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
8002
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:22:00 -
[481] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:So we have a system(s) that dont have anything to do except for rookie missions and we can limit that to letting them do the tutorials once, twice or even three to four times to encourage them to leave those systems as there will be nothing else for them to do. Afaik, the missions are already limited to once, and then you're sent (or advised to go) to the career agent systems, which are covered by the same rule.
Quote:Is there value in having preset systems where a person can run to when things get tough? Or is it more like being docked and playing station games, which I can see the two being similar from a game mechanic point of view. For those running from a tough time, it will be no different than being docked up. If anything it will be worse since the GÇ£undock rampGÇ¥ will be the far end of the outgoing gate from the system, where you pop up 15km away from safety, compared to 0m away when undocking from most stations.
It might be siiiightly easier to stave off boredom compared to just staying docked, since you can always go out and fly a few circles around the station instead of (or in addition to) spinning your ship.
THE L0CK wrote: I've noticed how you have purposefully stuck to the one scenario and avoided questions pertaining to other aspects of the situation as a whole Such asGǪ? 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?
|
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
363
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:26:00 -
[482] - Quote
This is a remarkable example of one person deciding to be right no matter what. Tippia could argue with a stump about bark. If you can't define what a rookie is in your own mind, leave anything that looks like a rookie alone. It's not that hard. You only have to lean on arguments this hard if you want to break them or you want to prove yourself right. Some people won't be satisfied with any rule, that's clear from the fact that this debate just goes on and on being driven by one player. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8003
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:32:00 -
[483] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:This is a remarkable example of one person deciding to be right no matter what. Tippia could argue with a stump about bark. If you can't define what a rookie is in your own mind, leave anything that looks like a rookie alone. No, this is me explaining a very simple problem over and over again to people who cannot read.
The issue is not whether or not (or how) I defined what a rookie is. The issue is that thus definition is subjective, non-universal, arbitrary, and without any commonality. It is therefore highly unsuitable as both guidance and a control mechanism GÇö the two purposes a proper rule should be able to serve.
Quote:Some people won't be satisfied with any rule, that's clear from the fact that this debate just goes on and on being driven by one player. GǪexcept of course, that what I'm arguing for a very simple rule that would satisfy everyone except griefers. I don't what what that says about the people who so adamantly are against such a ruleGǪ 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
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:44:00 -
[484] - Quote
I'm sure CCP reads this for what it is. Simply stop responding. I'm done |
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
531
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:55:00 -
[485] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ban Bindy wrote:This is a remarkable example of one person deciding to be right no matter what. Tippia could argue with a stump about bark. If you can't define what a rookie is in your own mind, leave anything that looks like a rookie alone. No, this is me explaining a very simple problem over and over again to people who cannot read.
Which is exactly what Ban Bindy said. And what I said
I think my questions were around page 11 or 12. The original one to you was removed by the ISD guy which I don't understand why because he kept another guys same but worded differently there. but I asked it again to somebody else later on, who also conveniently ignored it. Funny enough, they've been on your 'team', if there is such a thing on the forums. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Haulie Berry
214
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:57:00 -
[486] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
I haven't seen that said, exactly (though I'm sure I haven't read every GM post in every related thread there has ever been about this).
What I have seen said is more, "This is definitely not against the rules as they presently exist, but we still don't like it, so if you do it we'll just go ahead and make it against the rules," which is not quite the same thing... but is extremely silly in its own right, as it does create a very ambiguous setup in which something is defined as being legit on a micro scale, but illegal on a macro scale.
Tangent:
There's a thread over in Newb Q&A right now in which the OP (not sure of his age, but a retriever pilot) was invited into what was ostensibly a mining corporation. When he flew his retriever out to join his new corpmates on a "mining op", they locked him up, demanded an 8m ransom () and blew him up when he couldn't pay.
The player in question was clearly not yet familiar with things like corpkilling and aggression mechanics, so by at least some definitions, something of a rookie. On the other hand, he was old enough to fly a retriever (not that that implies more than 2-4 weeks of experience), so by the definition of other people, not so much a rookie.
The killers were not veterans (as i would define "veteran"), just based on the comedy ****-fits in their loss mails. It's a corporation of about 17 members, and I'm quite certain almost any of the posters in this thread could individually squish the corporation as a whole like a very, very tiny bug. They were definitely *more* knowledgeable about the game than they guy they duped, but not knowledgeable relative to even the average Eve player.
If the rule which (allegedly) should simply be understood is "don't mess with rookies", which side of the rule does this fall on? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1915
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:04:00 -
[487] - 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 -
[488] - 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 -
[489] - 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 -
[490] - 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. |
|
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
532
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:10:00 -
[491] - Quote
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. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:15:00 -
[492] - Quote
Ruby this is for you and Tali
Three women are about to be executed. One's a brunette, one's a redhead and one's a blonde. The guard brings the brunette forward and the executioner asks if she has any last requests. She says no and the executioner shouts, ''Ready! Aim!'' Suddenly the brunette yells, ''EARTHQUAKE!!!'' Everyone is startled and throws themselves on the ground while she escapes. The guard brings the redhead forward and the executioner asks if she has any last requests. She say no and the executioner shouts, ''Ready! Aim!'' Suddenly the redhead yells, ''TORNADO!!!'' Everyone is startled and looks around for cover while she escapes. By now the blonde has it all figured out. The guard brings her forward and the executioner asks if she has any last requests. She says no and the executioner shouts, Ready! Aim!'' and the blonde yells, ''FIRE!!!''' |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1916
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:18:00 -
[493] - 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8004
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:20:00 -
[494] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Jeez, another one. No, he's been here pretty much all along.
