|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
18
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 14:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's pretty pure and simple really. If this is the sort of behaviour that CCP are happy to be associated with EVE then they need do nothing but shrug and say "it's the nature of EVE, live with it".
If they don't want this sort of behaviour to be associated with EVE then they need to take a strong stance (altering EULA if required).
Sittining in the middle doing nothing looks a bit weak no matter what they think. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
19
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 15:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think that part of he problem is that CCP, and many parts of the community as a whole, make little effort to ensure that players are aware of the difference in levels of consequence between EVE, real life and other MMOs.
If this sort of behaviour had resulted in a loss of assets in the real world then you could go to the authorities and report the issue with a _reasonable_ expectation of recovering at least some of those assets.
In most other MMOs this sort of behaviour would result in a permaban and the return of the scammed assets.
In EVE it's different. Whether or not it should be is an open item for debate (as evinced by this thread). What shouldn't be a matter for debate is CCP's, and the wider community's, responsibility to let players (specifically newer players) have no illusion about what sort of game EVE is and what they can expect to find in places like Jita local. To do otherwise is to be complicit with the behaviour demonstrated here. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
20
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 15:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Big Lynx wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:[quote=Josef Djugashvilis]There is a lot of talk about how the mark could have stopped the whole thing at any point.
Sohkar is a grown man. Physically yes. But mentally? I'm going to use bright letters here. if Sohkar is mentally incapable of giving consent or understanding his actions, he should not be playing a game like EVE in the 1st place.
In which case it is CCP's role to assess the mental capacity of players prior to letting them connect. That's going to be fun given they rate the game as 12+ |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
22
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:277....ish pages of rage, trolling, and other misc stuff.
When will it get locked/deleted?
Only time will tell!
Soon I hope. It should be obvious to everyone now that this is an issue that polarizes the community. One on which there will be no agreement and only really a chance for things to spiral down lower in the gutter.
Clearly it's something that CCP need to take seriously, the depth of feeling in the community (on both sides) is clear and it needs CCP to think hard about this and to produce a definitive statement that will hopefully left folks move on.
What it really _doesn't_ need is pages and pages of more opinions on whether someone should or shouldn't face the ban-hammer. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
24
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
OK - now I've had chance to think about it here's my take:
Quite simply this individual and their behaviour are not things that I want me or the gaming hobby to be associated with. I've lived many years with people thinking that gamers are maladjusted sociopaths and having this sort of event to pin those opinions on are fuel for the fire. The main-stream gaming press have already started to pick up on this story and I doubt it'll be long before it gets grabbed by the wider media. In this case the damage is already done and all that can be achieved is to make it clear that the rest of us playing EVE aren't sub-normal gutter-feeders.
In the wider context, though, it makes sense to make sure that this doesn't become the norm for EVE online. That may well have swung fine when the answer to "I want to play a space MMO" was "Well there's EVE Online and er.. some other thing, no, wait, it's gone". The horizon for space MMOs looks to be big and varied and there's going to be places for the sane people to hang out without fear of the psychos.
Now - there's been a lot of arguments in here to support the actions of E1 and I thought I'd adress the main ones:
1. This is a slippery slope to.... Slippery slope arguments are, well, a slippery slope. Everything is a slippery slope to everything else and you can always assert hyperbolic consequences to anything. Quite simply, slippery slope areguments are irrelvant.
2. What was done was not a violation of the EULA I think this is arguable either way and it's largely irrelevant. If CCP want to ban someone they can and they can stretch the EULA to fit where it's needed if they choose to do so. Comversely CCP can choose to ignore an obvious violation if they want to. Basically the ball is in their court and it's all about how they want the game to be and how they want it to be perceived.
3. They didn't do this other stuff that would have been much worse Er... yeah. They didn't and you can always level that argument no matter how abhorent someone's behaviour is. The fact here is that the behaviour was bad enough. Bad enough to knowingly cause someone a hell of a lot of distress outside ofthe game and bad enough to reflect very badly on EVE and its player-base.
