EVE General Discussion

Yes. CCP also clearly states they are examining edge cases one buy one - on all aspects of the EULA.
So it defenetly should not become a rule, but examining this specific incident should resolve in a ban imo.

Can we get a link to some of those pics please? I would like to add them to my ticket.

whats illegal about please send me your stuff?

ps

please contract me your items

F*** me! Look at how this thread blew up!!! That's awesome.

I don't have a link. If you look through old Erotica for CSM threads from last November, you might get some results.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3867335#post3867335

This. This right here is why I support Erotica1.

To be fair, I was already somewhat on his side previously, as an appreciation for scammers and other sorts of trickster figures are among the reasons why EVE appeals to me, and E1 definitely stands notable among the tricksters. My reasons, however, go beyond that.

Yes, it's arguable that E1 went too far; I, for one, would've terminated the game shortly into the yelling and profanity and death threats. Even so, remember that it was Sohkar that was the one actually breaking the law, and E1 who was being unflinchingly polite. Also remember that E1 already has a massive reputation for this kind of thing, and anyone who bothered to do the sheerest minimum of due diligence would know that. Only a totally naive fool, one too blinded by greed to think reasonably, or one completely at peace with the notion that any transfer of funds to E1 is in no sense guaranteed to result in a return of any sort, would play E1's game. It is, of course, clear which category Sohkar falls into, given that he'd been denouncing E1 as a scammer prior to making the attempt.

Yes, E1 is a massive troll. Yes, some people's feelings get hurt after dealing with such epic trolling. Yes, Sohkar is definitely among their number. However... I'd argue that he deserved everything he got, since he basically did it to himself. It remains the case that E1 has done nothing illegal or EULA-breaking. Sure, wannabe 'white knights' like to make and the 'morality' arguments. That is an incredibly weak position, essentially amounting to 'I dislike what you are doing, therefore you should be punished as severely as I can imagine'. It's lynch mob mentality... after all, since you're proposing that new punishments be invented on the spot and applied retroactively to cover this 'offence', what need is there for restraint? Go straight to capital punishment, it's the only way to be sure.

The sheer ridiculousness of the situation becomes apparent when you realize that people are seriously advocating the murder of another human for the 'crime' of "convincing someone to sing songs". And, more to the point, that these people seriously act as though they are completely justified in their advocacy, as though they were expressing a fully moral position. That, beyond all else, is why I support Erotica1... because the side arguing that he should be punished is completely insane.

When I was a kid if there was an argument, a couple of guys would have a punch up and then shake hands at the end and be mates.

So I reckon put Concord on strike for a week and make highsec a huge free-for-all between everyone after you pick a side to join (RvB style).

Put stations on a 15 minute timer too so if you are logged in, you are automatically booted.

Might be just what we need to get rid of some anger and all be happy (for a few minutes anyway).

You must be a special kind of stupid.....

A) I am OPENLY mocking your lack of ability to use proper grammar and spelling.

B) He willingly turned over his things.

The ONLY thing being exploited by ero and his cronies isbasic human greed. period.

You're going to have to be more specific about what law he's breaking, and where it applies. Please provide citations. Some precedent-setting cases would also be nice.

Dubious. Of course, some specific jurisdictions have ambiguous and poorly written laws, which could be used to denounce more or less anything as 'illegal'. But the term loses much of its force when expressed thus.