Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14786
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Please can you help the CSM by choosing which of the three courses of action the CSM should recommend to CCP as the way forward.
As you are all no doubt aware, CCP Falcon, the leader of the EVE Community Team, yesterday published a communication on the subject of player harrassment. As might be expected, this issue, and CCP's reply, has caused a certain amount of contention. The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.
In other to get some actual numbers into the discussion, please can you select from one of the following three options for the CSM to present to CCP as the opinion of the community.:
(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.
(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.
(3) CCP should stand back and allow without comment the members of the community complete free reign in using CCP's IP and property to engage in and facilitate whatever activities they desire, regardless of damage done and regardless of the clear trend of escalating unpleasantness. This option, so far as I am aware, is not available anywhere and may in fact contravene the laws of quite a few nations including several which comprise large sections of the EVE playerbase.
1 Kings 12:11
|
I Riven I
Hedion University Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
first ill edit later |
Tollen Gallen
Glory of Reprisal Enterprise
7036
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
2
I like Battleships. Zimmy Zeta - I f*cking love martinis. the original ones, with gin, not that vodka martini crap. Carmen Electra - You are also on my block list. Mr Epeen for CSM9 |
Tesco Ergo Sum
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
2) please.
Many thanks for your efforts, it brought me back to the game. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14786
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Needless to say, my strong preference is for option 2. If CCP are forced to give a rigid definition of what is acceptable, then they will have to set the bar at a far lower level than we're used to operating within.
I prefer to be treated like an adult and to be trusted to be able to use my judgement.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Darkopus
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them. .
This is quite clearly the only real workable solution.
Option 1 would provide an environment whereby people really intent on griefing will study the rules in detail and devise potential heinous ways of griefing people that aren't necesarilly against the revised ruleset. That would simply lead to another "crackdown" or chnage in rules again by CCP. Which in turn mean each time it happens we lose a little more of the freedoms we so enjoy in this game.
Option 3 would never happen as this would have some serious ramifications for CCP and their business if something positively perverse happened on the back of their IP and the 2 could be directly correlated in a court of law. |
Aivo Dresden
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
313
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
In an ideal world I would say 2.
However, it's been shown plenty of times that some people just can't be given that responsibility and others just are little sh*ts, so I'm going to have to go with 1.
3 can not be allowed because then we could potentially end up in situations where CCP's image gets damaged. There are also a bunch of incidents which inherently require CCPs intervention. Some actions make CCP legally liable and they need to isolate themselves against that. |
Boomtown Jones
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Somewhere between 1 and 2, open but fair, but of course I think CCP exists somewhere between 1 and 2 already so perhaps we should just call it 1.
3 is anarchy and also impossible. |
Nalelmir Ahashion
Omegon 42nd Core
240
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: (1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.
This is best option.
Eve is game about spaceships, about economy and simulation of economical environment (everything comes down to isks). Latest event showed us that people in this game are not able to (Not 100% of them but major part enough) behave in an adult manner and limit themselves.
Place a red line, set the boundaries. "What's worse than a foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother? A foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother who thinks he's a gangser, that's what." --áAaron Birch |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
225
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.
Is the only workable answer and it's a good one. Baddest poster ever |
|
Amaise
Shane Warne Fanclub
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
please make conflict the current situation only encourages mining and turtling. Nullsec need to be for warlords not farmers. |
WouldYouEver HaveSexWith aGoat
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
I would say #1 for personal comments and actions. Essentially, human beings cannot be trusted with any sort of real freedom. It's why we have so many rules IRL, and why we need them in-game too. With that said, I would say #2 for non-personal comments and actions.
Two examples to illustrate:
Example 1: *Player A kills Player B* Your fit is pathetic, you are total trash. Go back to high-sec. - This should result in disciplinary action.
Example 2: *Squad A kills Squad B* Awful fits, you guys are trash! Go back to high-sec. - This should be allowed to stay.
While your thread is likely related to Erotica1, I do not believe the options you've described truly address the issue. Erotica used EVE to fascilate actions out of game that would currently be considered a TOS/EULA infraction in-game. The question becomes: Is using in-game tools to fascilate EULA/TOS breaking activities out of game a breach of the EULA/TOS? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
4144
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
Quote:The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.
Eh, kinda. For myself, I want assurances that processes to determine GM action taken against a player is as objective as possible, with as little subjectivity as possible.
Here's an example. If we're supposed to always be thinking about "the person behind the keyboard", blah blah blah, then how are we, within any reason, to know where to draw the line?
If I gank someone, and he rages out in local, does he get a "hissy fit shield", and I can't gank him anymore because it would upset him in real life? Am I supposed to take whatever he says at face value, if that is the case?
My ideal response would be: Too damn bad, if you can't deal with legitimate in game actions, then log off and cool down.
