EVE Search - ffs ccp, lock griefers out of missions.

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

ffs ccp, lock griefers out of missions.

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 :: one page

Author	Topic
Andrea Tesla Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:43:00 - [871] If they kill the installation or critical rat first, they got loot rights, even without the mission. They cannot be shot. The mission cannot be completed. The mission runner took the risk (risking the standing loss) and the griefer is taking not any risk at all, as there is no chance, that I can blow his rear to the sun, before Concord stops me. AT
Exlegion Caldari Legion's Knight	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:44:00 - [872] Edited by: Exlegion on 07/12/2006 16:45:15 Originally by: sesanti Yes i have, but that was yesterday and i don't remember ALL 30 pages of posts. I am not going to reread them from scratch to post in here, i am answering to only one specific post and not ALL of them. I didn't ask you to read all 30 pages, just the original post. And I also asked you what is the risk to the griefer in this case, which you have YET to answer.
Kamazani Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:44:00 - [873] couple questions, (yes i'm veering off the whole topic cuz it's turning into a dead body being shot too many times) question #1 is.... lets say just hypothetically, CCP gets sick of the whole whine fest that comes along with topics like this and decides to get another server one for pvp and the other for pve? what do you think would happen? next question : what if CCP threw up their arms and said "no more pvp at ALL in empire!" and pvp nuts and pirates (the ones who are doing everything in their power to bend game mechanics) would quit.. would there be a HUGE difference? just asking. =) --------------------------- by: GinoShin on 21/11/2006 11:41:44 whats evemon is it like a jamican wiseman?
Vargrh Gallente Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:45:00 - [874] Originally by: Trollin in the past 3 hours I have had griefers drop in on me 5 times, sometimes they kill the boss at the end of the mission while I am fighting the trash, sometimes they aggro the whole area and then warp out... its way out of hand, I don' have time to deal with this on a regular basis, I play for fun, not to be griefed out of missions. not to mention the janitors that you call salvagers, come in on me in my Kestrel with 8+ rats aggroed on me, they come in with a drake and start scooping my loot and salvaging the wrecks. wtf am I supposed to do? shoot at them and get blown to bits? its getting to the point where player courier missions are starting to look good... and thats really sad. IF they take from your cans, you have kill rights - cause and effect. Why not retaliate and shoot them?
Paladineguru Gallente DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:46:00 - [875] Edited by: Paladineguru on 07/12/2006 16:46:33 Originally by: Mercenar Originally by: Paladineguru two words WAR DEC Two words Won't work Doesn't matter if you're in a player corp or not, this won't help you. But then if you'd read this thread and had even the most basic understanding of the issue, you'd realise this. Just to clarify before any other idiot suggests it. War dec = not a solution. Now lets move on. umm how is the ability to start shooting at the people doing it not a solution, oh wait are you one of those pascifists that think problems should be resolved without violence. or is it the 24 hour period you couldnt be getting relatively risk free isk that you dont like.
Andrea Tesla Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:47:00 - [876] Quote: IF they take from your cans, you have kill rights - cause and effect. Why not retaliate and shoot them? But if they do not touch a can, or if they are producing the can in the first place, there is nothing that the mission runner can do about it. That is not important, if the can is not required to complete the mission, but it is a substantial standing loss, if the mission requires just that one can (marines, special delivery, etc.) AT
sesanti Minmatar Universal Exports Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:48:00 - [877] Edited by: sesanti on 07/12/2006 16:49:23 Originally by: Kamazani couple questions, (yes i'm veering off the whole topic cuz it's turning into a dead body being shot too many times) question #1 is.... lets say just hypothetically, CCP gets sick of the whole whine fest that comes along with topics like this and decides to get another server one for pvp and the other for pve? what do you think would happen? next question : what if CCP threw up their arms and said "no more pvp at ALL in empire!" and pvp nuts and pirates (the ones who are doing everything in their power to bend game mechanics) would quit.. would there be a HUGE difference? just asking. =) Question 1, that's impossible, the amount of hardware and complexity to run eve, coupled with the fact that the game activities are all interwined, would make it impossible. At least not without changing the game dramatically. Question 2, pirates don't do everything possible to bend the game mechanics, that's exploiting and exploiters get banned, that's something completely different to pirating. And hey, the OP never said anything about ore thieves NOT BEING FLAGGED at all in his initial post. I wondered why i didn't remembered that part! Heheh, you almost tricked me. _______________________________________________ The ShadowMaster - <I am a guy... don't mind the portrait>
