Quite a lot of it actually.

You walk down any street in a lot of countries and just punch somebody in the face and give the excuse he is a racist, you will still be charged with a crime.

stay well clear of that line by not ransomming, scamming, awoxing, ganking or otherwise doing anything EVE is about?

I'm sure you'll say nono, that's all nicely withing the invisible lines drawn.

All good.

I give up on all you sheeple.

D.

Nope.
It has been reported that we can do all that and than some.
BUT
If your "victim" "feels" "threatened" you should "back off" or be "banned".
So how far from which line should I be to prevent someone from having feelings over stuff?

D.

Not empty quoting.

Wat.

AH HAHAHAHAHA

Okay... I'll take the "Ssieth has liked your post" notification to mean "yes". Great... moving right along then:

It's **Definition Time** XD

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harass

Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation

So, by that definition, anyone in this game who subjects anyone else in this game to "aggressive pressure or intimidation" is skirting the harassment portions of the EULA.

Now name something you can do in game, in an adversarial context, that doesn't fit that definition.

Go on.

I'll wait.

***Tinfoil Alert***

Told you it was tinfoil

That is not responsible journalism

Fair enough, his job isn't that of a professional journalist, but I'd expect more than sensationalist, irresponsible ranting and raving from someone who is supposed to understand and represent the community to CCP, and to a lesser degree represent the game and ccp as a whole.

OK, so what if a non-eve player takes EVE players into TS rooms and harasses them? Or joins in on EVE players in public TS chatroom and harasses them? Are CCP going to step in there? No.

What about if (or in the hundreds of occasions this has happened in the past) an EVE player on a third party blog or forum throws personal attacks at another EVE player, are they going to step in? No.
What about if someone were to harass another EVE player on twitter? No, they wouldn't.

The fact is they've stated on many occasions that they do not deal with third party services. Read Remiels blog, and you'll see pretty damn clearly what their response is. So if they are doing so now, their rules have changed, so where is the new line. What is and isn't considered third party to EVE?

By the way, it's all well and good for you to just insult everyone who isn't agreeing with you, but how the **** does that make you any different? Hypocrite.

People still think the bonus room is a bad thing? No one forces anyone to go into the bonus room. The only thing keeping a "victim" there is desperation over virtual assets. The same "duress" could be asserted on a ransom victim caught in a gank or gatecamp where their virtual property is in danger, and they are relatively powerless in the situation.

I see the bonus room as a continuation of a scam, the victim fell for the isk doubling trick a few dozen times, so the scammer proceeds to relieve him of everything he owns - via scamming. The pressure is part of the scam and part of the game.

No, but they are still defaming EVE right? So CCP would want to react.

Why not? Someone could hound another player on a forum or a blog, and they could even do so after scamming them out of some stuff. Why does it matter if it was on voice comms or not? The situation is still the exact same thing. At no point does the "victim" have his freedom to simply walk away taken from him.

And if someone is harassing someone else on teamspeak, that's not a matter for CCP, that's a matter for the authorities and the owner of the specific teamspeak server. How can you not see that this is absolutely identical?

Clear as mud, thanks.

So your stance is "harassing other players is fine, just don't publicise it". Righto, I'll add that the the ever growing list of individual interpretations of their ruling.

Just FYI, Erotica 1's evidence also showed the "victim" hurling real life death threats and racial abuse, as well as several other people on the bonus room side. Seems strange they were so selective in the interpretation of the evidence. It almost seems like they weren't even responding to the evidence at all, but to the public outcry and the CSM with a personal vendetta.

In the exact same way that personal attacks on twitter have nothing to do with them.

So then their rules should state that. They shouldn't pretend nothing has changed, then ban someone for doing something that was fine last month. They also shouldn't ignore the other highly rule breaking behaviour on that very same recording, and they shouldn't be stating that they do not deal with third party communications, then base a ban off of them.

As Remiel has stated, it's not about the decision they have taken, nobody blames them for thinking Erotica 1 has broken some rules, but they need to consistently enforce them. All they;ve done here is shown that a CSM with a vendetta and a screaming public gets them to take action, while the act of actually harassing someone does not.

So why then do players who have in game actions then take them out of game to forum or a blog or twitter to attack and harass those same players not get a ban hammer? Why is there clearly stated responses from GM stating that "There is nothing we can do with out-of-game activities. We can only offer assistance or take a further look when all the correspondences or conversations happened within EVE"?
Source

The ambiguity comes with how far into third party services the rules extend. Previously this was "not at all" as clearly stated by GMs. Now, it's clear that has changed. So what has it changed to?

But to you as well, thanks for the suggestion, I do appreciate you looking out for me and ensuring I have a clear idea of my options.

how CCP was forced to feel by the masses and corrupt CSM you mean?

You've met me? When did that happen? I'm afraid it didn't make a lasting impression.

Well realistically, there's loads, but to lead with a few:

• How far outside of EVE does the EULA/ToS now extend?
• What mediums are covered by the harassment rules now that jurisdiction has been extended?
• As the previously stated response from GMs is "There is nothing we can do with out-of-game activities. We can only offer assistance or take a further look when all the correspondences or conversations happened within EVE.", is the EULA/ToS to be updated to reflect this?
• Are bans being applied retroactively, and if so, how far back are scenarios being investigated as harassment?
• Can members of the community who have previously petitioned against harassment closed off due to the rule above reopen their tickets and have them reinvestigated under the new rules, and if so how far back can that be done?

ADDRESS THEM TO CCCP

I disagree, there's always more to say. It's never to late to take on board more responses to a subject and continue to re-evaluate your own position and the positions of others.

Sure I've said things out of anger. I, however, have never and would never repeatedly hurl racist remarks at another individual, no matter what the circumstances. And I most certainly would not hurl abuse after choosing to perform random tasks asked of me over a computer game when I could easily walk away at any time.

Not only do I want to repeat Sokhar was abusive but also that said abuse started early on in the conversation not after 2 hours of stalling and ranting on his part and that of the others present.
Also he wasn't abused and there was no intent to harm him. To add insult to injury, intent can't be made clear by listening to that recording and usually those things don't have the effect it had with Sokhar. If the intent was to get the contestant to rage than they failed 99.9% of the time.
You think I fail to grasp the wider situation while ignoring the blogpost of Ripard that got this whole mess started in the first place. That's the wider situation, sorry you fail to realise that.

Anyhow, so you don't condone calling fellow players stupid because they have a different opinion than you. And Lucas prefers CCP to answer the questions directed to them instead of another player. I feel you should at least respect that.

Wait... CSM Mike Azariah thinks it's cool to call people stupid. I'll concede and go cry in a corner after being forum neutered by a CSM.


Or not.

The wider picture is that Erotica 1 has been doing this for a long time and has been putting this out there for a long time.
On top of that the specific case of Shokar was even linked on these forums and allmost everyone was laughing about it or shoked by the death threats, racism and gay bashing in the recording.

UNTILL a member of the CSM posted a blog post, a month later saying Ero was a terrible person, torturing players et all.
He posted this because CCP didn't want to ban Ero when he asked them to.
THAT is the wider picture.

D.

You are perfectly correct. That in no way excuses Erotica 1's behaviour, which is why I am not jumping up and down and demanding Erotica 1 be unbanned. I just want the rules to be consistent, so all victims are treated the same. People should be refused help because the harassment took part outside of the game, then see another player get help for a different out of game harassment all because a CSM member chose that particular case to start up a hate campaign. Either third party communications are covered by the EULA, or they aren't. Not "sometimes they are if enough people scream about it". That leaves a lot of people feeling like they are too unimportant for the rules to be enforced for them.

