These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Discussing the alliance panel incident in an informed manner

Author
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2012-03-27 07:03:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
I'm posting a mittens thread because I'm annoyed about all the mittens threads cluttering up GD - how original, huh?

That being said I'm annoyed because many people are posting extremely stupid comments and I hope I can do my part to fix that:


From my POV three separate events happened :
Quote:
(1) the actual in-game events between Atrum Veneficus, The Mittani and The Wis happening in late October

(2a) comprehensive post by Atrum Veneficus about the scam on the goonfleet forums

(2b) the goonfleet.com post is crossposted to a public forum, later andromache/Atrum Veneficus himself posts about these events on SA

(2c) The Mittani quoting andromache in his alliance panel presentation without mentioning the victim's name

(3) The Mittani saying: "Incidentally if you want to make the guy kill himself his name is 'The WIS' T-H-E space W-I-S. Not with a z, The Wis. He has his own corp. Find him." during the alliance panel Q&A session (after his presentation).


some additional observations:
Quote:

the kugu thread has a relatively calm discussion about the incident, mittani is not mentioned for his involvement in the scam at all, consensus is to always notify GMs about possibly suicidal players.

IMHO it is difficult to find (2c) reprehensible without thinking the same about (2b) - a public forum is just as public as a room full of people.

(2c) was almost certainly premeditated (slides were prepared in advance so the "I was drunk" excuse does not apply to this part) but we have no good reason to assume that (3) was premeditated.


Instead of posting one big hurf blurf about cyber bullying it is in my opinion necessary to form an opinion on each of these events.

Only then is it possible to have a reasonable discussion about the incident.
Sadly most actual discussions on this forum seem to go along the lines of "Mittani should remove himself from the CSM because he did (3)", "you idiot, mittani should stay chairman for life because (2c) is perfectly fine", "but it is simply not right to act as in (1)", ... and in the end no insight is gained.


(My personal opinion is that (1) is ok as it does not meet the standards usually employed by GMs for griefing - no excessive directed harassment, just a target of opportunity. The "all I want to do is die" mail happens after the gank and the protection fee scam already took place. At that point it would have been wise to contact a GM to make sure The Wis is alright IRL (but no reimbursements/apologies/sending money back).
I have no problem at all with (2) - unless information that identifies me irl is involved I have no expectation of privacy regarding my in-game communications with other eve players. Ridiculing people in public is socially acceptable as part of the game, see half the C&P posts or the "singing ransoms" presentation at alliance panel.
(3) is not ok, period.)
Largo Usagi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-03-27 07:21:28 UTC
Honestly I don't see what the big deal was. Its not like he ID'd him by his facebook or anything of that nature, it was an eve event where eve things where discussed, he brought up an eve character.

Beyond that I agree with what you have said, it was not outside of this games norms, and public ridicule happens all the time in this game so yet again, i think your 3rd point is a what ever to me.
Haulin Aussie
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-03-27 07:22:53 UTC
Largo Usagi wrote:
Honestly I don't see what the big deal was. Its not like he ID'd him by his facebook or anything of that nature, it was an eve event where eve things where discussed, he brought up an eve character.

Beyond that I agree with what you have said, it was not outside of this games norms, and public ridicule happens all the time in this game so yet again, i think your 3rd point is a what ever to me.




oh a goon supporting mittani.

Your biased opinion towards your leader holds no weight.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#4 - 2012-03-27 07:28:08 UTC
So all this is about some standard issue rage mail from someone who somehow controls 22 mackinaws without botting ?

or I'm missing something here ?
Kara Roideater
#5 - 2012-03-27 07:32:22 UTC
A very clear analysis. The only formal point I would quibble over is the distinction between 2c and 3 which I would tend to see as a single act since 3 feeds back into 2c by naming the character and 2c obviously feeds directly into 3. However, I do appreciate the desire to distinguish them from the perspective of the premeditation angle.

