is a perfectly allowable tactic (though, to be fair, it's a meta-game tactic... not a gameplay thing... but EVE has gained a reputation for blurring the two).

2. You are aware that Goons (or whatever group) will adapt and turn it right back around... right? Instead of threatening you with the EULA they will report you as soon as you mention the EULA and get YOU in trouble. And you'll be back to square one because you haven't changed anyone's core behavior... just the content of it.

How did you Veterans start?
Whitehound
#22 - 2013-01-24 01:35:19 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
what will happen when Goons make it a method to accuse players of EULA violations is that we then have a means to stop you. Or what would be the purpose of Goons going around and threatening to get players banned if not for you to take away the accounts of other players? You would only be trying to get others kicked out of the sandbox. If you do this for joy or if it breaks your heart is really of no relevance.

1. Just because they threaten people with the EULA... doesn't mean that it carries any weight. They are only trying to scare people through their own ignorance... which is a perfectly allowable tactic (though, to be fair, it's a meta-game tactic... not a gameplay thing... but EVE has gained a reputation for blurring the two).

2. You are aware that Goons (or whatever group) will adapt and turn it right back around... right? Instead of threatening you with the EULA they will report you as soon as you mention the EULA and get YOU in trouble. And you'll be back to square one because you haven't changed anyone's core behavior... just the content of it.

1.) No. Threatening players over something that resides inside the sandbox is ok and good fun. Threatening players over something that resides outside the sandbox, including the sandbox itself, is not.

2.) Absolutely! I believe it will teach players to stop thinking about the EULA rules and to simply play the game.

I have no doubt that for some will an introduction of such a rule be difficult to handle, but who would these players be? I imagine the extremest of the high-sec carebears perhaps, but not Goons.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#23 - 2013-01-29 21:47:11 UTC
This is a stealth anti New Order thread.

The New Order calls non compliant miners bot aspirants. Miners frequently are warned to not engage in botting, afking, petitioning New Order Agents, excessive mining etc as violations of the New Halaima Code of Conduct. Violators are subject to bump and ganking. Like someone in this thread who famously lost a billion ISK pod to a New Order gank and then put a billion ISK bounty on New Order Logistics corp.

In short, we tell them they are bots or ALMOST bots. We don't threaten to report them or call them EULA violators. We call them Code violators and take action on our own. We are on the receiving end of more actual EULA violating actions such as real life threats, cursing and racial and homophobic insulting than we could ever petition. So we generally don't bother.

So, somebody answer me this. Would an Agent of the New Order calling a miner a bot be a EULA violation under this idea? And if the answer is "yes", well, you can see what this really is all about.

Highsec is worth fighting for.

Bing Bangboom
Agent of the New Order of Highsec
Belligerent Undesirable

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com
Jimmy Rustler
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-01-29 22:05:51 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
It's clear the OP is looking to retaliate against the player group responsible for the emergent gameplay resulting in this killmail:
*do not post killmails in this forum* - CCP Eterne

I believe Bing Bangboom is correct in that this player group has never threatened players with reports of EULA violations, perceived or real. And I've witnessed first-hand the EULA violating actions like real-life threats, cursing, and racial and homophobic slurs they receive from the so-called "decent" people the original poster fancies himself the champion of.

This whole proposal reeks of bitterness and malice.
Fractal Muse
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2013-01-29 22:20:07 UTC
Jimmy Rustler wrote:

I believe Bing Bangboom is correct in that this player group has never threatened players with reports of EULA violations, perceived or real. And I've witnessed first-hand the EULA violating actions like real-life threats, cursing, and racial and homophobic slurs they receive from the so-called "decent" people the original poster fancies himself the champion of.

This whole proposal reeks of bitterness and malice.

Actually, the way I read the proposal it seems like Whitehound is attempting to adjust the EULA to -protect- members of the New Order of Highsec. He is proposing that people who use threats that are based on the EULA should be banned.

From what I've read and seen this is typically a response of people who have had their ships destroyed for whatever reason. You know the one of, "You're griefing!! I'm reporting you!!"

So, under the proposed changed, the person who makes that threat in local (and, I would assume mail) would be subject to a ban themselves.

With this proposal describing someone's behavior as "bot-like" or "bot aspirant" is not impacted nor would it be an infringement of the proposed changes.

I don't think this proposed change is needed but it is worth thinking about.
Whitehound
#26 - 2013-01-29 22:23:38 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
I don't think this proposed change is needed but it is worth thinking about.

Why not?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#27 - 2013-01-29 22:29:00 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:

Actually, the way I read the proposal it seems like Whitehound is attempting to adjust the EULA to -protect- members of the New Order of Highsec. He is proposing that people who use threats that are based on the EULA should be banned.

From what I've read and seen this is typically a response of people who have had their ships destroyed for whatever reason. You know the one of, "You're griefing!! I'm reporting you!!"

So, under the proposed changed, the person who makes that threat in local (and, I would assume mail) would be subject to a ban themselves.

With this proposal describing someone's behavior as "bot-like" or "bot aspirant" is not impacted nor would it be an infringement of the proposed changes.

