These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why is eve being full of scamers gankers bumpers and liars?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#201 - 2014-03-14 02:00:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Divine Entervention wrote:
Except the asteroid is not controlled on the other end by a sentient being investing it's time.

Who cares how the asteroid is controlled? It's not relevant, other than that asteroid is a resource for another miner. If you mine it first, it's no longer available for anyone else to mine. Are you a bad person for stealing that resource and limiting another miners opportunity? Obviously not.

To your earlier post, if a ganker forced you to also gank, then that would be forcing their play on you.

That's not what they do.

If you want to mine, no one can stop you.

If a ganker wants to gank no one can stop them.

At some point, those 2 different ways to play may intersect. One or both (if highsec) will lose a ship.

Then both go get new ships and continue their play style.

No problem. No stopping each other from playing the game and no forcing their play style onto the other person. The miner is still free to mine and the ganker is still free to gank. Both choices have consequences.

The miner may lose their ship and, in highsec the ganker will lose their ship.

But that's part of the game. Rinse and repeat. Everyone doing what they want in a completely fictional environment.
Kais Klip
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#202 - 2014-03-14 02:00:52 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Kais Klip wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


In a single shard sandbox game, what is wrong is expecting that you have the right to play the way you want, but others don't have that same right.


This statement sums it up nicely. It's wrong for people to expect that they have the right to play the way they want, but others don't have that right.

So since I have the same right to play the game in a manner where all I want to do all day is mine in high security, then since it's how I want to play EVE since it's a valid way to play the game, that people who wish to enforce their way to play upon me by attacking and blowing me up are wrong.

Thanks for clearing it up for everyone with your exact quote.

O wait! Except for you it only applies to how you want to play and not how others do.

NVM


But to them, and the system as a whole blowing you up is no different than you mining an asteroid, a finite resource, thus taking the opportunity away from someone wanting to mine it as much. It's proven economics.

I'm saying you are just as bad as they are, and given that you consider yourself good, the best thing to do is discard the whole terminology altogether since it is perspective, as demonstrated. Now good or bad might exist, I might be the colourblind man claiming the Green Apple is red, but if you find yourself in a room with armed colourblind men and they say the Green Apple is red...

Oh for **** sake, who took the apple?


Except the asteroid is not controlled on the other end by a sentient being investing it's time.


I'm not saying you're hurting the asteroids feelings. Rather;

1)They shoot you.
2)You lose stuff.
3)You are upset.

You are upset because you lose stuff, be it time or ISK, not because another human being raised a hand against you (right?).

When you mine, asteroid goes from full to empty.

Therefore, if I was planning on mining it, but turn up all dressed an it's gone:

2)I lose stuff.
3)I get upset.

The only difference is that I don't care as much about the asteroid as you do about your ship; I lose, but I laugh and play on. Whether it is because there are plenty of more asteroids (are there not plenty more ships?) or because the particular way you mined it was funny doesn't matter.

Do you see?

Now this crumbles if you are a pacifist and are disturbed by the very act of violence, in which case eve would not bring you much fun.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#203 - 2014-03-14 02:02:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Upon making an offensive request to me for my personal information, the protection of my privacy ranks higher than your obsessive focus on my physical appearance IRL.
…except that none of those actually happened. That's just you making a massive strawman argument to cover for the fact that you knew where his argument was going and knew that it was going to end up in a place that would further expose your prejudice.

Quote:
Because of this demonstration, I have the right to label you as someone who's opinions and irrational desires of me should be regarded as such and ignored.
Sure, you have the right to do that, but it would be no less prejudiced or hypocritical than the other arbitrary declarations of character you've made.

And again, just because you choose to play the victim doesn't mean that his initial argument was incorrect — only that you couldn't respond to it.


I never considered what his argument was. He made no implication to me that he wished to have an argument. All he did was ask me a personal question regarding my IRL appearance. I explained to him how I felt and why I would not oblige his request.

I don't care what his argument was going to be. He can correlate it to another similar comparison if he wishes, but I'm not going to placate his request regarding my real personal appearance. It's a selfish request of his and if he wishes to present to me an argument, he can do so in another fashion without bringing in my personal appearance.
Salvos Rhoska
#204 - 2014-03-14 02:03:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
All you have done, is insult, harass and troll the entire board at large. Time and time again.

I have not done one thing into you, that you have not done to countless others here on your ceaseless trolling of these boards, no doubt with alts as well.

You judge others on their conduct, now its time dor you to be judged on yours. And all the better, according ro your own bogus morality.

