These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

@ CCP, why do you have rules that you refuse to enforce?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#81 - 2011-12-14 18:26:34 UTC
Shivus Tao wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
While I don't really know why I am bothering to respond to this tiresome poster...

Suicide ganking IS profitable, just because you don't know how to make ISK doing it just further shows your limited understanding of the game.

Have fun trying to troll people on the forums though.


You show your own limited understanding of the game, actually.

Scenario A: guy suicide ganks a badger and gets a BPO ~ not griefing.

Scenario B: guy suicide ganks a badger pilot 7 times and looses money ~ griefing.

The OP was about griefing. I guess for some people its a "tiresome" task to read and understand.


For scenario B to be griefing you'd have to qualitatively prove that the target in question was the sole target and/or was not part of a corp or alliance subject to economic warfare and logistics interdiction and/or acted to reduce potential risk while in transit to his destination. If any of the above are false, then it's anything but griefing.


By your defenition, perhaps. By CCP's definition, it meets the criteria. As I said I'm not here to debate what griefing is, I'm here to ask CCP why they allow actions that they have deemed ban-able to continue.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#82 - 2011-12-14 18:33:53 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:


By your defenition, perhaps. By CCP's definition, it meets the criteria. As I said I'm not here to debate what griefing is, I'm here to ask CCP why they allow actions that they have deemed ban-able to continue.


They dont. The problem is the things you think are griefing are not considered griefing by CCP, otherwise they would ban them.
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#83 - 2011-12-14 18:37:50 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:

By your defenition, perhaps. By CCP's definition, it meets the criteria. As I said I'm not here to debate what griefing is, I'm here to ask CCP why they allow actions that they have deemed ban-able to continue.


I'd hazard a guess and say that it's because a handful of CCP employees can't watch thirty thousand people 24/7 to make sure someone's not being naughty somewhere in the galaxy.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#84 - 2011-12-14 18:39:28 UTC
Cipher, if your goal is to try and get some decision that there should be limits of some sort for suicide ganking (such as a pilot is limited as to how many times they can gank the same miner) I think you and I both know that is never going to happen. It would open the door to thousands of petitions trying to use the statement as leverage to say that the same ruling should apply to their particular situation as well.

The intent of CCP's griefing policy is pretty clear. It is to allow them grounds to ban someone if they get carried away on a personal vendetta aimed at forcing a specific individual to quit the game via harassment. Its fairly generic language allows CCP to determine what constitutes that level of harassment at their discretion, without fear of rules lawyering.

In all sincerity, don't think you are going to get what you want out of this.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#85 - 2011-12-14 18:39:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:


By your defenition, perhaps. By CCP's definition, it meets the criteria. As I said I'm not here to debate what griefing is, I'm here to ask CCP why they allow actions that they have deemed ban-able to continue.


They dont. The problem is the things you think are griefing are not considered griefing by CCP, otherwise they would ban them.


No, thats not the problem at all man. Thats why i don't want to play rules interpretation. CCP clearly states the conditions. If you feel that no one in EvE griefs, you are free to have that opinion. However, you would be intellectually dishonest at that point.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#86 - 2011-12-14 18:41:50 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:


By your defenition, perhaps. By CCP's definition, it meets the criteria. As I said I'm not here to debate what griefing is, I'm here to ask CCP why they allow actions that they have deemed ban-able to continue.


They dont. The problem is the things you think are griefing are not considered griefing by CCP, otherwise they would ban them.


No, thats not the problem at all man. Thats why i don't want to play rules interpretation. CCP clearly states the conditions. If you feel that no one in EvE griefs, you are free to have that opinion. However, you would be intellectually dishonest at that point.


You played rule interpretations the second you posted this terrible thread.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#87 - 2011-12-14 18:44:02 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Cipher, if your goal is to try and get some decision that there should be limits of some sort for suicide ganking (such as a pilot is limited as to how many times they can gank the same miner) I think you and I both know that is never going to happen. It would open the door to thousands of petitions trying to use the statement as leverage to say that the same ruling should apply to their particular situation as well.

The intent of CCP's griefing policy is pretty clear. It is to allow them grounds to ban someone if they get carried away on a personal vendetta aimed at forcing a specific individual to quit the game via harassment. Its fairly generic language allows CCP to determine what constitutes that level of harassment at their discretion, without fear of rules lawyering.

In all sincerity, don't think you are going to get what you want out of this.


