These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Prince Kobol
#321 - 2014-06-03 13:22:45 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
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.

Well I guess that's a good thing that didn't happen, then.

It was described in outrageous ways, yes. Torture it was not. Harassment and abuse, sure. That's more than enough. I'll chalk it up to Ripard not knowing how to use words that properly describe what he means.



Riptard knew exactly what he was doing which is what makes it all the more worse.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#322 - 2014-06-03 13:22:52 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

EVE has never actively encouraged harassment.


Good thing harassment is impossible in this setting. I arrest people for harassment, you obviously don't know what that word means.

You would arrest for specific forms that you can easily identify and document. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this makes you qualified to determine that something definitively isn't harassment, merely that it makes you qualified to determine that something warrants an arrest.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#323 - 2014-06-03 13:23:49 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Riptard knew exactly what he doing which is what makes it all the more worse.

Really now? Because if he did that would be a first.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Prince Kobol
#324 - 2014-06-03 13:23:57 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

EVE has never actively encouraged harassment.


Good thing harassment is impossible in this setting. I arrest people for harassment, you obviously don't know what that word means.

You would arrest for specific forms that you can easily identify and document. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this makes you qualified to determine that something definitively isn't harassment, merely that it makes you qualified to determine that something warrants an arrest.



Which part was the whole E1 thing was harassment?
Prince Kobol
#325 - 2014-06-03 13:25:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Riptard knew exactly what he doing which is what makes it all the more worse.

Really now? Because if he did that would be a first.


lmao.. I know right but yeah, he knew what he was doing hence the use of language and then his sudden and furious back peddling to distance himself as much as he could when he realised most people did not see him as the saviour of Eve he though he would be pronounced to be.
Dave Stark
#326 - 2014-06-03 13:25:16 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Riptard knew exactly what he doing which is what makes it all the more worse.

Really now? Because if he did that would be a first.

I'm sure even ripard is aware what happens when you start a witch hunt.
Even i wouldn't be rude enough to assert that he's that brain dead.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#327 - 2014-06-03 13:25:33 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
you types?


Lol. I ganked, baited, pirated and ransomed folks before you started playing. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the difference between in game actions against in game characters, and taking it all out of context pulling it into RL.
BuckStrider
Nano-Tech Experiments
#328 - 2014-06-03 13:25:36 UTC
Andski wrote:
let's face it jester's trek readers have about as much independent thought as climate change deniers


I thought the new buzzword was 'Climate Chaos'? And we only have like 480 days to live (according to the French)

Anyway...

'Climate Denier' is a term created by statists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

Seems that you and Jester's have more in common than you think.

Mine smart. Mine safe. Purchase your mining permit today...... www.minerbumping.com
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#329 - 2014-06-03 13:26:48 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
And also your claim that Sohkar could have just easily walked away doesn't really stand up to inspection. The difference between the Bonus Room and every other scam in EVE is the premise, which furthermore happened to be true at least in some cases, that successful completion would allow the participant (i.e. the mark) to regain all of their lost possessions, ISK, and then some bonus. It's a carrot and stick approach, furthermore compounded by the fact that the "rules" could be adjusted at any time by E1 and his companions. Repetitively coercing someone to do something that they find extremely unpleasant and humiliating for no purpose other than your own enjoyment certainly qualifies as psychological harassment. That is a violation of the very first listed item in the EVE Terms of Service. The severity of this harassment warranted the permanent ban.
Well Sohkar disagrees with you.

Also, what you've pretty much described there is every scam ever. People are tricked out of their stuff, sometimes even given back small amounts to encourage them to invest further. It's like isk doublers, they'll double your 1 mil, then you chuck in half a billion and you've suddenly violated some imaginary rule. Then you go back to them again, and they encourage you to try again but follow the rules and you can make it all back, honest... All the time the victim doesn't walk away the scammer will continue.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#330 - 2014-06-03 13:27:59 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
How can doing something EVE is famous for and that CCP has actively encouraged (or did we all just imagine all that talk of Tears and 'htfu' coming from CCP) possibly be out of line?

EVE has never actively encouraged harassment.


Good thing harassment is impossible in this setting. I arrest people for harassment, you obviously don't know what that word means.

