These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#281 - 2014-06-03 12:37:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


It was a construction with the full purpose and intent to create a scenario where a person would be pushed, bit by bit, into a situation where he'd break down in public (VERY public, not just "our teamspeak") and would go ape ****. Was he an idiot for doing so? sure. But that doesn't excuse the ones responsible for it. Keep it in game and just about everything is allowed and should be allowed, it's part of the game and HTFU applies. If someone can't see the difference between in game and RL and pulls silliness onto a real life stage and pulls bullshit like that then he crossed the line.

I'm VERY much for "HTFU, deal with it" but at the same time I'm not some autist sociopath who can't see the difference between ingame and RL.
Dave Stark
#282 - 2014-06-03 12:39:55 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.


It was a construction with the full purpose and intent to create a scenario where a person would be pushed, bit by bit, into a situation where he'd break down in public (VERY public, not just "our teamspeak") and would go ape ****. Was he an idiot for doing so? sure. But that doesn't excuse the ones responsible for it. Keep it in game and just about everything is allowed and should be allowed, it's part of the game and HTFU applies. If someone can't see the difference between in game and RL and pulls silliness onto a real life stage and pulls bullshit like that then he crossed the line.

I'm VERY much for "HTFU, deal with it" but at the same time I'm not some autist sociopath who can't see the difference between ingame and RL.


it was also a construction they were free to walk away from at any time they chose to do so.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#283 - 2014-06-03 12:43:55 UTC
"a scenario where a person would be pushed, bit by bit, into a situation where he'd break down in public"
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#284 - 2014-06-03 12:44:58 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
It was a construction with the full purpose and intent to create a scenario where a person would be pushed, bit by bit, into a situation where he'd break down in public (VERY public, not just "our teamspeak") and would go ape ****. Was he an idiot for doing so? sure. But that doesn't excuse the ones responsible for it. Keep it in game and just about everything is allowed and should be allowed, it's part of the game and HTFU applies. If someone can't see the difference between in game and RL and pulls silliness onto a real life stage and pulls bullshit like that then he crossed the line.

I'm VERY much for "HTFU, deal with it" but at the same time I'm not some autist sociopath who can't see the difference between ingame and RL.
So bumping a miner for 2 hours, a situation they literally cannot escape, that isn't designed to make the player, and not the character, go into fits of rage so it can be publicly posted everywhere? But asking a guy to sing in a teamspeak server with easy access to a "disconnect" button is torture?

If they showed up at the guys house and tied him up and demanded he sing, that's torture.

Let me just clarify something as well. It's "RL" in your eyes because it's teamspeak right? so even though they refer to him by character name, because it's not in game, it's real life and therefore it's over the line. So what would be you opinion if the *exact same conversation* took place over eve-voice instead? Would that be OK? That's in-game, so not real life, right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dave Stark
#285 - 2014-06-03 12:45:25 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
"a scenario where a person would be pushed, bit by bit, into a situation where he'd break down in public"


that they were still free to walk away from whenever they chose.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#286 - 2014-06-03 12:46:50 UTC
Gotta love the audacity of people who claim that "CCP had no choice but to ban E1."

Yeah okay, cause CCP is definitely known for being a company that caves to player outrage that they feel is unwarranted.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tricia Killnu
The Horn
#287 - 2014-06-03 12:47:16 UTC
So who's bias is more biased yours or theirs?

Or maybe your all biased of being biased.

Makes sense to me.

I am biased to this bias of my own FYI

Sometimes you just have to realized you undocked and you suck. . .
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#288 - 2014-06-03 12:48:37 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gotta love the audacity of people who claim that "CCP had no choice but to ban E1."

Yeah okay, cause CCP is definitely known for being a company that caves to player outrage that they feel is unwarranted.


Exactly.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#289 - 2014-06-03 12:50:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
It was a construction with the full purpose and intent to create a scenario where a person would be pushed, bit by bit, into a situation where he'd break down in public (VERY public, not just "our teamspeak") and would go ape ****. Was he an idiot for doing so? sure. But that doesn't excuse the ones responsible for it. Keep it in game and just about everything is allowed and should be allowed, it's part of the game and HTFU applies. If someone can't see the difference between in game and RL and pulls silliness onto a real life stage and pulls bullshit like that then he crossed the line.

I'm VERY much for "HTFU, deal with it" but at the same time I'm not some autist sociopath who can't see the difference between ingame and RL.
So bumping a miner for 2 hours, a situation they literally cannot escape, that isn't designed to make the player, and not the character, go into fits of rage so it can be publicly posted everywhere? But asking a guy to sing in a teamspeak server with easy access to a "disconnect" button is torture?

