Sorry, but if what he did got him a ban or a warning, it seems you've been ganked by reality.

Ignorance is no excuse and whatnot.

I like this, CCPs unsaid rules. These losers need to adapt and HTFU.

All I'm saying is that I think it's reasonable for players to ask for a re-hash of the "official" unofficial official not-written-in-stone rules GM's are following du jour.

If we don't have a CCP tag, we cannot know about shifts in policy.

Unless we ask.

This thread should stay up and it deserves legitimate attention.

Shoot first ask questions latter might bring consequences at some point

Yep there's one that seems clear now, don't mess with noobs in noob systems, yey !! finally !!

How about this... Don't harass the noobs doing the sister's of eve epic, grow a set, and fight people who can and will fight back?

The problem here is that they asked first, and the answer has been known for many many years, so the shot came much later.

GǪexcept that this wasn't in a newbie system. So that rule doesn't apply.

I don't see any problem about this.

You don't see a problem with people being banned for breaking rules that don't exist.

Are you really sure about that?

I'm quite sure GM's do their job

in between what a random dude write in this epic forum and the real reason why some GM banned said guy, I pick the GM side.

I'm quite sure GM's do their job and also in between what a random dude write in this epic forum and the real reason why some GM banned said guy, I pick the GM side.

GǪenforcing rules that don't exist?
Are you really sure you think that their job?

That's a slightly different problem: you don't have the GM side.
You have this guy's side, and if he was indeed warned and banned for the reason he says he is, then the GMs are in the wrong because the rule in question doesn't exist.

While logically I agree with Tippia, the unfortunate truth is we will never have the GM's side as it pertains to this case.

CCP do not discuss disciplinary actions due to their privacy policy.

GǪenforcing rules that don't exist?
Are you really sure you think that their job?

That's a slightly different problem: you don't have the GM side.
You have this guy's side, and if he was indeed warned and banned for the reason he says he is, then the GMs are in the wrong because the rule in question doesn't exist.

Occasionally they do. In this case, for instance, they could confirm that they have indeed expanded the newbie system rule to cover additional systems (and list them), or they could say that no, that wasn't what the warning/ban was for and confirm that yes, can flipping/baiting is still allowed in the systems in question.

This debacle comes down to just one thing I guess, which CCP seems hesitant to answer:

What does or doesn't constitute a newbie and/or newbie-protected content?

I see no problem with this if they think they do their job correctly.

Imho and really, quite imho, if they did not comment this "new rule" it's probably because this banned guy just said what he wanted. Until CCP says something about baiting newbs in SOE hig sec systems, you're clearly not transgressing a rule that doesn't exist.

That is exactly why I see it as a problem: if they warn or ban people for offences that don't exist, then they aren't doing their job correctly. Making sure they know that is imperative.

I don't care one whit what the OP actually did GÇö I care about the claim of impropriety on behalf of the GMs. This is one area where EVE needs very clear rules that don't change on the whim of the individual. If this makes people skirt the very edge of those rules, then so be it.

In particular, as is the allegation in this case, when there already is a well-defined rule, they need to be exceedingly clear if and when they change it.

This debacle comes down to just one thing I guess, which CCP seems hesitant to answer:

What does or doesn't constitute a newbie and/or newbie-protected content?

Or maybe everyone is making an ocean of suppositions about something some random dude chose to say when perhaps he forgot to say "everything" he should

I wouldn't say it's hesitance. The thread has barely been up a couple of hours. For all we know they're drafting an official response...or a "this thread violates forum rules" sticker. I'm not making any assumptions.

I am not discussing specific warnings/bans. That is not my point and it just gets threads locked anyhow. I just want to know how far the rabbit hole goes in as-far as extending the "rookie system" envelope and anything similar so that I or my associates don't get wrapped up in future "random" sanctioning. If I was simply ignorant about something, then I wouldn't have posted.

I'm not out to "kill EVE" by killing off new players, but if my participation in things I've been doing for over a year is suddenly being viewed as against the EULA and might cause me to no longer be able to play internet spaceships, I want to know about it.

Well I actually care about what that dude said. He's making himself a victim while only him and the GM know exactly what happened and since this "rule" doesn't exist it's quite obvious he's just trying to confuse people reading/believing his crap.

The question of what does or does not constitute a newbie is valid regardless of the OP's independent situation.

Everyone just wants to know if there is a change in the rules and that is not against forum policy.

No. It means he got wrongfully banned and warned, if that was the reason given.

Can flipping is allowed in all systems, with the exception of the starting systems. The SOE arc does not take place there.

The problem here is that there is no ignorance, except on the part of the GM in question since (s)he is enforcing a non-existing rule.

This is spectacularly stupid since, if they want to warn and ban people just like that, they are allowed to do so according to a completely different rule that wasn't applied here

You can, all you have to do or people interested in that kind of activity is read Eula and see if it's changed or not. My guess is "not" and the real reason of ban is probably something else, but I do admit I might be wrong since I'm not interested at all in that kind of activity in game.

You can, all you have to do or people interested in that kind of activity is read Eula and see if it's changed or not. My guess is "not" and the real reason of ban is probably something else, but I do admit I might be wrong since I'm not interested at all in that kind of activity in game.

You will pardon me but:

1.) You don't actually know what happened.

When I'm "hunting" epic arc missioners, I will target BC and above ship classes and normally this means the character is 1 month or greater. Quite often it's more than 2-4 months. I am not out killing the 1 week - 2 week old newbs flying vexors and catalysts because there isn't any sport in that kind of "fishing."

But regardless the point of the post isn't for "killing teh noobs! I'm a terrible person!" I just want clarification on current rules that are being enforced that aren't posted anywhere as being rules. Prior to this, Arnon and other epic arc systems have not been considered a rookie system via the "anti rookie" policy. Enforcing policies that aren't made available is just bad taste because then how do we know we're breaking a rule if it was never declared a rule in the first place?

How about this... Don't harass the noobs doing the sister's of eve epic, grow a set, and fight people who can and will fight back?

This is not covered by the EULA and has always been considered fare game. If the pilot is lying then all they have to do is say so, if he isn't then they need to tell players something that wasn't previously against the rules now is.