On the other hand, depending on the exact nature of 2a and 2b, they might also be problematic as well, especially given the nature of Goons and the eve community as a whole in which the dangling of sufficient details in a mocking tone more or less amounts to an implicit encouragement to further grief the guy (with 3 simply being an explicit version). But that depends on certain assumptions that are not necessarily beyond doubt, unlike 3, which is pretty clear cut.
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-03-27 07:36:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Kara Roideater wrote:
On the other hand, depending on the exact nature of 2a and 2b, they might also be problematic as well, especially given the nature of Goons and the eve community as a whole in which the dangling of sufficient details in a mocking tone more or less amounts to an implicit encouragement to further grief the guy (with 3 simply being an explicit version). But that depends on certain assumptions that are not necessarily beyond doubt, unlike 3, which is pretty clear cut.

I updated my original post as I found the goonfleet post cross-posted on kugu.

In my opinion does not (3) overstep the line by disclosing the character name (this has already happened with (2b)) but through the explicit "if you want to make the guy kill himself" statement.
Ray Tucker
Avalon Guards
#7 - 2012-03-27 07:36:52 UTC
Most people claiming to be suicidal are just damn posers and only deserve being laughed at.
Also a guy with 22 mackinaws, seriously? Quitting eve is for his own good really, leave that boring **** to bots.
Amity Lane
Lane Family Shell Corp
#8 - 2012-03-27 07:36:54 UTC
Reposting from the Threadnaught, where it was promptly buried in troll-scroll and ignored:
Quote:

1. Whether or not a player is "suicidal" is irrelevant.

2. The rules explicitly state that harassment is not permitted.

3. The Mittani publicly requested people to harass this player in an out-of-game forum (albeit one sanctioned by the game company).

This seems to me to be more like a Charles Manson-esque situation. He's suggesting that people should break the game rules. He's not actually breaking any rules himself, and whether or not people choose to harass this guy is their decision. From a purely logical standpoint, The Mittani has broken no rules.

The real argument here is whether or not having a CSM member suggest that players break game rules "for the lulz" is acceptable conduct. Well, that's subjective. There's no ruleset there. That's something for CCP to decide, not us (or since I'm a noob, I guess it's more for "you" to decide since none of you probably consider me to be part of your little e-Spaceship group).

Personally, I think he should at least apologize for requesting people break the rules by harassing this guy. However, I think removing him from the CSM panel would be a bit illogical as once again, he hasn't actually broken any rules.

What I would suggest is that CCP further codify CSM conduct, and CSM term limits may not be a bad idea. Again, my useless opinion but I'm tossing it out there.


Unfortunately I fear this is once again all an exercise in futility. Nobody wants to look at this situation logically. They want to incite and inflame people, attack straw men, make ad hominem attacks, and discuss irrelevant things.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-03-27 07:38:18 UTC
Personal opinion, #3 was the main issue. It was a public and direct call for a violation of the harassment portion of the ToS/EULA. The quote itself (section 2) was in bad taste, and would have put a sour note in many peoples mouths, some outcry, but wouldn't have been so bad.

Differences between 2b and 2c. This is like you said, the nature of the media. SA forum is like any forum, niche to people. The ones ranting probably don't head out there in the numbers that were watching fanfest stream and read major vid game publications. Getting drunk in a bar has different social ramifications than getting drunk at a political referendum for example.

In SA, it was a violation, and had somebody who gets offended by some acts brought it up, etc, not much would have came of it, majority rules. Offended huffs of with their feeling of morality. But the ones who don't care rule. Same statements are now in a different crowd, lots of pve'rs who enjoy the social aspect of eve, don't grief and the like. As such it is mainstream during a time where e-bullying is in the spotlight. Those offended are now in a majority, it has been petitioned before CCP as a legitimate violation.

