These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

GM Response On Bumping

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Revis Owen
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#441 - 2014-09-02 20:40:22 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
No my argument was never that all bumping replicated criminal scramming, it was simply that bumping, when used by gankers to trap and pin down a ship between successive gank attempts (where CONCORD is already on the scene) replicates criminal scramming.


No, it doesn't. I made the point above that that scenario replicates an awoxer scramming a corpmate or a duelist scramming another duelist. That scramming is non-criminal and not punished by CONCORD.

I also anticipated above a question you might ask about what action the victim had done to replicate getting into a corp or a duel with the player scramming them. The answer is the player hit the undock button. Because, remember, you said that we don't have to be "hypertechnical" about what button people pushed.

Clearly, you either did not read or think long enough about what I wrote. Please do so, and I anticipate any relevant response germane to my points.

Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#442 - 2014-09-02 20:45:35 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
If I could isolate the type of bumping gankers do and separate it from other bumping, and only have CONCORD punish that bumping, I would (feel free to suggest how to do it). Since that is difficult to CODE, I proposed a solution to fix the mechanic.


Every single aspect of Crimewatch is designed around specific mechanical actions drawing specific responses. Every single one of those responses are exclusively punitive. Why should an exception be introduced just because haulers can't be bothered to make friends or be at the keyboard in a multiplayer PvP game?

CONCORD has an exclusively reactive, punitive role. It is not in the business of protecting anyone.


(Incidentally, tangentially, and almost entirely irrelevantly, neither are the RL Police in the US, where the Supreme Court and other courts have repeatedlyruled that they're not responsible for protecting anyone even if they promise to protect them, something that an internet space lawyer like you claim to be should be aware of)


Sir you are a genius, Castle Rock is taught in Law School, and so many people are SHOCKED to learn that police are not your personal security force and have absolutely no obligation to prevent a crime from occuring, just because someone tells them they fear it will occur. I was going to bring this up on the other thread, but I was worried that people would not understand it. CONCORD has no obligation to prevent James 315 and his boys from shooting at you. Their job is to show up after the shooting starts, and take James to the cleaners (which they do admirably). But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission. Now that, sir, they ARE liable for. If they ignore an in commission crime in front of their faces, and it leads to harm, they get sued under Bivens, etc... (read the opinion of the Court).

So here, when we can have CONCORD effectively respond to the in commission crime of replicating warp scrambling by bumping, and I have proposed a way to do so exactly consistent with how the police would act, we should embrace it, as you have now nicely demonstrated.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#443 - 2014-09-02 20:50:14 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission.


Except that they're not doing any such thing, rendering the rest of your analysis moot. Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Neither is theft, murder, false imprisonment, genocide, etc. The *only* crime in New Eden is activating an aggressive module against an illegitimate target, and it's a property crime.

You keep trying to bring the expectations and assumptions you've developed in other jurisdictions into a new one that doesn't match them.

"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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#444 - 2014-09-02 20:50:59 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission.


Except that they're not doing any such thing, rendering the rest of your analysis moot. Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Neither is theft, murder, false imprisonment, genocide, etc. The *only* crime in New Eden is activating an aggressive module against an illegitimate target.

You keep trying to bring the expectations and assumptions you've developed in other jurisdictions into a new one that doesn't match them.


Activating a module is an action, not a crime.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#445 - 2014-09-02 20:52:51 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission.


Except that they're not doing any such thing, rendering the rest of your analysis moot. Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Neither is theft, murder, false imprisonment, genocide, etc. The *only* crime in New Eden is activating an aggressive module against an illegitimate target.

You keep trying to bring the expectations and assumptions you've developed in other jurisdictions into a new one that doesn't match them.


Activating a module is an action, not a crime.


In EVE, it's a crime when it's an aggressive module and it interacts with a non-legal target. In fact, it's the only crime.

"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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#446 - 2014-09-02 20:56:06 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission.


Except that they're not doing any such thing, rendering the rest of your analysis moot. Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Neither is theft, murder, false imprisonment, genocide, etc. The *only* crime in New Eden is activating an aggressive module against an illegitimate target.

