If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes.

GǪexcept that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind.

You're missing the point. The complexity of law isn't necessary or applicable here. More to the point, complex rules would be unnecessary if the game were designed with noob protection in mind, instead of as an afterthought 9 years later.

Let me put it another way: most of you are talking about new PLAYERS, i.e. people who haven't played EVE before and need time to acclimate. The rest of us are talking about new CHARACTERS, who can be 6 yr vets or new players.

The issue here should be relatively obvious. If you make rules based on the age of the CHARACTER, then creative vets are going to use noob alts to stir up trouble or to make themselves immune to attack or, worse still, use them to get other people warned/banned.

It's reasonable to want to protect new PLAYERS, but creating random, vague, ill conceived, poorly implemented, inconsistently applied rules isn't going to do that. All it does is create minor **** storms like this one. If the goal of the rules is to protect new PLAYERS, then there should be a safe, insulated starting zone (preferably implemented as a "simulator" inside a station that you must graduate from to join the real eve), that allows real noobs to learn the game and its consequences without having to implement a bunch of halfass **** rules that never address the core issue: new player retention. As is typical for CCP (and, lets face it, many large bureaucracies), they're focused on the symptoms rather than the cause. At its root its the same issue that plagues EVE in many other ways, its an incredibly complicated game with no real user instructions.

So, yes, I agree we should protect new players. Everyone else can suck my Howitzer. Unless CCP wants to spend a LOT of time micromanaging new player relations in EVE, they need to walk this rule change back to something simple and easy to remember and then publish it. Something like, no pvp, no theft, no bumping, no griefing, no nothing in rookie systems and only rookie systems. All of you should expect to see an increase in "noobs" provoking you to see if they can get you banned.

You missed the point.

Some people have alts, those alts aren't "rookies" even if they're a day old. Someone can have an alt, under a month old, that they made to haul some stuff for their main living in a rookie system. Why is that guy off limits because they not over X amount of days old, even though they just came from a .6 system and hauling lots of valuable goods for a 6 year old main?




Stupid forum 404!

You can fit a lot of Avatar BPOs in an Ibis. If you can't shoot rookies (based on either Character or Account age), no hauler would need Orca alts for high value cargo, they'd just use young accounts/toons.

So the question remains. Of the population that inhabits rookie systems, what separates "Rookie" form "not-Rookie."

Is someone mining in a Hulk a Rookie? A Retriever?

It's like the heap of sand problem. We are clear that a grain of sand is not a heap, and a billion grains is a heap, we're clear that 2 grains is still not a heap and a billion minus one is still a heap. At some point, there is a grain of sand which makes the sand a heap; figuring out which grain is very hard though.

I wouldn't be so sure.

As it stands you get a warning when shooting someone who is older than you, in a better and more skill intensive ship than you, in a rookie system if the older character is considered a rookie (meaning the one doing the shooting woudl be a rookie too). And in Arnon, a "rookie" can grab from PvPers cans all they want and if they get shot, they can just get someone banned. Its the ultimate griefing, and CCP encourages it.

That is your job though, to answer questions. By your own words you refuse to define what constitutes a new player, so we as players cannot second guess what you define is a new player - even if said player is in a Hulk.

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?

i understand that the job of a GM is difficult, primarily due to the fact that it rqures you to actually talk to ppl and to justify your actions. With that being said all anyone is or have ever actually asked is pretty straight forward question.

DEFINE A ROOKIE!!!!!

You have made hints at some "top secret, uber double sececret probation GM guideline" for determining this. We as players are not asking for game codes just a rather simplistic awnser to a rather simplistic question. How long before a ROOKIE IS NOT A DAMN ROOKIE?!?!?!?!?

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.

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

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?

No. What you said is that we're trying to defined what a rookie is. We're not.

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.

GǪand others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?

This is the problem this is what need to be cleared up Because the Gm Clearly Said that it isnt True

Really? Are you sure? Is what's 'Common Sense' to me common to both of us? Common to three parties? More?

Fact: 'Common Sense' isn't common - in the sense of "shared understandings and concepts." A causual glance a this thread will demonstrate that most convincingly. This is why definitions are good - they put everyone in the same place with the same understanding.

Which one is that?

How can we break something that doesn't exist?

So what makes your common-sense definition better than the other common-sense definitions, and how can you be so sure they'll use yours?

Argumentum ad populum. No, that does not make your definition better than the other one.

