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) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:18:00 -
[421] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:No need to search false crappy excuses to use/abuse the lack of distinct rules to support a very false argument. We know. That's why we're arguing for the removal of the those grey areas, which would eliminate all the crappy excuses. For some reason, people seem rather adamant that this is bad GÇö presumably because they enjoy the amount to which they abuse the system, and because would hate to see those abuses removed.
That's why you're seeing all those false and crappy excuses such as GÇ£everyone knowsGÇ¥ and GÇ£you're just a gankerGÇ¥: they have no argument (not even a very false one), and have to go for the red herrings and ad hominems instead. 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 15:20:00 -
[422] - Quote
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. |
InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:00:00 -
[423] - Quote
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. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1910
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:02:00 -
[424] - 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 -
[425] - 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. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:26:00 -
[426] - Quote
I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.
I was having a frigate duel with a guy and realized within the first few seconds that he was VERY new. I was trying to help him understand how to start the duel when he fired on me without first getting aggression. I thought the duel had started, so I began firing, only to have him suddenly pop when CONCORD shot him.
My point here is that anyone anywhere, even in rookie systems, may accidentally and unintentionally cause grief to a new player. No matter how strongly you believe it is cut and dry, it isn't. The rules should not only be clearly stated, but any changes in what is considered a bannable offense should be announced at startup so everyone can see it. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Haulie Berry
210
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:41:00 -
[427] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.
Why do people keep saying things like this? The GM in this thread has explicitly said that, while they would prefer you would not mess with rookies in general, it is NOT against the rules in systems that are not "rookie" systems.
|
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:49:00 -
[428] - Quote
Listen virtually every legal system in the world is full if things that are "Implied". It's everywhere, in virtually every system. I'm fine with this being a little grey. I actually like it like that, I have my reasons. I think many others agree. There are always people that disagree, there also virtually everywhere. I've had enough of this crap. If you can't grasp the concept, or disagree with the concept, that's your perspective, I respect that. Simple as that. |
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:02:00 -
[429] - Quote
OK, I never even implied I want things totally safe in high sec. ThatGÇÖs ridiculous, I would never want that.
I like the grayness of the way it is now, simply because it muddies the waters for the bottom feeders determined to kill only the new talent, period!
I would greatly support any new changes that bounces anyone that commits a high sec crime straight to low and null sec, not allowing them to return to high sec still they have repaired there security. Simply donGÇÖt allow them back in, until they repair this. My purpose of this is very, very simple. To help populate low and null, with more people for me personally to shoot. In my opinion many should be migrating there that are not, itGÇÖs a little quite out there.
Remember this is my opinion, and only my opinion. I'll be just fine with however it levels out. I'll deal with it, because frankly I hate being in high sec anyway. Very rare days when I'm there.
If you canGÇÖt grasp these simple things, feel free to shove it where ever you want.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:04:00 -
[430] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I actually like it like that, I have my reasons. I think many others agree. Presumably, you want the rules to be vague so you can exploit them for protection you do not deserve.
The rest of us just wants the rules to protect rookies. Why do you feel the need to hide behind them?
Haulie Berry wrote:Why do people keep saying things like this? The GM in this thread has explicitly said that, while they would prefer you would not mess with rookies in general, it is NOT against the rules in systems that are not "rookie" systems. Because they've said in other places, that it might not be ok GÇö the the rookie system rule might apply outside of rookie systems. This creates maximum ambiguity for maximum confusion and maximum unenforceability: you are not allowed to attack a group of people (that can't be defined) in some set of systems (that can't be defined), except occasionally you might be (according to rules of judgement that can't be defined).
What he's describing is the logical conclusion of the GÇ£don't mess with rookiesGÇ¥ rule. Yes, reasonably, he should have no problems with that incident, but as this thread has shown GÇ£reasonablyGÇ¥ isn't a universal constantGǪ So the whole idea of building a rule around that measure of GÇ£reasonableGÇ¥ is flawed to the core, and yet it's what people are arguing in favour of. 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?
|
|
Sasha Deathcabin Yvormes
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:09:00 -
[431] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: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.
There you go, a new concept of gameplay....
NOOBGEDDON!!!!
how can starter systems be immune to goongankage? After all, if they are mining, they are not playing the game correctly.
|
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
522
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:16:00 -
[432] - Quote
Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's? Excuse me while I go shed a tear for the human race. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:24:00 -
[433] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's? No. We're still trying to make people who say that it can't be defined understand that this means the rule is pretty useless, what with the main subject of it being undefined and allGǪ
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?
|
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
522
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:28:00 -
[434] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's? No. We're still trying to make people who say that it can't be defined understand that this means the rule is pretty useless, what with the main subject of it being undefined and allGǪ
So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:32:00 -
[435] - Quote
So when was the last GM correspondence in this thread? Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7994
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:34:00 -
[436] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix. No. We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is.
We're doing exactly what the GMs asked us for. We are also not trying to define what a rookie is GÇö we're asking those who prefer the rule that requires a definition of rookie to do that. They can't. That means the rule is no good.
Simple enough, or do you want to keep wilfully misunderstanding what GÇ£noGÇ¥ means? 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?
|
Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:37:00 -
[437] - Quote
Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence
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. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 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.