Your attempt to turn the benign query of whether you look in person as does your avatar into a point of "offensiveness" is laughable.

Furthermore, the question is instrumental and central to the discussion at hand.

I look almost exactly like my avatar, minus the tattoos. I have nothing to hide in that fact, nor do I take any offence in being asked ifI do.

You, however, are presenting yourself, in your avatar, as someone you are infact not.
Ergo, you are breaking your own espoused moral code, in that you are PRETENDING here to be someone you are not.
Your avatar is proof positive of that. You have as much as said you do not look like it.

I cam therefore judge you, by observation, with cause, to be a person who pretends to be someone of an appearance you do not actually have. This I do according to your own moral code, perfectly justifiably, because if you would impinge it on others, I willnalso hold you personally responsible for fulfilling every single preceot of that morality.

Whether you are offended by a question, is not my concern, nor responsibility. I am not responsible for your own autonomous reaction to a neutral question which neither implictly or explicitly warranted offense. That is between you and your "feels", not with me or the query.

Nonetheless, your reaction is proof positive that you are someone who is prepared to present themselves online as soneome they are infact not offline, in person. You fell into your own absolutist morality trap, by failing to live up to your own high demands on others, as is always the case with moral pontificators.

You do not practice what you preach. A charlatan, a liar, a hypocrite.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#205 - 2014-03-14 02:06:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Divine Entervention wrote:
You are justifying robbing
No. That's just you confusing what goes on inside your head with what is actually going on in the real world. Please try again. This goes for your equally incorrect and baseless second sentence as well.

Quote:
I am allowed within the confines of human interaction to label such people who do so as those who engage in actions designed towards benefiting themselves at another's expense without concern for their desired way to play the game.
…and by taking that liberty, you are being prejudiced.

Quote:
Considering that we all have the right to play the game how we wish
We don't. That's where your entire line of reasoning breaks down. You have exactly two right: 1) to log in, and 2) to cancel your subscription at any time. Everything beyond that is something you have to carve out of the game environment in competition with (and against the will of) other players.

A “sandbox” does not mean you will succeed at anything you want to attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. It also does not mean that you can do what you want; it means everyone can try do what they want, which will include them doing things (to you) that you don't want them to do. In both cases, you have to force your will onto other players, the same way all the other players must, and will, impose their will onto you.

Meanwhile, you're trying to impose your irrational and incoherent “morality” and prejudice on everyone around you while at the same time deploring the practice of others doing the exact same thing.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#206 - 2014-03-14 02:08:09 UTC
Kais Klip wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Kais Klip wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


In a single shard sandbox game, what is wrong is expecting that you have the right to play the way you want, but others don't have that same right.


This statement sums it up nicely. It's wrong for people to expect that they have the right to play the way they want, but others don't have that right.

So since I have the same right to play the game in a manner where all I want to do all day is mine in high security, then since it's how I want to play EVE since it's a valid way to play the game, that people who wish to enforce their way to play upon me by attacking and blowing me up are wrong.

Thanks for clearing it up for everyone with your exact quote.

O wait! Except for you it only applies to how you want to play and not how others do.

NVM


But to them, and the system as a whole blowing you up is no different than you mining an asteroid, a finite resource, thus taking the opportunity away from someone wanting to mine it as much. It's proven economics.

I'm saying you are just as bad as they are, and given that you consider yourself good, the best thing to do is discard the whole terminology altogether since it is perspective, as demonstrated. Now good or bad might exist, I might be the colourblind man claiming the Green Apple is red, but if you find yourself in a room with armed colourblind men and they say the Green Apple is red...

Oh for **** sake, who took the apple?


Except the asteroid is not controlled on the other end by a sentient being investing it's time.


I'm not saying you're hurting the asteroids feelings. Rather;

1)They shoot you.
2)You lose stuff.
3)You are upset.

You are upset because you lose stuff, be it time or ISK, not because another human being raised a hand against you (right?).

When you mine, asteroid goes from full to empty.

Therefore, if I was planning on mining it, but turn up all dressed an it's gone:

2)I lose stuff.
3)I get upset.

The only difference is that I don't care as much about the asteroid as you do about your ship; I lose, but I laugh and play on. Whether it is because there are plenty of more asteroids (are there not plenty more ships?) or because the particular way you mined it was funny doesn't matter.

Do you see?

Now this crumbles if you are a pacifist and are disturbed by the very act of violence, in which case eve would not bring you much fun.


Are you implying that I get upset when I lose items? Please link where I've ever expressed a personal dissatisfaction related to dying or losing items in EvE.