Quote: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. So in other words, you're going to accuse him as well of doing something he's not doing?
Quote:Other than that I can't help those who won't help themselves. That's the entire problem: you can't help yourself with the solution you've picked. 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?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8004
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:42:00 -
[495] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:When did I start accusing? Pretty much from the get-go. You accused me of wanting to define rookies, when what I wanted to do was not define rookies, because it couldn't be doneGǪ
Quote:I find it easier to just have people go back over the material rather than write yet another 3 pages discussing what we have already discussed for the past 18. The thing is, you never actually answered the question, even when I asked it: how do you break a definition that doesn't exist? You also never explained how to enforce such a non-existing definition.
Quote:But I did help myself and I've been trying to tell you that for several pages now. GǪexcept that the solution you picked are, by your own admission, not actually useful.
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
1916
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:42:00 -
[496] - 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. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
821
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:45:00 -
[497] - Quote
This reminds me of the "define blobbing" discussion on the old forums. I think in the end we discovered that defining blobbing was impossible for game purposes... and we will likely find that true here.
Any definition picked will annoy someone.
For now, outside of Rookie systems (I avoid those for obvious reasons), I will kill/scam anyone I want/can who is more than 30 days old, and if they show a basic understanding of aggro mechanics, I'll kill them even if they are a week old.
Of course... this assumes that I woudl be able to kill anyone. I really do suck at combat. |
Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:47:00 -
[498] - Quote
A little jest for Tippia.
Tippia decides to learn and try horse back riding unassisted without prior experience or lessons. She mounts the horse with great effort, and the tall, shiny horse springs into motion. It gallops along at a steady and rhythmic pace, but Tippia begins to slip from the saddle. Out of shear terror, she grabs for the horse's mane but cannot seem to get a firm grip. She tries to throw her arms around the horse's neck, but she slides down the side of the horse anyway. The horse gallops along, seemingly oblivious to its slipping rider. Finally, giving up her frail grip, she leaps away from the horse to try and throw herself to safety. Unfortunately, her foot has become entangled in the stirrup. She is now at the mercy of the horse's pounding hooves as her head is struck against the ground again and again. As her head is battered against the ground, she is mere moments away from unconsciousn ess or even death when Frank, the Wal-Mart manager runs out to shut the horse off. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8005
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:54:00 -
[499] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:For now, outside of Rookie systems (I avoid those for obvious reasons), I will kill/scam anyone I want/can who is more than 30 days old, and if they show a basic understanding of aggro mechanics, I'll kill them even if they are a week old. GǪand that seems entirely reasonable. It doesn't solve the problem though: the rule of thumb you apply might not be the one someone else applies, and theirs might be just as reasonable. This makes the whole thing arbitrary as hell and a poor basis for control and adjudication. 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?
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
821
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:54:00 -
[500] - Quote
You all seem to be missing Tippia's point (and maybe I am too but I'll give it a try).
So far every definition of rookie put forth has been terrible. And if it is as impossible to define as the GM said, then it makes for a poor rule.
Vagueness in the action of a rule is fine and workable. Vagueness in the subject is downright dangerous. |
|
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
533
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:11:00 -
[501] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pretty much from the get-go. You accused me of wanting to define rookies, when what I wanted to do was not define rookies, because it couldn't be doneGǪ
Tippia wrote:Define GÇ£rookieGÇ¥.
To say a blind man is blind is an accusation now?
Tippia wrote:The thing is, you never actually answered the question, even when I asked it: how do you break a definition that doesn't exist? You also never explained how to enforce such a non-existing definition. Quote:But I did help myself and I've been trying to tell you that for several pages now. GǪexcept that the solution you picked are, by your own admission, not actually useful.
I did answer the question but it wasn't the answer you wanted so you ask again. And you ask again. And you ask again. I can retype the answer but I already know what will happen because it already has happened and it will come to pass again.
And I gave you the reason to that last statement as well but thank you for providing an excellent example of the repeatability of this thread.
Rubyporto wrote: I've been here the entire time. I've read. I've not seen any enforceable definition of rookie come from you.
Then I can't help you. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
170
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:11:00 -
[502] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:You all seem to be missing Tippia's point (and maybe I am too but I'll give it a try).
So far every definition of rookie put forth has been terrible. And if it is as impossible to define as the GM said, then it makes for a poor rule.
Vagueness in the action of a rule is fine and workable. Vagueness in the subject is downright dangerous.
