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) |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 17:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Okay.. so up until recently the rules for Rookie Systems have been fairly cut and dry.
[ quote from GM posted in Local some months ago
Flipping is clear, taking someone else's can, and moving it's contents into your own.. Reason behind it it being that new players would take from your new can to get their stuff back, and then you'd pop them
Baiting was a little more of a grey area, but generally mean any time you dropped a can and then engaged someone who took from it, with the exception being if you were actively mining and using it, or if via local/pm/can name you were making a 1v1 can or something like that.
Now I have heard recently that this has changed
Now almost any action that destroys a new player in a Rookie system is a warn/bannable offence. If you steal from someone, they engage you, and you destroy them.. you are at risk of a ban If you kill a npc, wt, etc, and someone steals from you, and you kill them, you are at risk of a ban etc
I have seen no changes to the EULA or Wiki about rookie system rules No announcement was made to warn players that the rules have changed, some just woke up to a ban/warning. How is it fair that someone receive a ban/warning for doing something that a few days before was by other GM's own statements, allowed
So what are the exact rules now ? What is a new player ? Does this mean that if you see a blinking red in a rookie system you need to first check their profile before shooting ? What if my account is 6 years old, but I only played for one day 6 years ago and now I'm back, am I still new of am I a valid target now ? What if you have an active war with a corp, and a "new" player is in that corp.. They are still new, are they valid targets
I've heard the phrase is to trick a new player into allowing you to engage.. This is a fairly subjective statement isn't it ? I mean I could go through the belt ratting, leave wrecks, continue to another belt, meet a player that took from one.. It's a red target, and I might have had no intent of tricking.. And now there's a warning just for engaging something that the game mechanics themselves say is valid
Now I'm not against any changes.. I think the old rules had loopholes so big you could fly a titan through.. But I just think the rules need to be made clear.
And if the goal is removing these issues, why not just remove the ability to steal in Rookie systems ? Or disable aggro mechanics there all together ? Rather than what are potentially subjective rules, if the method of enforcement is the same as a week ago, relies on someone Knowing the rules and making a petition to a GM about it
Oh and before people ask or accuse, I don't go around griefing noobs.. Ask anyone in Clellinon.. I have 15+ petitions in my history reporting people for baiting and flipping.. I'm all about protecting the newbies.. But I also think everyone should have a fair chance to know the rules ahead of time. God knows I've had to warn enough veteran players from baiting/flipping because the last time they were in a rookie system it was fine, and because they didn't check for the new rules.. But with no new rules being posted, yet warning/bans being issued, I think that's unfair to punish people for what was permitted actions in the sandbox without first providing them the Information to them to prevent that.. if the EULA/Wikie rules were updated, and no one checked, hey, tough luck.. but if they aren't, then that's just not right
So if a GM would be so kind to shead some light on this, so I and others know what actions should be avoided, or if seen should warrent a petition, I and I'm sure both Rookies, and corps/individuals that reside in rookie systems would appriciate it |

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
115
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to gank someone in a rookie system because I petitioned the action before I did it (******* AFK Hulk drivers...) +1 in local |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
264
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Move away from starter systems Find better targets ?????? Profit! Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Maxpie
Metaphysical Utopian Society Explorations
69
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
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. |

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
69
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
It's not a new rule or new interpretation, it was a reinforcement of what's always been the case at least as long as I've been a player since Aprocrypha in 2009.
Any kind of harassment of noobs in rookie systems is a no no and always has been. Just go one jump over, how hard would that be...  |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. |

Avid Bumhumper
Furian Necromongers
55
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 19:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'm not sure admitting your an incompetent player that can only handle noobs is something you want to post here.....
My Tinfoil hat has been sugically implanted, so no,it is not for sale..... |

Elder Ozzian
Stargates and Smuggler Barons
30
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
In my opinion; When you undock, you are in risk - even in rookie systems! That is the Eve we all love. If they don't understand the warning text when stealing; add a warning box for undocking!
They got warned, didn't they?
Also, give more free skillpoints to new players, so they can actually fight back! |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
539

|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
251
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
Only Rookies have Cookies!
Can rookies not have a training system locked only for them for say, 1 week? or until they complete a training tutorial then the gate is open and they MUST leave that system and we can do what we want then? That way they cannot hide in 1.0 forever. |
|

Pak Narhoo
Knights of Kador
448
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:15:00 -
[11] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
o.0
Applause!
Who needs television when you have EVE? EVE drama, best drama. |

Jonah Gravenstein
183
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
[troll]but..but.. that describes 50% of the player base[/troll]
War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |

Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
273
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
If its a t2 in a rookie system. its not a rookie. Gack them. Otherwise its still and always has been cut and dry. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. Thankyou for the concise response :)
Could we get some indication of what a Rookie is ?
Maybe not an exact date and time.. but.. Clearly messing with a newbie in a Navitas would be bad.. What about the guy that shows up in a Retty, Cov, Hulk, stripping the belts bare.. Are we allowed to mess with them ?
Or the two month player running scanned sites down, and ratting in the belts.. are the free to steal from or engage if they take from us ?
There are lots of players that pass through at least the Rookie system I base out of, of all ages, skill levels, and intent.. |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
Yeah those sociopathic personalities ppl say dont actually exist in this game...
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2944
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. its not a newbie if its in a mining barge right |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. its not a newbie if its in a mining barge right
again...
Heres an idea, go to those systems and if you get banned, that was a rookie.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Here's an idea, go to those systems and if you get banned, that was a rookie.
Dont think its THAT hard to figure out who NOT to kill when they GIVE YOU A LIST of systems -.- I live in a rookie system.. and as I said, me, and all my alts have accounted for 1 "newbie" kill, and that was when I was a newbie.. [ first week or so.. ]..
But I also run sites, not uncommon for another player I personally would consider not a rookie to show up and start stealing from the first room while I'm in another.. Valid target in my books, I wouldn't consider anyone who can scan down a Serpentis Watch for example a newbie.. But I donno what I GM would say..
I want to know where I stand.. and I really don't care if people want to troll with "go elsewhere".. I'm quite happy where I am.. and I'll be fine with the rules either way.. but I still want to know.. |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Here's an idea, go to those systems and if you get banned, that was a rookie.
Dont think its THAT hard to figure out who NOT to kill when they GIVE YOU A LIST of systems -.- I live in a rookie system.. and as I said, me, and all my alts have accounted for 1 "newbie" kill, and that was when I was a newbie.. [ first week or so.. ].. But I also run sites, not uncommon for another player I personally would consider not a rookie to show up and start stealing from the first room while I'm in another.. Valid target in my books, I wouldn't consider anyone who can scan down a Serpentis Watch for example a newbie.. But I donno what I GM would say.. I want to know where I stand.. and I really don't care if people want to troll with "go elsewhere".. I'm quite happy where I am.. and I'll be fine with the rules either way.. but I still want to know..
wel... be careful who you kill in that system tyhen. Apparently you take the real chance of getting yourself banned for killing ppl there
Its your choice to remain where youve now directly been warned that you may get banned for killing ppl.... Kinda up to you at this point lol
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
662
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. its not a newbie if its in a mining barge right If they are in a rookie system I would say you are wrong. Not everyone is "all in" when they start playing. I certainly wasn't. It may be that they only actually played a few times but skilled up to fly a mining barge. An exumer would probably be a different story... do what you want but I would just avoid rookie systems altogether.
|
|

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
I am careful.. it's also why I'm Asking ... So I know for sure lol
No sense running around blind.. |

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
612
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
The rookie help chat channel auto opens for the first, what, two weeks? Maybe that's a good definition of a rookie. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:50:00 -
[23] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Weaselior wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. its not a newbie if its in a mining barge right If they are in a rookie system I would say you are wrong. Not everyone is "all in" when they start playing. I certainly wasn't. It may be that they only actually played a few times but skilled up to fly a mining barge. An exumer would probably be a different story... do what you want but I would just avoid rookie systems altogether.
Kinda the idea I was hinting at
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Cavel Avada
Estel Arador Corp Services
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
662
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. If you've been playing for more than 6 months and are still in rookie systems EvE might not be your thing is all I'm sayin'
|

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me.
Yeah but most of those asking for further clarification past the GM's clarification are ppl looking TO gank.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:01:00 -
[27] - Quote
Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. I don't want to kill newbies at all lol
But if what I define a rookie as, and what a GM does are not the same, then there could be issues..
And Gogela.. I can stay in a this system for 6 years if I want too.. I don't spend all my time here.. But it's still my home base..
If I want to mine, 0.5.. If I want to trade, Jita.. If I want a fight, nullsec.
But I still scan and run sites where ever I find them, and other things.. So I want to know where things stand..
Don't know why everyone thinks the answer for "What are the rules?" is "Move".. Don't work like that anywhere else in Eve, or irl lol. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:05:00 -
[28] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. Yeah but most of those asking for further clarification past the GM's clarification are ppl looking TO gank. If a GM would do it, I'd gladly get them to vouch for the fact that none of my accounts or toons have ever ganked anyone, or griefed rookies, but anyone definition.
I know anyone that has spent time in Clellinon will vouch for the fact that I help, not grief.. but oh well..
Some people just want to know the rules of the game.. I want to know when I see a Red who isn't in an 'early' ship if I can Shoot.. And I want to know the specifics in case I want to petition someone who is imho greifing a newbie, or seems to be looking for trouble so I can advise them of the rules.. |

Nephilius
Knights of Athena Star Council
364
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:05:00 -
[29] - Quote
If you are not a rookie, why are you in a rookie system? I love flying titans in Jita, setting bubbles in Rens,-áor firing off bombs from my stealth bomber-áin Dodixie!-á Just think, if Eve wasn't a sandbox, none of this would be possible! |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:09:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me. Yeah but most of those asking for further clarification past the GM's clarification are ppl looking TO gank. If a GM would do it, I'd gladly get them to vouch for the fact that none of my accounts or toons have ever ganked anyone, or griefed rookies, but anyone definition. I know anyone that has spent time in Clellinon will vouch for the fact that I help, not grief.. but oh well.. Some people just want to know the rules of the game.. I want to know when I see a Red who isn't in an 'early' ship if I can Shoot.. And I want to know the specifics in case I want to petition someone who is imho greifing a newbie, or seems to be looking for trouble so I can advise them of the rules..
if you shoot someone in the system youre in... Im guessing expect a ban. Even/especially if they shoot you first (as theyre expected to do stupid stuff like that cause they dont know better) Hell, the first time I remember dying I was in my shiny new kestrel and saw someone in a pod, on a gate who had a 100 million bounty on them (that was alot to me back then) so I locked and fires
ONE LIGHT MISSILE

there was much lolling in local at my expense
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
251
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:11:00 -
[31] - Quote
I wonder if GM's will move my highsec carrier to Ammold 1.0 :) |

Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
356
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
Gogela wrote: do what you want but I would just avoid rookie systems altogether. That's my take as well. I was in Hadaugago on an alt running the basic tutorials to see how the game had changed in 4 years (#1 change? ZOMG they get a buncha sheit!) - I saw a can outside the undock named "WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" - player that owned it was 2 months old, but had no kills on his record.
Just leave the n00bs alone, ffs....
And if you live there? Just be carefull....
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:31:00 -
[33] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:If you are not a rookie, why are you in a rookie system? Because the system is convient for my needs.. not too far from good ore, good missions, trade hubs, and the areas of Null I go..
No reason to move.. And moving would be more trouble than it's worth..
And even if It wasn't.. The gates go both ways.. It's a sandbox and I'm free to be there.. all I want to know are the rules. |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
252
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:32:00 -
[34] - Quote
Simple solution to force rookies out, everybody raise the prices of stuff in 1.0 systems to UNAFFORDABLE :) |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:34:00 -
[35] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Simple solution to force rookies out, everybody raise the prices of stuff in 1.0 systems to UNAFFORDABLE :)
wonder if the GMs would see that as griefing the noobs and ban everyone involved lol
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
252
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:35:00 -
[36] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Miilla wrote:Simple solution to force rookies out, everybody raise the prices of stuff in 1.0 systems to UNAFFORDABLE :) wonder if the GMs would see that as griefing the noobs and ban everyone involved lol
But we aren't in 1.0 systems :)
Hint: remote buy / sell :) |

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:38:00 -
[37] - Quote
That "I just run combat sites in here" could be used for "baiting".
I keep avoiding rookie systems not because of noobs but because of those 2 year old characters jettisoning "free stuff!" cans. |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Miilla wrote:Simple solution to force rookies out, everybody raise the prices of stuff in 1.0 systems to UNAFFORDABLE :) wonder if the GMs would see that as griefing the noobs and ban everyone involved lol But we aren't in 1.0 systems :) Hint: remote buy / sell :)
Doubt theyd bee the difference way they seem to be "BAN first ask questions later" when it comes to noobs
Wonder if youd get banned to be in another system and send a noob a mail that says "meet me in x system an Ill give you 100 mil" then you gank them? Im betting they might cause itd be a **** move an youre negatively influencing a noob's experience even tho youre not in the starter system.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Something Random
The Barrow Boys
138
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. Thankyou for the concise response :) Could we get some indication of what a Rookie is ? Maybe not an exact date and time.. but.. Clearly messing with a newbie in a Navitas would be bad.. What about the guy that shows up in a Retty, Cov, Hulk, stripping the belts bare.. Are we allowed to mess with them ? Or the two month player running scanned sites down, and ratting in the belts.. are the free to steal from or engage if they take from us ? There are lots of players that pass through at least the Rookie system I base out of, of all ages, skill levels, and intent..
Its real simple as the GM stated.
Get out of rookie systems. They are saying ANYWHERE else you can pretty much do whatever.
BUT you seem to insist youll live in like 20 systems in the freaking 5000+ system universe ? Logic fail. OR you like kicking the smallest kids in kindergarten still at the age of 30 probably. "caught on fire a little bit, just a little." "Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangsn++ all here!" |

hakkiew365
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:54:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ive never understood the logic behind killing rookie players, its like throwing a kid on thin ice when they are just learning how to walk. I mean what does the veteran gain from killing noobs besides 1 trit, an ibis killmail and an epeen stroke. |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:58:00 -
[41] - Quote
Is it allowed to go into 1.0 in a hulk and suck all the roids up?
This isn't "baiting" noobs :) |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:59:00 -
[42] - Quote
hakkiew365 wrote:Ive never understood the logic behind killing rookie players, its like throwing a kid on thin ice when they are just learning how to walk. I mean what does the veteran gain from killing noobs besides 1 trit, an ibis killmail and an epeen stroke. a sociopathic rush? rofl
Hey Millia, do us all a favor an to grab up an orca, a few accounts and hulks and nom all the rocks out of a few noob systems and see it they do anything. Think of yourself as the high sec Goonswarm, daring CCP to do something.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
275
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:01:00 -
[43] - Quote
hakkiew365 wrote:Ive never understood the logic behind killing rookie players, its like throwing a kid on thin ice when they are just learning how to walk.
Some people like pulling the legs off insects. |

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:06:00 -
[44] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Is it allowed to go into 1.0 in a hulk and suck all the roids up?
Any reasons why I'm not allowed to mine in Amarr? By your logic of course...
Actually I don't mine in Amarr, but because you mentioned 1.0 and Hulk... |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:08:00 -
[45] - Quote
You can keep assuming I'm the one griefing them.. All I can say is I'm not..
How can running a scanned site, like Serpentis watch, and killing a looter be considered baiting ? It's not an easy site to scan down, and ontop of that, it's not in public spaces at all. But situations like that is WHY I'm asking so I, and anyone else who happens to search the forums knows.. or at least would have the means to know..
If it is, so be it.. I won't shoot loot thieves.. And the next guy who does, when he says "How the hell would I know", well, it would be on the forums.. or better yet posted in the Rules.. where they should be.
Why do I chose to live here ? Cause I do.. As I said a dozen times, it's convent to the locations where I mine, mission, and trade.. It normally has severial good sites to scan down a run a day. It's where I have the majority of my stuff..
I'm not moving.. so I just want to know the specifics..
Honestly.. I don't understand people who think knowing the rules is a bad thing.. Imagine if life was like that at home, school, and otherwise in the world..
"Don't speed on this road." "What's the speed limit ?" " Get on a different road." .. o_0
I guess in the future I'll just make a petition when I have a question for the GM's.. Clearly most would rather assume that anyone who wants to know the rules is trying to subvert them.. |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:08:00 -
[46] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Miilla wrote:Is it allowed to go into 1.0 in a hulk and suck all the roids up? Any reasons why I'm not allowed to mine in Amarr? By your logic of course...
I mean the "specific" rookie 1.0 systems. Amarr has Chaven , Sehmy and Emrayur . |

Radelix Cisko
The Adjustment Team
69
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:09:00 -
[47] - Quote
I go to rookie systems for the skillbooks, and my alt lives in one because I haven't moved her in a while
|

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
Miilla wrote:I mean the "specific" rookie 1.0 systems. Amarr has Chaven , Sehmy and Emrayur .
You do know that Amarr (solar system) is 1.0? You should be more specific with your questions in the future then. |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:14:00 -
[49] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Miilla wrote:I mean the "specific" rookie 1.0 systems. Amarr has Chaven , Sehmy and Emrayur . You do know that Amarr (solar system) is 1.0? You should be more specific with your questions in the future then.
Not my fault you are thick. |

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:15:00 -
[50] - Quote
Rookies got auto kicked out of the Rookie Help channel after 30 days so I would say anyone 1 month and older is fair game. |
|

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
312
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:16:00 -
[51] - Quote
I hardly ever go to a rookie system, only if a skillbook is required and it's the closest station.
As for what a rookie is and what not, if people can't use common sense as to what a rookie in a rookie system is and what not they are in the wrong game aswel.
If you see a hulk in there you sure as hell can say it isn't a rookie.
And it's a very good thing there is some protection in Rookie systems because else we would see a lot of fail people in there messing up the game of those who just started. If you can't wait for them to come out of that system then you also are in the wrong game.
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Rookies got auto kicked out of the Rookie Help channel after 30 days so I would say anyone 1 month and older is fair game.
They do? OH nice, now lets take it to stage 2 :) |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:17:00 -
[53] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:I hardly ever go to a rookie system, only if a skillbook is required and it's the closest station.
As for what a rookie is and what not, if people can't use common sense as to what a rookie in a rookie system is and what not they are in the wrong game aswel.
If you see a hulk in there you sure as hell can say it isn't a rookie.
And it's a very good thing there is some protection in Rookie systems because else we would see a lot of fail people in there messing up the game of those who just started. If you can't wait for them to come out of that system then you also are in the wrong game.
This way they would be protected, it will be a one way door so older chars cannot enter it and thus rookies are safer this way (until they leave :) ) |

Something Random
The Barrow Boys
138
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:21:00 -
[54] - Quote
[quote=Killer Gandry
If you see a hulk in there you sure as hell can say it isn't a rookie.
[/quote]
Unfortunately due to plex and char bazaar, it may be a rookie.
However - the case stated above of a serp watch spawning in the 1.0 and a lewter attack - i say nuke there ass, noob or not.
Good point btw o7 "caught on fire a little bit, just a little." "Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangsn++ all here!" |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
312
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:21:00 -
[55] - Quote
Miilla wrote:
This way they would be protected, it will be a one way door so older chars cannot enter it and thus rookies are safer this way (until they leave :) )
There is no need for CCP to dictate how long someone can remain in a certain system. Else we could also implement a rule on how long a logged in character may stay docked or within a PoS shield. Or how long a cloak may work etc.
|

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
312
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
Something Random wrote: Unfortunately due to plex and char bazaar, it may be a rookie.
If someone buys a character and equipment to get started I don't count them as Rookie either. Those are walletwarriors and are free game anywhere.
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
253
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:25:00 -
[57] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Miilla wrote:
This way they would be protected, it will be a one way door so older chars cannot enter it and thus rookies are safer this way (until they leave :) )
There is no need for CCP to dictate how long someone can remain in a certain system. Else we could also implement a rule on how long a logged in character may stay docked or within a PoS shield. Or how long a cloak may work etc.
They already dictate to older chars in rookie systems and other parts of eve. |

Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1574
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:28:00 -
[58] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. Leave the rookies alone! You don't know where they have been! You don't know what they went through to get where they are! Leave them alone! ~Chris Crocker
Im kidding...but seriously...why do people care what changes are made in rookie systems? If you still haven't moved on and found something better to do than pick on rookies...well...you might just still be a rookie then. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
312
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:38:00 -
[59] - Quote
Miilla wrote:
They already dictate to older chars in rookie systems and other parts of eve. Eve is not the sandbox you think it is, that is a marketing term.
Nice attempt to pull off a twist. But the only thing achieved is that you sound kinda butthurt that there is a rookie protection in rookie systems.
|

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
664
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 22:41:00 -
[60] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:[quote=hakkiew365]*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths.
|
|

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1779
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:04:00 -
[61] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:You can keep assuming I'm the one griefing them.. All I can say is I'm not.. I guess in the future I'll just make a petition when I have a question for the GM's.. Clearly most would rather assume that anyone who wants to know the rules is trying to subvert them..
CCP has made it quite clear they want to bring new players to this game. GM has made it quite clear that new players in the Rookie Systems are not to be messed with.
WTF is so hard to understand about that?
You say : What if a new player in the Rookie System scans down a 'Watch' site and then steals your loot?
Everyone more or less knows there's a very small extreme chance of that ever happening.
What I see is you looking for some sort of loophole that allows you to kill new players in the Rookie systems. |

Sid Hudgens
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:14:00 -
[62] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. Thankyou for the concise response :) Could we get some indication of what a Rookie is ?
Can we get a clear definition of what a "system" is?
Also, "in any way" seems ambiguous to me ... can you clarify? "....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced." |

Ifly Uwalk
Concentrated Evil Mining For Profit Alliance
210
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:22:00 -
[63] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. Whoa whoa whoa...
You mean that every time I go to Aki to strip the belts there with my Hulk (as I am wont to do) and some lessthanaday old n00b comes along and steals ALL my stuff with his Ibis of Dewm - I can't even throw out my drones so they insta-pop his sorry a$$ before I can even click "Engage?"
Nerf n00bs!  |

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1779
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. Thankyou for the concise response :) Could we get some indication of what a Rookie is ? Can we get a clear definition of what a "system" is? Also, "in any way" seems ambiguous to me ... can you clarify?
WTF, is it troll season now?
FYI - 'system' is a short term for 'Solar System'. If you don't understand that, google it.
Also, 'Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way' means exactly that. If you need it to be clarified then you lack basic comprehension skills. If you don't understand that, google it.
|

Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
707
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:29:00 -
[65] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to gank someone in a rookie system because I petitioned the action before I did it (******* AFK Hulk drivers...)
I can't imagine anyone would seriously try to say "I can't be ganked in my expensive mining barge, I was in a NEWBIE SECTOR", but who knows? Pubbies are dumb. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:30:00 -
[66] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:CCP has made it quite clear they want to bring new players to this game. GM has made it quite clear that new players in the Rookie Systems are not to be messed with.
WTF is so hard to understand about that?
You say : What if a new player in the Rookie System scans down a 'Watch' site and then steals your loot?
Everyone more or less knows there's a very small extreme chance of that ever happening.
What I see is you looking for some sort of loophole that allows you to kill new players in the Rookie systems. That's not what I said at all.
I always What is a new player. I want to know what defines it.. Is it X months on the game or what ?
As for how often I get scanned down and my loot stolen from sites there.. it happens about twice a week, but as I said, if you read my posts, I wouldn't consider any of the people that scanned it down "New Players" they are 2-3 months
And for all the jokes about getting a definition.. I have an ISD who said it's 4months, but that was months ago and in no relation to this topic, I have another person saying 3months, CCP only keeps you in Rookie chat for 1 month.. Then others in this thread saying it's if they are flying TechII, or maybe the class of ship they are in..
I spend enough time in Clellinon to know that lots of "rookies" are actually players who's toon is a few years old, from previous times they have played the game..
There are a thousand variations.. I want to know, as the person out there, by what stick I would be judged on. Clearly I don't know the life story of someone I come across..
Prior to this rule change, my "measuring stick" was anyone in a Tech1 standard cruiser and below I considered new and just warned them away.. anyone else I shoot at.. But I see people in Clellinon that are a week old in a Navy Mega, so clearly even under the best case of a rookie being 1 month, I'd still be in the wrong.. or at least be at risk..
Wanting to know the criteria by which the GM's judge isn't too much to ask.. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:34:00 -
[67] - Quote
Xython wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to gank someone in a rookie system because I petitioned the action before I did it (******* AFK Hulk drivers...) I can't imagine anyone would seriously try to say "I can't be ganked in my expensive mining barge, I was in a NEWBIE SECTOR", but who knows? Pubbies are dumb. Oh they are out there, and they have petitioned. Hulks are a regular sight in rookie systems, even more so now with all the ganking against them thinking they are protected.. when really they just put a bulleye on them because a lot of Rookie System residents don't care for them stripping the newbies ore.. [ A hulk can strip all of Clellinon in ~2hrs if they have good skills.. ].. Doesn't help that GM's don't seem to care.. and of course once the ore is gone, a lot of the newbies have no idea how to finish the training missions.. Or have to leave to the system next door where they Will be canflipped and otherwise griefed.. |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
316
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote: Wanting to know the criteria by which the GM's judge isn't too much to ask..
Simple. If you kill the player in a Rookie system and you get banned then he was an invalid target.
It's not up to CCP to tag those who are under protection. If you aren't smart enough to figure that out yourselves then you are a real dumbass and deserve the ban.
|

Ismol Mond
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 05:19:00 -
[69] - Quote
Eve is either a sandbox or it's not. There really is no middle ground. The moment devs begin to make exceptions to a fundamental element of a mmorpg they have (historically speaking) made more and more changes that tended to make the mmorpg pretty generic. I know we are getting many players here that are bored of their other games so I guess for some reason it's inevitable that they try and turn this game into what they are used to. That seems to be what most of the posters here want so more power to you. May as well make starter systems pvp free and get it over with. Just take the roids out to make it somewhat fair.
|

Howitzer Bunny
Looney Clones
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:20:00 -
[70] - Quote
Quote: CCP has made it quite clear they want to bring new players to this game. GM has made it quite clear that new players in the Rookie Systems are not to be messed with.
WTF is so hard to understand about that?
If the 'new' GM rule is don't mess with them at all.
Why is it so hard to get that offical statement in the following sites where the them selfs point at:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Griefing http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
This was the question Sentinal Smith asked at the first place at the start of the discussion.
Quote: In general,
"griefing" is a term that means action against another player that makes the target feel like being targeted on purpose or for the sake of harassment only.
In EVE, "griefing" refers to various activities, some of which can be argued not to be "griefing" in the classic sense, but parts of valid gameplay.
There are certain forms of griefing that can get you banned from the game. These include (but probably are not limited to) can baiting in rookie systems and certain forms of verbal harassment.]
The next time the GM might decide if you kill some that is a rookie, but in a "legal" system it's still griefing, because it's a rookie.
The only thing I asked make the rules clear. Not to work around them, but to know where the line is about some of non-war actions. If I want to kill someone we start a War. |
|

Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
343
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:30:00 -
[71] - Quote
When i see a rookie mining in a rookie system into his little can I leave him be. If a corp of players mining into a can with orca support and a drake bobbing about in the same system for so called protection. You can bet your sweet manly hairy ass I'm making that can mine.
If I get a warning for that, that is a bit ********. The last time I was in a rookie system I had a Navy Apoc and a Oracle on me. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |

Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
179
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:42:00 -
[72] - Quote
What would be quite simple, easy to understand and would stop people attempting to find ways around the rules is :
No PvP permitted in rookie systems.
There are no reasons for older players to be in rookie systems other than to bump up very low faction standings or to buy skills.
Oh and if you do go there and spot cans on the undock, do us all a favour and petition the tossers who dropped them.
Plenty of places to get fights in Eve, screwing over people in rookie systems isn't necessary.
Edit - oh and if hulks stripping belts are a problem then remove the belts from rookie systems. Any mining which missions require should be instanced. |

Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:45:00 -
[73] - Quote
Ifly Uwalk wrote:You mean that every time I go to Aki to strip the belts there with my Hulk (as I am wont to do) and some lessthanaday old n00b comes along and steals ALL my stuff with his Ibis of Dewm - I can't even throw out my drones so they insta-pop his sorry a$$ before I can even click "Engage?"
Please mail me with info about where/how I can obtain an Ibis that could do that. It would provide a really nice kickstart for my special edition ships collection. |

Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
343
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:46:00 -
[74] - Quote
Othran wrote:What would be quite simple, easy to understand and would stop people attempting to find ways around the rules is :
No PvP permitted in rookie systems.
There are no reasons for older players to be in rookie systems other than to bump up very low faction standings or to buy skills.
Oh and if you do go there and spot cans on the undock, do us all a favour and petition the tossers who dropped them.
Plenty of places to get fights in Eve, screwing over people in rookie systems isn't necessary.
Edit - oh and if hulks stripping belts are a problem then remove the belts from rookie systems. Any mining which missions require should be instanced.
Taking cans at the undock from baiters... it hurts them more to kill them than it does to petition them. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |

Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
179
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:51:00 -
[75] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Taking cans at the undock from baiters... it hurts them more to kill them than it does to petition them.
I know its tempting but the problem is that you won't be there to do that all the time. Petition DOES get them hit with the banstick, especially if they have a history of kills in the rookie systems.
Frankly they're just a bunch of tossers who should get permabanned IMO - hell you can simply go next-door to the rookie system and that's fine.
Ganking has its place in Eve, but ganking rookies in rookie ships/crapfit frigates/dessies when they're learning the game is just weak. Hell of a ****** way to pad out killboard stats  |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1157
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 06:52:00 -
[76] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Only Rookies have Cookies!
Can rookies not have a training system locked only for them for say, 1 week? or until they complete a training tutorial then the gate is open and they MUST leave that system and we can do what we want then? That way they cannot hide in 1.0 forever.
I want the same for you, get your ass kicked out to null sec. Is it fair enough to you or are you going to find grieffer excuses to justify your mediocre interpretation of how much rookies are important to this game or how long/much should they stay in 1.0 ? |

Sephira Galamore
Nemesis Holdings Corp Luna Sanguinem
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 08:44:00 -
[77] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:Honestly.. I don't understand people who think knowing the rules is a bad thing.. Imagine if life was like that at home, school, and otherwise in the world..
"Don't speed on this road." "What's the speed limit ?" " Get on a different road." .. o_0 See, there are different kind of rules. The hard ones and the vague ones and each have a purpose. If you state a rule somewhat vague you purposefully leave a grey area. Within this area, it is up to the police/judge/GM to decide whether you broke the rule or not. The effect of this is a certain uncertainty, which may appear as a bad thing but often really isn't. Since the goal here is to avoid people walking the line, to push the limits, to find loopholes. On the other hand, it allows GM to show leniance, too. (Also, vague rules are used, when it's very difficult to actually define the limits objectively).
And you have these kind of rules/laws in real life, too. "Don't drive in a way that recklessly endangers other traffic participants" - "Wait, what classifies as reckless driving?" - "Don't push it, man!" If you would define "recklessly" by setting limits for speed, acceleration, deviation from the road center, and whatsnot, you'd leave loopholes. Of course, hard rules have a purpose aswell, as they make it easy to deal with obvious cases and are less prone to subjective judgement.
So back to topic: If you are in a rookie system and in a situation where you wonder "Is this a rookie now or not?", it should be clear that as soon as you have valid cause to even ask this question, the safe course of action is to leave it be. It's a about common sense, really. Of course you can still ask that question, answer it for yourself as good as you can, but when acting accordingly, you willingly accept the risk that goes along with that. Eve, consequences and stuff ;) |

Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
47
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 09:55:00 -
[78] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:If you are not a rookie, why are you in a rookie system? Greeting a new corp member in personal, which is stil located in a rookie system? Or gifting him some items, which might be helpfull? Or simply company him? |

Zora'e
Nasty Pope
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 10:27:00 -
[79] - Quote
I think it is pretty clear myself. CCP has already clarified what they think a Rookie is because after 30 days, you get kicked from the Rookie channel. So.. if the character is under 30 days old, and is in a starter system they are a rookie. Leave them alone. Even if they mess with you. In EVE Online...-á-áA Friend will calm you down when you are angry after getting Ganked.., but a Best Friend will fly along beside you commanding a Strike Group singing "Someones Gonna Get It!!!".-á ~Zora'e |

March rabbit
Trojan Trolls Red Alliance
166
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 11:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. its not a newbie if its in a mining barge right let's say: goon in a hauler is not goon? or he is still goon? |
|

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 11:07:00 -
[81] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Only Rookies have Cookies!
Can rookies not have a training system locked only for them for say, 1 week? or until they complete a training tutorial then the gate is open and they MUST leave that system and we can do what we want then? That way they cannot hide in 1.0 forever.
So your pathetically easy targets are hiding from you? So you are the one this needs to be clarified for. I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 11:09:00 -
[82] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:If its a t2 in a rookie system. its not a rookie. Gack them. Otherwise its still and always has been cut and dry.
OMGWTF, there are 12 rookie systems. Stay the hell out. I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
216
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 12:20:00 -
[83] - Quote
Rekon X wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:If its a t2 in a rookie system. its not a rookie. Gack them. Otherwise its still and always has been cut and dry. OMGWTF, there are 12 rookie systems. Stay the hell out.
rookie system doesn't mean safe haven f y i eh |

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 12:26:00 -
[84] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Rekon X wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:If its a t2 in a rookie system. its not a rookie. Gack them. Otherwise its still and always has been cut and dry. OMGWTF, there are 12 rookie systems. Stay the hell out. rookie system doesn't mean safe haven f y i
Most areas offer reading comprehension classes. I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
316
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 13:24:00 -
[85] - Quote
Why NOT to make rookie systems PvP free systems?
Simple. Because then people who want to avoid getting killed can hop in there and be safe.
If you can't distinguish the difference between a hulk and an Ibis or even magnate by a few day old character then EVE is NOT the game for you. If you require exact and precise tags on what's a rookie and what's not then EVE is NOT the game for you. If you want CCP to find the borders of what is acceptable and what isn't then EVE is NOT the game for you.
On one side people complain thatCCP holds new players, and carebear hands too much and on the other side they need a hand held to guide them through what is possible and what isn't
Learn to read the rules and regulations and if in doubt then petition or mail CCP about getting an exact clarification. Anything not covered under the rules and which can't be classified as exploit or bug is free gameplay untill deemed otherwise.
This is a simple reality in any MMO out there.
|

Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 13:30:00 -
[86] - Quote
How people dare grief newbis,really phatetic behaviour, this is almost same behavoir like giving lollipop to small kid and take it back, i hate those people.
One year ago i was in rooki system and i saw some phatetic guy in traranis baiting newbis. so i fit kamikaze rupture and i give to him my alpha strike he was almost rip sadly i forget owerload my guns and he dock with around 4% on hull, but i got satisfaction he got weet pants ;) |

Anya Klibor
Malum Crusis
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 13:32:00 -
[87] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
My corporation dec'd another corporation that bases out of Clell. If we get a fight there and pop them, can we expect them to be able to petition for "picking on them" even though they are in no way, shape, or form "rookies"? |

Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
183
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 13:39:00 -
[88] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Why NOT to make rookie systems PvP free systems?
Simple. Because then people who want to avoid getting killed can hop in there and be safe.
Indeed. There are flaws with any system however a nice clear instruction would be helpful.
You could even modify it to say :
No PvP permitted in the 12 rookie systems unless it is between player corps. If one of the aggressors/aggressed is in a NPC corp then the banstick WILL be used. No excuses permitted.
There shouldn't be any asteroid belts in npc systems anyway. Mining "training" should be the same as combat "training" - instanced.
Its the same people who do it time and again anyway. A quick look at people not in npc corps in rookie systems indicates a significant number of them have kills in rookie systems on eve-kill/battleclinic. I just got an alt to look in Hadaugago and there's a guy in there who has over 90 kills of rookie players in the Minmatar rookie systems alone.
CCP need to make the warning about rookie systems a LOT more public, a LOT more specific (no weasel words) and they need to actively police it.
Either that or stop wasting everyone's time on the matter and ignore it, which is what they largely do now.
I'll leave this thread to the people who will try to argue that ganking the crap out of shitfit ships with pilots who couldn't find their way to the nearest trade hub is a good idea for Eve's longevity  |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
316
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:07:00 -
[89] - Quote
Anya Klibor wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. My corporation dec'd another corporation that bases out of Clell. If we get a fight there and pop them, can we expect them to be able to petition for "picking on them" even though they are in no way, shape, or form "rookies"?
Try to graps the concept that there is a difference between Rookie and Rookie system. If you are too daft to grasp that then please do us all a favour and uninstall the game. You are clearly not able to understand basic game mechanics and are therefor not EVE material. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
58
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:12:00 -
[90] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:Try to graps the concept that there is a difference between Rookie and Rookie system. If you are too daft to grasp that then please do us all a favour and uninstall the game. You are clearly not able to understand basic game mechanics and are therefor not EVE material. Lots of Rookies join player corps almost right away, for better or worse.. So what about a week old player in a Player corp in a Rookie system that's a valid WT ? Or even not a valid WT, but just someone in a corp that your corp routinely fights with ? |
|

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
316
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:18:00 -
[91] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote: Lots of Rookies join player corps almost right away, for better or worse.. So what about a week old player in a Player corp in a Rookie system that's a valid WT ? Or even not a valid WT, but just someone in a corp that your corp routinely fights with ?
If someone is in a corp I don't see them as rookie anymore. If they are valid wartargets then I pop them. I can easy defend my stance then towards CCP. If it's a corporation founded by rookies and only has rookies in it I don't dec them till they are a month or so in the game. If they dec me it's their own doing and as such become valid targets.
How hard is the whole concept for you people? Are you really that daft as to need a handheld manual as what is possible and what not?
|

Orlacc
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
127
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:39:00 -
[92] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:When i see a rookie mining in a rookie system into his little can I leave him be. If a corp of players mining into a can with orca support and a drake bobbing about in the same system for so called protection. You can bet your sweet manly hairy ass I'm making that can mine.
If I get a warning for that, that is a bit ********. The last time I was in a rookie system I had a Navy Apoc and a Oracle on me.
Why are you in a rookie system in the first place?
|

Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
237
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:55:00 -
[93] - Quote
Cavel Avada wrote:Lot of reading comprehension fails in this thread. OP clearly said she's NOT actively griefing newbs, but wants to know if it's ok to kill a newb who does something that deserves it (like stealing her stuff whens he's minding her own business).
Seems like a valid question to me.
if you have your *STUFF* out in a rookie system, you are a baiter (or just lowering the average IQ).
Ban stick and *NAH NAH NAH NAH* hands in my ears, no one wants to hear your tears.
Want to blow stuff up, go to null. It's there for a reason (So are starter systems).
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
58
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote: How hard is the whole concept for you people? Are you really that daft as to need a handheld manual as what is possible and what not?
The concept is simple.. But I've hard enough dealings with GM's, as have others, to know what makes perfect sense to us, doesn't to them..
Hell Case in point, CCP Removing non-corpmembers access to the Corp hanger on an Orca.. Made sense to GM Greyscale so much so it wasn't even a topic for discussion, not so much to most people who use their Orca for, you know, mining and such.
It's best to just remove the grey area all together.
As you said, YOU don't see them as a rookie anymore.. GM might disagree, and there you are, warned, or banned for a week.
Common sense isn't as common as you think.. Even with the rules in place, I have petitioned probably 50 different people for baiting and flipping in Rookie Systems since the new year.. And countless more I warned [ what can I say, I always give them a chance to stop on their own, as long as I didn't see them pop a noob yet ] away before petitioning.. Most had no idea of the rules.. Several had no idea they were in a rookie system.. They just jumped around and found a busy system with easy targets and had no clue.. Now I'm not giving them a pass.. They Should know where they are. They Should know what the rules are.. But now that the rules aren't as black and white before, it's inevitable that people are going to get caught in grey areas. I just want to make those areas as small as can be. I don't want someones fate to be decided based on which specific GM happens to be on, or his mood at the time. |

Jerick Ludhowe
Resurrection Ninjas.
61
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 16:58:00 -
[95] - Quote
Ismol Mond wrote:Eve is either a sandbox or it's not. There really is no middle ground. The moment devs begin to make exceptions to a fundamental element of a mmorpg they have (historically speaking) made more and more changes that tended to make the mmorpg pretty generic. I know we are getting many players here that are bored of their other games so I guess for some reason it's inevitable that they try and turn this game into what they are used to. That seems to be what most of the posters here want so more power to you. May as well make starter systems pvp free and get it over with. Just take the roids out to make it somewhat fair.
it's not a sandbox anymore, the ability to buy plex with rl cash put an end to that years ago. This is the reason I lol every time ccp uses the term "sandbox" in their marketing schemes.
|

SenshiMaru
Idiots In Spaceships Psychotic Tendencies.
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 17:05:00 -
[96] - Quote
9/10 OP |

Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 17:16:00 -
[97] - Quote
If a rookie has taken your items from your home system which happens to be a system where new players start then by all emans shoot him. Its not as if rookies have much to lose anyway.
If you get banned you can always argue the GM ban via escalation to someone higher up in CCP. Sometimes the GM's interpretation of the rules leave a lot to be desired although maybe their training might also be thus. |

