EVE Search - Double standard for dishonoring ransoms?

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Double standard for dishonoring ransoms?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 18:19:00 - [1] So, most people seem to agree that it is not cool to blow up someone who payed a ransom. Also, most pirates honor ransoms. But let's consider this hypothetical scenario: I catch someone doing some PVE related activity and negotiate a ransom. Since my victim has no reason to trust me, I agree to let them go if they promise to pay me once they get away safely. What are the odds of me actually getting payed? Something wrong with this picture?
TigerXtrm	Posted - 2010.04.24 18:26:00 - [2] Would be amazingly stupid of someone to actually pay you
Millie Clode Amarr Standards and Practices	Posted - 2010.04.24 18:29:00 - [3] To be honest whether or not you honour your ransom, you are only in the position to make that decision because you hold all the cards. The moment you let him go he is no longer in your grasp and you have no authority with which to follow up the demand (unless you follow him and camp him...) Besides, if they can't meet the demand there and then, they should be waking up in a clone bay no matter what, it's the way of things. ---------- Who, me?
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 18:35:00 - [4] Originally by: TigerXtrm Would be amazingly stupid of someone to actually pay you You could also say: "it would be amazingly stupid to let them go after they pay". How is it different?
Ramiera DaMorre	Posted - 2010.04.24 18:36:00 - [5] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Originally by: TigerXtrm Would be amazingly stupid of someone to actually pay you You could also say: "it would be amazingly stupid to let them go after they pay". How is it different? Errr... this is some kind of weird attempt at humor, right?
seany1212 Stylo Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.24 18:42:00 - [6] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Since my victim has no reason to trust me, I agree to let them go if they promise to pay me once they get away safely. What are the odds of me actually getting payed? Something wrong with this picture? Yes theres something wrong with your picture, well generally the odds are pretty good for you unless they have other people in the system who can come in at a moments notice, it also depends on how long you intend to hold the person, the longer you wait the more foolish you are for letting them get a revenge fleet together, tell them your demands, give them 15-20 seconds (type this) and if they havent sent it send them on the pod express back to a clone bay. If they pay then let them go and gtfo of there. It all comes down to the amount of time you waste/give them You guys make squeeky noises when you pop, and that's enough motivation as far as I'm concerned.
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 18:52:00 - [7] Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 18:53:09 Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 18:52:08 Originally by: seany1212 Originally by: Cpt Tackle Since my victim has no reason to trust me, I agree to let them go if they promise to pay me once they get away safely. What are the odds of me actually getting payed? Something wrong with this picture? Yes theres something wrong with your picture, well generally the odds are pretty good for you unless they have other people in the system who can come in at a moments notice, it also depends on how long you intend to hold the person, the longer you wait the more foolish you are for letting them get a revenge fleet together, tell them your demands, give them 15-20 seconds (type this) and if they havent sent it send them on the pod express back to a clone bay. If they pay then let them go and gtfo of there. It all comes down to the amount of time you waste/give them Err I don't think you understood what i meant. I meant "if I let them go now and they promise to pay me later": 1) They are very unlikely to honor their promise. 2) If they don't honor it, most people would think they did the right thing. Now if I hold them till they pay then dishonor my promise and blow them up anyway, most people will say what I did was wrong. That is what I am referring to as: "Double Standard".
seany1212 Stylo Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.24 19:10:00 - [8] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 18:53:09 Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 18:52:08 Originally by: seany1212 Originally by: Cpt Tackle Since my victim has no reason to trust me, I agree to let them go if they promise to pay me once they get away safely. What are the odds of me actually getting payed? Something wrong with this picture? Yes theres something wrong with your picture, well generally the odds are pretty good for you unless they have other people in the system who can come in at a moments notice, it also depends on how long you intend to hold the person, the longer you wait the more foolish you are for letting them get a revenge fleet together, tell them your demands, give them 15-20 seconds (type this) and if they havent sent it send them on the pod express back to a clone bay. If they pay then let them go and gtfo of there. It all comes down to the amount of time you waste/give them Err I don't think you understood what i meant. I meant "if I let them go now and they promise to pay me later": 1) They are very unlikely to honor their promise. 2) If they don't honor it, most people would think they did the right thing. Now if I hold them till they pay then dishonor my promise and blow them up anyway, most people will say what I did was wrong. That is what I am referring to as: "Double Standard". I see what you mean now by double standards, but dont forget your the one holding them, if they say they'll pay you later then its still your choice, either you take a massive risk on trusting them or just finish them right there, personally if they dont have the isk now they wont have it when i want it later. You guys make squeeky noises when you pop, and that's enough motivation as far as I'm concerned.
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 19:16:00 - [9] Originally by: seany1212 I see what you mean now by double standards, but dont forget your the one holding them, if they say they'll pay you later then its still your choice, either you take a massive risk on trusting them or just finish them right there, personally if they dont have the isk now they wont have it when i want it later. You are correct. I am not suggesting that letting people go before they pay is a good idea. It's more of an ethical/philosophical issue really.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.24 19:58:00 - [10] It's not really a double standard as the motivation is different in the case of the pirate and the victim. If 'honour' or whatever was the driving motivation behind everything, everyone should/would honour everything, and this would be a double standard, but the actual motivation is profit. By honouring ransoms a pirate increases their long term income by (hopefully) making people more willing to pay up in the future. On the other hand, if a victim were to become well known for paying up even if you let them go first, they would be targeted more often, thus incurring more losses. So, honour is good business for pirates and bad business for victims. Also, since the pirate is the aggressor in this situation, the onus is on them to prove their honour. No-ones going to blame the victim for not paying up if they got away. - Did this sig become irrelevant while I was gone? Let me know!
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 20:57:00 - [11] Originally by: Crumplecorn On the other hand, if a victim were to become well known for paying up even if you let them go first, they would be targeted more often, thus incurring more losses. Yeah, being targeted for killmail/loot is so much better.
Sir Carnage	Posted - 2010.04.24 20:58:00 - [12] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 19:16:43 Originally by: seany1212 I see what you mean now by double standards, but dont forget your the one holding them, if they say they'll pay you later then its still your choice, either you take a massive risk on trusting them or just finish them right there, personally if they dont have the isk now they wont have it when i want it later. You are correct. I am not suggesting that letting people go before they pay is a good idea. It's more of an ethical/philosophical issue really. It does explain why most pirates don't bother with ransoms though. As a philosopher, and granted my primary field is epistemology, I have more than a passing knowledge of ethics. I believe that even Kant would say expecting payment, or seeing any ethical dilemma from not paying a ransom to a pirate dumb enough to let you go before the isk was received, would be stupid. If you're going to bring ethics into the debate, taking someone hostage and demanding payment in exchange for their life is a tad more unethical. This is a game and the whole "hono(u)ring ransoms thing has nothing to do with morality. In this game it has everything to do with profit. Your not hono(u)ring a ransom means that person is far less likely to pay one ever again. Every time this happens there's one more person that's unlikely to pay a ransom on top of the people that won't pay anyways. Hono(u)ring ransoms juist makes economic sense in the long run. That is why other pirates that ransom get so **ed when someone else doesn't hono(u)r it. You're eating into their** profits. support the parrot
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 21:06:00 - [13] Originally by: Sir Carnage If you're going to bring ethics into the debate, taking someone hostage and demanding payment in exchange for their life is a tad more unethical. No one really dies even if they get podded. They just have to pay for new clone and implants. I am sorry but this is just err... not true. Petty larceny and destruction of property is not anywhere near same same as murder.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.24 21:13:00 - [14] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Yeah, being targeted for killmail/loot is so much better. That is an inevitability, and no reason to attract more unnecessary attention to yourself. - Did this sig become irrelevant while I was gone? Let me know!
