These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 is pulling the plug on his blog

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#261 - 2014-06-03 11:35:58 UTC
why would you even need to brush a scam under the carpet? they're ten a penny. this is eve.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2014-06-03 11:38:16 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
No seriously though, stop pretending the E1 incident was all Ripard's doing.

If you want to blame someone for it, blame E1 himself.


I'm not pretending anything. Erotica 1 got himself banned.

Ripard, however, engaged in a completely unnecessary and purposeless witch hunt. Erotica had used quite enough rope to hang himself without Ripard going off and further embarrassing the other player, who ultimately admitted to not feeling all that victimized.

Okay, yes, that part I can agree with.

If it could have been handled with direct dialogue to GMs, that would have been preferable. I don't know if such a thing was attempted. I never did because I had no direct evidence, only information that other people had posted.


Most likely that if Ripard hadn't become involved, CCP would have brushed it all under the carpet. As is their habit.



How can CCP brush something which we already knew about under the carpet?

It wasn't like E1 was hiding what he was doing. Hell he was talking about in game, all over various forums, he even got kicked from his alliance because he was **** posting about what he was doing.

Lots of people knew a long time before Riptarg got all angry about it, it just most people couldn't care including CCP and the CSM.

So again I ask you, how can CCP sweep something which was already in the public domain under the carpet?


And yet CCP allowed it all to continue...

Until Ripard got involved.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Dave Stark
#263 - 2014-06-03 11:39:13 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
And yet CCP allowed it all to continue...

Until Ripard got involved.


along with every other scam in the game.
Prince Kobol
#264 - 2014-06-03 11:46:04 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:


Until Ripard got involved.



Exactly the point. Nobody had an issue until Riptard made it his personal mission to get E1 banned.

CCP had no choice other then to ban him because of the **** storm Riptard caused with his massively over top blog.

Riptard used his position on the CSM to get somebody banned.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#265 - 2014-06-03 11:51:25 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Yes, CSM members have full control over what CCP does and thinks, also he's the only CSM member so he alone gets to say where CCP goes. There's not other CSM member who, if necessary, could oppose his position and at no point does CCP have the option to ignore what that single CSM member has to say.
Lol, seriously guy, is this what you are going with? Of course CSM members can disagree with CCP, but they have a direct line of communication with which to do so. What I haven't seen a surviving CSM member do is ignore all protocol and start hurling around wild accusations, making them as public as possible and getting all their little fanboys to jump up and down about. If he wanted CCP to act he should have stated his case to CCP, not forced them into action by publicly announcing from his position of power "CCP allows torture" and other completely absurd accusations.

Can you seriously not see the difference between what he did and what any other normal CSM member does when they disagree with CCP (you know, take it up directly with CCP)?


Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.
Dave Stark
#266 - 2014-06-03 11:53:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Gregor Parud wrote:
Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.


you mean until ripard pointed out that it was "like torture" to which the victim quite publicly denied?
doesn't fit the view due to the facts of the situation, not because of bias.

edit: also with how involved CCP are with the community and third party sites, it's going to be quite difficult to justify how they were unaware of E1's activities.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#267 - 2014-06-03 11:54:21 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:

Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.


Does it fit yours?

Do you think the wardecs and aggression and bad poasting by all sides in this debacle was worth it?

Was Ripard a good person for causing this then backing away from the responisbility?

Whether you support or decry him, it can't be denied that he caused even more friction between those who like the freedom of the game as it is and those who wish it to be changed to something more sedate and controlled.

And rather than seek to salve that, he walked away.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#268 - 2014-06-03 11:57:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Dave Stark wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.


you mean until ripard pointed out that it was "like torture" to which the victim quite publicly denied?
doesn't fit the view due to the facts of the situation, not because of bias.


Said Dave Stark, since forever the troll of GD.

- edit for content -


People have been whining, creating blogs and whatnot for years (since EVE's inception) about scams, HTFU, war decs, "griefing" and emergent gameplay of any nasty nature. Propaganda alts have since forever been used to create a story, alter the narrative and then push an agenda.