MrTripps Gallente	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:50:00 - [878] Edited by: MrTripps on 07/12/2006 16:51:25 Originally by: Diablo Venator High sec space missions: gates should be locked to the owner of the mission and his/her gang EXCEPTION: If the corp/alliance is at war all parties have access to the gates, no total safe spots in space. Low sec space missions: all gates should be free to anyone, you take your chances, but the rewards for the risk should be higher, either by agent payout or LP. The above is the most reasonable post on this thread. Edit to add that finding someone in a low sec mission should be possible, but not as easy as finding someone in a belt. Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
James Snowscoran Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:52:00 - [879] If I want to roleplay a terrorist that interferes with the operations of empire corporations just out of spite and for the glory of the revolution, who are you to say this is an invalid gameplay choice? -----
sesanti Minmatar Universal Exports Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:53:00 - [880] Edited by: sesanti on 07/12/2006 16:53:56 Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 07/12/2006 16:45:15 Originally by: sesanti Yes i have, but that was yesterday and i don't remember ALL 30 pages of posts. I am not going to reread them from scratch to post in here, i am answering to only one specific post and not ALL of them. I didn't ask you to read all 30 pages, just the original post. And I also asked you what is the risk to the griefer in this case, which you have YET to answer. Like i said in my last post, the OP in his initial post never reported being the thief not flagged, he jsut reports that people warp in, kills his rats, even bosses, and warp out. Or giving aggro to all rats... The same thing happens at belts, sometimes i am NPCing and other people at other belts get rats, or even in the belt i am currently ratting... that's not griefing and the same rule applies at missions. _______________________________________________ The ShadowMaster - <I am a guy... don't mind the portrait>

Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:55:00 - [881] Originally by: James Snowscoran If I want to roleplay a terrorist that interferes with the operations of empire corporations just out of spite and for the glory of the revolution, who are you to say this is an invalid gameplay choice? The TOS says that you can't use roleplay as an excuse for actions which would otherwise violate the TOS. You'd have to be very careful. If your intent is to upset other players, then it is griefing. If your intent is to profit, and that results in other players being upset, then it is valid gameplay. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Andrea Tesla Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.07 16:59:00 - [882] Originally by: James Snowscoran If I want to roleplay a terrorist that interferes with the operations of empire corporations just out of spite and for the glory of the revolution, who are you to say this is an invalid gameplay choice? You surely may. But you surely would agree, that it does not seem fair, if you (the terrorist) can set your bomb right next to me (the civilian), while the police is watching and doing nothing (thats ok), and I cannot avoid the bomb and you are not getting killed by the bomb as well. I am a mission runner. I do not ask for total safety. I do not want my missions a safespot. But I do also not want anyone to be able to use my mission as their safe spot, and in addition allowing them to mess with my mission. The griefer is safer in my mission, than I am. If it were at least same risk for both parties, I would stop posting on this topic. But the (admittedly low) risk on the mission is 100% with the owner of the mission and 0% with the person, messing around with the mission. AT
Kishara SalSolo Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:08:00 - [883] In my opinion the worst problem and the one really creating trouble is when an outsider destroys the possibility to complete a mission. My idea....let mission items have a special property that the game assigns to the owner of the mission..if someone not the owner target/picks it up a due warning is given...if it is killed/picked up anyway then CONCORD will flag you as breaking the law :) much like looting a can but it is a mission item and the punishment should just be that much worse than simply looting a can. ..there you go..now the griefer has a risk as well. I do believe that restrictions are not the way to go...we just have to figure out a way to avoid those that directly breaks the RP boundaries...meaning that if they cannot create a good story on why they are griefing they are breaking the rules.