I to strongly believe we are nowhere closer to defining anything more then what we had before this topic even started.
I just want the game numbers to grow, Im tired of seeing the same JailCell crowd gonking the newbs, why don't they gank each other somewhere else? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8006
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:20:00 -
[503] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:To say a blind man is blind is an accusation now? Did I want to or attempt to define rookies in that quote? No. So yes, saying a seeing man is blind is something of an accusation.
Quote:I did answer the question but it wasn't the answer you wanted so you ask again. GǪbecause you didn't actually answer the question: how can you break a definition that doesn't exist? How can you enforce such a non-existing definition?
Quote:I can retype the answer Please do.
Kara Books wrote:I to strongly believe we are nowhere closer to defining anything more then what we had before this topic even started. Nor will we ever get any closer, simply because we can't. That is the entire problem. 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
533
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:34:00 -
[504] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:To say a blind man is blind is an accusation now? Did I want to or attempt to define rookies in that quote? No. So yes, saying a seeing man is blind is something of an accusation.
Tippia wrote: You can easily create a rule that offers the required protection while still being crystal clear and without creating all those exploits and loop holes.
I can do this all day.
Tippia wrote:Quote:I did answer the question but it wasn't the answer you wanted so you ask again. I can retype the answer GǪbecause you didn't actually answer the question: how can you break a definition that doesn't exist? How can you enforce such a non-existing definition? Please do.
I already told you, the stupidly extreme scenario is not the one that I was discussing. Would you like me to type it again? Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Widow Cain
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:38:00 -
[505] - Quote
OP Grow a pair and leave the rookies alone, splitting hairs over what is and isn't allowed is lame.
OMG You are sooo pixel macho... |
Widow Cain
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:41:00 -
[506] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:Maxpie wrote:Why are you sitting in the starter system trying to go up to the line without crossing it? Leave the noobs alone. There will be plenty of time to grief those players later, if that's your thing. Don't make them quit before they get the opportunity to appreciate the game. The only Noob I, or any of my alts ever killed, was when I was a noob myself.. If I, or my alts want a fight, I make my way to Null and get a real one :) Why do I live in the starter system ? Cause when I'm docked up I rather enjoy helping rookies out with their questions, giving suggestions, etc.. People were nice enough to help me out when I was starting.. And because a Rookie system is big enough to always have an active local chat, without the crap that goes on at mission and trade hubs.. Plus the system is rather centrality located to where I mission, mine, and hauling to hubs.. Well since I started in Nov, I know what was enforced, and what GM's would say was okay/not okay from the many times they showed up in local.. Give what they said at the time, these are new rules, or at least directly contradict what GM's said was okay over Christmas. Now as I said, I support stronger rules.. a lot of crap was done in Rookie systems "legally".. But I think it's important that the rules get spelled out.
lol, OMG, you L I V E in a rookies system.
And you admitted it in public?
OMG You are sooo pixel macho... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8006
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:42:00 -
[507] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:I can do this all day. Do what? Show quotes where I'm not trying to define rookies? Yes, you've done well with that so far.
Quote:I already told you, the stupidly extreme scenario is not the one that I was discussing. YeeeeeesGǪ? And that answers the questions of how to break a definition that doesn't exist and of how to enforce a non-existing definition, how exactly?
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
535
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:05:00 -
[508] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:I can do this all day. Do what? Show quotes where I'm not trying to define rookies? Yes, you've done well with that so far. Quote:I already told you, the stupidly extreme scenario is not the one that I was discussing. YeeeeeesGǪ? And that answers the questions of how to break a definition that doesn't exist and of how to enforce a non-existing definition, how exactly?
I'm not answering a question about a invisible definition that is broken. We do however have an existing definition and the GM has asked us to help her define as to make it slightly better but stupidly...blah blah blah we know the rest.
Full circle once again. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8006
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:21:00 -
[509] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:I'm not answering a question about a invisible definition that is broken. Why not?
You're the one claiming that we're trying to break the definition of GÇÿrookieGÇÖ. Setting aside for a minute that we're not, the question remains: seeing as how the only common answer is that GÇÿrookieGÇÖ can't be defined (the GMs certainly refuse to do it), how can such a definition be broken GÇö it doesn't exist? So how can you claim that we're trying to break this definition when all we know for certain is that it isn't defined?
Quote:We do however have an existing definition and the GM has asked us to help her define as to make it slightly better but stupidly. Actually, no we don't GÇö that's the entire problem. We have no definition and the GMs are not willing to provide one, so we have to make one up using GÇ£common senseGÇ¥ 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. They are also not asking us to define anything, but rather to provide a policy that protects rookies. This can be done without having to define rookies as a group, as we have shown, thus eliminating that entire problem.
Quote:Full circle once again. GǪbecause you can't answer simple questions and keep tossing out red herrings (and just general falsehoods) left right and centre. So we keep dragging you, kicking and screaming, back onto the topic at hand. If you don't want to discuss the topic, just stay away GÇö your fallacies are quite useless.
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?
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1513
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:24:00 -
[510] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: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.
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.
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
|
|
|
|
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 |