This time there was a valid reason for it because what Erotica did WAS out of line, completely and utterly. CCP learned about the details and saw it for what it was, and acted on it. HTFU.
Dave Stark
#269 - 2014-06-03 12:00:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Gregor Parud wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.


you mean until ripard pointed out that it was "like torture" to which the victim quite publicly denied?
doesn't fit the view due to the facts of the situation, not because of bias.


Said Dave Stark, since forever the troll of GD.


oh i'm sorry, i was unaware that posting facts was "trolling".
since trolling is against the forum rules, i highly suggest you report my post.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#270 - 2014-06-03 12:12:29 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:

Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.


Scamming. Disney songs. Laughing at the other guy.

Please tell me which part, or combination thereof, of those things is out of line. I am hoping it's the Disney songs, because I make my ransoms sing opera songs so I'd be in the clear.

If it's laughing at the other guy, I am hosed. I primarily play this game to amuse myself, after all.

"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.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#271 - 2014-06-03 12:21:55 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:

Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.


Scamming. Disney songs. Laughing at the other guy.

Please tell me which part, or combination thereof, of those things is out of line. I am hoping it's the Disney songs, because I make my ransoms sing opera songs so I'd be in the clear.

If it's laughing at the other guy, I am hosed. I primarily play this game to amuse myself, after all.


Come on, you're not that stupid. I shouldn't have to point it out.

The second it was made a public shaming is the second it was pulled out of the ingame context (where there's little to no restrictions in regards to scamming and toying with tools) and brought into RL harassment and bullying.

You're fine to scam, toy, murder, troll and harass the in game character, just don't be "that guy" and pull it into RL. If you have any questions about how that can back fire on you I suggest you ask Mittani about that.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#272 - 2014-06-03 12:23:06 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.
So in you mind, even though it was completely public knowledge, including the recordings, and even though CCP had dealt with several petitions that we know of (including rolling back an SP loss for a character who said his brother did it, and even though CCP devs have even commented on threads dedicated to exactly that behavior, they somehow didn't know about it until Riptard brought it up.

The reason I reject that view is that it's utterly ridiculous, it has nothing to do with bias. In fact, if you actually go and read up, you'll find that I'm not a fan of Erotica 1's bonus room buy a long shot, in fact I was quite vocal in my objection to it and in support of it being deemed "too far" by CCP. Go ahead, check, eve-search doesn't lie. So please explain to me where my bias lies.

What I objected to in this instance was CCP not only going against what they had previously done, but doing so because they were buckling to pressure from Riptards outrageous accusations, then further retroactively banning Erotica 1 for something they had previously not defined as against the rules, then not clarifying if a rule had changed, for not banning the other players involved in the exact same thing and finally but certainly not of least importance, ignoring the actual victim of the case.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#273 - 2014-06-03 12:24:11 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:

Come on, you're not that stupid. I shouldn't have to point it out.

The second it was made a public shaming is the second it was pulled out of the ingame context (where there's little to no restrictions in regards to scamming and toying with tools) and brought into RL harassment and bullying.

You're fine to scam, toy, murder, troll and harass the in game character, just don't be "that guy" and pull it into RL. If you have any questions about how that can back fire on you I suggest you ask Mittani about that.


So it was the Disney songs, gotcha.

"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.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#274 - 2014-06-03 12:26:47 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Or perhaps what Erotica did WAS out of line and far beyond what is acceptable, and CCP didn't really fully understand the situation until it was pointed out. But that view would of course not fit your bias.
So in you mind, even though it was completely public knowledge, including the recordings, and even though CCP had dealt with several petitions that we know of (including rolling back an SP loss for a character who said his brother did it, and even though CCP devs have even commented on threads dedicated to exactly that behavior, they somehow didn't know about it until Riptard brought it up.

The reason I reject that view is that it's utterly ridiculous, it has nothing to do with bias. In fact, if you actually go and read up, you'll find that I'm not a fan of Erotica 1's bonus room buy a long shot, in fact I was quite vocal in my objection to it and in support of it being deemed "too far" by CCP. Go ahead, check, eve-search doesn't lie. So please explain to me where my bias lies.