The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............
Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |
Cutout Man
Viziam Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:38:00 -
[438] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence 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. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 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. The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............ too bad you didn't bother to scroll down further in the thread, where the same GM revisits those rules time and again |
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:43:00 -
[439] - Quote
Thread is overall ******** if you ask me.
Is it really that hard to simply stay away from new players and the newbie systems and leave it at that? Or does this whole thread stem from the fact that there is a bunch of players present here who suck so much that you get kicks from blowing newbies up?
Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating. |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
373
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:50:00 -
[440] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.
I was having a frigate duel with a guy and realized within the first few seconds that he was VERY new. I was trying to help him understand how to start the duel when he fired on me without first getting aggression. I thought the duel had started, so I began firing, only to have him suddenly pop when CONCORD shot him.
My point here is that anyone anywhere, even in rookie systems, may accidentally and unintentionally cause grief to a new player. No matter how strongly you believe it is cut and dry, it isn't. The rules should not only be clearly stated, but any changes in what is considered a bannable offense should be announced at startup so everyone can see it.
Can't believe this thread is still going on. But here is another example why there will never be a hard fast rule. Like any and all rules and laws, intent plays a big part.
Reaver did not have a intent to kill the newbie. If anything this was more of a training session, sadly the mistake cost the new player more then just there ship as there standing was also effected.
I seriously doubt the newbie petitioned you and if they did a Nice GM MIGHT have reset the newbies standings and let it go at that as lesson learned depending on how new the character really was.
You can't define hard rules with this stuff cause you can't define every scenario.
The whole reason for a GM to begin with.
The more stringent the rules the less power a GM has to help those in need and go after those who are trying to use the rules to abuse the system.
GM's need room to do there jobs, and yes sometimes that means the wrong person will be punished, but guess what that is life and you can always escalate if you feel you need too. EVERYBODY KNOWS |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:58:00 -
[441] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............ No. You missed the really important part: 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? As part of this, we're pointing out that the whole idea of having a rule that depends on something that cannot and will not be defined will inherently be much worse in a number of ways than a rule that doesn't require those kinds of distinctions.
Gillia Winddancer wrote:Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating. Common sense is the rarest commodity in the universe. Common-sense-based rules have a frightening tendency to fall apart when faced with senseless activities.
In this case, the common-sense approach stumbles by turning a rule that is supposed to protect rookies into a rule that doesn't fully protect rookies, but unduly protects vetsGǪ 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 18:02:00 -
[442] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=THE L0CK] We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is.
I'd exercise a little discretion when using the word stupid, and GM in the same sentence. Just a friendly piece of advise. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:08:00 -
[443] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I'd exercise a little discretion when using the word stupid, and GM in the same sentence. Just a friendly piece of advise. Not needed unless the GMs can't follow a simple sentence and trace the referent of the stupidity in 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?
|
Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:12:00 -
[444] - Quote
Cutout Man wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence 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. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 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. The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............ too bad you didn't bother to scroll down further in the thread, where the same GM revisits those rules time and again
Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there? Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:13:00 -
[445] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there? Yes. You ignored the GM quote.
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?
|
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
523
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:20:00 -
[446] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix. No. We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is. We're doing exactly what the GMs asked us for. We are also not trying to define what a rookie is GÇö we're asking those who prefer the rule that requires a definition of rookie to do that. They can't. That means the rule is no good. Simple enough, or do you want to keep wilfully misunderstanding what GÇ£noGÇ¥ means?
Exactly what I said, you keep reverting to the stupidly extreme scenario to break the definition of a rookie. We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Sasha Deathcabin Yvormes
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:23:00 -
[447] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:Thread is overall ******** if you ask me.
Is it really that hard to simply stay away from new players and the newbie systems and leave it at that? Or does this whole thread stem from the fact that there is a bunch of players present here who suck so much that you get kicks from blowing newbies up?
Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating.
So whats the difference between noobs and miners, or mission runners? How can you exempt one group and not others? Its a sandbox, take the rough with the smooth, getting blown up is the way we all learnt.
|
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:25:00 -
[448] - Quote
Ive read this threed over and over every post
And that fact is ive still got no idea what can and cant be done I still only know if i break the rules Its my ***
Fact is we need more CCP imput on this issue and i hope thay see that just as clearly as i do
|
Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:28:00 -
[449] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there? Yes. You ignored the GM quote.
My point is that having said they wouldn't discuss it any further, they then did exactly that.
Clear enough?
EDIT: I think you and a few others need to take a break from posting, its affecting your ability to read. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7999
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:29:00 -
[450] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Exactly what I said No. What you said is that we're trying to defined what a rookie is. We're not.
Quote:We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages. GǪwhich, along with the inability to define rookies, is why it's not a sound basis for this kind of rule set. It is also completely unnecessary for reaching the same goal.
Cutter Isaacson wrote:I think you and a few others need to take a break from posting, its affecting your ability to read. Nah. It's affecting the ability to notice your switch away from the GÇ£GM says so, obey!GÇ¥-stance you've previously tended towards. 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?
|
|
|
|
|
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 |