You keep trying to bring the expectations and assumptions you've developed in other jurisdictions into a new one that doesn't match them.


Activating a module is an action, not a crime.


In EVE, it's a crime when it's an aggressive module and it interacts with a non-legal target. In fact, it's the only crime.


Well, that's not the way I look at it. I see accomplishing or attempting to accomplish what the offensive model does as the crime, the model is merely the mechanism for achieving the crime. So to the extent that such conduct can be replicated by other means, I think that that too should be punishable.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#447 - 2014-09-02 21:10:32 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
Well, that's not the way I look at it. I see accomplishing or attempting to accomplish what the offensive model does as the crime, the model is merely the mechanism for achieving the crime. So to the extent that such conduct can be replicated by other means, I think that that too should be punishable.


That's not the way the laws in New Eden work. Again, you're making the same error that one might make by going into Louisiana and arguing a case based on Common law principles.

Lore reason:
These are laws that mortals are imposing on Immortal Gods. The goal is simply to keep violence between the Gods reasonably contained so that at least it doesn't spill. They're able to track module activation, so that's what they do.

Game mechanics reason:
Bumping is an intended game mechanic with a long and important history. CONCORD's response specifically to offensive module activation is a game mechanic validated over 11 years.


It also doesn't accomplish the same thing as any offensive module.

"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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#448 - 2014-09-02 21:34:31 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Well, that's not the way I look at it. I see accomplishing or attempting to accomplish what the offensive model does as the crime, the model is merely the mechanism for achieving the crime. So to the extent that such conduct can be replicated by other means, I think that that too should be punishable.


That's not the way the laws in New Eden work. Again, you're making the same error that one might make by going into Louisiana and arguing a case based on Common law principles.

Lore reason:
These are laws that mortals are imposing on Immortal Gods. The goal is simply to keep violence between the Gods reasonably contained so that at least it doesn't spill. They're able to track module activation, so that's what they do.

Game mechanics reason:
Bumping is an intended game mechanic with a long and important history. CONCORD's response specifically to offensive module activation is a game mechanic validated over 11 years.


It also doesn't accomplish the same thing as any offensive module.


And round and round we go -

Lore - the fact that they are able to punish capsuleers for bad behavior should not depend on module activation. It's perfectly consistent with the Lore to focus on the result, not the action.

Mechanics - yes, most bumping is fine. CODE has managed to abuse one specific use of it to create the replica of warp scrambling. If this loophole can be easily plugged with minimal consequences, and I've shown how it can be, then it should be.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#449 - 2014-09-02 21:37:20 UTC
Revis Owen wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
No my argument was never that all bumping replicated criminal scramming, it was simply that bumping, when used by gankers to trap and pin down a ship between successive gank attempts (where CONCORD is already on the scene) replicates criminal scramming.


No, it doesn't. I made the point above that that scenario replicates an awoxer scramming a corpmate or a duelist scramming another duelist. That scramming is non-criminal and not punished by CONCORD.

I also anticipated above a question you might ask about what action the victim had done to replicate getting into a corp or a duel with the player scramming them. The answer is the player hit the undock button. Because, remember, you said that we don't have to be "hypertechnical" about what button people pushed.

Clearly, you either did not read or think long enough about what I wrote. Please do so, and I anticipate any relevant response germane to my points.


Ok - this makes no sense me. By accepting a duel or entering a corp, the capsuleer voluntarily agreed to forfeit protection from scramming. By merely undocking in highsec, there was no voluntary renouncement of CONCORD protection, and therefore if an activity replicates scramming, it should be punished as such.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#450 - 2014-09-02 22:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
And round and round we go -

Lore - the fact that they are able to punish capsuleers for bad behavior should not depend on module activation. It's perfectly consistent with the Lore to focus on the result, not the action.


Ok, so CONCORD ganks all bumping. Remember, they can only detect actions, and even if they detected results, all bumping disrupts aligning and thus, per your claims (which are still false) replicate something you think should be a crime in New Eden.

Quote:
Mechanics - yes, most bumping is fine. CODE has managed to abuse one specific use of it to create the replica of warp scrambling. If this loophole can be easily plugged with minimal consequences, and I've shown how it can be, then it should be.


Bumping initially came to promenance to do the exact thing you're complaining about. It was, in fact the only method of tackling Supers in LS until HICs were introduced (from 2005 till 2007). If that were "abusing" the mechanic, CCP would have fixed it in Trinity (2007). In other words, even if we grant that bumping is equivalent to warp scrambling, its use as such isn't abusing anything.

And that's aside from the fact that CCP has been quite clear and consistent, for nearly 11 years (tankable CONCORD was silly, and CCP fixed that), on what CONCORD's role is in HS. That it doesn't match the assumptions you've brought in from RL doesn't make it broken.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Ok - this makes no sense me. By accepting a duel or entering a corp, the capsuleer voluntarily agreed to forfeit protection from scramming. By merely undocking in highsec, there was no voluntary renouncement of CONCORD protection, and therefore if an activity replicates scramming, it should be punished as such.


CONCORD doesn't provide protection. Undocking voluntarily forfeits the protection of the Station interior. Logging in voluntarily forfeits protection from PvP.

"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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#451 - 2014-09-02 22:14:16 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
And round and round we go -

Lore - the fact that they are able to punish capsuleers for bad behavior should not depend on module activation. It's perfectly consistent with the Lore to focus on the result, not the action.


Ok, so CONCORD ganks all bumping. Remember, they can only detect actions, and even if they detected results, all bumping disrupts aligning and thus, per your claims (which are still false) replicate something you think should be a crime in New Eden.

Quote:
Mechanics - yes, most bumping is fine. CODE has managed to abuse one specific use of it to create the replica of warp scrambling. If this loophole can be easily plugged with minimal consequences, and I've shown how it can be, then it should be.


Bumping initially came to promenance to do the exact thing you're complaining about. It was, in fact the only method of tackling Supers in LS until HICs were introduced (from 2005 till 2007). If that were "abusing" the mechanic, CCP would have fixed it in Trinity (2007). In other words, even if we grant that bumping is equivalent to warp scrambling, its use as such isn't abusing anything.

And that's aside from the fact that CCP has been quite clear and consistent, for nearly 11 years (tankable CONCORD was silly, and CCP fixed that), on what CONCORD's role is in HS. That it doesn't match the assumptions you've brought in from RL doesn't make it broken.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Ok - this makes no sense me. By accepting a duel or entering a corp, the capsuleer voluntarily agreed to forfeit protection from scramming. By merely undocking in highsec, there was no voluntary renouncement of CONCORD protection, and therefore if an activity replicates scramming, it should be punished as such.


CONCORD doesn't provide protection. Undocking voluntarily forfeits the protection of the Station interior. Logging in voluntarily forfeits protection from PvP.



Lolz...you love to play this game.....I already gave a solution to bumping. Bumping in low and null makes sense, in high where CONCORD is on patrol, it should be punished. CONCORD provides protection the same way the NYPD does, they punish people who break the law, and in doing so assist those who are harmed by the lawbreaking. Protection doesn't mean that they are prophylacticaly preventing crime from occurring, it means that they punish lawbreakers, which (1) releases those currently affected by the crime and (2) deters crime from occurring in the first place.
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#452 - 2014-09-02 22:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Bumping is so ridiculous. I honestly don't understand how this bullshit is allowed to continue except out of inability to fix the problem.

Opinion of CCP greatly lowered.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#453 - 2014-09-02 22:30:42 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Lolz...you love to play this game.....I already gave a solution to bumping. Bumping in low and null makes sense, in high where CONCORD is on patrol, it should be punished. CONCORD provides protection the same way the NYPD does, they punish people who break the law, and in doing so assist those who are harmed by the lawbreaking. Protection doesn't mean that they are prophylacticaly preventing crime from occurring, it means that they punish lawbreakers, which (1) releases those currently affected by the crime and (2) deters crime from occurring in the first place.


And your "solution" does absolutely nothing to punish the bumpers, exists only to protect their target, was specifically introduced to prevent a hypothetical future criminal act. All of which go right against CONCORD's design intentions.

The NYPD is a police force. CONCORD is not. CONCORD quite specifically and intentionally does nothing to directly aid targets of space violence.

In other words, quite a bit of that post is flatly false.

"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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#454 - 2014-09-02 22:50:36 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Lolz...you love to play this game.....I already gave a solution to bumping. Bumping in low and null makes sense, in high where CONCORD is on patrol, it should be punished. CONCORD provides protection the same way the NYPD does, they punish people who break the law, and in doing so assist those who are harmed by the lawbreaking. Protection doesn't mean that they are prophylacticaly preventing crime from occurring, it means that they punish lawbreakers, which (1) releases those currently affected by the crime and (2) deters crime from occurring in the first place.


And your "solution" does absolutely nothing to punish the bumpers, exists only to protect their target, was specifically introduced to prevent a hypothetical future criminal act. All of which go right against CONCORD's design intentions.

The NYPD is a police force. CONCORD is not. CONCORD quite specifically and intentionally does nothing to directly aid targets of space violence.

In other words, quite a bit of that post is flatly false.


And you solution is to do nothing and continue to allow CODE to pin down bumpers and have the exact same gankers hit them over and over until they die while CONCORD sits on the scene and watches, which is inconsistent with CONCORD's (which is a police force, and aids victims by killing the aggressors) role in punishing wrongful activity in highsec. So once again quite a bit of your post is "flatly false."
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#455 - 2014-09-02 22:58:42 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
And you solution is to do nothing and continue to allow CODE to pin down bumpers and have the exact same gankers hit them over and over until they die while CONCORD sits on the scene and watches, which is inconsistent with CONCORD's (which is a police force, and aids victims by killing the aggressors) role in punishing wrongful activity in highsec. So once again quite a bit of your post is "flatly false."


My solution is to allow game mechanics to continue working as intended. As they are. Per CCP. If Freighter pilots don't want to get ganked, they have plenty of tools to protect themselves. That they refuse to use them is not a game balance problem.

CONCORD, incidentally, does not sit on scene and watch.

"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
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#456 - 2014-09-02 23:36:31 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
And you solution is to do nothing and continue to allow CODE to pin down bumpers and have the exact same gankers hit them over and over until they die while CONCORD sits on the scene and watches, which is inconsistent with CONCORD's (which is a police force, and aids victims by killing the aggressors) role in punishing wrongful activity in highsec. So once again quite a bit of your post is "flatly false."


My solution is to allow game mechanics to continue working as intended. As they are. Per CCP. If Freighter pilots don't want to get ganked, they have plenty of tools to protect themselves. That they refuse to use them is not a game balance problem.

CONCORD, incidentally, does not sit on scene and watch.


Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#457 - 2014-09-03 02:27:02 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences.


Actually, we're not, because at the top of this thread, the official CCP position is laid out, and it says that you are quite wrong.

(FYI Code. did not invent bumping freighters)

"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
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#458 - 2014-09-03 13:42:17 UTC
It actually sort of hurts.

(No, not when I pee, thank GOD thats over with!)

Reading the repeated requests for nerfs, even after it has been plainly, and politely explained that the tools already exist to prevent being ganked.

For the love of god just use a freakin scout. Its so goddamn easy.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#459 - 2014-09-03 13:50:14 UTC
This is what makes borderliners become hardliners. When faced with the absolute tenacity of lazy and stupid combining forces any rational mind is confronted with a limited number of choices. You can ignore it, you can refute it, or you can lash out and attempt to quash it violently with prejudice. I mean you can try to educate and convert them over to rational thinking, but by the time the shiptoasting begins you're already too late. All that's left to be done at that point is to try to curbstomp them into submission in hopes that they'll be unable to spread their mindless vitriol further. Unfortunately this just exacerbates that annoying whining sound and creates more threadnaughts about how the sandbox should have safety rails and foamed up corners. It's a daunting, seemingly unwinnable battle...

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#460 - 2014-09-03 15:48:25 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences.


The real question here is do you actually know anything? You can guess, think, suppose & speculate as much as you want, but do you actually know anything?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.