These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Salvos Rhoska
#5621 - 2014-03-27 16:49:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
CCP Falcon wrote:
The feedback in this thread is very much appreciated, and we've been watching it since it was first posted.

While we can appreciate that tensions are high, please remember to keep within the forum rules when posting.

We'll have more information for you guys in the coming days.

Smile


Hello CCP Falcon, I submit the following for CCP consideration:


"Since 1973Amnesty International has adopted the simplest, broadest definition of torture:

"Torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain by one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter."


How the above applies to the "Bonus Room":

Erotica1 inflicts systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, through means of several hours of subjecting the victim to demeaning and humiliating tasks alongside harassment and insulting from himself and his peers, in order to accomplish their purpose of causing the victim to leave the situation, against the will of the victim to fulfill the Bonus Rooms demands for the reward promised in the contract of the Bonus Room between the victim and the perpetrators.

It is not necessary to be restrained or prevented from being able to remove oneself from the situation, for it to constitue torture, and in this incidence, it is exactly that which the perpetrators are leveraging against the victim.

It is also not necessary for the victim to have entered involuntarily into the situation in which the torture occurs.
It is immaterial how the victim ends up in the situation in which he is tortured, all that is material, is whether what the victim is subjected to in that situation, constitutes torture as defined above.

An analogy would be a wife remaining in an abusive relationship with a husband who inflicts upon her systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, because she knows that if she files for divorce, all the assets, including the house, would remain in the property of her husband, as they are in his name. What the husband is doing to her, though superficially enabled by her remaining, nonetheless constitutes torture, as he is accomplishing the purposes of his will, namely of her remaining there for him to torture, against the will of the latter to leave the situation, as he knows full well she can and will not because then she is homeless and destitute.

In Erotica1s Bonus Room torture itself is the MEANS whereby they accomplish their goal and will, of, sooner or later, forcing the victim to leave the situation, at which point Erotica1 wins the Bonus Room. This is achieved by inflicting on the victim systemaric and deliberate acute psychological pain.

That Erotica1 causes the victims acute psychological pain, is evidenced by the psychological state the conduct they are subjected to in the Bonus Room results in. The victims are obviously suffering from it. Of that there is no question.

A Dev has been made to sing for his ship. But he did not suffer acute psychological pain in the process.
It is evident from the recording, however that Sohkar and his wife, did.


Torture is internationally held illegal in almost every jurisdiction on Earth, including ALL international legal agencies.

Any even superficial indication of torture occuring, needs to be investigated thoroughly by all concerned authorities.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#5622 - 2014-03-27 16:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Also, if you (salvos), as a self-described lawyer

I have not anywhere claimed that I am a lawyer.


I was almost sure you had said that. But I'll take your word on it.

Quote:
And how do you know I have not already spoken at TED?


Where did I say you hadn't? But I know for sure that if you did, you didn't spew the tripe that you're pushing all over this thread. People don't take it lightly when you trivialize things like torture. Or even cyberbullying, which certainly can reach the level of "torture," even though this is no such example of either torture or cyberbullying.

Also copy+pasting the same lengthy post multiple times is no constructive.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#5623 - 2014-03-27 16:50:10 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I invite you to introduce your 'way of thinking' (I refuse to use the word logic for what you're attempting) at a TED conference one day.


A TED talk on how:

staying up late to play video games = forced sleep deprivation
singing a song = acute psychological pain
debasing yourself in pursuit of spaceship pixels = being tortured

Also, if you (salvos), as a self-described lawyer, could explain how the options available to and actions of the alleged victim are "not material" to determining if criminal harassment has taken place, that would be great too.

TED would love it.

I call it Friday night.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
PinkPanter
Valhalla Drinking Team
#5624 - 2014-03-27 16:50:10 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
The feedback in this thread is very much appreciated, and we've been watching it since it was first posted.

While we can appreciate that tensions are high, please remember to keep within the forum rules when posting.

We'll have more information for you guys in the coming days.

Smile


More rules and regulations comming I say.

Anyway thx for keeping up with us.

Just please, do something about it and let us know.
Big Lynx
#5625 - 2014-03-27 16:51:21 UTC
Razefummel wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Razefummel wrote:
Just a little thing from a Carebear like me:

We read the EULA and ToS. After that we will see that scamming ist ALLOWED. Than we will see if this Soundcloud file is an case of harrasement or not.

IF it is --> Permaban
IF it´s NOT --> Nothing has to happen.

Just as easy as that. And CCP allone has to decide IF or IF NOT.
Otherwise we coud just burn the next witch after that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGplrpWvz0I

fly safe

Raze


Well scamming is and will always be allowed. People are not saying (well most people anyway) that scamming should be banned.

It is the act of using the scam to get people out of game, recording it, causing as much humiliation as possible then posting the results on the internet for all to hear and to maximise the humiliation that is the issue.



CCP is generaly "supporting Scam" so this Player is "Coleteral Damage".

Greetings

Raze


Is there a medal for massive bull?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5626 - 2014-03-27 16:51:21 UTC
PinkPanter wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
PinkPanter wrote:
Interesting 3 accounts stopped replying at the same time.

LolLolLolLol

Sorry I'm slow. Just trying to find more news sources I can submit this story to.
Let's see what happens and how outside world sees it. I'm genuinely interested as I'm playing this game long enough to have my vision skewed.


Are you about to form a circumstantial correlation as proof of something that doesn't actually prove anything?


What, a observation is not allowed here now?
It's awesome community right? We can do all we want right?

Nope?

oh poor you. your hypocrisy strikes again and you can't even tell.


No, I never said you can't make observations. I just know what people who are prone to jumping to conclusions are likely to do with those observations.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Helena Russell Makanen
DRRUSSEL
#5627 - 2014-03-27 16:51:38 UTC
Danalee wrote:


He kinda made a big elephant out of a small little fly, let's keep it at that.
And only on that part. The rest, he's just going all overboard with conjecture and bullshit in spades.

D.

Bear



Except you are wrong. Oops

"If a miner needs to go to the bathroom, for instance, I ask that they dock up first, or at the very least ask the Supreme Protector for permission to go."  -  James 315 - aka - the miner bumper

Prince Kobol
#5628 - 2014-03-27 16:52:31 UTC
Jerome Gouillot wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
lollerwaffle wrote:
[quote=Prince Kobol][quote=lollerwaffle]
Then why does he not comment on the vile language and RL death threats uttered by the 'victim'?


(...)


I have been called a scouse ******* a number of times, does that mean the person has a hatred of scouses or did they call me that because I am actually scouse?

The answer is there is no way of telling, especially the heat of the moment. It usually something which shows overtime by a person actions.


Sir, I apologise for english being not even my second language. You are not sure whether or not you are a beef skew? I'd suggest you take a bite. Could be lamb as well ...


Lol.. your not for off from the stew..

People who were born in Liverpool are called scouses.
Wesley Otsdarva
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5629 - 2014-03-27 16:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Wesley Otsdarva
CCP Falcon wrote:
The feedback in this thread is very much appreciated, and we've been watching it since it was first posted.

While we can appreciate that tensions are high, please remember to keep within the forum rules when posting.

We'll have more information for you guys in the coming days.

Smile



Thanks Falcon. I know the threads been monitored. But I would still like a CCP reply on the issue. I think we've beat the topic into dust. All I see now is a few people who know the middle ground is a good place to be. (me included)

And then a bunch of people screaming either

"FRY CARL LEE!, FRY CARL LEE!" or "FREE CARL LEE!!, FREE CARL LEE!!"
Prince Kobol
#5630 - 2014-03-27 16:53:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
baltec1 wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:


No because we do not know if any rules were broken.

The rules are open to interpretation, we each have own opinion on how the rules can be interpreted. The only people who can say definitely if any rules were broken is CCP.

I guess with time we will find out.


We know what the rules are.

This is a rather simple case of people wanting to ban someone because they don't like what they did. It doesn't matter to them if rules were broken or not.

The worst part of all of this is that these people have been tossing about worse things that are against the rules both in the recording and in this very thread which are bannable offences. Yet for whatever reason people are choosing to ignore this and are gunning for someone who have broken no rules.


Then what are the rules. Please clarify each rule in the TOS/EULA with a detail explanation of each one so we will all be clear.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#5631 - 2014-03-27 16:53:25 UTC
Fredfredbug4 wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
It is possible to get angry enough that the mind searches for "the worst things to say".

Mel Gibson for example. Nobody goes into an explosive rant better IMO.


Now back in my day (TM) when people went into this state, it was uncommon for it to be full of racial and sexual slang and epithets.

Why was that?


Because back then such words were not lent such power. There was no political correctness turning mere words (which were also interchangeably used as terms of endearment) into weapons of mass destruction.


So now, when someone has gone completely off the end of their rope, their mind looks to the "shelf" of the worst things to say.

And guess what's on that shelf now, thanks to 20+ years of political correctness?