Shea Valerien
House of Valerien
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 17:30:00 -
[98] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
Love that CCP is taking this approach. Ganking rookies is a pretty sad statement about how a person gets their kicks. More players = healthier Eve. Those rookies today = active veterans tomorrow.
To be fair, though, I'm not exactly sure what qualifies as a "rookie." |

Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 17:44:00 -
[99] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:If you are not a rookie, why are you in a rookie system? It's quite simple. When I started playing and acquiring things I kept them in my station. Now I have a large amout of items piled up and I don't want or need the hassle to move it all. I have stuff in 0.0 but I only take what for me is the bare minimum incase I have to abandon it. So after 4 years, a rookie system is still my "home base"... |

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 18:03:00 -
[100] - Quote
Rekon X wrote:there are 12 rookie systems
24 rookie systems: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
But that is still just a drop in this universe. There is a lot more systems people can do their baiting if it floats their boats. |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:00:00 -
[101] - Quote
But what if somebody is hulk jet can mining to help rookies earn isk?
Are you saying we can no longer help rookies in their starter systems? |

ian papabear
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:04:00 -
[102] - Quote
okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies http://www.youtube.com/iwasnamedian |

Zleon Leigh
115
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:10:00 -
[103] - Quote
Miilla wrote:But what if somebody is hulk jet can mining to help rookies earn isk?
Are you saying we can no longer help rookies in their starter systems?
Are you saying you're not turning the cans blue? 'Cause if you aren't sounds like you're baiting....
Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:12:00 -
[104] - Quote
Zleon Leigh wrote:Miilla wrote:But what if somebody is hulk jet can mining to help rookies earn isk?
Are you saying we can no longer help rookies in their starter systems? Are you saying you're not turning the cans blue? 'Cause if you aren't sounds like you're baiting....
I set their name to "Abandoned Container". *chews bubblegum looking clueless* |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:14:00 -
[105] - Quote
Zleon Leigh wrote:Miilla wrote:But what if somebody is hulk jet can mining to help rookies earn isk?
Are you saying we can no longer help rookies in their starter systems? Are you saying you're not turning the cans blue? 'Cause if you aren't sounds like you're baiting....
What if I am really seriously jetcan mining and have it named "DO NOT TOUCH". and then they steal it? They after all have learnt how to be a pirate, not my fault. *shrugs* |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1160
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 19:17:00 -
[106] - Quote
What a griefer this Milia... 
|
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
604

|
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:13:00 -
[107] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:Sentinel Smith wrote:Honestly.. I don't understand people who think knowing the rules is a bad thing.. Imagine if life was like that at home, school, and otherwise in the world..
"Don't speed on this road." "What's the speed limit ?" " Get on a different road." .. o_0 See, there are different kind of rules. The hard ones and the vague ones and each have a purpose. If you state a rule somewhat vague you purposefully leave a grey area. Within this area, it is up to the police/judge/GM to decide whether you broke the rule or not. The effect of this is a certain uncertainty, which may appear as a bad thing but often really isn't. Since the goal here is to avoid people walking the line, to push the limits, to find loopholes. On the other hand, it allows GM to show leniance, too. (Also, vague rules are used, when it's very difficult to actually define the limits objectively). And you have these kind of rules/laws in real life, too. "Don't drive in a way that recklessly endangers other traffic participants" - "Wait, what classifies as reckless driving?" - "Don't push it, man!" If you would define "recklessly" by setting limits for speed, acceleration, deviation from the road center, and whatsnot, you'd leave loopholes. Of course, hard rules have a purpose aswell, as they make it easy to deal with obvious cases and are less prone to subjective judgement. So back to topic: If you are in a rookie system and in a situation where you wonder "Is this a rookie now or not?", it should be clear that as soon as you have valid cause to even ask this question, the safe course of action is to leave it be. It's a about common sense, really. Of course you can still ask that question, answer it for yourself as good as you can, but when acting accordingly, you willingly accept the risk that goes along with that. Eve, consequences and stuff ;)
I cannot quote this person enough. Some rules are vague on purpose and they will remain vague. This is the 'reckless driving' equivalent. If I define the rules to the last dot someone will simply find a loop hole and use it. The rule is "do not mess with rookies", and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS 'do not do it'. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:14:00 -
[108] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: The rule is "do not mess with rookies", and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS 'do not do it'.
What if the Rookies mess with us? What if they shoot us? can we shoot back? etc etc, That means WAR surely? |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
604

|
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:19:00 -
[109] - Quote
ian papabear wrote:okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies
Yes, you can still PvP there. You cannot mess with the rookies there, what you do to other people is your own business. Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:25:00 -
[110] - Quote
Define a rookie? 1 week old? 1 month old? There has to be a limit, where is it? |
|

Steijn
Quay Industries
43
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:26:00 -
[111] - Quote
Avid Bumhumper wrote:I'm not sure admitting your an incompetent player that can only handle noobs is something you want to post here..... 
im not sure admitting you dont have the intelligence to understand what Sentinel is saying is something you want to post here either. |

Jonah Gravenstein
208
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:35:00 -
[112] - Quote
I keep seeing people asking what older players are doing in rookie systems, my answer is MYOB.
I have a trade character, based 2 jumps out of a rookie system, I buy a lot of stuff in that rookie system, I sell a lot of stuff in that rookie system, I also give away a lot of stuff in that rookie system. As long as I'm not shooting at rookies it's nobodies business but my own as to what I'm doing there.
TL;DR for the rest of the thread, if they're not a WT, not can baiting or in anything that's obviously capable of being used by a noob don't shoot at them. War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:16:00 -
[113] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: This is the 'reckless driving' equivalent. If I define the rules to the last dot someone will simply find a loop hole and use it. Reckless is vague, like Mess with. Given.
But the law defines what Driving is :p So should it define a Rookie imho.
And honestly.. if you want to protect Rookies, the Rookie systems idea is flawed. What should be done is some way to flag them, like give them a Blue icon [ Red is evil, Yellow did some time, Green if your corpmate.. Blue can be Rookie ] .. And make them protected in all of Highsec. A few training missions themselves have newbies leaving the "safety" of a rookie system, not to mention you have to go from the Starter system to the Career Agent system, where I have seen baitcans on the gates along that route before.
So give them serious protection. Make it so for them to get Aggro [ aka stealing, providing RR, etc. ] they have to jump through hoops and give up the rookie protection.. rather than just a single warning popup that apparently 90% of newbies hit okay too without reading lol..
This would give them, say, 30 days [ Same amount of time you are in Rookie Help ] of protection everywhere in highsec. And give all other players a visual indication not to mess with them.
|

Zleon Leigh
115
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:26:00 -
[114] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote: This is the 'reckless driving' equivalent. If I define the rules to the last dot someone will simply find a loop hole and use it. Reckless is vague, like Mess with. Given. But the law defines what Driving is :p So should it define a Rookie imho. And honestly.. if you want to protect Rookies, the Rookie systems idea is flawed. What should be done is some way to flag them, like give them a Blue icon [ Red is evil, Yellow did some time, Green if your corpmate.. Blue can be Rookie ] .. And make them protected in all of Highsec. A few training missions themselves have newbies leaving the "safety" of a rookie system, not to mention you have to go from the Starter system to the Career Agent system, where I have seen baitcans on the gates along that route before. So give them serious protection. Make it so for them to get Aggro [ aka stealing, providing RR, etc. ] they have to jump through hoops and give up the rookie protection.. rather than just a single warning popup that apparently 90% of newbies hit okay too without reading lol.. This would give them, say, 30 days [ Same amount of time you are in Rookie Help ] of protection everywhere in highsec. And give all other players a visual indication not to mess with them.
Blue Light Special! 
Agreed.
How about the "blue classification" runs out the same time the training bonus does? Nullified by system sec status - if you are not in Empire all bets are off (and you get a popup when leaving anyways.) Failure to follow warnings is at the risk of the user. Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital.
CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:33:00 -
[115] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.
I missed this the first time.
This statement seems to contradict http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems and http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Griefing .
Quote:Warning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing.
Quote:Can flipping / baiting
This refers to the practice of (ab)using the Criminal Flagging System to cause a fight between yourself and an unsuspecting party in high-security space. See main article for more.
Can flipping is officially considered griefing only in Rookie Systems. Some people do it just for fun, without the actual intent to cause the feelings of harassment and frustration in the victim. It is, however, also a typical form of griefing in the classic sense.
Which makes a blanket statement, that doesn't separate Rookies from Experienced players.
Does your statement means Baiting and Flipping is now allowed, providing you don't kill Rookies ? |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:37:00 -
[116] - Quote
Define a Rookie, we need a clear definition. Surely a Hulk player in 1.0 rookie system is NOT a rookie. or a 1 or 2 month old player is NOT a rookie. |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:40:00 -
[117] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:GM Homonoia wrote: This is the 'reckless driving' equivalent. If I define the rules to the last dot someone will simply find a loop hole and use it. Reckless is vague, like Mess with. Given. But the law defines what Driving is :p So should it define a Rookie imho. And honestly.. if you want to protect Rookies, the Rookie systems idea is flawed. What should be done is some way to flag them, like give them a Blue icon [ Red is evil, Yellow did some time, Green if your corpmate.. Blue can be Rookie ] .. And make them protected in all of Highsec. A few training missions themselves have newbies leaving the "safety" of a rookie system, not to mention you have to go from the Starter system to the Career Agent system, where I have seen baitcans on the gates along that route before. So give them serious protection. Make it so for them to get Aggro [ aka stealing, providing RR, etc. ] they have to jump through hoops and give up the rookie protection.. rather than just a single warning popup that apparently 90% of newbies hit okay too without reading lol.. This would give them, say, 30 days [ Same amount of time you are in Rookie Help ] of protection everywhere in highsec. And give all other players a visual indication not to mess with them. Some people think I'm kind of a degenerate for the way I approach piracy. I loot wrecks and salvage them at fights I'm not involved in, and mainly prey on haulers (and cyno frigs when I'm bored). If people come ready to fight I typically run. It's fine... the world needs bottom feeders too.
I feel a lot better knowing there are rungs on the food chain beneath even me. Why do you even care about rookies? They have no ISK, they have lame noob ships and T1 frigs, never drop anything remotely decent, and don't even know how to fly around in space let along fight. It's moronic to mess with them. Congrats, Sentinel Smith... you are the biggest looser.
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:43:00 -
[118] - Quote
Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:44:00 -
[119] - Quote
Gogela wrote: Some people think I'm kind of a degenerate for the way I approach piracy. I loot wrecks and salvage them at fights I'm not involved in, and mainly prey on haulers (and cyno frigs when I'm bored). If people come ready to fight I typically run. It's fine... the world needs bottom feeders too.
I feel a lot better knowing there are rungs on the food chain beneath even me. Why do you even care about rookies? They have no ISK, they have lame noob ships and T1 frigs, never drop anything remotely decent, and don't even know how to fly around in space let alone fight. It's moronic to mess with them. Congrats, Sentinel Smith... you are the biggest looser.
My post suggesting a foolproof no loopholes no greyarea way to protect them in All Highsec systems makes me a looser ?
Noted. |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:47:00 -
[120] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system.
|
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:49:00 -
[121] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system.
So it's a Cookie system :) |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:51:00 -
[122] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system. So it's a Cookie system :) That's a good way to put it  
|

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
259
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:54:00 -
[123] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system. So it's a Cookie system :) That's a good way to put it  
Well, I guess I should sell tickets, I can park a few account toons in there and get isk to log off to free up a slot as it is limited :)
|

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 21:57:00 -
[124] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Gogela wrote:Miilla wrote:Wait, isn't Jita a rookie system? Show up Saturday and see if it looks like a rookie system. Long answer: no. Jita is the most dangerous high sec system. So it's a Cookie system :) That's a good way to put it   Well, I guess I should sell tickets, I can park a few account toons in there and get isk to log off to free up a slot as it is limited :) LOL! Good luck with that. The rumor mill suggests Jita is getting reinforced tomorrow through the weekend. I think we'll be looking at a new jita record on saturday or sunday. 5000+ would not surprise me in the least.
Edit: Time Dilated jita... we're gonna party like it's 2003...
|

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:33:00 -
[125] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:
I guess in the future I'll just make a petition when I have a question for the GM's.. Clearly most would rather assume that anyone who wants to know the rules is trying to subvert them..
uh yeah well it IS EVE after all... Cant really say more than that to make it clearer
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:38:00 -
[126] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:[quote=hakkiew365]*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths.
Psychopathic rush?
Yes as I understand it its just when the sociopath or rather those with anti social personality disorder (as I understand it sociopath isnt the correct term anymore) cant talk themselves out of doint it. AND they dont have remorse or conscience. See the TV show Dexter
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:46:00 -
[127] - Quote
ugh I have to triple post cause "theres too many quotes"
Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:hakkiew365 wrote:*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths. Psychopathic rush? Yes as I understand it its just when the sociopath or rather those with anti social personality disorder (as I understand it sociopath isnt the correct term anymore) cant talk themselves out of doint it. AND they dont have remorse or conscience. See the TV show Dexter GM Homonoia wrote:[quote=ian papabear]okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies Yes, you can still PvP there. You cannot mess with the rookies there, what you do to other people is your own business. Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.
Man youd swear the ppl in this game are idiots for not being able to follow so simple a command as "dont mess with them" But no I realize its not them being stupid that it is in fact every bit of them thinking they're smart for looking for a loophole so they can grief the noob players and say "GM HOMONIA SED WE KULD DO IT!!!!"
and its because of ppl like that you wont GET a specific answer.
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
669
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:47:00 -
[128] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:[quote=hakkiew365]*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths. Psychopathic rush? Yes as I understand it its just when the sociopath or rather those with anti social personality disorder (as I understand it sociopath isnt the correct term anymore) cant talk themselves out of doint it. AND they dont have remorse or conscience. See the TV show Dexter There's a difference between a compulsion/obsession and emotion. American Psycho vs Dexter. I got 20 on Patrick Bateman.
|

supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group Ayn Sof Aur
82
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:50:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule? |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 22:51:00 -
[130] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:Gogela wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:[quote=hakkiew365]*snip* a sociopathic rush? rofl *snip* Sociopaths don't get a "rush" of any kind. That's what makes them sociopaths. Psychopathic rush? Yes as I understand it its just when the sociopath or rather those with anti social personality disorder (as I understand it sociopath isnt the correct term anymore) cant talk themselves out of doint it. AND they dont have remorse or conscience. See the TV show Dexter There's a difference between a compulsion/obsession and emotion. American Psycho vs Dexter. I got 20 on Patrick Bateman.
Didnt say anything about emotion lol Rush =/= an emotional release. Just like how certain serial killers replace sex with murder cause thats the only way they can get the thrill.
this conversation is getting way off topic and creepy lol
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |
|

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 23:54:00 -
[131] - Quote
supersexysucker wrote:CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule?
Im sorry, if you cant see the reasoning behind this rule, noone can... just do the rest of us a favor and go break it -.-
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group Ayn Sof Aur
82
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 02:23:00 -
[132] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:supersexysucker wrote:CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule? Im sorry, if you cant see the reasoning behind this rule, noone can... just do the rest of us a favor and go break it -.-
To stop nubs from rage quitting?
Cause when you gank them in 30 days... they won't?
Got news for ya... when I started playing it was around x-mas with the snow ball launchers... I was like a day old... guy started shooting me with it... I shot back got blowed up...
O **** IM STILL HERE... so anyone again the reason?
Learned about concord really fast.
Should I cry to CCP about a guy killing a like 2 day old via something CCP gave them? |

Astrid Stjerna
Underking Family
659
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 10:37:00 -
[133] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote: Does your statement means Baiting and Flipping is now allowed, providing you don't kill Rookies ?
What Homonoia said was along the lines of 'better safe than sorry': dropping a can in a rookie system, even if it's a perfectly innocent and legitimate cargo transfer, can be misinterpreted as an attempt to can-bait, so it's probably better to wait until you're docked and do it manually.
If you do drop a legitimate can and someone does scoop your cargo, don't shoot them, because by the letter of the law, that's still considered can-baiting. I can't get rid of my darn signature!-á Oh, wait.... |

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:07:00 -
[134] - Quote
Orlacc wrote: Why are you in a rookie system in the first place?
Simple I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Rekon X
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:11:00 -
[135] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Define a rookie? 1 week old? 1 month old? There has to be a limit, where is it?
Seems this one is looking hard for a way to gank rookies.
Can not get any more pathetic than that.
What if.... What if.... What if....
What are you 2? I don't care what you think, if you ever think at all. |

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:48:00 -
[136] - Quote
Really don't understand how this is even of interest to anyone who isn't either covertly or overtly looking to pop rookies.
"The rules don't concern me because I don't pop rookies, but I'm really interested anyway"
Cmon... |

Gerald Taric
Adamantium Industry
47
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 14:53:00 -
[137] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Define a Rookie, we need a clear definition. Surely a Hulk player in 1.0 rookie system is NOT a rookie. or a 1 or 2 month old player is NOT a rookie. The answer can be found in this posting, but not in the way you want it to be: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1198726#post1198726
In short: Obviously there's intentionally no hard definition. Use common sense and if in doubt, assume the pilot in question being a rookie. Otherwise take the risk of being wrong.
|

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 15:07:00 -
[138] - Quote
Rekon X wrote:Miilla wrote:Define a rookie? 1 week old? 1 month old? There has to be a limit, where is it? Seems this one is looking hard for a way to gank rookies. Can not get any more pathetic than that. What if.... What if.... What if.... What are you 2?
No, just a typical EVE ganker trying to find a loophole and being frustrated by the GM refusing to give one
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Velicitia
Open Designs
885
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 15:16:00 -
[139] - Quote
supersexysucker wrote:Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:supersexysucker wrote:CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule? Im sorry, if you cant see the reasoning behind this rule, noone can... just do the rest of us a favor and go break it -.- To stop nubs from rage quitting? Cause when you gank them in 30 days... they won't? Got news for ya... when I started playing it was around x-mas with the snow ball launchers... I was like a day old... guy started shooting me with it... I shot back got blowed up... O **** IM STILL HERE... so anyone again the reason? Learned about concord really fast. Should I cry to CCP about a guy killing a like 2 day old via something CCP gave them?
CCP, BRING BACK SNOWBALLS!!! |

Duvida
The Scope Gallente Federation
63
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 17:21:00 -
[140] - Quote
supersexysucker wrote:CCP sadbox kinda.
lol anyone who gets ganked in a hauler should petition CCP and say HEY IM STILL LEARNING I TOOK A BREAK lul.
Whos up for making trail accounts and can flipping in noob sysytems just because of CCPS dumb rule?
If it's an experienced player in a Hulk (check the training time for a Hulk, it isn't going to be a new player driving that, right?) and you are running a new alt... well, that Hulk shouldn't be attacking new players. I guess it's a risk older players take when trying to hide in newbie systems.
But getting angry and trying to get a rule loophole that allows the griefing of a brand new player, even in the name of 'insert self-righteous cause here', is pretty image destroying. Unless you wanted to have the image of someone that picks on the 1-year-old in the yard because the 2-year-olds are already at 25 pounds and can beat you up, that is. Just FYI 
|
|
|

CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1243

|
Posted - 2012.04.27 23:50:00 -
[141] - Quote
Off topic posts removed. Please stay on topic and constructive, thank you. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|

SghnDubh
BattleClinic
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 00:37:00 -
[142] - Quote
Makes me want to add a tag to my killboards.
If you show up as the aggressor in a noob system, and the pilot has less than 6 months ingame, you'll get a bully badge. And it may not really be the kind of badge you want people to see.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak... |

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
93
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 02:16:00 -
[143] - Quote
SghnDubh wrote: Makes me want to add a tag to my killboards.
If you show up as the aggressor in a noob system, and the pilot has less than 6 months ingame, you'll get a bully badge. And it may not really be the kind of badge you want people to see.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
If you shoot someone an kill em in the noob system an they're a noob, youll get a ban badge.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
286
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 03:57:00 -
[144] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
first thing I did when I started eve was attack one of those NPC cargo ships that travel from station to station.... I didn't realize it was NPC at the time. It kicked my never-docked-in-it's life noob ship's buttox.
The second thing I did was undock in another noob ship and find a real player to attack. They also kicked my ass.
Perhaps I'm not the typical new player. However, I don't believe I'm the only one that would ever try to do such a thing. In my case, I wasn't upset that they kicked my butt, in fact I expected it.
Personally I don't think there's a better time to let new players know that there is no safe place in eve, than before they subscribe.
This false sense of security you give them only breeds resentment when they ultimately do get ganked in high sec. BUT... because you've protected them while it would be relatively in-expensive, they are surprised when they lose millions or even billions.
Eve players don't need to be molly-coddled. And players that need to have their hand held simply aren't going to like Eve as it is. That's something you really should come to terms with, and either accept it or change Eve.
... |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
286
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 04:00:00 -
[145] - Quote
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:SghnDubh wrote: Makes me want to add a tag to my killboards.
If you show up as the aggressor in a noob system, and the pilot has less than 6 months ingame, you'll get a bully badge. And it may not really be the kind of badge you want people to see.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
If you shoot someone an kill em in the noob system an they're a noob, youll get a ban badge. Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
Phineas T. Barnum wrote:There is no such thing as bad publicity ... |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
286
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 04:06:00 -
[146] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:ian papabear wrote:okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies Yes, you can still PvP there. You cannot mess with the rookies there, what you do to other people is your own business. Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.
What if we bait someone we're mentoring... strictly as part of the mentoring process?  ... |

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1885
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 04:33:00 -
[147] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. first thing I did when I started eve was attack one of those NPC cargo ships that travel from station to station.... I didn't realize it was NPC at the time. It kicked my never-docked-in-it's life noob ship's buttox. The second thing I did was undock in another noob ship and find a real player to attack. They also kicked my ass. Perhaps I'm not the typical new player. However, I don't believe I'm the only one that would ever try to do such a thing. In my case, I wasn't upset that they kicked my butt, in fact I expected it. Personally I don't think there's a better time to let new players know that there is no safe place in eve, than before they subscribe. This false sense of security you give them only breeds resentment when they ultimately do get ganked in high sec. BUT... because you've protected them while it would be relatively in-expensive, they are surprised when they lose millions or even billions. Eve players don't need to be molly-coddled. And players that need to have their hand held simply aren't going to like Eve as it is. That's something you really should come to terms with, and either accept it or change Eve. First off, you were the one who initiated those attacks and got what you deserved.
Secondly, new players in the rookie systems only have a limited amount of missions they can run for those agents.
Thirdly, those agents are teaching new players how to interact with the various aspects of the game.
Last but not least, when those new players do leave the rookie system, they won't be rich or flying millions or billions worth of equipment. As soon as they leave the rookie systems, they probably already know the griefers mantra and if not, they quickly learn 'there's no safe place in Eve'.
Bottom line: Just leave the new players alone, there is more than enough other experienced players in-game for you to duel. |
|

GM Zerat
Game Masters C C P Alliance
11

|
Posted - 2012.05.02 07:17:00 -
[148] - Quote
There is currently a blanket ban on can baiting in rookie systems, I just wanted to bring that up as many players make this mistake.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems Warning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing.
So if you are thinking about can baiting only older players in those systems, please do not. |
|

Fannie Maes
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
113
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 07:40:00 -
[149] - Quote
The GM's have answered OP twice making it perfectly clear, if you still don't get it by now then goodbye and it was nice knowing you... |

Gorki Andropov
Kerensky Initiatives
337
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 07:46:00 -
[150] - Quote
SghnDubh wrote: Makes me want to add a tag to my killboards.
If you show up as the aggressor in a noob system, and the pilot has less than 6 months ingame, you'll get a bully badge. And it may not really be the kind of badge you want people to see.
Just thinking out loud, so to speak...
I would think a 'manipulator' tag might be more appropriate, given how easy it is to mess with your awesome killboards. |
|

Gorki Andropov
Kerensky Initiatives
337
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 07:47:00 -
[151] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Sephira Galamore wrote:Sentinel Smith wrote:Honestly.. I don't understand people who think knowing the rules is a bad thing.. Imagine if life was like that at home, school, and otherwise in the world..
"Don't speed on this road." "What's the speed limit ?" " Get on a different road." .. o_0 See, there are different kind of rules. The hard ones and the vague ones and each have a purpose. If you state a rule somewhat vague you purposefully leave a grey area. Within this area, it is up to the police/judge/GM to decide whether you broke the rule or not. The effect of this is a certain uncertainty, which may appear as a bad thing but often really isn't. Since the goal here is to avoid people walking the line, to push the limits, to find loopholes. On the other hand, it allows GM to show leniance, too. (Also, vague rules are used, when it's very difficult to actually define the limits objectively). And you have these kind of rules/laws in real life, too. "Don't drive in a way that recklessly endangers other traffic participants" - "Wait, what classifies as reckless driving?" - "Don't push it, man!" If you would define "recklessly" by setting limits for speed, acceleration, deviation from the road center, and whatsnot, you'd leave loopholes. Of course, hard rules have a purpose aswell, as they make it easy to deal with obvious cases and are less prone to subjective judgement. So back to topic: If you are in a rookie system and in a situation where you wonder "Is this a rookie now or not?", it should be clear that as soon as you have valid cause to even ask this question, the safe course of action is to leave it be. It's a about common sense, really. Of course you can still ask that question, answer it for yourself as good as you can, but when acting accordingly, you willingly accept the risk that goes along with that. Eve, consequences and stuff ;) I cannot quote this person enough. Some rules are vague on purpose and they will remain vague. This is the 'reckless driving' equivalent. If I define the rules to the last dot someone will simply find a loop hole and use it. The rule is "do not mess with rookies", and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS 'do not do it'.
A quick question - what if rookies take the can, fully aware and armed with the knowledge of what will happen? In other words, if you label the can 'IF YOU TAKE FROM THIS CAN, OTHER PLAYERS WILL ATTACK YOU'? |

Shea Valerien
House of Valerien
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:20:00 -
[152] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:ian papabear wrote:okay so i get the "dont mess with the rookies period" point, but is pvp still allowed in the system? like for example can you pvp with someone who isnt a rookie in that system?
I dont pvp in rookie systems but when i would go to them i would see people pvping outside the staton who arent rookies Yes, you can still PvP there. You cannot mess with the rookies there, what you do to other people is your own business. Note that dropping your property into space in a rookie system is not a bright idea. If a rookie gets curious ad takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.
Maybe it would be a good idea to somehow denote a player as a "rookie" in the overview or in their info? Otherwise it could be hard to tell when one is a rookie and one isn't. And then again there are lots of people who make alts to transport their stuff around - could this be abused to avoid the risk generally associated with transporting (although I understand it only applies in rookie systems - which those are I'm not entirely certain)? |

AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
34
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:43:00 -
[153] - Quote
Oh, saint god. A rookie is someone who's still in a t1 frigate/cruiser/industrial, doing the NPE quests. Which is basically someone <10 days old, 30 at worse. You REALLY need a description of that? |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:48:00 -
[154] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:Oh, saint god. A rookie is someone who's still in a t1 frigate/cruiser/industrial, doing the NPE quests. Which is basically someone <10 days old, 30 at worse. You REALLY need a description of that? That would be definition number what, 10 in this thread alone :p
Good to see everyone is on the same page lol |

Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
373
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:07:00 -
[155] - Quote
Simple but effective definition.
The target you killed and which resulted in getting you banned was a Rookie.
|

Chloe Dacella
Looney Clones
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:54:00 -
[156] - Quote
I've been playing for under a month. I recently got into a fight in a belt in a rookie system with someone who had been playing for a week or two longer than I had. They were in a T1 cruiser and I was in a T1 frig. I won and got a "don't **** with the rookies" message.
Now I'm not saying that I think that it's okay for anyone and everyone to **** with rookies but I think that if someone has been playing for longer than you have and has a more powerful ship than you have, then they should be fair game. The rules as they stand make it very difficult for very new players to get into PvP and piracy. |

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:24:00 -
[157] - Quote
GM Zerat wrote:There is currently a blanket ban on can baiting in rookie systems, I just wanted to bring that up as many players make this mistake. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_SystemsWarning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing. So if you are thinking about can baiting only older players in those systems, please do not.
Can flipping and can baiting are two very different things. Your page should say what you actually mean (according to the the posts by GM Homonoia) that can baiting is not allowed, but can flipping of non-rookies is ok. Specifically, the page should say, "Can Baiting in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing."
EDIT: If needed, I will be more than happy to write an independent article on can baiting. |

Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
214
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:28:00 -
[158] - Quote
AureoBroker wrote:Oh, saint god. A rookie is someone who's still in a t1 frigate/cruiser/industrial, doing the NPE quests. Which is basically someone <10 days old, 30 at worse. You REALLY need a description of that?
If you really want to shoot T1 frigates or rookie ships move on to WH's, low or null sec, or join Wardecs even Faction Warfare. What the heck are you still doing in high sec you clumsy lousy carebear?
 brb |

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:41:00 -
[159] - Quote
If rookies are worth protecting by CCP, they are worth protecting via in-game code -- not fuzzy, arbitrary, unknown or confusing rules discussed in a forum or website that not everyone will read or interpret correctly.
If rookies are to be protected, write CODE that makes their ships invulnerable to other player damage in hisec for 2 weeks (and prevent them from damaging other players). Make it impossible to steal from their cans, or them to steal from other player cans....WHATEVER. Do it in the damn code so its objective, not subjective and uniformly enforced with CLEAR warnings and results to the offender. i.e. CONCORD warning the person you are target locking is a 'protected person'. Whatever.....
There is an in-game crime system is there not? Why the frak is this not being used? Who was the genius who decided the in-game systems would not be used, and player policies enforced by website and forums? Brilliant 
The point is that if you do this in the code you do it once, for everyone, forever. If you implement your rookie protection policy via TOS website, forums and other ineffective means however you fail, and fail forever...
|

Sin Pew
Dakini Rising The Kali Cartel
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:59:00 -
[160] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:If rookies are worth protecting by CCP, they are worth protecting via in-game code -- not fuzzy, arbitrary, unknown or confusing rules discussed in a forum or website that not everyone will read or interpret correctly. If rookies are to be protected, write CODE that makes their ships invulnerable to other player damage in hisec for 2 weeks (and prevent them from damaging other players). Make it impossible to steal from their cans, or them to steal from other player cans....WHATEVER. Do it in the damn code so its objective, not subjective and uniformly enforced with CLEAR warnings and results to the offender. i.e. CONCORD warning the person you are target locking is a 'protected person'. Whatever..... There is an in-game crime system is there not? Why the frak is this not being used? Who was the genius who decided the in-game systems would not be used, and player policies enforced by website and forums? Brilliant  The point is that if you do this in the code you do it once, for everyone, forever. If you implement your rookie protection policy via TOS website, forums and other ineffective means however you fail, and fail forever... Hard-coding any form of invulnerability to rookies will inevitably lead to abuse with throw-away rookie alts hauling stuff across New Eden in gank-proof industrials.
If it is't coded already, it's just because it isn't as simple as you imagined. The major issue is the lack of official definition of a rookie, not finding how to protect said rookies, if rules and definitions were clear then GM sanctions wouldn't be discussed. "- You want a sandwich, Bacon?" Support horizontal scrollbars in Eve! Click here, tyvm. |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7937
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:00:00 -
[161] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:GM Zerat wrote:There is currently a blanket ban on can baiting in rookie systems, I just wanted to bring that up as many players make this mistake. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_SystemsWarning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing. So if you are thinking about can baiting only older players in those systems, please do not. Can flipping and can baiting are two very different things. Your page should say what you actually mean (according to the the posts by GM Homonoia) that can baiting is not allowed, but can flipping of non-rookies is ok. Specifically, the page should say, "Can Baiting in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing." EDIT: If needed, I will be more than happy to write an independent article on can baiting. Yes, this is a ridiculous problem.
The rules being intentionally fuzzy and not clearly presented is one thing; the rules being actually incorrectly written is something completely different GÇö it's very bad. To go with the reckless driving example from before, what we have here is a rule that says that reckless driving is illegal and then gives GÇ£driving down the road at legal speedGÇ¥ as an example of reckless driving.
The rule as presented in that wiki page is almost entirely incorrect and does not correspond with what the GMs are now telling us: can flipping is not considered griefing in the rookie systems. You need to fix that page to say what the rules actually are.
On a more meta level, you (the GMs) can't really be surprised that the players are asking you to define the rules a bit more clearly when it becomes obvious that the rules are so fuzzy that the official description of them are false and do not reflect the rules as you apply them. 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?
|

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:19:00 -
[162] - Quote
Sin Pew wrote:Hard-coding any form of invulnerability to rookies will inevitably lead to abuse with throw-away rookie alts hauling stuff across New Eden in gank-proof industrials.
If it is't coded already, it's just because it isn't as simple as you imagined. The major issue is the lack of official definition of a rookie, not finding how to protect said rookies, if rules and definitions were clear then GM sanctions wouldn't be discussed.
Posting policies and rules on websites and forums is inherently fail because not everyone will read them or interpret correctly, so rookies still get pwned = fail.
Your scenario for 'abuse' of a code-based policy can be addressed, its just a case of having the will to do it...
For example in your contrived example you could limit invulnerability to certain rookie ships, and to specific rookie systems; giving the rooking a warning that if he leaves his rookie ship or rookie system his protections are stripped (like going into losec or null).
The point is for every contrived example why 'not' to do it in the code, I can come up with a remedy, and that should be the iterative (agile) act of continually polishing the game, so everyone benefits, uniformly; not polishing postings on a website many will never know exists.... Killboard |

Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
195
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:32:00 -
[163] - Quote
I don't understand the insistence on objectivity - is it really that hard to see that any "objective" system can be easily gamed and that circumstances and intent often matter just as much as the actual deed?
It reminds me very much of the notion (which seems to be especially widespread in the comment sections of tech sites) that every RL law will always be enforced to the letter, that legal proof must not leave any room for theoretical false positives and that the legal system can be easily gamed as long as each of your actions could be considered legal/harmless on its own.
It is funny that I say this (as I'm not from a country with a common law tradition and would expect people from common law countries to have internalized this notion much more naturally), but RL law is not "objective" and it is not meant to be "objective" either. Just because laws exist does not mean they have to be fully enforced every single time, the standard for proof is common-sense aka "reasonable doubt" not "complete certainty", supposed intent and foreseeable consequences of your actions matter a lot for the decision of how to apply existing law to your case and if you found an obvious loophole the judge will base his ruling on the intention of the law rather than its exact wording.
No rule can be written perfectly and the reason we have human judges is to prevent technical loopholes from getting exploited by criminals and to avoid overly harsh sentences in cases where the written law cannot account for the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case.
The more specific rules you demand, the less room is left for leniency and wisdom.
I honestly do not understand how a purely mechanistic approach to law could be expected to render justice... |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:57:00 -
[164] - Quote
WTF is so difficult about clarifying the rules? Using the logic "if we define it, people will do it" is absurd on its face. The reason you define it is so that people won't do it and that those who do can be punished consistently. If people come GÇ£up to the lineGÇ¥ thatGÇÖs an indicator THEY ARENGÇÖT DOING ANYTHING WRONG. By definition! If there is no rule, how does a GM know how to decide? If there is no line, youGÇÖre guaranteeing that your enforcement policies will be necessarily arbitrary, as any particular case may be ruled GÇÿbadGÇÖ by one GM and not another. YouGÇÖre creating a situation in which there will be inconsistency.
In this post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1467790#post1467790 a GM states that the rules are not restricted to Rookie Systems and may, depending on whether weGÇÖre good little boys and girls, be extended to many other systems. The concern appears to be shooting noobs in general. Not baiting them with mechanics they donGÇÖt understand; not outright ganking them; not screwing with their heads. Also in this thread-- GÇ£The rule is GÇÿdo not mess with rookies,GÇÖ and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS GÇÿdo not do it'.GÇ¥ YouGÇÖve gone a step further with GÇ£If a rookie gets curious and takes from the can you had better not shoot him. You do not want a rookie to nab your stuff, do not drop the stuff in a rookie system.GÇ¥
Please clarify: 1. Outside of a rookie system, can I shoot a rookie? 2. Inside a rookie system, can a rookie steal with impunity, even from other rookies? 3. What is a rookie? How many days, weeks, hours? 4. Is a rookie really a rookie if heGÇÖs an alt on an account with a 6yr old character?
You could simplify this for everyone involved. Just lock the rookie gate from the outside. Put a big sign over the inside gate with a GÇ£Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter HereGÇ¥ style warning. Outside of the rookie system, youGÇÖre fair game. Update the SOE arc for level 2 players or use higher standings qualifications to weed the newest noobs out of the mix. I find it difficult to believe that many 1 week old noobs run the SOE arc. Or 2 or 3 week old for that matter. If youGÇÖre ready to help Sister Alitura save the universe, youGÇÖre ready to face the kind of people who want to destroy the universe.
finally, a poster above says less than 30 days is a rookie. Does that mean the hordes of 2 week hero suicide alts get a free pass? Cause I'd like to bait some miners.
|

Savage Angel
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:06:00 -
[165] - Quote
Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.
|

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:18:00 -
[166] - Quote
Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.
If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes. It's simple: what is a rookie? where can i not kill them? What's so hard about that? If the answer is, you can't kill them anywhere, get ready for the jackals to start noob alts and begin setting things on fire. I, for one, am already giving thought to using a noob to steal ore from other noobs. The fallout should be funny. |

Haulie Berry
206
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:23:00 -
[167] - Quote
I could swear I remember reading some lengthy, apologetic schlock revolving largely around "communication" at some point following monoclegate.
Was the GM team not CC'd on that memo? |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
503
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:33:00 -
[168] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.
If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes.
And we have volumes of well written law books and yet there are still loopholes. The same would happen here, CCP could grab their lawyer, have him write the entire hall of Eve laws and bylaws, and we would still end up with people finding any little loophole or simply claiming that they didn't know because they couldn't be ass'd to read the Encyclopedia Britannica of Eve rules. GM Homonia, I feel, has given a very well defined answer that suits the purpose very well. You guys are looking for a number and that will not work. I can easily give you several loophole scenario's when we base a rookie's status on just his age. It is better that they have more of a gray area where they can handle things case by case. Mean while I 'm sure you guys can step up a little and hunt players who are a couple months old, I'm fairly certain you may be able to handle them. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
661
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:34:00 -
[169] - Quote
I'm failing to understand how it is even remotely appropriate to but blanket bans on PVP in systems that are local trade hubs, border lowsec and contain non-rookie mission agents. With arnon considered a rookie system you can now run L3 security missions and nobody is allowed to screw with you while you do them and in a previous thread GM Homonoia literally threatened to expand the definition of rookie systems to include Hek; a system with multiple L4 mission agents.
At this rate we're set on a path to end up with a number of highsec systems where people can carebear away forever in their 20 billion isk mission ships and nobody can mess with them because GMs are too lazy to actually use human judgement and would rather have idiotic blanket policies. |

Savage Angel
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:40:00 -
[170] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that.
If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes. It's simple: what is a rookie? where can i not kill them? What's so hard about that? If the answer is, you can't kill them anywhere, get ready for the jackals to start noob alts and begin setting things on fire. I, for one, am already giving thought to using a noob to steal ore from other noobs. The fallout should be funny.
Thank you for proving the point. |
|

Haulie Berry
207
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:55:00 -
[171] - Quote
Something Random wrote:
Its real simple as the GM stated.
Get out of rookie systems. They are saying ANYWHERE else you can pretty much do whatever.
BUT you seem to insist youll live in like 20 systems in the freaking 5000+ system universe ? Logic fail. OR you like kicking the smallest kids in kindergarten still at the age of 30 probably.
Except as of yesterday, I was seeing GM posts saying, "And, also, don't be mean to rookies in other systems, either, or we'll have to make THOSE "rookie" systems, too."
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some clarification when this kind of policy creep is being explicitly threatened.
Could also, as an aside, stand a great deal less editorializing from Homonoia. There is a good reason that policy enforcement types are generally expected to shelve their attitude and don the guise of a highly professional automaton. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
479
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:17:00 -
[172] - Quote
None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Jessy Berbers
Tribuo Quod Victum The AirShip Pirates
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:22:00 -
[173] - Quote
I agree, go hunt someone who is able to shoot back, Cowards. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7941
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:30:00 -
[174] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. 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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
479
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:32:00 -
[175] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. 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.
Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case.
Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
503
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:33:00 -
[176] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. 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 have to scan down a rookie's mission, fly into it, steal his can, and pop him when he attacks? What is he hiding in there? Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
|

ISD LoneLynx
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
28

|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:53:00 -
[177] - Quote
Some posts were deleted as inappropriate personal attacks or for being inconstructive (along with replies for such posts)
Keep your discussion with decent grade of respects to your colleagues. ISD LoneLynx Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

No More Heroes
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
633
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:00:00 -
[178] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
Seems pretty clear to me. . |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:06:00 -
[179] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Trappist Monk wrote:Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that. If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes. And we have volumes of well written law books and yet there are still loopholes. The same would happen here, CCP could grab their lawyer, have him write the entire hall of Eve laws and bylaws, and we would still end up with people finding any little loophole or simply claiming that they didn't know because they couldn't be ass'd to read the Encyclopedia Britannica of Eve rules. GM Homonia, I feel, has given a very well defined answer that suits the purpose very well. You guys are looking for a number and that will not work. I can easily give you several loophole scenario's when we base a rookie's status on just his age. It is better that they have more of a gray area where they can handle things case by case. Mean while I 'm sure you guys can step up a little and hunt players who are a couple months old, I'm fairly certain you may be able to handle them. 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. |

Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:09:00 -
[180] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place.
This.
Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone. |
|

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:10:00 -
[181] - Quote
No More Heroes wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. Seems pretty clear to me. too bad they muddled it in the other threads. if it were this simple, i would agree with you. but it isn't, as they're creeping the changes into non-rookie systems |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:11:00 -
[182] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. This. Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone. a 6yr vet who sets up a noob scout alt is not a noob. for god's sake listen to yourself. its like you never played this game. |

Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:13:00 -
[183] - Quote
If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection. |

Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:14:00 -
[184] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:Ban Bindy wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. This. Posting whines onto this thread about needing to clarify what is a rookie just shows how desperate so many people are to shoot rookies in the first place. The screams for definition are, as usual, requests for a way around the rules. Leave the rookies alone. a 6yr vet who sets up a noob scout alt is not a noob. for god's sake listen to yourself. its like you never played this game.
For god's sake listen to yourself. It's like you never did anything but play this game and it's far, far too important to you. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
503
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:27:00 -
[185] - Quote
Trappist Monk wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Trappist Monk wrote:Savage Angel wrote:Now we see true colors. ITT a bunch of jerks trying to find any loophole to be a jerk. Read the GM response - the rule is vague to keep you jackals from doing just that. If the rules are written well and the system is designed well, there should be no loopholes. And we have volumes of well written law books and yet there are still loopholes. The same would happen here, CCP could grab their lawyer, have him write the entire hall of Eve laws and bylaws, and we would still end up with people finding any little loophole or simply claiming that they didn't know because they couldn't be ass'd to read the Encyclopedia Britannica of Eve rules. GM Homonia, I feel, has given a very well defined answer that suits the purpose very well. You guys are looking for a number and that will not work. I can easily give you several loophole scenario's when we base a rookie's status on just his age. It is better that they have more of a gray area where they can handle things case by case. Mean while I 'm sure you guys can step up a little and hunt players who are a couple months old, I'm fairly certain you may be able to handle them. 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 and I are actually on the same page, we are just seeing different conclusions to the matter. The main problem that many of us are talking about is that the infraction in question that spawned this thread along with its brother yesterday, is that the rookies are being targeted while running this epic arc mission outside of the rookie systems and they may only be days old. So should a box appear telling them that by accepting this quest they acknowledge that leaving the system may result in injury or death by a player with nothing better to do? And you can't tell me that players can't tell the difference. I make a living myself scanning out mission runners and pissing them off and I find that a frigate is much harder to pinpoint than a battleship and that tells me that these people really have to work hard to make the mistake. On the same note we now have a GM claiming that there will be blanket bans in the starter systems thus giving older players immunity. I agree that this is also wrong. I also agree that a rookie in a badger suddenly hauling millions in goods most likely isn't a rookie. I agree that a rookie who heads into lowsec to watch a gate is definitely not a rookie. I also agree that not everybody who runs the epic arcs is not rookie. But as the GM stated, if they tell us that a rookie is somebody who is 8 days old, players will just hunt people at 9 days. You draw a line and people will find a way to bend it. You leave it gray and they tend to be a bit more cautious.
And Mr. ISD guy, why did you delete my question to Tippia? I did not personally attack him, it dealt directly with the rest of the thread, and was essentially the same question asked as the guy above me (now above you), only worded differently. Why did my question go away. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7942
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:30:00 -
[186] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. If it is made absolutely and in every way illegal to attack rookies, then anyone with any kinds of brains will keep creating rookies for any form of risky hauling, travel, and/or spying.
Even if (in fact, especially if) there are non-public GM-discretion rules that someone who's using his umpty-eleventh recycled alt to do this will not be considered a rookie and is free to attack, there is no way for the rest of us to determine this and figure out that, yes, we can indeed attack this apparent rookie without censure, because he is in fact not a rookie at all. Even tying it to the account age and providing a public GÇ£newbieGÇ¥ flag on characters on that account will not stop this GÇö people will use trials and buddy accounts to create the same protection against their characters. The outside capriciousness of the GMs' decisions makes it suicidal to try to stop even a blatantly obvious non-rookie because there is no way of knowing whether they will think it's as obvious as you do (and the obviousness might turn out to be wrong).
Suddenly, we have an entire class of characters that can do immense damage to people around them, but which cannot be retaliated against or interdicted. This would be far more damaging to the game than the occasional innocent rookie getting blown up.
Ban Bindy wrote:If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection. The harm is that we can't make the distinction, so the GMs would never have the opportunity to make it GÇö no-one will be stupid enough to attack such a character because you never know (and that's also why the moronic GÇ£try it GÇö if you get banned it was wrongGÇ¥ argument presented earlier is so insanely and laughably stupid). It creates a layer of protection that these older players should never have, and it does so because it is impossible to distinguish them from actual rookies by those who really need to be able to make that distinction GÇö the players. 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
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:35:00 -
[187] - Quote
Personally, I'm really at a loss for words here, sept this. Good for CCP. It's really very very simple, just leave the new players alone. Get it, just leave them alone. When in doubt just don't mess with them. Once again all this ragging debate to simply preserve the right for weak PVP players to kill the newest players in the game. Honestly it just never ceases to amaze me.
I not for one single second, believe this is what CCP envisioned when they created this game. It's bad for there business, for these guys to run off the new talent before they even get started. It's bad for real PVP'ers as they end up ditching the game before they ever have the opportunity to improve, then bring a real fight to guys like me. IMO it just all around sucks. It's just bad in virtually all aspects, except for providing the weakest of targets for so called PVP players that can do no better.
Then there's you guys that have to define when there not new anymore, Gawd really! |

Haulie Berry
207
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:46:00 -
[188] - Quote
Chandaris wrote:Stay out of the rookie systems, and if you have to go to them don't go there with the intention of greifing / killing / stealing from the noobs..
It's not that hard, and if you're looking for cut and dry rules you won't get them. The Gm's likely use a heavy amount of judgement as not two situations in eve are the same.
If you wanna grief people, don't do it in the newb systems.. it is that simple.. you're over thinking it.
Bravo on responding to a point that's not even under contention.
It's not that simple, because they've threatened to arbitrarily redefine other systems as "rookie" systems.
So now the rule is, apparently, "Don't gank rookies in rookie systems and, also, don't gank them in other systems or we'll turn them into rookie systems, too," which is a pretty obvious and grossly egregious bit of policy creep. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7944
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:52:00 -
[189] - Quote
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on! You find a Badger I carrying 25 billion in technetium coming out of gate cloak on a the EC-P8R gate in Torrinos, check him. Under a month. Move onGǪ? 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
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:56:00 -
[190] - Quote
The point here is so very simple. #1 use your brains, don't kill beginner players. If you can't figure out who they are, who's the weak link here hmm.
Sunshine and Lollipops what do you think??? |
|

Haulie Berry
207
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:56:00 -
[191] - Quote
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
Yes, you clearly don't understand, because that's really not the rule. The rule as we know it is don't mess with rookies in rookie systems.
Quote:You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on!
Rookie grabs your bait can? Let him leave!
What is wrong with any of that? Afraid it might be an alt gaining Intel on you.... in high sec? Seriously?
Well for starters, in none of those situations is the "rookie" protected by policy, unless the occurrence is within a very specific handful of systems.
Quote:A rookie comes into your low sec/null system and hangs around longer than he should? Blast him. You might -maybe- get a warning sure,
...what? Are you high?
You seem to have absolutely zero grasp of even the vaguest definition of the rules as they exist. |

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:57:00 -
[192] - Quote
Chloe Dacella wrote:I've been playing for under a month. I recently got into a fight in a belt in a rookie system with someone who had been playing for a week or two longer than I had. They were in a T1 cruiser and I was in a T1 frig. I won and got a "don't **** with the rookies" message.
Now I'm not saying that I think that it's okay for anyone and everyone to **** with rookies but I think that if someone has been playing for longer than you have and has a more powerful ship than you have, then they should be fair game. The rules as they stand make it very difficult for very new players to get into PvP and piracy.
since everyone seems to be ignoring the reason this thread was bumped in the first place. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:58:00 -
[193] - Quote
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on!
Rookie grabs your bait can? Let him leave!
What is wrong with any of that? Afraid it might be an alt gaining Intel on you.... in high sec? Seriously?
A rookie comes into your low sec/null system and hangs around longer than he should? Blast him. You might -maybe- get a warning sure, then just kindly explain to the GM that he overstayed his welcome, or you warned him. Especially true if they happen to be attempting to follow you or just floating around outside a gate or station, for an extended period --read: like 10+ minutes--
Probably don't have to worry much about rookies in Null. I've seen many of Rookie ships left behind by the NPC gate guards.
Use your brain that's all the rule asks for, if your brain fails you then take the slap on the wrist and move on. Thanks to kill reports there is a clear difference between an "oops" every once in a great while and a supposed "oops" 4 times in the same day.
To add in about flagging Rookies in any form: Flagging Rookies only makes it easier to spot them for people who want to attack them. Yes this does make it easier to spot who is griefing them, but those that want to still will, and be more ruthless about it knowing they will be banned. Making them immune to aggression opens a windows for exploitation, the phrase "Your an idiot if you don't transport stuff using a rookie alt" would become extremely popular overnight. It happens in other games with similar mechanics. Because an alt on a 6 year old account isn't a rookie.
Becaue not every rookie needs a month to get used to the game.
Because some new players actually do jump into PvP and bating shortly after joining EVE.
And "don't mess with rookies" doesn't account for any of that.
You need a new account timer, not a broadbased rule that isn't coded. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:59:00 -
[194] - Quote
Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? |

Chandaris
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
76
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:00:00 -
[195] - Quote
Dakeen.. Protection only applies in the rookie +9 and +1.0 systems afaik..
If a rookie wanders into lowsec, he is fair game.. There is a big friendly warning to that effect that he gets.. Inability to read ain't my problem. |

Dakeen Kurvora
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:01:00 -
[196] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on! You find a Badger I carrying 25 billion in technetium coming out of gate cloak on a the EC-P8R gate in Torrinos, check him. Under a month. Move onGǪ?
Unfortunately you seemed to have missed the part about using your brain. Obviously that is no rookie sir. Fire away. Like I said if your brain fails you then take the slap on the wrist. It's --extremely-- unlikely that a GM will do anything in that situation. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7944
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:02:00 -
[197] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? That's just it: we don't know. We are not allowed to know. An actual rookie can most certainly be carrying 25 billion worth of anything, so why shouldn't I be able to interdict that and roll around in the cash just because he's new?
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:Unfortunately you seemed to have missed the part about using your brain. Obviously that is no rookie sir. Says you. How do I know that? What happens when it turns out that, indeed, he was a rookie GÇö first account ever and enlisted as a hauler by people who wanted to move the stuff under protection of the GÇ£don't shoot rookiesGÇ¥ law, and now the GMs (who didn't agree with you because they could check it out and see that he was a legitimate rookie) nuked my account.
This is why I'm saying what I'm saying: we must be able to shoot rookies, because my obvious is not your obvious is not the GMs obvious, and testing by shooting and seeing if it results in a ban is not a workable solution. 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?
|

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:03:00 -
[198] - Quote
Chandaris wrote:Dakeen.. Protection only applies in the rookie +9 and +1.0 systems afaik..
If a rookie wanders into lowsec, he is fair game.. There is a big friendly warning to that effect that he gets.. Inability to read ain't my problem.
They also get a big friendly warning before taking from someone else's wreck or can, but that has yet to prevent anything. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:03:00 -
[199] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie????
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! |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
821
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:05:00 -
[200] - Quote
Interestingly before I started playing EVE I had read the forums for a few months along with the entire wiki and a few fan sites. I probably knew more about EVE than some 1 years olds do now.
The problem: with the way rules are now, a rookie could grief the PvPers in Arnon (grief as in the bannable offence) by continually taking their cans and they can't do anything about it. |
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
504
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:10:00 -
[201] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? 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!
I think that is the point that both sides are trying to make but they are looking at it from different angles and neither wants to be wrong on the internet forum. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:14:00 -
[202] - Quote
Greg Valanti, there are all kinds of opportunities for new players to do combat and Piracy. Join factional warfare for the fights. Heck if you do well enough on the beginner missions, you do actually get an invite to move to pirate factional systems. In the world of eve, you have to work at being good at something. Nothing comes easy. I've actually spent a fair amount of time doing what I'm beginning to call old school piracy. I actually did really well ISK wise, had a guy in a freighter eject from his ship when he thought he was going to die. We actually got the ship, and every single thing that was in it. Still have the freighter to this day. I did all my piracy in low sec. Home of the pirates. Head out there, make a few friends, you'll be camping gates before you know it.
I get it, your both newer players, you wanted to play pirate, the other guy didn't. He was still a new player. Is is so damned hard to just respect that? |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:15:00 -
[203] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? 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! I think that is the point that both sides are trying to make but they are looking at it from different angles and neither wants to be wrong on the internet forum.
Yeah, I've noticed some people want to be able to shoot rookies. Doesn't make sense to me, rookies should be protected; just not this way.
I'll just keep repeating this because I honestly have nothing better to do with my life.
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
This rule only creats a safe zone, helping people who stay in that zone, but doesn't actually help rookies overall. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:19:00 -
[204] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. 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. Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case.
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. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:20:00 -
[205] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
Cool, perfect safety for my High Value-Low volume hauls of Officer Gear, Titan and T2 BPOs. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Aethlyn
EVE University Ivy League
130
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:21:00 -
[206] - Quote
Come on, people, just apply common sense. Do you really have to rely on trying to grief (or gank or whatever) players in those few 1.0 systems that are designated as newbie starting areas? Don't even try to get people there; problem solved.
Also, why should someone carry PLEX around a newbie system? Wait till he leaves it, shoot him down.
Just think back of your first few days in Eve. Where did you hang out, what did you do? Just think back and don't do things you wouldn't have liked to see and you should be pretty much save. Looking for more thoughts? Read [url]http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/[/url] or follow me on [url]http://twitter.com/Aethlyn[/url]. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:22:00 -
[207] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
Cool, perfect safety for my High Value-Low volume hauls of Officer Gear, Titan and T2 BPOs. It's not though.
Even an act like storing X amount of isk worth of goods in an ibus can remove a timer. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:24:00 -
[208] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn, ya know I'm not going to imply that CCP needs to code anything. With the up coming Dust release, and just gobbs of other issues, I actually think there plate is pretty full. Especially when a little simple real life etiquette would do just fine in this situation.
OK Just a simple question. Who in here thinks a 2 week old player hauling 25 Billion isk worth of anything in a T1 industrial would be a rookie? Could I see hands please. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
504
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:25:00 -
[209] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. 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. Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. 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.
Many of us have really gone over the rookie hauling tons of goods scenario. Now I'll attempt to ask the question that got erased earlier. The main situation that brought up this thread and its twin yesterday was about a guy going into a rookies epic arc mission that was in a system that was not designated starter. So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him? Is he carrying Avatar BPO's in his hold as well? Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
821
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:25:00 -
[210] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:.... Tippia, just think about what your saying there would ya. I can figure out he's not a rookie, CCP I'm certain can figure this out. What about you. 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. |
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
504
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:27:00 -
[211] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:.... Tippia, just think about what your saying there would ya. I can figure out he's not a rookie, CCP I'm certain can figure this out. What about you. 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.
Why do people feel the need to pvp in a starter system?
Edit: I should clarify to Can PVP, wardecs excluded. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7946
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:29:00 -
[212] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:Come on, people, just apply common sense. Do you really have to rely on trying to grief (or gank or whatever) players in those few 1.0 systems that are designated as newbie starting areas? And again: that is not the problem. The problem is that the rules for those systems are seeping out into completely different ones, potentially opening up huge and easily exploitable holes in the entire industry-PvP sector.
Quote:Also, why should someone carry PLEX around a newbie system? Wait till he leaves it, shoot him down. Again, the problem is that as the rules are going to apply outside the system, I won't be allowed to.
Quote:Just think back of your first few days in Eve. Where did you hang out, what did you do? Jita. Laughing at the scams. Dodging the ganks and smartbombs.
Mrr Woodcock wrote:OK Just a simple question. Who in here thinks a 2 week old player hauling 25 Billion isk worth of anything in a T1 industrial would be a rookie? Could I see hands please. GǪmissing the point that he very well could be, and that there is no way of knowing before the GMs take you by the ear. In fact, just the fact that he's doing it in a T1 indy rather seems to suggest that he is indeed a rookie, because that's a classic rookie mistake. 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?
|

Dakeen Kurvora
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[213] - Quote
I just remember a GM saying "Don't mess with rookies" nothing specific about systems. Although I was aware of the "Rookie System" rule as well. So what
If it is only in "Rookie Systems" why worry about who is a rookie or not in those specific systems? Almost all situations can be resolved outside said systems. One jump out. The guy carrying 25b worth of stuff isn't just orbiting the station is he? He is either going somewhere or came from somewhere right? So follow him out. If he is headed to the station there than well that in unfortunately a lost opportunity. Question is, was I their waiting at a gate for someone to come along inside that Rookie System? My fault for not being on the other side of the gate.
If it extends into other systems, again think first guys. Generally if you have to it would be a bad idea. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[214] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:
CCP needs to code in a new account timer that prevents hostile action for a set amount of time. Only the new account can remove that timer with their own actions. They shouldn't be protected in one system, they should be protected in hi sec over a specific threshold for duration of time. Not every rookie is going to spend their first 2 or 3 weeks in a rookie system.
Cool, perfect safety for my High Value-Low volume hauls of Officer Gear, Titan and T2 BPOs. It's not though. Even an act like storing X amount of isk worth of goods in an ibus can remove a timer.
How much is a T2 BPO worth? There's no open market for them for CCP to pull fair market value.
What's to stop people from tricking newbies from removing their timers?
The point is that We're fine with protecting rookies in rookie systems. Maybe even give them a message that they receive special protection in those systems.
The issue is asking what a rookie is, given that non-rookies live in rookie systems.
Giving rookies unlimited safety for x time not only is easily abusable, but would lead to a fair shock when their timer runs out and the stupid that they've been getting away with starts biting them.
EvE does not need FFA safe zones, and it doesn't need (for reasons of abusability/culture shock) traveling protections for rookies. So defining what is a rookie in the rookie systems is important. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1052
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on! You find a Badger I carrying 25 billion in technetium coming out of gate cloak on a the EC-P8R gate in Torrinos, check him. Under a month. Move onGǪ?
Well of course. He is a rookie.  |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:30:00 -
[216] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:.... Tippia, just think about what your saying there would ya. I can figure out he's not a rookie, CCP I'm certain can figure this out. What about you. 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.
Let's just say I'm feeling pretty sure they would
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:32:00 -
[217] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. 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. Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. 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. Many of us have really gone over the rookie hauling tons of goods scenario. Now I'll attempt to ask the question that got erased earlier. The main situation that brought up this thread and its twin yesterday was about a guy going into a rookies epic arc mission that was in a system that was not designated starter. So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him? Is he carrying Avatar BPO's in his hold as well?
Not a rookie system. He's stepped into his big boy pants by leaving the rookie system whether he knows it or not. I would not be averse to a warning upon first leaving the rookie systems, or a mission that explains the basics of HS aggro mechanics (in fact this would be an awesome addition to the NPE). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
481
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:34:00 -
[218] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. If it is made absolutely and in every way illegal to attack rookies, then anyone with any kinds of brains will keep creating rookies for any form of risky hauling, travel, and/or spying. Even if (in fact, especially if) there are non-public GM-discretion rules that someone who's using his umpty-eleventh recycled alt to do this will not be considered a rookie and is free to attack, there is no way for the rest of us to determine this and figure out that, yes, we can indeed attack this apparent rookie without censure, because he is in fact not a rookie at all. Even tying it to the account age and providing a public GÇ£newbieGÇ¥ flag on characters on that account will not stop this GÇö people will use trials and buddy accounts to create the same protection against their characters. The outside capriciousness of the GMs' decisions makes it suicidal to try to stop even a blatantly obvious non-rookie because there is no way of knowing whether they will think it's as obvious as you do (and the obviousness might turn out to be wrong). Suddenly, we have an entire class of characters that can do immense damage to people around them, but which cannot be retaliated against or interdicted. This would be far more damaging to the game than the occasional innocent rookie getting blown up. Ban Bindy wrote:If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection. The harm is that we can't make the distinction, so the GMs would never have the opportunity to make it GÇö no-one will be stupid enough to attack such a character because you never know (and that's also why the moronic GÇ£try it GÇö if you get banned it was wrongGÇ¥ argument presented earlier is so insanely and laughably stupid). It creates a layer of protection that these older players should never have, and it does so because it is impossible to distinguish them from actual rookies by those who really need to be able to make that distinction GÇö the players.
The detailed explanation is much appreciated  Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
740

|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:36:00 -
[219] - Quote
Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible.
1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems 2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game.
The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
821
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:36:00 -
[220] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:.... Tippia, just think about what your saying there would ya. I can figure out he's not a rookie, CCP I'm certain can figure this out. What about you. 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. Why do people feel the need to pvp in a starter system? Edit: I should clarify to Can PVP, wardecs excluded. Oh no's Rookies fighting in starter systems!!!
And yes, Arnon certainly is a starter system.
|
|

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1052
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:36:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:40:00 -
[222] - Quote
I actually trust the GM's in this matter. Please do me a favor, help them, if need be, cut them a little slack, please grow them for me, lol. So they grow up into big strong veteran players for me to shoot at.
The GM's can tell if they're real beginners or not. I actually think it's kind of cool, they can blind side some of these bottom feeders, I think they deserve it. |

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:43:00 -
[223] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing.
Is there anyway that you can change the Rookie System page so that the warning states that can-baiting is considered griefing in these systems, not can-flipping, as you have mentioned in both related threads? As it stands, the wiki page is in direct conflict with your statements.
EDIT: I also want to thank you for having the patience to read through a second thread and put together a full reply to this. I greatly appreciate your time and effort in clarifying things - it's been a great help. |

Haulie Berry
207
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:44:00 -
[224] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing.
You just said in (2) that nobody is protected outside of rookie systems. Then you went on to say in (7), "But don't mess with them anyway, " which, as a GM edict, could be interpreted as policy. So now you have two policy points that directly contradict each other, and (4) is the cherry on top - "or else".
You couldn't make it through a brief synopsis of your position without contradicting both yourself and policy as it is currently known. This should probably be taken as an indication that you need to rethink things. |

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1054
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:44:00 -
[225] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria.
Oh, so you are saying we players are stupid. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
|

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:46:00 -
[226] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Greg Valanti, there are all kinds of opportunities for new players to do combat and Piracy. Join factional warfare for the fights. Heck if you do well enough on the beginner missions, you do actually get an invite to move to pirate factional systems. In the world of eve, you have to work at being good at something. Nothing comes easy. I've actually spent a fair amount of time doing what I'm beginning to call old school piracy. I actually did really well ISK wise, had a guy in a freighter eject from his ship when he thought he was going to die. We actually got the ship, and every single thing that was in it. Still have the freighter to this day. I did all my piracy in low sec. Home of the pirates. Head out there, make a few friends, you'll be camping gates before you know it.
I moved on to other things months ago. Any recent activity of mine in Clellinon was war dec related. Chloe was only recruited to corp after the incident in question. So while I know about pvp opportunities and game mechanics, the rookies in these systems do not - and yet they are still being warned/banned over fighting other rookies (or even players more veteran than themselves!).
A big part of the problem is that the warnings for hostile aggression are inadequate. New players will click "OK" 9/10 times without reading the warning, then cry about their death when simply reading the pop up would have spared them. This creates a problem where now newbies have no exposure to or understanding of these aggression mechanics before venturing out of their rookie systems. Something for the NPE team to consider I suppose. |

Dakeen Kurvora
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:48:00 -
[227] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria. Oh, so you are saying we players are stupid. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Pretty sure he means we can't see what they see. |

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
274
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:48:00 -
[228] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:EI Digin wrote:There are many many situations where a "new player", either a legitimate new player or a veteran with an axe to grind and a trial account, can exploit the system resulting in others becoming banned.
Off of the top of my head: - Using a 1 day player/alt in a frigate to fight wartargets in a rookie zone - Hauling overly expensive gear in a small frigate or industrial
Also you have situations where rookies who do not know what they are doing end up doing things like can flipping other rookies resulting in hilarious consequences and liberal use of the banhammer.
It's better to have people learn lessons the hard way than to coddle them through the game, because they will end up being griefed at one point or another. And if you're going to have player immunity, make it so that the rookies can't do any harm either, because you should know that eve players will take every advantage they can get to **** people off. If a "rookie" like that can take these actions he is obviously not a rookie and is thus not protected. Common sense; apply it.
It's not out of line for a rookie to join a corporation that is wardecced or to haul something between stations for money. There are many other situations where a new player could legitimately enter a scenario where they could blow up or blow someone else up due to the hands of another player in EvE Online, a spaceship game designed around blowing other spaceships. |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
744

|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:50:00 -
[229] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. You just said in (2) that nobody is protected outside of rookie systems. Then you went on to say in (7), "Even though they're not protected outside of those systems, don't mess with them anywhere else, either " which, as a GM edict, could be interpreted as policy. So now you have two policy points that directly contradict each other, and (4) is the cherry on top - "or else". You couldn't make it through a brief synopsis of your position without contradicting both yourself and policy as it is currently known. This should probably be taken as an indication that you need to rethink things.
We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:51:00 -
[230] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria.
I'm fine lumping (as far as other players are concerned) new alts in with new players, I'm just concerned about where (roughly) the line is drawn on age.
Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
I understand that you can't be precise with publicly available information, and that's fine.
We would just like to have some sensitive* but not particularly specific* public test, while you have your second, sensitive and specific, GM test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
*To paraphrase the wiki, a Sensitive test finds all newbies, a specific test excludes all non-newbies. A sensitive and moderately specific test finds all newbies but has some false positive results for non-newbies. A sensitive and highly specific test finds all newbies and has very few false positives (the test the GMs have currently). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
744

|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:52:00 -
[231] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:EI Digin wrote:There are many many situations where a "new player", either a legitimate new player or a veteran with an axe to grind and a trial account, can exploit the system resulting in others becoming banned.
Off of the top of my head: - Using a 1 day player/alt in a frigate to fight wartargets in a rookie zone - Hauling overly expensive gear in a small frigate or industrial
Also you have situations where rookies who do not know what they are doing end up doing things like can flipping other rookies resulting in hilarious consequences and liberal use of the banhammer.
It's better to have people learn lessons the hard way than to coddle them through the game, because they will end up being griefed at one point or another. And if you're going to have player immunity, make it so that the rookies can't do any harm either, because you should know that eve players will take every advantage they can get to **** people off. If a "rookie" like that can take these actions he is obviously not a rookie and is thus not protected. Common sense; apply it. It's not out of line for a rookie to join a corporation that is wardecced or to haul something between stations for money. There are many other situations where a new player could legitimately enter a scenario where they could blow up or blow someone else up due to the hands of another player in EvE Online, a spaceship game designed around blowing other spaceships.
And this is why we will not define what a rookie is. Once again, common sense; a rookie involves himself in a war, perhaps not so rookie anymore. Now, stop coming up with hypothetical situations and apply some common sense. Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
744

|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:53:00 -
[232] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer.
Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:54:00 -
[233] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer.
I literally lol'd at this. |

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1054
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:56:00 -
[234] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer.
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. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:57:00 -
[235] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:
We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand.
Hey Homonoia, may I ask.
Seeing as a stated goal of CCP is to improve the new player experience, as well as protecting new players so that they can get used to game mechanics, would it be possible to actually propose a timer system that takes into account a new players actions, as to avoid the whole system wide coverage thing and the "who is a new player" issue?
I just worry about other systems falling under this guideline because many players aren't aware of the rule, or simply don't care. I would think it would also alleviate some petitions and need for the GM's to have to check if the person aggressed was a new player as well, as well as the alt account of a veteran player thing.
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:57:00 -
[236] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer.
Luckily, it's not a real question. It's the on point example of the Sorites Paradox.*
That paradox is the whole issue being discussed in the thread.
*AKA the Heap Problem This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Haulie Berry
208
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:59:00 -
[237] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:
We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand.
So, basically, while you don't want us to mess with rookie players, we're free to go ahead and mess with them anyway (free from consequence to ourselves) while simultaneously griefing the Eve community as a whole by encouraging you to **** up the game with the arbitrary expansion of non-sandbox zones.... as long as we do it outside of the rookie systems.
If you don't want people to mess with rookies, that's possibly the most ill-considered response you could have furnished.  |

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1054
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:00:00 -
[238] - Quote
Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:01:00 -
[239] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer. 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.
In response to another statement of yours, no, not stupid, is purposefully obtuse and painfully transparent about it. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:01:00 -
[240] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed.
That would work. Stealth Nerf to begging scams, but I'm ok with that. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1054
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:04:00 -
[241] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed. That would work. Stealth Nerf to begging scams, but I'm ok with that.
It would work. People with older accounts that create an alt on an existing account would not be flagged as rookies. Doesn't mean someone can't create a trial account or a whole new account and use it to grief - but at least it makes it easier to "know" who is thought of as a rookie and we'd be less likely as players to make a mistake. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:05:00 -
[242] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Here is a simple solution. A totally new player, new account and all. Will have a title before their name. "Rookie" CCP can easily script this into the game and when the "Rookie" is no longer a "Rookie" based on meeting whatever criteria CCP sets for someone being a rookie...then the Rookie title is removed.
Because you have a group of players who would love nothing more then to hunt people down to blow up just because they have a tag that says "rookie".
You'd be putting a giant sign on a new player that amounts to "BLOW ME UP". |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
745

|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:05:00 -
[243] - Quote
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? Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
274
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:07:00 -
[244] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: And this is why we will not define what a rookie is. Once again, common sense; a rookie involves himself in a war, perhaps not so rookie anymore. Now, stop coming up with hypothetical situations and apply some common sense.
Joining a wardecced corp = perhaps not so rookie
Can-flipping = confirmed griefing
Both flag you for pvp, both would result in warning messages
Do you understand why some of us could be confused by your use of "common sense"? |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:07:00 -
[245] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? LOL!
Come on, that's entirely to much logic for a forum! |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:09:00 -
[246] - Quote
Greg Valanti, I don't know where your at in your pirating career. What I'm trying to convey to most people that want to be real pirates, (not the weak bottom feeders) is that when done right in my opinion, there really is quite a lot of isk to be made. But very rarely does it occur in high sec, (some times it does), and I've never seen anyone get rich killing miners and newbys even with 100M isk payouts from goon.
Try infiltrating a medium size corp, earning there trust, then emptying there coffers into your pockets. Really really large isk potential there. Some of the richest players in eve got there fortunes this way.
One last example. I was working with a pirate corp, and joined an industrial low sec corp. They use to mine every Saturday morning. This particular Saturday was D-day so to speak. I was flying a cruiser guarding the mining fleet, as my pirate corp was preparing to invade the system. All my mids were fit with warp scramblers, I scrambled (2) Orcas, and (3) hulks as my friends jumped in to engage. Needless to say, we had a lot of fun, no one ejected that day. But it was a lot of fun, and the take wasn't to bad.
Killing beginners in any fashion really isn't where it's at, in my most humble opinion. Good Luck |

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:11:00 -
[247] - Quote
Just for kicks, I'm going to throw this into the define a rookie debate.
Quote:I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. GÇöJustice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers. Linky
This is one of the most famous statements ever issued by the US Supreme Court and I think is remarkably applicable to the 'define a rookie' conundrum. |

Lincoln Armm
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:12:00 -
[248] - Quote
A lot of this seems to boil down to people saying "Don't mess with Noobs" Its SIMPLE! and the other side saying "Whats a Noob?, whats mess with mean?, it's nto simple!"
To my mind they are both right.
CCCP and for that matter EVE itself, NEEDS new players, just to replace losses nevermind expanding. This is especially true since many experienced players no longer pay to play at all. They have determined (and I think few would disagree) that New players getting tricked, smashed, scammed etc. when they have barely started playing will not help this goal so they are saying "don't do that". Of course what THAT is and what is a new player is NOT simple, its complex (like the example of "reckless driving" and its the very complexity that is why the rule must be vague.
Does this mean that GMs may make the occasional mistake? Yes. Does it mean that a legitimate target may sometimes get away. yes again, Does it mean honest mistakes may get som warned or banned? also yes. But it still beats all the alternatives.
The level of "protection" for New players is meant to scale. New players just learning the basics will be mostly operating in the New player starting systems so that's where you see the most protection. Even if they venture forth they are still not meant to be legitimate targets for activities that are designed on taking advantage of their ignorace of the games rules.
Recently there has been a lot of problems with griefing in the Epic quest which has caused CCCP to threaten heightened protection tbeing extend this to more systems. This is an outcome virtually no one wants but if the griefing continues or increases that will probably be the outcome.
So what does this mean to a player? You examine the situation, and in the vast majority of cases it will be clear if a player s a new player and if your actions could be construed as "messing with". If your in a new player system obviously you should raise this bar. If you find yourself in what you think is a gray area then you should just not do it. If you think its an action that should be ok and you get warned or banned you can use the systems available to protest.
Is this a perfect system? No but it is "good enough"
|

Drinoch
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:15:00 -
[249] - Quote
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?!?!?!?!? |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:15:00 -
[250] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed.
Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:18:00 -
[251] - Quote
Drinoch wrote: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?!?!?!?!?
GM Homonoia wrote: 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.
I'll just leave this here. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
136
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:20:00 -
[252] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
They all understand you perfectly well, and understand what they were doing perfectly (and by extension what a patethic bunch they all are) but they are never going to admit it, either to you or themselves.
Instead they are going to cry and cry that you've take their ball away.
Just tell them to **** off and grow a pair. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |

Haulie Berry
208
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:20:00 -
[253] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
If I had ZERO development time, I probably wouldn't make a hamfisted attempt to fix what is obviously a design problem via poorly defined policy.
You were doing alright with the existing well-known and well-understood rule of don't-shoot-rookies-in-xyz-systems. Where you've really gone awry is this, "...and while you can technically shoot them in other places, we reserve the right to institute massive amounts of policy creep if you do these things that aren't actually against the rules," effectively making an activity legal on a micro scale, but illegal on a macro scale. |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:20:00 -
[254] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? How about:
a straight rule for the vets, using an offical announcement: * No PvP with, stealing from, can baiting, griefing, spamming, or scamming of new characters who are 14 days or less old in rookie systems.
for the "real" rookies, using a last page after character creation but before entering game (or, if that needs development time, using one of those warning message boxes for system events): * EVE is based on non-consensual PvP. You will have limited protection from combat and piracy inside your starting system for 14 days. If you leave the starting system or your 14 days expire, you are a valid target and a willing participant.
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:21:00 -
[255] - Quote
Drinoch wrote: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?!?!?!?!?
What if their definition of a "rookie" is determined on a case by case basis?
Because this is exactly what I take from them saying they won't define it. They're working on a case by case basis, and it's actually understandable.
A new player does basic combat mission for the first week in a rookie system, the next week they do advanced, the following week they do scanning, then they do mining, then they do courier, then they spend a week trying out one or the other before moving on to the SOE missions.
They CAN'T define it because some people are a rookie longer then others. I suspect it's not as simple as the GM looked at the character, determined if it's not a character on an older account, and then looked at how "old" the character is. If they have they other things to consider, like what the character was doing in the first place, or were the character came from, then "how old" the character is isn't really as important, and therefore undifineable in a broad sense. |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
110
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:23:00 -
[256] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:People with older accounts that create an alt on an existing account would not be flagged as rookies. I had a trial account a year and a half ago, but only turned it into a regular account 13 days ago. Despite my account being over a year old, I have less than a month of playtime.
I wouldn't be surprised if a number of new players are those who've upgraded trials they've had for a while. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:23:00 -
[257] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
1) Messing with Protected Rookies in Rookie Systems is a Ban Worthy Offence; DON'T DO IT. (Messing with is broadly defined*). 2) A Protected Rookie is any Character under X number of days old** UNLESS a) That Character is in a Player Corp (under wardec?) 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
Add an MOTD in Rookie Help with a link to an explanation of Rookie Systems and the special protections therein.
That's it. That protects Rookies in rookie systems. It's extensible if you deem it necessary to ad new rookie systems without announcing that messing with rookies on the SOE path will elicit GM tears,*** it's robust enough to give you wiggle room in the "messing with" area, while allowing players who want to stay on the bright side of the rules a set of target selection guidelines. Some non-newbies will end up being protected, but all the loopholes should be on the "protecting non-newbies" side, and the limitation on system should limit the amount that those loopholes can be abused.
If you can squeeze a small amount of Dev time, add a pop-up to rookies when they leave protected systems. If you can squeeze more Dev time, add a new NPE mission to help explain aggro mechanics. If you can manage some ISD training time, have them try to teach basic aggro mechanics to rookies in rookie help. These are bonuses IF you can manage that time, they are not required to make the policy suggestion work.
*Nobody has any problem with broadly and vaguely defining "messing with" It's like broadly defining "Reckless" in Reckless driving. **The Protected Rookie Class HAS to be well defined. It's the "driving" in Reckless driving. ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:32:00 -
[258] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously. the most insightful words ever spoken by a goon |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:33:00 -
[259] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: Because this is exactly what I take from them saying they won't define it. They're working on a case by case basis, and it's actually understandable.
While I don't disagree, I will note that this puts a heavy chill on a whole lot of popular Empire Space activities - It's basically creating a 'landmine' problem. If you can't at least approximately identify a 'rookie,' then any aggressive act against a rather broad class of characters risks a ban. In short - If the minefields aren't marked, who will ever walk in the grass? So - I agree with the others, we need at the very least a ballpark idea of what constitutes a 'Rookie.'
I agree
However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:36:00 -
[260] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.
This is what scares me. We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to. Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that. If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously.
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Staten Island
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:39:00 -
[261] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
The problem with this is that it is vague and promotes meta-gaming. Anybody who has actually visited a "rookie" system can verify that these systems are havens for vet players and their alts who do all sorts of things such as mining, missioning, etc. . . . Sure the gms have said that your free to engage vet players in the rookie systems but they have also said that you do so at your own risk if a "rookie" gets in the way. Consequently, no sane person is going to engage under these rules and risk the potential ban that might result if a vet throws one of his rookie alts into the mix. Thus this rule essentially walls off portions of eve and creates de facto safe areas for all players regardless of age, which of course is directly counter to the essence of eve.
IMO, ccp should simply remove all rookies from the the server and place them in their own separate area, similar to the rookie islands that exist in many other mmos. For game rp purposes I would refer to these systems as a "simulated" eve. This would be a place where rookies could spend a couple of weeks being put through their paces, earn skills, but suffer no real loses. After all, in rl you would never be allowed to fly a plane without logging many hours in a simulator, so why in eve should you be trusted with a spacecraft without spending some time behind a virtual control panel? At the end of the rookies time in the simulator they would be kicked out into eve and certified as being ready for game and perhaps given a some isk and a small frig or destroyer. Of course I would allow players to skip the simulator, but then they do so at their own risk. |