I don't think this proposed change is needed but it is worth thinking about.


Whether you are correct or I am would result in much the same thing. New Order Agents are extremely aware of the limits the EULA puts on player interaction. Each thing we do have been carefully vetted to ensure we are not breaking it. The miners on the other hand have proven to be not only unaware of what the EULA says but highly creative in making up many new rules for us to violate.

If falsely accusing an Agent of violating the EULA would result in a poorly educated, emotional miner receiving a warning or even a ban the power of the New Order would expand exponentially. I have been accused of violating the EULA hundreds of times in my career. Whole systems would be cleared of bot aspirant miners, the hard way....

Don't give us that kind of power. Although invincible we are only human.

BBB

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#28 - 2013-01-29 23:08:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
The thing about the EULA is that every player and organisation interprets it in a different way. It's purposefully vague, as are most EULAs and is written in legalese so that they can cover their own arses in the legal sense.

Luckily CCP are usually willing to lay down exactly what you can and cannot do by (gasp) actually participating in discussion about it, the recent GM decision on bumping for example, they started a thread for feedback on it, then spent a month or so digesting all that feedback before coming to a decision and presenting it to us.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Whitehound
#29 - 2013-01-29 23:31:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The thing about the EULA is that every player and organisation interprets it in a different way. It's purposefully vague, as are most EULAs and is written in legalese so that they can cover their own arses in the legal sense.

Luckily CCP are usually willing to lay down exactly what you can and cannot do by (gasp) actually participating in discussion about it, the recent GM decision on bumping for example, they started a thread for feedback on it, then spent a month or so digesting all that feedback before coming to a decision and presenting it to us.

Thus a rule in the EULA which states not to make accusations of EULA violations would be extremely helpful in solving these problems.

Frankly, I am tired of the same, repetitive, boring and increasingly annoying accusations of being a bot. If this happens directly or indirectly as "bot-like" or "bot-aspirant" does not matter to me. I got ganked a single time, moved straight on, placed a 1b ISK bounty on the gankers to put them into the top ten for good fun, which they could have used for bragging, and bought me a Skiff. Yet here we are and I am being stalked and accused of being bot-like over and over again. Why can I move on but they can't?

I am not sure if I should thank the New Order for their comments now or if I should be just sad. I find it an annoying play style to accuse others of EULA violations, which is a rather serious accusation and should not be taken lightly by anyone and so just goes beyond the sandbox.

Why do I then need to delete mails by unknown players, who believe what a blog says and then send me mails?! Why do I need to read the same comments by the New Order for the 8th-10th time where they say that I am bot-like? I am not a bot and I do not want to defend myself against every player for being afk and who can send a mail or post a comment. It is ridiculous and not worth the money I pay for a game.

I say, away with it. I am sure some will feel the same way, some maybe don't even realize it yet how much better the game could be if they were not being accused of breaking the EULA.

And I am far from being selfish here. The proposal is intended to make the game better for all of us.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Alana Charen-Teng
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-01-30 01:21:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Alana Charen-Teng
I hit 'Post' instead of 'Cancel'.

I'm not sure how I feel about this proposal - I'm not vehemently opposed to it, but my inclination is that one should err on the side of allowing more discussion instead of less. As Whitehound points out, falsely accusing others of EULA violations is generally unproductive. But on many occasions, what began as an accusation of EULA violation leads to a fruitful discussion of what the EULA actually entails. I'm open to opinions.
John E Normus
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#31 - 2013-01-30 04:17:58 UTC  |  Edited by: John E Normus
This is all very clever Whitehound. Anyone who's been in a system that we're working knows this is our Casus Belli.

We fly into a belt pick a miner out, drag his name into chat, accuse him of being a bot/bot-aspirant, and give him a chance to respond. This is the absolute best way to start a player interaction. There are a thousand things that can happen next. I don't see a problem with it. You know who has a real problem with it? Bots and afkers. Why you ask? Because they have a 0% chance of stopping us. You may not believe this Whitehound, but we are so easily beaten if you are at your keyboard it isn't even a competition.

That is the thing about the New Order I find so engaging. We tell people exactly what to do to beat us but they're usually botting, afk, or just don't care. Sadly, we've never run out of targets.

I'm awful sorry to have misjudged you Whitehound. I thought you were alright with how things went down. Hell, I've caught you in our systems a couple times and always "o/" at you in local. So be it. I oppose this idea.

Fly safe
o7

Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Whitehound
#32 - 2013-01-30 06:46:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
John E Normus wrote:
This is all very clever Whitehound. Anyone who's been in a system that we're working knows this is our Casus Belli.

We fly into a belt pick a miner out, drag his name into chat, accuse him of being a bot/bot-aspirant, and give him a chance to respond. This is the absolute best way to start a player interaction. There are a thousand things that can happen next. I don't see a problem with it. You know who has a real problem with it? Bots and afkers. Why you ask? Because they have a 0% chance of stopping us. You may not believe this Whitehound, but we are so easily beaten if you are at your keyboard it isn't even a competition.

That is the thing about the New Order I find so engaging. We tell people exactly what to do to beat us but they're usually botting, afk, or just don't care. Sadly, we've never run out of targets.

I'm awful sorry to have misjudged you Whitehound. I thought you were alright with how things went down. Hell, I've caught you in our systems a couple times and always "o/" at you in local. So be it. I oppose this idea.

Fly safe
o7

I have no problem with you shooting my ship, but I sure have a problem with you accusing me of being a bot and even going as far as to call me out for it on a blog!

Who do you think you are to be treating a fellow player like this? I pay just as much for this game as you do and you try to get me banned from the game, or just to ruin my game time, by telling everyone I am a bot!

You even follow me around here on the forum and keep trolling me with that one gank you have made, continuing to insist that I am a bot or being bot like!

If you cannot see how wrong this and think this is just fine then how serious do you take the EULA yourself? Apparently is this all a joke to you and you do not take this serious at all. So do not tell me you now suddenly have a problem with my proposal.

Players have been accused of breaking the EULA for as long as I am playing EVE. There may have been a time when CCP did not take bots as serious as they could have, but I believe they are now doing everything they can and are being successful with it. Therefore do I believe it is time to get rid of these constant accusations and the "witch hunts" some players indulge in, because it is not fun to be on the receiving end of it and being marked liked this within the community.

Nor do I like playing with players who might be breaking the EULA, because if they do then it could affect me, too, and because I do take the EULA serious.

As you may know is CCP going to take botting within alliances more serious and to make alliance leaders responsible for the actions of their members. Who here then wants to be accused of being a bot and watch how others begin to distant themselves from one, because of such accusations? I sure do not want to be treated like this.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#33 - 2013-01-30 10:29:34 UTC
This thread is close to crossing the line. You guys have remained fairly civil for the time being, but please do not let your arguments devolve into personal attacks or insults.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents
Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2013-01-30 10:57:18 UTC
I'm not sure I've ever seen someone come up in local and start yelling about how he/she is going to report another player for EULA violations... In fact I've never seen this, ever. And I'm in the business of shooting at people who are most likely to be bots. I did read your post, forgive me if I didn't get the right idea/direction, and I only skimmed the other posts.

But please note, saying to someone of being/acting as a bot-aspirant, is not out right saying "you are indeed a bot."

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet
John E Normus
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#35 - 2013-01-30 11:42:56 UTC
I do indeed take the EULA seriously. Because of this I've never been warned, gagged, notified, or even talked to by CCP. In fact I can only recall one time CCP has warned one of us we might be going too far. One time ... not a bad record IMO.

If you get your way on this Whitehound I would certainly be in violation of the EULA. I oppose this idea for that reason.

Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Whitehound
#36 - 2013-01-30 11:45:44 UTC
Capt Starfox wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever seen someone come up in local and start yelling about how he/she is going to report another player for EULA violations... In fact I've never seen this, ever. And I'm in the business of shooting at people who are most likely to be bots. I did read your post, forgive me if I didn't get the right idea/direction, and I only skimmed the other posts.

But please note, saying to someone of being/acting as a bot-aspirant, is not out right saying "you are indeed a bot."

An accusation can be made directly or indirectly. It does not change what it is.

If you then are aware of what you are doing or not does not matter, but it may only be unfortunate for you when you do not know how your accusations are being perceived.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Small Beer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2013-01-30 13:37:32 UTC
How would you propose to tell the difference between a warning given to a player about violating the EULA out of genuine concern that that player not place themselves at risk of a ban, and a threat?
Whitehound
#38 - 2013-01-30 15:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Small Beer wrote:
How would you propose to tell the difference between a warning given to a player about violating the EULA out of genuine concern that that player not place themselves at risk of a ban, and a threat?

You do not tell the difference. You play the game, and either do not bother with what players do inside or outside the sandbox that could violate the EULA, or you press F12 and petition it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Small Beer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-01-30 17:02:17 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Small Beer wrote:
How would you propose to tell the difference between a warning given to a player about violating the EULA out of genuine concern that that player not place themselves at risk of a ban, and a threat?

You do not tell the difference. You play the game, and either do not bother with what players do inside or outside the sandbox that could violate the EULA, or you press F12 and petition it.


So... if a new player asks a question or ignorantly proposes a course of action that you know to be in violation of the EULA, you just ignore them and then petition them if they go ahead and do it?

Sorry if I seem bewildered, but as a new player myself, I don't get how this proposal is supposed to help me.
Whitehound
#40 - 2013-01-30 17:28:09 UTC
Small Beer wrote:
So... if a new player asks a question or ignorantly proposes a course of action that you know to be in violation of the EULA, you just ignore them and then petition them if they go ahead and do it?

Sorry if I seem bewildered, but as a new player myself, I don't get how this proposal is supposed to help me.

The decision is for you to make. Personally, I would not go around and petition everyone for the smallest thing.

I did however only recently petition a player who indirectly threatened a group of players with stabbing them even when it is pretty hard to stab someone over the Internet and we are playing in anonymity. It just is not acceptable talk to me and I do not think we need it here or that it is required for having fun in EVE.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.