|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GǪexcept that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind. Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case.
You can fit a lot of Avatar BPOs in an Ibis. If you can't shoot rookies (based on either Character or Account age), no hauler would need Orca alts for high value cargo, they'd just use young accounts/toons.
So the question remains. Of the population that inhabits rookie systems, what separates "Rookie" form "not-Rookie."
Is someone mining in a Hulk a Rookie? A Retriever?
It's like the heap of sand problem. We are clear that a grain of sand is not a heap, and a billion grains is a heap, we're clear that 2 grains is still not a heap and a billion minus one is still a heap. At some point, there is a grain of sand which makes the sand a heap; figuring out which grain is very hard though. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
Cool, perfect safety for my High Value-Low volume hauls of Officer Gear, Titan and T2 BPOs. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
Cool, perfect safety for my High Value-Low volume hauls of Officer Gear, Titan and T2 BPOs. It's not though. Even an act like storing X amount of isk worth of goods in an ibus can remove a timer.
How much is a T2 BPO worth? There's no open market for them for CCP to pull fair market value.
What's to stop people from tricking newbies from removing their timers?
The point is that We're fine with protecting rookies in rookie systems. Maybe even give them a message that they receive special protection in those systems.
The issue is asking what a rookie is, given that non-rookies live in rookie systems.
Giving rookies unlimited safety for x time not only is easily abusable, but would lead to a fair shock when their timer runs out and the stupid that they've been getting away with starts biting them.
EvE does not need FFA safe zones, and it doesn't need (for reasons of abusability/culture shock) traveling protections for rookies. So defining what is a rookie in the rookie systems is important. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GǪexcept that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind. Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. You can fit a lot of Avatar BPOs in an Ibis. If you can't shoot rookies (based on either Character or Account age), no hauler would need Orca alts for high value cargo, they'd just use young accounts/toons. So the question remains. Of the population that inhabits rookie systems, what separates "Rookie" form "not-Rookie." Is someone mining in a Hulk a Rookie? A Retriever? It's like the heap of sand problem. We are clear that a grain of sand is not a heap, and a billion grains is a heap, we're clear that 2 grains is still not a heap and a billion minus one is still a heap. At some point, there is a grain of sand which makes the sand a heap; figuring out which grain is very hard though. Many of us have really gone over the rookie hauling tons of goods scenario. Now I'll attempt to ask the question that got erased earlier. The main situation that brought up this thread and its twin yesterday was about a guy going into a rookies epic arc mission that was in a system that was not designated starter. So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him? Is he carrying Avatar BPO's in his hold as well?
Not a rookie system. He's stepped into his big boy pants by leaving the rookie system whether he knows it or not. I would not be averse to a warning upon first leaving the rookie systems, or a mission that explains the basics of HS aggro mechanics (in fact this would be an awesome addition to the NPE). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria.
I'm fine lumping (as far as other players are concerned) new alts in with new players, I'm just concerned about where (roughly) the line is drawn on age.
Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
I understand that you can't be precise with publicly available information, and that's fine.
We would just like to have some sensitive* but not particularly specific* public test, while you have your second, sensitive and specific, GM test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
*To paraphrase the wiki, a Sensitive test finds all newbies, a specific test excludes all non-newbies. A sensitive and moderately specific test finds all newbies but has some false positive results for non-newbies. A sensitive and highly specific test finds all newbies and has very few false positives (the test the GMs have currently). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer.
Luckily, it's not a real question. It's the on point example of the Sorites Paradox.*
That paradox is the whole issue being discussed in the thread.
*AKA the Heap Problem This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed.
That would work. Stealth Nerf to begging scams, but I'm ok with that. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
1) Messing with Protected Rookies in Rookie Systems is a Ban Worthy Offence; DON'T DO IT. (Messing with is broadly defined*). 2) A Protected Rookie is any Character under X number of days old** UNLESS a) That Character is in a Player Corp (under wardec?) b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition
Add an MOTD in Rookie Help with a link to an explanation of Rookie Systems and the special protections therein.
That's it. That protects Rookies in rookie systems. It's extensible if you deem it necessary to ad new rookie systems without announcing that messing with rookies on the SOE path will elicit GM tears,*** it's robust enough to give you wiggle room in the "messing with" area, while allowing players who want to stay on the bright side of the rules a set of target selection guidelines. Some non-newbies will end up being protected, but all the loopholes should be on the "protecting non-newbies" side, and the limitation on system should limit the amount that those loopholes can be abused.
If you can squeeze a small amount of Dev time, add a pop-up to rookies when they leave protected systems. If you can squeeze more Dev time, add a new NPE mission to help explain aggro mechanics. If you can manage some ISD training time, have them try to teach basic aggro mechanics to rookies in rookie help. These are bonuses IF you can manage that time, they are not required to make the policy suggestion work.
*Nobody has any problem with broadly and vaguely defining "messing with" It's like broadly defining "Reckless" in Reckless driving. **The Protected Rookie Class HAS to be well defined. It's the "driving" in Reckless driving. ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.
This is what scares me. We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to. Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that. If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously.
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Makkal Hanaya wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:People with older accounts that create an alt on an existing account would not be flagged as rookies. I had a trial account a year and a half ago, but only turned it into a regular account 13 days ago. Despite my account being over a year old, I have less than a month of playtime. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of new players are those who've upgraded trials they've had for a while.
You remembered your login details after a year and a half? I have a trail of failed trial accounts, but I always started fresh when I tried again (mainly because I forgot the login details, but partly because I needed the trial to decide). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.
This is what scares me. We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to. Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that. If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously. This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need. Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens. The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes. Except it's even worse than that because, depending on one's perspective, it's like saying, "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll leave your town alone and burn down someone else's town."
Trolling the Pax Romanum. Wonderful. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge. Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are. Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up. Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else.
Coding it leads to abuse of the newbie protections (unless the code is only activated in the newbie system, in which case it's a lot of effort for little benefit), and GM Hormonia has indicated that she has no access to Dev time for the foreseeable future. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Doesn't work in a game though. Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns. They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say. It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation.
Good job restating what I said. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:RubyPorto wrote: b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition
That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while.
The exceptions only raise the specificity rate. We, as players, don't need specificity, we need sensitivity, which means we need an age cutoff. Pick the most glaring groups of young players in newbie systems that you don't want protected. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1889
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked: In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in.
And there we have it. A perfect, 100% sensitive rule for protecting newbies. Calling Everyone in a newbie system a newbie is an acceptable result, since all we're asking for is a Concrete answer to "What constitutes a newbie, in a Newbie system." This is to avoid landmines. We don't like landmines; we like mines that have big blinking lights. If there's no way for you to clearly define a newbie to the public, then say EVERYONE is, and enforce that.
Hulk gets ganked; enforce it. 9 year old ibis gets ganked; enforce it. 2 day old ibis with a plex gets ganked; enforce it. Keep enforcement as regular as humanly possible so that it's crystal clear.
If you can spare the Dev time, a Here Be Dragons popup for older players entering newbie systems wouldn't be out of sorts.
Basically, One way or another, the GM team needs to create a crystal clear definition of a protected character (newbie) using publicly viewable information. If that's everyone in the system, so be it. That's an acceptable, though not ideal, result. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1889
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, it's not someone hauling around 25 Billion isk in assets. Not trying to be rude here, but your either stupid, or playing stupid. I mean that in the most sincere & respectful way. I just think your playing stupid, to try to make a point. I understand the point, and disagree, discretion needs to be exercised, period!!! If you think this is to difficult, I can't help ya. By the way Ruby, just so you know, there isn't a thing that is crystal clear in the land of EvE. It's all pretty murky. I disagree 100% with what you say, I give the GM's there leeway. I trust them completely in this area. They have the tools, and the methodology to find out when a rat is a rat.
1) A million grains of sand is a heap. 2) A heap of sand, minus one grain is still a heap.
Repeated application of premise two to premise one results in one grain of sand being a heap. Zero grains of sand being a heap, and negative grains of sand being a heap.
This is Sorities Paradox.
1) A person with 10,000,000 SP/25billion ISK is not a rookie. 2) A non-rookie with one fewer SP or ISK is still not a rookie.
Repeated application of premise two, yadda, yadda, yadda.