So of course it's only expected that the same victims (or fools who can't see how manipulated they are) will act like the person who said those words has committed an act completely disconnected from the mental state, one that was induced, in which those words were said.

It's like winning a trophy for these people, the sort that would use such incident as a whip of progressiveness to beat others with, such as "Oh so you say he was under duress? Why are you a racist too?".

The tactic is plainly obvious, and I see people do this on Twitter all of the time too.


Like I said, both Erotica 1 and his victims are at fault. The victims deserve zero sympathy. They knew exactly what they were getting into yet let their greed turn them into idiots. However what Erotica 1 does is just pure sadism with no rhyme or reason to it. He could get the same results (scamming people out of everything they own) by merely asking them to do the first part of the game (showing full faith). This would be perfectly fine. Asking them to do or say humiliating things is where Erotica 1 crosses the line from scammer to sadist.

So let me ask you some simple questions:
Does Erotic 1 deserve a ban (some are even pushing for a lifetime ban)?
If yes, on what grounds?
Which rules did he break to result in this punishment?
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#5632 - 2014-03-27 16:53:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
It is not necessary to be restrained or prevented from being able to remove oneself from the situation, for it to constitue torture, and in this incidence, it is exactly that which the perpetrators are leveraging against the victim.


It is if you're going to call it torture, since your own definition of torture specifies that it must be against "the will of the latter [victim]," and its demonstrable that the victim was willing.

EDIT: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4400644#post4400644
wow salvos gtfo and stop posting.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Josef Djugashvilis
#5633 - 2014-03-27 16:53:47 UTC
Danalee wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
lollerwaffle wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
The scam part is fine, this is the part that isn't acceptable for me, and why I consider the bahaviour of Ero and his buddies to be beyond the pale.

"...Early in the proceedings, the victim admits to having a minor speech impediment that quickly becomes apparent. One of the instigators pounces on this and suggests that any word the victim cannot pronounce properly, he be made to look up the definition for and read that definition as well..."

The above quote is taken from Jester's blog on the subject.

Did you listen to the recording?


Nope, I have really bad hearing in real life, are you saying that Jester made that part up?


He kinda made a big elephant out of a small little fly, let's keep it at that.
And only on that part. The rest, he's just going all overboard with conjecture and bullshit in spades.

D.

Bear


If Jester is telling porkie pies, then he should be called to account for it.

I am sure CCP would take a dim view of a member of the CSM telling lies to blacken the good name of an Eve Online player.

Those who claim Jester if being cavalier with the truth in the quote I used from his blog need to put up or shut up.

This is not a signature.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5634 - 2014-03-27 16:54:23 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE


I know it's easy to copy and paste the same crap over and over, but spamming the forums is still spamming the forums. Apparently, CCP will probably read it, since they're keeping up. Since they're usually a reasonable entity, they'll probably ignore it and make their decision, one way or the other, without considering your nonsense at all.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Giovanni erkelens2
Violent Trans Matching
Neon Nightmares
#5635 - 2014-03-27 16:54:42 UTC
Big Lynx wrote:
Razefummel wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Razefummel wrote:
Just a little thing from a Carebear like me:

We read the EULA and ToS. After that we will see that scamming ist ALLOWED. Than we will see if this Soundcloud file is an case of harrasement or not.

IF it is --> Permaban
IF it´s NOT --> Nothing has to happen.

Just as easy as that. And CCP allone has to decide IF or IF NOT.
Otherwise we coud just burn the next witch after that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGplrpWvz0I

fly safe

Raze


Well scamming is and will always be allowed. People are not saying (well most people anyway) that scamming should be banned.

It is the act of using the scam to get people out of game, recording it, causing as much humiliation as possible then posting the results on the internet for all to hear and to maximise the humiliation that is the issue.





CCP is generaly "supporting Scam" so this Player is "Coleteral Damage".

Greetings

Raze


Is there a medal for massive bull?


its called the darwin award my friend
Regis Solo
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#5636 - 2014-03-27 16:54:58 UTC
Flybiere wrote:
Just wow...

Pathetic how many people can quote rules and regulations but can't use a bit of common sense. Bullies at school would do the same. Bait a person, never breaking the rules, but going to the authorities as soon as the victim tried to defend themselves. Certainly happened to me more than a few times.

It's not the victims fault that they are not as practised at being an ******* as Erotica 1 clearly is.