If you feel that I get upset upon the loss of material possession, well I'm sorry but you're wrong. I place my value on the interaction between people, not on possessions.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#207 - 2014-03-14 02:11:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Divine Entervention wrote:
Are you implying that I get upset when I lose items?
No, he's not.
He's implying that your notion of being able to play the game without enforcing your will to play upon other players is inherently impossible. Actually, he's not even implying it — he's outright stating it and hoping that, just once, you actually follow along rather than make something up to replace his statements with and then feigning distress over the strawman you just erected…
Kais Klip
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#208 - 2014-03-14 02:11:48 UTC
While I may agree with one of you not a few posts back we just managed to lift off and discuss an idea rather than an event or worse, a person.

Why don't we continue discussing the idea at hand as two schools of divergent thought. Right or wrong, there will always be disagreements and the eventual ignorance of reason by one party, at which point fights or wars happen so one mouth can shut the other one up. But we don't want that, because both sides have the nuclear detterant that is thread lock.

So both of you tell your grandkids the other guy was the evil one, and discuss the idea of morality and it's existence or rather, relevance, in eve.
Spaja Saist
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2014-03-14 02:15:19 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Divine Entervention, did you at any point consider that the following actions your part where offensive to me:

A) Refusal to answer my neutral query whether you look in person, as does your avatar ingame
B) Adding further insult ontop of that by throwing aspersions and wild speculations at me for asking a neutral query.

These where both extremely offensive to me.

My post you quote is not meant to ellicit any kind of response.
You mean very little to me, as I perceive you, as you turned out to be.
A very small and insignificant person who goes around telling other people they are bad, without analysing his own behavior first or applying the same standards to himself.

Those are my observations of you. Those are my conclusions of you. Those are my judgements of you. They are a result of your own behavior. You are responsible for those. I HOLD you responsible for them.

Just as you presume to judge others here, I do so onto you, and have found you a pitiable person and very wanting in moral fortitude or direction.

And now you whine that I am a sociopath/sadist for doing exactly the same thing you have?
That is ironic, and ultimately reinforces and confirms my position in regards to you.

I have not done here, or said, anything that you have yourself already not done. To me, others and the entire board at large.
How do you like your own medicine? Is it bitter? Does it stick in your craw?

The difference between us, and what makes me better than you, is that I can see and recognise that, whereas you lack the introspection, honesty, moral integrity and ultimately the ackonwledgement of responsibility to do so.



You show me the type of person you are by how you talk to people on the forums. Judging by this post and others you've made I can say with a 100% certainty that you're an *******. You think you are better than everyone else and you derive joy from putting other people down. If CCP had any sense they would actually moderate their forums. Everytime I've tried to get someone to play this game all they have to do is spend 30 minutes perusing the forums and they say no thanks. Why CCP will not enforce a level of civility is beyond me.
As I've said before I would never judge someone for what they do in game even if I find some of the scams personally pathetic. I realize that is the nature of this game and trying to change it would be a waste of time. However I will judge the content of your character by how you respond to people on the forums. You may be tired of people coming to the forums to complain but what good comes from the same gang of people jumping on and insulting people or telling them to play WOW. It just makes people think the game is full of sociopaths.
Kais Klip
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2014-03-14 02:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kais Klip
Divine Entervention wrote:


If you feel that I get upset upon the loss of material possession, well I'm sorry but you're wrong. I place my value on the interaction between people, not on possessions.


So what exactly are you perturbed about, the very act of violence against another human being, the loss of possessions and thus the loss of well being coming from an act of violence against another human being, or an act which is inherently carried out to upset the other player more than it entertains the perpetrator (something so selfless that I do not believe to be possible)?

I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing against the ideas you hold.

And Spaja, Salvos did attempt to be reasonable and cordial at first, if anything he is just an impatient man, eh :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#211 - 2014-03-14 02:19:42 UTC
Spaja Saist wrote:
Why CCP will not enforce a level of civility is beyond me.
But then you wouldn't be allowed to post…
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#212 - 2014-03-14 02:23:42 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
All you have done, is insult, harass and troll the entire board at large. Time and time again.

I have not done one thing into you, that you have not done to countless others here on your ceaseless trolling of these boards, no doubt with alts as well.

You judge others on their conduct, now its time dor you to be judged on yours. And all the better, according ro your own bogus morality.

Your attempt to turn the benign query of whether you look in person as does your avatar into a point of "offensiveness" is laughable.

Furthermore, the question is instrumental and central to the discussion at hand.

I look almost exactly like my avatar, minus the tattoos. I have nothing to hide in that fact, nor do I take any offence in being asked ifI do.

