If that is the point then the "EULA" needs to be modified As it stands it is in direct violation of the curent EULA and is favortisim sanctioned or not it still is not in compliance , and no news or anoucment was made in advanced in game ...

If that is the point then the "EULA" needs to be modified As it stands it is in direct violation of the curent EULA and is favortisim sanctioned or not it still is not in compliance , and no news or anoucment was made in advanced in game ...

I have already debunked your favoritism theory, its nonsense, give it up. Also, I have previously stated that you live under a rock. Just because YOU didn't know doesn't mean CCP didn't. Guess what? CCP does not need to consult you every time something happens in THEIR game.

Jita/New Eden (contrary to your popular belief) does not revolve around you.

Vexx

You have debunked Squat dont atack me for pointing out the rules"CCP does not need to consult you every time something happens in THEIR game." nore should they what im saying is if its sanctioned then there should be provisions in it it should happen like every other empire gank if you pop some one not war deced and they dont fire on you concord should open fire on you you die end of story. if one concord ship can contain it more and mor concord ships show up till the thret is contained end of story

jita was closed earlyer CCP hat to close the gates to controle palyer flood and keep the server stable it is problay open again now

Couple things...
B) Griefing does not equal harassment

A) The server stayed online
Your note about crashing the server from the EULA doesn't work. CCP had plenty of warning for this event and gave their full and complete blessing for it. The only way you wouldn't have known this was coming is if you live under a rock.

Until somebody is pissed (and rich) enough to challenge it in the court. Based on recent rulings in the internet harassment cases all you need to do is to demonstrate "certain minimum contact" (e.g. intent to inflict emotional harm to the person behind the in-game character) in order for court to assert special personal jurisdiction upon the defendant based on his or her internet activity. What it means in practical terms is that the harassment lawsuit will not be thrown out by the judge and the griefer will face significant legal expenses and plenty of other unpleasant challenges regardless of the outcome.

While I happen to wholeheartedly agree with you here, saying "it's a sandbox" isn't an excuse for everything.

I would agree with you if not for the fact the very first thing goons did when they arrived at Jita was drop 100's and 100's of empty shuttles around the stations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the reasoning behind that. If that is not a very deliberate "action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System," I don't know what is.

That is, if the product or service being used didn't have a disclaimer that lays out the rules relating to the use of the product or service. There is no chance it would ever have to go that far for EVE, as long as the EULA clearly states game rules and policies. You can sue me all you like, I will simply print out the EULA, highlight the applicable sections with a marker, send it back to your lawyers, and never show up to court. Good luck.

First, EULA (if it is enforceable to begin with and it is a big if) regulates the relationship between a player and a company - CCP in this case. Therefore it can be successfully argued that EULA is not relevant in regulating conflicts between players and should not rejected as a guidance in the case. Secondly, if you don't show up you are in danger of default judgement that almost certainly will not be in your favor even if the case doesn't have enough merit for such judgement. You lose the case and the claimant will have the right to collect the damages. I admit there may be challenges collecting it but you will have the pleasure of dealing with collection actions.

So you're saying that I can still sue McDonald's after chugging a cup of their lava-like coffee, even after they started putting "caution: product HOT" disclaimers on the cups?

The point is, the case is going to be thrown out after the judge reads the primer. You can't sue someone for damages caused in a video game, the whole point of which is to cause damage to other players. Well, you can try. The EULA clearly states what you're signing up for. Once you accept it, you're bound by it, much in the same manner as when you sign up for military service, or an MMA/poker tournament.

You probably need to familiarize yourself with the recent libel and harassment cases related to internet activity before making broad statement like "you can't sue someone for damages caused in a video game...". Also can you provide a reference to a document stating that the whole point of EVE "is to cause damage to other players"? Not avatars and virtual property but the actual person behind in-game character.

I would like to know how its ok for a corp or a aliance to overwelming concord giving them free reign to gank people in empire. If i found a way to adviod concord, I would be warned or baned. Why is it not the same for them? Empire is a simi safe place for new and old players, however the players involved in the jita gank fest ther actions disrupted gameplay and created a bad experance for many players that do not want to be involved in there combat or war. I thought it is our choice or right weither we want to go in to low sec or not , however this was forced upon us with out any warning or concideration from CCP. I did not lose any ship or was even fired on. I am asking a legitment question how is it ok for one group to exploit the system, and not any one else. I would like a offical responce to this. Im not flaming or gripeing im asking a legitment question.

I would like to know how its ok for a corp or a aliance to overwelming concord giving them free reign to gank people in empire. If i found a way to adviod concord, I would be warned or baned. Why is it not the same for them? Empire is a simi safe place for new and old players, however the players involved in the jita gank fest ther actions disrupted gameplay and created a bad experance for many players that do not want to be involved in there combat or war. I thought it is our choice or right weither we want to go in to low sec or not , however this was forced upon us with out any warning or concideration from CCP. I did not lose any ship or was even fired on. I am asking a legitment question how is it ok for one group to exploit the system, and not any one else. I would like a offical responce to this. Im not flaming or gripeing im asking a legitment question.

the players involved in the jita gank fest ther actions disrupted gameplay and created a bad experance for many players that do not want to be involved in there combat or war.

well thats not realy my point ...... I just wondering why its ok for a group of people to disrupt game play and exploit the system is all if i did it as a private individual i would be punished or baned

This event just shows the drawback to an over centralized market system. So those that don't tie themselves to a single system or small handful of systems won't even see it as a blip.

He just kept talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic so that no one had the chance to interrupt him.

But really quite hypnotic.



















and full of mistakes too.

If they didn't want players getting shot, they wouldn't have maintained the game's ability to enable this behavior. Killing other players in EVE is a feature, and not an oversight. Anyone is able to kill everyone, as many times as they want, wherever they want, as long as they do so within the confines set by the game's rules. This has been explicitly stated by the developers. So while maybe "whole point" isn't entirely accurate, "one of the main draws" is.

Also, I don't know the people behind their in-game characters. When I play EVE, I kill Arathella and take her ISK and modules; I don't kill Joe McRandom and take his dollars and car/house. This is a video game, and everything that happens in this video game stays inside this video game. If players can't deal with that, then they shouldn't agree to the EULA, create accounts, and play the video game. You can't objectively equate killing someone in an online game with cyber-bullying, which is, for the most part, now a real felony. Do note that ALL MMO publishers outlaw making real-life threats against other players, which is similar to threatening someone's life on Facebook, and not similar to threatening the life of an in-game avatar.

Most western courts seem to agree with this line of thought, as I'm still able to blow up your Bestower/kill your gnome warlock without my car and house being repossessed. Maybe in China this isn't the case, but then again, I'm not Chinese, and neither is this game.