If CCP want to allow this to continue then that's their choice. But it will backfire one day. And then their will be a backlash. All you budding eSociopaths (because your all obviously real nice in RL) will lose far more freedoms than if you just allowed Erotica 1 to be quietly disposed of now.

I guess I better get back to the deplorable act of flying space ships in this space ship game.


Thank god, someone finally speaking with sense
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5637 - 2014-03-27 16:55:15 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:


Then what are the rules. Please clarify each rule in the TOS/EULA with a detail explanation of each one so we will all be clear.


Its up to you to find the rules that have been broken, which nobody has managed to do in getting on for 300 pages of this whitchhunt.
Korhaka Mirunas
Doomheim
#5638 - 2014-03-27 16:55:38 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
The feedback in this thread is very much appreciated, and we've been watching it since it was first posted.

While we can appreciate that tensions are high, please remember to keep within the forum rules when posting.

We'll have more information for you guys in the coming days.

Smile


Hello CCP Falcon, I submit the following for CCP consideration:


"Since 1973Amnesty International has adopted the simplest, broadest definition of torture:

"Torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain by one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter."


How the above applies to the "Bonus Room":

Erotica1 inflicts systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, through means of several hours of subjecting the victim to demeaning and humiliating tasks alongside harassment and insulting from himself and his peers, in order to accomplish their purpose of causing the victim to leave the situation, against the will of the victim to fulfill the Bonus Rooms demands for the reward promised in the contract of the Bonus Room between the victim and the perpetrators.

It is not necessary to be restrained or prevented from being able to remove oneself from the situation, for it to constitue torture, and in this incidence, it is exactly that which the perpetrators are leveraging against the victim.

It is also not necessary for the victim to have entered involuntarily into the situation in which the torture occurs.
It is immaterial how the victim ends up in the situation in which he is tortured, all that is material, is whether what the victim is subjected to in that situation, constitutes torture as defined above.

An analogy would be a wife remaining in an abusive relationship with a husband who inflicts upon her systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, because she knows that if she files for divorce, all the assets, including the house, would remain in the property of her husband, as they are in his name. What the husband is doing to her, though superficially enabled by her remaining, nonetheless constitutes torture, as he is accomplishing the purposes of his will, namely of her remaining there for him to torture, against the will of the latter to leave the situation, as he knows full well she can and will not because then she is homeless and destitute.

In Erotica1s Bonus Room torture itself is the MEANS whereby they accomplish their goal and will, of, sooner or later, forcing the victim to leave the situation, at which point Erotica1 wins the Bonus Room. This is achieved by inflicting on the victim systemaric and deliberate acute psychological pain.

That Erotica1 causes the victims acute psychological pain, is evidenced by the psychological state the conduct they are subjected to in the Bonus Room results in. The victims are obviously suffering from it. Of that there is no question.

A Dev has been made to sing for his ship. But he did not suffer acute psychological pain in the process.
It is evident from the recording, however that Sohkar and his wife, did.


Torture is internationally held illegal in almost every jurisdiction on Earth, including ALL international legal agencies.

Any even superficial indication of torture occuring, needs to be investigated thoroughly by all concerned authorities.



If it really was torture, its a matter for law enforcement, not CCP. And it seems rather silly does it not, to get international law enforcement involved for someone being asked to sing or lose his space ship. Which also, is rather like at fanfest a while back with the clips of people singing their national anthem or they lose their pos or ship. Was that torture too?

We need T3 Shuttles!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiR5Q72kT1U
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5639 - 2014-03-27 16:56:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Batelle wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
It is not necessary to be restrained or prevented from being able to remove oneself from the situation, for it to constitue torture, and in this incidence, it is exactly that which the perpetrators are leveraging against the victim.


It is if you're going to call it torture, since your own definition specifies that it must be against "the will of the latter [victim]," and its demonstrable that the victim was willing.


Don't bother dude, I've already explained all this to him. He will just whitewash it away by repeating the same 'elaboration' he used to justify his claim that it is torture. He's on autopilot now, his own little copy-paste echo chamber. He doesn't appear to understand what a false premise is or why it ruins the argument behind his assertion here.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Prince Kobol
#5640 - 2014-03-27 16:57:28 UTC
Let me ask this question.

If E1 was actually serious about running for CSM and proceeded to gain a seat his real name would become public.

What if then one of the people who he recorded and posted on the internet decided to get revenge and found out were he worked and proceeded to inform then of what he does and they found it to be distasteful and it impacted on his real life would this be acceptable?

After all it was E1 who posted the material to begin with and E1 would of been well aware that his real name would be made available to all.