18 pages in and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where they think CCP's responsibility to police our out of game actions ends.

18 pages in and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where they think CCP's responsibility to police our out of game actions ends.

What's being said is, if you are not mentally stable enough to handle the environment of EVE online, you shouldn't play.

Much like how I stayed away from FPS wargames when I was dealing with PTSD. I didn't insist the game be changed to suit my then emotional instability.

I think..
- Ripard's blog is overly polemic
- E1 is ethically wrong, on a worse level than The Mittani at Fanfest
- the victim overreacted aswell, but that does not make E1 right

We as a gaming community and CCP as a gaming company have a certain ethical background by which actions are judged. If my local chess club has a member that keeps dissing people we may very well debar hir. If an internet forum has a member that continuously keeps harassing other participants ze may very well get banned. If a certain customer is often near my store (on public ground) promoting a sect and I notice that it drives away other customers I may very well ban him from my store.
I see the problem being that the Eve community is a very broad one, with players from all over the world.
But maybe it's up to CCP here to make clear what they as a company think is right and what is wrong, what kind of behaviour they think is tolerable and which isn't, with the best for the overall player community in mind.
(Don't forget, we are talking about people conduct here, not character conduct)


Re: "No one was forcing him"
That's not as easy. I am sure E1 is a very intelligent person. And when it comes to rhetoric and psychology you have to look deeper.
E1 is doing his scheme in a very distinct way, on purpose. _First_ the player has to give up everything of ISK value ze owns. Players who are sufficiently intelligent (and are not trying to counterscam E1 or just messing around) likely stop right before that. Players that did this first step, are likely in a weaker state of mind. A player such as that, who already is heavily invested via the prepaid high stakes (high to hir at least), will have serious trouble just stopping.

One point for those who have said he could of just left.

E1 is using something a kin to the Prior Investment Trap. This is something used by many conman / woman in real life to trick all kinds of people out of their money.

Your completely right, CCP should take no action for anything that happens out of game.

So tell everybody why CCP inform the police if somebody says they are going to commit suicide, after all it is not in the EULA or TOS and it is an action out of game which is completely out of their control.

Would it be perhaps because morally and ethically it is the right thing to do?

Yea, and none of those traps work for an aware person, which means don't go into such a situation unaware.

it's like when I go to the casinos in Louisiana (Texas is still backwards and doesn't allow the Gold mine of gambling except for the state lottery lol). I put all my gambling money in one pocket ad winning in the other and the 2 never meet. When i'm out of gambling money, I leave (with my winnings) and I don't drink more than 2 drinks per hour in the casino despite them constantly trying to shove the free courtesy drinks down your throats.

They know that people tend to throw good money after bad and drunk people make bad decisions. So as an aware adult who wants to gamble and not lose the mortgage money, i take precautions. Then I watch people who didn't do that cry about how unfair it all is as they try to get someone to Western Union them enough money to get home because the sold the car they came in to keep gambling.

Personal Responsibility: It works every time.

18 pages in and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where they think CCP's responsibility to police our out of game actions ends.

So the elderly and mentally infirm who fall fall these scams?

Did they just deserve it, was it their fault?

Thanks. But.... That's where the line starts and I haven't heard anyone complaining about that, much like I haven't heard anyone complaining that Nelson Mandela was allowed a defence lawyer.

But where does it end?

At what point does CCP stop having the right to sanction us for out of game interactions. If I buy you a beer at fanfest, and it turns out to be one beer too many and you faceplant outside Nonni's, do I get a temp ban for that? No?

OK, what's the line then.

Perhaps. But if I were "in charge" I know exactly what I would do in this case.


I would not let someone like Erotica 1 use MY copyright and construct of my intellectual property (my game) as a vehicle for "real life of meta jollies and greifing".

On other and more understandable words, while it would not be against the rules to scam people in game, and it was not against the rules to do what was done already, I would not allow players who take their scamming or activities out of game to base it on the knowledge or content of my property.

The day will come when someone is going to kill themselves because they got "griefed".

Can you give me a reliable method of distinguishing them that doesn't boil down to "stuff that you personally dislike"?

I find brussels sprouts disgusting; just the thought of them makes me heave a little. Can I petition to get someone banned because they post recipes for them in local?

If not, then you're saying that only the things you find disgusting are a problem. Things I find disgusting and things evengelical christians find disgusting are just fine, however. Am I right?

Far simpler for CCP to not try and be 400,000 people's mom and stay the hell out of our out of game activities, don't you think?

Much like in real world governance, some people feel that responsibility has no end. Nanny state for all, in game and out.

Again not everything is black and white, you have to take each occurrence / situation / event on its own merits.

Missing. The. Point. Entirely.

18 pages in and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where they think CCP's responsibility to police our out of game actions ends.

People talk about gays in very similar terms to the ones you have used in your post.

Come to that, so have insane monogonadal austrian dictators.

Not very nice.
I think that the in game actions and scamming itself is pure darwinism and no problem there but RECORDING RL Voice conversation while humiliating a person and then publish it online like we've seen here is not cool at all.

I thought the whole "Eve is harsh universe" thing was meant it's IN GAME as characthers inside a virtual universe in video game not humiliating people in RL.

Again not everything is black and white, you have to take each occurrence / situation / event on its own merits.

Erotica1, fighter for freedom and against Tyranny. Who in hell would have thought that LOL.

So E1's fanbase is trying to defend him against CCP by bringing up the argument that he did nothing against the EULA because he used Team Speak... and they are also trying to defend him against any (possible) legal actions because all he did was to harass somebody in a game?

What a ridiculous position to take. Why use your position in the community to stick up for an obvious piece of filth?

No player will participate in any out of game actions with the intent to cause emotional distress for their own enjoyment and gain.

Hows that?