These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM Feedback to CCP

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jayem See
Perkone
Caldari State
#141 - 2014-03-30 00:08:12 UTC
When I started I was awestruck.

When I heard that someone could play me on the market I was aroused.

When I heard about GSF I was mad but curious.

When I heard it was on their website I was amused.

When I heard about isk doublers that were "Legit" I was amused but indifferent.

When I heard some recordings I was less amused.

Times change, opinions change. I can stomach most stuff. Am sticking with 2.

Cheers.

Aaaaaaand relax.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#142 - 2014-03-30 00:59:02 UTC
2) looks reasonable.

As long as CCP continues to review reported cases and act when needed, it's fine with me.
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries
#143 - 2014-03-30 01:12:00 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


2 it is then..... or, rather, 2i:


2i - CCP Should continue with the status quo whereby, all potentially-harassing actions are fair game until someone well known within the community (or a large portion of the community) decry it as being foul play. In such an instance, CCP will either: a) do nothing, or (b) ban all those involved, depending completely upon how it stands up against the New York Times Test (NYTT).

A few important points to note about selection #2i:


  1. It's been demonstrated that that's how things are being managed currently, so it really is the status quo
  2. Nearly all actions against a player-adversary within EVE fail the NYTT miserably (theft, corporate espionage, murder, and dishonest behaviour in general being actions that don't sit well with society), so it really comes down to who makes a better case within the "court of public opinion"
  3. It opens up another level of the meta game that is, quite obviously, currently being played; regardless of whether or not CCP intends on that being the case.


Let the new meta begin! =)
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#144 - 2014-03-30 02:10:22 UTC
2.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Alec Freeman
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2014-03-30 03:07:50 UTC
#3 idealy however number 2 is most likely easyer to manage.
Dalto Bane
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2014-03-30 03:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
2


*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

Drops Mic
Suzie Swindle
Shady Con Artist Militia
#147 - 2014-03-30 03:59:11 UTC
With number 2 being the only real option... it has some big issues like people have mentioned... I have a few for example

Is it harassment if the "victim" doesn't think so? Can we just start to petition for bans because "we" think so and so was harassed or treated to poorly and it is just not acceptable?

Is it harassment if we are to post or make it very public that we are going to "black night" a certain player and make it a mission of ours to get them banned? Seems to me this is harassment of a player is it not?

Do the players themselves have ZERO responsibility to avoid situations (when possible) to avoid things getting out of hand? For example... using the /block function, leaving voice, not escalating an argument to the point of stupidity?

The whole point of option 2 is under the whole premise we are mature enough to act accordingly.... well shouldn't we be able then use our own actions and tools available to us to avoid these instead of needing a police force to swoop in and ban someone? Now don't get me wrong, things like death threats (real life), racism or events/issues breaking the law, or where bodily harm can/does happen then yes clear cut case of ban hammer time.
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
#148 - 2014-03-30 05:49:31 UTC
#2

As soon as CCP tries to define harassment, some smart-ass tries to work his way around the definition they come up with. Better to leave it open to CCP,s judgement.

I want the freedom in the game to play how I want but as someone who has played off and on since 2005 I have to admit the meta game and the harassment levels just continue to escalate. I,m all for playing the villain but someone needs to be there to rein us in when we get carried away.
Tweek Etimua
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2014-03-30 05:50:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Please can you help the CSM by choosing which of the three courses of action the CSM should recommend to CCP as the way forward.

As you are all no doubt aware, CCP Falcon, the leader of the EVE Community Team, yesterday published a communication on the subject of player harrassment. As might be expected, this issue, and CCP's reply, has caused a certain amount of contention. The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.

In other to get some actual numbers into the discussion, please can you select from one of the following three options for the CSM to present to CCP as the opinion of the community.:

(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.

(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.

(3) CCP should stand back and allow without comment the members of the community complete free reign in using CCP's IP and property to engage in and facilitate whatever activities they desire, regardless of damage done and regardless of the clear trend of escalating unpleasantness. This option, so far as I am aware, is not available anywhere and may in fact contravene the laws of quite a few nations including several which comprise large sections of the EVE playerbase.


3 is closest to what realisticly can be done. 1 is the moraly correct choice and can also ruin aspecs of the game.


However as I stated in another post you can not ignor the fact that peope who are hurrassed (in eve) have the ability to stop the hurrasment simply by removing them selves. The glorry of video games. So option2 is best.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#150 - 2014-03-30 07:04:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

Option 2 by the way.

Though if they threw the word "Cyberbullying" into the relevant part of the TOS I would be good with that to.

They shouldn't define it just put it in there, keep people who want option 3 guessing.



*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.
arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#151 - 2014-03-30 07:29:55 UTC
It was fine. Lasted a decade. Now its spining out of control and like a mud slide. Time to tighten the fist.

1 please.

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.

Storm Novah
Yada Industries
#152 - 2014-03-30 07:30:31 UTC
For me it would be #2 with a line or two giving a bit more definition to the term of harassment. Not necessarily something that is hardlined but leaves room for the differences from case to case.
Josef Djugashvilis
#153 - 2014-03-30 07:37:58 UTC
Option 2, has been, is, and will be the way.

This is not a signature.
Goa Chai
Doomheim
#154 - 2014-03-30 07:57:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.
It's fun to be a sociopath, hell even an outright psychopath, in a video game, and I still believe "Psychological PVP" is something that should be permissible, in game, but to let that kind of behavior spill out of the game into other areas that have a real life impact on others is not only wrong, but in many places criminal, and I am glad CCP recognizes that.

That said, yeah #2 is the only logical choice. It's unfortunate that we're not all mature enough to handle #3 and follow the old "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" rule.
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#155 - 2014-03-30 12:16:02 UTC
2, the reasons the others are bad have already been stated.

We are adults, even if we act silly in our internet spaceships.
Emiko P'eng
#156 - 2014-03-30 12:51:05 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I Vote 2

*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#157 - 2014-03-30 13:33:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I prefer 3, but 2 is acceptable.

*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#158 - 2014-03-30 13:45:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I'd go with 1


Its the closest to what I think. We are rated for 13 year olds, If we want to have adult conversations that sound like were in the alley behind a dive bar kickin the bum at the garbage bins it should be 18 and over, I'd even say 21. I seen elementary school kids make fun of people like we do but not 18 year olds and certainly not adults. I really really really have only encountered our level of debasements in the lowest bars, the very lowest. 2 doesn't work. And 3 should only be allowed inside x rated corps.

*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.
Etain Tzestu
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#159 - 2014-03-30 14:04:17 UTC
2 please
Qalix
Long Jump.
#160 - 2014-03-30 15:40:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Qalix
Your choices are written in a way that makes it nearly impossible for a rational, reasonable person to choose anything other than #2. The wording on #3 is especially egregious. These are not real choices.

I propose another:

#4 - CCP makes it clear to all players that, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN EVE, every action has long term consequences. If you do something so ****** up that the community rouses itself from its beer-soaked stupor to demand that your ass be kicked to the street, do not be surprised when CCP does exactly that. If you feel a compulsion to internet lawyer your way out of the predicament you've created for yourself, CCP would like to remind you that the ethos you embodied with your actions, that is to say, the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, is a right that it too can claim. CCP shouldn't have to force people to act like human beings, so it won't. It will simply cast out all those who can't be bothered to try.

That's a quick, rough draft. Feel free to tweak.