Sir Carnage	Posted - 2010.04.24 21:15:00 - [15] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Originally by: Sir Carnage If you're going to bring ethics into the debate, taking someone hostage and demanding payment in exchange for their life is a tad more unethical. No one really dies even if they get podded. They just have to pay for new clone and implants. I am sorry but this is just err... not true. Petty larceny and destruction of property is not anywhere near same same as murder. and in game isk is not real money. You're assigning real world values to a fantasy world, as such, my argument is sound. And let's say you were demanding ransom in a battleship in low sec and only had their ship. You aren't going to catych their pod, so now there's no murder, but both the extortion and the initial act of aggression are unethical actions. Piracy in itself is unethical and immoral. It's not supposed to be a valiant profession. So quit grasping at straws and come to the realization that your "double standard" argument isn't. The entire basis of the hono(u)ring versus dishono(u)ring ransoms debate is economic and not one of ethics. Again, because the entire act of ransoming in itself is unethical and immoral and is obviously not one in which trust is meant to be a two way street as the only reason for any level of trust by the one detained to the one doing the detaining is based on the knowledge that there is a lack of a choice if the detainee wishes to keep their stuff and/or stay alive. support the parrot
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 21:31:00 - [16] Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 21:34:15 Originally by: Sir Carnage Originally by: Cpt Tackle Originally by: Sir Carnage If you're going to bring ethics into the debate, taking someone hostage and demanding payment in exchange for their life is a tad more unethical. No one really dies even if they get podded. They just have to pay for new clone and implants. I am sorry but this is just err... not true. Petty larceny and destruction of property is not anywhere near same same as murder. You're assigning real world values to a fantasy world Look who is talking. Also, I edited my post because it was too open for (mis)interpretation.
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 21:36:00 - [17] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Cpt Tackle Yeah, being targeted for killmail/loot is so much better. That is an inevitability, and no reason to attract more unnecessary attention to yourself. So, would you rather if i ask you for ransom or just blow you up while rejecting all communication attempts?
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.24 21:46:00 - [18] Originally by: Cpt Tackle So, would you rather if i ask you for ransom or just blow you up while rejecting all communication attempts? Unless you are going to let me go before I pay, the above distinction is irrelevant to the current discussion. If you are going to let me go first, I will agree to pay and then not pay, as that is the optimal course of action from my perspective. - Did this sig become irrelevant while I was gone? Let me know!
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 21:49:00 - [19] Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 21:54:33 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Cpt Tackle So, would you rather if i ask you for ransom or just blow you up while rejecting all communication attempts? Unless you are going to let me go before I pay, the above distinction is irrelevant to the current discussion. If you are going to let me go first, I will agree to pay and then not pay, as that is the optimal course of action from my perspective. That's my whole point... since i know that you will not keep your promise i don't really have a choice -- as much as i would like to. Therefore I am forced to demand payment here and now and/or blow you up. That's one of those loose/loose situations.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.24 22:03:00 - [20] Originally by: Cpt Tackle That's one of those loose/loose situations. For the victim, yes. That's why they're called 'victims'. - Did this sig become irrelevant while I was gone? Let me know!
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 22:07:00 - [21] Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 22:12:18 Originally by: Sir Carnage The entire basis of the hono(u)ring versus dishono(u)ring ransoms debate is economic and not one of ethics. Wow, I think you just discovered an economical issue that has nothing to do with ethics. You should write a dissertation. Seriously though, the game characters are (somewhat evolved) humans so the way their brain works is probably similar to present day humans.
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 22:19:00 - [22] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Cpt Tackle That's one of those loose/loose situations. For the victim, yes. That's why they're called 'victims'. Yeah those nasty pirates forced those poor souls to come to low sec by eliminating most of the competition and making certain activities (such as exploration) very profitable. Such terrible crime should not go unpunished!!!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.24 22:22:00 - [23] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Yeah those nasty pirates forced those poor souls to come to low sec by eliminating most of the competition and making certain activities (such as exploration) very profitable. Such terrible crime should not go unpunished!!! What are you on about. - Did this sig become irrelevant while I was gone? Let me know!