GǪthen it's a pretty awful rule to use to determine who can and who can't be attacked, wouldn't you say?

You are. You have to, because the GMs will not fully provide them for you. This means you always risk running by a different rule set than the GMs are (in fact, that's the entire intent of them not providing the rules in full).

I didn't. I just questioned its conclusions.

Do all players read this forum, this thread? No.
Do all players read the TOS website? No.
Are all players forced to accept a EULA w/ each release containing concrete 'rookie' rules? No.
Does the game code enforce these (TBD) rookie rules on all players in real-time? No.

So with the greatest respect, not putting concrete rookie rules in the CODE and going into page 21 of this discussion is akin to wanking.
Ergo, you are all wanking.
Ergo, you are all wankers.

No, my argument has been very clear from the get-go GÇö very little cherry-picking there (well, aside from you picking up a few words and creating a massive straw-man out of them).

GǪexcept that, again, you have to, because no-one else will provide them to you with the current rule set. You are the one who had to determine GÇö without guidance GÇö what a rookie is, thus contributing the missing piece of the puzzle. In fact, the rest of that sentence show how you are making up the rules as you go, thereby contradicting what you just said:
GǪwhich isn't a useful foundation for a rule since common sense isn't common in any sense of the word.

No, this is me explaining a very simple problem over and over again to people who cannot read.

You have yet to define "rookie" with anything approaching rigor. How can we break a definition that doesn't exist?

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

Define GÇ£rookieGÇ¥.

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.

GǪexcept that the solution you picked are, by your own admission, not actually useful.

I've been here the entire time. I've read. I've not seen any enforceable definition of rookie come from you.

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.

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.

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.

Do what? Show quotes where I'm not trying to define rookies? Yes, you've done well with that so far.

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?

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.

[
GǪwhich isn't the topic. The topic is how to create a rule that protect rookies, and the scenarios you're referring to are illustrations of how easily any rule based on undefinable terms will stray into subjective interpretations and thus becomes useless for control and adjudication purposes.

That's because I'm actually discussing the topic, unlike you, who are just playing posting games.

Because you never specified which one when I asked.

So what was the question?
You never specified one when I asked.

Because common sense is not common in either sense of the word, as the conflicting versions of common-sense interpretations in this thread show.

He doesn't.

GǪyou mean the scenario that you never really referred to since it wasn't part of the discussion at the time, and which was also thoroughly irrelevant to the statement you were asking about.

So what's your point?

1. The OP of the previous thread wasn't the person who was the subject of the petition.
2. The outcome of the petition was later reversed.

People took tremendous liberties with the very limited information that was available and built a story out of it that wasn't even remotely close to reality because they wanted to make the OP out to be Satan. Talking about the contents of GM correspondence is bad and talking about petitions in ways that doesn't hideously violate TOS is always going to result in vagueness, but it would be super awesome if people didn't just make **** up because it fits the narrative that they have in their head.

Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.

How is it wrong? Unless, of course, you're trying to send up yet another red herring to distract from the topic, as set by GM Hormonia of "How to Create a Public Policy to protect New Players."

That's the topic at hand. If you're simply making off topic remarks, see sentence 2 of my earlier post.

You. Read.

Unfortunately, the full text of the article is behind a paywall, but the academic journal, Nature, published a study in 2005 on Wikipedia's accuracy which found that it was of similar accuracy to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

In addition, for that specific term, I can cite several other sources.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignoratio.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoratio%20elenchi
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

All of which agree on what the Fallacy is.

It has to do with your conduct during this thread. Hopefully, calling attention to it will allow you to avoid the problematic conduct.

Now, the topic is "How to create a public policy to protect Rookies in Rookie systems with zero Dev time"

You have claimed that defining rookies is impossible. So how then would you create a public policy to define them?

Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this:




You suggest that it's handled on a case by case basis. That is not a public policy.

If you're thinking of something else, link it.

The topic at hand is the one you quoted GM Hormonia on in the quote you're so excited I found. So the fact that you were (somewhat) on point does not mean you successfully answered the topic.

So, let me try your tack. Look Up. Read what you quote. Answer the nice GM lady's question.

We're fine on banning can games in newbie systems.

The problematic suggestion is handling things on a case-by-case basis. What benefit does that have over a blanket prohibition of "messing with" in newbie systems, or a sensitive* definition of a newbie?


*in case you're wondering why I use this word a lot, read up on Sensitivity vs Specificity using whatever source you prefer.