What I objected to in this instance was CCP not only going against what they had previously done, but doing so because they were buckling to pressure from Riptards outrageous accusations, then further retroactively banning Erotica 1 for something they had previously not defined as against the rules, then not clarifying if a rule had changed, for not banning the other players involved in the exact same thing and finally but certainly not of least importance, ignoring the actual victim of the case.


Lots of stuff is first handled by GM's applying the rules as they see fit (or not, as sometimes may be the case), after which someone not satisfied with the answer brings it to the attention of the higher ups. Be it Internal Affairs, Kugu, "devs we have on MSN", a threadnaught, perhaps some Jita monument shooting, a blog or sometimes even a CSM member.

So what?
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#275 - 2014-06-03 12:27:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:

Come on, you're not that stupid. I shouldn't have to point it out.

The second it was made a public shaming is the second it was pulled out of the ingame context (where there's little to no restrictions in regards to scamming and toying with tools) and brought into RL harassment and bullying.

You're fine to scam, toy, murder, troll and harass the in game character, just don't be "that guy" and pull it into RL. If you have any questions about how that can back fire on you I suggest you ask Mittani about that.


So it was the Disney songs, gotcha.



No but you're fine to stay ignorant and dumb. Always handy to know which ppl not to take serious.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#276 - 2014-06-03 12:29:49 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:

Come on, you're not that stupid. I shouldn't have to point it out.

The second it was made a public shaming is the second it was pulled out of the ingame context (where there's little to no restrictions in regards to scamming and toying with tools) and brought into RL harassment and bullying.

You're fine to scam, toy, murder, troll and harass the in game character, just don't be "that guy" and pull it into RL. If you have any questions about how that can back fire on you I suggest you ask Mittani about that.


So it was the Disney songs, gotcha.



No but you're fine to stay ignorant and dumb. Always handy to know which ppl not to take serious.


Well, if you're going to insist on making enormous category errors with every post...

"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.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#277 - 2014-06-03 12:31:42 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
The second it was made a public shaming is the second it was pulled out of the ingame context (where there's little to no restrictions in regards to scamming and toying with tools) and brought into RL harassment and bullying.

You're fine to scam, toy, murder, troll and harass the in game character, just don't be "that guy" and pull it into RL. If you have any questions about how that can back fire on you I suggest you ask Mittani about that.
I always love this argument. You claim it's that it was in real life, and that's what made it harassment, but is that really true? If I were to meet you at fanfest and ask you to sing me a song, would that be harassment? At what point would your responsibility to simply walk away? I'm not saying that there isn't a line that takes it too far and that there no responsibility from the scammer to stop, but at the same time the line isn't just "it was on teamspeak", and there's a certain level of responsibility that should always remain with the "victim".

And lets face it, if there is a new rule (which CCP have not confirmed) it's unenforceable. They have no ability to audit a third party service, and even if there was a recording, if the scammer didn't post it in a way that is verifiable as them, there's no proof it was them on the recording. All that has changed from this is that people running these scams will not publicly associate themselves with it, so if there is an level of abuse it will be well hidden.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#278 - 2014-06-03 12:33:02 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Lots of stuff is first handled by GM's applying the rules as they see fit (or not, as sometimes may be the case), after which someone not satisfied with the answer brings it to the attention of the higher ups. Be it Internal Affairs, Kugu, "devs we have on MSN", a threadnaught, perhaps some Jita monument shooting, a blog or sometimes even a CSM member.

So what?
lol, and you can't see the distinction? Seriously? Dropping out of school was a bad idea buddy.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dave Stark
#279 - 2014-06-03 12:34:09 UTC
If i weren't so lazy, i'd run for csm and make a blog just to get gregor banned. The best part is, he'd be fine with it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#280 - 2014-06-03 12:36:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

And lets face it, if there is a new rule (which CCP have not confirmed) it's unenforceable. They have no ability to audit a third party service, and even if there was a recording, if the scammer didn't post it in a way that is verifiable as them, there's no proof it was them on the recording. All that has changed from this is that people running these scams will not publicly associate themselves with it, so if there is an level of abuse it will be well hidden.


I can confirm that since the incident, not only have more than a few of us ramped up our campaigns, but that we've gotten better at it to boot.

"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.