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:09:00 - [884] Originally by: Avon Originally by: James Snowscoran If I want to roleplay a terrorist that interferes with the operations of empire corporations just out of spite and for the glory of the revolution, who are you to say this is an invalid gameplay choice? The TOS says that you can't use roleplay as an excuse for actions which would otherwise violate the TOS. You'd have to be very careful. If your intent is to upset other players, then it is griefing. If your intent is to profit, and that results in other players being upset, then it is valid gameplay. If your intent is to disrupt the activities of an empire corporation for valid roleplay reasons, even though it not be to your monetary profit, and this results in the players being upset, then it is, in my view, valid gameplay. This is the problem with saying that you have to being making a profit for the gameplay to not be griefing: it's actually a very narrow definition. I think the point is that your gameplay should be meaningful in some sense, be it profit, politics or sheer theatre, and if it is meaningful in such a sense then it is not griefing. If it's sheerly moronic, profitless, motiveless and banal interference for interference's sake aimed at upsetting people for fun then it is griefing. I think GMs are generally able to see when RP is meaningful and when it is a flimsy cover for griefing but putting out a principle that play must be 'profitable' for it to be not griefing would concern me deeply. Cosmo The Star Fraction Recruitment
Kamazani Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:12:00 - [885] Edited by: Kamazani on 07/12/2006 17:13:00 Originally by: sesanti Edited by: sesanti on 07/12/2006 16:49:23 Originally by: Kamazani couple questions, (yes i'm veering off the whole topic cuz it's turning into a dead body being shot too many times) question #1 is.... lets say just hypothetically, CCP gets sick of the whole whine fest that comes along with topics like this and decides to get another server one for pvp and the other for pve? what do you think would happen? next question : what if CCP threw up their arms and said "no more pvp at ALL in empire!" and pvp nuts and pirates (the ones who are doing everything in their power to bend game mechanics) would quit.. would there be a HUGE difference? just asking. =) Question 1, that's impossible, the amount of hardware and complexity to run eve, coupled with the fact that the game activities are all interwined, would make it impossible. At least not without changing the game dramatically. Question 2, pirates don't do everything possible to bend the game mechanics, that's exploiting and exploiters get banned, that's something completely different to pirating. And hey, the OP never said anything about ore thieves NOT BEING FLAGGED at all in his initial post. I wondered why i didn't remembered that part! Heheh, you almost tricked me. doesnt' answer my question's AT ALL. for the sake of argument, I didnt' imply that all pirates practice that. i merely said "The one's who" --------------------------- by: GinoShin on 21/11/2006 11:41:44 whats evemon is it like a jamican wiseman?
MurderCityDevil	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:17:00 - [886] Everybody was making fun of how the pirates lost out with WTZ. I guess we've got a little balance in here now, eh?
ghosttr Amarr Point-Zero Ratel Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:20:00 - [887] I am a salvager, all I want is the wrecks. I don't even want your rats, or the item drops. I want to salvage all of the wrecks for some nice materials and leave. Maybe I wouldnt have to scan down your plex if I could get decent salvage materials. But as it is now I need to salvage en masse just to obtain a few cheap scraps, and I have salvage 5. I don't have a problem with authority... ...as long as it doesn't get in my way.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:21:00 - [888] Originally by: The Cosmopolite SNIP I don't disagree with you. My use of the word "profit" was clumsy, and for that I apologise. The post I was replying to seemed to imply creating a roleplay excuse to "grief", and it was that I specifically trying to address, rather than the implications of RP in general. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Sendraks TOHA Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:27:00 - [889] Originally by: ghosttr I am a salvager, all I want is the wrecks. I don't even want your rats, or the item drops. I want to salvage all of the wrecks for some nice materials and leave. Maybe I wouldnt have to scan down your plex if I could get decent salvage materials. But as it is now I need to salvage en masse just to obtain a few cheap scraps, and I have salvage 5. See, this I don't mind. I'd be quite happy for a salvager to come to my mission deadspace and start ferreting away at the wrecks. Sure he'll be flagged and I can chase him off if I want to, but most often I won't as thats the kind of person I am. Salvaging doesn't stop me from completing the mission or cheat me out of my bounties on the rats I killed. Happy little salvagers, cleaning up after me, are not unwelcome in my deadspace.
Lord Diablis	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:30:00 - [890] Edited by: Lord Diablis on 07/12/2006 17:34:09 As far as I am concerned, intentionally jumping another player's mission is an aggressive act for whatever reason, just as shooting another player is an agressive act. In high sec if you shoot another player without certain provocation you get concorded. Period. Thus, if you enter another player's mission in high sec you get a five second warning, you don't leave....concord. You shoot the rats in the mission....concord. You aggro the rats...the rats attack you and...concord. You loot the cans...concord. Low Sec...anything goes.(Although the probe scan system does probablly need some minor tweaking) Just my thoughts, flame away...i'll ignore it. edit: of course, gang members can enter and help you complete the mission.

Kamazani Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:32:00 - [891] Edited by: Kamazani on 07/12/2006 17:32:14 Originally by: Lord Diablis As far as I am concerned, intentionally jumping another player's mission is an aggressive act for whatever reason, just as shooting another player is an agressive act. In high sec if you shoot another player without certain provocation you get concorded. Period. Thus, if you enter another player's mission in high sec you get a five second warning, you don't leave....concord. You shoot the rats in the mission....concord. You aggro the rats...the rats attack you and...concord. You loot the cans...concord. Low Sec...anything goes.(Although the probe scan system does probablly need some minor tweaking) Just my thoughts, flame away...i'll ignore it. 30 pages of similar responses. =) --------------------------- by: GinoShin on 21/11/2006 11:41:44 whats evemon is it like a jamican wiseman?