Regardless of personal feelings and the loves and hugfest the goons are trying to support. You all agreed to the ToS and the EULA after every patch where it asks you. Mittani's client is no different (I assume) and he agreed to the same thing. Outside of the eve universe, that is for lawyers, and those around the person Alex to decide. Inside eve, there are rules and punishments, those should be enforced just like had it been any other person in violation. What reason should there be to anything else.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Largo Usagi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-03-27 07:39:26 UTC
Haulin Aussie wrote:
Largo Usagi wrote:
Honestly I don't see what the big deal was. Its not like he ID'd him by his facebook or anything of that nature, it was an eve event where eve things where discussed, he brought up an eve character.

Beyond that I agree with what you have said, it was not outside of this games norms, and public ridicule happens all the time in this game so yet again, i think your 3rd point is a what ever to me.




oh a goon supporting mittani.

Your biased opinion towards your leader holds no weight.


Wasn't my leader at the time, I am only recently a goon, and my opinion wouldn't shift regardless. You claim that my biased opinion holds no weight, that is where you are wrong. I am entitled to my opinion and so are you. I have decided that I see nothing wrong with what happened but you on the other hand have added nothing to this thread, and have yet to share what your opinion about the topic is, only state that you think others opinions should be discounted for some reason. How about you try some critical thinking and post something relevant or GTFO. Out of all the threads this one states the facts the clearest and you are just shitting it up.

@Florestan Bronstein

Great job at compiling the facts and not throwing bias into the list and clearly separating your opinion.
Eltaco Picante
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-03-27 07:42:35 UTC
Haulin Aussie wrote:
Largo Usagi wrote:
Honestly I don't see what the big deal was. Its not like he ID'd him by his facebook or anything of that nature, it was an eve event where eve things where discussed, he brought up an eve character.

Beyond that I agree with what you have said, it was not outside of this games norms, and public ridicule happens all the time in this game so yet again, i think your 3rd point is a what ever to me.




oh a goon supporting mittani.

Your biased opinion towards your leader holds no weight.


It holds more weight than your lack of an opinion in this post.
Jovan Geldon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-03-27 07:58:08 UTC
Quote:
Discussing in an informed manner

Quote:
EVE Online Forums

Pick one
Kara Roideater
#13 - 2012-03-27 08:02:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Kara Roideater
Florestan Bronstein wrote:


In my opinion does not (3) overstep the line by disclosing the character name (this has already happened with (2b)) but through the explicit "if you want to make the guy kill himself" statement.


Yep, although I would still prefer 2c and 3 to be grouped together (possibly as 3a and 3b) given that much of the weight of 3 derives from 2c. It is not an isolated statement about making the guy kill himself, although that would arguably already be deeply problematic, but a statement on that subject specifically in the context of the revelations in 2c. It's not just anyone he has called this down on but that particular person, who had already self-identified in depressed/suicidal terms.

Edit - The point I'm clawing at is that one might reasonably respond to 2c+3 as a collective unit.
Red Templar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-03-27 08:03:31 UTC
Just what we need... another thread.

[b]For Love. For Peace. For Honor.

For None of the Above.

For Pony![/b]

Largo Usagi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-03-27 08:15:00 UTC
Kara Roideater wrote:
Florestan Bronstein wrote:


In my opinion does not (3) overstep the line by disclosing the character name (this has already happened with (2b)) but through the explicit "if you want to make the guy kill himself" statement.


Yep, although I would still prefer 2c and 3 to be grouped together (possibly as 3a and 3b) given that much of the weight of 3 derives from 2c. It is not an isolated statement about making the guy kill himself, although that would arguably already be deeply problematic, but a statement on that subject specifically in the context of the revelations in 2c. It's not just anyone he has called this down on but that particular person, who had already self-identified in depressed/suicidal terms.

Edit - The point I'm clawing at is that one might reasonably respond to 2c+3 as a collective unit.