If there is a bright line between rookie and not-rookie, please, Montressor, point it out to me, because I don't see any such bright line using publicly viewable information.
As for trusting the GMs, that's not the issue here. The issue is not knowing if I am going to be banned for shooting someone because there is no way for ME to know if my target is someone the GM's consider to be a rookie or not. I may have different interpretations of what is "obviously" a rookie than the GMs because we are working from different information. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1890
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:In your opinion, I respect it. I just don't agree with it, "Respectfully". Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. Just being honest here.
Define what a Rookie IS. Don't just list examples of what it is not.
You'll find it much harder to be categorical. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1890
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:21:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Hmm. How would a real beginner player lay his hands on that kind of scratch. Hmm . Man I honestly don't think you get this, really. I'd like to see someone live there lives with out a little discretion. I guess discretion and EvE just don't match up very well eh. I have my opinions, you have yours, we don't agree, let's just drop it .
Define a "Rookie." Stop with the red herring examples of "Not Rookie."
Define what it IS. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up.
No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving".
Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them.
If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda.
Let me repeat leave the new players alone! Per CCP
I'm leavin bye
PS Olleybear, I love that guy! your turn to work with the village wise men, (and women) for a while.
I repeat. Define new player. Is it younger that 1 year? 6 months? 3 months? 1 month? 2 weeks? 13 days? Define "rookie." This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:55:00 -
[21] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote: Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.
'Cause WhySo's the bastion of elite PvP.
Would you enjoy it if you were to, on occasion, receive a GM warning or Ban because of your target selection? And have no useful information with which to avoid said warning or ban because the protected target class is ill-defined?
We want the protected class to be well defined. We recognize that the prohibited actions will necessarily be broadly defined, but the protected class must be well defined.
Both mine and Tippia's last suggestions were to say that due to the difficulty in concretely defining the protected class, the class will be expanded to include EVERYONE in the protected area. We want newbies protected. We do not want people banned for doing things to people they had no way of knowing were protected.
Again, if you think it's easy to define rookie, define it. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving". Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them. If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us. I figure Its more like getting a ticket for being on the freeway because noone defined what a car is and the person that got the ticket claims they dont know that riding a donkey in 100kph traffic is dangerous.
If the statute neglected to include a donkey, then the action was not illegal under that statute. Danger has nothing to do with strict liability laws. You could go after the donkey rider for reckless endangerment though.
You have yet to define rookie.
Wikipedia wrote:Certain rules have traditionally been given for this particular type of definition.
- A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.
- Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as 'a member of the species equus' would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locking adds that a definition of a term must not comprise of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define 'antecedent' without using the term 'consequent', nor conversely.
- The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).
- The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity.
- A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define 'wisdom' as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. We cannot define a point except as 'something with no parts', nor blindness except as 'the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted'.
We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.
Positively define "rookie" for me. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.
Positively define "rookie" for me.
Why do you need to be told and others do not?
I have not been told. I have been told that a Hulk pilot is not, that a pilot with 25b in Tech is not, but further than that, Rookie has not been defined except as "one who you will incur GM wrath for shooting." Which is, I suppose, a constructive definition, but it's not a useful one.
EDIT: Misread.
Because I don't like hidden landmines. They cripple children. In other words, knowing who to avoid shooting allows me to, y'know, avoid shooting them. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question? Why do you need the question answered for you? Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do.
We don't need what we can do defined. We need who we can do it to.
And we need it so defined because Vaguness has long been held to be a terrible thing in the rule of law.
Both in Europe: "Legal certainty is a principle in national and international law which holds that the law must provide those subject to it with the ability to regulate their conduct. Legal certainty is internationally recognised as a central requirement for the rule of law." And the US: "Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague. In general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed."
Again, define "rookie."
We've offered definitions. They're very sensitive, but they lack specificity and would result in a fairly draconian set of rules in rookie systems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need the question answered for you? Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies. Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite). Quote:Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with. Quote:Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies? Why can't you answer the question? I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies. My personal definition of rookie: 1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec. Feel free to pick that apart. Look at it with a maginfying glass. Figure out a way to change the meaning of the words so we have to add additional rules and spend even more time on this. Just like in RL where the laws are so numerous and convoluted that every person breaks a few laws everyday and is a criminal.
Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1892
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:03:00 -
[26] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo?
I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. It is like telling a boy not to hit his sister. So he kicks his sister instead then complains that the rule wasnt specific enough when the parents spanks ( bans ) him. I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior.
Because it's a basic, long held principle of the rule of law.
I say again. We're fine figuring out that kicking is included in the set hitting.
ROOKIE or "Sister" in your analogy is the thing that needs to be defined precisely. If my parents(GMs) told me, "Don't hit your sister(rookies), but everyone else is ok to hit*" and then spank me (ban me) when I hit my long lost sister (someone in the grey area) whom I did not know was my sister(a rookie), I'm going to be confused and angry (and rightly so) because I had no way of knowing who I was not allowed to hit.
*This is what EvE tells us This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1896
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:45:00 -
[27] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I give up.
I too want a rule saying I cant go 250kph, at night, on the berm, while riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back. Otherwise I just wont know that I shoudlnt do that.
You're being intentionally obtuse. You're also using some of the most ridiculous straw men I have ever seen.
We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1896
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:48:00 -
[28] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:If I were CCP, I would make very specific examples of the ones that cant seem to grasp this. I personally think they have every right to let the actions define this. Inspire people to use that thing that resides behind there eyes, to make smart decisions. I hope they leave it as is.
So you subscribe to the "Hit the Dog until he heels" method of training. Actually, not even that; that method of training also includes guiding the dog to give it the basic idea. You're suggesting that we get accounts banned repeatedly until we empirically determine the rules of the game we play. Pissing off many multitudes of newbies in the process.
Good plan. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income". It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.html
The IRS defines Income very carefully, very exactly, and very publicly.
If you can't define it, you can't protect it. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:28:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:Tippia wrote:Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GǪand that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule. That's a great idea. Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Let us know how that works out for ya.
You are also being intentionally obtuse.
Your analogy is poor and doesn't fit the case at hand.
Once again, to make a rule that protects a CLASS from certain CONDUCT, you may define the CONDUCT vaguely or specifically, depending on your goals, but assuming your goal is to protect the CLASS, you must define the CLASS well, or the rule will end up hurting members of the CLASS you are trying to protect. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:32:00 -
[31] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income". It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread. http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.htmlThe IRS defines Income very carefully, very sensitively, and very publicly. Besides that, Income would be the thing we don't mind being loosely defined. "Money" would be the class that we want to have concretely defined. If you can't define it, you can't protect it. ROFL. That made me chuckle quite a bit. You don't understand the concept of income. Keep inflating that post count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
I think I have a fair idea of what I'm saying. Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.
Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:53:00 -
[32] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ...Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.
Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous.
It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. It's painfully obvious you are just looking to create loopholes to game the system. I doubt if CCP falls for your sophomoric attempt. I think I'm making you and Tippia mad, so I'll just stop replying after this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
Read this. Try again. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there.
You want to protect a class, define it. You've skipped right over what Tippia and I have said and gone right to impugning our motives.
Here's my set of premises. 1) EvE is a place that allows non-consensual PvP without restrictions 2) Because newbies are new, they should be protected 3) 2 should not compromise 1
This means that it must be made crystal clear WHO is protected and WHERE. The WHAT that they are protected from can be somewhat vague.
Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:34:00 -
[34] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.
1. Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.
2. Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.
That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter.
We agree. But you have to tell those players who want to shoot other players which players they're not allowed to shoot. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:40:00 -
[35] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:And no you don't, it can be implied
Not if you want the prohibition to be effective. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:43:00 -
[36] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit? On the flip side, getting concrete definitions is what you hire lawyers for. Does CCP want to get into space lawyering and trying to nail that slab of jelly to the wall? How about this: if you want to gank people risk-free, stay out of rookie systems. The definition of rookie needs to be vague otherwise the wannabe gankers will attempt to game the system at the rookie's expense.
As I already posted, If CCP wants to define everyone in a Rookie system as a Rookie, and is willing to enforce that ruling, THAT'S OK BY ME.
It will have a number of bad effects, mostly harming real rookies, but it's a definition, and that's all we want. A Definition of a Rookie.