To make things worse, in this particular case, Sohkar even stated himself that Erotica 1 should not be banned, so the actual victim in this case was not asking to be helped. So victims who are asking for help are told "There is nothing we can do with out-of-game activities. We can only offer assistance or take a further look when all the correspondences or conversations happened within EVE.", while a victim who is accepting what happened as a matter of a bad choice is having the rules bent in his favour due to public outcry,

It's pretty easy to state that under no circumstance would I turn to racial abuse since I'm not in any way a racist. When you are pushed you tend to strike out more instinctively and say things before your mind has filtered them. Racist remarks are not filtered out during my every day speech, they are simply not generated to begin with, so while I may use a vast array of selected profanities when pushed beyond a limit, there is no situation ever in which I would hurl racist abuse voluntarily, regardless of my level of stress.

I certainly wouldn't use them in the way they were used on the recording. Have you actually listened to it? They are not just the odd word thrown out in a moment of anger, they are calculated racist attacks.

I agree with most of this, but the problem I still have is that other people being found in game and harassed out of game are still given the line "There is nothing we can do with out-of-game activities. We can only offer assistance or take a further look when all the correspondences or conversations happened within EVE.". Why was this exact response, which is a response from a GM, not given to this scenario? Why in this one instance is an "out of game activity"? When not "all the correspondences or conversations happened within EVE"?

If this rule was still being enforced, nothing would have happened, since none of the harassment happened in EVE.

Don't want to. I am exercising my right to free speech. I'm pretty sure we've covered this. I tell you what, continue to suggest the same thing to me over and over, while the rest of us continue the discussion.

Their influence isn't clear at all. Previously they have states quite explicitly that if all communications are not in EVE they do nothing. It really is (or was) that simple. If you have a problem out of EVE you should take it up with the law enforcement or the service owners.

And of course, they can react however they wish, that's their right. They can even tell us absolutely nothing about the rules, that again is their right, but that doesn't mean we have to like it or agree.

I'll try again:

We all know shadoo's outburst.
He humiliated a player and called him among other things a ******.
IF at that time a CSM would have had an axe to grind and blogged about it you can bet your bottom dollar he'd have no problems finding a couple dozen forum trolls to start a threadnaught.
What I know now from what is happened is that CCP would have banned him. Rightly so, the video even has ingame footage, no doubt it happened in EVE online, not on some teamspeak server where they have no control over.

Or do you think they wouldn't have?

D.

Prove it maybe?

D.

I didn't realise you were harassing me. Does that maybe make a difference?

D.

Because goat simulators are more important than Mr. "I am a minority- a white male American who was in the Army" Erotica1 ?

I did not call anyone stupid (that you know of)

I asked why the choice was binary . . . . why either/or not both (or neither)

But if you wish to take offence I am curious. Should I be banned? If you don't take offence but a third person does for you, then falls the banhammer?

If CCP decides I am just being a smart ass (as I occasionally am) and that any offence taken (by victim or third party) is overdoing it do they have the right to choose whether to ban me or not, based on their own judgement?

m

I did not call anyone stupid (that you know of)

I asked why the choice was binary . . . . why either/or not both (or neither)

But if you wish to take offence I am curious. Should I be banned? If you don't take offence but a third person does for you, then falls the banhammer?

If CCP decides I am just being a smart ass (as I occasionally am) and that any offence taken (by victim or third party) is overdoing it do they have the right to choose whether to ban me or not, based on their own judgement?

m

I was out for a while in this thing called the real world.

Over rated.

Actually I am trying to get out of here but I have so much time invested I keep feeling like I am drawn back in involuntarily.

m

I am not joking, here.

The NDA is NDA'd

m

Yes, because they do not want their double standards and inconsistent enforcement being put under the spotlight.

+1

Politicians eh.

Seemed to work well for him.

There are plenty of basement dwelling social misfits and closet sociopaths who will defend it.

I have to admit that now the question has been asked it's a bit puzzling why there has been no article on TMC.

I find it a bit hard to credit that they think the goat simulator is more important, even if it has a certain novelty value.

This.

I haven't seen you make a good case for anything in these threads either, by the way. Step up your game, son, before you don't have a game left.

I doubt those who've already dug in on the "Ripard Teg got Erotica banned" and "CCP had no jurisdiction/was wrong to ban him" positions will care one way or another, but the podcasts linked by Mike Azariah in his CSM thread are very informative (insofar as his NDA allows) about what actually has been going on.

