These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Jester Trek Latest Blog

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#4601 - 2014-03-27 08:03:32 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Yes he was obviously. It comes down to reasonable perceptions. Would you want a loved one to be subjected to similar abuse in a computer game? The majority of people certainly would answer in the negative.

One can surmise the intentions of Erotica quite easily by their actions. A normal person listening to the recording would reasonably be expected to conclude that the intention of the people in the recording was to humiliate, abuse, insult, tease and make fun of this person. A reasonable person when asked if that would constitute an intention to cause harm to that person would very likely respond in the affirmative.

Stop trying to justify your unjustifiable behavior by calling the victim a 'client', you don't fool me and you likely don't fool even yourself. Your behavior is extremely poor and this is probably a wake up call for you to reassess it.

I would not want a loved one to be subject to that kind of abuse in a video game unless they had the mental constitution to shrug it off. If they did not, I would advice them to close their voice communication software, which is no more difficult than hitting the red 'X' button in the top right of the program. If said loved one MADE THE CHOICE not to take my advice, that's their problem, I am not responsible for what you choose to subject yourself to in a video game.

Where the 'loved ones' in this example are adults. If they were minors under my responsibility, I would teach them what these type of behaviour meant, how to avoid them etc. and exercise my responsibility by turning off the game/software etc.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4602 - 2014-03-27 08:03:52 UTC
Dacus Minor wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:


You shouldn't be banned just because someone feels you should be banned. You get banned when you break the rules.


While I do not like it, I can agree with the last sentence.

That last sentence is the only point most of us have been trying to make over the last 230 pages.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4603 - 2014-03-27 08:04:53 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
lollerwaffle wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Do any of the folk speaking up for Ero think that the making fun of a person's speech impediment was acceptable?

I would like to think that even the most ardent 'Eve Online laissez faire' folk find the part of that whole sorry episode unacceptable.

Do you think that the 'victim' using racist and homophobic language, or issuing RL death threats was acceptable?

Both are in the wrong. No one should be banned just because someone 'feels offended', which is actually how this silly threadnaught got started.


Correct.

But someone should be banned for using CCP's game to fish for people to then take out of game and abuse to their sick little heart's content.

Mr Epeen Cool


"Grr, not breaking the rules but I don't like you anyway."

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#4604 - 2014-03-27 08:06:30 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
230 pages... is this the biggest threadnaught ever?

Ive had my say but the only way you are going to stop this type of behavior is to stop scamming. Its the scamming part that causes people to act in the way they do. If scamming isn't banned then this will continue to happen to many other people, and in fact thinking about that makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I am surprised what lengths people will and have gone to for virtual money. Scary really..


And here, you have made the basis for your previous posts clear. You don't approve of scamming in a game where the developers have expressly stated that this behaviour is allowed and even encouraged.

I too, am surprised what lengths people will resort to (for example exhibiting racist and homophobic language and issuing death threats etc.) over virtual money. And yes, it is very scary.
Space Juden
Supermassive Potato Pancake
#4605 - 2014-03-27 08:07:03 UTC
How could he be banned if there were no rules in place forbidding the behavior prior to this incident?

To me the question became

should behavior like this or worse than this warrant a reanalysis of CCP's stance

I pointed out how difficult this would be in that current employees of CCP engaged in just this sort of behavior.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#4606 - 2014-03-27 08:08:20 UTC
Silvara Nocturn wrote:
Tarojan wrote:
This is just going round and round.
Angry shouty brigade says "bullying scumbag!"
sensible people say "its a game not reality"
Angry shouty brigade yell odd words like torture! cyber bullying! breachs of Eula! bad publicity!
sensible people patatiently explain why thats not true and in fact diminishs the meanings of those words and insults real victims of them.

then everyone goes to bed and the same stuff gets written by 2 new groups of people.


I think those "sensible" people are nitpicking across the board to try and deflect from the question at hand. Do you think Erotica 1's behaviour and the bonus room is acceptable?