Haulie Berry
209
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:40:00 -
[262] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.
This is what scares me. We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to. Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that. If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously. This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need. Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens. The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Except it's even worse than that because, depending on one's perspective, it's like saying, "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll leave your town alone and burn down someone else's town". |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:41:00 -
[263] - Quote
Makkal Hanaya wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:People with older accounts that create an alt on an existing account would not be flagged as rookies. I had a trial account a year and a half ago, but only turned it into a regular account 13 days ago. Despite my account being over a year old, I have less than a month of playtime. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of new players are those who've upgraded trials they've had for a while.
You remembered your login details after a year and a half? I have a trail of failed trial accounts, but I always started fresh when I tried again (mainly because I forgot the login details, but partly because I needed the trial to decide). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
94
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:41:00 -
[264] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge. 
Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are.
Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up.
Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:42:00 -
[265] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ***Some people will intentionally try to bait you into a public response by messing with rookies in SOE systems now that you announced you might respond publicly.
This is what scares me. We all know, without a doubt, that there are people that when told not to do something will do it because they were told not to. Saying don't do this or we'll do this is only an invitation to some people to do exactly that. If I had to be totally honest here, I'd say that adults are just giant children who take their fun more seriously. Which means that some people are going to take their rebelling more seriously. This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need. Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens. The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes. Except it's even worse than that because, depending on one's perspective, it's like saying, "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll leave your town alone and burn down someone else's town."
Trolling the Pax Romanum. Wonderful. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:42:00 -
[266] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Doesn't work in a game though.
Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns.
They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say.
It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:44:00 -
[267] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge.  Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are. Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up. Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else.
Coding it leads to abuse of the newbie protections (unless the code is only activated in the newbie system, in which case it's a lot of effort for little benefit), and GM Hormonia has indicated that she has no access to Dev time for the foreseeable future. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:45:00 -
[268] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Doesn't work in a game though. Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns. They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say. It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation.
Good job restating what I said. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:45:00 -
[269] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Greg Valanti, I don't know where your at in your pirating career. What I'm trying to convey to most people that want to be real pirates, (not the weak bottom feeders) is that when done right in my opinion, there really is quite a lot of isk to be made. But very rarely does it occur in high sec, (some times it does), and I've never seen anyone get rich killing miners and newbys even with 100M isk payouts from goon.
Try infiltrating a medium size corp, earning there trust, then emptying there coffers into your pockets. Really really large isk potential there. Some of the richest players in eve got there fortunes this way.
One last example. I was working with a pirate corp, and joined an industrial low sec corp. They use to mine every Saturday morning. This particular Saturday was D-day so to speak. I was flying a cruiser guarding the mining fleet, as my pirate corp was preparing to invade the system. All my mids were fit with warp scramblers, I scrambled (2) Orcas, and (3) hulks as my friends jumped in to engage. Needless to say, we had a lot of fun, no one ejected that day. But it was a lot of fun, and the take wasn't to bad.
Killing beginners in any fashion really isn't where it's at, in my most humble opinion. Good Luck
I truly don't understand how your post is relevant to the issues I was trying to discuss. If you look at my KB activity you will see anything recent has been in lowsec or WH space, but that is besides the point.
The discussion is not about career choice, the ethics of shooting rookies, or piracy at all. Chloe, one of our new recruits, was warned by a GM, prior to joining us, for having fought in a rookie system. Chloe is barely a month old, was in a T1 frigate, and killed another player several weeks older in a T1 cruiser.
Now even rookies are getting warnings for shooting more veteran players in these systems. While the GMs will state that they can tell who is and is not a new player rather than a new character, I am willing to bet that this is not checked or followed up on 98% of the time.
There is no easy answer to the problems being caused by this policy. It is going to require a lot of work on the NPE team's end. |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
110
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:50:00 -
[270] - Quote
silens vesica wrote: While I don't disagree, I will note that this puts a heavy chill on a whole lot of popular Empire Space activities - It's basically creating a 'landmine' problem. If you can't at least approximately identify a 'rookie,' then any aggressive act against a rather broad class of characters risks a ban.
I don't think it's a landmine problem.
I did my trial account after Incarna came out and during my trial I was contacted by not one, but four GMs who wanted to make sure I was understanding the game and not being griefed. The rookie help channel was full of people having difficulties - someone had flipped their can, or they got shot at or CONCORD'd and didn't understand how this had happened, or someone was in their mission stealing their Dagon, what to do?!
For 90% of the player base, this is background noise, but the GMs are dealing with this on a daily basis.
I think the problem is that for some members of the forum, this just popped up on their radar, while the GMs have probably dealt with 100+ instances of people 'messing with rookies' and have come to the sort of informal standard that groups create.
If someone's been operating in Empire space and never gotten in trouble for 'messing with rookies,' the chance that they'll suddenly get banned is rather low.
Are their a few outliners? Yes, but that's true of all rule enforcement. And it doesn't help that when people come on the forum to complain about a GM's actions, they tend to give a very skewed accounting of what happened. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:50:00 -
[271] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge.  Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are. Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up. Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else.
My idea is to give them the immunity that CCP wants them to have so that they can learn the game, and that actually takes into account the actions have repercussion philosophy of the game.
A timer that counts down and is negated when specffic actions are taken. Enter a system below a specific threshold, put an amount of market value items in your hold, take an agressive action against another player, or anything else that would be deemed as a non rookie action. Of course all these things should first have a warning so the palyer knows it will happen if they proceed.
The stated rule is fine, but once they start actually doing more refining of the new player experience you've got to take it out of the players hands. Threats don't work. |
|

GM Homonoia
Game Masters C C P Alliance
753

|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:52:00 -
[272] - Quote
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.
Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master |
|

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:52:00 -
[273] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
This is why you don't set up a policy of "If you make us mad, we'll X" unless X is so terrible that you achieve the chilling effect you need.
Rome did that. They said "If you molest a Roman Citizen, we'll burn down your Towns." That put a chilling effect on molesting Roman Citizens.
The GMs aren't willing to burn down the town (IP Ban, whatever), so they need to remain mute on conditional rule changes.
Doesn't work in a game though. Saying we'll do this if you do that only creates a situation were people will do exactly this to see if you'll do that. The only thing the GM's are doing is putting themselves in a position were they could have to show people that they stick to their guns. They should have just said that if you keep it up we'll start making the bans harsher, not creating even more safe zone. A safe zone isn't going to hurt the people interested in making CCP do what they say, it's just going to make them giggle that they could make CCP do what they say. It's the "I dare you" mentallity. Those people are out there, and this policy only gives them motivation. Good job restating what I said. I apologize, I read it wrong. Half my brain and face are in agony today. I'm struggling just to make sense of my keyboard, let alone reading comprehension. |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
110
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:55:00 -
[274] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: You remembered your login details after a year and a half? I have a trail of failed trial accounts, but I always started fresh when I tried again (mainly because I forgot the login details, but partly because I needed the trial to decide).
I remembered the log-in name and was able to reset the password.
You can't delete accounts (that I know of) and having a bunch of trials forever floating in the aether would bother me to no end. Besides, I liked my trial and knew I wanted a long-term sub; it just took me a while until I had the time and right mindset for really getting into the game. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
95
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:56:00 -
[275] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:silens vesica wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: However, I stick by my assertion that if you can't define it you code it, and if it's that important to you you WILL code it. Zero development time for something you think is important to the health of the game is not possible. CCP already said that they have plans to improve upon the new player experience. It's only a matter of when, not if.
Coding for 'undefined' is a bit of a challenge.  Solution (which WILL require Dev time, of course!): Take the GM's ad-hoc rules. Expand them to give a substantial safety margin. Then code them so that when you try to lock up a 'protected' toon, your targetting systems fail - wherever they are. Maybe add a 'don't be naughty' pop-up. Solves the problem - you get a lock, it's a vaild target: F1. No lock: Go find someone else. Coding it leads to abuse of the newbie protections (unless the code is only activated in the newbie system, in which case it's a lot of effort for little benefit), and GM Hormonia has indicated that she has no access to Dev time for the foreseeable future. *shrug* It's not conceptually difficult to set flags for 'system,' 'age of toon,' 'number of SP,' 'age of account,' and any other criteria which the GMs feel appropriate. Not seeing the code, I dunno about the actual difficulty, but I'm fairly certain it's a damnsight easier than coding for, say, CrimeWatch.
And yes, I know she's got no dev time for this little project - which is kinda what makes it inadvasable to play with with this subject all: If you're not willing to discuss the details of the criteria, then don't bring it up!
The "we've got guidelines, no you can't know 'em, but we'll hammer you if you break 'em" approach constitutes trolling, IMO. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:01:00 -
[276] - Quote
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. what happened to considering my idea, since your long list (with the capitalized PLAYER and CHARACTER) seem to be responding to my argument.
Quote:How about:
a straight rule for the vets, using an offical announcement: * No PvP with, stealing from, can baiting, griefing, spamming, or scamming of new characters who are 14 days or less old in rookie systems.
for the "real" rookies, using a last page after character creation but before entering game (or, if that needs development time, using one of those warning message boxes for system events): * EVE is based on non-consensual PvP. You will have limited protection from combat and piracy inside your starting system for 14 days. If you leave the starting system or your 14 days expire, you are a valid target and a willing participant. No need for exceptions. You leave the system, you're a target. Feel free to change the # of days, but thats the same as a trial period. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
482
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:03:00 -
[277] - Quote
Well, this got out of hand pretty quickly.
I am forced to wonder why this has become such a massive issue, most of the people in this thread screaming "We need clarification about what a Rookie is" can't really be all that bothered about it, if they were there would have been dozens of threads posted every week on here.
Now all of a sudden these "concerned citizens" pop out of the woodwork like a flies to poop, running around and declaring how unsatisfactory the whole mess is and how they demand this that and the other. Where have most of you been for the entire time this was such a gigantic problem eh? Oh that's right, either off popping rookies yourselves, or just not actually giving a damn until the time comes when you can make yourselves out to be the epitome of virtue, and wave your little "Look at me, I'm standing up for the little guy" banners.
99% of you didn't give a damn about this issue before, why start now, just to make yourselves look like big girls and boys on the internet? The only thing that seems to have really changed is that CCP finally got tired of losing subs to ignorant little mentally challenged miscreants and had to try and put a stop to it.
Pathetic. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1887
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:04:00 -
[278] - Quote
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.
The exceptions only raise the specificity rate. We, as players, don't need specificity, we need sensitivity, which means we need an age cutoff. Pick the most glaring groups of young players in newbie systems that you don't want protected. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
482
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:07:00 -
[279] - Quote
RubyPorto 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. The exceptions only raise the specificity rate. We, as players, don't need specificity, we need sensitivity, which means we need an age cutoff. Pick the most glaring groups of young players in newbie systems that you don't want protected.
And what about the guy who gets a trial account, likes the game but only gets to play for maybe 4 days out of his entire trial? So he gets a full account and maybe gets time to go on and play properly on the one day off he gets a week, after 5 or 6 weeks he finally starts to get the hang of things.
Now compare him to someone who doesn't work, maybe a schoolkid who can play every night, or someone who is retired, they might get on every single day, and after 2 or 3 weeks they are fairly adept.
Do you see the problem now of having a fixed date that defines a rookie?
EDIT: I may have accidentally quoted the wrong person there, sorry Ruby, but I can't be arsed to change it now, lol. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:09:00 -
[280] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Coding it leads to abuse of the newbie protections (unless the code is only activated in the newbie system, in which case it's a lot of effort for little benefit), and GM Hormonia has indicated that she has no access to Dev time for the foreseeable future.
It's not really abusable if the protection can be broken by your own actions. If they're taking rookie protection beyond starter systems like they've stated then they're likely accounting for whatever its that the player was doing outside that system.
Say a new player leaves the system to purchase something in another system that wasn't available or affordable in the starting system. They undock and get blown up. Odds are you just violated the rule.
If that same rookie flew to another system and loaded their hold with a few million worth of BPO's, something tells me a GM would see that and you wouldn't have violated any rule.
Once they start work on the NPE again, that can be taken out of the GM and players hands and coded directly in so that there is no confusion. Put a 100k worth of ammo in your hold (something I actually had to do with my alt because the ammo I wanted wasn't available in the rookie system and I saw an opportunity along with a need) and you're fine, put 1m in BPO's in that same hold and a message pops up that if you undock with that cargo you forefit your protection.
Not saying do it now, but in the future that GM man power can be convered to code and the GM's can focus man power on other things. |
|

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
95
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:10:00 -
[281] - Quote
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
[ snippage for brevity ]
I think the problem is that for some members of the forum, this just popped up on their radar, while the GMs have probably dealt with 100+ instances of people 'messing with rookies' and have come to the sort of informal standard that groups create.
[ more snippage ]
Fair points.
On the other hand, getting to grips with a set of rules, which can be known by the players and weed out the rules lawyering, or which can be coded, should mean that the GMs have fewer case of 'HELP! Mean ppls blow me up!" to handle. Which can only be a good thing.
I stand by the landmine description, though. Even assuming it's 98% of the population who don't care - that still leaves a pretty large number - Lotta folks play EVE. Even small fractions mean large numbers.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
314
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:17:00 -
[282] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. its not a newbie if its in a mining barge right
Miners should not be able to go strip mine those systems either, IMO, and I'm a miner. Let's just stay out of the rookie systems, period unless we belong there. |

Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:19:00 -
[283] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Well, this got out of hand pretty quickly.
I am forced to wonder why this has become such a massive issue, most of the people in this thread screaming "We need clarification about what a Rookie is" can't really be all that bothered about it, if they were there would have been dozens of threads posted every week on here.
Now all of a sudden these "concerned citizens" pop out of the woodwork like flies to poop, running around and declaring how unsatisfactory the whole mess is and how they demand this that and the other. Where have most of you been for the entire time this was such a gigantic problem eh? Oh that's right, either off popping rookies yourselves, or just not actually giving a damn until the time comes when you can make yourselves out to be the epitome of virtue, and wave your little "Look at me, I'm standing up for the little guy" banners.
99% of you didn't give a damn about this issue before, why start now, just to make yourselves look like big girls and boys on the internet? The only thing that seems to have really changed is that CCP finally got tired of losing subs to ignorant little mentally challenged miscreants and had to try and put a stop to it.
Pathetic.
Thanks for your valuable contribution to the subject at hand.
The debate is not (or rather should not be, as this is not how it originated) about the morality of killing rookies or the mechanics of griefing in rookie systems.
The core issue is the sudden materialization and enforcement of vague or previously nonexistent rules, and subsequent conflicting statements from GMs. For a long time you simply could not can bait in rookie systems. Then you could not bait in career agent systems. Then you couldn't can flip their either. Then it became illegal to simply just steal cans and defend yourself if attacked. The it turned into veterans cannot attack rookies there period. Recently it is veterans cannot attack rookies even in SOE systems. And now it has evolved into ROOKIES cannot attack veterans or other rookies there without warning.
If the GMs/CCP do not want people behaving in a certain matter, it needs to be clearly defined and publicly viewable rather than continued bans/warnings without fair opportunity for players to know they are violating these policies in the first place. |

None ofthe Above
213
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:26:00 -
[284] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Makkal Hanaya wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:People with older accounts that create an alt on an existing account would not be flagged as rookies. I had a trial account a year and a half ago, but only turned it into a regular account 13 days ago. Despite my account being over a year old, I have less than a month of playtime. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of new players are those who've upgraded trials they've had for a while. You remembered your login details after a year and a half? I have a trail of failed trial accounts, but I always started fresh when I tried again (mainly because I forgot the login details, but partly because I needed the trial to decide).
Some people are quite fastidious about keeping their login data. There are tools made to do this securely.
I don't find this implausible at all.
Its not to say that there aren't a significant populations of vets hanging out in Rookie systems for good or ill.
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:28:00 -
[285] - Quote
Cutter, nice reply +1
Greg Valanti, I was merely trying to suggest you might consider moving your band to areas and foes that are more worthy of you interests. That way you could rid yourself of even the possibly of getting caught up in all this confusion. Not going to waist another word on you, as I can see honestly, I don't apply.
I'm glad CCP is supporting the actual new player. Just seems natural to me. Most of the squackers are just trying to ensure that they have as many new defenseless players to kill as possible. This pressing the need to define everything, is so they can see clearly when they cross the line, to define that line to the most approachable point possible.
Bottom line is I really like the GM's approach, Well just handle it on a case by case basis. I support it 100% |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7948
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:34:00 -
[286] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked:
In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in.
The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking GÇ£Here There Be DragonsGÇ¥ popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies GÇö e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GÇö it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching).
The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education GÇö for everyone GÇö about an easily available and categorically true rule set. 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?
|

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:37:00 -
[287] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Is there anyway that you can change the Rookie System page so that the warning states that can-baiting is considered griefing in these systems, not can-flipping, as you have mentioned in both related threads? As it stands, the wiki page is in direct conflict with your statements. If the problem is that there is no page describing can-baiting to link to, I will be more than happy to create/write the page and fully explain all of the intricacies of it.
EDIT: I also want to thank you for having the patience to read through a second thread and putting together a full reply to this. I greatly appreciate your time and effort in clarifying things - it's been a great help.
The Can Baiting page has been created and filled out. Now all that's needed is to get the wiki page regarding rookie systems updated to properly reflect the rules.
Thanks again for your responses in this thread GM Harmonoia. I know GD can be a frustrating place, considering the residents. |

DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:41:00 -
[288] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked: In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in. The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking GÇ£Here There Be DragonsGÇ¥ popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies GÇö e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GÇö it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching). The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education GÇö for everyone GÇö about an easily available and categorically true rule set. 1000x this Fix FW ! |

Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:43:00 -
[289] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked: In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in. The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking GÇ£Here There Be DragonsGÇ¥ popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies GÇö e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GÇö it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching). The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education GÇö for everyone GÇö about an easily available and categorically true rule set.
This is spot on. |

Marcus Caspius
Vitriol Ventures Tribal Dragons
47
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:49:00 -
[290] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
Wow, CCP actually oppose bullying... Funny how some of the obvious bully game mechanics are not addressed:
F A I L
|
|

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
354
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:55:00 -
[291] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
so when I fly into a system, will it inform me that it's a rookie system, or am I just supposed to know?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
113
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:06:00 -
[292] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote: so when I fly into a system, will it inform me that it's a rookie system, or am I just supposed to know?
Rookie systems.
I suspect you're supposed to know. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|

Iskawa Zebrut
Smoke to Train - Train to Smoke
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:12:00 -
[293] - Quote
I don't really understand this. EVE is marketed out (and entirely known) as an incredibly hostile, cut-throat sandbox where just about anything is permitted. If someone will quit after getting **** on in the early game, they are magnitudes more likely to quit after getting **** on later when they have more to lose. I suppose it's all about getting their money before they realize this isn't the game for them.
On a similar vein, a new player is slapped in the face with a warning whenever they try to do something that will drop them into a PvP situation. Add another when they try to jettison things, and that should be all that needs to be done. Aside from preventing people ill-suited to EVE quitting before the trial period is over so they have a chance to open their wallets, there's no good justification for wasting GM time on enforcing rules like this within this type of game.
To those who will inevitably flame me for just wanting to kill rookies, I don't even have any direct contact with them aside from perhaps spotting one when going shopping in Jita. Naturally, you probably didn't even read this last paragraph. You've probably already vomited your rage all over the place like some kind of ******. |

DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
302
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:13:00 -
[294] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. so when I fly into a system, will it inform me that it's a rookie system, or am I just supposed to know?
I suggest we give the rookiesystems a color. The incursion systems have a green color, the rookiesystem should be pink. Fix FW ! |

Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
113
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:26:00 -
[295] - Quote
Iskawa Zebrut wrote:I don't really understand this. EVE is marketed out (and entirely known) as an incredibly hostile, cut-throat sandbox where just about anything is permitted. If someone will quit after getting **** on in the early game, they are magnitudes more likely to quit after getting **** on later when they have more to lose. I suppose it's all about getting their money before they realize this isn't the game for them. I suspect we're getting closer to the heart of the disagreement.
Climbing Mount Everest is a harsh, brutal experience. Being the smallest guy in the prison shower room is also harsh and brutal. If your first days in EVE lead you to believe it's like Mount Everest, you're likely to continue for a while. If your first days make you feel like the shower room *****, you'll likely quit. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:40:00 -
[296] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked: In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in. The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking GÇ£Here There Be DragonsGÇ¥ popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies GÇö e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GÇö it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching). The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education GÇö for everyone GÇö about an easily available and categorically true rule set.
On the money |

Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:53:00 -
[297] - Quote
If you want rookie players to have a safe environment to practise eve online, then why not send them to Sisi or some other server where there is no loss and there they can practise all they want. I mean its not hard to read up on eve online and/or learn about sisi.
Then when they are ready, they can use their new found skills in the real meat of tranquility? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:57:00 -
[298] - Quote
Just leave the rookies alone, just seems so hard for some to bare. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:59:00 -
[299] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Just leave the rookies alone, just seems so hard for some to bare. Define GÇ£rookieGÇ¥. 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
1889
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:02:00 -
[300] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked: In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in.
And there we have it. A perfect, 100% sensitive rule for protecting newbies. Calling Everyone in a newbie system a newbie is an acceptable result, since all we're asking for is a Concrete answer to "What constitutes a newbie, in a Newbie system." This is to avoid landmines. We don't like landmines; we like mines that have big blinking lights. If there's no way for you to clearly define a newbie to the public, then say EVERYONE is, and enforce that.
Hulk gets ganked; enforce it. 9 year old ibis gets ganked; enforce it. 2 day old ibis with a plex gets ganked; enforce it. Keep enforcement as regular as humanly possible so that it's crystal clear.
If you can spare the Dev time, a Here Be Dragons popup for older players entering newbie systems wouldn't be out of sorts.
Basically, One way or another, the GM team needs to create a crystal clear definition of a protected character (newbie) using publicly viewable information. If that's everyone in the system, so be it. That's an acceptable, though not ideal, result. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:21:00 -
[301] - Quote
Well, it's not someone hauling around 25 Billion isk in assets. Not trying to be rude here, but your either stupid, or playing stupid. I mean that in the most sincere & respectful way. I just think your playing stupid, to try to make a point. I understand the point, and disagree, discretion needs to be exercised, period!!! If you think this is |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:28:00 -
[302] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, it's not someone hauling around 25 Billion isk in assets. Why not? What about him precludes him from being a rookie?
Quote:Not trying to be rude here, but your either stupid, or playing stupid. No, I'm explaining to you why your categorical statement is useless: because it either offers zero protection or it protects the wrong people by creating massive exploits that are far bigger a problem than the ganking of newbies could ever be.
You're trying to forbid something without defining what is forbidden. That's a horrible and untenable solution that only creates more problems.
And no, discretion isn't really needed. 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. 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
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:33:00 -
[303] - Quote
In your opinion, I respect it. I just don't agree with it, "Respectfully". Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. Just being honest here. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1889
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:35:00 -
[304] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, it's not someone hauling around 25 Billion isk in assets. Not trying to be rude here, but your either stupid, or playing stupid. I mean that in the most sincere & respectful way. I just think your playing stupid, to try to make a point. I understand the point, and disagree, discretion needs to be exercised, period!!! If you think this is to difficult, I can't help ya. By the way Ruby, just so you know, there isn't a thing that is crystal clear in the land of EvE. It's all pretty murky. I disagree 100% with what you say, I give the GM's there leeway. I trust them completely in this area. They have the tools, and the methodology to find out when a rat is a rat.
1) A million grains of sand is a heap. 2) A heap of sand, minus one grain is still a heap.
Repeated application of premise two to premise one results in one grain of sand being a heap. Zero grains of sand being a heap, and negative grains of sand being a heap.
This is Sorities Paradox.
1) A person with 10,000,000 SP/25billion ISK is not a rookie. 2) A non-rookie with one fewer SP or ISK is still not a rookie.
Repeated application of premise two, yadda, yadda, yadda.
If there is a bright line between rookie and not-rookie, please, Montressor, point it out to me, because I don't see any such bright line using publicly viewable information.
As for trusting the GMs, that's not the issue here. The issue is not knowing if I am going to be banned for shooting someone because there is no way for ME to know if my target is someone the GM's consider to be a rookie or not. I may have different interpretations of what is "obviously" a rookie than the GMs because we are working from different information. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1890
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:38:00 -
[305] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:In your opinion, I respect it. I just don't agree with it, "Respectfully". Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. Just being honest here.
Define what a Rookie IS. Don't just list examples of what it is not.
You'll find it much harder to be categorical. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
95
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:39:00 -
[306] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Tippia wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked: In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in. And there we have it. A perfect, 100% sensitive rule for protecting newbies. Calling Everyone in a newbie system a newbie is an acceptable result, since all we're asking for is a Concrete answer to "What constitutes a newbie, in a Newbie system." This is to avoid landmines. We don't like landmines; we like mines that have big blinking lights. If there's no way for you to clearly define a newbie to the public, then say EVERYONE is, and enforce that. Hulk gets ganked; enforce it. 9 year old ibis gets ganked; enforce it. 2 day old ibis with a plex gets ganked; enforce it. Keep enforcement as regular as humanly possible so that it's crystal clear. . This works. A bit dracnionan, but entirely functional, easily understood, and no rules-lawyering. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:45:00 -
[307] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. You didn't answer the question: what is it that precludes the guy carrying the 25bn cargo from being a rookie?
Why do you feel that it's ok for me to blow him up and make him sour on the game and quit before his third week is up, when you think it's hideously wicked and evil to blow someone else with the same amount of game knowledge up and make him sour on the game and quit before his third week. What separates one from the other? Why is it ok, by you, to grief some rookies and not others?
Look, it's very simple. It took me maybe 30 seconds to figure out how the goons will massively exploit your rule to provide safety for all their assets and get you banned in the process. In the same time that it took me to figure it out, the goons, who are much better at being goons than I am, will not just have figured it out, but also written an extensive wiki on it, created the scam website, set up the blind accounts, and laughed themselves into a coma from how easy that one was to twist into something completely unwholesome. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Haulie Berry
209
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:20:00 -
[308] - Quote
Quote: Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. .
If what makes that character definitely, for sure, 100% not a rookie is so easy to define, why don't you simply do that instead of insisting that one should "just know"? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:20:00 -
[309] - Quote
Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Hmm. How would a real beginner player lay his hands on that kind of scratch. Hmm . Man I honestly don't think you get this, really. I'd like to see someone live there lives with out a little discretion. I guess discretion and EvE just don't match up very well eh. I have my opinions, you have yours, we don't agree, let's just drop it . |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1890
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:21:00 -
[310] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Hmm. How would a real beginner player lay his hands on that kind of scratch. Hmm . Man I honestly don't think you get this, really. I'd like to see someone live there lives with out a little discretion. I guess discretion and EvE just don't match up very well eh. I have my opinions, you have yours, we don't agree, let's just drop it .
Define a "Rookie." Stop with the red herring examples of "Not Rookie."
Define what it IS. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Haulie Berry
209
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:25:00 -
[311] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Hmm. How would a real beginner player lay his hands on that kind of scratch.
It's not at all outside the realm of possibility. Somewhat improbable, but a new player could very well luck their way into a poorly managed corporation with a substantial amount of assets. 25B could be attained as easily as someone failing to lockdown a high value blueprint or two.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7963
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:35:00 -
[312] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Why is that? What about him precludes him from being a rookie?
Quote:Man I honestly don't think you get this, really. GǪand I honestly think that you can't answer the question and are stalling. This rather highlights the entire problem with your rule: it arbitrarily and for no apparent reason lets me gank some rookies but not others, even though both are equally new, with equal (lack of) knowledge about the game, and with the same result of the gank (them being fed up and quitting before their third week).
Haulie Berry wrote:It's not at all outside the realm of possibility. Somewhat improbable, but a new player could very well luck their way into a poorly managed corporation with a substantial amount of assets. 25B could be attained as easily as someone failing to lockdown a high value blueprint or two. For that one, you could arguably say that he has managed to get himself into a corp and is now fair game since he'll be a valid target of wardecs anyway.
I'm thinking more along the lines ofGǪ
GÇ£Oh hai newbie. I'm from GoonWaffe GÇö maybe you've heard of us? Want to join? It's not hard GÇö you just have to haul this package from A to B as a kind of test that you're past the tutorials, and if you make it, you're in! Go to goon-newbie-scamhaulers.com and check out where to go and whom to talk to.GÇ¥
Genuine newbie; know so little about the game that he doesn't even spot the obvious scam; attacking him is a horrible offence because he's still just barely able to use jump gates. So either people don't and the goons get free/safe hauls, or the guy ganking him is tossed out of the game. Win-win.
GǪalternatively, the GMs have to not apply the GÇ£don't kill newbiesGÇ¥ rule in this case and have to allow people to kill them. But only someGǪ because not all genuine rookies are to be treated as genuine rookies. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:39:00 -
[313] - Quote
OK listen, Let's just say I support CCP on this one. I'm fine with it being handled on a case by case basis. Your preaching to the wrong quire. I unlike you have no problem figuring this one out. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7963
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:41:00 -
[314] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I unlike you have no problem figuring this one out. No. Unlike me, you have no imagination when it comes to the huge room for exploitation your useless and undefined rule opens up.
You're also having problems seeing that a far better solution can be had by simply not even trying to make any of these distinctions, but rather let the same GÇö ridiculously clear GÇö rules apply to everyone equally. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Haulie Berry
209
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:44:00 -
[315] - Quote
Tippia wrote:For that one, you could arguably say that he has managed to get himself into a corp and is now fair game since he'll be a valid target of wardecs anyway.
I don't know, it's not hard to get into some corps. On that note, though, what would the verdict then be if a rookie were recruited and corpkilled?
If we're saying that getting oneself into a corp defines one as no longer a "valid" rookie... |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:50:00 -
[316] - Quote
Naa, you r just good at speewing words all over the place to mask you personnel short comings.
I will say this, if a weak ship went by me anywhere, that wasn't friendly, say a (2) day old player with 5B isk in his cargo hold, he would be KABOOOM, just like that. I'd do it for the ISK period. I can think of dozens of situations where I personally wouldn't think twice bout killing a newer player. I personally feel I could make a mistake, and would live with the warning, or consequences. But I feel pretty confident in my ability in identifying who's actually new, and who is pretending. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:53:00 -
[317] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Naa, you r just good at speewing words all over the place to mask you personnel short comings. Why would I need to mask that? SLOPS is a corp of four, and we rather enjoy those shortcomings in personnel. Not hat they're particularly large GÇö it's a fairly well-rounded group.
Quote:But I feel pretty confident in my ability in identifying who's actually new, and who is pretending. How would you identify the fact that the poor goon-scammed newbie I envision isn't pretending? 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?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:54:00 -
[318] - Quote
You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:58:00 -
[319] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie? No. We're using it as an illustration why any rule that relies on that kind of inherently unclear determination is destined to cause nothing but grief and increased GM workload.
Quote:The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. The GMs also asked for better policy suggestions. Deal with it.
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?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:00:00 -
[320] - Quote
I've been told now!  When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:01:00 -
[321] - Quote
Think we could all agree that if a two day old player joined any player owned corp, that there kinda taking there training wheels off and throwing them away. LOL. Honestly wouldn't that be pretty obvious. |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:05:00 -
[322] - Quote
But your honor, unless the law says I cant go 250kpm, on the berm, at night, riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back, then I clearly CAN do this and should not be ticketed. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:07:00 -
[323] - Quote
Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda.
Let me repeat leave the new players alone! Per CCP
I'm leavin bye
PS Olleybear, I love that guy! your turn to work with the village wise men, (and women) for a while. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:10:00 -
[324] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda. Oh really? What agenda is that, 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?
|

Haulie Berry
209
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:12:00 -
[325] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Think we could all agree that if a two day old player joined any player owned corp, that there kinda taking there training wheels off and throwing them away. LOL. Honestly wouldn't that be pretty obvious.
Why would that be the case?
I was once "recruited" into a corp whose recruitment strategy consisted of email-spamming anyone in Amarr who was in an NPC corp. The CEO was a hulk pilot, but most assuredly did not know his head from his ass. After the third or fourth spam email, I joined the corp and proceeded to indiscriminately* pop my new corpmates... some of whom were, in fact, legitimate rookie players (in the "haven't yet figured out how to work the overview" sense). Knowlege of gameplay was not magically conferred upon them by the act of having joined a corp. Most of them probably figured, "Hey, these people are promising to help me out with isk and experience if I join them - sounds like a pretty sweet deal, why not?" The notion that one of their fellow corpmates could - or would - blow them up hadn't so much as been mentioned to them yet... so why, exactly, would you define those players as not being rookies?
*I did start with the CEO's hulk, though. |

Orly Rly
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:17:00 -
[326] - Quote
Pretty pathetic that a simple question that quickly get's answered can devolve into a 14 page saga of technicalities and smarm.
It's almost as though the cries of 1,000 nerds were heard at the same time, then, silence.
There are never any nullsec fight threads that are this popular. It makes it clear that much of the playerbase lives off attacking rookies and mining ships. Epic bravery, playerbase is stale and showing off the games age. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:18:00 -
[327] - Quote
Haulie Berry, you make a damn good point. I too have committed that same act of sin, on more than a few occasions. Damn and I thought I had this all figured out.
Bye for real this time
It is pretty sad indeed |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:20:00 -
[328] - Quote
Orly Rly wrote:Pretty pathetic that a simple question that quickly get's answered can devolve into a 14 page saga of technicalities and smarm. It's not particularly pathetic, or even the slightest bit strange, when the answers are inconsistent with the published rules and when they cause as many problems as they solve. 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?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:35:00 -
[329] - Quote
Anyone who wonders why the real world has so many laws that the lawmakers dont even know the total number doesnt have to go any further than reading these threads to understand why.
Some people need the clarity of laws ( rules ) in their lives because they dont have that bone in their head that tells them the difference between what is wrong and what is right.
Others just want to be left alone so they dont have to keep reading law after law that outlaws walking backwards, down a sidewalk, with an icecream cone in their back pocket. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:40:00 -
[330] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Others just want to be left alone so they dont have to keep reading law after law that outlaws walking backwards, down a sidewalk, with an icecream cone in their back pocket. GǪwhich is exactly what the current ruleset forces you to do, but just to make your job even harder, it does it without telling you about the ice-cream cone.
That's why it would be far better to have a rule that doesn't need those kinds of details, differentiations and discriminations.
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
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:41:00 -
[331] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up.
No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving".
Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them.
If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:43:00 -
[332] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda.
Let me repeat leave the new players alone! Per CCP
I'm leavin bye
PS Olleybear, I love that guy! your turn to work with the village wise men, (and women) for a while.
I repeat. Define new player. Is it younger that 1 year? 6 months? 3 months? 1 month? 2 weeks? 13 days? Define "rookie." This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:46:00 -
[333] - Quote
Reading this thread, my utter contempt for those scrubs styling themselves as (fail-wana-be) hi-sec pvperGÇÖs continues unabated.
The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!!
Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.
I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:54:00 -
[334] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!! GǪso, in other words, you haven't really read the thread and understood what the issue is. 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
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:55:00 -
[335] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote: Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.
'Cause WhySo's the bastion of elite PvP.
Would you enjoy it if you were to, on occasion, receive a GM warning or Ban because of your target selection? And have no useful information with which to avoid said warning or ban because the protected target class is ill-defined?
We want the protected class to be well defined. We recognize that the prohibited actions will necessarily be broadly defined, but the protected class must be well defined.
Both mine and Tippia's last suggestions were to say that due to the difficulty in concretely defining the protected class, the class will be expanded to include EVERYONE in the protected area. We want newbies protected. We do not want people banned for doing things to people they had no way of knowing were protected.
Again, if you think it's easy to define rookie, define it. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:56:00 -
[336] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving". Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them. If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us.
I figure Its more like getting a ticket for being on the freeway because noone defined what a car is and the person that got the ticket claims they dont know that riding a donkey in 100kph traffic is dangerous. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:06:00 -
[337] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie?
Fast losing respect for some people who were sensible in the past who keep trying to get a definition of what a rookie is or is not.
The argument to define a rookie is sounding like this. You get caught for speeding and your argument to the judge is, "But your honor, theres no speed limit on the berm!"
The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. No, this is like getting caught speeding while running, because nobody's defined "driving". Messing with Rookies is the offense. We have no problem with a broad, open to interpretation definition of "messing with." It's "rookie" that has to be nailed down. We want to be able to know if shooting someone is alright with the GMs before we shoot them. If you're so clear as to what a rookie is, please define it for us. I figure Its more like getting a ticket for being on the freeway because noone defined what a car is and the person that got the ticket claims they dont know that riding a donkey in 100kph traffic is dangerous.
If the statute neglected to include a donkey, then the action was not illegal under that statute. Danger has nothing to do with strict liability laws. You could go after the donkey rider for reckless endangerment though.
You have yet to define rookie.
Wikipedia wrote:Certain rules have traditionally been given for this particular type of definition.
- A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.
- Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as 'a member of the species equus' would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locking adds that a definition of a term must not comprise of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define 'antecedent' without using the term 'consequent', nor conversely.
- The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).
- The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity.
- A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define 'wisdom' as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. We cannot define a point except as 'something with no parts', nor blindness except as 'the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted'.
We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.
Positively define "rookie" for me. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:12:00 -
[338] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.
Positively define "rookie" for me.
Why do you need to be told and others do not? When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:17:00 -
[339] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
We keep running afoul of number 5. We can not define a rookie by listing examples of not-rookies.
Positively define "rookie" for me.
Why do you need to be told and others do not?
I have not been told. I have been told that a Hulk pilot is not, that a pilot with 25b in Tech is not, but further than that, Rookie has not been defined except as "one who you will incur GM wrath for shooting." Which is, I suppose, a constructive definition, but it's not a useful one.
EDIT: Misread.
Because I don't like hidden landmines. They cripple children. In other words, knowing who to avoid shooting allows me to, y'know, avoid shooting them. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:18:00 -
[340] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:21:00 -
[341] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question?
Why do you need the question answered for you? Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:25:00 -
[342] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Why do you need the question answered for you? Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies. Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite).
Quote:Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with.
Quote:Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies?
Why can't you answer the question?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Haulie Berry
209
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:25:00 -
[343] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question? Why do you need the question answered for you? Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do.
If it is as simple and obvious as you are asserting, you should be able to answer it. Why won't you? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:26:00 -
[344] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question? Why do you need the question answered for you? Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do.
We don't need what we can do defined. We need who we can do it to.
And we need it so defined because Vaguness has long been held to be a terrible thing in the rule of law.
Both in Europe: "Legal certainty is a principle in national and international law which holds that the law must provide those subject to it with the ability to regulate their conduct. Legal certainty is internationally recognised as a central requirement for the rule of law." And the US: "Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague. In general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed."
Again, define "rookie."
We've offered definitions. They're very sensitive, but they lack specificity and would result in a fairly draconian set of rules in rookie systems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:35:00 -
[345] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need the question answered for you? Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies. Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite). Quote:Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with. Quote:Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies? Why can't you answer the question?
I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies.
My personal definition of rookie:
1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec.
Feel free to pick that apart. Look at it with a maginfying glass. Figure out a way to change the meaning of the words so we have to add additional rules and spend even more time on this. Just like in RL where the laws are so numerous and convoluted that every person breaks a few laws everyday and is a criminal. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1891
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:41:00 -
[346] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Why do you need the question answered for you? Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies. Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite). Quote:Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with. Quote:Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies? Why can't you answer the question? I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies. My personal definition of rookie: 1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec. Feel free to pick that apart. Look at it with a maginfying glass. Figure out a way to change the meaning of the words so we have to add additional rules and spend even more time on this. Just like in RL where the laws are so numerous and convoluted that every person breaks a few laws everyday and is a criminal.
Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:44:00 -
[347] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies. Yes you did. You implied that we don't need a rule to separate right from wrong. The absence of such a rule will have one consequence: the wholesale slaughter of rookies.
Quote:My personal definition of rookie:
1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec. So you would say that the previously envisioned guy in Torrinos with 25bn worth of tech would be an illegal target. 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?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:55:00 -
[348] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo?
I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it.
It is like telling a boy not to hit his sister. So he kicks his sister instead then complains that the rule wasnt specific enough when the parents spanks ( bans ) him.
I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1892
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:03:00 -
[349] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo?
I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. It is like telling a boy not to hit his sister. So he kicks his sister instead then complains that the rule wasnt specific enough when the parents spanks ( bans ) him. I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior.
Because it's a basic, long held principle of the rule of law.
I say again. We're fine figuring out that kicking is included in the set hitting.
ROOKIE or "Sister" in your analogy is the thing that needs to be defined precisely. If my parents(GMs) told me, "Don't hit your sister(rookies), but everyone else is ok to hit*" and then spank me (ban me) when I hit my long lost sister (someone in the grey area) whom I did not know was my sister(a rookie), I'm going to be confused and angry (and rightly so) because I had no way of knowing who I was not allowed to hit.
*This is what EvE tells us This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:13:00 -
[350] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. Of course not. So what's the good of having a rule that doesn't provide any kind of enforceable limitations and no guidelines for when it's actually applicable?
By the way, you didn't comment on that rookie example: would you consider it illegal to blow up a rookie with 25bn ISK worth of tech in his carg hold?
Quote:I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior. Because otherwise, it will be exploited and fail to serve its purpose. Because otherwise, it will limit legitimate gameplay. Because otherwise, it becomes almost completely useless.
We're straying into nirvana fallacy territory here, but that's just it: why construct a rule that is begging for that fallacy (and the opaque and/or unenforceable nature of any attempt to avoid the fallacy) when you could simply construct a rule that doesn't use those kinds of fuzzy and subjective definitions and still achieved the same goal?
And as Ruby keeps pointing out: it's not the behaviour that needs to be controlled GÇö it's the context of that behaviour, without which any control, specific or otherwise, becomes meaningless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:24:00 -
[351] - Quote
If I were CCP, I would make very specific examples of the ones that cant seem to grasp this. I personally think they have every right to let the actions define this. Inspire people to use that thing that resides behind there eyes, to make smart decisions. I hope they leave it as is. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:36:00 -
[352] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I hope they leave it as is. So you want them to discriminate against rookies based on reasons we are not privy to and let us kill some rookies but not others, and you want them to include vets under the rookie protection umbrella because the rules are so opaque as to force people not to attack those vets.
Yeah, that seems reasonable compared to a rule that doesn't require anyone on either side of the fence to have to worry about what is and what isn't a rookieGǪ 
Whether you mean that or not, it's the situation the rules create, and if you do want to leave it as it is then fine GÇö just realise what it is you want to leave as it is. 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?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:40:00 -
[353] - Quote
I give up.
I too want a rule saying I cant go 250kph, at night, on the berm, while riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back. Otherwise I just wont know that I shoudlnt do that.
When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:44:00 -
[354] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I too want a rule saying I cant go 250kph, at night, on the berm, while riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back. Otherwise I just wont know that I shoudlnt do that. GǪso you still have absolutely no clue what the problem is then.
Yes, you probably should give up at this point if it's that difficult for you.
By the way, the rule you're asking for exists; it is not in any way relevant to the topic at hand, even as a simile.
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
1896
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:45:00 -
[355] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I give up.
I too want a rule saying I cant go 250kph, at night, on the berm, while riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back. Otherwise I just wont know that I shoudlnt do that.
You're being intentionally obtuse. You're also using some of the most ridiculous straw men I have ever seen.
We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1896
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:48:00 -
[356] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:If I were CCP, I would make very specific examples of the ones that cant seem to grasp this. I personally think they have every right to let the actions define this. Inspire people to use that thing that resides behind there eyes, to make smart decisions. I hope they leave it as is.
So you subscribe to the "Hit the Dog until he heels" method of training. Actually, not even that; that method of training also includes guiding the dog to give it the basic idea. You're suggesting that we get accounts banned repeatedly until we empirically determine the rules of the game we play. Pissing off many multitudes of newbies in the process.
Good plan. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RAP ACTION HERO
87
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:42:00 -
[357] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Which is it, One or Two? What about players with long gaps between their trial and first sub? What about alts with 50 plex in their cargo?
I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. It is like telling a boy not to hit his sister. So he kicks his sister instead then complains that the rule wasnt specific enough when the parents spanks ( bans ) him. I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior. so we can leave the rookies alone and shoot the whiners. |

Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:19:00 -
[358] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income".
It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -á -á-á - The Mittani |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:20:00 -
[359] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GǪand that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.
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
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:22:00 -
[360] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income". It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.html
The IRS defines Income very carefully, very exactly, and very publicly.
If you can't define it, you can't protect it. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:24:00 -
[361] - Quote
I remember joining GoonSwarm as a day old rookie. The moment I went blue to goons, local erupted, and when i undocked intending to self destruct my pod to podjump to VFK, I was targeted by 6 people and just blown apart. I wasn't even in a newbie ship, it was just my pod.
I knew then I was going to love this game. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |

Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:24:00 -
[362] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GǪand that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.
That's a great idea. Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Let us know how that works out for ya. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -á -á-á - The Mittani |

Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:27:00 -
[363] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income". It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread. http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.htmlThe IRS defines Income very carefully, very sensitively, and very publicly. Besides that, Income would be the thing we don't mind being loosely defined. "Money" would be the class that we want to have concretely defined. If you can't define it, you can't protect it.
ROFL. That made me chuckle quite a bit. You don't understand the concept of income.
Keep inflating that post count. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -á -á-á - The Mittani |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:28:00 -
[364] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:Tippia wrote:Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GǪand that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule. That's a great idea. Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Let us know how that works out for ya.
You are also being intentionally obtuse.
Your analogy is poor and doesn't fit the case at hand.
Once again, to make a rule that protects a CLASS from certain CONDUCT, you may define the CONDUCT vaguely or specifically, depending on your goals, but assuming your goal is to protect the CLASS, you must define the CLASS well, or the rule will end up hurting members of the CLASS you are trying to protect. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:32:00 -
[365] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: We want a Protected Class to be defined. That is all.
You can't define it. Exactly in the same manner that the IRS never defined "Income". It's funny watching you trying to pad your post count by begging for help in this thread. http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-B-I-61.htmlThe IRS defines Income very carefully, very sensitively, and very publicly. Besides that, Income would be the thing we don't mind being loosely defined. "Money" would be the class that we want to have concretely defined. If you can't define it, you can't protect it. ROFL. That made me chuckle quite a bit. You don't understand the concept of income. Keep inflating that post count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
I think I have a fair idea of what I'm saying. Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.
Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:35:00 -
[366] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:That's a great idea. I know.
Quote:Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Looks like they defined it quite well. Beyond that, get a better country, because around here, it's pretty thoroughly defined. 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?
|

Jack Parr
University of Caille Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:48:00 -
[367] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: ...Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.
Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous.
It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. It's painfully obvious you are just looking to create loopholes to game the system. I doubt if CCP falls for your sophomoric attempt. I think I'm making you and Tippia mad, so I'll just stop replying after this. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average goon." -á -á-á - The Mittani |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1898
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:53:00 -
[368] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:RubyPorto wrote: ...Whenever you see the words "including, but not limited to," you are looking at a sensitive but not specific definition, used to prevent abuse through loopholes created by specificity. The cost of this is the risk of abuse via false positives.
Both Tippia and I have suggested Sensitive but not Specific definitions of the protected class that would allow CCP to protect the class. It was then argued that the Class needs no definition to protect it, which is ridiculous.
It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. It's painfully obvious you are just looking to create loopholes to game the system. I doubt if CCP falls for your sophomoric attempt. I think I'm making you and Tippia mad, so I'll just stop replying after this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
Read this. Try again. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:55:00 -
[369] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. GǪexcept, of course, that we are not the ones trying to define anything. We are asking you to define the category of people that needs to be defined in order for the standing rule to work as intended.
Since the consensus is that this cannot be done, we are simply saying that that the rule is inherently flawed both as a control mechanism and as a tool for adjudication.
Your saying that it can't be defined reinforces our point. So thank you for your support. 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?
|

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:57:00 -
[370] - Quote
I don't see what the problem is here. What he is saying is reasonable. If the devs don't want us messing with rookies, it makes perfect sense that we should have a solid definition of what they consider to be a rookie.
I personally don't really mess with anyone under three months old. Is that a rookie? How can I be sure? Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |
|

Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:03:00 -
[371] - Quote
wow CCP you really fkn suck Cck now.......
Fck you tards, you should start developing expansion packs for Hello Kitty Island Adventure.
PUSSIES |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:27:00 -
[372] - Quote
You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there. |

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
159
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:29:00 -
[373] - Quote
Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.
1. Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.
2. Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.
That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:32:00 -
[374] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there.
You want to protect a class, define it. You've skipped right over what Tippia and I have said and gone right to impugning our motives.
Here's my set of premises. 1) EvE is a place that allows non-consensual PvP without restrictions 2) Because newbies are new, they should be protected 3) 2 should not compromise 1
This means that it must be made crystal clear WHO is protected and WHERE. The WHAT that they are protected from can be somewhat vague.
Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:34:00 -
[375] - Quote
Kara Books Like a breath of fresh air.
It doesn't need to be crystal clear, this is simply your opinion, nothing more. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:34:00 -
[376] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.
1. Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.
2. Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.
That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter.
We agree. But you have to tell those players who want to shoot other players which players they're not allowed to shoot. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1511
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:39:00 -
[377] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit?
On the flip side, getting concrete definitions is what you hire lawyers for. Does CCP want to get into space lawyering and trying to nail that slab of jelly to the wall?
How about this: if you want to gank people risk-free, stay out of rookie systems. The definition of rookie needs to be vague otherwise the wannabe gankers will attempt to game the system at the rookie's expense. Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:40:00 -
[378] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:And no you don't, it can be implied
Not if you want the prohibition to be effective. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:43:00 -
[379] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit? On the flip side, getting concrete definitions is what you hire lawyers for. Does CCP want to get into space lawyering and trying to nail that slab of jelly to the wall? How about this: if you want to gank people risk-free, stay out of rookie systems. The definition of rookie needs to be vague otherwise the wannabe gankers will attempt to game the system at the rookie's expense.
As I already posted, If CCP wants to define everyone in a Rookie system as a Rookie, and is willing to enforce that ruling, THAT'S OK BY ME.
It will have a number of bad effects, mostly harming real rookies, but it's a definition, and that's all we want. A Definition of a Rookie.
If you want to protect whatsits, you have to tell the whosit hunters the difference between a whosit and a whatsit. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
159
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:47:00 -
[380] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Kara Books wrote:Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.
1. Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.
2. Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.
That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter. We agree. But you have to tell those players who want to shoot other players which players they're not allowed to shoot.
Badman gets punished on a case by case basis, guy with no record, fumbling around gets first positive intervention in the game, be it from a Dev, another player GM...
Mostly, I agree, but I wouldn't like to see this become some kind of a medical institution with white walls and barred windows meant to punish or somehow remove aspects of the game from the new player, they should be protected in every way possible.
for the particularly hard headed Cell mates with an internet connection out there, once they are flagged as newbie griefers, the rules should be mailed to them, they should sign it and no one else needs to shoulder the blame or grief, this is both private and humane. |
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:49:00 -
[381] - Quote
Fortunately for everyone Ruby, you don't establish game policy. I'm glad you don't. I trust CCP in this matter way more than you.
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:50:00 -
[382] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:
Badman gets punished on a case by case basis, guy with no record, fumbling around gets first positive intervention in the game, be it from a Dev, another player GM...
Mostly, I agree, but I wouldn't like to see this become some kind of a medical institution with white walls and barred windows meant to punish or somehow remove aspects of the game from the new player, they should be protected in every way possible.
for the particularly hard headed Cell mates with an internet connection out there, once they are flagged as newbie griefers, the rules should be mailed to them, they should sign it and no one else needs to shoulder the blame or grief, this is both private and humane.
You're skipping right over the issue. The issue is "How do we bloody tell who we're not allowed to shoot when you won't tell us who's protected?" This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1902
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:52:00 -
[383] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Fortunately for everyone Ruby, you don't establish game policy. I'm glad you don't. I trust CCP in this matter way more than you.
And they asked us for help in creating a policy that protects Newbies* and doesn't smack people down by surprise. That "by surprise" thing is problematic when you want to protect newbies* in the first place.
*term yet to be defined. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
159
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:55:00 -
[384] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Kara Books wrote:
Badman gets punished on a case by case basis, guy with no record, fumbling around gets first positive intervention in the game, be it from a Dev, another player GM...
Mostly, I agree, but I wouldn't like to see this become some kind of a medical institution with white walls and barred windows meant to punish or somehow remove aspects of the game from the new player, they should be protected in every way possible.
for the particularly hard headed Cell mates with an internet connection out there, once they are flagged as newbie griefers, the rules should be mailed to them, they should sign it and no one else needs to shoulder the blame or grief, this is both private and humane.
You're skipping right over the issue. The issue is "How do we bloody tell who we're not allowed to shoot when you won't tell us who's protected?"
Well, lets say we had the first rule, a Trial account. being a rule, How would a griefer be able to tell without exposing information the newbie may want to keep private?
I believe its not the rules themselves, its protecting the Sovriety and game experience of both the Griefer and the Newbie. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:01:00 -
[385] - Quote
You know you must feel very strongly about this. I'm impressed, I almost think your some kind of lawyer. Wow. You know I'm very impressed at how hard your trying.
Let me try this just one more time, just leave the rookies alone.
Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
An inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. It's good enough for Websters, and basically the whole English speaking world. But I just have a feeling, lol. It's not good enough for you. |

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:08:00 -
[386] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.
1. Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.
2. Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.
That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter.
That's all fine, and I'm all for protecting rookies while they figure out the game.
But this is still a pvp game, and I don't want to get banned for attacking someone still considered a rookie when there isn't even a clear definition of what a rookie is. Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. It really would be nice to have a clear definition of who we can and can't attack. I agree that in most situations, it'll be pretty obvious, but there will be situations where it really isn't. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:14:00 -
[387] - Quote
InternetSpaceship wrote:[quote=Kara Books]
Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining.
LMFAO, really? You seriously suggesting these guys are rookies? Honestly?
|

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
159
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:19:00 -
[388] - Quote
InternetSpaceship wrote:Kara Books wrote:Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.
1. Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.
2. Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.
That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter. That's all fine, and I'm all for protecting rookies while they figure out the game. But this is still a pvp game, and I don't want to get banned for attacking someone still considered a rookie when there isn't even a clear definition of what a rookie is. Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. It really would be nice to have a clear definition of who we can and can't attack. I agree that in most situations, it'll be pretty obvious, but there will be situations where it really isn't.
Indeed, I can see your point, but a supercap isnt suposto be involved in a hostile engagement in highsec, Newbie protected system of all things. Newbie+Newb system = the only place these rules should apply.
Perhaps CCP should rename these systems, like some kind of super highsec training grounds or something along those lines.
People entering or leaving the training grounds should get a warning, and some fast facts/rules etc. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:41:00 -
[389] - Quote
Gorki Andropov wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Sephira Galamore wrote:Sentinel Smith wrote:Honestly.. I don't understand people who think knowing the rules is a bad thing.. Imagine if life was like that at home, school, and otherwise in the world..
"Don't speed on this road." "What's the speed limit ?" " Get on a different road." .. o_0 See, there are different kind of rules. The hard ones and the vague ones and each have a purpose. If you state a rule somewhat vague you purposefully leave a grey area. Within this area, it is up to the police/judge/GM to decide whether you broke the rule or not. The effect of this is a certain uncertainty, which may appear as a bad thing but often really isn't. Since the goal here is to avoid people walking the line, to push the limits, to find loopholes. On the other hand, it allows GM to show leniance, too. (Also, vague rules are used, when it's very difficult to actually define the limits objectively). And you have these kind of rules/laws in real life, too. "Don't drive in a way that recklessly endangers other traffic participants" - "Wait, what classifies as reckless driving?" - "Don't push it, man!" If you would define "recklessly" by setting limits for speed, acceleration, deviation from the road center, and whatsnot, you'd leave loopholes. Of course, hard rules have a purpose aswell, as they make it easy to deal with obvious cases and are less prone to subjective judgement. So back to topic: If you are in a rookie system and in a situation where you wonder "Is this a rookie now or not?", it should be clear that as soon as you have valid cause to even ask this question, the safe course of action is to leave it be. It's a about common sense, really. Of course you can still ask that question, answer it for yourself as good as you can, but when acting accordingly, you willingly accept the risk that goes along with that. Eve, consequences and stuff ;) I cannot quote this person enough. Some rules are vague on purpose and they will remain vague. This is the 'reckless driving' equivalent. If I define the rules to the last dot someone will simply find a loop hole and use it. The rule is "do not mess with rookies", and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS 'do not do it'. A quick question - what if rookies take the can, fully aware and armed with the knowledge of what will happen? In other words, if you label the can 'IF YOU TAKE FROM THIS CAN, OTHER PLAYERS WILL ATTACK YOU'?
So here we have a prime example of a griefer. What part of do not do it, don't you understand? |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1511
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:53:00 -
[390] - Quote
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. Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
|

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:54:00 -
[391] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there. You want to protect a class, define it. You've skipped right over what Tippia and I have said and gone right to impugning our motives. Here's my set of premises. 1) EvE is a place that allows non-consensual PvP without restrictions 2) Because newbies are new, they should be protected 3) 2 should not compromise 1 This means that it must be made crystal clear WHO is protected and WHERE. The WHAT that they are protected from can be somewhat vague. Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit?
You have one solid known for a fact piece of the puzzle. They are only protected in the starter systems. So if I were you I would just make that short list of systems off limits for any kind of PvP agression. Problem fixed. Of course any and every single law ever written was made to be broken. And all the people posting problems with this are those that so want to test this limit. Well then by all means test the limits and find out first hand where they are then report back. This is not rocket science people. EVE is a huge place. Are the people posting here really not going to have any fun because a few systems are off limits? If that is the case you might as well rage quit right now. |

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:56:00 -
[392] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know you must feel very strongly about this. I'm impressed, I almost think your some kind of lawyer. Wow. You know I'm very impressed at how hard your trying.
Let me try this just one more time, just leave the rookies alone.
Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
An inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. It's good enough for Websters, and basically the whole English speaking world. But I just have a feeling, lol. It's not good enough for you.
So just how can we identify these rookies on sight alone? Skill points? Reg date? How many skill points does a rookie have? Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 07:12:00 -
[393] - Quote
InternetSpaceship wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know you must feel very strongly about this. I'm impressed, I almost think your some kind of lawyer. Wow. You know I'm very impressed at how hard your trying.
Let me try this just one more time, just leave the rookies alone.
Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
An inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. It's good enough for Websters, and basically the whole English speaking world. But I just have a feeling, lol. It's not good enough for you. So just how can we identify these rookies on sight alone? Skill points? Reg date? How many skill points does a rookie have?
You can not and that is what all the whinning is about. The rookies hold all of the cards in the starter systems. You are totally free to go into those starter systems and cause problems stir the pot all you want. Take all the chances you want and push the line til it breaks. But when a rookie calls you on it you lose. So why take that chance and for what possible reason would you want to anyway? The GM's will protect the rookies. They made that clear in the starter systems.
Or you can do the smart thing and just make the starter systems off limits. How many are there anyway? What will it kill you to do this? |

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:11:00 -
[394] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:[quote=Kara Books]
Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. LMFAO, really? You seriously suggesting these guys are rookies? Honestly?
Yes? When I started Eve, I literally knew nothing about it. Joining GW didn't just magically bestow me with knowledge of Eve.
Although the previous response regarding starter areas answered my question a lot better than yours did. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:16:00 -
[395] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know you must feel very strongly about this. I'm impressed, I almost think your some kind of lawyer. Wow. You know I'm very impressed at how hard your trying.
Let me try this just one more time, just leave the rookies alone.
Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
An inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. It's good enough for Websters, and basically the whole English speaking world. But I just have a feeling, lol. It's not good enough for you. So just how can we identify these rookies on sight alone? Skill points? Reg date? How many skill points does a rookie have? You can not and that is what all the whinning is about. The rookies hold all of the cards in the starter systems. You are totally free to go into those starter systems and cause problems stir the pot all you want. Take all the chances you want and push the line til it breaks. But when a rookie calls you on it you lose. So why take that chance and for what possible reason would you want to anyway? The GM's will protect the rookies. They made that clear in the starter systems. Or you can do the smart thing and just make the starter systems off limits. How many are there anyway? What will it kill you to do this?
Well, as I said earlier, I don't really gank anyone at all, and I'm all for protecting brand new players. Even GW doesn't typically target brand new players (and if you're in a hulk, you're not brand new). But I still agree it is a mistake to give us a group of players that we aren't allowed to attack, and then provide no means for us to identify that group by.
What if some hisec veteran carebear is mining and some day old rookie decides to steal from his can? He just has to sit there and take it because he has no way of knowing if this guy is just some new player or an older player in a newbie ship?
Guess I know where I"m getting all my veld now (you know, if I actually mined veld).
Seriously, what is the harm in the mods actually letting us know who it is we aren't supposed to be shooting? PvP happens even in those starter zones. What if a day old newbie joins a corp that is wardecced? If someone blows him up, they get banned, even though they had no clue they weren't allowed to shoot him, even though he was red to them. There really is no harm in making it clear who we aren't allowed to shoot if we are expressly not allowed to shoot them.
I suppose the next step is to beg ccp to make empire a no-pvp zone entirely. And that's really all your argument is. A thinly veiled excuse to argue that Empire should be entirely pvp-free. Rather than deal with gankers yourself, you want CCP to come in and play the game for you. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |

Alison McCarty
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 09:03:00 -
[396] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
You are talking about 80% of the Eve players and 90% of some big null sec alliances. You may think about your policie  |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 09:32:00 -
[397] - Quote
InternetSpaceship wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know you must feel very strongly about this. I'm impressed, I almost think your some kind of lawyer. Wow. You know I'm very impressed at how hard your trying.
Let me try this just one more time, just leave the rookies alone.
Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
An inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. It's good enough for Websters, and basically the whole English speaking world. But I just have a feeling, lol. It's not good enough for you. So just how can we identify these rookies on sight alone? Skill points? Reg date? How many skill points does a rookie have? You can not and that is what all the whinning is about. The rookies hold all of the cards in the starter systems. You are totally free to go into those starter systems and cause problems stir the pot all you want. Take all the chances you want and push the line til it breaks. But when a rookie calls you on it you lose. So why take that chance and for what possible reason would you want to anyway? The GM's will protect the rookies. They made that clear in the starter systems. Or you can do the smart thing and just make the starter systems off limits. How many are there anyway? What will it kill you to do this? Well, as I said earlier, I don't really gank anyone at all, and I'm all for protecting brand new players. Even GW doesn't typically target brand new players (and if you're in a hulk, you're not brand new). But I still agree it is a mistake to give us a group of players that we aren't allowed to attack, and then provide no means for us to identify that group by. What if some hisec veteran carebear is mining and some day old rookie decides to steal from his can? He just has to sit there and take it because he has no way of knowing if this guy is just some new player or an older player in a newbie ship? Guess I know where I"m getting all my veld now (you know, if I actually mined veld). Seriously, what is the harm in the mods actually letting us know who it is we aren't supposed to be shooting? PvP happens even in those starter zones. What if a day old newbie joins a corp that is wardecced? If someone blows him up, they get banned, even though they had no clue they weren't allowed to shoot him, even though he was red to them. There really is no harm in making it clear who we aren't allowed to shoot if we are expressly not allowed to shoot them. I suppose the next step is to beg ccp to make empire a no-pvp zone entirely. And that's really all your argument is. A thinly veiled excuse to argue that Empire should be entirely pvp-free. Rather than deal with gankers yourself, you want CCP to come in and play the game for you.
The GM's will rule on each case based upon each individual merits. No blanket rule. They already said as much. So yes their is risk in the starter systems only this time the rookies hold the cards. So it is sort of a reverse risk. IE. The starter systems may not be the safe haven to mine in because the rookies can grief you. So basically the starter systems are only safe if you are a rookie.
I think your example is poor anyway because miners just sit and take can stealing everywhere. Why should the starter system be any different? So just because these guys are noobs you want to be able to stand up to them as a miner? And with what, are you going to throw stones at them? So yes you have to just sit there and take it like you do anywhere else. Now if you are part of a defensive fleet protecting your miners then why are you hiding in starter systems? It would seem to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. That does not happen in EVE anywhere. But if you really must get revenge well as soon as that pilot leaves the starter system he is fair game go get him.
If you want an answer to the day old war dec rookie in a starter system then ask. Make a petition to a GM in game. Get an answer to that specific example then use it to defend your actions should you ever need it. I am trying to understand why this would ever be a problem in the first place. About the only thing you will be doing is mining. If he is war dec to you and one day old it is not too likely he will even know about fitting scams or webs or even the propper way to use them. He might web you and allow you to warp out that much faster. If he is an alt one day old he could be trouble, he holds all the cards. You hold all the risk.
But again I say why take the chance anyway just stay clear. Problem solved. |

Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:23:00 -
[398] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.
'Cause WhySo's the bastion of elite PvP. Would you enjoy it if you were to, on occasion, receive a GM warning or Ban because of your target selection? And have no useful information with which to avoid said warning or ban because the protected target class is ill-defined.
I can shoot whoever I want, whenever I want.
RubyPorto wrote: Again, if you think it's easy to define rookie, define it.
Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:55:00 -
[399] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Crawl out from under your rock worm, grow a pair, find a low-sec gate and have all your worries put to rest.
'Cause WhySo's the bastion of elite PvP. Would you enjoy it if you were to, on occasion, receive a GM warning or Ban because of your target selection? And have no useful information with which to avoid said warning or ban because the protected target class is ill-defined. I can shoot whoever I want, whenever I want. RubyPorto wrote: Again, if you think it's easy to define rookie, define it.
Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
There it is again. No pvp in hisec, just thinly veiled. This is a pvp game, but everyone is so scared of it. You guys really should be playing WoW if nonconsensual pvp scares you so much. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |

DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 12:24:00 -
[400] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore? Fix FW ! |
|

Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 12:41:00 -
[401] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?
Since when is ganking miners, industrials and can-baiting noobies ment to be classed as pvp?
Only in hi-sec.
Pathetic as always. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |

DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 12:51:00 -
[402] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore? Since when is ganking miners, industrials and can-baiting noobies ment to be classed as pvp? Only in hi-sec. Pathetic as always.
Lets see: miner = Player ... versus ... ganker = Player, sounds like pvp to me. Is it fair, no, is it pvp, yes. Fix FW ! |

Luis Graca
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 12:54:00 -
[403] - Quote
No trolling, and yes this is a actually question
In a sandbox game isn't there a rule saying something kinda like "If there no rules you can do it" ?
|

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1278
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 12:59:00 -
[404] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore?
It has always been Eve and is still now, you just play the wrong part of it. Why are you so afraid of moving to low/null? Are you afraid of loosing ships?

|

Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
158
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:02:00 -
[405] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Since nothing of much economic value happens in rookie systems, the only thing this really applies to is something like "are Hulks in rookie systems 'rookies'?"
Dear lord... Hulks are advanced T2 ships. I am not going to dignify this with a real answer. 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.
You are 'special' aren't you? |

DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:06:00 -
[406] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore? It has always been Eve and is still now, you just play the wrong part of it. Why are you so afraid of moving to low/null? Are you afraid of loosing ships? 
Feel free to check my killboard. I lose a lot of ships in lowsec. :)
I just think highsec should not be totally safe. Danger is one of the core concepts of the game. Fix FW ! |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7977
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:09:00 -
[407] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. LMFAO, really? You seriously suggesting these guys are rookies? Honestly? So we're tabck to that question: what precludes them from being rookies?
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?
|

Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
158
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:11:00 -
[408] - Quote
Anyone else experiencing obtuseness overload? Should be a warning on the thread title.
that is all |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:30:00 -
[409] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know you must feel very strongly about this. I'm impressed, I almost think your some kind of lawyer. Wow. You know I'm very impressed at how hard your trying.
Let me try this just one more time, just leave the rookies alone.
Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
An inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. It's good enough for Websters, and basically the whole English speaking world. But I just have a feeling, lol. It's not good enough for you.
That is a vague and circular definition useless for protecting a class. Take a look at a law, any law, and you'll notice that terms are defined rather carefully. Law and rules are not written in natural language because they need to be precise if they are to do what they are intended. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:31:00 -
[410] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:[quote=Kara Books]
Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. LMFAO, really? You seriously suggesting these guys are rookies? Honestly?
I think that anyone with less than 24hrs of game experience is probably a rookie, yes. Not a member of the class we're trying to protect, but certainly covered by your natural language definition. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:32:00 -
[411] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:Kara Books wrote:Lets look at it from a whole different perspective, People who pray on 1 day old players, WISH have or may do this in real life, Im talking about Killers rapists bad people who go after kids... These people are BAD and they REALLY do exist!, pretty much any one who has family, loves some one or has kids understands, these individuals need to be kept away from the temporally defenseless who just started exploring the basics of the new world around them.
1. Yes this is eve online, this is a world with no rules, but Chasing away new players makes it worse for you, in fact, why fight the wave, join it, help these new players leave the systems and stay with eve for years to come.
2. Instead of forcing people to leave, make new friends, go with the wave, help this game grow from 50K active online weekends to 500K.
That concludes my personal Opinion on the matter. That's all fine, and I'm all for protecting rookies while they figure out the game. But this is still a pvp game, and I don't want to get banned for attacking someone still considered a rookie when there isn't even a clear definition of what a rookie is. Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. It really would be nice to have a clear definition of who we can and can't attack. I agree that in most situations, it'll be pretty obvious, but there will be situations where it really isn't. Indeed, I can see your point, but a supercap isnt suposto be involved in a hostile engagement in highsec, Newbie protected system of all things. Newbie+Newb system = the only place these rules should apply. Perhaps CCP should rename these systems, like some kind of super highsec training grounds or something along those lines. People entering or leaving the training grounds should get a warning, and some fast facts/rules etc.
That's what I suggested 5 pages ago before Woodcock and friends insisted that rookie needs no definition. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:34:00 -
[412] - Quote
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. You've only fixed my statement if you assume that the rule change that I suggested 5 pages ago has been put in place. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:39:00 -
[413] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:You know I understand you need your baby's to bash. So now were trying to decide, can't bash a 1 or 2 week old in the head with a base ball bat, but we need to make it clear that 6 month old baby's are ok for head bashing. Then it's oh my goodness, we can't do that to any baby's, but 2 year old's are ok to head bash. I'm simply not going to give this to you, no matter what stupid logic you keep pitching. What I'm certain of though, is there will still be easy targets for you to bash, you can rest assured of that. Don't Panic, they will still be there. You want to protect a class, define it. You've skipped right over what Tippia and I have said and gone right to impugning our motives. Here's my set of premises. 1) EvE is a place that allows non-consensual PvP without restrictions 2) Because newbies are new, they should be protected 3) 2 should not compromise 1 This means that it must be made crystal clear WHO is protected and WHERE. The WHAT that they are protected from can be somewhat vague. Say I want to protect whatsits from harm. You have no idea what a whatsit is, so you go and shoot something. Would it be fair if I told you after you shot the thing that it was a whatsit and now you must be punished for shooting the protected whatsit? You have one solid known for a fact piece of the puzzle. They are only protected in the starter systems. So if I were you I would just make that short list of systems off limits for any kind of PvP agression. Problem fixed. Of course any and every single law ever written was made to be broken. And all the people posting problems with this are those that so want to test this limit. Well then by all means test the limits and find out first hand where they are then report back. This is not rocket science people. EVE is a huge place. Are the people posting here really not going to have any fun because a few systems are off limits? If that is the case you might as well rage quit right now.
That's what I suggested 5 pages ago. But CCP needs to make rules clear in order to enforce them in a consistent manner. If they would like to ban all agression in Rookie systems, THATS FINE.
There would be downsides to that approach, people getting banned for ganking Hulks* in those systems, etc, but that's what you get for defining a protected class broadly.
*If someone says "Hulk's not a Rookie" again, they need to define rookie in a way that's more specific but still as sensitive. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:39:00 -
[414] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Tanya Powers wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore? It has always been Eve and is still now, you just play the wrong part of it. Why are you so afraid of moving to low/null? Are you afraid of loosing ships?  Feel free to check my killboard. I lose a lot of ships in lowsec. :) I just think highsec should not be totally safe. Danger is one of the core concepts of the game.
And it is not.
See wardec/Faction warfare stats to figure it out.
No need to search false crappy excuses to use/abuse the lack of distinct rules to support a very false argument. Now, if you're talking about NPC toons you should always be able to gank them, but you should also have to consider your loss vs profit instead of a simple brainless "high sec not safe, me shoots because defenceless ship not fight back, mwahahah me better at eve"
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7977
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:42:00 -
[415] - Quote
Ooh, I missed that one!Mrr Woodcock wrote:Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áAn inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. Because it doesn't change the fundamental problem of defining who does and who doesn't belong to the group GÇö it just replaces the word with a synonym without adding any specificity (which is what we're after). GÇ£Don't mess with inexperienced personsGÇ¥ and GÇ£don't mess with novicesGÇ¥ are just as unhelpful as GÇ£don't mess with rookiesGÇ¥ (ok, it's not entirely unhelpful GÇö that GÇÿpersonsGÇÖ bit means we can conclude that your parakeet isn't a rookie).
What is a novice? What counts as inexperienced?
It doesn't tell us whether or not we can shoot that rookie with the 25bn tech loadGǪ 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
1908
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:42:00 -
[416] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore? Since when is ganking miners, industrials and can-baiting noobies ment to be classed as pvp? Only in hi-sec. Pathetic as always.
A Ganker is a Player. A Miner is a Player.
Player... VS... Player.
You may not like that form, and that's perfectly fine. But it's valid gameplay. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1909
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:46:00 -
[417] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: The GM's will rule on each case based upon each individual merits. No blanket rule. They already said as much. So yes their is risk in the starter systems only this time the rookies hold the cards. So it is sort of a reverse risk. IE. The starter systems may not be the safe haven to mine in because the rookies can grief you. So basically the starter systems are only safe if you are a rookie.
Since you say that shooting Non-Rookies is all right in Rookie systems, Define "Rookie" in a way that allows people to avoid shooting them.
Quote: But again I say why take the chance anyway just stay clear. Problem solved.
Again, I say if the GMs want to ban ALL agression in rookie systems, that's fine. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:13:00 -
[418] - Quote
Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me!
By the way good morning. 
CCP it's perfectly clear to me this guy had all the answers. and good ones to boot. Please just simply do what he says, so he'll shut up. Please Please |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1909
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:18:00 -
[419] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me!
Then suggest an alternative that's clear to everyone and enforceable. Or Explain why surprising people with bans due to unclear rules is a positive thing. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:53:00 -
[420] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Tanya Powers wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote: Is the security of the system I'm currently located in less then 0.5? If yes, I'm golden. Simples.
Since when is highsec supposed to be safe? Should I start looking for another game, because this is not EVE anymore? It has always been Eve and is still now, you just play the wrong part of it. Why are you so afraid of moving to low/null? Are you afraid of loosing ships?  Feel free to check my killboard. I lose a lot of ships in lowsec. :) I just think highsec should not be totally safe. Danger is one of the core concepts of the game. And it is not. See wardec/Faction warfare stats to figure it out. No need to search false crappy excuses to use/abuse the lack of distinct rules to support a very false argument. Now, if you're talking about NPC toons you should always be able to gank them, but you should also have to consider your loss vs profit instead of a simple brainless "high sec not safe, me shoots because defenceless ship not fight back, mwahahah me better at eve"
Nobody here is saying that it is ok to gank rookies in startersystems. The problem is in the fact that ccp tries to protect rookies in other systems than the startersystems without clearly defining what a rookie is.
Is this really that hard to comprehend? We don't want to gank rookies and in order to achieve that we need to know what a rookie is.
I'm really getting tired of being called a ganker. Is that the only argument you guys can come up with? This is not about griefing rookies, this argument is about defining clear rules in a game in order to improve gameplay for everyone, especially for the new players.
sigh.... Fix FW ! |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:18:00 -
[421] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:No need to search false crappy excuses to use/abuse the lack of distinct rules to support a very false argument. We know. That's why we're arguing for the removal of the those grey areas, which would eliminate all the crappy excuses. For some reason, people seem rather adamant that this is bad GÇö presumably because they enjoy the amount to which they abuse the system, and because would hate to see those abuses removed.
That's why you're seeing all those false and crappy excuses such as GÇ£everyone knowsGÇ¥ and GÇ£you're just a gankerGÇ¥: they have no argument (not even a very false one), and have to go for the red herrings and ad hominems instead. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Haulie Berry
209
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:20:00 -
[422] - Quote
I'm... I'm curious. Do people actually think flippin' Tippia spends large swaths if time preying on rookies because he just can't hack it in "real" PvP? 
Even as ad hominem circumstantial arguments go, that one is particularly stupid. |

InternetSpaceship
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:00:00 -
[423] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me! Then suggest an alternative that's clear to everyone and enforceable. Or Explain why surprising people with bans due to unclear rules is a positive thing.
Eh, just stop. He only wants Empire to be entirely risk free, so he's only going to say that you just shouldn't attack anyone in Empire, just in case. He wants the rules to be vague so no one can risk breaking them. Official Recruiter for GoonSwarm Corporation.
If you paid isk to get into GoonSwarm, you were probably scammed.-á If you had the foresight to save the name of your scammer, let me know and I'll do what I can to help you. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1910
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:02:00 -
[424] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:I'm... I'm curious. Do people actually think flippin' Tippia spends large swaths if time preying on rookies because he just can't hack it in "real" PvP?  Even as ad hominem circumstantial arguments go, that one is particularly stupid.
BoB hatin' rollin' deep. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1910
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:04:00 -
[425] - Quote
InternetSpaceship wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Man I'm glad that's fine with you Ruby, that makes everything OK with everyone I guess. Well Not me! Then suggest an alternative that's clear to everyone and enforceable. Or Explain why surprising people with bans due to unclear rules is a positive thing. Eh, just stop. He only wants Empire to be entirely risk free, so he's only going to say that you just shouldn't attack anyone in Empire, just in case. He wants the rules to be vague so no one can risk breaking them.
I'd stop, but GM Hormonia asked for suggestions for clear policy. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio on that front has been dropping precipitously. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:26:00 -
[426] - Quote
I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.
I was having a frigate duel with a guy and realized within the first few seconds that he was VERY new. I was trying to help him understand how to start the duel when he fired on me without first getting aggression. I thought the duel had started, so I began firing, only to have him suddenly pop when CONCORD shot him.
My point here is that anyone anywhere, even in rookie systems, may accidentally and unintentionally cause grief to a new player. No matter how strongly you believe it is cut and dry, it isn't. The rules should not only be clearly stated, but any changes in what is considered a bannable offense should be announced at startup so everyone can see it. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |

Haulie Berry
210
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:41:00 -
[427] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.
Why do people keep saying things like this? The GM in this thread has explicitly said that, while they would prefer you would not mess with rookies in general, it is NOT against the rules in systems that are not "rookie" systems.
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:49:00 -
[428] - Quote
Listen virtually every legal system in the world is full if things that are "Implied". It's everywhere, in virtually every system. I'm fine with this being a little grey. I actually like it like that, I have my reasons. I think many others agree. There are always people that disagree, there also virtually everywhere. I've had enough of this crap. If you can't grasp the concept, or disagree with the concept, that's your perspective, I respect that. Simple as that. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:02:00 -
[429] - Quote
OK, I never even implied I want things totally safe in high sec. ThatGÇÖs ridiculous, I would never want that.
I like the grayness of the way it is now, simply because it muddies the waters for the bottom feeders determined to kill only the new talent, period!
I would greatly support any new changes that bounces anyone that commits a high sec crime straight to low and null sec, not allowing them to return to high sec still they have repaired there security. Simply donGÇÖt allow them back in, until they repair this. My purpose of this is very, very simple. To help populate low and null, with more people for me personally to shoot. In my opinion many should be migrating there that are not, itGÇÖs a little quite out there.
Remember this is my opinion, and only my opinion. I'll be just fine with however it levels out. I'll deal with it, because frankly I hate being in high sec anyway. Very rare days when I'm there.
If you canGÇÖt grasp these simple things, feel free to shove it where ever you want.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:04:00 -
[430] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I actually like it like that, I have my reasons. I think many others agree. Presumably, you want the rules to be vague so you can exploit them for protection you do not deserve.
The rest of us just wants the rules to protect rookies. Why do you feel the need to hide behind them?
Haulie Berry wrote:Why do people keep saying things like this? The GM in this thread has explicitly said that, while they would prefer you would not mess with rookies in general, it is NOT against the rules in systems that are not "rookie" systems. Because they've said in other places, that it might not be ok GÇö the the rookie system rule might apply outside of rookie systems. This creates maximum ambiguity for maximum confusion and maximum unenforceability: you are not allowed to attack a group of people (that can't be defined) in some set of systems (that can't be defined), except occasionally you might be (according to rules of judgement that can't be defined).
What he's describing is the logical conclusion of the GÇ£don't mess with rookiesGÇ¥ rule. Yes, reasonably, he should have no problems with that incident, but as this thread has shown GÇ£reasonablyGÇ¥ isn't a universal constantGǪ So the whole idea of building a rule around that measure of GÇ£reasonableGÇ¥ is flawed to the core, and yet it's what people are arguing in favour of. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|

Sasha Deathcabin Yvormes
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:09:00 -
[431] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
There you go, a new concept of gameplay....
NOOBGEDDON!!!!
how can starter systems be immune to goongankage? After all, if they are mining, they are not playing the game correctly.
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
522
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:16:00 -
[432] - Quote
Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's? Excuse me while I go shed a tear for the human race. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:24:00 -
[433] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's? No. We're still trying to make people who say that it can't be defined understand that this means the rule is pretty useless, what with the main subject of it being undefined and allGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
522
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:28:00 -
[434] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's? No. We're still trying to make people who say that it can't be defined understand that this means the rule is pretty useless, what with the main subject of it being undefined and allGǪ
So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:32:00 -
[435] - Quote
So when was the last GM correspondence in this thread? Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7994
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:34:00 -
[436] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix. No. We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is.
We're doing exactly what the GMs asked us for. We are also not trying to define what a rookie is GÇö we're asking those who prefer the rule that requires a definition of rookie to do that. They can't. That means the rule is no good.
Simple enough, or do you want to keep wilfully misunderstanding what GÇ£noGÇ¥ means? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:37:00 -
[437] - Quote
Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence
GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing.
The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............
Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Cutout Man
Viziam Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:38:00 -
[438] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............ too bad you didn't bother to scroll down further in the thread, where the same GM revisits those rules time and again |

Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:43:00 -
[439] - Quote
Thread is overall ******** if you ask me.
Is it really that hard to simply stay away from new players and the newbie systems and leave it at that? Or does this whole thread stem from the fact that there is a bunch of players present here who suck so much that you get kicks from blowing newbies up?
Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating. |

Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
373
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:50:00 -
[440] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I once baited a new player into aggressing me illegally in high security space. Not intentionally, but an outsider watching would not have been able to verify that. I did not receive any warning, likely because it happened right next to Dodixie, and not in a rookie system. Probably the GMs never noticed.
I was having a frigate duel with a guy and realized within the first few seconds that he was VERY new. I was trying to help him understand how to start the duel when he fired on me without first getting aggression. I thought the duel had started, so I began firing, only to have him suddenly pop when CONCORD shot him.
My point here is that anyone anywhere, even in rookie systems, may accidentally and unintentionally cause grief to a new player. No matter how strongly you believe it is cut and dry, it isn't. The rules should not only be clearly stated, but any changes in what is considered a bannable offense should be announced at startup so everyone can see it.
Can't believe this thread is still going on. But here is another example why there will never be a hard fast rule. Like any and all rules and laws, intent plays a big part.
Reaver did not have a intent to kill the newbie. If anything this was more of a training session, sadly the mistake cost the new player more then just there ship as there standing was also effected.
I seriously doubt the newbie petitioned you and if they did a Nice GM MIGHT have reset the newbies standings and let it go at that as lesson learned depending on how new the character really was.
You can't define hard rules with this stuff cause you can't define every scenario.
The whole reason for a GM to begin with.
The more stringent the rules the less power a GM has to help those in need and go after those who are trying to use the rules to abuse the system.
GM's need room to do there jobs, and yes sometimes that means the wrong person will be punished, but guess what that is life and you can always escalate if you feel you need too. EVERYBODY KNOWS |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:58:00 -
[441] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............ No. You missed the really important part: GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? As part of this, we're pointing out that the whole idea of having a rule that depends on something that cannot and will not be defined will inherently be much worse in a number of ways than a rule that doesn't require those kinds of distinctions.
Gillia Winddancer wrote:Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating. Common sense is the rarest commodity in the universe. Common-sense-based rules have a frightening tendency to fall apart when faced with senseless activities.
In this case, the common-sense approach stumbles by turning a rule that is supposed to protect rookies into a rule that doesn't fully protect rookies, but unduly protects vetsGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:02:00 -
[442] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=THE L0CK] We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is.
I'd exercise a little discretion when using the word stupid, and GM in the same sentence. Just a friendly piece of advise. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:08:00 -
[443] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I'd exercise a little discretion when using the word stupid, and GM in the same sentence. Just a friendly piece of advise. Not needed unless the GMs can't follow a simple sentence and trace the referent of the stupidity in question.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:12:00 -
[444] - Quote
Cutout Man wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Well, I found the last meaningful GM correspondence GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............ too bad you didn't bother to scroll down further in the thread, where the same GM revisits those rules time and again
Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there? Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:13:00 -
[445] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there? Yes. You ignored the GM quote.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
523
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:20:00 -
[446] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix. No. We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is. We're doing exactly what the GMs asked us for. We are also not trying to define what a rookie is GÇö we're asking those who prefer the rule that requires a definition of rookie to do that. They can't. That means the rule is no good. Simple enough, or do you want to keep wilfully misunderstanding what GÇ£noGÇ¥ means?
Exactly what I said, you keep reverting to the stupidly extreme scenario to break the definition of a rookie. We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Sasha Deathcabin Yvormes
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:23:00 -
[447] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:Thread is overall ******** if you ask me.
Is it really that hard to simply stay away from new players and the newbie systems and leave it at that? Or does this whole thread stem from the fact that there is a bunch of players present here who suck so much that you get kicks from blowing newbies up?
Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating.
So whats the difference between noobs and miners, or mission runners? How can you exempt one group and not others? Its a sandbox, take the rough with the smooth, getting blown up is the way we all learnt.
|

