These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Reminder Regarding Real Life Harassment

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#901 - 2014-09-13 11:10:10 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I call 'em as I see em, not as I assume 'em. If you don't want to be called a bigot, then don't demonstrate bigotry. Pretty simple.

And you're doing the exact same thing you're having a go at other people for - revelling in the tears of others.

It's amazing how you just blatantly ignore these explanations and throw your own accusations around as if you're perfect. However, I don't want to have to repeat myself again, Ria. If I have to, I'll be calling your babysitter.


Oh, how ironic. Why don't you stop to think for a moment instead of acting out on a preconceived notion of your own superiority? What gives you the right to call me anything, and more importantly, how do you know what I am?

There's a reason God chose to punish you with cancer, my child, but it would seem you have not gotten any humility from the experience... truly pitiful.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#902 - 2014-09-13 11:12:19 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

There's a reason God chose to punish you with cancer, my child, but it would seem you have not gotten any humility from the experience... truly pitiful.

Wow, you are one classy person.

Hey guys.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#903 - 2014-09-13 11:12:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I call 'em as I see em, not as I assume 'em. If you don't want to be called a bigot, then don't demonstrate bigotry. Pretty simple.

And you're doing the exact same thing you're having a go at other people for - revelling in the tears of others.

It's amazing how you just blatantly ignore these explanations and throw your own accusations around as if you're perfect. However, I don't want to have to repeat myself again, Ria. If I have to, I'll be calling your babysitter.


Oh, how ironic. Why don't you stop to think for a moment instead of acting out on a preconceived notion of your own superiority? What gives you the right to call me anything, and more importantly, how do you know what I am?

There's a reason God chose to punish you with cancer, my child, but it would seem you have not gotten any humility from the experience... truly pitiful.




I'm an atheist. But thanks for proving my point all in the space of two paragraphs. It would be the puritan projecting moral superiority around here...

By the way, I'm recovering from treatment. Cancer's gone. 'God' must have decided I'm alright after all... that, or a bunch of medical professionals somewhere did their jobs very well.

“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
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#904 - 2014-09-13 11:17:41 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I call 'em as I see em, not as I assume 'em. If you don't want to be called a bigot, then don't demonstrate bigotry. Pretty simple.

And you're doing the exact same thing you're having a go at other people for - revelling in the tears of others.

It's amazing how you just blatantly ignore these explanations and throw your own accusations around as if you're perfect. However, I don't want to have to repeat myself again, Ria. If I have to, I'll be calling your babysitter.


Oh, how ironic. Why don't you stop to think for a moment instead of acting out on a preconceived notion of your own superiority? What gives you the right to call me anything, and more importantly, how do you know what I am?

There's a reason God chose to punish you with cancer, my child, but it would seem you have not gotten any humility from the experience... truly pitiful.




I'm an atheist. But thanks for proving my point all in the space of two paragraphs. It would be the puritan projecting moral superiority around here...

By the way, I'm recovering from treatment. Cancer's gone. 'God' must have decided I'm alright after all... that, or a bunch of medical professionals somewhere did their jobs very well.


God works in mysterious ways. I pray that you'll be able to enrich yourself from this experience.

As far, as medical professionals go - you freely admit that you're atheistic - and as we know, atheism is caused by vaccines. So think of how those "medical professionals" have affected your entire life up to this point, and embrace the love that God has given you.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#905 - 2014-09-13 11:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I call 'em as I see em, not as I assume 'em. If you don't want to be called a bigot, then don't demonstrate bigotry. Pretty simple.

And you're doing the exact same thing you're having a go at other people for - revelling in the tears of others.

It's amazing how you just blatantly ignore these explanations and throw your own accusations around as if you're perfect. However, I don't want to have to repeat myself again, Ria. If I have to, I'll be calling your babysitter.


Oh, how ironic. Why don't you stop to think for a moment instead of acting out on a preconceived notion of your own superiority? What gives you the right to call me anything, and more importantly, how do you know what I am?

There's a reason God chose to punish you with cancer, my child, but it would seem you have not gotten any humility from the experience... truly pitiful.




I'm an atheist. But thanks for proving my point all in the space of two paragraphs. It would be the puritan projecting moral superiority around here...

By the way, I'm recovering from treatment. Cancer's gone. 'God' must have decided I'm alright after all... that, or a bunch of medical professionals somewhere did their jobs very well.