Whether it is acceptable in accordance with your own sense of morality has no relevance to whether CCP should ban him. Which is the argument at hand if you haven't gathered it by now, over the last 230 pages or so.
Abrei-Kaii
Petrolinvest
#4607 - 2014-03-27 08:09:24 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Abrei-Kaii wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
It was outright predatory behavior designed and intended to cause harm to another person.

Was the person harmed? Do you have any evidence to suggest that Erotica's intention was to harm another player? I've known Erotica 1 for quite a while and I believe he has no intention of harming anyone. I've often been quite surprised by his compassion, showing sympathy in situations where I didn't.

If anything, Erotica 1 is more of a scapegoat for all of our antics. Erotica 1 is the figurehead and organizer of the operation, but everything that happens in that room aren't his own ideas. The 'mayo pic' episode, well people had their information wrong about that, so I thought people were referring to something else. It was actually peanut butter, not mayo and it wasn't even Erotica's idea. That was actually my idea, except I wanted him to use a marker pen (this was in retaliation to one of Erotica's rivals, who had one of his victims make a sign pic for him. We wanted to out-do him). The client didn't have a pen and ended up using peanut butter. I'm not sure how that happened, but I remember the client was enjoying himself. He was one of the happiest clients I've seen in the bonus room and he was just there for enjoyment. He knew he was likely to lose his assets and he didn't care. Great client all round.


You believe that this is appropriate behavior in which way again?

1B isk says your an Ero alt... any takers?


Yep. I'll take that bet.

Ero had a public API up today and everything.

You owe me 1B isk.

EDIT: I will happily forward 1 bil to Chribba for this bet immediately, if you do as well, pending evidence that Riot Girl and Ero 1 are two different people.


Because we know that nobody has multiple accounts... amirite?
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4608 - 2014-03-27 08:09:51 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:

I'm curious.

Were you you as understanding of Somer, who essentially said exactly the same things you are attributing to Erotica1?

Mr Epeen Cool

My problem was in CCP giving out unique assets to competing third parties in the sandbox. My issue was not with the recipient, somer blink, per se.

If CCP gave me high-value unique assets, I would accept them without question. Doesn't mean CCP should hand out those assets just because.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#4609 - 2014-03-27 08:09:55 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Yes he was obviously. It comes down to reasonable perceptions. Would you want a loved one to be subjected to similar abuse in a computer game?

If they're a functioning adult, I wouldn't care. If they're someone who relies on support, like a child, then I'd supervise their online activities and not allow them to get into that kind of situation.

Quote:
A normal person listening to the recording would reasonably be expected to conclude that the intention of the people in the recording was to humiliate, abuse, insult, tease and make fun of this person.

So?

Quote:
A reasonable person when asked if that would constitute an intention to cause harm to that person would very likely respond in the affirmative.

A reasonable person would not make such presumptions based on such little evidence.

Quote:
Stop trying to justify your unjustifiable behavior by calling the victim a 'client', you don't fool me and you likely don't fool even yourself. Your behavior is extremely poor and this is probably a wake up call for you to reassess it.

Why would I want to justify it? It is what it is, I don't need approval.

Oh god.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#4610 - 2014-03-27 08:10:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

"Grr, not breaking the rules but I don't like you anyway."


That's not really your call, is it?

It's up to CCP whether any rules were broken. CCP makes the rules and CCP interprets them. Not me. Not you.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough, so give it a rest about rules. It just doesn't wash.

Mr Epeen Cool
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#4611 - 2014-03-27 08:11:17 UTC
Space Juden wrote:
How could he be banned if there were no rules in place forbidding the behavior prior to this incident?

To me the question became

should behavior like this or worse than this warrant a reanalysis of CCP's stance

I pointed out how difficult this would be in that current employees of CCP engaged in just this sort of behavior.

Since there are no rules forbidding this behaviour, why should he be banned? Because you don't like this behaviour?

BTW ,behaviour like this has happened throughout the 10+ year history of EVE. As and when CCP decides an individual has stepped over the line, they will take action. This action is not determined nor enforced by a subset of players who don't like said behaviour, or do not find it acceptable according to their moral standards.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4612 - 2014-03-27 08:13:07 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

"Grr, not breaking the rules but I don't like you anyway."


That's not really your call, is it?