If you want to protect whatsits, you have to tell the whosit hunters the difference between a whosit and a whatsit. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:50:00 -
[37] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:
Badman gets punished on a case by case basis, guy with no record, fumbling around gets first positive intervention in the game, be it from a Dev, another player GM...
Mostly, I agree, but I wouldn't like to see this become some kind of a medical institution with white walls and barred windows meant to punish or somehow remove aspects of the game from the new player, they should be protected in every way possible.
for the particularly hard headed Cell mates with an internet connection out there, once they are flagged as newbie griefers, the rules should be mailed to them, they should sign it and no one else needs to shoulder the blame or grief, this is both private and humane.
You're skipping right over the issue. The issue is "How do we bloody tell who we're not allowed to shoot when you won't tell us who's protected?" This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:52:00 -
[38] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Fortunately for everyone Ruby, you don't establish game policy. I'm glad you don't. I trust CCP in this matter way more than you.
And they asked us for help in creating a policy that protects Newbies* and doesn't smack people down by surprise. That "by surprise" thing is problematic when you want to protect newbies* in the first place.
*term yet to be defined. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:30:00 -
[39] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know you must feel very strongly about this. I'm impressed, I almost think your some kind of lawyer. Wow. You know I'm very impressed at how hard your trying.
Let me try this just one more time, just leave the rookies alone.
Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
An inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. It's good enough for Websters, and basically the whole English speaking world. But I just have a feeling, lol. It's not good enough for you.
That is a vague and circular definition useless for protecting a class. Take a look at a law, any law, and you'll notice that terms are defined rather carefully. Law and rules are not written in natural language because they need to be precise if they are to do what they are intended. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:31:00 -
[40] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:[quote=Kara Books]
Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. LMFAO, really? You seriously suggesting these guys are rookies? Honestly?
I think that anyone with less than 24hrs of game experience is probably a rookie, yes. Not a member of the class we're trying to protect, but certainly covered by your natural language definition. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:32:00 -
[41] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:Kara Books wrote:Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.
1. Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.
2. Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.
That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter. That's all fine, and I'm all for protecting rookies while they figure out the game. But this is still a pvp game, and I don't want to get banned for attacking someone still considered a rookie when there isn't even a clear definition of what a rookie is. Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. It really would be nice to have a clear definition of who we can and can't attack. I agree that in most situations, it'll be pretty obvious, but there will be situations where it really isn't. Indeed, I can see your point, but a supercap isnt suposto be involved in a hostile engagement in highsec, Newbie protected system of all things. Newbie+Newb system = the only place these rules should apply. Perhaps CCP should rename these systems, like some kind of super highsec training grounds or something along those lines. People entering or leaving the training grounds should get a warning, and some fast facts/rules etc.
That's what I suggested 5 pages ago before Woodcock and friends insisted that rookie needs no definition. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:34:00 -
[42] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:The Rookie Protection rule says it's illegal to mess with Rookies* in starter systems**.
*intentionally vaguely defined. **Needs to be defined.
The protection from loopholes is in the "mess with Rookies" part. The protection from confusion is in the definition of "starter system" Fixed that for you.
The current rule is that you cannot mess with Rookies in starter systems. Both parts of the protected class definition must be met to be eligible for protection. You can mess with Non-Rookies in starter systems. You can mess with rookies Outside starter systems. You've only fixed my statement if you assume that the rule change that I suggested 5 pages ago has been put in place. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:39:00 -
[43] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there. You want to protect a class, define it. You've skipped right over what Tippia and I have said and gone right to impugning our motives. Here's my set of premises. 1) EvE is a place that allows non-consensual PvP without restrictions 2) Because newbies are new, they should be protected 3) 2 should not compromise 1 This means that it must be made crystal clear WHO is protected and WHERE. The WHAT that they are protected from can be somewhat vague. Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit? You have one solid known for a fact piece of the puzzle. They are only protected in the starter systems. So if I were you I would just make that short list of systems off limits for any kind of PvP agression. Problem fixed. Of course any and every single law ever written was made to be broken. And all the people posting problems with this are those that so want to test this limit. Well then by all means test the limits and find out first hand where they are then report back. This is not rocket science people. EVE is a huge place. Are the people posting here really not going to have any fun because a few systems are off limits? If that is the case you might as well rage quit right now.
That's what I suggested 5 pages ago. But CCP needs to make rules clear in order to enforce them in a consistent manner. If they would like to ban all agression in Rookie systems, THATS FINE.
There would be downsides to that approach, people getting banned for ganking Hulks* in those systems, etc, but that's what you get for defining a protected class broadly.
*If someone says "Hulk's not a Rookie" again, they need to define rookie in a way that's more specific but still as sensitive. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:42:00 -
[44] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore? Since when is ganking miners, industrials and can-baiting noobies ment to be classed as pvp? Only in hi-sec. Pathetic as always.
A Ganker is a Player. A Miner is a Player.
Player... VS... Player.
You may not like that form, and that's perfectly fine. But it's valid gameplay. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1909
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:46:00 -
[45] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: The GM's will rule on each case based upon each individual merits. No blanket rule. They already said as much. So yes their is risk in the starter systems only this time the rookies hold the cards. So it is sort of a reverse risk. IE. The starter systems may not be the safe haven to mine in because the rookies can grief you. So basically the starter systems are only safe if you are a rookie.
Since you say that shooting Non-Rookies is all right in Rookie systems, Define "Rookie" in a way that allows people to avoid shooting them.
Quote: But again I say why take the chance anyway just stay clear. Problem solved.
Again, I say if the GMs want to ban ALL agression in rookie systems, that's fine. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1909
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:18:00 -
[46] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me!
Then suggest an alternative that's clear to everyone and enforceable. Or Explain why surprising people with bans due to unclear rules is a positive thing. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1910
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:I'm... I'm curious. Do people actually think flippin' Tippia spends large swaths if time preying on rookies because he just can't hack it in "real" PvP? Even as ad hominem circumstantial arguments go, that one is particularly stupid.
BoB hatin' rollin' deep. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1910
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:04:00 -
[48] - Quote
InternetSpaceship wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me! Then suggest an alternative that's clear to everyone and enforceable. Or Explain why surprising people with bans due to unclear rules is a positive thing. Eh, just stop. He only wants Empire to be entirely risk free, so he's only going to say that you just shouldn't attack anyone in Empire, just in case. He wants the rules to be vague so no one can risk breaking them.
I'd stop, but GM Hormonia asked for suggestions for clear policy. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio on that front has been dropping precipitously. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1915
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:04:00 -
[49] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:RubyPorto wrote: b) continue short list of Exceptions, like initiating a suicide gank, or whatever. Take these from the publicly viewable information used in your in house Newbie definition
That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while. But she also said this a few pages later
And missed that that part is OPTIONAL. If you miss some exceptions, and accidentally protect a few non-rookies, so what? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1916
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:06:00 -
[50] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie. GǪand others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use? The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.
You have yet to define "rookie" with anything approaching rigor. How can we break a definition that doesn't exist? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1916
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:08:00 -
[51] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Hey Tippia.
What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations?
Just curious what someone with better debating skills than I can come up with.
The enforceable definition I've come up with (that I think is what Tippia came up with as well) is "anyone in a rookie system." It can be applied fairly and equally in all situations. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1916
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:09:00 -
[52] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:Olleybear wrote:Hey Tippia.
What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations?
Just curious what someone with better debating skills than I can come up with. 14 days or less, no player corps in history, no pvp history, no older characters on the accountpretty simple really
Not public information. The definition must be something players can use during target selection, if you're going to allow shooting non-rookies in rookie systems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1916
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:18:00 -
[53] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie. GǪand others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use? The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario. You have yet to define "rookie" with anything approaching rigor. How can we break a definition that doesn't exist? Jeez, another one. Considering how many times we've had to repeat myself I'll just say to read any 5 pages in order as this thread is simply a broken record at this point. Other than that I can't help those who won't help themselves.
If defining a "rookie" in an enforceable way is so simple, what's stopping you from doing it?
Here's my proposed enforceable definition of a protected "rookie." "Someone In a Starter System." This is simple, enforceable, and clear to all parties. It has some negative side effects, but it all errs on the side of protecting rookies.
