EVE General Discussion

No no no. You are being an advocate for Personal Responsibility, and we will have none of that in this thread!

Now grab your pitchforks and torches and lets barbeque a damn witch already.

Ohhh, I know. Like I said, one of my pet peeves. You'd think if a game company were going to be dumb enough to do something like deny access based on medical disorders, that they'd use the correct terminology!

The diagnosis of ASPD and DID also take a ton of observation and testing. IIRC, there are even specific warnings that say "Do not use a single incident of ASPD-like behaviour as a basis for diagnosis."

No its not a Mario Putzo matter, but I can still +1 about it.


(secret: I don't care what happens to anyone involved here, I am just passing time at work)

k.

Disclaimer: I'm generally not a fan of scams. I'm certainly not a fan of this particular scam.



The question of ethics and harm are intertwined; Typically, that which is ethical minimizes harm, and that which is unethical does not (and may even encourage/cause harm).

Parting a player from their things/isk (either by destroying it or through scamming) is something that causes harm. Whether a player loses a 2bil isk incursion ship to a suicide gank, or has 2bil isk scammed from them, they're going to be upset; That 2bil loss can translate into quite a large destruction of their in-game efforts.

If they're somewhat fragile to begin with, they may suffer some *real* psychological harm.



So should this be our baseline, then: If a player's actions in game could conceivably be the proverbial straw that "drive" someone to commit suicide, then those actions should be a bannable offence?

Given that straight up loss of assets/isk could have this effect on people, CCP would suddenly find themselves on a slippery slope.

The question isn't whether or not this whole ordeal was morally and ethically defensible (because it's clearly not), or whether CCP could choose to ban people over these morally and ethically indefensible acts (apparently they have some provisions against anti-social behaviour in their EULA.... who knew?). Rather, the question is: Where do you draw the line?

How can you look at all the reprehensible actions that a player can take in this game and say "okay... those... those are all okay. I mean, yes, you lured a player into getting their ultra-rare 300bil isk ship, worth more than most players will ever have, into getting blown up by lying and deceiving them... and then recorded the results on PL comms for lulz.... That was totally okay! But then you went and conned a guy into giving you all his stuff and you made him sing! That's just... so wrong... so far and beyond wrong!"

How do you even begin to formulate such a rule?

"You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't upset anyone" --- well, shoot... there goes ganking and pvp in general, and this is about scamming being taken too far.... so let's refine it:

"You aren't allowed to scam" --- well, shoot... there goes corp espionage in general... most of the danger of wormholes... and probably the players' only way of taking down any player organization that becomes a little too entrenched... so we're still too broad here. This seems to be less about the scamming and more about the taunting and humiliation.

"If you're about to relieve someone of their in-game belongings, you aren't allowed to taunt them about it" --- hmmm.... we've just banned local smack.... well... what if we focus on the stringing along, and get rid of that? Something like:

"If you're about to relieve someone of their in-game belongings, you aren't allowed to make false promises to them" --- shoot.... now we've just mandated that all pirates have to honour ransoms... this isn't going well. Okay, lets focus on the tear extraction bit, then:

"You aren't allowed to lure someone on to external comms, record them and then rob them blind just so you can laugh about their reactions later on" -- This one might actually work.... except... well... apparently the orchestrator of the Revenant kill didn't actually record the reaction on comms. That was someone else. So this one gets pretty tough as well. I mean, how many people would have loved to have heard the reaction on BoB comms when that bit of treachery hit? I wasn't even playing then and I can say that I would love to have heard the raging!

I guess what it really comes down to is this:

What makes this scam worse than others? The fact that it went on so long? Because the scam itself is no worse than any other scam in Jita... So if it's just the fact that, at a certain point, many people think that it went "too far", then we just have to figure out when exactly that happened.

So was it after 30 minutes? Or 45?

Regardless of which camp your in when all is said and done CCP has the final say.

There are so many points in this thread, some good some bad and some awful.

But being able to express them is great.

Its called freedom.

But this game is the IP of CCP

And in the end whatever happens is their choice because they are the masters of this game and we live in the illusion of a sandbox we think we have control over. Because in the end if they flip a switch and turn the game off no one can play. Sandbox gone.

Sooooooooooooooo how about everyone against this person which they dont agree with war dec that coding corp this person is in and the other half war dec all the corps wardeccing coding since they do agree with whatever is happening.

1 huge massive high sec war between everyone.

Keeps all things in game. . .

No?

Give me isk and I will wage all the war you want

No I did not read all these pages

No I did not read the initial blog

Yes give me all your isk.

OK for some serious discussion this perhaps might bring.

Does everyone realize if your advocating freedom things like hate speech and biased against particular groups of people either racism or hate of gays is perfectly fine. Everyone has a right to love or hate who they want. It may not be right in some peoples eyes but its not against the law, until a crime has been committed and that's also interpreted by the law if criminal charges are brought up.

BUT this is not Real Life, its a game. And CCP are the masters of this game and they will be the ones who have the final say.

Everyone who plays eve is a criminal, pirate, scumbag, lowlife, scamming, jerk. Some people just haven't realized it yet
Once you get over that eve becomes very fun.

There's actually a lot of debate amongst the psyche community about the issue. Is "ASPD" even a diagnosable disorder? Is "psychopathy/sociopathy" even real? If so, how does ASPD differ from psychopathy and how does psychopathy differ from sociopathy?

THANKFULLY, because of brain imagining, these questions are being brought to light.

Fair enough. How about feelings can modify or trump standards? Meaning, applying standards equally in all situations isn't realistic because people do consider their feelings about a situation when deciding when/how to apply their standards?


Or righteous outrage. It's in the eye feelings of the beholder.

tl;dr - Humans are fuzzy. There is no "standard" set of human standards to apply in this case, so many people are applying their own standards, standards that I consider to based more on feelings than any actual moral standard.

Nice try for an attempt to depict the issue at hand as scamming.

The issue is not scamming. The issue is psychopathy and mental torture Erotica 1 inflicts on people which he vets out of EVE Online, in real life, through real life methods of communication.

However, if the issue was scamming, then what you have claimed could have been outed as a lie. Nobody can 'win' in a Erotica 1 bonus room. The idea of winning back the assets already lost to Erotica 1 is the psychological hook that Erotica 1 uses to conduct his psychopathic mental real life torture on his victims for deriving personal amusement.

this thread is like a trainwreck that never ends ... no matter how hard I try I can't look away