You, however, are presenting yourself, in your avatar, as someone you are infact not.
Ergo, you are breaking your own espoused moral code, in that you are PRETENDING here to be someone you are not.
Your avatar is proof positive of that. You have as much as said you do not look like it.

I cam therefore judge you, by observation, with cause, to be a person who pretends to be someone of an appearance you do not actually have. This I do according to your own moral code, perfectly justifiably, because if you would impinge it on others, I willnalso hold you personally responsible for fulfilling every single preceot of that morality.

Whether you are offended by a question, is not my concern, nor responsibility. I am not responsible for your own autonomous reaction to a neutral question which neither implictly or explicitly warranted offense. That is between you and your "feels", not with me or the query.

Nonetheless, your reaction is proof positive that you are someone who is prepared to present themselves online as soneome they are infact not offline, in person. You fell into your own absolutist morality trap, by failing to live up to your own high demands on others, as is always the case with moral pontificators.

You do not practice what you preach. A charlatan, a liar, a hypocrite.


If you feel as though I am who you describe, then why you consider wasting time with me is astoundingly incomprehensible.

I simply stated my opinion regarding the actions of others. No where have I stated that you cannot make your judgments of me however you wish. I've simply stated that I do not have to take the opinions of people who's actions I consider to be morally bankrupt as an opinion I should offer credence to.

Your becoming upset with my stance could say many things about you. Why do you care about my opinion regarding human interaction? What is it about yourself that feels my stating an opinion you disagree with is such a threat to your self that you must interject yourself into stating your stance and insulting me.

Are you your body, or are you your mind? I can close my eyes and imagine what life would be like if I had no body. If I could be able to be my sense of self floating around invisible or if I even looked like a slug and crawled around on the ground eating grass.

What I cannot do though, is close my eyes and imagine what I would be if I were no mind and just a body. I cannot comprehend what it would be like to not exist.

I could look like anything or anyone, yet if I were still this ability to think and comprehend, I would still be this collective consciousness that I am.

Our interaction with each other has no bearing on our physical appearance. Everything that takes place with our communication is because it was chosen to take place by our minds.

I guess it's cool that you think since you're willing to model your in game avatar after yourself, that supposedly it's suppose to mean you're proud of yourself or something. Whatever, it's no matter to me. I don't care what you look like, and you shouldn't care what I do either.

What's important is how we choose to interact with each other.

And because I chose to disregarded your selfish invasive request into my private life to propagate your stance in an internet argument, I reach a conclusion that your emotional over reaction to such a disrespectful request is irrational.
Salvos Rhoska
#213 - 2014-03-14 02:25:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Kais Klip wrote:
So both of you tell your grandkids the other guy was the evil one, and discuss the idea of morality and it's existence or rather, relevance, in eve.


Well said.

We are creatures subject to the moral context and parameters of our environment, whether theynare aligned with our personal morality or not.

Though it is the same person whom plays the game, as the person who acts outside the game, the moral frame of reference and context within the game is not equal to or the same as that of the world outside it.

The person remains the same, but the context and frame of reference of morality within the game is NOT the same as without it.

Why? Because the games environment is fictional. It is virtual. It is an abstraction with no substance, only derived meaning.
A dog or chimpanzee placed before a keyboard will not be able to comprehend what EVE is. It cannot smell it, it cannot touch it, it cannot eat it.

To illustrate the importance of understanding that morality is integrallyndefined by a frame of referende, consider the following.
If I travel to a foreign country with a culture vsstly different to my own, I can not expect my personal morality to automatically supercede that of that culture. I will be expected, even though their morality is not my own, to conduct myself in their culture, in their world, as they do.

The same applies when you enter the world of EVE.

There are no moral absolutes. This because there is no absolute frame of reference to define and distinguish it.
What is right to one man, is wrong to another, and vice versa. What is right in one place, is wrong in another, and vice versa.

The same applies when you enter the frame of refernce that is EVE.

@ Divine: Its too late. I already see what you truly are. A hack, a dilettante, a hypocrite. You lack the conviction of your beliefs. You do not practice what you preach. You do not have the wisdom and introspection to realise that morality is somethinf youninflict upon yourself first, not into others.

It is not a means to control or convict the conduct or beliefs of others, it is a means ro define yourself and how YOU choose to live, not how others hould. To not understand this, is juvenile. It is infact a stage in established psychological theories of moral development at which you seem to be at an impasse to overcome.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#214 - 2014-03-14 02:28:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
You are justifying robbing
No. That's just you confusing what goes on inside your head with what is actually going on in the real world. Please try again. This goes for your equally incorrect and baseless second sentence as well.