You would arrest for specific forms that you can easily identify and document. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this makes you qualified to determine that something definitively isn't harassment, merely that it makes you qualified to determine that something warrants an arrest.


Proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

I get it, you don't like this erotica1 person for whatever reason. That doesn't change the very simple facts of the matter. Grown men. internet. Choices and responsibility. And the fact that the 'victim' disagrees with your assessment of the event in question.

You have every right to be wrong about it (and you are, again seemingly because of personal dislike), I simply don't understand why you'd choose to be.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#331 - 2014-06-03 13:29:28 UTC
BuckStrider wrote:
Andski wrote:
let's face it jester's trek readers have about as much independent thought as climate change deniers


I thought the new buzzword was 'Climate Chaos'? And we only have like 480 days to live (according to the French)

Anyway...

'Climate Denier' is a term created by statists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

Seems that you and Jester's have more in common than you think.



'Climate Denier' is an accurate descriptor for a scientifically illiterate layman who thinks they know science better than scientists and rejects the science behind climate change. There are a few factors at play here, not the least of which is cognitive dissonance laced with some oil-industry-funded propaganda wrapped up in a pretty 'sciency' ribbon, but this is all beside the point. What you did, just now, is confirm you are a Jester's Trek reader.

“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
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#332 - 2014-06-03 13:29:32 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Which part was the whole E1 thing was harassment?

Why don't you tell me? After all you already agreed that he should have been banned, so either he did something bannable according to you or you're just being vindictive.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#333 - 2014-06-03 13:30:25 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

Because being a cop makes you an authority on everything.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#334 - 2014-06-03 13:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

Because being a cop makes you an authority on everything.


Never said that. I said you don't know what harassment is. You've proven this yourself.
Prince Kobol
#335 - 2014-06-03 13:34:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Which part was the whole E1 thing was harassment?

Why don't you tell me? After all you already agreed that he should have been banned, so either he did something bannable according to you or you're just being vindictive.



I said I am glad he was banned but not for the reason he was banned for or the circumstances. I know it doesn't help your argument but there it is.

I fully admit that I do not like him but then I never created a blog saying that he should be banned because he never did anything in game that would warrant a banning.

*EDITED**

Just to expand on why do I not like him, because I think the guy is creepy as **** and anybody who likes people covering themselves in mayo and sending them pics of it is just urgh.

Also as far as I was concerned he really got off on recording people getting mad and frustrated which again is just creepy.

However when all said and done, it all happened out of game, outside of CCP's remit and hence should not of been banned for those actions.

So, which part are classing as harassment?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#336 - 2014-06-03 13:36:47 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

Because being a cop makes you an authority on everything.


Never said that. I said you don't know what harassment is. You've proven this yourself.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
Quote:
harassment n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#337 - 2014-06-03 13:37:55 UTC
Love how forums have become a bonus-room for all that E1-groupies. They went all in for him and they'll never get him back :>
Dave Stark
#338 - 2014-06-03 13:39:20 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

Because being a cop makes you an authority on everything.


Never said that. I said you don't know what harassment is. You've proven this yourself.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
Quote:
harassment n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious.


the "systematic and/or continued" part invalidates any of the bolded areas.

there was nothing systematic or continued about what E1 did, it was a single bonus room.
Prince Kobol
#339 - 2014-06-03 13:41:20 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

Because being a cop makes you an authority on everything.


Never said that. I said you don't know what harassment is. You've proven this yourself.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
Quote:
harassment n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious.


Which part of what you have quoted applies to what E1 did?

Again which part of what E1 did do you class as harassment?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#340 - 2014-06-03 13:41:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
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.

Well I guess that's a good thing that didn't happen, then.

It was described in outrageous ways, yes. Torture it was not. Harassment and abuse, sure. That's more than enough. I'll chalk it up to Ripard not knowing how to use words that properly describe what he means.
Since this behaviour was well known to the whole community and CCP, and nothing was ever done, event when it was petitioned by some, that pretty much fits the definition of acceptable.

Then Ripard being in a position of power did in fact describe this behaviour as torture, pretty much a guarantee to generate bad press. in fact if you read his blog and you search for the word "torture" you'll find torture (and torturer) is referred to 10 times in the body of that post alone. So yes, behaviour that was being and had previously been accepted was described as torture to generate bad press to force a change.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.