And people are getting harassed out of the game. The rule does not allow CCP to constitute the level of harassment, it is already defined. The rule allows CCP to ban or not ban at their discretion.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
BinaryData
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2011-12-14 18:44:23 UTC
Actually, if CCP were to enforce this rule, any sort of camping, i.e. cloaky camping, station camping, or ragecaging a pos would be ban-able. I've come to the realization, that CCP just doesn't give a **** anymore. They only care about those who drop cash on this game, or suck d*ck like Mittani does.

Their primary goal is too: Make as much MONEY as possible.


If you hadn't noticed, people stopped bitching about cloaky campers, why? Because CCP kept telling them it was "legal". Goons bitched about Sov Warfare not being "hard" enough, so they changed it. CCP only cares what the power houses think, and whose dumping the most cash into their game.


This is EVE. **** happens, Get over it.


Piece of Advice, just keep spamming their petition system.

Quote:
2. In online gaming where one repeatedly killing the same individual or individuals over and over again, or camping their corpse to prevent them from retrieving it, or otherwise performing actions in a game to prevent the player from enjoying the game.


Quoted from Urban Dictionary. Said statement is false, if said person goes to another location. Griefing is only ban-able when said griefer is following/stalking said victim. Otherwise, CCP won't do ****. Good Luck, Have Fun.


@ Mittani: The fact that you were chosen as CSM shows how ****** this Community really is. Goons will always be bottom feeders.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2011-12-14 18:45:20 UTC
griefing is fine as long as money are involved..

say what ?? say what ??

I mean really .. its not even funny.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#90 - 2011-12-14 18:47:31 UTC
BinaryData wrote:
Actually, if CCP were to enforce this rule, any sort of camping, i.e. cloaky camping, station camping, or ragecaging a pos would be ban-able. I've come to the realization, that CCP just doesn't give a **** anymore. They only care about those who drop cash on this game, or suck d*ck like Mittani does.

Their primary goal is too: Make as much MONEY as possible.


If you hadn't noticed, people stopped bitching about cloaky campers, why? Because CCP kept telling them it was "legal". Goons bitched about Sov Warfare not being "hard" enough, so they changed it. CCP only cares what the power houses think, and whose dumping the most cash into their game.


This is EVE. **** happens, Get over it.


Piece of Advice, just keep spamming their petition system.

Quote:
2. In online gaming where one repeatedly killing the same individual or individuals over and over again, or camping their corpse to prevent them from retrieving it, or otherwise performing actions in a game to prevent the player from enjoying the game.


Quoted from Urban Dictionary. Said statement is false, if said person goes to another location. Griefing is only ban-able when said griefer is following/stalking said victim. Otherwise, CCP won't do ****. Good Luck, Have Fun.


@ Mittani: The fact that you were chosen as CSM shows how ****** this Community really is. Goons will always be bottom feeders.


Well at least finally someone understands the point. Their goal is to make money, and they are losing it. Which is why I am asking them what is going on here.


internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#91 - 2011-12-14 18:49:29 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
Funny you should say that, as plenty of people have come on the forum and overtly claimed they were doing it only "for the lulz".

Secondly, "attempt" is not written or implied in the definition.



Payment can come in many, many forms; just because you disagree with what is considered profit is just speculation.

Furthermore, you can do pretty much whatever you want in EvE, with little repurcussion. Arguing that something wasn't profitable cannot be proven. How can CCP or anyone else know if I was paid to destroy someone's ship? If your wallet and ship hangar look like mine, and you kill someone because you want to:

Couldn't the satisfaction of their ship exploding be considered profit?
Could their rage being deposited into your evemail inbox be considered profit?
Could their actions of hiring mercenaries for great justice to come after you be considered profit?
Could the removal of their ship from your system be profitable (if they are no longer mining/missioning there)?

If you disagree with this, whole or in part; then chances are this isn't the game for you. EvE has been hard on more then one person, the beauty of this game is that it quickly seperates the people that want to get better and have an adaptable playstyle from the ones that live for instant gratification. This hasn't changed, and most of us are quite happy with it.
Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#92 - 2011-12-14 18:51:03 UTC
It's not that they don't enforce their rules at all, it's that they enforce them selectively.

For instance, some people say 'kill yourself irl' and similar sociopathic comments and CCP not only condones it, but gives said individual a voice in the design of the game. (And Alex's comments don't bother me personally. If that's the public image he wants to present, that's up to him. But if his comments are considered 'acceptable' by CCP then far less inflammatory comments by others should be equally 'acceptable.')