Up until this CCP did not, ever, under any circumstances get involved in out of games communications

I pretty much *never* listen to podcasts because a lot of times it's, like, pleeeeease get to the point, but these turned out to be worth listening to.

I won't draw any conclusions here or connect the dots from what Mike was saying. People who listen will decide on their own. He comes across as very measured and even-handed, and I personally appreciated that.

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?

You're right, they simply want to unburden their souls on the GD community with circular arguements because that makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE...

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.

After careful thought, I've decided that you are all right.

Now someone give me a damn like. It's killing me to sit at 4999.

Mr Epeen

It was. But just by a hair.

I feel much better now and can happily go watch The Walking Dead reruns for the rest of the day.

Mr Epeen

The most recent is Here. You may be able to find that in other places too as it's their stock response, though they have rules against releasing their responses.

In game you weren't allowed to harass and threaten, since obviously CCP have a legal obligation to stop that. Outside of that though they don't, and I don't know many MMOs that would step in an dictate your behaviour on third party comms. I mean apart from anything else, verification is an issue. You could argue that this case is different as Erotica 1 had nothing to hide, but then do they really want to set a precedent of "if you want to harass someone, do it in secret".

Then on top of that, take a transcript of the voice comms, type it out in game with someone, then report the conversation as harassment. If they whole conversation happened in a chat channel the only person that would have been banned is Sohkar, since Erotica 1 and co said absolutely nothing that would constitute harassment in game. The only reason it's classed as harassment here is because people can hear someone getting worked up. Do you REALLY think that's the first time someone's got worked up about EVE? I've seen people being bumped for several hours in a freighter, getting absolutely irate in local chat, then eventually being let go as they can;t complete the gank. How is that not harassment? The player is clearly irate and yet they continue to bump right? So how is it different? It's different because you can;t hear it and don't have a CSM banging on about torture.

Indeed it is. Run along if you can't handle a simple difference of opinion. Just because your opinion is your doesn't mean it's right and certainly doesn't mean that only "a couple" of people are opposed to it.

You mean keeping a pod scrammed for hours? Seen that done too. So those people should be banned?

And what about the freighters where they are bumped for hours, get irate, continue to be bumped for more hours, then don't end up getting ganked because the ganker can't find enough firepower. Is that harassment? Should those people be banned?

Up until this decision the answer for both of those would be categorically no, as proven by the fact that those thing happen, and forum posts go up about them nearly every time. CCP themselves might link you their HTFU video, that's about the best you'll get. Now it's questionable. And that's where there's been a change, and that's what kills the sandbox.

CCP have changed the limitation of their EULA

Sure, like CCP I'll state that you should use your judgement and aim not to harass or attack anyone else within your post. Here's where I'll go away from where CCP have now turned. My jurisdiction ends with the blog. Anything that happens outside the blog, whether it involves to blog or not will not be moderated by me and no action will be taken on the blog regarding your actions outside of it.

Good job.

Well you've found the fundamental difference of opinion. From my point of view, CCP have stated that 3rd party communications are not covered. I mean to quote their very own ToS, section 5
So since this action occurred outside of their game servers and web site, and CCP acted, this is a clear departure from this statement, no to mention the leaked GM correspondence that reiterate it's not their problem, and victims of harassment outside of the game have been previously told to HTFU, including previous victims of the bonus room.

But no, of course, nothing changed. Sure...

But this isn;t about what you think is good and bad behaviour or what I think is good an bad behaviour. How are you still nto getting that that is beside the point. The only point is that CCP have acted on something they have previously explicitly stated they will not act on yet haven;t stated where the new line is drawn.

I get the impression that you seem to think I'm petitioning to unban Erotica 1. I couldn't give a flying **** what happens with regard to that situation, but whatever way it falls, I feel we deserve to know where the line is drawn. Are 3rd party forums covered? What about twitter, facebook, blogs? Or is it just voice comms and singing that's banned?