EVE General Discussion

Erotica1's bonus room is a perfect example of crossing the line. (People who don't know what that was, it's a good one to look up). That's when CCP took a stance and beat somebody down with 6.C.16.

Yes, but she didnt, nor others involved, and it became obscene beyond the scope of even EVE.

The TOS/EULA are a paradox in game which allows so much levity as this one.
We have almost unlimited freedom as players, but CCP also has almost unlimited control.

CODE and many, many other actions and organizations have shown that CCP is famous in allowing as much freedom as reasonably possible.

We should all keep pushing the envelope in all directions.
But we also all must consider some modicum of human decency.

It is a game after all, and one we all share a love for.

We're not discussing it, it is an example of something that would be dealt with under the rule the OP is misunderstanding.

Anyway nuff said on that subject... look.... kittens.

You seem to be missing the most important phrase in that rule - in order to be in violation of it someone has to be blocking your ability to enjoy the game. Not just causing it to be unfun right now, but actively and continuously blocking your ability to use the game and gain enjoyment from it. That's why things like following one guy around for months keeping him from undocking or what have you can be considered by CCP to be harassment under this rule. You are no longer impinging on his immediate fun, but on his actual ability to log in and have fun.

Here's the litmus test that I can just about guarantee CCP uses:

If this behavior is allowed to continue will it (in our opinion) cause harm to the game as a whole, or CCP's reputation?
If yes, here's your shiny ban. If no, let said activity continue, and retest as necessary until someone goes too far.

Any behavior is bannable - and I mean any - if CCP finds the context of that behavior to be bad for them as a company in terms of impacting their profit margin. To circle back to the previously mentioned unmentionable room of extras, that was the real reason bans were distributed with such furious vengeance after such a long time of no activity from the powers that be.

The activity started to garner negative press for the game, and in turn, for CCP. You think they'll ban you for buying ingame ISK? Impact their actual ISK and see how fast they "encourage" you to exercise your ability to have fun somewhere else.

Yup. Whenverver any corporation wants to censor or punish you, you have already agreed to it, if you use their services.

This is why I agreed with Matt Drudge, don't get hauled into these ghettos. Make your own site.

But you really can't even do that, today. Drudge gets hits, today, not from a search engine, but because I type him in in the address bar.

No I am not missing it. I am just pointing out that it is flawed.

It has been already abused in some cases. In a few quick checks here and there, people have been warned and sited under 6.C.16 for use of mild language, killing someone elses NPC target, swooping in and taking loot that does not belong to them.

These are just a few cases I have found in a few weeks of research.

It is pretty amazing how broad reaching that rule is.

I recommend that it you think another player has interfered with your ability to enjoy the game, you should file a support ticket. Detail the circumstances, and site that rule in the EULA.

File early.

File often.

In the military we have something called Article 134 of the UCMJ. Essentially it's the general article that prohibits "actions that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or bring discredit upon the armed forces" It's intentionally vague and gives the commander broad discretionary powers to punish actions that would have been prohibited if somebody had thought to address them specifically.

For example, I recently had a case in which a soldier posed as a movie casting director to get women to take off their clothes as part of an "audition." He never touched them and the women didn't do anything against their will - yet it clearly brought discredit upon the armed forces when it became known among his auditioners that he was an active duty soldier. This kind of thing is not okay among members of the military, yet no punishment would have been possible if not for Article 134.

Broad, non-specific discretionary powers can be abused, but the advantages far exceed the disadvantages in terms of justice. Especially if good appeals processes are present (as they are in the military as well as with CCP).