God works in mysterious ways. I pray that you'll be able to enrich yourself from this experience.

As far, as medical professionals go - you freely admit that you're atheistic - and as we know, atheism is caused by vaccines. So think of how those "medical professionals" have affected your entire life up to this point, and embrace the love that God has given you.


This is why you're a hypocrite.

You wanna get all worked up about people breaking the rules, and you can't follow them yourself, or even your own moral standards.

Religious proselytising on the forums is not allowed. It is a bannable offense because of the highly sensitive nature. Perhaps, you need to go read the rules yourself.

There are also echo chambers elsewhere for you to expatiate conspiracy theories about vaccines, these forums probably aren't the place for that either.

“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
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#906 - 2014-09-13 11:23:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ria Nieyli
Remiel Pollard wrote:

This is why you're a hypocrite.

You wanna get all worked up about people breaking the rules, and you can't follow them yourself, or even your own moral standards.

Religious proselytising on the forums is not allowed. It is a bannable offense because of the highly sensitive nature. Perhaps, you need to go read the rules yourself.

There are also echo chambers elsewhere for you to expatiate conspiracy theories about vaccines, these forums probably aren't the place for that either.

Atheism isn't caused by anything, by the way. Atheism is a conclusion you come to when you grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.


Every year more and more children get diagnosed with atheism... it's a spreading epidemic thrust upon us by crazed scientists that wish to play god themselves.

Remiel Pollard wrote:
I've dealt with much worse.


This is why you're a hypocrite. You randomly tell people that they're idiots, yet you claim others are worse than you are.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#907 - 2014-09-13 11:24:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Steppa Musana wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

There's a reason God chose to punish you with cancer, my child, but it would seem you have not gotten any humility from the experience... truly pitiful.

Wow, you are one classy person.


I've dealt with much worse.

On that note, this is legit harassment and I've reported it as such. I really hope she never has to go through what I did, I wouldn't wish it on Hitler.

“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
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#908 - 2014-09-13 11:34:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
Helene Fidard wrote:
Snupe Doggur wrote:
It's like no one ever heard of Ray Rice.

I agree that it's good the NFL (eventually) accepted third-party evidence.

ed: thought experiment. A line is drawn. In two different harassment cases, two GMs make two wrong judgements:
"You've clearly crossed the line, but we're letting you off because reasons."
"You came awfully close to the line, but shucks, you're just too clever for me, wily player. Go about your business."

Which of these scenarios would you consider "likely"? How do these scenarios compare to the enforcement of today's non-rules?


Hmm you think they'd really do that? Like I said if you really think CCP employees sit there with cast iron case against a doxxer in front of them, and then just throw them back into the game for....what.....their own ***** and giggles maybe(?), why would you financially support such an outrageously unethical company?

The inconsistency is much easier explained, when someone commits a mild offence that can be proved easily from within the client, then the ban is easy. A more serious offence could be committed but if the evidence is weak or link to the account can reasonably be doubted, then a ban is much more uncertain. It's like looking at the conviction rate for **** being so much lower than shoplifting and yelling "OMG society is inconsistent, they much care about shoplifting more than **** victims", which is obviously rubbish, when the more reasonable explanation is that in shops there are cameras watching everyone and everything so conviction is more straightforward.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#909 - 2014-09-13 11:37:20 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Helene Fidard wrote:
Snupe Doggur wrote:
It's like no one ever heard of Ray Rice.

I agree that it's good the NFL (eventually) accepted third-party evidence.

ed: thought experiment. A line is drawn. In two different harassment cases, two GMs make two wrong judgements:
"You've clearly crossed the line, but we're letting you off because reasons."
"You came awfully close to the line, but shucks, you're just too clever for me, wily player. Go about your business."

Which of these scenarios would you consider "likely"? How do these scenarios compare to the enforcement of today's non-rules?


Hmm you think they'd really do that? Like I said if you really think CCP employees sit there with cast iron case against a doxxer in front of them, and then just throw them back into the game for....what.....their own ***** and giggles maybe(?), why would you financially support such an obviously unethical company?

The inconsistency is much easier explained, when someone commits a mild offence that can be proved easily from within the client, then the ban is easy. A more serious offence could be committed but if the evidence is weak or link the the account can reasonably be doubted, then a ban is much more uncertain. It's like looking at the conviction rate for **** being so much lower than shoplifting and yelling "OMG society is inconsistent, they much care about shoplifting more than **** victims", which is obviously rubbish, when obviously the more reasonable explanation is that in shops there are cameras watching everyone and everything so conviction is more straightforward.