I see the if you want to make the guy go kill himself on the same lines of if the player stated he would quite eve forever. So if the guy stated that he didn't want to kill himself but quit the game forever over the incident then this would be a non issue in the exact verbatim context. The only reason this is an issue is because people threw down the cyber bully card and started to white knight, and then blow an issue out of proportion. To build on that statement the number of I quit forever tears that have been harvested over the years are uncountable and this other wise would have been another.
Rico Minali
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-03-27 08:19:48 UTC
[quote=Haulin Aussie
oh a goon supporting mittani.

Your biased opinion towards your leader holds no weight.[/quote]


Just as his enemies words hold no weight for exactly the same reasons.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2012-03-27 08:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Kara Roideater wrote:
Florestan Bronstein wrote:


In my opinion does not (3) overstep the line by disclosing the character name (this has already happened with (2b)) but through the explicit "if you want to make the guy kill himself" statement.


Yep, although I would still prefer 2c and 3 to be grouped together (possibly as 3a and 3b) given that much of the weight of 3 derives from 2c. It is not an isolated statement about making the guy kill himself, although that would arguably already be deeply problematic, but a statement on that subject specifically in the context of the revelations in 2c. It's not just anyone he has called this down on but that particular person, who had already self-identified in depressed/suicidal terms.

Edit - The point I'm clawing at is that one might reasonably respond to 2c+3 as a collective unit.

I agree with that point (they could reasonably be grouped together) and won't exclude the possibility that the very deliberate decision not to group them together (which is imo also reasonably possible) might be due to some personal bias.

One reason I keep them separate is that I am interested in the escalation from informing your eight thousand closest friends about what happened (2a), over posting the possibly embarrassing logs on forums which are public but have de facto a very narrow readership (2b), to public ridicule in front of "real people", several thousand stream viewers and the media (2c).

I also like to separate what was clearly planned (2c) from (3) as something that may have been planned all along but that can just as well be attributed to a drunken spur of the moment decision.
Whether we choose to believe The Mittani's apology or not - I think this distinction is important to evaluate its scope and also CCP's part in allowing "the incident" to happen (some people claim the presentation slides were pre-screened by CCP but (3) was not part of the presentation as such).

Of course the 5 months gap between the (1),(2a),2b) events cluster and (2c) & (3) could yield an argument in favor of treating the latter two as one group.

Overall my impression is that treating (2c) and (3) as one event has so far done more to confuse the discussion than to clarify it and as I want this thread to be different Blink I think grouping them together would be unwise.


(edit: speaking of personal bias, note how I neglect the whole "he is chairman of the CSM, representing the game and its players to the public - even when acting in his capacity as alliance leader" discussion, which does imo not add much to the discussion before the basics are thoroughly covered)
Lexmana
#18 - 2012-03-27 08:27:43 UTC
Kara Roideater wrote:
Yep, although I would still prefer 2c and 3 to be grouped together (possibly as 3a and 3b) given that much of the weight of 3 derives from 2c. It is not an isolated statement about making the guy kill himself, although that would arguably already be deeply problematic, but a statement on that subject specifically in the context of the revelations in 2c. It's not just anyone he has called this down on but that particular person, who had already self-identified in depressed/suicidal terms.

Edit - The point I'm clawing at is that one might reasonably respond to 2c+3 as a collective unit.


You know, there were several minutes between the two events. And yes, 2c was obviously planned ahead and part of the presentation. But 3 was just a careless remark during Q&A thrown in there on the spur of the moment. It doesn't seem like it was planned at all.
Largo Usagi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-03-27 08:35:48 UTC
Also with everything under 2 could be thrown at the wormhole corp who publicly humiliated every one they ransomed. Granted they didn't suggest additional harassment to those players but they shared their humiliation with the world.

The biggest thing I have been saying on this topic tonight is that these actions happen in eve all the time and this is getting blown up because who said them this time and not the merit of the actions themselves.
equcin meey
camdy and Co. inc.
#20 - 2012-03-27 08:40:52 UTC
3 was not premeditated as it was in reply to someone in the audience either they asked him or what ever was said by that audience member,i did not hear what the audience member said while i was watching the live stream.

support the Lego Rifter 

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/11619

12Next page