Other people call someone a nitwit or dim or terrible or an idiot and get a 3-month forum ban.

Stop playing favorites, CCP!
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#93 - 2011-12-14 18:54:30 UTC
Xolve wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
Funny you should say that, as plenty of people have come on the forum and overtly claimed they were doing it only "for the lulz".

Secondly, "attempt" is not written or implied in the definition.



Payment can come in many, many forms; just because you disagree with what is considered profit is just speculation.

Furthermore, you can do pretty much whatever you want in EvE, with little repurcussion. Arguing that something wasn't profitable cannot be proven. How can CCP or anyone else know if I was paid to destroy someone's ship? If your wallet and ship hangar look like mine, and you kill someone because you want to:

Couldn't the satisfaction of their ship exploding be considered profit?
Could their rage being deposited into your evemail inbox be considered profit?
Could their actions of hiring mercenaries for great justice to come after you be considered profit?
Could the removal of their ship from your system be profitable (if they are no longer mining/missioning there)?

If you disagree with this, whole or in part; then chances are this isn't the game for you. EvE has been hard on more then one person, the beauty of this game is that it quickly seperates the people that want to get better and have an adaptable playstyle from the ones that live for instant gratification. This hasn't changed, and most of us are quite happy with it.


No, profit has to fall into the category of monetary or advantageous. Thats not what i think, thats the definition of the word. You can consider profit anything you wish.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Prince Kobol
#94 - 2011-12-14 18:54:57 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Cipher, if your goal is to try and get some decision that there should be limits of some sort for suicide ganking (such as a pilot is limited as to how many times they can gank the same miner) I think you and I both know that is never going to happen. It would open the door to thousands of petitions trying to use the statement as leverage to say that the same ruling should apply to their particular situation as well.

The intent of CCP's griefing policy is pretty clear. It is to allow them grounds to ban someone if they get carried away on a personal vendetta aimed at forcing a specific individual to quit the game via harassment. Its fairly generic language allows CCP to determine what constitutes that level of harassment at their discretion, without fear of rules lawyering.

In all sincerity, don't think you are going to get what you want out of this.


And people are getting harassed out of the game. The rule does not allow CCP to constitute the level of harassment, it is already defined. The rule allows CCP to ban or not ban at their discretion.


Who, when and how?

Its all well and good saying that people are getting harassed out of the game but until I see somebody post on the forum with a detailed description on how they were harassed out the game then I call foul.

I have yet to see you give a clear cut example of grief play.

Yes we all are aware about can baiting noobs in 1.0 system but other then that I want to see another example.
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#95 - 2011-12-14 19:01:52 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
No, profit has to fall into the category of monetary or advantageous. Thats not what i think, thats the definition of the word. You can consider profit anything you wish.



Ok- now please explain to me how you would investigate someone's actions as not being profitable to that person.

You can't, and you know you can't.
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#96 - 2011-12-14 19:03:39 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:

Who, when and how?

Its all well and good saying that people are getting harassed out of the game but until I see somebody post on the forum with a detailed description on how they were harassed out the game then I call foul.

I have yet to see you give a clear cut example of grief play.

Yes we all are aware about can baiting noobs in 1.0 system but other then that I want to see another example.


I gave an example several posts back:

Someone who legitimately destroys a ship and steals its cargo is not griefing.

Someone who, upon collecting the stolen cargo, proceeds to stalk that specific pilot from system to system and continually pod him (and nobody else) whenever he re-ships is most definitely griefing.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2011-12-14 19:07:50 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
....stalk that specific pilot from system to system and continually pod him (and nobody else) whenever he re-ships is most definitely griefing.


...and is definitely not going to get banned for it.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#98 - 2011-12-14 19:10:21 UTC
Quote:
Its all well and good saying that people are getting harassed out of the game but until I see somebody post on the forum with a detailed description on how they were harassed out the game then I call foul.


They actually changed a game mechanic. If that is not acknowledgement enough nothing is.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
ALTternate
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#99 - 2011-12-14 19:12:37 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
oxytopes at 1500, the bad thread index is spiking across the forums, it's a crisis of market democracy~


Guys, I'm relevant.

LOLBig smile
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#100 - 2011-12-14 19:12:41 UTC
Xolve wrote:
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
....stalk that specific pilot from system to system and continually pod him (and nobody else) whenever he re-ships is most definitely griefing.


...and is definitely not going to get banned for it.


Which is why I started the thread, to find out why.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it