Except that at first, CCP didn't even want to see the evidence I had. They dismissed it outright with zero review in the first petition. That's why I made the second, but I have my doubts as to whether they examined what I provided based on my experience with the initial petition.

“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
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#910 - 2014-09-13 11:39:18 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
evepal wrote:
t isn't exactly fair or reasonable, you're right. What would you propose in the situation where someone was to do something that general consensus/CCP didn't want, and they introduce a new policy because of it?


That's pretty easy. You make a public announcement that said behavior will no longer be tolerated. You cannot in fairness punish someone for engaging in an act that was legal at the time they did it. That's such a wicked approach with great potential for abuse, so much so that the United States Constitution includes a clause that "Congress shall make no law retroactive." There's a reason for that.

Before this gets derailed, I am aware that there are people here from all over the world, I'm merely demonstrating that retroactive punishment is viewed with such disdain that the founders of a country saw fit to explicitly prohibit it in the name of justice and fairness.


See, the problem with your logic is that it's not a retroactive punishment, they're the precedent that's used to establish the actions undertaken by the governing body.

Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
The inconsistency is much easier explained, when someone commits a mild offence that can be proved easily from within the client, then the ban is easy. A more serious offence could be committed but if the evidence is weak or link the the account can reasonably be doubted, then a ban is much more uncertain. It's like looking at the conviction rate for **** being so much lower than shoplifting and yelling "OMG society is inconsistent, they much care about shoplifting more than **** victims", which is obviously rubbish, when the more reasonable explanation is that in shops there are cameras watching everyone and everything so conviction is more straightforward.


They were recordings posted online for all to see. Doesn't strike me as weak evidence.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#911 - 2014-09-13 11:41:34 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Smug entitlement


Get out.

“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
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#912 - 2014-09-13 11:43:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
Ria Nieyli wrote:

They were recordings posted online for all to see. Doesn't strike me as weak evidence.


Right, then it falls to the other explanation, that CCP is institutionally unethical, why would you support them?

If a restaurant gives me food poisoning then I am never going back there, but people are supporting a company they believe aid and abet real life death threats.......
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#913 - 2014-09-13 11:43:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ria Nieyli
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Smug entitlement


Get out.


You get out. You're the one that's smugging on people becuase "he's better" and you're the one that feels entitled to his opinions being a form of divine truth, when they're based an unfounded assumptions.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#914 - 2014-09-13 11:47:19 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:

They were recordings posted online for all to see. Doesn't strike me as weak evidence.


Right, then it falls to the other explanation, that CCP is institutionally unethical, why would you support them?

If a restaurant gives me food poisoning then I am never going back there, but people are supporting a company they believe aid and abet real life death threats.......


This is incorrect. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion with them and keep them honest because I enjoy their game. People keep jumping to this conclusion that you just did without thinking about how much people want EVE to not be like this. They don't want to leave, they want this **** not to happen. And we're just trying to point out CCP's inconsistencies to show ignoramuses who think they can do no harm how much harm they let slip by.

You need to stop pulling this one dude, it's disingenuous and dismisses how much people love EVE and how much many of us want to be able to respect CCP and hold them up as a cut above the rest. You don't do that by quitting.

“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
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#915 - 2014-09-13 11:50:57 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:

They were recordings posted online for all to see. Doesn't strike me as weak evidence.


Right, then it falls to the other explanation, that CCP is institutionally unethical, why would you support them?

If a restaurant gives me food poisoning then I am never going back there, but people are supporting a company they believe aid and abet real life death threats.......


This is incorrect. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion with them and keep them honest because I enjoy their game. People keep jumping to this conclusion that you just did without thinking about how much people want EVE to not be like this. They don't want to leave, they want this **** not to happen. And we're just trying to point out CCP's inconsistencies to show ignoramuses who think they can do no harm how much harm they let slip by.

You need to stop pulling this one dude, it's disingenuous and dismisses how much people love EVE and how much many of us want to be able to respect CCP and hold them up as a cut above the rest. You don't do that by quitting.


Seems like a big risk to take to play a video game.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#916 - 2014-09-13 11:52:50 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:

They were recordings posted online for all to see. Doesn't strike me as weak evidence.


Right, then it falls to the other explanation, that CCP is institutionally unethical, why would you support them?