You want to propose something that protects fewer people, define rookie more narrowly. But you're limited to publicly viewable information because we're trying to stop people from shooting rookies in the first place, not just ban them after the rookie's had a negative experience. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1916
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:42:00 -
[54] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
If defining a "rookie" in an enforceable way is so simple, what's stopping you from doing it?
Here's my proposed enforceable definition of a protected "rookie." "Someone In a Starter System." This is simple, enforceable, and clear to all parties. It has some negative side effects, but it all errs on the side of protecting rookies.
You want to propose something that protects fewer people, define rookie more narrowly. But you're limited to publicly viewable information because we're trying to stop people from shooting rookies in the first place, not just ban them after the rookie's had a negative experience.
Go. Read.
I've been here the entire time. I've read. I've not seen any enforceable definition of rookie come from you. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1917
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:34:00 -
[55] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Would you like me to type it again?
Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1917
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
The current rule is that you cannot mess with Rookies in starter systems. Both parts of the protected class definition must be met to be eligible for protection. You can mess with Non-Rookies in starter systems. You can mess with rookies Outside starter systems.
That's right. Part of the definition is intentionally vague. The other part of the definition is concrete. The part of the rule that is intentionally vague is vague in order to prevent gaming of the rules by people who just want to find out where the line is that they shouldn't cross. You can't define rookie by age of character, number of skill points, hours logged in or number of login sessions. Any of these do not indicate that a player has been through the tutorials or learned how to fly a ship. By the same token, having less than 1M SP doesn't mean that the player behind the character doesn't know what they're doing: that character could be intentional bait, it could be a disposable cyno alt: it could be anything other than a rookie. Thus the definition of "rookie" falls to factors outside the qualities that you can perceive in-game, and thus the actual definition of rookie is meaningless to anyone who is not a GM. Attempting to find a definition that suits you as a player while still being useful to rookies and GMs is an exercise in futility: you are chasing an impossible dream. So settle for the concrete fact that you are at risk of getting banned if you bait players in starter systems. Move your PvP elsewhere. If you must "PvP" in starter systems, be prepared to accept the possibility that the person who bought that hulk mining character has no idea about the rules of the game and has only been playing for a few hours.
You keep intentionally missing the thrust of what I'm saying.
The goal is not "ban people who mess with rookies." The goal is to protect rookies from being "messed with" in the first place.
To do that, you define the protected class, so that everyone knows who they can't mess with. It's the plot to Dr. Strangelove.
Dr. Strangelove wrote: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
Making the definition of "rookie" hidden from view means that rookies will be "messed with" by people with an honest belief that their actions were legal. It's basically making PvP around the rookie systems one of those Goosebumps Choose your own death Adventure novels.
If your assertion is that PvP should simply be banned from rookie systems because defining "rookie" is troublesome, then you've actually agreed with Tippia and my suggestions.
If your assertion is that legal landmines that will cause bans to people who honestly have no intention of harming rookies are good, please explain why.
I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1917
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:51:00 -
[57] - Quote
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:Tippia wrote:We have no definition and the GMs are not willing to provide one, so we have to make one up using Gǣcommon senseGǥ to slot into the rule the GMs have providedGǪ except that this provides no guidance for how they will interpret the rule and how we can and should act in accordance with it.
But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense?
Common sense is simply not common (as in nobody gets the same result when applying it, not as in nobody has it). And Tippia never said it was common sense. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:34:00 -
[58] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times. I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong. Go. Read.
How is it wrong? Unless, of course, you're trying to send up yet another red herring to distract from the topic, as set by GM Hormonia of "How to Create a Public Policy to protect New Players." This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:45:00 -
[59] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times. I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong. Go. Read. How is it wrong? Unless, of course, you're trying to send up yet another red herring to distract from the topic, as set by GM Hormonia of "How to Create a Public Policy to protect New Players." Well first of all, you put enforceable definition. Show me where I said that. Once we figure that out I'll go on to the next incorrect portion.
That's the topic at hand. If you're simply making off topic remarks, see sentence 2 of my earlier post. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:25:00 -
[60] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote: See, you couldn't find me saying that. Second issue is that you do not understand the meaning of I cannot help you. You took my quote to Tippia and thought that it somehow applied to you. I already told you to go read. Now go. Read.
You. Read. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:46:00 -
[61] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote: See, you couldn't find me saying that. Second issue is that you do not understand the meaning of I cannot help you. You took my quote to Tippia and thought that it somehow applied to you. I already told you to go read. Now go. Read.
You. Read. Good read but I wouldn't use wikipedia personally, can be modified by anyone. Oh and speaking of off topic remarks.....
Unfortunately, the full text of the article is behind a paywall, but the academic journal, Nature, published a study in 2005 on Wikipedia's accuracy which found that it was of similar accuracy to the Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
In addition, for that specific term, I can cite several other sources. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignoratio.html http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoratio%20elenchi http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html
All of which agree on what the Fallacy is. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:59:00 -
[62] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote: That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?
It has to do with your conduct during this thread. Hopefully, calling attention to it will allow you to avoid the problematic conduct.
Now, the topic is "How to create a public policy to protect Rookies in Rookie systems with zero Dev time"
You have claimed that defining rookies is impossible. So how then would you create a public policy to define them? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:13:00 -
[63] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote: That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?
It has to do with your conduct during this thread. Hopefully, calling attention to it will allow you to avoid the problematic conduct. Now, the topic is "How to create a public policy to protect Rookies in Rookie systems with zero Dev time" You have claimed that defining rookies is impossible. So how then would you create a public policy to define them? I wrote a small portion back about a dozen pages or so ago, go look it up.
Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this:
THE L0CK wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed. Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis.
You suggest that it's handled on a case by case basis. That is not a public policy.
If you're thinking of something else, link it. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:29:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule. I can't think of any "externally facing" rule that wouldn't be gamed by people to get innocent gankers such as yourself banned.
I can. Ban (and enforce the ban) on ALL "messing with" of ALL characters in Rookie systems.
Quote:Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:
- Is flying a T1 frigate
- Is younger than three months
- Has fitting modules fitted (e.g.: coprocessor, MAPC, power diagnostic system)
- Is mining in a combat ship, or has weapons mounted on a mining ship (e.g.: someone trying to do the combat tutorials in a Navitas)
- Has civilian modules fitted
- Is carrying cargo only spawned in tutorial missions (encrypted codex or some such)
- Is a member of a starter NPC corporation
Of course, any definition that we as players come up with will necessarily conflict with whatever definition the GMs are using. At least this definition realistically allows any player to determine "rookie status" through in-game inspection of the other pilot. It can be gamed by having an older character flying a frigate with civilian modules and a PDS fitted: but then if you intentionally aggress a 4yo character flying a merlin with civilian modules fitted, you deserve what you get.
That is a heck of a list of things, and while requiring both a ship scanner and a cargo scanner (and eidetic memory of the tutorial missions) is fairly onerous. That definition is a definition that works. It's clear, it's knowable by publicly viewable information, and it probably* covers the people we want to protect.
As for conflicting with GMs definition, that's fine. So long as the public set of protected person entirely includes the private set of protected persons, it's fine. The point is to give fair warning that you're doing something that makes the GMs mad.
The ideal is to simply protect all those in the public set so that people don't go ganking to probe out what the private set is.
*The GMs would have to figure out if there are any people in need of protection that wouldn't fall under your definition. If there are, they'd need to alter your definition to cover them This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:35:00 -
[65] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this: THE L0CK wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed. Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis. You suggest that it's handled on a case by case basis. That is not a public policy. If you're thinking of something else, link it. \o/ He found it! One step to betterment. Yes, the terms can baiting and can flipping were one of the much discussed items as the GM's appeared to be flipping the terms around. We were on a couple of other discussions as well to which I added a little here and there, those are optional to look up but just remember this discussion isn't narrowed down to one sole topic. Good day to you sir and good work.
The topic at hand is the one you quoted GM Hormonia on in the quote you're so excited I found. So the fact that you were (somewhat) on point does not mean you successfully answered the topic.
So, let me try your tack. Look Up. Read what you quote. Answer the nice GM lady's question. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:36:00 -
[66] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote: The basic simple fact is, EvE is an institution created to make money. Really it is that simple. CCP isn't going to let Ruby, Tippia, or anyone for that matter jeopardize that. No matter what tact they take. You can rest assured of that.
