EVE Search - harrassment?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

harrassment?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
NAC Tanthalas	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:24:00 - [1] there is a player i wish to remove from our local area, as it is .6 i can't outright kill him. how far can i go to get him to move with out it being a legitimate petitionable event. can i constanly steal his ore? bump him around while he's mining? i doubt he'd ever fight back (wish he would). i can't dec war of him he stayed in noob corp. i just wanna find out how much i can do to get rid of him with getting in trouble with a GM.
Viceroy	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:31:00 - [2] Anything within game mechanics is acceptable. Steal his ore, bump him, shoot him down with a suicide ship, spread lies and slander to screw his reputation, kill any friends he has in any corps, make people hate him just because he exists even though he never did anything to them. Use The Grief!
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:32:00 - [3] Originally by: NAC Tanthalas can i constanly steal his ore? bump him around while he's mining? Yes, and yes. But why do you want to get rid of him? -------------------------------------[04:04:04] Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108! Stop whining about my signature - Wrangler
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:33:00 - [4] "there is a player i wish to remove from our local area, as it is .6 i can't outright kill him. how far can i go to get him to move with out it being a legitimate petitionable event." Since it's 0.6 space, unless you have a valid (to the point of being case for petition) reason to 'remove them from local area' ... the very intention to 'remove them from area' might wind up as reason for them to petition you for baseless griefing. Especially when all they do is sit and mine. 0.6 systems are dime a dozen and there's the same ore, rats and stations in them. If you hate presence of that person that much, move out yourself. Easier and faster.
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:37:00 - [5] Basically not a lot to be honest. Anything you do if you do it over a period of time (which you would have to do to get him P**D off enough to move) would constitute harrassment. Maybe you could get a bunch of people together make some alts and suicide kill him, as long as you get concorded and take the sec hit it's not an exploit, just don't recycle the alt and go again (exploit). With more than one person killing him once a day I wouldn;t consider that harrassment providing theres no link between you eg.. all in same corp or whatever. Whatever you do you'd be risking the wrath of the GM's to be honest ************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Originally by: NAC Tanthalas can i constanly steal his ore? bump him around while he's mining? Yes, and yes. But why do you want to get rid of him? Umm that would constitute harrassment if done constantly !!! **************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:39:00 - [7] Originally by: Viceroy Anything within game mechanics is acceptable. Steal his ore, bump him, shoot him down with a suicide ship, spread lies and slander to screw his reputation, kill any friends he has in any corps, make people hate him just because he exists even though he never did anything to them. Use The Grief! As would that **************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
Viceroy	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:42:00 - [8] No it wouldn't. It's a conflict of interest. Someone is in a system you want for yourself, you want them to leave. How is that harrasment?
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:42:00 - [9] Okay, here's my best understand of the rules: If you have SOME legitimate in-game reason why you want him to go, then you can use any in-game mechanics to get rid of him. For example, if he were smacking in local, or ruining a trade route you used, or something like that, you would have an excuse to get rid of him. If you just decided that you don't like him, or that you feel like griefing somebody and he's a good target, then no, you probably can't do it. -------------------------------------[04:04:04] Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108! Stop whining about my signature - Wrangler
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:45:00 - [10] Because you would be constantly stopping them from going about their legitmate gameplay which constitutes harrassment under the EULA. **************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
Viceroy	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:46:00 - [11] Moving to another system would allow them to go about their legimate gameplay fine. By your definition, gate camps at 0.0 chokepoints are also harrasment. And we know that all gate campers get warned or banned for harrasment, right? WRONG.
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:48:00 - [12] Originally by: Viceroy Moving to another system would allow them to go about their legimate gameplay fine. By your definition, gate camps at 0.0 chokepoints are also harrasment. And we know that all gate campers get warned or banned for harrasment, right? WRONG. You posted while I was editing .. see above **************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
Viceroy	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:48:00 - [13] Since when do different rules apply for empire space?
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:49:00 - [14] "By your definition, gate camps at 0.0 chokepoints are also harrasment. And we know that all gate campers get warned or banned for harrasment, right? WRONG." 0.0 is 'anything goes', 0.6 is in the 1.0-0.5 field. Not even the 0.4-0.1 Surely you remember how long were the Zombies allowed to blow people up in Yulai -.o
Viceroy	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:52:00 - [15] Edited by: Viceroy on 04/02/2006 07:52:29 The zombie case was about misuing game mechanics, not harrasment. There is nothing wrong with bumping, stealing ore, slandering and generally griefing someone until they move out of a system that you occupy. 0.0 or 1.0. The only difference is that in 0.5+, you have Concord. Otherwise people could petition war declarations as griefing/harrasment. After all, it's 0.5+ right?
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:54:00 - [16] War Dec's are something else entirely but I guess the only way we're gonna settle this one is with a definative answer from a CCP representative, I'd be interested myself to be honest. **************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
Viceroy	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:57:00 - [17] How are war declarations a different matter? You get to kill people in 0.5+ systems, thus effectively stopping their "legimate gameplay" (lol). The guy that started this thread can't even do that, and he doesn't want to kill someone, he wants to remove someone from a system. Harrasment this, harrasment that. If everytime someone started crying their heart out the GM team declared it griefing, EVE would be a 3rd grade sandbox PvE grind.
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:03:00 - [18] Well if it were me I'd er' on the side of caution until given the all clear by CCP but whatever, I'm not the one risking the Warning / Ban hammer . **************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:08:00 - [19] Edited by: j0sephine on 04/02/2006 08:12:09 "The zombie case was about misuing game mechanics, not harrasment." I think it was more about the continual disruption of high security space due to bad CONCORD design that allowed it. A suicidal bomber in 1.0 is pretty much allowed to do that kind of things because right after the 'police' removes them from the field, they can't just sit on gate and blow anyone that passes to hell for hours. If they did... you can bet a GM would eventually show up to remove them due to mass amount of people crying they cannot get about their safe space business. (even though in theory they should do something about it themselves) "There is nothing wrong with bumping, stealing ore, slandering and generally griefing someone until they move out of a system that you occupy. 0.0 or 1.0. The only difference is that in 0.5+, you have Concord." Aye, and that's precisely the difference that matters -- Concord is there to provide players with protection against aggression if they don't want to be part of it. Bumping is sort of walking around this automated system. Normally you'd need to use scramblers and/or webifiers to achieve things you can do through bumping ... which would trigger Concord response. But just bumping people doesn't trigger it, because it'd be complete mess around any station and gate if it did. o.x Stealing ore on the other hand, i figure is okay. The miner knows the risk when they put stuff in jettisoned can, they have the alternative of secure container and they are provided with option to attack person who steals them long enough to annoy them. And if they choose to stay in system where thieves keep nicking their ore, then it's again their decision. (still, i feel what plays part here is player's intentions. If they just steal from pretty much everyone just to get ore, then it's fair game, they're thieves. If on the other hand they focus on one specific player just to drive him out... he might have a point about being harassed. It's something a GM would need to be asked about, i think) "Otherwise people could petition war declarations as griefing/harrasment. After all, it's 0.5+ right?" If you join player driven corporation, you accept the risk of being attacked by people who declare war on you. But someone who chooses to stay in newbie corp apparently wants to avoid exactly that, to be attacked. Their choice, really.
Cornelius Murphy	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:11:00 - [20] Well I think he is being selfish, and out of order regardless of whether it is griefing or not. My suggestion is anyone with a search agent locate the original poster, and we all move to that system ------------------------------------------
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:12:00 - [21] Originally by: Calshir Well if it were me I'd er' on the side of caution until given the all clear by CCP but whatever, I'm not the one risking the Warning / Ban hammer . What's that? Did I hear a mention of Banning Implements? -------------------------------------[04:04:04] Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108! Stop whining about my signature - Wrangler
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:13:00 - [22] Yeah I would guess stealing ORE would be you best avenue being as there is an in game mechanic to enable a player to do something about it, if they choose not to then thats their problem. So yes I stand corrected the ORE theft route would be a viable solution to your problem. See we got there in the end **************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:15:00 - [23] We STILL haven't heard ANY response from the OP...we don't have any idea why he wants to get rid of this guy. Everybody is talking about ore theft...we don't even have any reason to believe that he's mining. -------------------------------------[04:04:04] Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108! Stop whining about my signature - Wrangler
Calshir	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:16:00 - [24] Edited by: Calshir on 04/02/2006 08:17:54 Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Originally by: Calshir Well if it were me I'd er' on the side of caution until given the all clear by CCP but whatever, I'm not the one risking the Warning / Ban hammer . What's that? Did I hear a mention of Banning Implements? Edit -- Cause your quick Nik --- the OP did ask if he could "constantly steal his ore" so the guess would be that he's mining at some point **************************************** If Hindsight was Foresight the world would be a much better place to live in !!!!
Viceroy	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:17:00 - [25] Quote: I think it was more about the continual disruption of high security space due to bad CONCORD design that allowed it. A suicidal bomber in 1.0 is pretty much allowed to do that kind of things because right after the 'police' removes them from the field, they can't just sit on gate and blow anyone that passes to hell for hours. If they did... you can bet a GM would eventually show up to remove them due to mass amount of people crying they cannot get about their safe space business. (even though in theory they should do something about it themselves) Game mechanics were supposed to kill people who did what zombie did in yulai, they didn't work, so the GM's intervened. Harrasment on the other side is a broad term that can be applied to any situation where someone is bothering you. That doesn't always mean there's something wrong with game mechanics that should be preventing that, and the GM team should step in to help you out. Quote: Aye, and that's precisely the difference that matters -- Concord is there to provide players with protection against aggression if they don't want to be part of it. Bumping is sort of walking around this automated system. Normally you'd need to use scramblers and/or webifiers to achieve things you can do through bumping ... which would trigger Concord response. But just bumping people doesn't trigger it, because it'd be complete mess around any station and gate if it did. o.x Bumping isn't a very effective thing to do anyway, and I agree it's sort of a walk around. But still, trying to force someone out of a system you want for yourself, 0.0 or 0.6, is not harrasment as long as you don't go abuse some loophole. It's what the game is about. Quote: If you join player driven corporation, you accept the risk of being attacked by people who declare war on you. But someone who chooses to stay in newbie corp apparently wants to avoid exactly that, to be attacked. Their choice, really. And if you don't, you don't get a war dec, but that doesn't mean you're 100% invulnerable and safe. When you get killed by a suicide raven while in a noob corp, the GM team does not reimburse your stuff because you "chose" to stay in a noob corp. It's a risk, just less of a risk than having a war dec and being hunted. Far from harrasment in any sense of the word.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:17:00 - [26] "Everybody is talking about ore theft...we don't even have any reason to believe that he's mining." It comes from question of OP: "can i constanly steal his ore? bump him around while he's mining? i doubt he'd ever fight back (wish he would)."
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:23:00 - [27] Originally by: Calshir Edit -- Cause your quick Nik --- the OP did ask if he could "constantly steal his ore" so the guess would be that he's mining at some point Hmm...damned good point. Currently training Memory to Level 1: 1/100,000 SP -------------------------------------[04:04:04] Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108! Stop whining about my signature - Wrangler
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:35:00 - [28] "Game mechanics were supposed to kill people who did what zombie did in yulai, they didn't work, so the GM's intervened." Yes; but then you only need to ask yourself why are there game mechanics to kill people disrupting order in high security space in the first place. They are there to provide relatively safe gaming environment for people not affected by direct war declaration (save for occasional outburst) If someone now starts to follow another person in that environment all day, say bumping them and disrupting their peace, you could argue this is something the high security space is supposed to protect people from, as much as automated systems can allow anyway (and when they fail, a GM steps in) "But still, trying to force someone out of a system you want for yourself, 0.0 or 0.6, is not harrasment as long as you don't go abuse some loophole. It's what the game is about." I doubt if there's much of 'spirit of game' in trying to keep someone out of 0.6 system to be honest. Because really, if the OP wants to have a system for themselves there's plenty of them with lower security rating to take over. Where the Concord won't flinch if they shoot someone in the belt, newbie corp or not. It all smacks more of some sort of pathetic "carebear face-off" over a lump of veldspar that grows aplenty anywhere ... with tears and wet fur and whole shebang involved ^^;;
Viceroy	Posted - 2006.02.04 08:48:00 - [29] Quote: Yes; but then you only need to ask yourself why are there game mechanics to kill people disrupting order in high security space in the first place. They are there to provide relatively safe gaming environment for people not affected by direct war declaration (save for occasional outburst) If someone now starts to follow another person in that environment all day, say bumping them and disrupting their peace, you could argue this is something the high security space is supposed to protect people from, as much as automated systems can allow anyway (and when they fail, a GM steps in) At this point it comes down to what security CONCORD provides in 0.5+ space. Zombie murdered people randomly, and thats precisely what CONCORD is there to prevent. On the other hand, using cheap tactics to get some to move out from your system (stealing ore etc.) isn't the type of aggression the automated system is there to prevent. CONCORD protects you from getting murderized in 0.5+ repeatedly, not from some rival stealing your ore, staining your reputation, and being an ass in general until you decide to move next door. CONCORD doesn't protect you against ripoff prices in 0.5+ systems, you have to move until you find some market where the product is cheap. And if you have an annoying carebear adversary in the same system bothering you endlessly, it might be time to move until you find a system where the Veldspar is big enough for everyone. Quote: I doubt if there's much of 'spirit of game' in trying to keep someone out of 0.6 system to be honest. Because really, if the OP wants to have a system for themselves there's plenty of them with lower security rating to take over. Where the Concord won't flinch if they shoot someone in the belt, newbie corp or not. It all smacks more of some sort of pathetic "carebear face-off" over a lump of veldspar that grows aplenty anywhere ... with tears and wet fur and whole shebang involved ^^;; It is a carebear face-off, with handbags and namecalling undoubtedly, but still 0.6 or 0.0, rivalry between people, no matter how pathetic the reason (controlling the veldspar in a 0.6 system in this case) shouldn't be dampened and prevented by the system, just because someone starts crying hard enough.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.02.04 09:10:00 - [30] "CONCORD protects you from getting murderized in 0.5+ repeatedly, not from some rival stealing your ore, staining your reputation, and being an ass in general until you decide to move next door." This is true, but how much of it is actually intended lack of protection, as opposed to simple lack of possibility for simple computerized system to detect (and react) to someone staining one's reputation and being a general asshat? Would say that --seeing how you can petition people for how they act in local channel e.g.-- this is more of the latter, than the former. (left out ore stealing there as it's a bit of special case with its own history of developments) "It is a carebear face-off, with handbags and namecalling undoubtedly, but still 0.6 or 0.0, rivalry between people, no matter how pathetic the reason (controlling the veldspar in a 0.6 system in this case) shouldn't be dampened and prevented by the system, just because someone starts crying hard enough." Heh; thinking of it more, i guess my objection was in fact caused mostly by the lameness of it all. Not really because someone might cry, but because the whole thing feels highly embrassing. Would seriously rather someone like OP to go and try luck in 0.4- ... they seem to have the right mindset and attitude about it

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.