If a restaurant gives me food poisoning then I am never going back there, but people are supporting a company they believe aid and abet real life death threats.......


This is incorrect. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion with them and keep them honest because I enjoy their game. People keep jumping to this conclusion that you just did without thinking about how much people want EVE to not be like this. They don't want to leave, they want this **** not to happen. And we're just trying to point out CCP's inconsistencies to show ignoramuses who think they can do no harm how much harm they let slip by.

You need to stop pulling this one dude, it's disingenuous and dismisses how much people love EVE and how much many of us want to be able to respect CCP and hold them up as a cut above the rest. You don't do that by quitting.


Seems like a big risk to take to play a video game.


Are you intentionally trying to miss the point?

“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
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#917 - 2014-09-13 11:53:52 UTC
Since Remiel has stopped responding, I claim victory in our debate by virtue of his incapability to produce a retort.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#918 - 2014-09-13 11:56:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:

They were recordings posted online for all to see. Doesn't strike me as weak evidence.


Right, then it falls to the other explanation, that CCP is institutionally unethical, why would you support them?

If a restaurant gives me food poisoning then I am never going back there, but people are supporting a company they believe aid and abet real life death threats.......


This is incorrect. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion with them and keep them honest because I enjoy their game. People keep jumping to this conclusion that you just did without thinking about how much people want EVE to not be like this. They don't want to leave, they want this **** not to happen. And we're just trying to point out CCP's inconsistencies to show ignoramuses who think they can do no harm how much harm they let slip by.

You need to stop pulling this one dude, it's disingenuous and dismisses how much people love EVE and how much many of us want to be able to respect CCP and hold them up as a cut above the rest. You don't do that by quitting.


Seems like a big risk to take to play a video game.


Are you intentionally trying to miss the point?


Right, you will put up with the drug dealer slapping you about because they're the only one in town who sells your product of choice.

Ofc this is all based on the idea that CCP are "intentionally letting people by in the face of hard evidence" rather than what occam's razor would give us which is "CCP do the best they can with what's given to them, sometimes it's not perfect".
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#919 - 2014-09-13 11:59:40 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Since Remiel has stopped responding, I claim victory in our debate by virtue of his incapability to produce a retort.


You can't, I've already pre-empted my own with the removal of your posts by an ISD and a possible ban. So there's no further point in responding to you, everything you post is a victory for me already.

“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
Black Pedro
Mine.
#920 - 2014-09-13 12:00:19 UTC
evepal wrote:

The EULA/TOS for harassment does state the same style of punishment escalation. Though you mention November as the example of leniency in harassment, which I disagree with being harassment, as that was just the repeated podding of a character -- not the mocking of some ones speech impediment, which is most certainly the player and not the character.

I don't like the idea of CCP having to warn players for something potential that they may do, that's what you're meant to do yourself, when you read the TOS/EULA.

It's entirely possible that all the time players are warned of harassment, but we just don't know that. I think that's why the periodical release of anonymous statistics involving the outcomes of these investigations (much similar to the bot bans) could help provide some context, as well as transparency without impeding into current policies.


From the original post:

CCP Falcon wrote:
Hello everyone,

We would like to remind the EVE community of our stance regarding the usage of EVE Online and assets, characters and items from within the game environment as leverage for the purpose of real life harassment.

As outlined in our previous announcement, this type of behavior lies in clear breach of our End User License Agreement, and as such we have a zero tolerance approach when dealing with these cases.

Our stance regarding this type of behavior has not changed since the last announcement, and any individuals who are found to be engaging in such behavior will be met with disciplinary action against their game accounts in accordance with our Terms of Service.

- F


I admit I haven't read the EULA in detail, but it is clear that CCP Falcon thinks there is a zero-tolerance permaban policy for "real-life harassment".

I have purposely stayed away to sharing my views on what I think the EULA means by "real-life harassment" as it isn't relevant to why I think this policy is unfair. I will say I believe that reasonable people can come to different conclusions on what may be "real-life harassment" based on the lack of information, and sometimes inconsistent and changing enforcement actions of CCP.

I cannot provide you with proof for obvious reasons, but I will say that in personal communications to me some of those banned have asserted they received no warning before receiving a permaban. Take that for what you will, but I believe them because the actions they were banned for (participating in a Bonus Room presumably although this is speculation as CCP won't say specifically publicly or privately) took place before CCP decided the Bonus Room was "real-life harassment" in March.





The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?