If the new players are not allowed to get a foothold, and enjoy the game, and spend cash dollars to purchase there subscriptions. This is a loose loose situation for CCP, and they're not going to let this happen. I'm certain of it.
So I think a little quitness is in order. Have faith in CCP in this area. Serious money is at stake.
When have we ever indicated anything other than a desire to protect newbies and help EvE? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:46:00 -
[67] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:
I alone cannot make such a heavy decision. As this would regulate what the people do it is up to the people as whole to come together and come up with what the GM asked for. I did but a small part here and elsewhere not seen by your eyes.
Now I said good day sir.
We're fine on banning can games in newbie systems.
The problematic suggestion is handling things on a case-by-case basis. What benefit does that have over a blanket prohibition of "messing with" in newbie systems, or a sensitive* definition of a newbie?
*in case you're wondering why I use this word a lot, read up on Sensitivity vs Specificity using whatever source you prefer. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:51:00 -
[68] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Ruby, You want to corral the new players in a specific area,
This implies to me that the second they get bored and venture out of that system there fair game so to speak. I just disagree with that basically, probably not completely though. No disrespect to you. However this settles out, you and I'll be just fine. I think Tippia may have a stroke though, if she doesn't get this rolled back though.
That's the rule as it is currently written (as far as not being safe outside listed newbie systems). This is EvE. The general guiding principle is that nobody is safe anywhere. The newbie systems are an exception to that, a safe haven so to speak, to protect those who are, as GM Hormonia said, learning to right click in space.
I want to provide newbies with just enough safety that they can figure out how to work the ships, then boot them out soon so that their first losses are small and easy to recover from. Someone who learns about can-flip mechanics by dying in a free Bantam on day 3 is much more likely to stay in the game than someone wh first learns about them by dying in their first Hulk on day 70. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:58:00 -
[69] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I think I agree with your position there. Have a nice night Love Boat Captain.
Sweet. We have a starting point. Now we just need to hammer that into a workable policy.
Aye-Aye, it's time to sleep. Policy-wonkery can wait until tomorrow. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:06:00 -
[70] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote: Well i personaly dont belave the guy flying a faction fit bc or bs a few weeks or even days into the game should be concidered a rookie ...
Great. Define rookie to satisfactorily exclude those people without excluding any rookies worth protecting.
(Due to Plex, I don't think isk value of the ship's a really great consideration, but it's one you could use) This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:09:00 -
[71] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?
CCP asked.
GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:10:00 -
[72] - Quote
Rhedea wrote:Cistuvaert ahh home sweet home such a dangerous place to be I left quickly. No hand holding back then. Seat of the pants learning. Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L) Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.
GM Hormonia has stated that no Dev time can be spent on the solution.
Why should anyone outside the rookie systems be protected? All that delaying danger does is ensure that their first loss is bigger and harder to recover from. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:33:00 -
[73] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism? CCP asked. GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths. Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity. In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended) This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere.
I've offered my suggestion of how to protect rookies several times. It does not require me to make any definition of "rookie" to be effective.
Here's my suggestion: All forms of "messing with" would be illegal (as in makey GMs mad at you) in Rookie systems. Full Stop. Officer Fit Hulk? You'll be warned/banned for shooting it. 2 days old with a hold full of Plex? It'll make the GMs mad if you shoot it.
It is a perfectly sensitive (but not very specific) rule to protect rookies. It is clear, concise, easy to enforce and understand (lose a ship to player action - it's petitionable), and covers everyone we want covered. And it doesn't require us to define what a "rookie" is.
Those who want a narrower protected class are the ones who have invited the problem of defining something that's hard to define satisfactorily. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:58:00 -
[74] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism? CCP asked. GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths. Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity. In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended) This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere. I've offered my suggestion of how to protect rookies several times. It does not require me to make any definition of "rookie" to be effective. Here's my suggestion: All forms of "messing with" would be illegal (as in makey GMs mad at you) in Rookie systems. Full Stop. Officer Fit Hulk? You'll be warned/banned for shooting it. 2 days old with a hold full of Plex? It'll make the GMs mad if you shoot it. It is a perfectly sensitive (but not very specific) rule to protect rookies. It is clear, concise, easy to enforce and understand (lose a ship to player action - it's petitionable), and covers everyone we want covered. And it doesn't require us to define what a "rookie" is. Those who want a narrower protected class are the ones who have invited the problem of defining something that's hard to define satisfactorily. And this is why people like Tippia argue with you. First things first though. Anyone who is not a Rookie really has no reason to be in a Rookie system, someone in a Hulk is NOT a rookie, that is just common sense, so your first statement is pointless (as I said earlier). Also as has been pointed out, there are areas that rookies are required to go in to that are NOT rookie systems for their SOE missions. Here is how I see it. CCP can internally define a Rookie, they have said as much, so we leave them to do what they feel is right in rookie systems, since no one else really has any need to be there. The next step is any Rookie engaged in an SOE mission arc should be made unscannable, their missions should be unprobable and any loot cans should be locked to them and them alone. That would solve the issue of people stealing their stuff, it would also mean that CCP does not have to enforce rookie system rules on what are currently non-rookie ones. Next up, if Rookies who are on their SOE arcs get attacked without provocation whilst going to non-rookie systems specifically for those missions, there should be a flag raised at CCP for them to look at and take action on. If the rookie has been found to be attacking other people without being can baited etc, then let the chips fall where they may. If however they were attacked by another player or can baited/flipped, then that player gets smacked with a ban/warning. Debating this any further amongst ourselves is an exercise in futility. I see people claiming that common sense cannot be applied, along with utterly inane scenarios such as the null sec hauler rookie with a cargohold full of officer goodies. Are they rookies, no, they are not. You don't find unsupported, wet behind the ears rookies hauling stuff like that, because no corp or alliance in their right mind would allow it. Common sense is perfectly applicable, you only need to try.
1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.
2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.
If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.
"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1921
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 14:57:00 -
[75] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.
2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.
If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.
"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word.
Ok, I'll let number one slide, I have been trying to keep up with the thread, but after so many pointless posts, they all started to blend in to each other and I began to slip in to a coma. As for number 2, I am suggesting no such thing. I stated a fact, that being that CCP already has internal definitions of what a Rookie is. And to make it easier, why not say that Rookie systems are only accessible to characters under 30 days old? The same time they get thrown out of Rookie help chat. Within 30 days they should have been able to complete the tutorial missions with ease, and then simply deny access to those systems to anyone who is NOT still a rookie under CCP's internal definitions. When it comes to my other suggestions, they are still perfectly valid and require not much more than we have already. A little common sense, modifications to SOE missions and my other suggestion regarding Rookie aggression. It would be much simpler for CCP to just observe the behaviour of one group, than to track everyone else. And you can keep throwing that "common sense is not common" phrase around as much as you like, it serves no purpose other than to put the onus on CCP to provide something that they cannot provide, rather than expecting players to show a little intelligence.
Simply banishing everyone older than 30d will cause some significant problems, especially with regards to the market seeding of rookie systems. But it would be reasonably effective in protecting rookies. I don't like the precedent of denying gate access to a class of players, especially since there are valid reasons to go back and complete career agent missions later in a character's life. Finally, banishing people runs into the problem that GM Hormonia mentioned that there is no Dev time available to do that.
The SOE mission suggestions aren't yet on point, since we're still discussing protecting rookies in their rookie systems. However, there is currently no rule against agression in any non-rookie system, and I think the best course of action would be a policy of resetting SOE missions interrupted by can flippers without punishing the flippers and without reimbursing ship loss. This reset should be accompanied by a short copypasta explaining the basics of agression mechanics. The reason for this suggestion is that I think newbies should not be prevented from completing the SOE, but at the same time, losing ones ship, especially early on when it's relatively easy to replace, is a good opportunity to learn.
The word "Common" has several meanings. The phrase "Common Sense" is not Common, in this case means that everyone has differing backgrounds and thus "Common Sense" does not mean the same thing to everyone. Stated without the play on words, it means "There is no shared definition of that wisdom which derives from shared experience, because everyone's experience is different."
Without a well specified definition of "rookie" as a class, any rule that relies on the class "rookie" runs straight into Sorities Paradox, aka the Heap Paradox, which is all about how "Common Sense" definitions cause innumerable problems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1921
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:23:00 -
[76] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote: To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. I do however agree that it would require at least some Dev time, but then as others have pointed out if this is such a huge issue then undoubtedly CCP will find time to do it.
