The thing is though that in RL (at least here) Casinos are now bound by law to stop problem gamblers and addicts from gaming when they're spotted. Same with pubs and alcohol - the establishment is ultimately responsible for how drunk they allow someone to become.

We're seeing the same thing creep in online, where the sites are ultimately being asked to take responsibility for people who cannot meter their own interactions within the game.

In real life, people choose to go to casinos, even though it is well established that mathematically, the house always wins. It is a loosing game, but greed or other motivations lead them to choose to play.

So too here. Every step of the way, the "victim" had a choice.
He chose to get his isk doubled, though he suspected a scam.
He chose to enter the bonus room.
He chose to read the articles provided to him.
He chose to sing.
He chose to leave.
He chose to return.
He chose to threaten.
He chose to leave again.
He chose to return again.

You can disagree with his choices, but they were his to make every step of the way. At every step he could stop. And he did, not once, not twice, but thrice.

You can say that E1 manipulated him into staying and returning, but that disenfranchises the victim in our analysis. It removes his agency as an actor. You turn him from being a human being to being merely cattle, and I do not believe that is the case here. My opinion of the victim is not so low.

they broke the rules in regards to harassment and harming CCPs reputation.

Doesn't change the facts - they broke the rules in regards to harassment and harming CCPs reputation.

Regarding the choice thing it's not accurate. You left out the coercive element. You're also ignoring the fact he was deliberately led along a path designed to keep him engaged.

The thing is though that in RL (at least here) Casinos are now bound by law to stop problem gamblers and addicts from gaming when they're spotted. Same with pubs and alcohol - the establishment is ultimately responsible for how drunk they allow someone to become.

We're seeing the same thing creep in online, where the sites are ultimately being asked to take responsibility for people who cannot meter their own interactions within the game.

If true, this crosses way over the line. CCP, this is okay with you? Really?

A racist, homophobic, who threatens to commit murder is scammed. Ya he is a real innocent victim here...

Cite the precise rule E1 broke and reread my last, bolded paragraph regarding coercion and manipulation. Please. I didn't ignore it, I attacked it head on. You chose not to read it.

Do juries decide sentencing based on the pathology of the victim?

Depending on you municipality, it can be a contributing factor, actually.

Depending on you municipality, it can be a contributing factor, actually.

Naive. Sometimes human beeings are turned into puppets. Your seeing things too idealistically.

Except that juries don't decide sentencing, the judge does that.

I just want to summarize a bit for my own sake and maybe others. There really are a lot of posts about this now! Please indicate where I may have gone wrong...

1. E1 baits gullible and / or vulnerable people in EvE with a scam.
2. Once a potential victim is found and has shown sufficient vulnerability, they are invited to continue out of game on TS (the bonus room).
3. The scam continues for a few minutes on TS until the victim has been scammed out of all in-game assets.
4. E1 then ransoms the victim's assets through a series of humiliating & escalating non-game related actions & tasks, picking up on any possible weaknesses the victim may have (speech impediment for example).
5. E1 continues this process for as long as it takes for the victim to display alarming levels of psychological torment & distress and snap into outrage.
6. The whole process is recorded and sometimes made public.

What I gather from reading many (but not all) comments is that the player base in general are OK with 1 & 2 as it's all a part of the game we play. Most are still OK with 3 but some don't like taking it out of game (mainly due to subsequent steps I think, might be wrong here though).

4 is beginning to push certain limits that people have, mainly based around extending an EvE scam into real world actions. 5 is seen as thoroughly reprehensible. 6 isn't mentioned too much - some see it as pawn for E1's pleasure, some as further psychological torment of the victim.

That's my rough summary of the most common views from the players.

A minority try to validate E1's actions with things like "the victim should be banned for making threats", "HTFU, it's EvE", "he deserved it", "It's not illegal or in contravention of the EULA" (that's possibly the most common one) and possibly the most outstandingly appalling one is "E1 only did it to this extent once, other times weren't as bad so it's an outlier and is therefore OK".

For what it's worth, I'd say the majority of the EvE player base are morally sound people. The poor reputation that EvE's player base has is undeserved and is based on a very small minority. Reading this thread is evidence of this.

This is the part of RL that I don't agree with. People are beginning to lose all sense of personal responsibility and demanding that other people take responsibility for their actions. Which is wrong. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and choices. This shirking of responsibility and accountability for one's own action is a plague on this world.

Even if what you said is true, if homo"phobia" was a real fear and "racism" wasn't innate in everyone in at least the pretense of social outgrouping. What does it matter?

Do juries decide sentencing based on the pathology of the victim?

Shrugs off request for citation of relevant reference material, insults the person requesting in instead.

I'm noticing a pattern here. Particularly amongst the people on the witchhunt.

LOLwat, victim of an video game scam of imaginary money makes RL death threats, displaying racist and homophobic tendencies. Yes, i believe I do know which way the jury will swing in this case. It's a no brainer really, unless said jury has trouble differentiating between RL and virtual worlds.. What's more when the supposed 'victim' can walk away with just the click of a mousebutton, and maybe 2 more to ensure he never has to come into contact with people he thinks aren't nice to him.

You may not harass other players. You may not cause damage to CCP's reputation.

The laws are there to protect stupid people and their families. Video games don't need these kinds of laws because there is no meaningful consequence where in-game interactions are involved (however we are seeing laws introduced to protect people from real life interactions through digital media). In video games, players are encouraged to screw up and learn from their mistakes and that's exactly what is happening here. The punishment might be harsher than many expect in a video game, but that's what makes the lesson so valuable. It should also teach players to avoid this kind of situation in future, especially in real life. Isn't it a wonderful thing when people can learn important life skills and better themselves through video games?

Already been cited multiple times. You may not harass other players. You may not cause damage to CCP's reputation.

Erotica 1 has done neither of those things.

Already been cited multiple times. You may not harass other players. You may not cause damage to CCP's reputation.

CCP has to take action because this game is rated pegi 12 and allows minors to play. If this happens to a child they are royally screwed and rightfully so. The only way for them to allow this behaviour is to raise the age limit up to 18 or 21 depending on country. Which they I doubt they will do.

You can claim that no one would subject a child to this but that would be a baseless claim. You can claim that this can happen anyway, while this is true CCP will still be held accountable for the fact that they allow this sort of behaviour in a game that allows minors to play.Online Interactions are not rated, but you can't ignore them either. Especially since EO gameplay is mostly online interactions.

As for choice, yes Sohkar had a choice he could have stopped it. Erotica 1 also had a choice, he could have stopped it too. Neither choices are consequential to the question at hand. Does the Eve Online community think what Erotica 1 has done is acceptable?

Except we're not talking about in game. This entire sad episode involved a group of EvE players harassing and humiliating another EvE player. It had nothing to do with spaceships at all. It was outright predatory behavior designed and intended to cause harm to another person.

I really think you need to look at the precedent set on that harassment clause. CCP is VERY loose on it. This is by design. One of their game trailers focuses on taking revenge for actions that happened a year before for god's sake.

Perhaps not in your fantasy world but in the real world she has. Would you like me to link to the forums of the various games forums which are painting EVE players and CCP's premier game as aweful?