Are you serious?!

I loled for real

Seriously

The perpetrators coerced the victim into an out of game context, by means of his (or CCPs) ingame assets.
What happened in that out of game context, is potentially illegal.

I don't think CCP wants its services being used as a means for individuals to perpetrate crimes against other players.
Infact much of the EULA and CCP's informal policy, including some key elements of the CSM constitution notably, explicitly forbid people using ingame assets against the people who are playing the game.

Im applauding all the people who are trying to combat the ignorance in this thread with common sense, unfortunately, most of your common sense is falling on deaf ears. The sheeple who read and take these blogs as pure fact (internetz don't lie!) will never be swayed by your logical and well thought out arguments against the absolute facts they just now found out about and therefore are experts in.

I would laugh and applaud if someone kicked Erotica1 in the face at a Fanfest.
Nothing illegal about laughing or applauding, nor is it against EULA.

I would also laugh and applaud if Erotica1 was banned from the game.
Again, nothing illegal about laughing or applauding, nor is it against EULA.

Wouldn't you?

I dont think even in your country people are arresting for laughing or applauding.

At the point the recording begins, Erotica1 already has the entirety of the victims assets.

The sole and only purpose of the subsequent entire 2hrs torment, is to humiliate and grief the victim.
That is malice.

There's no ISK benefit to them continuing with the mark after they've already taken everything he had.

Somewhere along the lines you have blurred the lines between the victim and predator. E1 and his accomplices set out to cause emotional harm to another human being - premeditated if you will. They used calculated manipulation and tactics to accomplish this.

After what was is 2 hours, the victim snapped and lashed out in a emotional manner. I don't agree with what was said but at the end of the day it was E1 who woke up that morning with the intention to cause harm (emotional) to another human being, and are in the wrong. Who hasn't said something they didn't really mean in the height of a argument?

If you beat an animal until it defends itself and bites you, who is in the wrong?

Last one



No, It's funny to me. (<- period) AND he's stupid (<- we all agree there, no?)
Since nobody was harmed in any way shape or form, I'm confident in laughing about his hate filled little balloon bursting.
He is as much a victim of abuse as Chico, Harpo, and Groucho were on their tv show. In other words; Not real.

You find me creepy? I find you clingy. Good thing we aren't sharing bunks at space camp, because I'd prank you soooo hard if we would be.

D. OUT. (I promise )

The actions of Erotica, though distasteful, are not illegal. If the EVE community feels so strongly about that person, players can deal with the matter their own way: We're a creative bunch, there are ways to make Erotica's EVE experience unpleasant enough for him to ragequit - But this won't happen, we either don't care as much as we say we do, or we're content with 'fighting the good fight' only when others have to do the hard/dirty work.

The victim was not forced to endure that whole thing, no one pointed a gun to his head or threatened his family. If you're attached to your space pixels enough to go apeshit when you lose them this way, a tasteless prank is the least of your mental problems.

If you really have a problem with what happened, be the damn hero you're painting yourself to be. Do some spy work, mittens-style, find out everything about Erotica, and make his EVE experience hell.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked the other guy who said that: Are you sure you are replying to the right person? I haven't made much of an issue about it being in game vs out. I do't really care about that.

I care that people think a scammer scamming (even using ts) for isk and tears is somehow the devil yet the person who actually threaten the life of others and proved to be both racist and homophobic is ok because he was somehow "under duress".

Not illegal... Just against the EULA... It won't get you jail... Just banned.

In the EULA, under "Specifically Restricted Conduct":



Now, if Ero1's teamspeak falls under this section of the EULA, both Ero1 and the victim should be banned. Ero1 is clearly harassing other players ("behaviour intended to disturb or upset" outside of normal gameplay) and the victim is clearly making threats.

If Ero1's teamspeak isn't covered by the EULA, then it's completely up to CCP's judgement what happens next.

But you really can't say that E1 is "the person who didn't break the rules", because either they both did or they both didn't.

For those of you just joining us and are a little confused where this threadnaught came from, allow me to explain the cycle of arguments that have been repeating until now.

Erotica 1 is mean and should be permabanned.
Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.
He's forfeiting his space cash because he got scammed. Scamming people isn't against the game's rules.
We're not discussing the scams, they're fine. We don't like the way he tortures his mark for hours.
His mark can leave the conversation at any time they choose.
But if he leaves, he forfeits all his space cash.

As of this writing, the cyclical argument has entered its 206th iteration. So far, nobody seems to have caught on.

Splerg

I did. It's irrelevant to the point I was making. Get madder.

My point is that you misinterpreted the portion of the EULA you posted.

The same way you misinterpreted what I posted.

I'm noticing a pattern here.

The only person to use threats was Sohkar, I have listened to the sound clip from start to finish. Erotica 1 never raised his voice and never threatened anyone, was not obscene, did not harass, was not abusive or defamatory.

Not saying that I agree with Luminous, but good God are you that naive. Hurt feelings are not real harm?

LOL never been with a real woman, have you?

Mr Epeen

How would it be defamatory?

Isn't defamation the use of false statements to harm the reputation of someone?

Can someone's own statements in a recording be a false statement?

We shouldn't internet lawyer because neither of us are qualified, it's just a question because I struggle to see the link to defamation.

No one's name has been slandered or libelled, because "Sokhar" isn't the name of a real person, but a fictional avatar.