Roshan longshot Gallente Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:37:00 - [892] Originally by: Lord Diablis Edited by: Lord Diablis on 07/12/2006 17:34:09 As far as I am concerned, intentionally jumping another player's mission is an aggressive act for whatever reason, just as shooting another player is an agressive act. In high sec if you shoot another player without certain provocation you get concorded. Period. Thus, if you enter another player's mission in high sec you get a five second warning, you don't leave....concord. You shoot the rats in the mission....concord. You aggro the rats...the rats attack you and...concord. You loot the cans...concord. Low Sec...anything goes.(Although the probe scan system does probablly need some minor tweaking) Just my thoughts, flame away...i'll ignore it. edit: of course, gang members can enter and help you complete the mission. I rather see it, if your not corp/gang with the player doing the mission...You get the argo...all of it...You want some of the action well heck here is all of it! Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter *pirate* or mixture of them all. [i]As read from the original box.
Radioactive Babe	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:38:00 - [893] Originally by: The Cosmopolite If your intent is to disrupt the activities of an empire corporation for valid roleplay reasons, even though it not be to your monetary profit, and this results in the players being upset, then it is, in my view, valid gameplay. This is the problem with saying that you have to being making a profit for the gameplay to not be griefing: it's actually a very narrow definition. I think the point is that your gameplay should be meaningful in some sense, be it profit, politics or sheer theatre, and if it is meaningful in such a sense then it is not griefing. If it's sheerly moronic, profitless, motiveless and banal interference for interference's sake aimed at upsetting people for fun then it is griefing. I think GMs are generally able to see when RP is meaningful and when it is a flimsy cover for griefing but putting out a principle that play must be 'profitable' for it to be not griefing would concern me deeply. Cosmo The GM's know you? what kind of person you are? can they know when you are telling them little fibs? can they be sure than someone who was until last week running around low sec, announcing yarr in local as he pops a foolish n00b in a hauler ....but that person is now 100% roleplaying when he is making someones life miserable in Motsu? So if the answer is no to all of those questions how to sort out the roleplaying/griefing conumdrum ... thats for CCp to decide, but profit would have to be in it, otherwise people will say they are deadspace liberation army and just pop in, aggro everything and go and do the same to the next person, wrecking everyones FUN (and no, i dont mean profit from popping a boss while the mission runner is trying to tank all the rats, robbing the critical mission item and trying to sell it back, knowing that the mission runner needs it to get his reward) alas, poor risk vs reward, I knew you well
Spuck	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:39:00 - [894] Originally by: sesanti Leave scanning as it is, missioners are flying in a universe where you are not safe anywhere (as stated in the game manual)... so the moment you undock, you agree you can get killed or looted.... why should missions be any different? Even if someone steals the loot to complete them? Move somewhere else, get more agents, and stop complaining like a spoiled brat... use your brain babe, if it would be so there would not be CONCORD in game and noobs like you would just hang around in the beginners station.... bye
James Snowscoran Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:47:00 - [895] Originally by: Avon Originally by: The Cosmopolite SNIP I don't disagree with you. My use of the word "profit" was clumsy, and for that I apologise. The post I was replying to seemed to imply creating a roleplay excuse to "grief", and it was that I specifically trying to address, rather than the implications of RP in general. No, then I probably worded my post poorly. I always thought the part of the TOS you quoted is a bit dumb and possibly a sleeping paragraph, since standard Amarr roleplay includes blatant discrimination based on race based on an ingame point of view, which to me sounds like a breach of said article in the TOS. I don't see a good reason why mission critical items shouldn't be stolen; after all, we're usually talking of either stuff dropped from specific npcs (personnel transports) or items that are of obvious sensitive nature (mercenary pilot, reports). I think disrupting missionrunning is long overdue and helps bring missions in touch with ingame realities, which was sorely needed. There are people out there that have a motivation for you not to succeed and the power to make it happen, this is the way things should be. I said it before many pages back, but I feel it's worth stating again; CONCORD is, and should be, a double edged sword, not a tool to serve the interests of a specific group of players. -----