4. The vicitim had a choice not to be victimized Yeah - this is one that gets levied at victims all the time. Often along with "they should have known better", "they shouldn't have looked like a victim", "they shouldn't have let themselves be bullied". Frankly, blaming the vicitim is something of a shameful act. It would be great if all players came into the game equipped to handle psychological abuse but that's not the case and it shouldn't be an entry requirement. Even if it were then it should certainly be made apparent.
5. The vicitim was especially psychologically sensitive That may well be the case but it should be born in mind that EVE is specifically open to 13 year old children to sign up to. They could be prey to such actions and if turns out that they are, or already have been, then CCP is in for a hell of a lot more trouble than has currently been stirred up here. Seriously - if you think that a few hundred posts on a forum is turbulent then you've not seen what the media will do with that.
6. Banning E1 will kill the meta Don't be rediculous - there's a hell of a lot more meta to the game than JIta scammers.
7. Banning E1 would be changing EVE Yes - and for the better. Realistically, ask yourself what scammers add to the game compared to the level of annoyance they generate even without this sort of event. Frankly - how many of EVE's players would be happy to see scammers gone entirely? I can't think of a single good reason to protect them and I'd be more than happy to be able to turn up to a trade hub and not get continually spammed in local.
Ugh.. there's more I could say but I |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
26
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:So when is Jester being banned and kicked from the CSM? Ya lets change gears here. Lets discuss the harassment of Erotica 1 AND Sohkar by Ripard Teg. If anyone should be banned it should be him.
Banned for cricising someone's behaviour but... you just criticised Rip. I think you can probably see the circularity here without further comment? |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
26
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Kristalll wrote:So if a manager at mcdonalds molests a child, mcdonalds is held responsible as a molester-based business? Yes, if they knew he was molesting kids.
And also yes if they were not taking suitable measures to ensure the safety of their customers. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
26
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kristalll wrote:H aVo K wrote:
Therein lies the *real* issue - a scammer who preys on the stupidity of people coming into Jita, using a character that never undocks, is largely immune to any form of meaningful retribution.
It's too *safe* a profession.
I'd imagine ruining the scammers reputation would meaningful retribution. Just like killing a pvpers ship.
It's not at all the same. Recovering from a reputation hit is as easy as creating a new alt. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
26
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: Regarding : 2. What was done was not a violation of the EULA Actually this is extremely relevant. Game companies should not be in the habit of banning players for any reason outside of explicitly stated game rules. Doing so erodes player trust in the company.
Fair enough - I'll concede here, at least in general terms. However I think that the specific case here there is sufficient grounds for CCP to declare it to be harrassment should they choose to.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: Regarding: 3. They didn't do this other stuff that would have been much worse
I haven't seen this argument made except in hyperbole, but you are correct.
I've been reading the thread on and off and there's been more straw men than a Wizzard of Oz costume party.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: Regarding: 4. The vicitim had a choice not to be victimized
I'm 95% in agreement with you here. My biggest issue with this argument is that the "victim" did lash out at Ero and the excrow agents involved. Honestly I need to listen to the full recording (haven't found the time), but I'm very unwilling to say that he was completely blameless in this case.