To your next point regarding SOE missions, I think that sounds reasonable if we are to assume that CCP really cannot find any spare Dev time to make the alterations I mentioned. Though if you consider the amount of time and money they would need to expend over the lifetime of the game in order to maintain such an inefficient system, then perhaps they would be more inclined to spend money and time now to save themselves years of constant work.
It is merely a case of cost effectiveness, something we know CCP already takes in to consideration when looking at game balancing etc. The combined effect of these changes would remove an awful lot of cases of rookies being "messed with", leaving a much lighter case load for Dev's or GM's to deal with where things fall in to the grey areas.
And finally, common sense, shall we just agree to use the term "intelligence" instead? Since common sense is clearly not the right way to put it.
1) Standings repair, not everyone does them all at once, and some rookies have to be told to do them after banging their head into the wall for a while.
2) Locking the loot cans, making them unprobeable, etc. steals a possible learning experience from the rookie, ensuring that when they do get can flipped, they are likely to have a greater loss while expecting it less. The SOE arc is usually completed by a rookie soon after at least one (and likely more) ship losses, so another loss shouldn't be too shocking. As for the cost of resetting missions, that depends on how often it happens; I've run the arc a number of times (for standings), and I never had any trouble.
"Intelligence" is just as bad. Sorities Paradox* applies any time you try to define a class with a simple natural language definition.
*Stanford's Philosophy Department, since you dislike Wikipedia This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1921
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:44:00 -
[77] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Rhedea wrote:Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L) Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts. Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character). Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way. On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction). Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable?
And that's why protecting "rookies" everywhere is a bad plan. What's the line between can baiting and jetcan mining?
As for rookie on rookie violence, I have no earthly idea. I don't think GM Hormonia's adressed how they deal with rookie on rookie violence. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1923
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:02:00 -
[78] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote: Ok, so there are no other ways to repair standings then? Pretty sure there are, and lets face it, EVE is all about consequences, if you choose to go -10 then getting back from there should be difficult and not as simple as running noob starter missions. As for Rookies being dim, changes could also be made to the NPE to ensure a little more clarity and thus avoid such problems.
As for allowing can flipping in SOE missions in order to teach them a lesson, that is a woefully pathetic excuse. One often used by people with little to no real PvP experience who are merely looking for super weak targets to abuse. This should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Let them learn that lesson in level 2 or 3 missions, it won't take long. There is no reason whatsoever to allow it on the SOE missions as well.
Actually as for losing ships most of them will have already lost a ship or two BEFORE they get to the SOE stuff, especially since ship loss is now included as part of the NPE. My corp mate and best friend is also a rookie, she learned about ship loss in her tutorial missions, and then again when she started running her career agent missions, so it seems that it is working perfectly well already. If you want a reason NOT to protect rookies during SOE missions, that is not one of them.
And to your last point, for a start it was not me who had issues with the use of Wikipedia, perhaps it is not just me who has lost track of who said what in this thread eh? It is also worth noting that yet again, you are avoiding my point about common sense and intelligence by arguing semantics. You and I and everyone else here knows full well that unless you are a sad little bastard, we should all share some basic level of morality when it comes to the abusing of what could be considered minors. And for those that don't there is the ban hammer.
1) Faction and Corp Standings, not Sec Status. This mostly affects Mission Runners who simply didn't realize accepting anti-faction missions might hurt them later (it affected me with the Gallente, for instance). The Career agents give a fairly significant boost to faction standings with very low entrance requirements. There's really no harm in making faction standings easy to recover, since low standings don't let other players shoot you or anything.
2) First, you're treading close to the edge of fallacy. Secondly, I'm making no such excuse. I am saying that learning basic agression mechanics and that HS is not safe is a valuable lesson. The SOE was never a newbie mission, it was to be a low barrier of entry way to introduce the Epic Arc mission system to the masses. It was tied into the Career agents (actual newbie missions) because CCP wanted newbies to see their lates cool thing (that was never iterated upon).
3) Learning about Ship loss to NPCs in the very careful way the NPE does it (telling you several times before it happens) is very different from learning about ship loss to other players, including the seeming randomness and the agression mechanics. I want to make that lesson easier to bear by suggesting that the cost of learning it be mitigated (or even refund the ship and word the copypasta more strongly and almost eliminate the cost).
4) Yes we have the same morality, but we may not have the same line in our head as the GMs. A Minor is defined as <18yo in the US. 17y364d = Minor = Protected, 18y1d = Adult = Abuseable. There is a BRIGHT Shining line in the sand there. All I want is for their to be a bright Shining line in the sand with regard to Rookies. If you want to say a Rookie is 14, 30, 90 days old or younger, and protect them, say that. But prepare for that to be abused (as some minors in RL abuse their special protections). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1923
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:09:00 -
[79] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Rhedea wrote:Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L) Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts. Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character). Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way. On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction). Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable? And that's why protecting "rookies" everywhere is a bad plan. What's the line between can baiting and jetcan mining? .... At times their one and the same. A person was Jet can mining, and had their corp sit by and wait to stomp anyone who would steal, get blown up, and then come back for revenge. Was fun to watch for a bit. But anyway. CCP wants to do something without devoting man hours to it, which is plain a bad idea to begin with.
So what happens if a nebulously defined rookie steals from that trap for flippers? Do you shoot and risk a ban, do you suck it up and realize that he's just gonna keep doing it?
I think what's going on is that we pressed GM Hormonia for a concrete policy that we can actually follow, and she asked us for help. Some of the earlier suggestions required Dev time, which she doesn't have access to atm, so she asked us to exclude suggestions that required Dev time. Dev Time != Man Hours because not all Man Hours are Dev time. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1927
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 23:57:00 -
[80] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:[quote=GM Homonoia]I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. You all are what I would called seriously thick. Just read this.
"Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. "
"Do not mess with... in any way" Got it. Easily understood and Vague for an important reason. "in rookie systems" Got it. Well defined. "rookies" Whoops, undefined. What is the good reason for keeping this undefined?
A strict reading (not one that I'm espousing) of Hormonia's quote says that people are fair game as soon as they figure out how to read the overview and right click. So clearly, the definition the quote implies is not in the spirit of rookie protection.
I don't understand why the declaring who's being protected is kind of important for actually protecting them This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1938
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 13:27:00 -
[81] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria. In a previous post the GM xlearly states his motives, as follows:
Bolded the problem. If I, as a player who would be doing the shooting, don't know who I'm not allowed shoot, then rookies will get shot, because I, as a player, didn't know they were a rookie. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1963
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:06:00 -
[82] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I think banning is a little stiff. I totally support bouncing the criminal straight to low sec, with a -10. Then simply not allowing the gates to even let them back in, till they recover there security status. The gates simply don't work for them. Return the rookies ship and what ever he or she may have lost.
Additionally no docking in high sec till, said security status is fixed.
1) Wrong thread, this isn't a suicide gank whine thread.
2) The idea is bad and you should feel bad. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1964
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 19:35:00 -
[83] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:So you would prefer the person is banned, Ruby?
I agree wrong thread. I'll shut up.
For messing with newbies? I think the current policy of warning and banning those people is fine. However, we all need to be clear on precisely who is protected. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1970
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 00:59:00 -
[84] - Quote
Hammer Crendraven wrote:I did not know Arnon was on the protected list. So if I complain to a GM about the 2 can flipers that got me last month in Arnon when I was only weeks old then I can get them baned. Hmm and it so happens they both have posted in threads like this one recently as well. I can see the fear they have in their posts. They are guilty of this and it is not just me, they have done this repeatedly to many rookies in Arnon. It is what they do daily. The people that do this do it as a way of life. Grief on the newbies. I think the GM's know this as well. That is why they come down on them so hard. It is never just one mistake like some of these posters want you to believe. They prey upon the rookies as a way of life and are most upset that the GM's are making their playstyle off limits.
P.S. The GM said in red outlined text can flippers are griefing new players in starter systems (and that is not allowed) and then went on to name the starter systems which includes Arnon. As of right now this very moment in time there are at least 30 can flippers working Arnon. The GM's can target 30 some players already for violation to this rule.