Radioactive Babe	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:50:00 - [896] Soooo CCP... Youve left this whinefest/flamefest open for long enough to see which way the wind is blowing... we are all just repeating ourselves at this stage... some trying to help, some muddying the waters, some flaming Whats the plan?, what are you going to do? ... nerfing the new fancy scanning is an option, but a poor one I think (and it would also have the alliances up in arms) ... making the idio^h^h^h^h person who jumps in on someones mission as criminally flagged if he does not belong to the corp/gang of the mission runner is a popular one .... there is also the "key needed for deadspace entry" one ..not a fan of this myself --- could be a goer if the npc's were spawned in strength depending on the ship or ships entering .... so that there are lots of blown up mission runner ships (risk that the opposition are constantly bleating about, as long as it all lies with someone else)seems to be what the opposition are looking for You could of course just continue to put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and shouting I cant hear you I cant hear you I cant hear you alas, poor risk vs reward, I knew you well
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:50:00 - [897] Originally by: Radioactive Babe Originally by: The Cosmopolite If your intent is to disrupt the activities of an empire corporation for valid roleplay reasons, even though it not be to your monetary profit, and this results in the players being upset, then it is, in my view, valid gameplay. This is the problem with saying that you have to being making a profit for the gameplay to not be griefing: it's actually a very narrow definition. I think the point is that your gameplay should be meaningful in some sense, be it profit, politics or sheer theatre, and if it is meaningful in such a sense then it is not griefing. If it's sheerly moronic, profitless, motiveless and banal interference for interference's sake aimed at upsetting people for fun then it is griefing. I think GMs are generally able to see when RP is meaningful and when it is a flimsy cover for griefing but putting out a principle that play must be 'profitable' for it to be not griefing would concern me deeply. Cosmo The GM's know you? what kind of person you are? can they know when you are telling them little fibs? can they be sure than someone who was until last week running around low sec, announcing yarr in local as he pops a foolish n00b in a hauler ....but that person is now 100% roleplaying when he is making someones life miserable in Motsu? So if the answer is no to all of those questions how to sort out the roleplaying/griefing conumdrum ... thats for CCp to decide, but profit would have to be in it, otherwise people will say they are deadspace liberation army and just pop in, aggro everything and go and do the same to the next person, wrecking everyones FUN (and no, i dont mean profit from popping a boss while the mission runner is trying to tank all the rats, robbing the critical mission item and trying to sell it back, knowing that the mission runner needs it to get his reward) I don't think profit in isk terms should necessarily be a factor when the proclaimed reasons for particular actions are put in roleplay terms. I utterly reject the view that roleplay that results in an isk loss over the course of the action in question is less valid than roleplay that results in an isk profit. I do think a level of consistency and, yes, one's history are valid factors for GMs to take into account when determining whether RP is meaningful or simply an excuse for griefing. In your example, the 1 week old 'Deadspace Liberation Army' packed with people called UBAR HUNKILLER, as5w1p3, lollzorz88, etc, etc, that are going around killing people in level 2 mission spaces would, I suggest, be a fairly easy case for the GMs to ajudicate... Cosmo PS. Apologies to any that actually have the names I made up off the top of my head - merely for illustration... The Star Fraction Recruitment
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:52:00 - [898] Originally by: Radioactive Babe nerfing the new fancy scanning is an option, but a poor one I think (and it would also have the alliances up in arms) ... Actually, from the conversations I have had, I get the impression that most people in alliances are of the opinion that scanning needs tweaking a bit too. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Exlegion Caldari Legion's Knight	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:52:00 - [899] Originally by: sesanti Like i said in my last post, the OP in his initial post never reported being the thief not flagged, he jsut reports that people warp in, kills his rats, even bosses, and warp out. Or giving aggro to all rats... The same thing happens at belts, sometimes i am NPCing and other people at other belts get rats, or even in the belt i am currently ratting... that's not griefing and the same rule applies at missions. Sesanti, the OP mentions that the mob boss is being killed. My apologies on me assuming that the griefer walks away with the mission-critical loot. But that is what I got from reading the rest of the pages on this thread. Additionally, the griefer is not being flagged since the griefer is the one killing off the mob with the mission-critical loot. If the missioner attempts to loot the griefer's can, then the missioner gets flagged (not the griefer).
Dendrin Koljn Minmatar Elite United Corp	Posted - 2006.12.07 17:53:00 - [900] Edited by: Dendrin Koljn on 07/12/2006 17:53:49 How's about making the security gain less if you are below 0 and/or the security loss more for a kill ? Doesn't stop anyone doing anything - so the missions invaders are still happy But it should cut the actual numbers at anyone time down - so the chance of being 'greifed' is a lot less. I do wonder what 'Pirates' do to get their standing back up, as looking at most posts from them they'd nvr stoop so low as to do missions or grind rats

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.