EVE General Discussion

I'm asking if he can show that the owners think it's stealing with a moral take on it.

Isn't it their choice whether it's bad or good?

I'm pretty certain I have you figured out. You keep using the word owners.

You want me to say, well why would the person you're stealing from enjoy being stolen from!

and then you'll come in all high and mighty and be like,

"AH HA!!! BUT ACCORDING TO THE EULA CCP MAINTAINS OWNERSHIP OF ALL ITEMS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE EVE ONLINE UNIVERSE"

Nice try.

But I get it. Here's the deal, yo.
While CCP technically owns everything in the game, we're still allowed to possess them.

These items are our possessions. Now I being a person allowed to possess items in EVE, if someone were to steal it from me, the POSSESSOR, I would think that person is a bad person for making the choice to want to steal the things CCP granted I may possess.

No actually you have use of them and access to the server. But rules regarding their use are defined by the owner. You may not like them, but morals don't come into it. Unless they decide.

The nature of responsibility is the following. Ideally, an individual is only responsible for matters which are under their direct control to affect. One cannot, ideally, be held responsible for something that you have no means of control over. For example: I am not responsible for how right now somewhere in a rural town in China, a small girl is crying because her brother stole her candy. Nor am I responsible for how someone in-game just now had their stuff blown up by another player seconds before down-time.

So in relation to your question, the person who blows up another persons ship, is responsible for that act, but not for how the other person reacts to that. That is beyond their capacity to control and is instead in the area of responsibility and control of the person who's stuff gets blown up.

However, with the way our society and social interaction is structured (ie: how we humans behave as social animals), people are held responsible for the (admittedly) uncontrollable but reasonably expectable human consequences of their actions. If someone steals from another person IRL, there is often recourse to sue also for emotional damages. (Though the person enacting the theft cannot be held responsible for how the victim reacts, it is reasonably expected that the emotional damage is resultant from the act.) Thats also why mentally unsound individuals are tried differently, because it is seen as "unfair" to try them as having been reasonably capable of anticipating that their theft would not only cause the physical loss of property to the other person, but also "humanly" cause them suffering in a way that is considered against societal standards and which is sanctioned against.

Its a quandary, and there is no clear cut answer. Human social interaction, and how we structure our society and its rules, are full of contradictions and inconsistencies like this.

TLDR: No, the perpetrator can only be held responsible for their own act, not for how the victim reacts. This because the perpetrator only has control over the former but not the latter. The perpetrator can however, reasonably, (if of sound mental state) be held to have been aware that his act is likely to cause suffering on the part of the victim. This is considered implicit as part of his choice to commit that act. That they are aware that as a result of their act, another will suffer, and knowing that, they choose that act regardless.


You mean like Robin Hood? That because he stole from Nottingham and gave to the poor, his moral prerogative made it less of a theft and more of a virtue? It was still theft. And Nottingham would certainly have thought so.

Its the victims choice how they respond to someone taking their property without their consent. It is still, however, theft. They are ofc free to react as "Yeah, he stole from me, but I dont care", but it is, still, by definition, theft.


Read the thread. I've already addressed this.

You're wrong again. Mag's is actually trying to get you to say that the collection of tea cozies is the property of CCP and therefore he didn't actually steal them from me.

**** son, try and keep up.

This technicality has already been addressed and disregarded, though it is amusing that some people seem to be either incapable of grasping the deeper issues being talked about here, and have been trying for no less than 4-5 pages repeatedly (without contributing anything else or even understanding what else is going on) "nail" the discussion on the known and understood fact that CCP owns everything in EVE. Reminds me of little kiddies trying to participate in adult conversation, but who don't really understand at all what is going on.

CCP owns the game and everything in it, but for example:

You and others are at a friends house. The house owner pulls out the dreaded Monopoly game (which he also owns).
You and your friends sit down to a game of Monopoly (which he owns) in his house (which he also owns).
Everyone is dealt out their share of monehs at start, as are the rules of teh game.
Then, at some point, one of the guys takes from your stacks of monehs a few 100s without your (or the game/house owners) permission.
That is theft from you, though it is the game owners property and his house in which the game and the property is held.
Even if you play his game of Monopoly, in his house, with his special house rules which ALLOW stealing, it is still theft by definition.
This because in the context of the game, that moneh was yours to use for the purposes of playing the game.
You have an internal contextual right to possession of it, though ofc actual ownership of it is still vested in the game/house owner.

You can apply your morals if you want, wherever you want. Some people believe eating certain kinds of meat is morally evil.

Whether other people have any reason to take your morals seriously due to being derived from totally batshit logic, is another matter.

To come to that conclusion you have either misread or misunderstood my post.

That distinction is already included as you delineate it, and it is one I am in agreement with.
He's going to focus on some superficial and irrelevant minutiae anyways, no matter how we specify. That is his only purpose here.
Trying to jam his small plastic toy screwdriver into the workings of this discussion though he actually has no idea what is going on.

I meant that specific quote right there. He's going to zero in on it because he has no other leg to stand on. Though you perfectly explained it in the subsequent post, well, we cant control how people react to the answers staring them directly in the face.

I'm simply suggesting you make it easy.

Yes, the emotional "damage" can be real.

Just like in the boxing ring the physical damage will be real.

The question is, if someone didn't like to be physically harmed, why did they climb into the boxing ring, wearing boxing outfit, and announce "yes, here I am, I understand I can be boxed, you may box me when ready".

And then afterwards try and claim the person who KO'd them is morally equivalent to someone who goes around the street beating of old ladies.