If they showed up at the guys house and tied him up and demanded he sing, that's torture.

Let me just clarify something as well. It's "RL" in your eyes because it's teamspeak right? so even though they refer to him by character name, because it's not in game, it's real life and therefore it's over the line. So what would be you opinion if the *exact same conversation* took place over eve-voice instead? Would that be OK? That's in-game, so not real life, right?


I'll let you figure that out for yourself, it's not that difficult.
Tricia Killnu
The Horn
#290 - 2014-06-03 12:51:00 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gotta love the audacity of people who claim that "CCP had no choice but to ban E1."

Yeah okay, cause CCP is definitely known for being a company that caves to player outrage that they feel is unwarranted.


Whats this you say?

That maybe this is what CCP chose to do after looking at the entire situation not just one part?

MADNESS I tell you.

Sometimes you just have to realized you undocked and you suck. . .
Dave Stark
#291 - 2014-06-03 12:51:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gotta love the audacity of people who claim that "CCP had no choice but to ban E1."

Yeah okay, cause CCP is definitely known for being a company that caves to player outrage that they feel is unwarranted.


kinda went past "player outrage" when gaming sites picked up on the story that they knew nothing about and pretty much reposted because things like "cyber bullying" generate website hits like car crashes draw crowds of rubberneckers.

i mean, hell, i'd have reposted ripard's article if i owned a gaming website. generating hits is more important than being correct... like most articles about eve, regardless of the topic.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#292 - 2014-06-03 12:52:01 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gotta love the audacity of people who claim that "CCP had no choice but to ban E1."

Yeah okay, cause CCP is definitely known for being a company that caves to player outrage that they feel is unwarranted.
It was less player outrage and more bad publicity. A player they had elevated to a position of power was posting accusations about torture (an absolute insult to real victims of torture by the way). Obviously being in the position he was in lends itself to being picked up by real media outlets, so rather than risk any potential bad publicity they chose to slap on a ban and not make a big deal out of it. It's pretty much the same thing as I described earlier, it's like a settlement out of court from a celebrity innocent of a given crime. Sometimes it's easier just to avoid the bad press even if it is not based in fact.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Serene Repose
#293 - 2014-06-03 12:53:52 UTC
Aye. Sad to see Jester go. I got a lot of useful information from his site over the years. He's irreplaceable.

NO! We're not trying to SHAME you into keeping the site, Jester. *sniffle* Perish the thought,
and thanks for all the effort you put into it.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#294 - 2014-06-03 12:53:55 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
I'll let you figure that out for yourself, it's not that difficult.
LOL
So in other words you can't answer it because whichever way you go you'll look like an asshat, because you've backed yourself into a corner by spewing horseshit.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#295 - 2014-06-03 12:54:58 UTC
Yeah, unacceptable behavior does have a tendency to generate bad press. Is that really a surprise?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#296 - 2014-06-03 12:55:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Yeah, unacceptable behavior does have a tendency to generate bad press. Is that really a surprise?
As does perfectly acceptable behavior being described in outrageous ways by people in a position of power.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#297 - 2014-06-03 12:56:09 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
I'll let you figure that out for yourself, it's not that difficult.
LOL
So in other words you can't answer it because whichever way you go you'll look like an asshat, because you've backed yourself into a corner by spewing horseshit.


Not at all, it's because you make dumb statements that any 12 yearold with an IQ of over 85, while not being a sociopath, could figure out. I'd just end up repeating myself anyway.

Perhaps you I should use language more suited to you;

LOL UMAD?
Dave Stark
#298 - 2014-06-03 13:00:36 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
LOL UMAD?

i have a feeling this is why people aren't taking you very seriously.
you've made several wild assertions and been refuted by evidence several times, then you resort to "u mad?"

you can do better than this, i'm sure.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#299 - 2014-06-03 13:00:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Yeah, unacceptable behavior does have a tendency to generate bad press. Is that really a surprise?
As does perfectly acceptable behavior being described in outrageous ways by people in a position of power.


Which is why I make mine sing opera. No one can possibly get in a huff about that.

Next on the block, "Habanera" from Carmen.

"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
#300 - 2014-06-03 13:02:50 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
LOL UMAD?

i have a feeling this is why people aren't taking you very seriously.
you've made several wild assertions and been refuted by evidence several times, then you resort to "u mad?"

you can do better than this, i'm sure.


No, in this case with clowns like you portray yourself to be it is indeed the acceptable and proper response.