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:25:00 -
[448] - Quote
Ive read this threed over and over every post
And that fact is ive still got no idea what can and cant be done I still only know if i break the rules Its my ***
Fact is we need more CCP imput on this issue and i hope thay see that just as clearly as i do
|

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:28:00 -
[449] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there? Yes. You ignored the GM quote.
My point is that having said they wouldn't discuss it any further, they then did exactly that.
Clear enough?
EDIT: I think you and a few others need to take a break from posting, its affecting your ability to read. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7999
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:29:00 -
[450] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Exactly what I said No. What you said is that we're trying to defined what a rookie is. We're not.
Quote:We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages. GǪwhich, along with the inability to define rookies, is why it's not a sound basis for this kind of rule set. It is also completely unnecessary for reaching the same goal.
Cutter Isaacson wrote:I think you and a few others need to take a break from posting, its affecting your ability to read. Nah. It's affecting the ability to notice your switch away from the GÇ£GM says so, obey!GÇ¥-stance you've previously tended towards. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:31:00 -
[451] - Quote
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 |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
526
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:35:00 -
[452] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Exactly what I said No. What you said is that we're trying to defined what a rookie is. We're not. Quote:We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages. GǪwhich, along with the inability to define rookies, is why it's not a sound basis for this kind of rule set. It is also completely unnecessary for reaching the same goal.
pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie, not our fault is some of you continue being the donkey. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:39:00 -
[453] - Quote
this link deals with can fliping
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Can_Flipping
if you follow the wording all pvp in rookie systems expect for wardes is offlimits
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
This is the problem this is what need to be cleared up Because the Gm Clearly Said that it isnt True |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:39:00 -
[454] - Quote
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?
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
526
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:44:00 -
[455] - Quote
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.
Quote:This is the problem this is what need to be cleared up Because the Gm Clearly Said that it isnt True
She didn't say it wasn't true. She asked what we could do to improve it verbally as we would have 0 dev hours to improve it technically.
Also, the word excellent is very subjective. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:51:00 -
[456] - 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. 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. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
527
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:55:00 -
[457] - Quote
silens vesica 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. 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.
That's what I already said about 6 posts up. It's like there is an echo in this thread today. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:56:00 -
[458] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:The common sense one of course, sheesh. Which one is that?
Quote:Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario. How can we break something that doesn't exist? 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?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:57:00 -
[459] - Quote
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. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:59:00 -
[460] - 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 whole point of this discussion is that the term rookie is almost impossible to define. That is exactly why there should not be rules that rely on this definition.
Protect new players in the startersytems. Don't protect rookies in arbitrary systems. Fix FW ! |
|

Trappist Monk
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:01:00 -
[461] - 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. 14 days or less, no player corps in history, no pvp history, no older characters on the account
pretty simple really |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
527
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:02:00 -
[462] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:The common sense one of course, sheesh. Which one is that? Quote:Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario. How can we break something that doesn't exist?
Mine of course. Well, combined from several of us who were able to move on from the invisible roadblock. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:15:00 -
[463] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Hey Tippia.
What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations? I would say that it can't be defined other than by exposing data that shouldn't be exposed to other users (and even then, it's highly questionable), so it's a bad idea to create a rule that relies on such a definition.
Instead, you create a blanket rule that protects an unquestionably objective and clear subsection of space and its inhabitants GÇö regardless of status GÇö and then improve the education of all parties about the existence and extent of this protection. This make the definition and its applicability irrelevant.
THE L0CK wrote:Mine of course. 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? 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?
|

Lincoln Armm
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:19:00 -
[464] - Quote
Abstract arguments aside, what is the situation we are looking at. Every situation involving a possible New Player can be broken down simply:
If your not in a new player system, no problem, if your not doing anything that would conceivably mess with a new player - then no problem.
SO we have already eliminated 95%+ of most peoples activities. If both of the above are false then your going to have to exercise some judgment. If you don't want to have to risk a possible ban or warning you can simply avoid the previous.
But even after that most cases will again be obvious. Players in BS, command ships etc. players in npc corps, npc with hundereds of millions of isk in cargo or fittings, are going to be fine. CCCP is not looking for loopholes nor are they dying to ban people.
So what does that leave? A small set of situations when someone is probably or possibly a new player. CCCP wants you to err on the side of not messing with other players in those circumstances and they are going to back up what they want with a big ban hammer.
You can demand detailed definitions or rail that its not sand box, but honestly is this really so hard to live with? |

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:22:00 -
[465] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:silens vesica 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. 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. That's what I already said about 6 posts up. It's like there is an echo in this thread today. Bad case of 'post overload' happening in this thread today.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
527
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:24:00 -
[466] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Mine of course. 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?
Because it wasn't just my version of it and I'm positive that my idea won't be used. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:26:00 -
[467] - Quote
OK, since were so focused on making suggestions, and all doing our best to help the GM come to a conclusion as to how this should be handled, here is my two bits.
1)I think 6 months of safety is completely reasonable. Give them a chance to learn The Game. But thatGÇÖs all they get is 6 months. So if they open an account, play for 2 Hours, but do not return for say 6 months and one day. They clearly should loose this granted safety no matter what. They get 6 months period. Get set go.
2)There should be a list of Bozo No NoGÇÖs. For example, if they ever set foot in Anything less than high sec, join any player based corp, haul anything of value Greater than say 5m isk. (these are just examples) there newb protection ends Instantly. What I think makes sense are basic no noGÇÖs. IGÇÖm certain CCP could Derive this easy enough and adjust accordingly.
Something like this makes a certain sense to me. But honestly I like it just fine the way it is. I actually like the grayness of it, as with virtually all other aspects of life, and gaming. In my opinion the less certain you can make it the better, as many of the pun dents eluded too, itGÇÖs giveGÇÖs CCP the biggest hammer. In my opinion players that prey on new ones need lots of uncertainty to kinda make them think. Problem is having to think, exercise discretion, and related stuff, doesnGÇÖt seem to be in style with many of this crowd. IGÇÖm going to go out on a limb here, and predict. Many, Many more in this game, please refer to your survey, have no problem what so ever with the simple way the GM stated it. I donGÇÖt.
CCP please take note of all the debate here, and the blatant refusal to accept a potato, as a potato. There whole argument is simple. Stake them out a few systems. That way when they leave them, we can have at em just as soon as possible. They actually desperately need those defenseless players to kill, harass, or what ever.
The bottom feeders are always going to be there, trust me. No matter what you do, you probably wonGÇÖt be able to stop all of it. 90% is pretty good though.
My purpose is simple. I want the new guys to flourish, get interested, grow into solid veteran players. Move on to low, and null sec.s. Where many of us old school PVPGÇÖer are, and will welcome them to our world in a grand fashion.
TheyGÇÖre never going to stop trying to create uncertainty in this, or saying or doing anything to de-rail this. It just isnGÇÖt going to happen. I highly encourage the use of a big stick mentality for CCP regarding this. The will inevitably understand that, although it may take a bit.
The whole world works on the implications of certain events. DonGÇÖt jump in front of a speeding car, no law for that, but we all understand the implications.
Final words to GM
Lincoln Armm nicely said |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:27:00 -
[468] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Because it wasn't just my version of it Argumentum ad populum. No, that does not make your definition better than the other one.
Quote:I'm positive that my idea won't be used. GǪthen it's a pretty awful rule to use to determine who can and who can't be attacked, wouldn't you say? 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?
|

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:28:00 -
[469] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:
The whole point of this discussion is that the term rookie is almost impossible to define. That is exactly why there should not be rules that rely on this definition.
I disagree that it can't be defined.
At the very least, a core definition should be do-able, and fringe cases can go to the ever-so-popular 'case-by-case' consideration. Trappist Monk's suggestion comes close, but might not be perfect - I might amend it a little bit, perhaps "Youndger than 21 days in any combination of trial and paid accounts, etc. etc. etc." Other than that, I can work with his definition - It's sensible, easily understood, and doesn't provide shelter for excessive periods of time. Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
527
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:31:00 -
[470] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Because it wasn't just my version of it Argumentum ad populum. No, that does not make your definition better than the other one. Quote:I'm positive that my idea won't be used. GǪthen it's a pretty awful rule to use to determine who can and who can't be attacked, wouldn't you say?
Not my fault you excluded yourself from the conversation. I tried to include you but you purposefully ignored my questions whilst going about your cherry picking.
And who's making rules here? We didn't declare any rules. No, I know it won't go through because it's not what the GM asked, because its a stupidly extreme scenario. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:34:00 -
[471] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Hey Tippia.
What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations? I would say that it can't be defined other than by exposing data that shouldn't be exposed to other users (and even then, it's highly questionable), so it's a bad idea to create a rule that relies on such a definition. Instead, you create a blanket rule that protects an unquestionably objective and clear subsection of space and its inhabitants GÇö regardless of status GÇö and then improve the education of all parties about the existence and extent of this protection. This make the definition and its applicability irrelevant.
So, if I understand correctly, this would be the creation of a No-PvP zone is that protects all players when they are in it. Which is not unlike being docked in station.
Would this work to protect 'people'? Yup. Sure would.
It would create much more than just safety though, and I refuse to even talk about considering the multi-day length of this debate. lol When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
666
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:39:00 -
[472] - Quote
If you start from the point of a blanket rule and then add in a list of exceptions you're still in a better position than you are when you're trying to add protection for a class of people who are totally unidentifiable to other players. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:40:00 -
[473] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:And who's making rules here? 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).
Quote:Not my fault you excluded yourself from the conversation. I didn't. I just questioned its conclusions.
Olleybear wrote:So, if I understand correctly, this would be the creation of a No-PvP zone is that protects all players when they are in it. Which is not unlike being docked in station. GǪwhich is pretty much what we have had since time immemorial. The difference would be roughly zero.
Quote:It would create much more than just safety though Such as? 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?
|

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:45:00 -
[474] - Quote
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. Killboard |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
527
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:46:00 -
[475] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:And who's making rules here? 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). Quote:Not my fault you excluded yourself from the conversation. I didn't. I just questioned its conclusions.
Right, you cherry picked your argument and we continued on without you. And I'm not making any rules, I'm just using common sense while I feel my way through the gray. But as noted by myself and others, common sense varies quite notably. Some people have it, some don't, and some jsut enjoy being purposefully obtuse.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: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.
Pass the lube please. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:51:00 -
[476] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Right, you cherry picked your argument and we continued on without you. 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).
Quote:And I'm not making any rules 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:
Quote:I'm just using common sense while I feel my way through the gray. GǪwhich isn't a useful foundation for a rule since common sense isn't common in any sense of the word. 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?
|

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:53:00 -
[477] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:It would create much more than just safety though Such as?
Create a place where people, when war decced, can run when things get tough and still fly their shiny ships. A place where people can mine, belt rat, run missions, in 100% safety. Unless this No-PvP zone does not have belts, missions, or anomalies and the only thing a person can do is the tutorial missions, one time. Perhaps I am missing something though. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8002
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:01:00 -
[478] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Create a place where people, when war decced, can run when things get tough and still fly their shiny ships. GǪand do nothing, since there's nothing for them to do there that they can't do by just staying where they were and not undocking.
Quote:A place where people can mine, belt rat, run missions, in 100% safety. No. We're talking about the starter systems here. Aside from possibly some veldspar (which can be removed and the rookies can get their mining on in special mining tutorial missions which, afair, are illegal to scan down), there is none of what you just listed. So yes, you missed that little detail.
Again: turn the rule back to what everyone (including some GMs, I might add) thought it was before. Very simple, very clear, very void of any kind of vagueness stemming from undefinable distinctions between equally undefinable classes of players, and void of any impact on the universe as a whole. 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
527
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:14:00 -
[479] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:Right, you cherry picked your argument and we continued on without you. 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). Quote:And I'm not making any rules 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: Quote:I'm just using common sense while I feel my way through the gray. GǪwhich isn't a useful foundation for a rule since common sense isn't common in any sense of the word.
Yes your argument has been very clearly one sided. Trust me, 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, hence why I moved along and continued with other people while you stayed and repeated the same thing time and time again, which is what I said the first time. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Olleybear
I R' Carebear
90
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:14:00 -
[480] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Olleybear wrote:Create a place where people, when war decced, can run when things get tough and still fly their shiny ships. GǪand do nothing, since there's nothing for them to do there that they can't do by just staying where they were and not undocking. Quote:A place where people can mine, belt rat, run missions, in 100% safety. No. We're talking about the starter systems here. Aside from possibly some veldspar (which can be removed and the rookies can get their mining on in special mining tutorial missions which, afair, are illegal to scan down), there is none of what you just listed. So yes, you missed that little detail.
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.
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. When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life. |
|

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 |
|

Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
374
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:34:00 -
[511] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: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.
All except for this. If someone is flying a T2 ship I seriously doubt you will get banned or in trouble by ANY GM.
Sorry but if someone has enough skills to fly a T2 then they should know the game by then. And if they bought the character, OH well.
EVERYBODY KNOWS |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
535
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:39:00 -
[512] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
I already discussed the topic. I just made a comment today about the fact that I was surprised that a certain scenario was still being tossed around after so many pages which of course leads to the use common sense answer which of course leads to the who's common sense do we use which of course leads to the varying levels of common sense discussion. I never intended to actually post in this thread after that but you kept responding so I decided to go with it and have fun playing last post. I tried to drop a hint with the like a mule reference but that blew right by you twice. I know that nothing I say will get around that wall of yours so I wasn't even trying.
BTW you still never answered the question I asked Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8007
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:50:00 -
[513] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: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. GǪand that's pretty much what we're saying: the protection of rookies is actually better served by a rule that doesn't mention rookies at all and that doesn't try to make any kind of distinction like that.
The problem comes when they are now leaning towards applying the same rule outside of the starter systems. That means the concrete part of the rule is gone and all we're left with is the intentionally vague bit GÇö now the entire rule becomes meaningless to anyone who isn't a GM. There is no concrete fact left to settle for.
Moreover, this intentionally vague part is a later development: for a while, it was completely crystal clear since they had answered in petitions that all kinds of GÇ£messing withGÇ¥ was out of line in the rookie systems. It's that move from a crystal clear set of people in a crystal clear context from an intentionally vague set of people in any context that is troubling. Going back to the crystal clear version would be far better.
THE L0CK wrote:I already discussed the topic. I just made a comment today about the fact that I was surprised that a certain scenario was still being tossed around after so many pages 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.
Quote:I never intended to actually post in this thread after that but you kept responding so I decided to go with it and have fun playing last post. I tried to drop a hint with the like a mule reference but that blew right by you twice. That's because I'm actually discussing the topic, unlike you, who are just playing posting games.
Quote:BTW you still never answered the question I asked Because you never specified which one when I asked. 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?
|

Barbelo Valentinian
The Scope Gallente Federation
334
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:53:00 -
[514] - Quote
Tippia wrote:We have no definition and the GMs are not willing to provide one, so we have to make one up using Gǣcommon senseGǥ 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.
But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense? |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
535
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:59:00 -
[515] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[ THE L0CK wrote:I already discussed the topic. I just made a comment today about the fact that I was surprised that a certain scenario was still being tossed around after so many pages 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. Quote:I never intended to actually post in this thread after that but you kept responding so I decided to go with it and have fun playing last post. I tried to drop a hint with the like a mule reference but that blew right by you twice. That's because I'm actually discussing the topic, unlike you, who are just playing posting games. Quote:BTW you still never answered the question I asked Because you never specified which one when I asked.
I told you, it's back around page 12 or 13. I feel like I've posted this before. As for the other stuff above, yeah, I already discussed that. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8010
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:05:00 -
[516] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:I told you, it's back around page 12 or 13. So what was the question? You never specified one when I asked.
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense? Because common sense is not common in either sense of the word, as the conflicting versions of common-sense interpretations in this thread show. 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 - 2012.06.16 00:15:00 -
[517] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:I told you, it's back around page 12 or 13. So what was the question? You never specified one when I asked.
The question was in response to your statement here.
So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him?
Tippia wrote:Barbelo Valentinian wrote:But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense? Because common sense is not common in either sense of the word, as the conflicting versions of common-sense interpretations in this thread show.
And we're back to the common sense discussion.
Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8011
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:17:00 -
[518] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him? He doesn't.
Quote:And we're back to the common sense discussion. GǪsince that's what lies at the centre of the undefined-rookies rule.
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 - 2012.06.16 00:35:00 -
[519] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him? He doesn't.
Exactly. the original discussion dealt with the pilot who was scanning down players in Hek (?) who were flying the epic arc mission and he was getting them to aggress so he could pop them. This led to a supposed warning. Now he claimed that he only went after cruisers and BC's which of course takes some training time which many of us agreed upon was outside of the realm of rookies. However, evidence was brought forth that this was not in fact the case and he was in fact hitting week old players in frigates. Then we got on to other scenarios when trying to define a rookie and it turns out that many of us are in fact on the same page with ruling out certain factors like an actual number of days to declare what is and what isn't a rookie and this discussion led to the far out there scenario's and what not. But I wasn't asking about those I was asking about the above. In fact most people in the thread agree on the conclusion, its the path going there that we can't agree on. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8011
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:48:00 -
[520] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:But I wasn't asking about those I was asking about the above. 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? 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?
|
|

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
666
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:20:00 -
[521] - Quote
Some information for you:
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. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1917
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:34:00 -
[522] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Would you like me to type it again?
Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1917
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:48:00 -
[523] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
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.
You keep intentionally missing the thrust of what I'm saying.
The goal is not "ban people who mess with rookies." The goal is to protect rookies from being "messed with" in the first place.
To do that, you define the protected class, so that everyone knows who they can't mess with. It's the plot to Dr. Strangelove.
Dr. Strangelove wrote: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
Making the definition of "rookie" hidden from view means that rookies will be "messed with" by people with an honest belief that their actions were legal. It's basically making PvP around the rookie systems one of those Goosebumps Choose your own death Adventure novels.
If your assertion is that PvP should simply be banned from rookie systems because defining "rookie" is troublesome, then you've actually agreed with Tippia and my suggestions.
If your assertion is that legal landmines that will cause bans to people who honestly have no intention of harming rookies are good, please explain why.
I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1917
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:51:00 -
[524] - Quote
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:Tippia wrote:We have no definition and the GMs are not willing to provide one, so we have to make one up using Gǣcommon senseGǥ 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.
But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense?
Common sense is simply not common (as in nobody gets the same result when applying it, not as in nobody has it). And Tippia never said it was common sense. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:30:00 -
[525] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list.3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing.
except now they're protected in systems outside that list..... #4
If game masters can see which players are NEW, and you want us to not pick on them, then let us see it too! And while you're at it, just make them invulnerable for first 30 days of new accounts or something. Let them opt out of course, if they want, just make sure they have to click like 5 confirmation screens in order to opt out. 
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:31:00 -
[526] - Quote
Tippia wrote:THE L0CK wrote:But I wasn't asking about those I was asking about the above. 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?
It was part of my discussion with others while you continued on about the hauler thing, remember how I said we moved on? Circling around yet again, we should just make a bunch of links to previous posts and communicate that way as it would be just as effective as this.
Some information for you:
Vimsy Vortis wrote: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 thank you, I thought it was a heard it through the grapevine situation but I couldn't remember. I don't remember anyone other than the OP calling the OP satan though, I believe he brought that on himself. My point does still stand that he was called out on some of his other actions. For the liberties I quite agree and would even like to point out that it is happening again here with people coming up with stupidly extreme scenario's. We see it in most threads, from war dec claims to financial situations. In any case that thread was locked and this thread was dug up to replace it with the same crap that the other thread had. Quite frankly I'm surprised this one hasn't met the same fate either as it's truly going nowhere but circles.
RubyPorto wrote:Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times.
I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong.
Go. Read. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:32:00 -
[527] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria.
then give us a way to do so!
Basically you're saying this:
Don't break the speed limit when driving your car!
Then you don't post the speed limit.
wtf, we all go 5 miles per hour?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:34:00 -
[528] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:
If a "rookie" like that can take these actions he is obviously not a rookie and is thus not protected. Common sense; apply it.
And who wants to get that ban while the logs are being checked?
Can't we just make it simpler? It's obviously of great importance to you. Threatening customers with bans is not the way to manage this.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:34:00 -
[529] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times. I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong. Go. Read.
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." This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:36:00 -
[530] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:EI Digin wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:EI Digin wrote:There are many many situations where a "new player", either a legitimate new player or a veteran with an axe to grind and a trial account, can exploit the system resulting in others becoming banned.
Off of the top of my head: - Using a 1 day player/alt in a frigate to fight wartargets in a rookie zone - Hauling overly expensive gear in a small frigate or industrial
Also you have situations where rookies who do not know what they are doing end up doing things like can flipping other rookies resulting in hilarious consequences and liberal use of the banhammer.
It's better to have people learn lessons the hard way than to coddle them through the game, because they will end up being griefed at one point or another. And if you're going to have player immunity, make it so that the rookies can't do any harm either, because you should know that eve players will take every advantage they can get to **** people off. If a "rookie" like that can take these actions he is obviously not a rookie and is thus not protected. Common sense; apply it. It's not out of line for a rookie to join a corporation that is wardecced or to haul something between stations for money. There are many other situations where a new player could legitimately enter a scenario where they could blow up or blow someone else up due to the hands of another player in EvE Online, a spaceship game designed around blowing other spaceships. And this is why we will not define what a rookie is. Once again, common sense; a rookie involves himself in a war, perhaps not so rookie anymore. Now, stop coming up with hypothetical situations and apply some common sense.
Or just ban remove the flagging for jetcans in those systems? There has to be a way to make this self-managing. That' make it easier for both us and you!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:36:00 -
[531] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times. I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong. Go. Read. 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."
Well first of all, you put enforceable definition. Show me where I said that. Once we figure that out I'll go on to the next incorrect portion. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:37:00 -
[532] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
First, if it's that important, then it probably deserves some development time.
Conversely if it deserves zero development time, then it is not that important, and just let it go.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
356
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:38:00 -
[533] - Quote
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.
people get kicked out of noobie help chat after 30 days, so I would assume they're not a noob anymore by your defintion. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:45:00 -
[534] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times. I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong. Go. Read. 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." Well first of all, you put enforceable definition. Show me where I said that. Once we figure that out I'll go on to the next incorrect portion.
That's the topic at hand. If you're simply making off topic remarks, see sentence 2 of my earlier post. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:19:00 -
[535] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yes. Type out your enforceable definition of rookie again. I've been happy to type out mine several times. I told you I can't help you. I mean look at that sentence, it's totally wrong. Go. Read. 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." Well first of all, you put enforceable definition. Show me where I said that. Once we figure that out I'll go on to the next incorrect portion. That's the topic at hand. If you're simply making off topic remarks, see sentence 2 of my earlier post.
See, you couldn't find me saying that. Second issue is that you do not understand the meaning of I cannot help you. You took my quote to Tippia and thought that it somehow applied to you. I already told you to go read. Now go. Read. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:25:00 -
[536] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote: See, you couldn't find me saying that. Second issue is that you do not understand the meaning of I cannot help you. You took my quote to Tippia and thought that it somehow applied to you. I already told you to go read. Now go. Read.
You. Read. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:39:00 -
[537] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote: See, you couldn't find me saying that. Second issue is that you do not understand the meaning of I cannot help you. You took my quote to Tippia and thought that it somehow applied to you. I already told you to go read. Now go. Read.
You. Read.
Good read but I wouldn't use wikipedia personally, can be modified by anyone. Oh and speaking of off topic remarks..... Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:46:00 -
[538] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote: See, you couldn't find me saying that. Second issue is that you do not understand the meaning of I cannot help you. You took my quote to Tippia and thought that it somehow applied to you. I already told you to go read. Now go. Read.
You. Read. Good read but I wouldn't use wikipedia personally, can be modified by anyone. Oh and speaking of off topic remarks.....
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. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:56:00 -
[539] - Quote
That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies? Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:59:00 -
[540] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote: That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?
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? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:04:00 -
[541] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote: That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?
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?
I wrote a small portion back about a dozen pages or so ago, go look it up. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:13:00 -
[542] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote: That's all very good but what does that have to with rookies?
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? I wrote a small portion back about a dozen pages or so ago, go look it up.
Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this:
THE L0CK wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed. Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis.
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. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1514
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:19:00 -
[543] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule.
I can't think of any "externally facing" rule that wouldn't be gamed by people to get innocent gankers such as yourself banned.
Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:
- Is flying a T1 frigate
- Is younger than three months
- Has fitting modules fitted (e.g.: coprocessor, MAPC, power diagnostic system)
- Is mining in a combat ship, or has weapons mounted on a mining ship (e.g.: someone trying to do the combat tutorials in a Navitas)
- Has civilian modules fitted
- Is carrying cargo only spawned in tutorial missions (encrypted codex or some such)
- Is a member of a starter NPC corporation
Of course, any definition that we as players come up with will necessarily conflict with whatever definition the GMs are using. At least this definition realistically allows any player to determine "rookie status" through in-game inspection of the other pilot. It can be gamed by having an older character flying a frigate with civilian modules and a PDS fitted: but then if you intentionally aggress a 4yo character flying a merlin with civilian modules fitted, you deserve what you get.
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:22:00 -
[544] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this: THE L0CK wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed. Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis. 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.
\o/ He found it! One step to betterment.
Yes, the terms can baiting and can flipping were one of the much discussed items as the GM's appeared to be flipping the terms around. We were on a couple of other discussions as well to which I added a little here and there, those are optional to look up but just remember this discussion isn't narrowed down to one sole topic. Good day to you sir and good work. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:23:00 -
[545] - Quote
Does anyone here think,"Tippia" resembles Bill Clinton during the Monica Liwinski trials?
Personally I hate lawyers, and the like. My personal opinion is place them all on the "B" ark, and set them on there way. All else can board the "A" ark. (inside joke). They haven't got a lick of common sense, as many of these discussions have demonstrated.
I personally find it pretty scary that these misconceived, argumentative, confused people are placed in so many high political positions in most country's. I personally think it's pretty horrifying.
We should give this a rest, and take the high ground. These two, have pretty single handed worked hard to keep this thread alive, only for one purpose. So once the thread settles, Tippia can simply call for the situation to be rolled back, to previous. Just watch.
To be honest, I alone do not have the time to focus on keeping these folks in check. Honestly I'm pretty proud many are holding there ground here, and picking up the ball to run with it. But to be honest I'm not certain we even need to do it.
The basic simple fact is, EvE is an institution created to make money. Really it is that simple. CCP isn't going to let Ruby, Tippia, or anyone for that matter jeopardize that. No matter what tact they take. You can rest assured of that.
If the new players are not allowed to get a foothold, and enjoy the game, and spend cash dollars to purchase there subscriptions. This is a loose loose situation for CCP, and they're not going to let this happen. I'm certain of it.
So I think a little quitness is in order. Have faith in CCP in this area. Serious money is at stake. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:29:00 -
[546] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule. I can't think of any "externally facing" rule that wouldn't be gamed by people to get innocent gankers such as yourself banned.
I can. Ban (and enforce the ban) on ALL "messing with" of ALL characters in Rookie systems.
Quote:Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:
- Is flying a T1 frigate
- Is younger than three months
- Has fitting modules fitted (e.g.: coprocessor, MAPC, power diagnostic system)
- Is mining in a combat ship, or has weapons mounted on a mining ship (e.g.: someone trying to do the combat tutorials in a Navitas)
- Has civilian modules fitted
- Is carrying cargo only spawned in tutorial missions (encrypted codex or some such)
- Is a member of a starter NPC corporation
Of course, any definition that we as players come up with will necessarily conflict with whatever definition the GMs are using. At least this definition realistically allows any player to determine "rookie status" through in-game inspection of the other pilot. It can be gamed by having an older character flying a frigate with civilian modules and a PDS fitted: but then if you intentionally aggress a 4yo character flying a merlin with civilian modules fitted, you deserve what you get.
That is a heck of a list of things, and while requiring both a ship scanner and a cargo scanner (and eidetic memory of the tutorial missions) is fairly onerous. That definition is a definition that works. It's clear, it's knowable by publicly viewable information, and it probably* covers the people we want to protect.
As for conflicting with GMs definition, that's fine. So long as the public set of protected person entirely includes the private set of protected persons, it's fine. The point is to give fair warning that you're doing something that makes the GMs mad.
The ideal is to simply protect all those in the public set so that people don't go ganking to probe out what the private set is.
*The GMs would have to figure out if there are any people in need of protection that wouldn't fall under your definition. If there are, they'd need to alter your definition to cover them This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:35:00 -
[547] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this: THE L0CK wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed. Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis. 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. \o/ He found it! One step to betterment. Yes, the terms can baiting and can flipping were one of the much discussed items as the GM's appeared to be flipping the terms around. We were on a couple of other discussions as well to which I added a little here and there, those are optional to look up but just remember this discussion isn't narrowed down to one sole topic. Good day to you sir and good work.
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. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:36:00 -
[548] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote: The basic simple fact is, EvE is an institution created to make money. Really it is that simple. CCP isn't going to let Ruby, Tippia, or anyone for that matter jeopardize that. No matter what tact they take. You can rest assured of that.
If the new players are not allowed to get a foothold, and enjoy the game, and spend cash dollars to purchase there subscriptions. This is a loose loose situation for CCP, and they're not going to let this happen. I'm certain of it.
So I think a little quitness is in order. Have faith in CCP in this area. Serious money is at stake.
When have we ever indicated anything other than a desire to protect newbies and help EvE? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:40:00 -
[549] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Thankfully, the forum search works now. All I can find on point is this: THE L0CK wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Definitely would include the can baiting along with can flipping being a no-no in starter systems, and by that I mean make sure each term is plainly printed. Maybe put in that new player harassment is handle on a case by case basis. 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. \o/ He found it! One step to betterment. Yes, the terms can baiting and can flipping were one of the much discussed items as the GM's appeared to be flipping the terms around. We were on a couple of other discussions as well to which I added a little here and there, those are optional to look up but just remember this discussion isn't narrowed down to one sole topic. Good day to you sir and good work. 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.
I alone cannot make such a heavy decision. As this would regulate what the people do it is up to the people as whole to come together and come up with what the GM asked for. I did but a small part here and elsewhere not seen by your eyes.
Now I said good day sir. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:45:00 -
[550] - Quote
Ruby, You want to corral the new players in a specific area,
This implies to me that the second they get bored and venture out of that system there fair game so to speak. I just disagree with that basically, probably not completely though. No disrespect to you. However this settles out, you and I'll be just fine. I think Tippia may have a stroke though, if she doesn't get this rolled back though. |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:46:00 -
[551] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:
I alone cannot make such a heavy decision. As this would regulate what the people do it is up to the people as whole to come together and come up with what the GM asked for. I did but a small part here and elsewhere not seen by your eyes.
Now I said good day sir.
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. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:51:00 -
[552] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Ruby, You want to corral the new players in a specific area,
This implies to me that the second they get bored and venture out of that system there fair game so to speak. I just disagree with that basically, probably not completely though. No disrespect to you. However this settles out, you and I'll be just fine. I think Tippia may have a stroke though, if she doesn't get this rolled back though.
That's the rule as it is currently written (as far as not being safe outside listed newbie systems). This is EvE. The general guiding principle is that nobody is safe anywhere. The newbie systems are an exception to that, a safe haven so to speak, to protect those who are, as GM Hormonia said, learning to right click in space.
I want to provide newbies with just enough safety that they can figure out how to work the ships, then boot them out soon so that their first losses are small and easy to recover from. Someone who learns about can-flip mechanics by dying in a free Bantam on day 3 is much more likely to stay in the game than someone wh first learns about them by dying in their first Hulk on day 70. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:53:00 -
[553] - Quote
I think I agree with your position there. Have a nice night Love Boat Captain.  |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1918
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:58:00 -
[554] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I think I agree with your position there. Have a nice night Love Boat Captain. 
Sweet. We have a starting point. Now we just need to hammer that into a workable policy.
Aye-Aye, it's time to sleep. Policy-wonkery can wait until tomorrow. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

THE L0CK
Denying You Access
536
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 05:03:00 -
[555] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:THE L0CK wrote:
I alone cannot make such a heavy decision. As this would regulate what the people do it is up to the people as whole to come together and come up with what the GM asked for. I did but a small part here and elsewhere not seen by your eyes.
Now I said good day sir.
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.
When I wrote that it was in regards to a blanket ban comment made by a dev which implied that the can games on anyone in the system will get you a ban. However not everybody in a newbie system is a newbie as the OP of this thread has pointed out. The other half of that remark went to spread on to those running the EAM. Just as was ppointed out the ban was overturned according to the other poster so circumstances arose that changed the result. If CCP believes it is was the better judgement then great. If they believe somebody is specifically targeting week old numbs, and as a fellow scanner of ships I know they would be, then perhaps a ban would be appropriate. But that is where my leniency for newbies ends. Hauling goods, mining, running regular missions, exploring, piracy, whatever, they're fair game just like the rest of us.
As I said many times in this thread, many of us are on the same page, we just can't agree on how to get to it. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 05:35:00 -
[556] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:I don't frankly care how the GMs define a rookie internally, because we're discussing an externally facing rule. I can't think of any "externally facing" rule that wouldn't be gamed by people to get innocent gankers such as yourself banned. I can. Ban (and enforce the ban) on ALL "messing with" of ALL characters in Rookie systems. Quote:Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions:
- Is flying a T1 frigate
- Is younger than three months
- Has fitting modules fitted (e.g.: coprocessor, MAPC, power diagnostic system)
- Is mining in a combat ship, or has weapons mounted on a mining ship (e.g.: someone trying to do the combat tutorials in a Navitas)
- Has civilian modules fitted
- Is carrying cargo only spawned in tutorial missions (encrypted codex or some such)
- Is a member of a starter NPC corporation
Of course, any definition that we as players come up with will necessarily conflict with whatever definition the GMs are using. At least this definition realistically allows any player to determine "rookie status" through in-game inspection of the other pilot. It can be gamed by having an older character flying a frigate with civilian modules and a PDS fitted: but then if you intentionally aggress a 4yo character flying a merlin with civilian modules fitted, you deserve what you get. That is a heck of a list of things, and while requiring both a ship scanner and a cargo scanner (and eidetic memory of the tutorial missions) is fairly onerous. That definition is a definition that works. It's clear, it's knowable by publicly viewable information, and it probably* covers the people we want to protect. As for conflicting with GMs definition, that's fine. So long as the public set of protected person entirely includes the private set of protected persons, it's fine. The point is to give fair warning that you're doing something that makes the GMs mad. The ideal is to simply protect all those in the public set so that people don't go ganking to probe out what the private set is. *The GMs would have to figure out if there are any people in need of protection that wouldn't fall under your definition. If there are, they'd need to alter your definition to cover them
Well i personaly dont belave the guy flying a faction fit bc or bs a few weeks or even days into the game should be concidered a rookie ... |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
357
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 05:39:00 -
[557] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I think I agree with your position there. Have a nice night Love Boat Captain. 
Captain Merrill Stubing 
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
669
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 05:45:00 -
[558] - Quote
Don't most browsers have a built in spellcheck function these days? |