Report 'em. I don't think anyone in this thread wants to see rookies messed with in rookie systems. We're just split on the best way to achieve the goal of "No rookies were harmed in the making of this rookie system." This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:19:00 -
[85] - Quote
Iskawa Zebrut wrote:Jesus, you people...
Rookie: A player 14 days old or less, flying entry-level ships (frigates, low end cruisers/mining vessels). If said player has any other character or account older than 14 days they do not count as a rookie. Any protection void if the rookie started a conflict via smack talk (inviting you to shoot them, specifically) or aggression (do not engage unless they signal they wish to fight - for example, they take from your container and target lock you, or they say as such via smack).
Still some loopholes, but I have faith that the GMs will apply their own judgement in loophole cases. After all, enforcement of this would get a lot of special attention since it's an oppertunity for CCP to dip their fingers into peoples' wallets.
How do you, as a player, pick targets when part of the definition of the protected class is hidden from you? If you want to be able to allow combat (or other activities that would fall under "messing with") in rookie systems between non-"rookies," then the term "rookie" must be defined in a way that players can use. The alternative is much simpler and what I've been suggesting for a while. Until such a time as the Devs can stick a rookie-"don't shoot" tag on actual "rookies," ban combat of all kinds in rookie systems. You do have to enforce this strictly (as in warn people who shoot hulks there), or people will probe around to try to figure out the hidden definition of "rookie" and "mess with" a large number of rookies in the process.
Gamers figure out the rules of their game. EvE has a long history with hidden rules and mechanics, most all of which are now well understood.
Also, that can thing is can-baiting and is specifically banned in rookie systems, on top of the general ban on "messing with" "rookies." This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 05:53:00 -
[86] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Wouldn't you agree the best thing to do, is just leave them alone? Or else. That's how I red this. Probably a good thing not to mess with it. Just saying.
IN case your messing the point, I really really don't think we need more Rookie systems. Do you?
Good Personal Policy != Official Policy This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 05:57:00 -
[87] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Trust me on this. Ban Hammer starts dropping. They will be left alone, players will get the message. Trust me on this will ya.
Ruby, I didn't make the GD policy. lol
The Policy of "Don't mess with Rookies in Rookie systems" has always been in place. Or are you so dense that that's news to you.
It hasn't been working all that well. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:13:00 -
[88] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, I have to admit, a few things do get by me, my bad, stupid, thick, however you want to say. I'm guilty. But, I can say I get the message here, at least I think I do.
Now for you. I gotta say, regardless of what I think or do. I do see slight glimmers of reason in some of your posts. Kinda respect ya. well sort of.
But that thread you were mouthing of in yesterday, with that ******. I think the thread got removed. Guy saying he was glad he run off a husband & wife mining team and all. Well ya got me wondering again.
I fail to see how people realizing that the game isn't a good fit for their preferences is a bad thing; either for the game or for them. The sad thing is people taking so long to realize it. If the game's not a good fit for them, they will be happier once they find a game that does suit them.
That said, you do have to protect people (and do so effectively) for long enough that they have the opportunity to learn about the game and thus the opportunity to make an informed decision.
Should they fail to use that opportunity, thus robbing themselves of the opportunity to make an informed decision (as that mining team did), the time they waste on a game they don't enjoy is on them. People refusing to inform themselves while making the decision to continue playing is not a reason to change the game. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:14:00 -
[89] - Quote
Domono wrote:Anything questionable is not a rookie.
Should you have to stake your account on that bet? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:39:00 -
[90] - Quote
Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:Anything questionable is not a rookie. Should you have to stake your account on that bet? On this matter I don't consider it a gamble.
Rookie is not defined. That means that it is a gamble, no matter how you consider it.
Besides that, should the stakes automatically be your account? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:17:00 -
[91] - Quote
Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:Anything questionable is not a rookie. Should you have to stake your account on that bet? On this matter I don't consider it a gamble. Rookie is not defined. That means that it is a gamble, no matter how you consider it. Besides that, should the stakes automatically be your account? Unfortunately Ruby it seems you just don't get it. That's fine. My suggestion would be to simply avoid all rookie systems while considering any hostile or aggressive action. Also, if the thought crosses your mind that you wish to hunt or harm newbies or your corp or alliance wants to cause harm to them any way your better off just avoiding it all together. Log off or go rat or mine. Or move out to low/null sec avoid the problem all together? Finally, remove words like noob, newb, nub, from your in game vocabulary. See anyone under 6-12 months then turn tail and run, zero interaction. Oh and if they tackle you just sit there and let them kill you. Then you will be all good. OR trust your better judgement.
Christ. That is the godamned rule that I've been suggesting, you nit. We are talking about helping CCP make official policy. Your personal policy, my personal policy, etc, is irrelevant. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:18:00 -
[92] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, I have to admit, a few things do get by me, my bad, stupid, thick, however you want to say. I'm guilty. But, I can say I get the message here, at least I think I do.
Now for you. I gotta say, regardless of what I think or do. I do see slight glimmers of reason in some of your posts. Kinda respect ya. well sort of.
But that thread you were mouthing of in yesterday, with that ******. I think the thread got removed. Guy saying he was glad he run off a husband & wife mining team and all. Well ya got me wondering again. I fail to see how people realizing that the game isn't a good fit for their preferences is a bad thing; either for the game or for them. The sad thing is people taking so long to realize it. If the game's not a good fit for them, they will be happier once they find a game that does suit them. That said, you do have to protect people (and do so effectively) for long enough that they have the opportunity to learn about the game and thus the opportunity to make an informed decision. Should they fail to use that opportunity, thus robbing themselves of the opportunity to make an informed decision (as that mining team did), the time they waste on a game they don't enjoy is on them. People refusing to inform themselves while making the decision to continue playing is not a reason to change the game. I think I would like to hear CCP's prospective on this. Since they did remove the thread. CCP how do you feel offically about this situation? Why do you think they locked, and removed the thread Ruby?
If I remember right, the thread was full of off topic discussions. Otherwise, it's no different from any number of C&P storytime threads. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2031
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 22:16:00 -
[93] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote: My point exactly, unless you happen to have s suggestions in regarding to how to word it.
And I have suggested how to word it. Several times. But each time I point out that the current wording sucks elephant balls, you lot pounce on that and declare that I hate newbies. Same goes for expanding on why I suggest that wording (and why the actual policy has to change to fit the wording).
For those who are only semi-literate, I'll go ahead and put my suggested wording here, again:
"Do NOT mess with ANYONE in Rookie Systems" This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2031
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Domono wrote:
My best attempt at wording it would be: Do not interact with Rookies in any deceitful, aggressive, or harmful manner inside Rookie systems, and do not specifically target Rookies outside said systems.
Works for me. I can here it now, O May Gawd, we just gotta have rookie defined, this just cant work if we don't get what a rookie is defined. LMFAO Oh yea, I would change the wording to this. Do not interact with anyone in any deceitful, aggressive, or harmful manner inside Rookie systems, and do not specifically target Rookies outside said systems.
First part of yours works. Second part requires you to define your protected class.
Writing your rule recursively is idiotic. It is idiotic because it completely fails to achieve the stated goals of the policy. The way that it fails to do so has been explained several times. Because of that, I have to wonder if your actual goals and your stated goals don't line up. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2032
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:57:00 -
[95] - Quote
Domono wrote:Like they said it's impossible for us to know exactly what a Rookie is, which is why they have full protection only in Rookie systems and limited protection outside. That way it protects those who have a difficult time deciding between a rookie and not.
They don't. They have no protection outside rookie systems, and by failing to either define the class or ban messing with anybody, shitty protection in rookie systems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2032
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:58:00 -
[96] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Damn Ruby, I ws following you on the everyone thing.