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 22:32:00 - [24] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Cpt Tackle Yeah those nasty pirates forced those poor souls to come to low sec by eliminating most of the competition and making certain activities (such as exploration) very profitable. Such terrible crime should not go unpunished!!! What are you on about. No one forces you to come to low sec. If you do, then you competitors might blow you up. That does not make you a victim any more that loosing any other competitive activity.
seany1212 Stylo Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.24 22:47:00 - [25] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Cpt Tackle Yeah those nasty pirates forced those poor souls to come to low sec by eliminating most of the competition and making certain activities (such as exploration) very profitable. Such terrible crime should not go unpunished!!! What are you on about. No one forces you to come to low sec. If you do, then you competitors might blow you up. That does not make you a victim any more that loosing any other competitive activity. Exactly, so whats the point in considering the "victims" point of view to pay or not, either your ransoming the person and they're paying, your ransoming and they're not (pod express) or for some bizarre reason you just release them either freely or under the idea that they'll pay you later. It seems you've made a post thats not even an issue, the victim should have no say on ransoms because hes the one under it, its only down to the pirates stupidity and not "double standards" You guys make squeeky noises when you pop, and that's enough motivation as far as I'm concerned.
Arvano	Posted - 2010.04.24 22:53:00 - [26] You're the one being a C word in the first place by demanding they pay you not to kill them, so if they don't honour a payment after you let them go they aren't dishonouring anything, they're simply carrying on about their business now that the threat is gone. No double standard there.
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 22:55:00 - [27] Originally by: seany1212 Exactly, so whats the point in considering the "victims" point of view to pay or not, either your ransoming the person and they're paying, your ransoming and they're not (pod express) or for some bizarre reason you just release them either freely or under the idea that they'll pay you later. It seems you've made a post thats not even an issue, the victim should have no say on ransoms because hes the one under it, its only down to the pirates stupidity and not "double standards" Since we both seem to agree that there are really no "victims" and "pirates"... Why don't you tell me... why is OK to break a promise about paying ransom later but it is not OK to break a promise about letting someone go after ransom is payed?
Cpt Tackle	Posted - 2010.04.24 23:01:00 - [28] Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 23:03:59 Edited by: Cpt Tackle on 24/04/2010 23:01:34 Originally by: Arvano You're the one being a C word in the first place by demanding they pay you not to kill them, so if they don't honour a payment after you let them go they aren't dishonouring anything, they're simply carrying on about their business now that the threat is gone. No double standard there. FYI I am not a C(arebear) Promising something and not doing it = being dishonest. Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable that I try and extort a ransom from every dishonest carebear that I catch than blow them up anyway?
seany1212 Stylo Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.24 23:03:00 - [29] Originally by: Cpt Tackle Originally by: seany1212 Exactly, so whats the point in considering the "victims" point of view to pay or not, either your ransoming the person and they're paying, your ransoming and they're not (pod express) or for some bizarre reason you just release them either freely or under the idea that they'll pay you later. It seems you've made a post thats not even an issue, the victim should have no say on ransoms because hes the one under it, its only down to the pirates stupidity and not "double standards" Since we both seem to agree that there are really no "victims" and "pirates"... Why don't you tell me... why is OK to break a promise about paying ransom later but it is not OK to break a promise about letting someone go after ransom is payed? Because its the pirate thats in control of that situation, hes the one holding the gun to the persons head and the point thats gluing them in place, its under the victims "hope" that the pirate will let him go after he pays, the pirate then has the power to either pull the trigger or release him, if the pirates stupid enough to let him go at the beginning while receiving just "words" of payment then the pirate has lost control on the situation, theres no gun to that victims head anymore. It all comes down to the pirate, there shouldnt be a situation where the victim makes a promise on something, if there is then the pirates has potentially lost that opportunity of income. You guys make squeeky noises when you pop, and that's enough motivation as far as I'm concerned.
N'tek alar Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.24 23:05:00 - [30] I don't really know about the chances of it being honored generally as i don't normally do it. That said, I did allow a target to pay half at the time of ransoming and half later as he claimed not to be able to afford the ransom for his hulk. Couple days later the second half dropped into my wallet, Just as he promised. ------------------------- I'm not shirtless damnit!

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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