It's up to CCP whether any rules were broken. CCP makes the rules and CCP interprets them. Not me. Not you.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough, so give it a rest about rules. It just doesn't wash.

Mr Epeen Cool

At least we provide some support beyond: he makes me feel bad on the inside. But you are correct, CCP will decide.
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#4613 - 2014-03-27 08:13:17 UTC
All first time offenders caught in gang raping has a get out of jail freecard, yes?
Space Juden
Supermassive Potato Pancake
#4614 - 2014-03-27 08:13:34 UTC
lollerwaffle wrote:
Space Juden wrote:
How could he be banned if there were no rules in place forbidding the behavior prior to this incident?

To me the question became

should behavior like this or worse than this warrant a reanalysis of CCP's stance

I pointed out how difficult this would be in that current employees of CCP engaged in just this sort of behavior.

Since there are no rules forbidding this behaviour, why should he be banned? Because you don't like this behaviour?

BTW ,behaviour like this has happened throughout the 10+ year history of EVE. As and when CCP decides an individual has stepped over the line, they will take action. This action is not determined nor enforced by a subset of players who don't like said behaviour, or do not find it acceptable according to their moral standards.


Should you be in this thread at all if you have such a fundamental deficiency in reading comprehension?

We all have questions
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4615 - 2014-03-27 08:14:18 UTC
Space Juden wrote:

should behavior like this or worse than this warrant a reanalysis of CCP's stance

I pointed out how difficult this would be in that current employees of CCP engaged in just this sort of behavior.

I have no problem with the discussion taking this course, but that isn't the course the individuals calling for a ban are taking.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4616 - 2014-03-27 08:14:47 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

"Grr, not breaking the rules but I don't like you anyway."


That's not really your call, is it?

It's up to CCP whether any rules were broken. CCP makes the rules and CCP interprets them. Not me. Not you.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough, so give it a rest about rules. It just doesn't wash.

Mr Epeen Cool


So then you admit you're not appealing to actual breaches of the rules, just the outcry raised by Ripard Teg?

If I get a big enough lynch mob, can I get someone banned, too?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tarojan
Tarojan Corporation
#4617 - 2014-03-27 08:15:30 UTC
Silvara Nocturn wrote:
Tarojan wrote:
This is just going round and round.
Angry shouty brigade says "bullying scumbag!"
sensible people say "its a game not reality"
Angry shouty brigade yell odd words like torture! cyber bullying! breachs of Eula! bad publicity!
sensible people patatiently explain why thats not true and in fact diminishs the meanings of those words and insults real victims of them.

then everyone goes to bed and the same stuff gets written by 2 new groups of people.


I think those "sensible" people are nitpicking across the board to try and deflect from the question at hand. Do you think Erotica 1's behaviour and the bonus room is acceptable?


I spent years forum warrioring this sort of stuff. Wether I think the bonus room is good fun and high jinks or dark and creepy and bad for the game is neither here nor there. What matters is what the people who played the bonus room thought and from some of the clouds I have listened to some of them enjoyed themselves or certainly appeared to. Again though I'd like to repeat some earlier remarks I have made about the nature of bullying. This wasn't bullying. If'd you actaully lived in an abusive relationship you would know and understand the difference. Stop comparing space pixels in a game to real life. get a grip please.

Will gank for food
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4618 - 2014-03-27 08:16:49 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
It is time for CCP's Lord of the Flies experiment in immaturity to come to end, and with it this whole disgusting chapter in EVE Online. It is time for scamming to come to an end, all forms. Because as long as that type of gameplay is allowed, we will have this kind of filth in our midst.


Ending scamming is not what this thread is about. The vast majority of scammers are able to ply their trade with out resorting to subhuman tendancies.

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.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#4619 - 2014-03-27 08:17:09 UTC
Wow this thing is still going huh?

That's neat.
Tarojan
Tarojan Corporation
#4620 - 2014-03-27 08:17:19 UTC
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
All first time offenders caught in gang raping has a get out of jail freecard, yes?



YOU. stop it. gang **** isnt funny and shouldnt be cheapened like that to score points in a forum debate.

Will gank for food