Oh - I'm certainly not sanctifying the behaviour of the victim here. He made some pretty unpleasant comments. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't a victim or that he should be blamed for being a victim.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: What is far more important than any ban that may or may not occur is any statement CCP makes in conjunction with the ban. I would not be surprised to see a EULA update targeted at curbing this kind of behavior but leaving scamming as a whole intact. I'm really hoping that singing ransoms and such are not targeted, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a change in terms of whats allowed when leading someone on for a long period of time, along with guidelines as to where to stop a scam before hurting another player in ways that affect them out of game. Of course any changes are on a case-by-case evaluation under GM discretion.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly here. I would be very surprised if this didn't result in a change in the EULA. There's a number of different ways that CCP could do so and I'm not going to play the speculation game. I will say that I wouldn't be unhappy to see ISK-doubling scams and the like disappear, though. I don't see them add anything meaningful or useful to the game. Corp heists etc add meaningful meta to the game as a whole and for great news stories. Cheap scams preying on newbies not so much. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
26
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kristalll wrote:Ssieth wrote: Cheap scams preying on newbies not so much. Don't lie. You and I both know these scams are targeted at bored bittervets.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Not much use though. Bittervet I may be but I keep myself poor to avoid losing isk in scams. See.. the smart folks realises that if they only have 0 isk they can only lose 0 isk ;p |
|
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
29
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Batelle wrote:Use your brain for two seconds and you'll understand why this is not possible. (its not because of "false reports") Nothing is impossible. A reworked system that colors a player's name in local based on a number and type of accumulated feedback reports is a solid improvement on the current security status mechanic. have you ever tried slamming a revolving door? there are things that are impossible, that is one of them.
Clearly you're not slamming hard enough.
W-Spacer.-á Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
29
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Challenge: Try to add something new to 300+ page thread.
hmmm
I have had enough of the slippery slope, I want to go the other way . . . we have a mountain to climb, all of us in Eve
I want Eve to be a better game, every day a bit better than the last.
Now you may expect some pithy carebear stuff about banning scamming or ganking or the like . . . no. That is part of the game same as trumping an ace or forking a king and rook are parts of other games. The game is a combat focus and I accept that the combat can be on many levels UNTIL it gets personal. I shot your ship, somebody took your sov. All fine.
Now if it gets to threatening you, your family, your pets. WAAAY over the line.
Problem is that the line moves for each person, each case. Call one guy names and he laughs it off. Use the same name or derogatory term on another and you have again found the crossing of the line.
HTFU? Why? Why do we have to close our eyes and allow the game to get worse? Why can we not turn around and start climbing? Oh we may have to cut some dead weight that is holding us back but look up, look ahead.
climb
oh an don't forget to vote
m
You've just secured mine :)
W-Spacer.-á Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
29
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Challenge: Try to add something new to 300+ page thread.
Penguins! We've not had any penguins yet.
Oh - did it have to be relevant?
;p W-Spacer.-á Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
31
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
Mag's wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Xuixien wrote:
I'm not Erotica 1. I'm sure you're familiar with his voice from the recording, yes?
You're free to talk to me on comms at any point.
Whatever you say buddy. By the way, when we connect to your J, if you haven't been evicted already, we will burn you out like cancer from it. Sounds like more RL threats. Yet more :Moral High Ground: stuff. Nice
Nope - it sounds like someone declaring a WH eviction. W-Spacer.-á Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
31
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 23:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
H aVo K wrote:Dani Dusette wrote: But it's legit gameplay within the boundary of this game. Unlike the issue which this thread is about. Maybe you can answer where so many have failed, then: What makes this gameplay less legit than other acceptable types of "tear extraction"?
OK - I'll take a punt at this one.
Other types of 'tear extraction' - ganking etc is generally about targetting in-game assets in-game. It is an extension of other in-game activities.
This is about enticing someone to an external comms channel for the specific purpose of publically humiliating them. W-Spacer.-á Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
32
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 08:54:00 -
[16] - Quote
Asia Leigh wrote:I ask again, Why is it that people care now when an idiot posts it on his blog and not when this hit the forums last month?
Unlike most of the relevant questions here, that is an easy one to answer. Barely anyone read the original post on the forums.
W-Spacer.-á Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
35
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 09:19:00 -
[17] - Quote
Erotica 1 wrote:I don't tolerate "drink driving" and you are right... things were so much better for EVE before that Jester nonsense.
Wow - blaming the reporter is the new blaming the victim for today is it? That's either impressively dumb or indicative that you think the readers are dumb enough to buy it. I suspect the latter.
W-Spacer.-á Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff. |
|
|
|