Quote:
I am allowed within the confines of human interaction to label such people who do so as those who engage in actions designed towards benefiting themselves at another's expense without concern for their desired way to play the game.
…and by taking that liberty, you are being prejudiced.

Quote:
Considering that we all have the right to play the game how we wish
We don't. That's where your entire line of reasoning breaks down. You have exactly two right: 1) to log in, and 2) to cancel your subscription at any time. Everything beyond that is something you have to carve out of the game environment in competition with (and against the will of) other players.

A “sandbox” does not mean you will succeed at anything you want to attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. It also does not mean that you can do what you want; it means everyone can try do what they want, which will include them doing things (to you) that you don't want them to do. In both cases, you have to force your will onto other players, the same way all the other players must, and will, impose their will onto you.

Meanwhile, you're trying to impose your irrational and incoherent “morality” and prejudice on everyone around you while at the same time deploring the practice of others doing the exact same thing.


And it also means that when someone chooses to perform an action such as stealing from me, I am allowed to classify them as a person who performs the action of stealing and treat them as such.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#215 - 2014-03-14 02:31:11 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

If I travel to a foreign country with a culture vsstly different to my own, I can not expect my personal morality to automatically supercede that of that culture. I will be expected, even though their morality is not my own, to conduct myself in their culture, in their world, as they do.

The same applies when you enter the world of EVE.

There are no moral absolutes. This because there is no absolute frame of reference to define and distinguish it.
What is right to one man, is wrong to another, and vice versa. What is right in one place, is wrong in another, and vice versa.

The same applies when you enter the frame of refernce that is EVE.


Exactly. So because you get to believe that your action of stealing is right, I get to believe that it is wrong.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#216 - 2014-03-14 02:31:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Divine Entervention wrote:
And it also means that when someone chooses to perform an action such as stealing from me, I am allowed to classify them as a person who performs the action of stealing and treat them as such.
…which, since it happens within a game, isn't enough to let you say anything about the character or morality of the real-life person unless you filter it through a huge layer of unfounded assumptions, aka prejudices.

And anyway, no, a “sandbox” does not actually mean that.

Quote:
Exactly. So because you get to believe that your action of stealing is right, I get to believe that it is wrong.
The difference is that in the context, your belief is wrong.
Spaja Saist
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2014-03-14 02:31:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Spaja Saist wrote:
Why CCP will not enforce a level of civility is beyond me.
But then you wouldn't be allowed to post…



You're thousands of insult posts have lost you the right to be treated with respect as far as I'm concerned. You are the problem that needs to be corrected. How you haven't been permanently banned is beyond me. If I was into wearing tinfoil hats I'd suspect you're a CCP employee.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#218 - 2014-03-14 02:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Divine Entervention wrote:
O wait! Except for you it only applies to how you want to play and not how others do.
NVM
Sorry what?

Where have we ever interacted in game and I forced you to play the way I want?

What evidence are you basing your conclusion on?

I am all for everyone being able to play how they want and for everyone to accept the consequences of those choices.

The basic argument about the immorality of others boils down to you wanting to make a choice about how you play, but not taking personal responsibility for the consequence of that choice.

All choices have consequences and we each have a responsibility to accept that consequence, knowing full well the game we are playing.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#219 - 2014-03-14 02:35:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
And it also means that when someone chooses to perform an action such as stealing from me, I am allowed to classify them as a person who performs the action of stealing and treat them as such.
…which, since it happens within a game, isn't enough to let you say anything about the character or morality of the real-life person unless you filter it through a huge layer of unfounded assumptions, aka prejudices.

And anyway, no, a “sandbox” does not actually mean that.


Incorrect, because it is the person outside of the game making the choice for it to happen within the game. It lets me say that the person is someone who is willing to steal from others convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to himself in a particular context, by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct by disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#220 - 2014-03-14 02:36:54 UTC
Spaja Saist wrote:
You're thousands of insult posts
No, I am not thousands of posts — insults or otherwise.

Quote:
You are the problem that needs to be corrected. How you haven't been permanently banned is beyond me.
Oh, that's simple: I tend to stay away from personal abuse, wishing harm on others, trolling, emotional ranting, and off-topic posting. Instead, I prefer to rely on facts, logic, and argumentation, which makes it hard to build a solid case for my being banned.

I understand that trolls get mightily upset when their standard tactics fail and their lack of reasoning is exposed, and descend into frothing rage that get them shut down, but that's really their problem, not mine.