Rhedea
Rhedea Corp Of Mordor
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 10:08:00 -
[559] - Quote
Cistuvaert ahh home sweet home such a dangerous place to be I left quickly. No hand holding back then. Seat of the pants learning.
Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L)  Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8015
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 11:06:00 -
[560] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:It was part of my discussion with others while you continued on about the hauler thing, remember how I said we moved on? So you went off-topic, you mean. Well, too bad. I stayed on topic and you didn't want to discuss it. Everything you mentioned was related to things in other threads, not this one. In this one, we're discussing a clarification of the rookie systems rule (see OP, see thread title, see GM responses) and the problems with their current policy.
Quote:Circling around yet again GǪbecause you never answered the questions. Well, technically, that's not circling back GÇö it's you stalling.
Mara Rinn wrote:Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions: The problem with that list is that it's easily gameable to provide protection to non-rookies.
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Ruby, You want to corral the new players in a specific area,
This implies to me that the second they get bored and venture out of that system there fair game so to speak. I just disagree with that basically, probably not completely though. GǪexcept, of course, that all of that is already the case, and the problem is that as they try to expand that rule, the rule becomes so vague as to be utterly useless both as a control mechanism and as an enforcement tool. Of the two options: newbies get slightly worse protection outside of the starter systems, and everyone has to work around a rule that no-one has any clue how it works and which opens up huge exploits, the former is far better for everyone involved (yes, even the rookies, since they now have a clear rule to learn and know where their protection ends so they can act accordingly). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 11:20:00 -
[561] - Quote
Wow, 28 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism? Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1497
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:03:00 -
[562] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?
I like the cut of your jib, Cutter.
If I were to make a new forum warrior, it would be you.
Mr Epeen 
There is no excuse beyond fatalistic self-indulgence and sheer laziness for doing nothing --á Iain Banks |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:06:00 -
[563] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote: Well i personaly dont belave the guy flying a faction fit bc or bs a few weeks or even days into the game should be concidered a rookie ...
Great. Define rookie to satisfactorily exclude those people without excluding any rookies worth protecting.
(Due to Plex, I don't think isk value of the ship's a really great consideration, but it's one you could use) This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:09:00 -
[564] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism?
CCP asked.
GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:10:00 -
[565] - Quote
Rhedea wrote:Cistuvaert ahh home sweet home such a dangerous place to be I left quickly. No hand holding back then. Seat of the pants learning. Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L)  Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.
GM Hormonia has stated that no Dev time can be spent on the solution.
Why should anyone outside the rookie systems be protected? All that delaying danger does is ensure that their first loss is bigger and harder to recover from. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:21:00 -
[566] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism? CCP asked. GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths.
Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity.
In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended)
This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:26:00 -
[567] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism? I like the cut of your jib, Cutter. If I were to make a new forum warrior, it would be you. Mr Epeen 
D'awww, shucks. Thanks Mr Epeen Sir  Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:33:00 -
[568] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism? CCP asked. GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths. Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity. In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended) This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere.
I've offered my suggestion of how to protect rookies several times. It does not require me to make any definition of "rookie" to be effective.
Here's my suggestion: All forms of "messing with" would be illegal (as in makey GMs mad at you) in Rookie systems. Full Stop. Officer Fit Hulk? You'll be warned/banned for shooting it. 2 days old with a hold full of Plex? It'll make the GMs mad if you shoot it.
It is a perfectly sensitive (but not very specific) rule to protect rookies. It is clear, concise, easy to enforce and understand (lose a ship to player action - it's petitionable), and covers everyone we want covered. And it doesn't require us to define what a "rookie" is.
Those who want a narrower protected class are the ones who have invited the problem of defining something that's hard to define satisfactorily. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
485
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:49:00 -
[569] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism? CCP asked. GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths. Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity. In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended) This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere. I've offered my suggestion of how to protect rookies several times. It does not require me to make any definition of "rookie" to be effective. Here's my suggestion: All forms of "messing with" would be illegal (as in makey GMs mad at you) in Rookie systems. Full Stop. Officer Fit Hulk? You'll be warned/banned for shooting it. 2 days old with a hold full of Plex? It'll make the GMs mad if you shoot it. It is a perfectly sensitive (but not very specific) rule to protect rookies. It is clear, concise, easy to enforce and understand (lose a ship to player action - it's petitionable), and covers everyone we want covered. And it doesn't require us to define what a "rookie" is. Those who want a narrower protected class are the ones who have invited the problem of defining something that's hard to define satisfactorily.
And this is why people like Tippia argue with you. First things first though. Anyone who is not a Rookie really has no reason to be in a Rookie system, someone in a Hulk is NOT a rookie, that is just common sense, so your first statement is pointless (as I said earlier). Also as has been pointed out, there are areas that rookies are required to go in to that are NOT rookie systems for their SOE missions.
Here is how I see it. CCP can internally define a Rookie, they have said as much, so we leave them to do what they feel is right in rookie systems, since no one else really has any need to be there. The next step is any Rookie engaged in an SOE mission arc should be made unscannable, their missions should be unprobable and any loot cans should be locked to them and them alone. That would solve the issue of people stealing their stuff, it would also mean that CCP does not have to enforce rookie system rules on what are currently non-rookie ones.
Next up, if Rookies who are on their SOE arcs get attacked without provocation whilst going to non-rookie systems specifically for those missions, there should be a flag raised at CCP for them to look at and take action on. If the rookie has been found to be attacking other people without being can baited etc, then let the chips fall where they may. If however they were attacked by another player or can baited/flipped, then that player gets smacked with a ban/warning.
Debating this any further amongst ourselves is an exercise in futility. I see people claiming that common sense cannot be applied, along with utterly inane scenarios such as the null sec hauler rookie with a cargohold full of officer goodies. Are they rookies, no, they are not. You don't find unsupported, wet behind the ears rookies hauling stuff like that, because no corp or alliance in their right mind would allow it.
Common sense is perfectly applicable, you only need to try. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1919
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:58:00 -
[570] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:Wow, 26 pages and still the only thing that's clear is how much you lot like to wave your e-peens around. So after all this time, wasted words and pointless too and fro, have you lot decided how CCP should operate their own business yet? Or have you moved on to solving famine, pestilence and the ever present threat of terrorism? CCP asked. GMOs, Build Highways, and ignore it since it's doesn't cause a significant number of deaths. Fair answers for the other questions, but what about the main one? I have to be honest, all I have seen come out of this thread is a whole bunch of "You define a Rookie"...."No, YOU define a Rookie!!"....."No YOU!!!!!!!!!". Followed by a lot of justification, empty words, and general stupidity. In summation, this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people shouting the same question at each other repeatedly while not listening to each other. Its like watching a room full of deaf people play Chinese whispers. Do any of you realise just how ridiculous you all look? (my apologies to any deaf players this analogy may have offended) This is why asking the player base for input on this sort of subject is a waste of time, none of you has the objectivity required to make any truly useful or helpful contribution without allowing personal bias, or deep seated urge to wave your e-peens around, to interfere. I've offered my suggestion of how to protect rookies several times. It does not require me to make any definition of "rookie" to be effective. Here's my suggestion: All forms of "messing with" would be illegal (as in makey GMs mad at you) in Rookie systems. Full Stop. Officer Fit Hulk? You'll be warned/banned for shooting it. 2 days old with a hold full of Plex? It'll make the GMs mad if you shoot it. It is a perfectly sensitive (but not very specific) rule to protect rookies. It is clear, concise, easy to enforce and understand (lose a ship to player action - it's petitionable), and covers everyone we want covered. And it doesn't require us to define what a "rookie" is. Those who want a narrower protected class are the ones who have invited the problem of defining something that's hard to define satisfactorily. And this is why people like Tippia argue with you. First things first though. Anyone who is not a Rookie really has no reason to be in a Rookie system, someone in a Hulk is NOT a rookie, that is just common sense, so your first statement is pointless (as I said earlier). Also as has been pointed out, there are areas that rookies are required to go in to that are NOT rookie systems for their SOE missions. Here is how I see it. CCP can internally define a Rookie, they have said as much, so we leave them to do what they feel is right in rookie systems, since no one else really has any need to be there. The next step is any Rookie engaged in an SOE mission arc should be made unscannable, their missions should be unprobable and any loot cans should be locked to them and them alone. That would solve the issue of people stealing their stuff, it would also mean that CCP does not have to enforce rookie system rules on what are currently non-rookie ones. Next up, if Rookies who are on their SOE arcs get attacked without provocation whilst going to non-rookie systems specifically for those missions, there should be a flag raised at CCP for them to look at and take action on. If the rookie has been found to be attacking other people without being can baited etc, then let the chips fall where they may. If however they were attacked by another player or can baited/flipped, then that player gets smacked with a ban/warning. Debating this any further amongst ourselves is an exercise in futility. I see people claiming that common sense cannot be applied, along with utterly inane scenarios such as the null sec hauler rookie with a cargohold full of officer goodies. Are they rookies, no, they are not. You don't find unsupported, wet behind the ears rookies hauling stuff like that, because no corp or alliance in their right mind would allow it. Common sense is perfectly applicable, you only need to try.
1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.
2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.
If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.
"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
487
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 14:33:00 -
[571] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.
2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.
If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.
"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word.
Ok, I'll let number one slide, I have been trying to keep up with the thread, but after so many pointless posts, they all started to blend in to each other and I began to slip in to a coma.
As for number 2, I am suggesting no such thing. I stated a fact, that being that CCP already has internal definitions of what a Rookie is. And to make it easier, why not say that Rookie systems are only accessible to characters under 30 days old? The same time they get thrown out of Rookie help chat. Within 30 days they should have been able to complete the tutorial missions with ease, and then simply deny access to those systems to anyone who is NOT still a rookie under CCP's internal definitions.
When it comes to my other suggestions, they are still perfectly valid and require not much more than we have already. A little common sense, modifications to SOE missions and my other suggestion regarding Rookie aggression. It would be much simpler for CCP to just observe the behaviour of one group, than to track everyone else.
And you can keep throwing that "common sense is not common" phrase around as much as you like, it serves no purpose other than to put the onus on CCP to provide something that they cannot provide, rather than expecting players to show a little intelligence. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1921
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 14:57:00 -
[572] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.
2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.
If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.
"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word.
Ok, I'll let number one slide, I have been trying to keep up with the thread, but after so many pointless posts, they all started to blend in to each other and I began to slip in to a coma. As for number 2, I am suggesting no such thing. I stated a fact, that being that CCP already has internal definitions of what a Rookie is. And to make it easier, why not say that Rookie systems are only accessible to characters under 30 days old? The same time they get thrown out of Rookie help chat. Within 30 days they should have been able to complete the tutorial missions with ease, and then simply deny access to those systems to anyone who is NOT still a rookie under CCP's internal definitions. When it comes to my other suggestions, they are still perfectly valid and require not much more than we have already. A little common sense, modifications to SOE missions and my other suggestion regarding Rookie aggression. It would be much simpler for CCP to just observe the behaviour of one group, than to track everyone else. And you can keep throwing that "common sense is not common" phrase around as much as you like, it serves no purpose other than to put the onus on CCP to provide something that they cannot provide, rather than expecting players to show a little intelligence.
Simply banishing everyone older than 30d will cause some significant problems, especially with regards to the market seeding of rookie systems. But it would be reasonably effective in protecting rookies. I don't like the precedent of denying gate access to a class of players, especially since there are valid reasons to go back and complete career agent missions later in a character's life. Finally, banishing people runs into the problem that GM Hormonia mentioned that there is no Dev time available to do that.
The SOE mission suggestions aren't yet on point, since we're still discussing protecting rookies in their rookie systems. However, there is currently no rule against agression in any non-rookie system, and I think the best course of action would be a policy of resetting SOE missions interrupted by can flippers without punishing the flippers and without reimbursing ship loss. This reset should be accompanied by a short copypasta explaining the basics of agression mechanics. The reason for this suggestion is that I think newbies should not be prevented from completing the SOE, but at the same time, losing ones ship, especially early on when it's relatively easy to replace, is a good opportunity to learn.
The word "Common" has several meanings. The phrase "Common Sense" is not Common, in this case means that everyone has differing backgrounds and thus "Common Sense" does not mean the same thing to everyone. Stated without the play on words, it means "There is no shared definition of that wisdom which derives from shared experience, because everyone's experience is different."
Without a well specified definition of "rookie" as a class, any rule that relies on the class "rookie" runs straight into Sorities Paradox, aka the Heap Paradox, which is all about how "Common Sense" definitions cause innumerable problems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
487
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:09:00 -
[573] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
1) My suggestion is very similar to the one Tippia has suggested, thus I suspect you haven't read the thread.
2) You have now suggested a rule that requires a definition of "rookie" to be useful, OR you have suggested a rule that will cause confusion over legal targets, for which you must explain why that confusion is a good thing.
If you're saying that some class of people should not be protected in rookie systems, you either need to define the protected class or define the non-protected class. If you want to prevent the protected class from being "messed with" in the first place, that definition needs to be something other players can figure out.
"Common Sense" is not "Common" in any sense of the word.
Ok, I'll let number one slide, I have been trying to keep up with the thread, but after so many pointless posts, they all started to blend in to each other and I began to slip in to a coma. As for number 2, I am suggesting no such thing. I stated a fact, that being that CCP already has internal definitions of what a Rookie is. And to make it easier, why not say that Rookie systems are only accessible to characters under 30 days old? The same time they get thrown out of Rookie help chat. Within 30 days they should have been able to complete the tutorial missions with ease, and then simply deny access to those systems to anyone who is NOT still a rookie under CCP's internal definitions. When it comes to my other suggestions, they are still perfectly valid and require not much more than we have already. A little common sense, modifications to SOE missions and my other suggestion regarding Rookie aggression. It would be much simpler for CCP to just observe the behaviour of one group, than to track everyone else. And you can keep throwing that "common sense is not common" phrase around as much as you like, it serves no purpose other than to put the onus on CCP to provide something that they cannot provide, rather than expecting players to show a little intelligence. Simply banishing everyone older than 30d will cause some significant problems, especially with regards to the market seeding of rookie systems. But it would be reasonably effective in protecting rookies. I don't like the precedent of denying gate access to a class of players, especially since there are valid reasons to go back and complete career agent missions later in a character's life. Finally, banishing people runs into the problem that GM Hormonia mentioned that there is no Dev time available to do that. The SOE mission suggestions aren't yet on point, since we're still discussing protecting rookies in their rookie systems. However, there is currently no rule against agression in any non-rookie system, and I think the best course of action would be a policy of resetting SOE missions interrupted by can flippers without punishing the flippers and without reimbursing ship loss. This reset should be accompanied by a short copypasta explaining the basics of agression mechanics. The reason for this suggestion is that I think newbies should not be prevented from completing the SOE, but at the same time, losing ones ship, especially early on when it's relatively easy to replace, is a good opportunity to learn. The word "Common" has several meanings. The phrase "Common Sense" is not Common, in this case means that everyone has differing backgrounds and thus "Common Sense" does not mean the same thing to everyone. Stated without the play on words, it means "There is no shared definition of that wisdom which derives from shared experience, because everyone's experience is different." Without a well specified definition of "rookie" as a class, any rule that relies on the class "rookie" runs straight into Sorities Paradox, aka the Heap Paradox, which is all about how "Common Sense" definitions cause innumerable problems.
To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. I do however agree that it would require at least some Dev time, but then as others have pointed out if this is such a huge issue then undoubtedly CCP will find time to do it.
To your next point regarding SOE missions, I think that sounds reasonable if we are to assume that CCP really cannot find any spare Dev time to make the alterations I mentioned. Though if you consider the amount of time and money they would need to expend over the lifetime of the game in order to maintain such an inefficient system, then perhaps they would be more inclined to spend money and time now to save themselves years of constant work.
It is merely a case of cost effectiveness, something we know CCP already takes in to consideration when looking at game balancing etc. The combined effect of these changes would remove an awful lot of cases of rookies being "messed with", leaving a much lighter case load for Dev's or GM's to deal with where things fall in to the grey areas.
And finally, common sense, shall we just agree to use the term "intelligence" instead? Since common sense is clearly not the right way to put it. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1921
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:23:00 -
[574] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote: To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. I do however agree that it would require at least some Dev time, but then as others have pointed out if this is such a huge issue then undoubtedly CCP will find time to do it.
To your next point regarding SOE missions, I think that sounds reasonable if we are to assume that CCP really cannot find any spare Dev time to make the alterations I mentioned. Though if you consider the amount of time and money they would need to expend over the lifetime of the game in order to maintain such an inefficient system, then perhaps they would be more inclined to spend money and time now to save themselves years of constant work.
It is merely a case of cost effectiveness, something we know CCP already takes in to consideration when looking at game balancing etc. The combined effect of these changes would remove an awful lot of cases of rookies being "messed with", leaving a much lighter case load for Dev's or GM's to deal with where things fall in to the grey areas.
And finally, common sense, shall we just agree to use the term "intelligence" instead? Since common sense is clearly not the right way to put it.
1) Standings repair, not everyone does them all at once, and some rookies have to be told to do them after banging their head into the wall for a while.
2) Locking the loot cans, making them unprobeable, etc. steals a possible learning experience from the rookie, ensuring that when they do get can flipped, they are likely to have a greater loss while expecting it less. The SOE arc is usually completed by a rookie soon after at least one (and likely more) ship losses, so another loss shouldn't be too shocking. As for the cost of resetting missions, that depends on how often it happens; I've run the arc a number of times (for standings), and I never had any trouble.
"Intelligence" is just as bad. Sorities Paradox* applies any time you try to define a class with a simple natural language definition.
*Stanford's Philosophy Department, since you dislike Wikipedia This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
825
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:40:00 -
[575] - Quote
Rhedea wrote:Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L)  Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.
Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character). Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way.
On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon.
|

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
487
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:41:00 -
[576] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote: To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. I do however agree that it would require at least some Dev time, but then as others have pointed out if this is such a huge issue then undoubtedly CCP will find time to do it.
To your next point regarding SOE missions, I think that sounds reasonable if we are to assume that CCP really cannot find any spare Dev time to make the alterations I mentioned. Though if you consider the amount of time and money they would need to expend over the lifetime of the game in order to maintain such an inefficient system, then perhaps they would be more inclined to spend money and time now to save themselves years of constant work.
It is merely a case of cost effectiveness, something we know CCP already takes in to consideration when looking at game balancing etc. The combined effect of these changes would remove an awful lot of cases of rookies being "messed with", leaving a much lighter case load for Dev's or GM's to deal with where things fall in to the grey areas.
And finally, common sense, shall we just agree to use the term "intelligence" instead? Since common sense is clearly not the right way to put it.
1) Standings repair, not everyone does them all at once, and some rookies have to be told to do them after banging their head into the wall for a while. 2) Locking the loot cans, making them unprobeable, etc. steals a possible learning experience from the rookie, ensuring that when they do get can flipped, they are likely to have a greater loss while expecting it less. The SOE arc is usually completed by a rookie soon after at least one (and likely more) ship losses, so another loss shouldn't be too shocking. As for the cost of resetting missions, that depends on how often it happens; I've run the arc a number of times (for standings), and I never had any trouble. "Intelligence" is just as bad. Sorities Paradox* applies any time you try to define a class with a simple natural language definition. *Stanford's Philosophy Department, since you dislike Wikipedia
Ok, so there are no other ways to repair standings then? Pretty sure there are, and lets face it, EVE is all about consequences, if you choose to go -10 then getting back from there should be difficult and not as simple as running noob starter missions. As for Rookies being dim, changes could also be made to the NPE to ensure a little more clarity and thus avoid such problems.
As for allowing can flipping in SOE missions in order to teach them a lesson, that is a woefully pathetic excuse. One often used by people with little to no real PvP experience who are merely looking for super weak targets to abuse. This should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Let them learn that lesson in level 2 or 3 missions, it won't take long. There is no reason whatsoever to allow it on the SOE missions as well.
Actually as for losing ships most of them will have already lost a ship or two BEFORE they get to the SOE stuff, especially since ship loss is now included as part of the NPE. My corp mate and best friend is also a rookie, she learned about ship loss in her tutorial missions, and then again when she started running her career agent missions, so it seems that it is working perfectly well already. If you want a reason NOT to protect rookies during SOE missions, that is not one of them.
And to your last point, for a start it was not me who had issues with the use of Wikipedia, perhaps it is not just me who has lost track of who said what in this thread eh? It is also worth noting that yet again, you are avoiding my point about common sense and intelligence by arguing semantics. You and I and everyone else here knows full well that unless you are a sad little bastard, we should all share some basic level of morality when it comes to the abusing of what could be considered minors. And for those that don't there is the ban hammer. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1921
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:44:00 -
[577] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Rhedea wrote:Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L)  Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts. Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character). Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way. On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction). Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable?
And that's why protecting "rookies" everywhere is a bad plan. What's the line between can baiting and jetcan mining?
As for rookie on rookie violence, I have no earthly idea. I don't think GM Hormonia's adressed how they deal with rookie on rookie violence. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
825
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:47:00 -
[578] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Rhedea wrote:Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L)  Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts. Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character). Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way. On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction). Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable? And that's why protecting "rookies" everywhere is a bad plan. What's the line between can baiting and jetcan mining? .... At times their one and the same.
A person was Jet can mining, and had their corp sit by and wait to stomp anyone who would steal, get blown up, and then come back for revenge.
Was fun to watch for a bit.
But anyway. CCP wants to do something without devoting man hours to it, which is plain a bad idea to begin with. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
488
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:56:00 -
[579] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:
But anyway. CCP wants to do something without devoting man hours to it, which is plain a bad idea to begin with.
I don't think its that they WANT to do something without devoting man hours, but rather thinking out loud if they COULD. Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1923
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:02:00 -
[580] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote: Ok, so there are no other ways to repair standings then? Pretty sure there are, and lets face it, EVE is all about consequences, if you choose to go -10 then getting back from there should be difficult and not as simple as running noob starter missions. As for Rookies being dim, changes could also be made to the NPE to ensure a little more clarity and thus avoid such problems.
As for allowing can flipping in SOE missions in order to teach them a lesson, that is a woefully pathetic excuse. One often used by people with little to no real PvP experience who are merely looking for super weak targets to abuse. This should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Let them learn that lesson in level 2 or 3 missions, it won't take long. There is no reason whatsoever to allow it on the SOE missions as well.
Actually as for losing ships most of them will have already lost a ship or two BEFORE they get to the SOE stuff, especially since ship loss is now included as part of the NPE. My corp mate and best friend is also a rookie, she learned about ship loss in her tutorial missions, and then again when she started running her career agent missions, so it seems that it is working perfectly well already. If you want a reason NOT to protect rookies during SOE missions, that is not one of them.
And to your last point, for a start it was not me who had issues with the use of Wikipedia, perhaps it is not just me who has lost track of who said what in this thread eh? It is also worth noting that yet again, you are avoiding my point about common sense and intelligence by arguing semantics. You and I and everyone else here knows full well that unless you are a sad little bastard, we should all share some basic level of morality when it comes to the abusing of what could be considered minors. And for those that don't there is the ban hammer.
1) Faction and Corp Standings, not Sec Status. This mostly affects Mission Runners who simply didn't realize accepting anti-faction missions might hurt them later (it affected me with the Gallente, for instance). The Career agents give a fairly significant boost to faction standings with very low entrance requirements. There's really no harm in making faction standings easy to recover, since low standings don't let other players shoot you or anything.
2) First, you're treading close to the edge of fallacy. Secondly, I'm making no such excuse. I am saying that learning basic agression mechanics and that HS is not safe is a valuable lesson. The SOE was never a newbie mission, it was to be a low barrier of entry way to introduce the Epic Arc mission system to the masses. It was tied into the Career agents (actual newbie missions) because CCP wanted newbies to see their lates cool thing (that was never iterated upon).
3) Learning about Ship loss to NPCs in the very careful way the NPE does it (telling you several times before it happens) is very different from learning about ship loss to other players, including the seeming randomness and the agression mechanics. I want to make that lesson easier to bear by suggesting that the cost of learning it be mitigated (or even refund the ship and word the copypasta more strongly and almost eliminate the cost).
4) Yes we have the same morality, but we may not have the same line in our head as the GMs. A Minor is defined as <18yo in the US. 17y364d = Minor = Protected, 18y1d = Adult = Abuseable. There is a BRIGHT Shining line in the sand there. All I want is for their to be a bright Shining line in the sand with regard to Rookies. If you want to say a Rookie is 14, 30, 90 days old or younger, and protect them, say that. But prepare for that to be abused (as some minors in RL abuse their special protections). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1923
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:09:00 -
[581] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Rhedea wrote:Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L)  Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts. Hmm, decent. It means that alts on the same account will not be protected (an issue with any other method as we the player cannot determine who is a new account and who is just a new character). Only issue is that alt accounts of old players can be protected in this way. On a side note, it would be hilarious to find a vet abusing the rookie rules by continually taking from cans in Arnon (if things get that direction). Also, my question (overall) still has yet to be answered: what about rookie on rookie violence? Is that bannable? And that's why protecting "rookies" everywhere is a bad plan. What's the line between can baiting and jetcan mining? .... At times their one and the same. A person was Jet can mining, and had their corp sit by and wait to stomp anyone who would steal, get blown up, and then come back for revenge. Was fun to watch for a bit. But anyway. CCP wants to do something without devoting man hours to it, which is plain a bad idea to begin with.
So what happens if a nebulously defined rookie steals from that trap for flippers? Do you shoot and risk a ban, do you suck it up and realize that he's just gonna keep doing it?
I think what's going on is that we pressed GM Hormonia for a concrete policy that we can actually follow, and she asked us for help. Some of the earlier suggestions required Dev time, which she doesn't have access to atm, so she asked us to exclude suggestions that required Dev time. Dev Time != Man Hours because not all Man Hours are Dev time. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 22:26:00 -
[582] - Quote
Pak Narhoo wrote:[quote=GM Homonoia]I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
You all are what I would called seriously thick. Just read this. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1927
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 23:57:00 -
[583] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:[quote=GM Homonoia]I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten. You all are what I would called seriously thick. Just read this.
"Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. "
"Do not mess with... in any way" Got it. Easily understood and Vague for an important reason. "in rookie systems" Got it. Well defined. "rookies" Whoops, undefined. What is the good reason for keeping this undefined?
A strict reading (not one that I'm espousing) of Hormonia's quote says that people are fair game as soon as they figure out how to read the overview and right click. So clearly, the definition the quote implies is not in the spirit of rookie protection.
I don't understand why the declaring who's being protected is kind of important for actually protecting them This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 05:35:00 -
[584] - Quote
I go away for a few days, and return to ~400 new posts in a thread I thought had died lol
Oh well, at least I haven't seen any threats to me given the now expanding definition of Rookie Systems..
GM's/CCP.. in the future, when you add a new system(s) to the Rookie System list, would it be possible for there to be some notification to users ? I'm thinking on the login where you normally talk about tomorrows downtime or something.. "The list of rookie systems has been updated, please visit ....." Just so no one is caught off guard.. Personally I'd like to have seen this when the rules changed, but given the rules haven't really been posted anywhere outside of this thread, I guess that's a nogo.
One other question to GM's/CCP.
Now I know you aren't gonna tell US what a rookie is.. BUT, do you, internal to the company, have one ? Basically what I'm asking is, if two people commit the same act, same conditions, different time of day, is there going to be no doubt that they will get the same punishment ? And not be solely based on the mood of the GM that is active at the time ? |

EvEa Deva
State War Academy Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 06:58:00 -
[585] - Quote
poor rookies first time they leave station and it was like a wall of douche waiting to kill them. the change was needed. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 08:41:00 -
[586] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? The GM's Request. How would we word a policy to define goals? Nothing about defining what a rookie is, no request for it, as a matter of fact the way I read the GM's post they all ready have a pretty good Idea. Hense the following:
GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 3. None but new PLAYERS are protected by CCP in any way. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 5. Players cannot see which characters are new PLAYERS and which are old players with new CHARACTERS; game masters CAN see this and we act accordingly. 6. It is impossible to define what a new PLAYER is in a way that is comprehensible, to the point and without loop holes, in addition to our players able to apply these rules to their fellow players around them. This means that we will not provide a hard definition to our player base, however game masters internally can apply these rules consistently and without bias. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. They have there defination in house. Sounds like this one is a done deal! How ever the GM expands slightly. as follows: CONT.
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 08:48:00 -
[587] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria. In a previous post the GM xlearly states his motives, as follows:
GM Homonoia wrote:Sephira Galamore wrote:Sentinel Smith wrote:Honestly.. I don't understand people who think knowing the rules is a bad thing.. Imagine if life was like that at home, school, and otherwise in the world..
"Don't speed on this road." "What's the speed limit ?" " Get on a different road." .. o_0 See, there are different kind of rules. The hard ones and the vague ones and each have a purpose. If you state a rule somewhat vague you purposefully leave a grey area. Within this area, it is up to the police/judge/GM to decide whether you broke the rule or not. The effect of this is a certain uncertainty, which may appear as a bad thing but often really isn't. Since the goal here is to avoid people walking the line, to push the limits, to find loopholes. On the other hand, it allows GM to show leniance, too. (Also, vague rules are used, when it's very difficult to actually define the limits objectively). And you have these kind of rules/laws in real life, too. "Don't drive in a way that recklessly endangers other traffic participants" - "Wait, what classifies as reckless driving?" - "Don't push it, man!" If you would define "recklessly" by setting limits for speed, acceleration, deviation from the road center, and whatsnot, you'd leave loopholes. Of course, hard rules have a purpose aswell, as they make it easy to deal with obvious cases and are less prone to subjective judgement. So back to topic: If you are in a rookie system and in a situation where you wonder "Is this a rookie now or not?", it should be clear that as soon as you have valid cause to even ask this question, the safe course of action is to leave it be. It's a about common sense, really. Of course you can still ask that question, answer it for yourself as good as you can, but when acting accordingly, you willingly accept the risk that goes along with that. Eve, consequences and stuff ;) I cannot quote this person enough. Some rules are vague on purpose and they will remain vague. This is the 'reckless driving' equivalent. If I define the rules to the last dot someone will simply find a loop hole and use it. The rule is "do not mess with rookies", and if you are in doubt the answer is ALWAYS 'do not do it'. OK, it would seem plausible, who ever would like to make a post to help the GM word a policy to define these goals, it would be welcome.
However if you don't understand the goals, or are resistant to the implied goals. I personally don't think your in anyway qualified to participate in this discussion. I'm going as time allow, try to help to this end.
As I read this the GM isn't asking in anyway for a what a rookie is, or what it should be. Posters beating this issue to death are simply not interested in helping the GM what so ever. IMO |

Homo Jesus
The LGBT Last Supper
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 12:47:00 -
[588] - Quote
Oh that's funny. If we keep killing the new money you'll expand the newb system lists?
That will hurt you more than me so have at it. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1938
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 13:27:00 -
[589] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria. In a previous post the GM xlearly states his motives, as follows:
Bolded the problem. If I, as a player who would be doing the shooting, don't know who I'm not allowed shoot, then rookies will get shot, because I, as a player, didn't know they were a rookie. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8021
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 13:50:00 -
[590] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:The GM's Request. How would we word a policy to define goals? Nothing about defining what a rookie is, no request for it, as a matter of fact the way I read the GM's post they all ready have a pretty good Idea. No, they didn't ask for a definition of rookie GÇö we're asking them because their current policy doesn't include such a definition by design, and that makes it a rather poor policy. What they are asking us for is a rookie protection policy, and without any kind of definition of rookie to go by the best way to go about the creation of such a policy is to make one that doesn't need to define rookies.
Quote:They have there defination in house. Sounds like this one is a done deal! That's the entire problem. They have one in-house, and it depends on variables that are not available to outsiders. This makes it a rather useless and near-impossible policy to follow for those outsiders. This once again points to a policy that works without defining rookies as being a better option.
Any kind of ambiguity, opaqueness, or lack of clarity in the definition of the group being protected will inevitably mean that people genuinely belonging to that group will get shafted, and people who don't belong to the group will get unduly protected. Some of the examples brought up in this thread illustrates this quite clearly. If the group is such that it cannot be clearly defined, then the back-door to solve the problem is to (unambiguously, transparently, and clearly) define a proxy group which will unavoidably contain all those you want to protect. 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
8021
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 14:10:00 -
[591] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. Well, aside from the reasons RubyPorto already mentioned (doing other factions' rookie missions, skipping them at first and then relenting and going back for them, rookie systems being school systems and thus a local source of skill books etc), there's also the other side of the fence: there's no actual harm in letting those older players in there. The protection they could get from this one dead-end system (which most of them are, iirc) is no different than what they'd get if they just stayed docked. Once you've run the tutorial missions in there, the system itself has nothing left to offer, so all there is in it is the one school station and that's it.
You could conceivably mine a little, but the belts in there are rather tiny and only contain veldspar, and/or could just be outright removed if that's a problem (it wouldn't make any difference to the rookies if the belts are there or whether they get sucked dry 15 minutes after downtime by Hulks who want 15 minutes of protected mining). Sure, you could park your hideously expensive officer-fit pirate BS in there but to what end? You can't do anything with it without taking it out of the protected system where it would get ganked. For those players, the systems just become huge-ass stations with particularly nasty docking games (in a regular station, you can just redock when you pop out and notice the gank squad outsideGǪ popping outside a system means arriving 15km from the gate and having to make your way back).
You can't hide from the game inside a rookie system as an older player, because the game is no longer there for you. So extending the security of the system to non-rookies has pretty much zero effect. 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?
|

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 01:35:00 -
[592] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cutter Isaacson wrote:To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. Well, aside from the reasons RubyPorto already mentioned (doing other factions' rookie missions, skipping them at first and then relenting and going back for them, rookie systems being school systems and thus a local source of skill books etc), there's also the other side of the fence: there's no actual harm in letting those older players in there. The protection they could get from this one dead-end system (which most of them are, iirc) is no different than what they'd get if they just stayed docked. Once you've run the tutorial missions in there, the system itself has nothing left to offer, so all there is in it is the one school station and that's it. You could conceivably mine a little, but the belts in there are rather tiny and only contain veldspar, and/or could just be outright removed if that's a problem (it wouldn't make any difference to the rookies if the belts are there or whether they get sucked dry 15 minutes after downtime by Hulks who want 15 minutes of protected mining). Sure, you could park your hideously expensive officer-fit pirate BS in there but to what end? You can't do anything with it without taking it out of the protected system where it would get ganked. For those players, the systems just become huge-ass stations with particularly nasty docking games (in a regular station, you can just redock when you pop out and notice the gank squad outsideGǪ popping outside a system means arriving 15km from the gate and having to make your way back). You can't hide from the game inside a rookie system as an older player, because the game is no longer there for you. So extending the security of the system to non-rookies has pretty much zero effect.
100% agree with this expect in the case of Arnon CCPs newist addition to the rookies systems list With the list expanding and threats of places like Hek being next its nolonger is just about a few deadends system that offer nothing to older players
Will allways be on the side of a clear deffnation in this, i feel its the right ever player to know exactly what is aganced the rules
|

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 05:59:00 -
[593] - Quote
Rhedea wrote:Cistuvaert ahh home sweet home such a dangerous place to be I left quickly. No hand holding back then. Seat of the pants learning. Noobs are those still on the rookie channel, and should have icon to show it. Like a round icon ( ) instead of the normal [ ] Like leaner plates (L)  Anyway as long as they stay in High Sec they should be kinda safe. A sec hit of -10 for shooting a ( ) in High Sec. A Ban for shooting in a starting system. No if and or buts.
Or even just there own Corp
After a set amount of time thay would be booted form the corp or be able to leave bye choice Leaveing would move tham to there standered npc corp
This would be a easy way for ev1 to know there a rookie protected bye CCP
but may take some dev time =( |

Bhear
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 06:17:00 -
[594] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP needs to be upfront and define what a *rookie* is. Simple. No, see my post above. We can define it, but you, as a player, have no way of verifying if another player fits the criteria. Oh, so you are saying we players are stupid. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Are you a jerk on purpose? |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1521
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 06:37:00 -
[595] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions: The problem with that list is that it's easily gameable to provide protection to non-rookies.
No, it doesn't provide protection to anyone. The point of my definition was to provide guidance to players about who might or might not be safe to gank in rookie systems. The GMs have access to better information than us. I purposefully use the type of diagnosis applied to psychological or medical conditions because in those fields we also lack perfect information and are required to work on only that information that we can perceive.
Sure, you might be after a definition which is sealed in GM blood which allows players to determine who is safe to gank or not. Such a binding definition would be gamed far more easily then my suggested definition for player-diagnosis or other-player rookie status. To provide such a binding definition would also require exposing private information about the player behind the character.
So as a ganker, you could use the suggested diagnosis tool and avoid ganking people who are likely to be rookies.
The fascination with hard and fast rules implies that a lot of people are interested in gaming any rules that exist, more than they are interested in helping new players learn how to play the game.
Quote:They have one in-house, and it depends on variables that are not available to outsiders. This makes it a rather useless and near-impossible policy to follow for those outsiders. This once again points to a policy that works without defining rookies as being a better option.
So you would prefer that GMs use a policy about not trapping new players with complex game mechanics, that doesn't even attempt to define what makes a "new player"? Perhaps a blanket ban on can flipping and baiting in starter systems? Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 07:24:00 -
[596] - Quote
I think banning is a little stiff. I totally support bouncing the criminal straight to low sec, with a -10. Then simply not allowing the gates to even let them back in, till they recover there security status. The gates simply don't work for them. Additionally return the rookies ship and what ever he or she may have lost.
Additionally no docking in high sec till, said security status is fixed. |

BoSau Hotim
148
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 10:10:00 -
[597] - Quote
A lot of older players come to the starter systems because they take advantage of the mining missions. Mucho Pyro to be had. I constantly see groups of hulks/orca running these missions.
Any older player dropping a can in starter systems can be banned. No matter if you fight an older player or a rookie, it's not allowed - so it doesn't really matter how old someone is in the starter systems. No 'can' pvp is allowed.
Also can baiting/flip a rookie on the SOE epic arc mission is a bannable offence. How do we know they are on the epic arc? We don't. But there are players that specifically target rookies on the SOE arc.
I'm not a carebear...-áI'm a SPACEBARBIE! |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1963
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:06:00 -
[598] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I think banning is a little stiff. I totally support bouncing the criminal straight to low sec, with a -10. Then simply not allowing the gates to even let them back in, till they recover there security status. The gates simply don't work for them. Return the rookies ship and what ever he or she may have lost.
Additionally no docking in high sec till, said security status is fixed.
1) Wrong thread, this isn't a suicide gank whine thread.
2) The idea is bad and you should feel bad. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:58:00 -
[599] - Quote
So you would prefer the person is banned, Ruby?
I agree wrong thread. I'll shut up. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1964
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 19:35:00 -
[600] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:So you would prefer the person is banned, Ruby?
I agree wrong thread. I'll shut up.
For messing with newbies? I think the current policy of warning and banning those people is fine. However, we all need to be clear on precisely who is protected. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Hammer Crendraven
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 00:28:00 -
[601] - Quote
I did not know Arnon was on the protected list. So if I complain to a GM about the 2 can flipers that got me last month in Arnon when I was only weeks old then I can get them baned. Hmm and it so happens they both have posted in threads like this one recently as well. I can see the fear they have in their posts. They are guilty of this and it is not just me, they have done this repeatedly to many rookies in Arnon. It is what they do daily. The people that do this do it as a way of life. Grief on the newbies. I think the GM's know this as well. That is why they come down on them so hard. It is never just one mistake like some of these posters want you to believe. They prey upon the rookies as a way of life and are most upset that the GM's are making their playstyle off limits. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1970
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 00:59:00 -
[602] - Quote
Hammer Crendraven wrote:I did not know Arnon was on the protected list. So if I complain to a GM about the 2 can flipers that got me last month in Arnon when I was only weeks old then I can get them baned. Hmm and it so happens they both have posted in threads like this one recently as well. I can see the fear they have in their posts. They are guilty of this and it is not just me, they have done this repeatedly to many rookies in Arnon. It is what they do daily. The people that do this do it as a way of life. Grief on the newbies. I think the GM's know this as well. That is why they come down on them so hard. It is never just one mistake like some of these posters want you to believe. They prey upon the rookies as a way of life and are most upset that the GM's are making their playstyle off limits.
P.S. The GM said in red outlined text can flippers are griefing new players in starter systems (and that is not allowed) and then went on to name the starter systems which includes Arnon. As of right now this very moment in time there are at least 30 can flippers working Arnon. The GM's can target 30 some players already for violation to this rule.
Report 'em. I don't think anyone in this thread wants to see rookies messed with in rookie systems. We're just split on the best way to achieve the goal of "No rookies were harmed in the making of this rookie system." This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Cutter Isaacson
Peace N Quiet
521
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 03:56:00 -
[603] - Quote
Figured it out yet? Numbers of terminally stupid people seem to be on the increase, I suggest we have a real life Stupidageddon to rectify this issue. |

Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 08:24:00 -
[604] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals?
I would give the players anything thay could use 1month 2 months 1 year
Dosnt matter the number what matters is have a clear line we shouldnt cross
Of corse gms would still need to work case to case Some people killed under said number may have more than one accout more than one toon on there account and while thay may be playing on a young toon there still not bye any means a rookie
That part would be for the gms to decide But at least with this number a player would be able to know without any dought if i attack this person i may have bad things happen to my account
Also ide like to ask about corp agro for instance ive gain corp aggrestion to a person in a player owned corp this person isnt a rookie but is doing a mission with or for a rookie there both fireing on me Not killing the rookie may keep me form being able to blow up the none rookie should i worry about a ban here ?
|

Iskawa Zebrut
Smoke to Train - Train to Smoke
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:49:00 -
[605] - Quote
Jesus, you people...
Rookie: A player 14 days old or less, flying entry-level ships (frigates, low end cruisers/mining vessels). If said player has any other character or account older than 14 days they do not count as a rookie. Any protection void if the rookie started a conflict via smack talk (inviting you to shoot them, specifically) or aggression (do not engage unless they signal they wish to fight - for example, they take from your container and target lock you, or they say as such via smack).
Still some loopholes, but I have faith that the GMs will apply their own judgement in loophole cases. After all, enforcement of this would get a lot of special attention since it's an oppertunity for CCP to dip their fingers into peoples' wallets. |

TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
92
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:12:00 -
[606] - Quote
lots of pages, didnt read, but here:
a) properly inform newbies of the mechanics that allow others to shoot them b) base it on something other than system alone, as there can be valid targets for ganking, baiting, stealing from, etc in newbie systems (and newbie systems aren't clearly marked to begin with - I certainly don't know them ALL - and to top it off it was recently extended to a few other systems, with further talk of extending it to lustrevik and hek, which is so ridiculously stupid I don't know where to start...) |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:19:00 -
[607] - Quote
Iskawa Zebrut wrote:Jesus, you people...
Rookie: A player 14 days old or less, flying entry-level ships (frigates, low end cruisers/mining vessels). If said player has any other character or account older than 14 days they do not count as a rookie. Any protection void if the rookie started a conflict via smack talk (inviting you to shoot them, specifically) or aggression (do not engage unless they signal they wish to fight - for example, they take from your container and target lock you, or they say as such via smack).
Still some loopholes, but I have faith that the GMs will apply their own judgement in loophole cases. After all, enforcement of this would get a lot of special attention since it's an oppertunity for CCP to dip their fingers into peoples' wallets.
How do you, as a player, pick targets when part of the definition of the protected class is hidden from you? If you want to be able to allow combat (or other activities that would fall under "messing with") in rookie systems between non-"rookies," then the term "rookie" must be defined in a way that players can use. The alternative is much simpler and what I've been suggesting for a while. Until such a time as the Devs can stick a rookie-"don't shoot" tag on actual "rookies," ban combat of all kinds in rookie systems. You do have to enforce this strictly (as in warn people who shoot hulks there), or people will probe around to try to figure out the hidden definition of "rookie" and "mess with" a large number of rookies in the process.
Gamers figure out the rules of their game. EvE has a long history with hidden rules and mechanics, most all of which are now well understood.
Also, that can thing is can-baiting and is specifically banned in rookie systems, on top of the general ban on "messing with" "rookies." This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Yoshite McLulzypants
People called Romanes they go the house
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:49:00 -
[608] - Quote
This is a very easy question. You cannot fly anything but a tech 1 frigate or destroyer on a trial account (maybe a cruiser too?). If you see someone in any other ship then they have paid for an account, ccp has their money, fire away. |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
838
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:51:00 -
[609] - Quote
Yoshite McLulzypants wrote:This is a very easy question. You cannot fly anything but a tech 1 frigate or destroyer on a trial account (maybe a cruiser too?). If you see someone in any other ship then they have paid for an account, ccp has their money, fire away. Some people buy the account without a trial first. |

Quaaid
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:24:00 -
[610] - Quote
Quote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way.
There is a coding solution to this issue. Vague rules pushed upon the community via non-in-game medium is not the way to approach this. My ability to gank rookies within the mechanics of your game is your problem, own it. Stop pushing the moderation of that activity back on your end user.
If the game allows it, it will be done. New people try new things every day in this game, which will routinely end in some rookie in some rookie system getting ganked. This is not the problem of either pilot, it is a CCP problem that CCP needs to address via the game and not moderation.
Quote:They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
- Sandbox
- Bullies exist in all avenues of EVE, it is foundational for a PvP enviornment. The weak are prey. When they grow strong they will in turn become predators. Why interfere outside of nurturing your own financial interests? If the sole reason is to retain subscriptions, why risk these outcomes on behavioral altering? Simply code a solution and be done with it.
- Rookies can be scammed for all they possess without consequence in Jita (4 jumps from a rookie system) but not have their Free Rookie Ships blown up without someone getting warned/banned. Which is worse? Which is more detrimental? Which behavior is more taboo when compared to all other MMOs on the planet? Recognize this flaw in logic.
- The draw to this game for many (certainly not all) people is PvP with consequence. As you coddle your new player base, the PvP hungry subsect gets a watered down experience. Is this intended?
- Sandbox
|
|

Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:29:00 -
[611] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote: But I think.....
You are attempting to live above your station in life aren't you?
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |

Fractal Muse
Republic University Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:34:00 -
[612] - Quote
The problem for CCP's GM is this: If they define the rules specifically then the smart players of EVE will figure out ways to make use of any newbie immunity rules.
For example, if the definition for a 'rookie' is under 10 days played. What is to stop an experienced player from picking up a new account and making a new character on that new account and running high value cargo? Or going into the middle of 0.0 to cause some mischief?
Looking at the situation, there is something there that would indicate the new player as not a rookie. But, within the game's rule system they would be considered one.
So if time on the account doesn't work, how about skill points? We have the same problem. Veterans making new characters to make use of the rookie benefits.
To me this leaves two alternatives for EVE:
The first is to do what CCP is doing and leaving the definition of rookie open-ended and subject to interpretation in any given event. Unfortunately, this causes confusion for the players and creates "special" circumstances that are subject to calls of favoritism or unfairness.
The second, which I would prefer since it gets rid of the interpretation, is to create newbie starting zones. A small system that is not accessible from the EVE Universe as a whole. When a rookie feels ready to enter the game proper they go through a wormhole and can never go back.
This way there are no questions about who is a newbie and who isn't. There is no confusion. And, rookies are protected within the rookie system. The rookie system should have limited resources within it and it could force players out of it when they reach a certain skill point level.
There would need to be 'safe guards' to keep larger ships out of the rookie system. Perhaps the manufacturing could be restricted solely to what the initial manufacturing missions suggest. This would prevent players from creating manufacturing characters and building 'advanced' ships / stuff in the system.
I dunno, it seems to me that if CCP is serious about protecting new players and providing them with a positive new player experience they need to revamp their new game experience. To me, this has always been where EVE Online is weak. I would love to see retention numbers of new player accounts.
There is a lot more that could be done to make EVE Online more appealing / attention grabbing for new players. The revamp to the initial missions was a great step but it isn't enough. More can and should be done.
|

Quaaid
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:41:00 -
[613] - Quote
Fractal,
I like your idea of segregated rookie space. It could be approached in a very cool way. Something like 'you have to escape rookie space' via skill and intro events.
Veteran player on alts would be able to navigate that very quickly and it would let every new player ramp up to a base level of skill and knowledge before exposing them to the like of... me.
I'm all for a change like that. But as it sits, I can go to rookie space, bait and kill them and that is exactly what I intend to keep doing. |

Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp.
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:41:00 -
[614] - Quote
Trappist Monk 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. what happened to considering my idea, since your long list (with the capitalized PLAYER and CHARACTER) seem to be responding to my argument. Quote:How about:
a straight rule for the vets, using an offical announcement: * No PvP with, stealing from, can baiting, griefing, spamming, or scamming of new characters who are 14 days or less old in rookie systems.
for the "real" rookies, using a last page after character creation but before entering game (or, if that needs development time, using one of those warning message boxes for system events): * EVE is based on non-consensual PvP. You will have limited protection from combat and piracy inside your starting system for 14 days. If you leave the starting system or your 14 days expire, you are a valid target and a willing participant. No need for exceptions. You leave the system, you're a target. Feel free to change the # of days, but thats the same as a trial period.
one problem with that is one of the starter tutorial agents sends you out of system (basicly teaching you how to navigate from a-b in eve) one possibility is to give newbie accounts a flag that allows them to jump in and out of the starter systems, and gates set so if your a older char, you just simply CAN NOT jump into said system due to not having said flag and peronaly would say 30 days not 14, buddy invites are 21 days iirc and occasionaly ccp gives out 30 day trial keys, other option is ships trial accounts can NOT fly cant jump into system ie mining barges/exhumers which means you dont have older players sat in relative safety in a rookie system stripping out all the roids and leaving nothing for the newbie players (some of the tutorial agents require trit to complete, either directly as trit or indirectly as made items) |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8119
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:48:00 -
[615] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:one problem with that is one of the starter tutorial agents sends you out of system (basicly teaching you how to navigate from a-b in eve) That sounds like an excellent opportunity to teach them about the rules of the game, including things like not carrying everything they own in one shipGǪ 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?
|

Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp.
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:01:00 -
[616] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Blastcaps Madullier wrote:one problem with that is one of the starter tutorial agents sends you out of system (basicly teaching you how to navigate from a-b in eve) That sounds like an excellent opportunity to teach them about the rules of the game, including things like not carrying everything they own in one shipGǪ
think back to your first time playing eve being a day or 2 old and the things you used to do back then that now you look back on and go "wtf was i thinking?" generaly newbies have NO clue on a lot of things including how agression etc works, concord intervention etc. basicly complete newbies are just that, newbies with no idea. too harsh from the get go and newbies aren't going to stick round and learn this game and long term lack of new subscribers WILL hurt eve as a whole. PS if you REALLY want to gank newbies that badly, why not just goto the lowsec system right next door to where the epic soe story arc npc - is based (Arnon) |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8119
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:13:00 -
[617] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:think back to your first time playing eve being a day or 2 old and the things you used to do back then that now you look back on and go "wtf was i thinking?" generaly newbies have NO clue on a lot of things including how agression etc works, concord intervention etc. basicly complete newbies are just that, newbies with no idea. too harsh from the get go and newbies aren't going to stick round and learn this game and long term lack of new subscribers WILL hurt eve as a whole. GǪand that's why they need to be taught, not be tricked into playing a game that doesn't work the way the game actually works. It's also the reason why the rules need to be clear: because otherwise they'll be impossible for the newbies to understand (even more so than for the older players).
That is something drastically different from making such wide and imprecise policies that they actually reduce the protection of newbies and increase the protection of older players, who'll know enough to abuse the hell out of those wide margins.
Does EVE's NPE leave something to be desired? Yes. That is not reason to have the GMs operate on fundamentally flawed and counter-productive policies that break more than they solve; it's a reason to fix the NPE.
Quote:PS if you REALLY want to gank newbies that badly GǪwhy are people going on about with idiocy? Is reading really that hard?
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?
|

Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp.
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:45:00 -
[618] - Quote
Tippia wrote:]GǪand that's why they need to be taught, not be tricked into playing a game that doesn't work the way the game actually works. It's also the reason why the rules need to be clear: because otherwise they'll be impossible for the newbies to understand (even more so than for the older players).
by that definition your also saying you'd be happy for babies to play with matches not knowing how things work etc ie fire burns and hurts among other things, and by playing with said matches they'd learn. cause in some sense newbies are exactly that, they dont KNOW
basically altering the NPE so it teaches newbies things like that would be better, than them jumping through the gate doing the tutorial mission and someone who's say a 6 year old player/toon blows them up the moment they appear, "just because I can" or "just for s**ts and giggles" at newbies expense.
End of the day newbies impressions of eve from the get go will decide whether they stay or quit and before you say well good riddance consider this, eve NEEDS to keep attracting new players to thrive, too harsh initialy and newbie players will just say f**k it and leave, we all KNOW eve has a high learning curve and is harsh at times and doesn't have cotton wool padding most other mmorpgs has, but there comes a point with regards to new players where it becomes too harsh and ultimately ends up costing eve in terms of new players, new subs etc etc.
Tippia wrote:]Does EVE's NPE leave something to be desired? Yes. That is not reason to have the GMs operate on fundamentally flawed and counter-productive policies that break more than they solve; it's a reason to fix the NPE.
agreed on the fixing the NPE, like removing duplicate skillbooks awarded from multiple different career agents, however i'd have to disagree somewhat on the part about the GMs, your referring to policy about newbie systems, as i said in a earlier post, the devs/GMs can keep rewording the policy till the cows come home and someone will STILL find a loophole in the wording and a way to exploit it. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 05:53:00 -
[619] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Wouldn't you agree the best thing to do, is just leave them alone? Or else. That's how I red this. Probably a good thing not to mess with it. Just saying.
IN case your messing the point, I really really don't think we need more Rookie systems. Do you?
Good Personal Policy != Official Policy This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 05:54:00 -
[620] - Quote
Trust me on this. Ban Hammer starts dropping. They will be left alone, players will get the message. Trust me on this will ya.
Ruby, I didn't make the GD policy. lol
What I got from all that is if you can't figure it out and stop doing it. Your $hit is going to hit the fan. lol
But don't listen to me, just keep rocking that boat. lol |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 05:57:00 -
[621] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Trust me on this. Ban Hammer starts dropping. They will be left alone, players will get the message. Trust me on this will ya.
Ruby, I didn't make the GD policy. lol
The Policy of "Don't mess with Rookies in Rookie systems" has always been in place. Or are you so dense that that's news to you.
It hasn't been working all that well. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 06:04:00 -
[622] - Quote
Well, I have to admit, a few things do get by me, my bad, stupid, thick, however you want to say. I'm guilty. But, I can say I get the message here, at least I think I do.
Now for you. I gotta say, regardless of what I think or do. I do see slight glimmers of reason in some of your posts. Kinda respect ya. well sort of.
But that thread you were mouthing of in yesterday, with that ******. I think the thread got removed. Guy saying he was glad he run off a husband & wife mining team and all. Well ya got me wondering again. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 06:41:00 -
[623] - Quote
In Eve there is no such thing as character level. We have dates join and SP. Sp collects whether or not you are actually sitting at the computer or not. This makes it impossible to pinpoint exactly what a rookie is. So if my account is 2 months old but I really only --played-- for 1 day a week for an hour. Then more than like still don't know jack about Eve. Rookies are impossible to define in Eve from our end. Maybe a GM can look at your total hours played, see a small list of transactions in your wallet history. A quick glance at your list of contacts? Who knows how they evaluate a rookie. Or cares.
Guy carrying a cargo full of dead space gear? Gank him. Who cares if he is 2 weeks old. Common sense tells me that is no rookie, even if so do you think CCP would blame you? Really?
Guy ratting in high sec belt in his crap fit t1 frigate? Not a war target? Honestly why are you bothering at this point? Still want to mess with him? Check him! Is he under a month old? If yes you should just leave him be. Same goes for scanning down mission runners to ninja salvage/loot/gank. Or bad fit industrials with low end minerals, poor value loot
So your at war and you find one of the enemy is a week old? Go ahead and take him down if he pops up everytime. If your feeling nice tell him to go to another system far away and he won't be bothered. Or simply don't actively hunt him down. Tell him to leave the corp for for the duration of the war. Or just ignore all of that and just not make it seem in ANY fashion you are specifically targeting the rookie/s IE: "We are going to slaughter your noobs all week!" The entire corp is rookies? Perhaps you should reconsider why you wardeced them.
If they wardeced you well shame on them. Rough them up some sure, but do you really need to make it complete hell on them? Probably not. Would you get in trouble for it? More than likely not.
Edit: Unless they find you baited them into it somehow.
People are making a simple rule more complicated than it needs to be. If it looks like a rookie. If it smells like a rookie. It's a rookie. Anything questionable is not a rookie. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:13:00 -
[624] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, I have to admit, a few things do get by me, my bad, stupid, thick, however you want to say. I'm guilty. But, I can say I get the message here, at least I think I do.
Now for you. I gotta say, regardless of what I think or do. I do see slight glimmers of reason in some of your posts. Kinda respect ya. well sort of.
But that thread you were mouthing of in yesterday, with that ******. I think the thread got removed. Guy saying he was glad he run off a husband & wife mining team and all. Well ya got me wondering again.
I fail to see how people realizing that the game isn't a good fit for their preferences is a bad thing; either for the game or for them. The sad thing is people taking so long to realize it. If the game's not a good fit for them, they will be happier once they find a game that does suit them.
That said, you do have to protect people (and do so effectively) for long enough that they have the opportunity to learn about the game and thus the opportunity to make an informed decision.
Should they fail to use that opportunity, thus robbing themselves of the opportunity to make an informed decision (as that mining team did), the time they waste on a game they don't enjoy is on them. People refusing to inform themselves while making the decision to continue playing is not a reason to change the game. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:14:00 -
[625] - Quote
Domono wrote:Anything questionable is not a rookie.
Should you have to stake your account on that bet? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:37:00 -
[626] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:Anything questionable is not a rookie. Should you have to stake your account on that bet?
On this matter I don't consider it a gamble. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:39:00 -
[627] - Quote
Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:Anything questionable is not a rookie. Should you have to stake your account on that bet? On this matter I don't consider it a gamble.
Rookie is not defined. That means that it is a gamble, no matter how you consider it.
Besides that, should the stakes automatically be your account? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 08:10:00 -
[628] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:Anything questionable is not a rookie. Should you have to stake your account on that bet? On this matter I don't consider it a gamble. Rookie is not defined. That means that it is a gamble, no matter how you consider it. Besides that, should the stakes automatically be your account?
Unfortunately Ruby it seems you just don't get it. That's fine. My suggestion would be to simply avoid all rookie systems while considering any hostile or aggressive action. Also, if the thought crosses your mind that you wish to hunt or harm newbies or your corp or alliance wants to cause harm to them any way your better off just avoiding it all together. Log off or go rat or mine. Or move out to low/null sec avoid the problem all together? Finally, remove words like noob, newb, nub, from your in game vocabulary. See anyone under 6-12 months then turn tail and run, zero interaction. Oh and if they tackle you just sit there and let them kill you. Then you will be all good.
OR trust your better judgement. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 14:37:00 -
[629] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, I have to admit, a few things do get by me, my bad, stupid, thick, however you want to say. I'm guilty. But, I can say I get the message here, at least I think I do.
Now for you. I gotta say, regardless of what I think or do. I do see slight glimmers of reason in some of your posts. Kinda respect ya. well sort of.
But that thread you were mouthing of in yesterday, with that ******. I think the thread got removed. Guy saying he was glad he run off a husband & wife mining team and all. Well ya got me wondering again. I fail to see how people realizing that the game isn't a good fit for their preferences is a bad thing; either for the game or for them. The sad thing is people taking so long to realize it. If the game's not a good fit for them, they will be happier once they find a game that does suit them. That said, you do have to protect people (and do so effectively) for long enough that they have the opportunity to learn about the game and thus the opportunity to make an informed decision. Should they fail to use that opportunity, thus robbing themselves of the opportunity to make an informed decision (as that mining team did), the time they waste on a game they don't enjoy is on them. People refusing to inform themselves while making the decision to continue playing is not a reason to change the game.
I think I would like to hear CCP's prospective on this. Since they did remove the thread. CCP how do you feel offically about this situation? Why do you think they locked, and removed the thread Ruby? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:17:00 -
[630] - Quote
Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:Anything questionable is not a rookie. Should you have to stake your account on that bet? On this matter I don't consider it a gamble. Rookie is not defined. That means that it is a gamble, no matter how you consider it. Besides that, should the stakes automatically be your account? Unfortunately Ruby it seems you just don't get it. That's fine. My suggestion would be to simply avoid all rookie systems while considering any hostile or aggressive action. Also, if the thought crosses your mind that you wish to hunt or harm newbies or your corp or alliance wants to cause harm to them any way your better off just avoiding it all together. Log off or go rat or mine. Or move out to low/null sec avoid the problem all together? Finally, remove words like noob, newb, nub, from your in game vocabulary. See anyone under 6-12 months then turn tail and run, zero interaction. Oh and if they tackle you just sit there and let them kill you. Then you will be all good. OR trust your better judgement.
Christ. That is the godamned rule that I've been suggesting, you nit. We are talking about helping CCP make official policy. Your personal policy, my personal policy, etc, is irrelevant. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2030
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:18:00 -
[631] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, I have to admit, a few things do get by me, my bad, stupid, thick, however you want to say. I'm guilty. But, I can say I get the message here, at least I think I do.
Now for you. I gotta say, regardless of what I think or do. I do see slight glimmers of reason in some of your posts. Kinda respect ya. well sort of.
But that thread you were mouthing of in yesterday, with that ******. I think the thread got removed. Guy saying he was glad he run off a husband & wife mining team and all. Well ya got me wondering again. I fail to see how people realizing that the game isn't a good fit for their preferences is a bad thing; either for the game or for them. The sad thing is people taking so long to realize it. If the game's not a good fit for them, they will be happier once they find a game that does suit them. That said, you do have to protect people (and do so effectively) for long enough that they have the opportunity to learn about the game and thus the opportunity to make an informed decision. Should they fail to use that opportunity, thus robbing themselves of the opportunity to make an informed decision (as that mining team did), the time they waste on a game they don't enjoy is on them. People refusing to inform themselves while making the decision to continue playing is not a reason to change the game. I think I would like to hear CCP's prospective on this. Since they did remove the thread. CCP how do you feel offically about this situation? Why do you think they locked, and removed the thread Ruby?
If I remember right, the thread was full of off topic discussions. Otherwise, it's no different from any number of C&P storytime threads. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Goremageddon Box
Guerrilla Flotilla
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 15:30:00 -
[632] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:I shall make this real simple: Do not mess with rookies in rookie systems in any way. They are still trying to figure out how to read the overview and how to right click; messing with them at that point in their career is something for bullies who have something to compensate for and only dare to pick on the smallest, weakest boy in kindergarten.
HAHAHAHA |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 17:32:00 -
[633] - Quote
OR trust your better judgement.[/quote]
Christ. That is the godamned rule that I've been suggesting, you nit. We are talking about helping CCP make official policy. Your personal policy, my personal policy, etc, is irrelevant.[/quote]
My point exactly, unless you happen to have s suggestions in regarding to how to word it. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2031
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 22:16:00 -
[634] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote: My point exactly, unless you happen to have s suggestions in regarding to how to word it.
And I have suggested how to word it. Several times. But each time I point out that the current wording sucks elephant balls, you lot pounce on that and declare that I hate newbies. Same goes for expanding on why I suggest that wording (and why the actual policy has to change to fit the wording).
For those who are only semi-literate, I'll go ahead and put my suggested wording here, again:
"Do NOT mess with ANYONE in Rookie Systems" This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Worn Xeno
One over Zero
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 22:29:00 -
[635] - Quote
The rule is simple. Don't mess with rookies in rookie systems.
NO, we will not get a clear cut definition of what "mess" and "rookies" means. We get some examples (e.g. mess = can-baiting, killing and more), but the rest - is COMMON SENSE (Ya know, that little voice in your head that tells you "No, don't take your officer-fit mission-spanker CNR into lowsec to go shopping, use your Covert Ops instead".)
Why? Simple reason, say "Rookie" would be defined as "Character younger than 20 days and worth less than 500000 ISK". Because then some smartass rules lawyers would start shooting some poor beginners who happen to be 20 days and 1 minute (while they only played a total of 2 hours or so) or create some awesome rookie-protection characters (age 18 days, valued 498594 ISK) for whatever weird exploit they find.
So, for this simple reason the rule is "Don't mess with rookies in rookie systems." If you feel for any reason the need to mess with someone in a rookie system, be sure it is not a rookie. That Tengu Pilot and that Hulk mining fleet with Orca are probably are not rookies... Gank away! - that Crap-Fit Badger carrying 7kk ISK worth of goods? Maybe rookie, Maybe not. That mining frigate that just shot at you because you are red-flashy? Yup, Rookie. In any case if the Banhammer hits you for messing with anyone in a rookie system, it is on your head. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:13:00 -
[636] - Quote
The rule also extends to extreme cases OUTSIDE a rookie systems as well. Like don't join a corp full of rookies and say your teaching them how hard eve is by slaughtering them all. Your not going to get in trouble for killing a rookie outside a rookie system unless all your doing is hunting them down, or specifically targeting them with a scam of some sort. Like getting a bunch to join your corp just to kill them or convince them to come out to low sec to kill them, or convince them to come into a worm hole, then trapping or killing them. Flipping the objective on a Sisters of Eve missions is probably a bad idea, so on so forth.
My best attempt at wording it would be: Do not interact with Rookies in any deceitful, aggressive, or harmful manner inside Rookie systems, and do not specifically target Rookies outside said systems.
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:23:00 -
[637] - Quote
Domono wrote:
My best attempt at wording it would be: Do not interact with Rookies in any deceitful, aggressive, or harmful manner inside Rookie systems, and do not specifically target Rookies outside said systems.
Works for me. I can here it now, O May Gawd, we just gotta have rookie defined, this just cant work if we don't get what a rookie is defined. LMFAO |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2031
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:37:00 -
[638] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Domono wrote:
My best attempt at wording it would be: Do not interact with Rookies in any deceitful, aggressive, or harmful manner inside Rookie systems, and do not specifically target Rookies outside said systems.
Works for me. I can here it now, O May Gawd, we just gotta have rookie defined, this just cant work if we don't get what a rookie is defined. LMFAO Oh yea, I would change the wording to this. Do not interact with anyone in any deceitful, aggressive, or harmful manner inside Rookie systems, and do not specifically target Rookies outside said systems.
First part of yours works. Second part requires you to define your protected class.
Writing your rule recursively is idiotic. It is idiotic because it completely fails to achieve the stated goals of the policy. The way that it fails to do so has been explained several times. Because of that, I have to wonder if your actual goals and your stated goals don't line up. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
861
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:41:00 -
[639] - Quote
The way the rules are now, it is as if the law here in the US was "Don't have sex with minors" without defining what minors were. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:46:00 -
[640] - Quote
Damn Ruby, I ws following you on the everyone thing.  |
|

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:46:00 -
[641] - Quote
Like they said it's impossible for us to know exactly what a Rookie is, which is why they have full protection only in Rookie systems and limited protection outside. That way it protects those who have a difficult time deciding between a rookie and not. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2032
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:57:00 -
[642] - Quote
Domono wrote:Like they said it's impossible for us to know exactly what a Rookie is, which is why they have full protection only in Rookie systems and limited protection outside. That way it protects those who have a difficult time deciding between a rookie and not.
They don't. They have no protection outside rookie systems, and by failing to either define the class or ban messing with anybody, shitty protection in rookie systems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2032
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 00:58:00 -
[643] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Damn Ruby, I ws following you on the everyone thing. 
Then you added a far reaching, badly written, and wacky new clause. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:25:00 -
[644] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:The way the rules are now, it is as if the law here in the US was "Don't have sex with minors" without defining what minors were.
So in EVE style lets take this to its EVE conclusion. If minors are defined to that extent then one second you are labeled a minor and the next second you are not labeled and then that very next second everybody pounces on you. It used to happen when people camped the rookie gates. That is what will happen to EVE if the line is well marked. And no line in the sand can fit every case. People can play this game and still be rookies a year later if they took leave of the game after the first week only to return a year later. No line in the sand can cover every situation. I am not going to post every concievable possible situation as it is impossible to do. Nobody at CCP is going to paint themselves into a corner on this issue so you can all just accept it or not. In the end it does not even matter how you feel about it because it is not even open for debate.
Thus the current do not mess with rookies is a very good way to deal with this. It allows the GM a human to decide if the person is indeed a rookie and if they are being taken advantage of. Something no computer can do with any possible set of controls. Further as I already explained the player that does this does it as a way of life in game. It is not a one time thing. The GM is going to get multiple complaints about the same guy griefing rookies. Banned! Just like that.
For everybody that wants to mess with rookies this was your warning from a GM. They also spelled out the systems in which rookies are protected. It makes it 100% fool proof to avoid having your account banned if you avoid those systems. You run your own account. You the player control your own level of risk. You the player know what the risk is. Nobody else is making you pull the trigger on someone, you do so knowing full well the risk. This is not at all difficult to understand or follow. I for one have no sympathy at all for anyones plight should they get banned. You all have been warned by the GM. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:26:00 -
[645] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Haulie Berry wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. You just said in (2) that nobody is protected outside of rookie systems. Then you went on to say in (7), "Even though they're not protected outside of those systems, don't mess with them anywhere else, either " which, as a GM edict, could be interpreted as policy. So now you have two policy points that directly contradict each other, and (4) is the cherry on top - "or else". You couldn't make it through a brief synopsis of your position without contradicting both yourself and policy as it is currently known. This should probably be taken as an indication that you need to rethink things. We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand.
They do have some limited protection outside. Extreme cases.
I could define a Rookie as someone with no accounts over roughly a month old, who does not yet understand the mechanics of the game nor has assets worth any significant amount.
Problem with that is we can't tell how many accounts someone has, or what they know. Also I can not tell exactly what assets someone has. On the other hand I can scan or look at someone under a month and see lasers equipped to their incursus and quickly think that guy has no idea what he is doing. Or some one in badger hauling 1 billion worth of cargo yet under a week old I cant tell if someone paid him to haul it my only conclusion is he is a alt. The guys that truly are rookies your not going to have a valid reason to do much of anything to. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2033
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:29:00 -
[646] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:The way the rules are now, it is as if the law here in the US was "Don't have sex with minors" without defining what minors were. So in EVE style lets take this to its EVE conclusion. If minors are defined to that extent then one second you are labeled a minor and the next second you are not labeled and then that very next second everybody pounces on you. It used to happen when people camped the rookie gates. That is what will happen to EVE if the line is well marked. And no line in the sand can fit every case. People can play this game and still be rookies a year later if they took leave of the game after the first week only to return a year later. No line in the sand can cover every situation. I am not going to post every concievable possible situation as it is impossible to do. Nobody at CCP is going to paint themselves into a corner on this issue so you can all just accept it or not. In the end it does not even matter how you feel about it because it is not even open for debate. Thus the current do not mess with rookies is a very good way to deal with this. It allows the GM a human to decide if the person is indeed a rookie and if they are being taken advantage of. Something no computer can do with any possible set of controls. Further as I already explained the player that does this does it as a way of life in game. It is not a one time thing. The GM is going to get multiple complaints about the same guy griefing rookies. Banned! Just like that. For everybody that wants to mess with rookies this was your warning from a GM. They also spelled out the systems in which rookies are protected. It makes it 100% fool proof to avoid having your account banned if you avoid those systems. You run your own account. You the player control your own level of risk. You the player know what the risk is. Nobody else is making you pull the trigger on someone, you do so knowing full well the risk. This is not at all difficult to understand or follow. I for one have no sympathy at all for anyones plight should they get banned. You all have been warned by the GM.
Just real quick, answer this. What is the goal of the rookie protection system? Is it a) to stop rookies from having a bad experience when they're first learning OR b) get bad mean people banned This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:34:00 -
[647] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:The way the rules are now, it is as if the law here in the US was "Don't have sex with minors" without defining what minors were. So in EVE style lets take this to its EVE conclusion. If minors are defined to that extent then one second you are labeled a minor and the next second you are not labeled and then that very next second everybody pounces on you. It used to happen when people camped the rookie gates. That is what will happen to EVE if the line is well marked. And no line in the sand can fit every case. People can play this game and still be rookies a year later if they took leave of the game after the first week only to return a year later. No line in the sand can cover every situation. I am not going to post every concievable possible situation as it is impossible to do. Nobody at CCP is going to paint themselves into a corner on this issue so you can all just accept it or not. In the end it does not even matter how you feel about it because it is not even open for debate. Thus the current do not mess with rookies is a very good way to deal with this. It allows the GM a human to decide if the person is indeed a rookie and if they are being taken advantage of. Something no computer can do with any possible set of controls. Further as I already explained the player that does this does it as a way of life in game. It is not a one time thing. The GM is going to get multiple complaints about the same guy griefing rookies. Banned! Just like that. For everybody that wants to mess with rookies this was your warning from a GM. They also spelled out the systems in which rookies are protected. It makes it 100% fool proof to avoid having your account banned if you avoid those systems. You run your own account. You the player control your own level of risk. You the player know what the risk is. Nobody else is making you pull the trigger on someone, you do so knowing full well the risk. This is not at all difficult to understand or follow. I for one have no sympathy at all for anyones plight should they get banned. You all have been warned by the GM. Just real quick, answer this. What is the goal of the rookie protection system? Is it a) to stop rookies from having a bad experience when they're first learning OR b) get bad mean people banned
Neither of those two cases defines what the goal of the rookie protection systems is for. They are both far too limiting in scope to cover it all. And an obvious attempt to paint someone into a corner. And this is not open for debate. It is a mandate. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Get over it. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2034
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:40:00 -
[648] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Just real quick, answer this. What is the goal of the rookie protection system? Is it a) to stop rookies from having a bad experience when they're first learning OR b) get bad mean people banned
Neither of those two cases defines what the goal of the rookie protection systems is for. They are both far too limiting in scope to cover it all. And an obvious attempt to paint someone into a corner. And this is not open for debate. It is a mandate. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Get over it.
Ok, then write your own C. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:41:00 -
[649] - Quote
Mainly to keep rookies from being griefed while learning. Though I'm sure they have no issue with removing people who simply want to grief rookies at the same time. Less problems in the end. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2034
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:45:00 -
[650] - Quote
Domono wrote:Mainly to keep rookies from being griefed while learning. Though I'm sure they have no issue with removing people who simply want to grief rookies at the same time. Less problems in the end.
Cool, so you want rookies to not get griefed in the first place. Now, given that, is it a good idea to make the rules surrounding rookies clear or fuzzy? Remember, prevention rather than punishment is your primary goal. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 01:54:00 -
[651] - Quote
I think it's doing its job well Ruby, since a lot of people in here can't judge within reason what a rookie is or define what it is to mess with one. Meaning more people are less likely to do anything that they have to "bet your account on". The unknown can be scarier than what is in front of your face. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:06:00 -
[652] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Just real quick, answer this. What is the goal of the rookie protection system? Is it a) to stop rookies from having a bad experience when they're first learning OR b) get bad mean people banned
Neither of those two cases defines what the goal of the rookie protection systems is for. They are both far too limiting in scope to cover it all. And an obvious attempt to paint someone into a corner. And this is not open for debate. It is a mandate. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Get over it. Ok, then write your own C.
CCP has exit data from the last 9 years of game play. Every player that quits is invited to explain why they quit. If you want more players or less players is not your choice to make. You do not own the game. CCP runs this game and they alone determine what their population goals are for the game. CCP decides what C is not me and not you. And they do not owe you an explanation of C either. What they need for a profit vs what the players want vs what really happens in game is all considered by CCP. They have a huge data base of petitions over the last 9 years to work with. The rules they set are determined by their data which none of us have. It would be extremely idiotic for us to tell them how to run their game under these conditions. You can suggest away which you have done. But in the end they decide. And decide they did and they posted the mandate. The time for debate has come and gone a long time ago. And still you refuse to accept this. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:08:00 -
[653] - Quote
Domono wrote:I think it's doing its job well Ruby, since a lot of people in here can't judge within reason what a rookie is or define what it is to mess with one. Meaning more people are less likely to do anything that they have to "bet your account on". The unknown can be scarier than what is in front of your face.
Yeah, making it impossible to tell what's an illegitimate target among a cloud of legitimate ones will certainly prevent accidents. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:10:00 -
[654] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Just real quick, answer this. What is the goal of the rookie protection system? Is it a) to stop rookies from having a bad experience when they're first learning OR b) get bad mean people banned
Neither of those two cases defines what the goal of the rookie protection systems is for. They are both far too limiting in scope to cover it all. And an obvious attempt to paint someone into a corner. And this is not open for debate. It is a mandate. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Get over it. Ok, then write your own C. CCP has exit data from the last 9 years of game play. Every player that quits is invited to explain why they quit. If you want more players or less players is not your choice to make. You do not own the game. CCP runs this game and they alone determine what their population goals are for the game. CCP decides what C is not me and not you. And they do not owe you an explanation of C either. What they need for a profit vs what the players want vs what really happens in game is all considered by CCP. They have a huge data base of petitions over the last 9 years to work with. The rules they set are determined by their data which none of us have. It would be extremely idiotic for us to tell them how to run their game under these conditions. You can suggest away which you have done. But in the end they decide. And decide they did and they posted the mandate. The time for debate has come and gone a long time ago. And still you refuse to accept this.
You missed where they asked for suggestions to improve their policy. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:13:00 -
[655] - Quote
Domono wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Haulie Berry wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Ok, this seems to be getting out of hand and our rulings are pulled out of context. So let me state this in the most simple terms possible. 1. New PLAYERS are protected by CCP in the systems listed here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems2. No one is protected in systems outside of this list. 4. If new PLAYERS keep getting harassed the list of systems may be expanded. 7. In general do NOT mess around with new PLAYERS; anyone else is fair game. The above guidelines are not up for discussion and they will not be further clarified. If you need further clarification you are probably doing something you should not be doing. You just said in (2) that nobody is protected outside of rookie systems. Then you went on to say in (7), "Even though they're not protected outside of those systems, don't mess with them anywhere else, either " which, as a GM edict, could be interpreted as policy. So now you have two policy points that directly contradict each other, and (4) is the cherry on top - "or else". You couldn't make it through a brief synopsis of your position without contradicting both yourself and policy as it is currently known. This should probably be taken as an indication that you need to rethink things. We do not want you to mess with them, that does not mean we come down with the ban hammer if you do so outside the mentioned systems. Not everything is black and white. These points do not conflict; 4 and 7 simply mean that if the situation OUTSIDE those systems gets too bad we will take further action. Thus INSIDE the systems it isn't allowed period, OUTSIDE those systems it is allowed, but we may evaluate if things get out of hand. They do have some limited protection outside. Extreme cases.
That's not what that says. That says they might add new rookie systems if people **** on rookies enough. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:16:00 -
[656] - Quote
What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:20:00 -
[657] - Quote
Domono wrote:What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs.
So you want an unclear rule that means that a griefer can gank rookies until at least 2 petition him vs a rule where GMs can simply ban people who get on kms in rookie systems and refund the killed person? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:36:00 -
[658] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs. So you want an unclear rule that means that a griefer can gank rookies until at least 2 petition him vs a rule where GMs can simply ban people who get on kms in rookie systems and refund the killed person?
And you want a cut and dry rule now they are a rookie and now they are not. All that will do is allow players to camp that spot/point when rookies become non rookies. Does not solve a thing. CCP still gets thousands of petitions about a stupid rule that puts up a known spot where they can all be camped. It just shifts the problem to a different point in the game. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:40:00 -
[659] - Quote
No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:44:00 -
[660] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs. So you want an unclear rule that means that a griefer can gank rookies until at least 2 petition him vs a rule where GMs can simply ban people who get on kms in rookie systems and refund the killed person? And you want a cut and dry rule now they are a rookie and now they are not. All that will do is allow players to camp that spot/point when rookies become non rookies. Does not solve a thing. CCP still gets thousands of petitions about a stupid rule that puts up a known spot where they can all be camped. It just shifts the problem to a different point in the game.
The rule has always been that nobody's protected outside of rookie systems. You're trying to deal with a problem that doesn't exist. The way that you're trying to deal with that problem will cause much bigger problems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:48:00 -
[661] - Quote
Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss.
1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Shit popup.
2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:54:00 -
[662] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs. So you want an unclear rule that means that a griefer can gank rookies until at least 2 petition him vs a rule where GMs can simply ban people who get on kms in rookie systems and refund the killed person? And you want a cut and dry rule now they are a rookie and now they are not. All that will do is allow players to camp that spot/point when rookies become non rookies. Does not solve a thing. CCP still gets thousands of petitions about a stupid rule that puts up a known spot where they can all be camped. It just shifts the problem to a different point in the game. The rule has always been that nobody's protected outside of rookie systems. You're trying to deal with a problem that doesn't exist. The way that you're trying to deal with that problem will cause much bigger problems.
Oh it most certainly does exsist. The GM's already warned of possible expansion of what are called rookie systems if people begin to camp the gates to the rookie systems. Your solution does not work for that very reason. It is too defining for the needs of the rookies. Some rookies are ready far faster than others. Your rule would lock them into being a rookie until they are not. It is not flexible to the needs of the players or the game. That is why it is bad. |

Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:57:00 -
[663] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times.
I believe you are trying to define the moment the rookies can be camped. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style.
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 02:59:00 -
[664] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:What accidents? I'm am honestly trying to help you get a grip on it but your making it difficult. Accidents are accidents deliberate is deliberate. They have the tools to distinguish the two. Chat logs, past petitions against you, kill logs. So you want an unclear rule that means that a griefer can gank rookies until at least 2 petition him vs a rule where GMs can simply ban people who get on kms in rookie systems and refund the killed person? And you want a cut and dry rule now they are a rookie and now they are not. All that will do is allow players to camp that spot/point when rookies become non rookies. Does not solve a thing. CCP still gets thousands of petitions about a stupid rule that puts up a known spot where they can all be camped. It just shifts the problem to a different point in the game. The rule has always been that nobody's protected outside of rookie systems. You're trying to deal with a problem that doesn't exist. The way that you're trying to deal with that problem will cause much bigger problems. Oh it most certainly does exsist. The GM's already warned of possible expansion of what are called rookie systems if people begin to camp the gates to the rookie systems. Your solution does not work for that very reason. It is too defining for the needs of the rookies. Some rookies are ready far faster than others. Your rule would lock them into being a rookie until they are not. It is not flexible to the needs of the players or the game. That is why it is bad.
If they're ready to not be a protected rookie, they can easily stop being protected. They just have to exit the system. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:02:00 -
[665] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times.
I turned mine off.
The only people that are truly going to be affected by the rule is those that want to kill or grief everyone just because they can. Those who do it for profit aren't going to bother anyone that can immediately be seen as a rookie. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:02:00 -
[666] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. I believe you are trying to define the moment the rookies can be camped. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style.
I believe you are trying to muddy the waters to be able to either abuse the rookie protections or abuse the uncertainty to shoot rookies. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style.
See, I can assign motives too. But while people have been calling me a rookie ganker for daring to suggest that the best and easiest way to protect rookies in rookie systems is to simply ban doing bad stuff in rookie systems, I have for the most part refrained from it. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:05:00 -
[667] - Quote
Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. I turned mine off. The only people that are truly going to be affected by the rule is those that want to kill or grief everyone just because they can. Those who do it for profit aren't going to bother anyone that can immediately be seen as a rookie.
You can't turn off the Concord warning. It will *always* show up.
Yeah, of course. And your suggestion will result in them getting away with it several times more than mine (doubly so since the Rookie has to petition the loss, which won't always happen). This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:06:00 -
[668] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. I believe you are trying to define the moment the rookies can be camped. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style. I believe you are trying to muddy the waters to be able to either abuse the rookie protections or abuse the uncertainty to shoot rookies. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style. See, I can assign motives too. But while people have been calling me a rookie ganker for daring to suggest that the best and easiest way to protect rookies in rookie systems is to simply ban doing bad stuff in rookie systems, I have for the most part refrained from it.
Your right that would protect rookies. Along with everyone else that was in those systems.That is a problem too.
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:10:00 -
[669] - Quote
Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. I believe you are trying to define the moment the rookies can be camped. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style. I believe you are trying to muddy the waters to be able to either abuse the rookie protections or abuse the uncertainty to shoot rookies. You hide it behind a thin veil of trying to do the right thing. In perfect EVE style. See, I can assign motives too. But while people have been calling me a rookie ganker for daring to suggest that the best and easiest way to protect rookies in rookie systems is to simply ban doing bad stuff in rookie systems, I have for the most part refrained from it. Your right that would protect rookies. Along with everyone else that was in those systems.That is a problem too.
Oh god, 15m of safe veld mining. The horror. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Domono
Naval Auxiliary Group
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:10:00 -
[670] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Domono wrote:No. Accidentally firing off your smart bombs in a rookie system once is one thing. Apologize to the poor SOB and call it good. Doing it once a day or several times a day or month even by "mistake" you should get a punishment, which should help you pay more attention to what your doing. It is easy to call them accidents even though they may not be. Locking onto someone in a rookie system and firing without a even a scanner equipped is deliberate, with a scanner you COULD of meant to hit the scanner. Regardless you should be paying more attention to what your doing. Baiting and flipping is to deliberate to even discuss. 1) Smartbombs get you a Don't do Stupid Sh it popup. 2) I'm trying to remove the ability to hide behind "accident" the first few times. I turned mine off. The only people that are truly going to be affected by the rule is those that want to kill or grief everyone just because they can. Those who do it for profit aren't going to bother anyone that can immediately be seen as a rookie. You can't turn off the Concord warning. It will *always* show up. Yeah, of course. And your suggestion will result in them getting away with it several times more than mine (doubly so since the Rookie has to petition the loss, which won't always happen).
Think you should try the smart bomb thing yourself.
Your way opens up a new list of issues. |
|

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:33:00 -
[671] - Quote
Let me tell you what I think is the easiest way to kill new players. Invite them to a fleet, when they accept, fly right up to him, or her and POW. One dead rookie. I could do this virtually all after noon, never have any risk, not miss a single one. Heck believe it or not I've actually done this in NPC 0.0 with success. The thing you need to ask yourself is why?
I think the rule works just fine. Just look at this thread, it's a testament to it's effectiveness. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:46:00 -
[672] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Let me tell you what I think is the easiest way to kill new players. Invite them to a fleet, when they accept, fly right up to him, or her and POW. One dead rookie. I could do this virtually all after noon, never have any risk, not miss a single one. Heck believe it or not I've actually done this in NPC 0.0 with success. The thing you need to ask yourself is why?
I think the rule works just fine. Just look at this thread, it's a testament to it's effectiveness.
So yeah, you can suicide gank rookies by fleeting with them. How fun.
The rule doesn't work fine as is because it fails to protect rookies in rookie systems. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:53:00 -
[673] - Quote
Hey Ruby, how your night going?  |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:57:00 -
[674] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Hey Ruby, how your night going? 
Got 500m to drop from a POS. It's delicious. This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 03:58:00 -
[675] - Quote
Nice! |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 04:05:00 -
[676] - Quote
It's going to Corp, but v0v
How's yours going? This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |

Mrr Woodcock
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 04:13:00 -
[677] - Quote
Good thanks. Time for TV. Have a nice night. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: [one page] |