Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:41:00 -
[331] - 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 -
[332] - 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. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:46:00 -
[333] - Quote
Reading this thread, my utter contempt for those scrubs styling themselves as (fail-wana-be) hi-sec pvperGÇÖs continues unabated.
The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!!
Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.
I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:54:00 -
[334] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!! GǪso, in other words, you haven't really read the thread and understood what the issue is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:55:00 -
[335] - 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. |
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:56:00 -
[336] - Quote
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. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:06:00 -
[337] - 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. |
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:12:00 -
[338] - Quote
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? When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:17:00 -
[339] - 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:18:00 -
[340] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:21:00 -
[341] - Quote
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. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:25:00 -
[342] - Quote
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?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Haulie Berry
209
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:25:00 -
[343] - 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.
If it is as simple and obvious as you are asserting, you should be able to answer it. Why won't you? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:26:00 -
[344] - 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. |
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:35:00 -
[345] - Quote
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. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:41:00 -
[346] - 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:44:00 -
[347] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies. Yes you did. You implied that we don't need a rule to separate right from wrong. The absence of such a rule will have one consequence: the wholesale slaughter of rookies.
Quote:My personal definition of rookie:
1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec. So you would say that the previously envisioned guy in Torrinos with 25bn worth of tech would be an illegal target. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:55:00 -
[348] - Quote
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. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1892
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:03:00 -
[349] - 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:13:00 -
[350] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. Of course not. So what's the good of having a rule that doesn't provide any kind of enforceable limitations and no guidelines for when it's actually applicable?
By the way, you didn't comment on that rookie example: would you consider it illegal to blow up a rookie with 25bn ISK worth of tech in his carg hold?
Quote:I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior. Because otherwise, it will be exploited and fail to serve its purpose. Because otherwise, it will limit legitimate gameplay. Because otherwise, it becomes almost completely useless.
We're straying into nirvana fallacy territory here, but that's just it: why construct a rule that is begging for that fallacy (and the opaque and/or unenforceable nature of any attempt to avoid the fallacy) when you could simply construct a rule that doesn't use those kinds of fuzzy and subjective definitions and still achieved the same goal?
And as Ruby keeps pointing out: it's not the behaviour that needs to be controlled GÇö it's the context of that behaviour, without which any control, specific or otherwise, becomes meaningless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:24:00 -
[351] - Quote
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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:36:00 -
[352] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I hope they leave it as is. So you want them to discriminate against rookies based on reasons we are not privy to and let us kill some rookies but not others, and you want them to include vets under the rookie protection umbrella because the rules are so opaque as to force people not to attack those vets.
Yeah, that seems reasonable compared to a rule that doesn't require anyone on either side of the fence to have to worry about what is and what isn't a rookieGǪ
Whether you mean that or not, it's the situation the rules create, and if you do want to leave it as it is then fine GÇö just realise what it is you want to leave as it is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:40:00 -
[353] - Quote
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.
When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:44:00 -
[354] - Quote
Olleybear wrote: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. GǪso you still have absolutely no clue what the problem is then.
Yes, you probably should give up at this point if it's that difficult for you.
By the way, the rule you're asking for exists; it is not in any way relevant to the topic at hand, even as a simile.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1896
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:45:00 -
[355] - 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 -
[356] - 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. |
RAP ACTION HERO
87
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:42:00 -
[357] - 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. so we can leave the rookies alone and shoot the whiners. |
Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:19:00 -
[358] - Quote
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. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -á -á-á - The Mittani |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:20:00 -
[359] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GǪand that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:22:00 -
[360] - 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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |