EVE General Discussion

No, they completely humiliated the guy for nothing but their own personal pleasure.

Some time ago a foreigner asked me about how it was possible that in America's past, so many "Cowboys" (though it was not that simple - it was just one job to have in those days but work with me here) had pistols and rifles and yet there was still civility.

Part of the reason for this was that while property rights and the ability to commit violence were common, nobody felt they had a right to humiliate anybody.

Therefore, if you found stranger on your land, you asked him where he was going and what he was doing and if he needed help and you were polite.

Even if you were in your right to instead run him off at gunpoint, or even shoot at his feet to make him dance while laughing at him. Sure that might have been illegal too but if there was no sheriff or the sheriff was on your side, you could still get away with it.

For the most part the "Wild West" was not so wild.

As was explained to me by people old enough to remember what their parents (who came in on wagons), if you went and humiliated someone, anybody, for any reason, you risked your hay barn mysteriously catching fire that night.

Not that it would be the proper thing to do, even if legal, but it would be expected. You can't rob a man of his dignity and not expect something bad to happen. So people were more polite because for all you knew, that person you could be messing with might be wanted in 7 states for something.

So while the incidents are rare, people getting physical revenge over online actions seldom happen with much surprise to any observers because the common sense still exists, that you cannot drive someone into madness and expect everything to remain on the rails logically and legally past that point.

Frankly I think that scammers who take it to a "bonus round" are playing with fire. I know I know, everybody thinks "the law" is so powerful these days because the governments act like laws written on paper (while ironically ignoring those other laws written on paper - the ones meant to protect our rights) are "God" with help from the media. But as those of us who train people in dealing with violence can say, where laws are written in posh offices surrounded by armed guards and where they exist in the mind of someone who is driven to madness might as well be two different dimensions where neither law nor reason has any substance in the other.


Hence I too would not be surprised if something happened or eventually happened. I don't condone it, but the ninnying and victimism around it wont' be in the mind of someone being attacked if it happens (their thoughts won't be "Hey I can get him banned from EO now! I'm leet!" It's going to be "OMG OMG *pee in pants OMG OMG").

And so at the least, even if one can argue that E1 did "nothing wrong", we must address these kinds of actions because if the day comes that someone is so enraged from them that they do track down the scammer (ganker, corp thief or whatever the case is) and attacks them, do we want Eve Online to be the game being mentioned in that news report? Such attacks are still rare enough to make rounds on the news and get linked on Drudge Report.

I guess I'm repeating myself now:

From what I understand, Erotica 1 is running a legit business.

There is a chance for gain during the Bonus Round - the client's gain.

CCP does not say that you have to be the one gaining, do they?

Also, Erotica 1 gains publicity, advertisement, awareness, and future contests from the proceedings of the Bonus Round.

So he is in fact profiting. It's part of this "thing" that he does, a business, a persona, which has generated billions. Not only for himself, but other players.

Ganking does have potential gain.

That wasn't what I was talking about.

I'm talking about the POST GANK tear harvesting that has ZERO in game gain.

There have been winners and it took multiple hours, which is freely available on google searches. Try "Yodaknows eve online".

Whether Goonswarm kicked Erotica 1 out or not is entirely irrelevant. This is a discussion on the Bonus Room, not on Erotica 1.

I feel bad for people liking my posts from page 100, you have a long ****** read ahead of you before you can like this post.

OK - now I've had chance to think about it here's my take:

Quite simply this individual and their behaviour are not things that I want me or the gaming hobby to be associated with. I've lived many years with people thinking that gamers are maladjusted sociopaths and having this sort of event to pin those opinions on are fuel for the fire. The main-stream gaming press have already started to pick up on this story and I doubt it'll be long before it gets grabbed by the wider media. In this case the damage is already done and all that can be achieved is to make it clear that the rest of us playing EVE aren't sub-normal gutter-feeders.

In the wider context, though, it makes sense to make sure that this doesn't become the norm for EVE online. That may well have swung fine when the answer to "I want to play a space MMO" was "Well there's EVE Online and er.. some other thing, no, wait, it's gone". The horizon for space MMOs looks to be big and varied and there's going to be places for the sane people to hang out without fear of the psychos.

Now - there's been a lot of arguments in here to support the actions of E1 and I thought I'd adress the main ones:

1. This is a slippery slope to....
Slippery slope arguments are, well, a slippery slope. Everything is a slippery slope to everything else and you can always assert hyperbolic consequences to anything. Quite simply, slippery slope areguments are irrelvant.

2. What was done was not a violation of the EULA
I think this is arguable either way and it's largely irrelevant. If CCP want to ban someone they can and they can stretch the EULA to fit where it's needed if they choose to do so. Comversely CCP can choose to ignore an obvious violation if they want to. Basically the ball is in their court and it's all about how they want the game to be and how they want it to be perceived.

3. They didn't do this other stuff that would have been much worse
Er... yeah. They didn't and you can always level that argument no matter how abhorent someone's behaviour is. The fact here is that the behaviour was bad enough. Bad enough to knowingly cause someone a hell of a lot of distress outside ofthe game and bad enough to reflect very badly on EVE and its player-base.

4. The vicitim had a choice not to be victimized
Yeah - this is one that gets levied at victims all the time. Often along with "they should have known better", "they shouldn't have looked like a victim", "they shouldn't have let themselves be bullied". Frankly, blaming the vicitim is something of a shameful act. It would be great if all players came into the game equipped to handle psychological abuse but that's not the case and it shouldn't be an entry requirement. Even if it were then it should certainly be made apparent.

5. The vicitim was especially psychologically sensitive
That may well be the case but it should be born in mind that EVE is specifically open to 13 year old children to sign up to. They could be prey to such actions and if turns out that they are, or already have been, then CCP is in for a hell of a lot more trouble than has currently been stirred up here. Seriously - if you think that a few hundred posts on a forum is turbulent then you've not seen what the media will do with that.

6. Banning E1 will kill the meta
Don't be rediculous - there's a hell of a lot more meta to the game than JIta scammers.

7. Banning E1 would be changing EVE
Yes - and for the better. Realistically, ask yourself what scammers add to the game compared to the level of annoyance they generate even without this sort of event. Frankly - how many of EVE's players would be happy to see scammers gone entirely? I can't think of a single good reason to protect them and I'd be more than happy to be able to turn up to a trade hub and not get continually spammed in local.

Ugh.. there's more I could say but I

Ya lets change gears here.

Lets discuss the harassment of Erotica 1 AND Sohkar by Ripard Teg.

If anyone should be banned it should be him.

What? So you think the point of playing an unwinnable game like EvE is to be tortured?

That seems quite strange.

If we're just going to repeat ourselves, did any "clients" actually gain? If not, it's not a business. Even in casinos people occasionally win, if you can't find an example of someone "winning" the bonus room, it isn't a business.

The wheels are already in motion.

It'll take about six weeks. I can't remember the page but it was stated in this very thread by another concerned CSM member trying to do the right thing.

Mr Epeen