Shill blurt

And it would be his fault for not taking his meds as he was ordered by his physician. CRAZY PEOPLE ARE CRAZY how do we have anything to do with that?

Just like ID Software feels horribly about how they are responsible for releasing Doom and causing columbine to happen.

...
Yes, if I was the catalyst that caused someone to kill people, I'd feel a bit guilty. But if that catalyst is causing the person to lose internet spaceship in a game that is literally about losing, killing, and taking internet spaceships, how is that my FAULT?

What about when someone kills themselves because they went AFK and their mission navy raven died in a mission? Whose fault is it then?

I...

This isn't about whether or not you found Erotica 1 or the bonus room distasteful. This is about consistency and fair application of policy from CCP, whether the player has a CSM tag or no.

...

Personal responsibility for your own actions is a big part of the game and a big part of real life too....
The only difference between the two is that Erotica has been punished and Sokhar has not.

Mike used an analogy of some boys, in a school he worked at, that had sexually assaulted female students - as comparable to what occurred between Eros and Sohkar(in that first podcast) to let people know where he stands in regards to this incident. Can someone explain how he equates physical sexual assault to be even remotely the same as to what occurred between Eros and Sohkar?

They have explicitly stated before that they do not deal with anything that happens outside of EVE communications, even if it begins there. Other people have been actually insulted and threatened outside of EVE and they have always been told to contact the authorities if they feel the need but CCP can't act. This is clearly a departure from that rule. It doesn't matter if they found it objectionable in this instance, it's still them setting a precedent. The bonus room isn't even close to the worst I've heard people being treated, yet it got CCPs attention.

And it's now going to leave a permanent mark on people freedom within the game. Everyone will have to constantly be thinking if the other side of a conversation is going to suddenly throw a fit and start smashing up their keyboard because you said something they don;t like to hear. Whether or not people agree with what CCP did isn't going to change that effect.

...
The 99% that don't care are sheep.....

lol?

So calling people sheep, not OK. Calling everyone who's opinion differs from your own an alt of a single character, fine? Is that how that works?

Gosh, all of Ripard Teg's alts are annoying.

It's not a strawman at all (and when is the whole "lets call everything a strawman" going to go out of fashion?). It's pointing out that in the exact same post where you state that calling people sheep is a mistake you refer to another group of people as alts of an individual. Regardless of whether that's everyone you are referring to or some people, why is it any different? Why do you get to generalise while others aren't allowed? You're a hypocrite, that's why.

In some ways we all have to remember that E1 has done something that not many players will ever manage to do.

He made a name for himself in Eve.

Not a bad achievement considering.

...

...
I dont like the EVE where I can get banned for doing something to someone when the person I didnt it to didnt care enought to petition it, but someone else blogs instead

...
Pretty strong indictment that people rushed the barricades on his behalf a little prematurely, and are projecting their own personal biases into the mix.

..And the extent to which they'll enforce their EULA is very important, as once it covers twitter, blogs and the like, it's directly affecting our rights to freedom of speech..

...

You want to destroy that player latitude by having CCP make hard and fast rules. It's you that wants to ruin the game by restricting sandbox play.

Mr Epeen

Some of you guys are happy for CSM members to wage personal crusades against individual members and have CCP act on it in fear of bad publicity, whether or not the individual actually broke any rules, and even when the "victim" himself says it isn't an issue and no one should be banned

We get it. We understand that you want themepark hello kitty online. We understand that you use underhanded scummy tactics like evoking ****, murder, racism, and all that other jazz in order to try and bolster your hopelessly weak arguments, and try and threaten CCP with bad publicity if your little temper tantrums don't have the desired effect.

We understand. It's ok.

Now biomass and sod off back to another game. EVE isn't for you.

Firstly, it's "pwned" or at the very worst "powned", a play on "owned", unless you meant a he oned us (rather than twoed us).

... And don't forget, we have a right to protest against what we feel is unfair....

Ya, the summer of rage did nothing to change anything in this game.

oh wait, no the opposite

...
Getting on coms that you can turn off at any time isnt RL harassment to anyone but CCP and only that because they were forced to care. Pretend anything else and youre fooling yourself.

nah Id rather sit here and make you cry lol

Or act like you currently are. It shows its getting under your skin XD

...

... Never gonna happen. If you don't like it, you can leave, but you will never force our silence.

...

What is considered "real life harassment" in the eyes of CCP in accordance with the TOS and EULA?

Sorry, thats neither an excuse nor our problem

If CCP think that clear rules will create more problems that shows a much larger problem in this game and with this company in general.

...

No Butthurt here lol, the fact remains however that all was well in the world of Eve until Ripard Teg began his campaigning. Do we infer from this that we can do anything we like until someone blogs about it? This is the core of the issue. Do you only get banned when CCP get bad publicity? Is that the invisible line, because if so there's no way of knowing if you've crossed it until someone popular blogs about it afterwards.

Hardly a fair way to run a company is it?

I'm sure him being vice chair of the CSM had nothing to do with it right?

You are supporting a change which does just that. How else can it be seen?

Citation needed. Really. I've not seen ANY evidence whatsoever that this is the case. I've seen you guys state it, but I've never actually seen any evidence that this situation exists. And that's because it's rubbish. It's made up to give you an artificial footing.

And think about it, if people actively want to harass, they still can by distancing themselves from it. Making a ruling or not doesn't change that for people that actually aim to harass. The only people hit by this change are people who want to play the villain (as suggested by CCP) and RP with it. Now they have no way of knowing if the random guy they just blew up and laughed at is going to cry harassment. Now they don't know if someone going apeshit over their space pixels means they have to immediately stop or not.

...

My ultimate point is this. CCP should not get involved with the decisions people make, however poor or self destructive they are. The bonus room is all about decision making.
...
There is not a clear line between in game and real life because EVE is real. EVE is human interaction in a sci-fi setting. Nothing more and nothing less. Real Life harassment is intrinsic to the nature of human interaction.

[...]If someone is so pathetic and weak that they kill themselves over losing space pixels in a chat room they had full control of leaving, then the world is better of without them....

[. I see why it was done, doesn't necessarily make it right though....

Of course you like it. You don't want scammers in the game so you can carebear about, not worrying about people ruining all your fun! But that's not what EVE was designed for. The idea is you're supposed to be able to play the villain, but now it's clear you can play the villain as long as single individual in a position of power doesn't have a sad about it. You care only about the result, not the fact that CCP have gone against what they have previously stated on several occasions, and not the fact that all of this comes from a single persons agenda. You are willing to look past the "how" because you didn't like a player and liked the end result.

...

You realize youre arguing against your own playstyle, yes? If that guy you kill has an emotional reaction, thats sufficient to get you banned, for playing EVE. All it takes is a report.

Hell it doesnt even take that, it takes a blog. Which is why I kinda think youre lying about your playstyle.

...
Scamming is part of the game because this game punishes the stupid when they do stupid things. But in-game scamming is not the topic and it is not real life harrassment.