Then you added a far reaching, badly written, and wacky new clause. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2033
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:29:00 -
[97] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:The way the rules are now, it is as if the law here in the US was "Don't have sex with minors" without defining what minors were. So in EVE style lets take this to its EVE conclusion. If minors are defined to that extent then one second you are labeled a minor and the next second you are not labeled and then that very next second everybody pounces on you. It used to happen when people camped the rookie gates. That is what will happen to EVE if the line is well marked. And no line in the sand can fit every case. People can play this game and still be rookies a year later if they took leave of the game after the first week only to return a year later. No line in the sand can cover every situation. I am not going to post every concievable possible situation as it is impossible to do. Nobody at CCP is going to paint themselves into a corner on this issue so you can all just accept it or not. In the end it does not even matter how you feel about it because it is not even open for debate. Thus the current do not mess with rookies is a very good way to deal with this. It allows the GM a human to decide if the person is indeed a rookie and if they are being taken advantage of. Something no computer can do with any possible set of controls. Further as I already explained the player that does this does it as a way of life in game. It is not a one time thing. The GM is going to get multiple complaints about the same guy griefing rookies. Banned! Just like that. For everybody that wants to mess with rookies this was your warning from a GM. They also spelled out the systems in which rookies are protected. It makes it 100% fool proof to avoid having your account banned if you avoid those systems. You run your own account. You the player control your own level of risk. You the player know what the risk is. Nobody else is making you pull the trigger on someone, you do so knowing full well the risk. This is not at all difficult to understand or follow. I for one have no sympathy at all for anyones plight should they get banned. You all have been warned by the GM.
Just real quick, answer this. What is the goal of the rookie protection system? Is it a) to stop rookies from having a bad experience when they're first learning OR b) get bad mean people banned This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2034
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:40:00 -
[98] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Just real quick, answer this. What is the goal of the rookie protection system? Is it a) to stop rookies from having a bad experience when they're first learning OR b) get bad mean people banned
Neither of those two cases defines what the goal of the rookie protection systems is for. They are both far too limiting in scope to cover it all. And an obvious attempt to paint someone into a corner. And this is not open for debate. It is a mandate. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Get over it.
Ok, then write your own C. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2034
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:45:00 -
[99] - Quote
Domono wrote:Mainly to keep rookies from being griefed while learning. Though I'm sure they have no issue with removing people who simply want to grief rookies at the same time. Less problems in the end.
Cool, so you want rookies to not get griefed in the first place. Now, given that, is it a good idea to make the rules surrounding rookies clear or fuzzy? Remember, prevention rather than punishment is your primary goal. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:08:00 -
[100] - Quote
Domono wrote:I think it's doing its job well Ruby, since a lot of people in here can't judge within reason what a rookie is or define what it is to mess with one. Meaning more people are less likely to do anything that they have to "bet your account on". The unknown can be scarier than what is in front of your face.
Yeah, making it impossible to tell what's an illegitimate target among a cloud of legitimate ones will certainly prevent accidents. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:10:00 -
[101] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Just real quick, answer this. What is the goal of the rookie protection system? Is it a) to stop rookies from having a bad experience when they're first learning OR b) get bad mean people banned
Neither of those two cases defines what the goal of the rookie protection systems is for. They are both far too limiting in scope to cover it all. And an obvious attempt to paint someone into a corner. And this is not open for debate. It is a mandate. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Get over it. Ok, then write your own C. CCP has exit data from the last 9 years of game play. Every player that quits is invited to explain why they quit. If you want more players or less players is not your choice to make. You do not own the game. CCP runs this game and they alone determine what their population goals are for the game. CCP decides what C is not me and not you. And they do not owe you an explanation of C either. What they need for a profit vs what the players want vs what really happens in game is all considered by CCP. They have a huge data base of petitions over the last 9 years to work with. The rules they set are determined by their data which none of us have. It would be extremely idiotic for us to tell them how to run their game under these conditions. You can suggest away which you have done. But in the end they decide. And decide they did and they posted the mandate. The time for debate has come and gone a long time ago. And still you refuse to accept this.
You missed where they asked for suggestions to improve their policy. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:13:00 -
[102] - Quote
Domono wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Haulie Berry wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. You just said in (2) that nobody is protected outside of rookie systems. Then you went on to say in (7), "Even though they're not protected outside of those systems, don't mess with them anywhere else, either " which, as a GM edict, could be interpreted as policy. So now you have two policy points that directly contradict each other, and (4) is the cherry on top - "or else". You couldn't make it through a brief synopsis of your position without contradicting both yourself and policy as it is currently known. This should probably be taken as an indication that you need to rethink things. We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand. They do have some limited protection outside. Extreme cases.
That's not what that says. That says they might add new rookie systems if people **** on rookies enough. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:20:00 -
[103] - Quote
Domono wrote:What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs.
So you want an unclear rule that means that a griefer can gank rookies until at least 2 petition him vs a rule where GMs can simply ban people who get on kms in rookie systems and refund the killed person? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:44:00 -
[104] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs. So you want an unclear rule that means that a griefer can gank rookies until at least 2 petition him vs a rule where GMs can simply ban people who get on kms in rookie systems and refund the killed person? And you want a cut and dry rule now they are a rookie and now they are not. All that will do is allow players to camp that spot/point when rookies become non rookies. Does not solve a thing. CCP still gets thousands of petitions about a stupid rule that puts up a known spot where they can all be camped. It just shifts the problem to a different point in the game.
The rule has always been that nobody's protected outside of rookie systems. You're trying to deal with a problem that doesn't exist. The way that you're trying to deal with that problem will cause much bigger problems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:48:00 -
[105] - Quote
Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss.
1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Shit popup.
2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:59:00 -
[106] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs. So you want an unclear rule that means that a griefer can gank rookies until at least 2 petition him vs a rule where GMs can simply ban people who get on kms in rookie systems and refund the killed person? And you want a cut and dry rule now they are a rookie and now they are not. All that will do is allow players to camp that spot/point when rookies become non rookies. Does not solve a thing. CCP still gets thousands of petitions about a stupid rule that puts up a known spot where they can all be camped. It just shifts the problem to a different point in the game. The rule has always been that nobody's protected outside of rookie systems. You're trying to deal with a problem that doesn't exist. The way that you're trying to deal with that problem will cause much bigger problems. Oh it most certainly does exsist. The GM's already warned of possible expansion of what are called rookie systems if people begin to camp the gates to the rookie systems. Your solution does not work for that very reason. It is too defining for the needs of the rookies. Some rookies are ready far faster than others. Your rule would lock them into being a rookie until they are not. It is not flexible to the needs of the players or the game. That is why it is bad.
If they're ready to not be a protected rookie, they can easily stop being protected. They just have to exit the system. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:02:00 -
[107] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. I believe you are trying to define the moment the rookies can be camped. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style.
I believe you are trying to muddy the waters to be able to either abuse the rookie protections or abuse the uncertainty to shoot rookies. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style.
See, I can assign motives too. But while people have been calling me a rookie ganker for daring to suggest that the best and easiest way to protect rookies in rookie systems is to simply ban doing bad stuff in rookie systems, I have for the most part refrained from it. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:05:00 -
[108] - Quote
Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. I turned mine off. The only people that are truly going to be affected by the rule is those that want to kill or grief everyone just because they can. Those who do it for profit aren't going to bother anyone that can immediately be seen as a rookie.
You can't turn off the Concord warning. It will *always* show up.
Yeah, of course. And your suggestion will result in them getting away with it several times more than mine (doubly so since the Rookie has to petition the loss, which won't always happen). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:10:00 -
[109] - Quote
Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. I believe you are trying to define the moment the rookies can be camped. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style. I believe you are trying to muddy the waters to be able to either abuse the rookie protections or abuse the uncertainty to shoot rookies. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style. See, I can assign motives too. But while people have been calling me a rookie ganker for daring to suggest that the best and easiest way to protect rookies in rookie systems is to simply ban doing bad stuff in rookie systems, I have for the most part refrained from it. Your right that would protect rookies. Along with everyone else that was in those systems.That is a problem too.
Oh god, 15m of safe veld mining. The horror. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:46:00 -
[110] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Let me tell you what I think is the easiest way to kill new players. Invite them to a fleet, when they accept, fly right up to him, or her and POW. One dead rookie. I could do this virtually all after noon, never have any risk, not miss a single one. Heck believe it or not I've actually done this in NPC 0.0 with success. The thing you need to ask yourself is why?
I think the rule works just fine. Just look at this thread, it's a testament to it's effectiveness.
So yeah, you can suicide gank rookies by fleeting with them. How fun.
The rule doesn't work fine as is because it fails to protect rookies in rookie systems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:57:00 -
[111] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Hey Ruby, how your night going?
Got 500m to drop from a POS. It's delicious. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 04:05:00 -
[112] - Quote
It's going to Corp, but v0v
How's yours going? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
|
|