So while my answer to your question would be that 2 is what I want, what I think we have after last night is a 1.5. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
flakeys
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
2115
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
This is gonna give you so many different opinions that i really don't understand why you'd even try it .Plus it will only show the idea's a certain but small percent of the actuall eve players has as a lot of people don't frequently follow the forums.
On a sidenote there have ALLWAYS been double standards ingame in regards to certain rules that can not be fully outlined , this will not be an exception as it is allmost impossible to outline what does or does not cross the line .
It is no different from reall life , judges do this every day .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Gregor Parud
373
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
#2.
The rules are fine as is and any increase of rules or their explanation will just result in bad wording, E lawyering and creating precedents where none are needed. We're fine to leave decisions in these kinds of situations in the hands of CCP making an arbitrary call in individual cases.
E1 is a simple case of "don't be stupid" taking his actions far beyond what's morally acceptable in the real world, and that really is the thing... "in the real world". He went beyond the boundaries ingame and pulled the situation into real life in a way that's so terrible you don't need special rules for it other than "don't be an idiot".
Leave it as is, CCP is capable of handling situations like these just fine. |
Catherine Wolfisheim
Born Crazy
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
So basically you narrowed down most of the ideas in three main ones. I am having a hard time choosing between all three, because all of them are extreme in their own particular way. I guess in this current condition anybody would say that (2) is the best option. |
Nalelmir Ahashion
Omegon 42nd Core
240
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:42
I think they mean dialog and verbal comunications not stuff you can do via the game client like shooting people. "What's worse than a foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother? A foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother who thinks he's a gangser, that's what." --áAaron Birch |
Amaise
Shane Warne Fanclub
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
suggestions for nullsec revamp: * Cap ships can only jump 2 times in 24hr period. * Alliance get one station on regular timers * All other station can be attacked once SBU is down no timers * POS timers stay * Titan bridges have a limited mass * jump bridges are for alliance only
send me a mail for further details
FREE EVE |
Amaise
Shane Warne Fanclub
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
start being useful CSM |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
918
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
2 is the only workable option. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
mr ed thehouseofed
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
579
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
as this is the only mmo i play , i'm curious on how other mmo's drawn the line in the sand . anyone care to enlighten me?
option 2 is where i'm leaning to. real gamers only need one toon . i want a eve pinball machine make it so CCP |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
168
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
2 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
4154
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:35:00 -
[23] - Quote
Zappity wrote:2 is the only workable option.
It was deliberately presented that way, yes. Laden with Malcanis' trademark sarcasm. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Ambo
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
103
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
Of the options you present, only 2 is remotely viable. |
Nalelmir Ahashion
Omegon 42nd Core
242
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
mr ed thehouseofed wrote:as this is the only mmo i play , i'm curious on how other mmo's drawn the line in the sand . anyone care to enlighten me?
option 2 is where i'm leaning to.
Basically everything is logged and you can "Report spam" and then if someone actually spammed actions taken against him or open a ticket if someone is harassing you in game or such.
What is actually considered harassment varies from game to game.. considering RP servers and such but all of them pretty much considers calling names, humiliating and such (especially public use of other peoples characters name) as against the rules.
Example: you are not able to publish online someone's profile in the game saying "That imbecile 'tard was so 'tupid that I took all of his money! Lol" and such. "What's worse than a foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother? A foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother who thinks he's a gangser, that's what." --áAaron Birch |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1452
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
Your options are basically biased to number 2, which I believe is your preferred course of action. While I want to believe you were trying to be fair, options 1 and 3 are throw-away/straw man courses of action that are not plausible.
All of this isn't a hard thing to accept, CCP is a business and will run it's business as they see fit. If they feel they need to update the EULA or change their policies, they will and they don't need a poll from the General Discussion boards or CSM input to do it. If you don't like the decisions that they are making, then learn to live with it or vote with your wallet. It's not hard. GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
4154
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:42:00 -
[27] - Quote
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote: Example: you are not able to publish online someone's profile in the game saying "That imbecile 'tard was so 'tupid that I took all of his money! Lol" and such.
There goes EVE-kill, then. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1208
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
2 I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
919
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:43:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote:2 is the only workable option. It was deliberately presented that way, yes. Laden with Malcanis' trademark sarcasm. Yes. Must admit the OP is a little peurile. Pointless and inflammatory. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14787
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 10:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Your options are basically biased to number 2, which I believe is your preferred course of action. While I want to believe you were trying to be fair, options 1 and 3 are throw-away/straw man courses of action that are not plausible.
All of this isn't a hard thing to accept, CCP is a business and will run it's business as they see fit. If they feel they need to update the EULA or change their policies, they will and they don't need a poll from the General Discussion boards or CSM input to do it. If you don't like the decisions that they are making, then learn to live with it or vote with your wallet. It's not hard.
Option 1 is actually highly viable; it's so viable that it's the industry standard.
I'd hate it, of course, but that doesn't make it unviable.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |