i can bear with the first page, but the last one was too much.....i understand this game is like real life, but i didnt expect that lvl of bullying with the poor guy, goddammit have some respect with the victim, assholes.......

i can bear with the first page, but the last one was too much.....i understand this game is like real life, but i didnt expect that lvl of bullying with the poor guy, goddammit have some respect with the victim, assholes.......

He should be sitting out a 30 day ban and be removed from the CSM for those threats!

i can bear with the first page, but the last one was too much.....i understand this game is like real life, but i didnt expect that lvl of bullying with the poor guy, goddammit have some respect with the victim, assholes.......

i can bear with the first page, but the last one was too much.....i understand this game is like real life, but i didnt expect that lvl of bullying with the poor guy, goddammit have some respect with the victim, assholes.......

Criminal lawyer, as in criminal defense lawyer, as in probably has contacts with people and organizations of dubious morality?

This could give a whole new meaning to the term "locator agent..."

/popcorn

Poor Raven.
At least it's in a better place now. All ends well.

well the guy clearly was an idiot but he doesnt deserves to be scammed like that.........the killmail should have been enough........

well the guy clearly was an idiot but he doesnt deserves to be scammed like that.........the killmail should have been enough........

i understand this game is like real life

He might use his Lawyer super powers to find you in real life.

NOTHING excuses irl threats.

I think you're imagining things. What threat did he make, exactly?

I've begun to look for my killers, worldwide, in the real life

There you go.

You can blather on about how you think getting ganked in a videogame is grand larceny, but what he said is genuinely a crime.

Looking for people is not a crime (most especially when they're bad people), and, it's not even a threat. Are you afraid of human-human interaction? Because, then, maybe you shouldn't play EVE Online. Human interaction is kind of its a major selling point.

I personally hope he finds his killers. I hope he is able to persuade them to give him back his stuffz, and maybe even make them see the error of their ways. No one is beyond redemption; I always say. That would be a really heart-warming and feel-good story, although not as sensational as if they went to the big house for grand larceny.

In any event, I think all the bad things you do in-game (or out-of-game) are weighing on and worrying your mind and conscience. It's making your paranoid.

Looking for people is not a crime (most especially when they're bad people), and, it's not even a threat.

I wouldn't laugh at him too much if I were you guys.


He might use his Lawyer super powers to find you in real life.
And then he will send a ticket to CCP.

We'll see who's laughing then!

Goddmamn, he lost over 1000$... He was actually robbed. The absence of morality there is astounding. Oh well, eve be eve.

There you go.

You can blather on about how you think getting ganked in a videogame is grand larceny, but what he said is genuinely a crime.

Ok.. yes, this is promoting TMC right here on GD.. BUT..

This article just deserves to be read by everyone, so EVERYONE can get a good laugh out of it.. to be honest, I didn't even laugh I was just flabbergasted at the victim of this reported event..

Go Back To Wow

..

The lawyer said his "threats" were said out of anger, and that he didn't meant them really (which we can all relate to, I'm sure). Talk about stereotypes here. Respect is a two way street, and for an elite gaming community, we sure can be childish douches sometimes.

Goddmamn, he lost over 1000$... He was actually robbed. The absence of morality there is astounding. Oh well, eve be eve.

I disagree that what he said was a crome. At least in my country, speech and seeking justice or reparitions are not crimes. He just said he's looking for them, There was no threat of bodily harm. Perhaps he just wants to subpoena them, prosecute and incarcerate them. Is that a crime too? He's a lawyer, perhaps he'll accept monetary compensation like a plea bargain.

In Canada we have a name for your kind. We call you liberals and you're not particularly well liked, specifically for this hug-a-thug mentality.

Only a liberal could excuse an actual crime because he "didn't mean it", while vilifying people who committed no crimes and played 100% within the rules of the game.

I disagree that what he said was a crome. At least in my country, speech and seeking justice or reparitions are not crimes. He just said he's looking for them, There was no threat of bodily harm. Perhaps he just wants to subpoena them, prosecute and incarcerate them. Is that a crime too? He's a lawyer, perhaps he'll accept monetary compensation like a plea bargain.

I dont think "liberal" means what you think it means.

Oh it does. It means exactly what I think it does.

Oh it does. It means exactly what I think it does.

Nope.

Infact a liberal, in the true sense of the word, is against intervention in private affairs and places weight on personal freedom of action, as well as personal responsibility for those actions.

You have contrived the term to mean its exact opposite.

That's a libertarian.

A liberal is someone who tells other people what to do with their money.

Nope.

Infact a liberal, in the true sense of the word, is against intervention in private affairs and places weight on personal freedom of action, as well as personal responsibility for those actions.

You have contrived the term to mean its exact opposite.

That's a libertarian.

A liberal is someone who tells other people what to do with their money.

ahh, this guy knows.. you HAVE to be Canadian lmao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Okay, this seems to be an american thing. o.o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Okay, this seems to be an american thing. o.o

I'm no American. Sorry.

I'd almost feel bad for him if he wasn't a total prick

Seriously? He threatens to take real world vengeance on people who ganked him in a video game and you believe people playing the game within the rules of engagement are in the wrong?

He should be sitting out a 30 day ban and be removed from the CSM for those threats!

I wonder why until now no one mentioned (or at least I didnt see it) that this guy actually didn-¦t lose anything. You do not own something in eve, CCP just lets you use it. Its in the EULA somewhere. Characters, ships, Plexes all belong to CCP. So no robbery, no larceny, no racketeering, just a guy who lost a game.

Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet.
Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell.

More the pity, that you should have adopted their deliberate perversions of these terms actual meanings.

JFYI, North Americans, these words and concepts mean something completely different (and closer to their actual definition) in the rest of the world outside your continent.

Its also hilarious you thought another guy was Canadian, though he was infact American.
And someone thought you where American, though you are infact Canadian.
That, to me., is extremely hilarious in this context.

Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet.
Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell.

Let us hope it swings the way that will prohibit the taxing of virtual assets in video games.... "Well mr *RL name*, it seems you have several thousands of euros worth of virtual assets on various games. You didn't file those in your tax report!", "Whut? I'm just playing a game dude...", "That might well be but the law states you are required to pay taxes over those, we want 30% of that in taxes, oh, and the 150% fine for not filing it in the first place! Haha!".

Cause that's the route we're heading for if we are going to treat virtual assets in games as real economic assets.

Ownership of virtual assets is not something that has really congealed in law yet.
Could swing either way. Time and precedent will tell.

CCP is the sole and exclusive owner of the Software, System, Game and Game Content

Let us hope it swings the way that will prohibit the taxing of virtual assets in video games.... "Well mr *RL name*, it seems you have several thousands of euros worth of virtual assets on various games. You didn't file those in your tax report!", "Whut? I'm just playing a game dude...", "That might well be but the law states you are required to pay taxes over those, we want 30% of that in taxes, oh, and the 150% fine for not filing it in the first place! Haha!".

Cause that's the route we're heading for if we are going to treat virtual assets in games as real economic assets.

Ownership of the virtual assets is clear the EULA, no congealing, swinging, time or precedent necessary:

The court ruled that:

Virtual items have value in virtual of the effort and time invested in obtaining them
The value in Virtual items is recognised by those that play the game (including the defendents who went to the trouble to take them)
The Virtual items were under the exclusive control of the player GÇô who was relieved of this control
The court made reference to cases of electricity theft which is a similar intangible good but certainly has properties of power and control, and consequently can be stolen.

There is a recent Dutch court ruling that declares they are actually assets and can in fact be stolen and declared the particular game EULA irrelevant and not binding in criminal law. Though in the Dutch case the "theft" of the in game assets occurred in the real world. Neverhteless it really depends on your jurisdiction.

Really? I'm Dutch too and I missed that, have a linky?

Of course there is a difference in hacking someone's account and stealing his game stuff and stealing it/destroying it in the game within the game rules.


On another note and I cannot stress this enough, if EULA does not comply with local laws, law always 'wins'.

This case is significant because it changes the relationship between individuals and service providers in respect of digital objects. That is, RuneScapeGÇÖs contract clearly states that the players of the game do not own the game or any of the digital objects within it, whether they control them or not. This has long been a contentious matter as there is a large trade in the sale of objects between players for hard currency, so called Real Money Trading (RMT).

This ruling means that there is a degree of control that someone can have over an object which is sufficient for that object to be stolen. The question that has puzzled both the industry and academics for many years is: if a digital object is capable of being stolen, does this mean that other rights accrue to a player? For example, irrespective of what the contract says, can a player:

sell an object?
claim rights if an object is deleted or changed by company?
claim compensation if a game is closed?

For the moment, this matter is restricted both to The Netherlands and to the specific matter of theft. However in China and South Korea there have been similar types of cases which have made it to the courts, in these judges have displayed a general trend to grant more rights to players than are stated in their contract and to see digital objects as being akin to physical property in certain important respects. The fact that a case in the EU has got to such a senior court and has ruled along the same lines is likely to carry some weight with other cases that may occur in the West.

For details of the Chinese, Korean and other cases see tVPNGÇÖs white paper on Virtual Objects and Public Policy which examines both cases and statute in detail.

And Kaarous Aldurald.

The EULA is not law. Its just an agreement. Elements of it may or may not be actually legally binding depending on the laws, specifics of an issue, disposition of a particular judge, of where-ever an issue is brought before a court. You can put whatever you want into a contract/agreement/whatever, but that doesn't mean that those elements are actually legally binding, nor that the EULA itself, in its entirety, is legally binding.

None of that succeeds in refuting my point.

Here, I'll help you. Finish this sentence:

"Binding contracts aren't binding because..."

The "A" in EULA means "Agreement". If you click yes in the checkbox, then you have agreed to those terms. None of which are unusual enough to warrant a legal exception being made.

None of that succeeds in refuting my point.

Here, I'll help you. Finish this sentence:

"Binding contracts aren't binding because..."

The "A" in EULA means "Agreement". If you click yes in the checkbox, then you have agreed to those terms. None of which are unusual enough to warrant a legal exception being made.

You don't know what you are talking about.

There is a reason law degrees take years of study to get, and the ignorance in your assumptions about these matters demonstrate concretely why that is. You are not understanding the important legal distinctions riddled all over this issue.

Clicking a box is not just clicking a box.
Signing a contract also does not actually legally bind you to everything written therein.
Your understanding and approach to these issues is so elementary as to be almost laughable.
You know so little, that you can't even comprehend how little it is that you actually understand.

bump . lets troll this guy out of eve.

Providing none of the terms are explicitly illegal and the signatory was of the age of majority, yes, it literally does.

dear boring people in the thread, please stop being boring



no. let's laugh at what happened, let's criticise him for his bad attitude, but let's not harass the dude

We've got a space lawyer here, folks. So please, extol upon me the reasons why you are qualified to tell me what is, or is not, lawsuit worthy.

Providing none of the terms are explicitly illegal and the signatory was of the age of majority, yes, it literally does.

Nope. Its really not that simple at all. But I don't expect you to understand that.

Finish the sentence:

"A binding contract is not binding because..."

The statement of "Go back to WoW" is prejudicial. If anyone think WoW is easy, try to run a 25-man raid in heroic mode. The complexity of gameplay in WoW is no less than EVE. However, PVP in WoW is optional, yet PVP in EVE is nearly compulsory. Those seasoned PVP gamers in WoW will have little or no difficulty to do the same thing in internet space. On the contrary, those WoW gamers that chose not to contest in PVP will have a hard time beginnig their venture in EVE.

Who throws away money like that unless it isn't theirs?

I once tanked a BC raid (pre nerf Black Temple) while hung over so badly I was unable to stand under my own power. (ah, college)

That game is not "hard", by any stretch of the imagination. You're confusing tedium, repetition, and grind with actual difficulty.

Which game does not have its portions of tedium, repetition and grinding?

Regardles of what "gamers" think this issue is a legal one that is currently unresolved.

The Dutch decision:

http://www.virtualpolicy.net/runescape-theft-dutch-supreme-court-decision.html

While this probably breaks some kind of internet meme or unwritten rules, I'll go ahead and say it.

There's only one class of people that universally has no respect for money and has such poor spelling.

Pre-teens.

Heh, I thought that too....MAAAA...I need more money to play this new game!!! Okie snookums, here you go.

But 1300? Seems a bit much.

In Canada we have a name for your kind. We call you liberals and you're not particularly well liked, specifically for this hug-a-thug mentality.

Only a liberal could excuse an actual crime because he "didn't mean it", while vilifying people who committed no crimes and played 100% within the rules of the game.

Whether or not you think that scamming is "moral" is completely irrelevant. Scamming is a legitimate, well-known, even celebrated form of gameplay in Eve Online. You'd have to be willfully stupid to not realize that coming into this game. RL life threats on the other hand are in clear violation of the EULA, are abhorred by the entire community and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Dude should lose his account at the minimum for making RL threats, end of story.

Also. The 1000.00 was lost the moment this moron bought however many PLEX from CCP. The gankers and the scammers took only in game assets, which is not even close to the same thing. None of the people involved in either the gank or the scam are in any way shape or form responsible for this guy's lack of financial restraint. Nor are they responsible for this guy's lack of research into a game that he's dumping THOUSANDS of dollars into.

No sympathy at all. None.

This is another one of those events that IMO proves something I've come to believe about this game and it's people.

Many folks will have you believe that the gankers and scammers are terrible people in real life and that the 'innocent victims" are somehow paragons of virtue.

But in reality, it's the "victims" (ie entitled/stupid people playing a game stupidly that is notorious for punishing both entitlement and stupidity) who tend to be the IRL 'bad' people who will make out of game threats.

Meanwhile, the gankers and scammers (ie smart/aware people playing a game that rewards being smart and aware) who are the IRL well adjusted adults who can keep a video game and it's imaginary 'property' in context.

Seriously? He threatens to take real world vengeance on people who ganked him in a video game and you believe people playing the game within the rules of engagement are in the wrong?

He should be sitting out a 30 day ban and be removed from the CSM for those threats!

This is another one of those events that IMO proves something I've come to believe about this game and it's people.

Many folks will have you believe that the gankers and scammers are terrible people in real life and that the 'innocent victims" are somehow paragons of virtue.

But in reality, it's the "victims" (ie entitled/stupid people playing a game stupidly that is notorious for punishing both entitlement and stupidity) who tend to be the IRL 'bad' people who will make out of game threats.

Meanwhile, the gankers and scammers (ie smart/aware people playing a game that rewards being smart and aware) who are the IRL well adjusted adults who can keep a video game and it's imaginary 'property' in context.

Yeah, horseshit. NOTHING excuses irl threats.

You wanna know why I post on an alt, and not on my first character? It's not because I fear reprisal in game for my speech on the forums. It's because I once got a picture of my house emailed to me after scamming someone.

So that apologist crap doesn't fly with me. It's not "bullying" or whatever buzzword the entitlement generation whelps use these days. It's a ****ing videogame.

You should probably learn some reading comprehension. He was merely stating "I could if I wanted". He didn't actually say he was going to.

I'm pretty sure I'd be that mad too if I borked up royally like that and a news company trolled me in a conversation. Personally I think the guy had balls to entertain an interview in the face of humiliation.

Poor Raven.
At least it's in a better place now. All ends well.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

22. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

34. Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.

More often than not, posts of this nature are made with inflammatory intent and are designed to promote trolling and flaming. Therefore, the posting of links to kill reports from any third party site, or the direct copy-pasting of kill reports from in game is prohibited on all forum channels of the EVE Online Forums, with the exception of the Crime & Punishment Channel.