So has the EULA actually changed at all?

Unsurprisingly, we also raised this issue.

Let's just say that anyone attempting to use this ruling for metagaming is going to be very unsatisfied with the results.

They'll probably complain about it for months in the forums of whatever MMO they go on to play next.

ITT: A few people who seem to completely lack the faculty of comprehending what might entail "clear and extraordinary levels of real life harassment against players in the outside world."

So what it all comes down to is that I can no longer gank people in WH space, because I might gank a thin skinned cry baby who goes all berserk on me and reports me to CCP... is that what's happening here now ?

tl;dr: no you don't.

Like people aren't going to rule lawyer anyway? I'm more worried that through convincing petitions, people are going to get banned for things that other people get away with.

Nobody is "rules lawyering". We just want clarification so people won't get banned because they asked for a song and some random threw a fit, or that they will get banned for that, and know it. It's really not that big a deal, but so may people are so against Erotica 1 that they want to argue with anything that seems to be against the OP.

Exactly, which is why they need to write their own definition so we know what one to use. It's clear the one they've had for a while is not the same, since Erotica 1 is now banned and previously wasn't, despite not changing his MO.

It clearly is the same, or they would have announced to have changed it.

Can you be held to the ToS/EULA despite having forgotten that you breached them? Yes, clearly. A poor memory is very rarely much of a defence for anything.

Going to an extreme real world example (as it's often easiest to demonstrate a general principal at extremis): if you killed someone 20 years ago and burried the bodies, you could ewell expect to be hauled to jail when they dug them up regardless of a hell of a lot of time passing.

You can't expect chronological distance to be a defence for breaching the rules. The simple rule of thimb should be to stay clear of EULA/ToS violation if you want to stay clear of trouble and don't rely on burrying the evidence long enough that folks thing it's a past transgression not worth digging up.

So when does that extend to the guy ganking the miner?

So when does that extend to the guy ganking the missioner?

So when does that extend to the guy ganking the incursion runner?

Because as Malcanis said, they wont have the protection of this decision and hinted to dire reprecussions if they try

It doesn't, in all of the above cases. As has been stated repeatedly, ad nausam on this thread by Malkanis and others. I'm not sure whether you've not read their posts,a re trying to make a slipper-slope argument or what...

CCP disagree and the long and short of it is that it's their rules and their decision. If you don't like that fact you need to take it up with them. Fortunately they've provided a nice button for petitioning and another nice button to unsubscribe if you _really_ don't like the result.

AND you might get banned. You published those facts publicly O.o

I'll be sure to file a petition every single time someone says something mean to me on Teamspeak, Mumble or Vent.

I guess that's what this announcement means.

I am unaware of what your talking about and would have to review the facts on this case before rendering an opinion. Bear in mind games, communities and people evolve and change over-time . With the serous advent of social media the internet is more prevalent in our lives. That is the reason rules and regs with regards to virtual inter-action now exist. What might have been unacceptable or acceptable seven years ago has changed in some instances . Its all about your point of view. And like it or not CCP point of view is a little clearer with this action. Whether you think that's good or bad is up-to you . Personally well done ripard teg for bringing this disgusting behavior to light. And to CCP you took your sweet time, but did what i believe to be in everyone interests , from my perspective

nope

ok skimmed the mittani thread. THE T2 back then really annoyed me quit eve for a while as a result . CCP has changed a lot since then with regards to policies of in-game interactions and use by employees. But yes in that incident seven years ago CCP were in the wrong completely . Thank fully since then a lot has changed and with the internet being so widespread, CCP and other corporations cant sensor people without damn good reason .E.G i express disapproval of corporation A its fine

E.g i express hatred and state that poeple should attack said corporation (A) thats not and probably i would receive some form of punishment

He was banned for leaking personal information, not for leaking the misdeeds. (or so they say)

His name was banned because CCP was butthurt that they got put out.

I couldn't figure out how a person who participated willingly at every step of the process could be "harassed." I admit, I just didn't think of the one glaring possibility that should be obvious to all.

Lets say i put a gun to someones head, and tell him unless he sings me a song i'll shoot him, if he starts singing did he then do it of his own free will?. He had two choices, he could sing or he could die. Most people would say i forced him, i guess you would says he just wanted to sing more then he wanted to die, and acted of his own free will.

If you are keeping all of someones in-game assets hostage, which he may have spend years gathering, it's probably not hard to make someone do all sorts of things willingly.

If it's just pixels, then give me all of your pixels. If you won't then clearly they aren't "just pixels".


Look, you played, you lost. CCP 1 You 0. Be gracious in defeat friend.

Yeah, and PRETEND this **** wont happen lol


Wonder if we can get allianced banned if we get enough ppl together that they harassed us or touched us in bad places? Like the Goons are harassing all of High sec. We should get them banned XD

I think THATS pretty clear without reading a pot that says that lol

EVE Radio is quite interesting tonight.

Ripard Teg Refuses to go on the show with Erotica and Sohkar to discuss this. I wonder why?

now now now, let's be sensible.
aren't you overreacting?

Next you gnna quit too...

well plz send some stuff my way..

Thanks in advance!

Awaiting Ripard Tegs comments.

Well said Mara... it's almost funny how when things don't go their way, they start dancing on the head of a pin trying to justify painfully obvious wrongs. Not sure why. Inability to admit they simply are wrong??? Kind of scary in a way. Glad to see CCP gets it despite their angst to justify anything.

Go back and read Trebor's post again and ask yourself if ganking someone again, after they have already gone ballistic in local once, is now against the rules?

I don't know about all this harassment nonsense, but I will say unequivocally that Ripard Teg should be banned for his part in this.
For a CSM to purposely incite a witch hunt against another player by using loaded and slanderous terminology in a highly polemical blog is unacceptable and morally reprehensible.

I am shocked and dismayed that CCP has let this person so aggressively promote their own personal agenda, even to their own detriment.

I am also disappointed that CCP has such a double standard whereby a CSM member is able to write a venomous, libelous blog that literally resulted in another player receiving death threats and harassment and receives no punishment, while this player, who broke NO rules and was operating on a third party program gets permanently banned.

I thought the CSM were supposed to represent the community? Ripard knew the damage he would cause, not only to CCP, but to the victim of his hate filled, slanderous blog post. Should our CSM not be held to a higher standard?

If Ripard had a problem with Erotica 1 he should have done what every other player in this game must do: file a petition.

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.



Ban Ripard Teg!

Welcome to the New Eve, where you can write an inflammatory blog post, claim an individual you don't like is literally a torturer (or rapist, as Ripard has done before) and get them banned for stupid, trifling things like making someone sing a song.

Welcome to the themepark Ripard has been dreaming of since he first mistakenly started playing

Edit: I also don't quite agree with Malcanis' reasoning for being happy sohkar isn't banned, as he's arguing that someone issuing real life death threats and spewing racist remarks is, in certain contexts, allowable. That's another dangerous, stupid precedent to set.

At the same time, I am happy sohkar isn't banned because I don't think he should be banned for an emotional outburst made entirely outside of EVE and all other CCPs services... but thats where the inconsistency comes in, since Ero was banned

"I would like you to commit suicide, is that clear enough?"

"I believe people like you should be strung up on a pole out side of town and left for the animals"

"If I find out where you live, I'll come by and put a bullet in your fat head"

"you will be dead by then as your social life will bring you to major depression and you will hang yourself"

"when you decide to blow your brains out please make sure to stream it live because I'll enjoy knowing that another loser has offed himself"

He was also banned because of the publicity it was attracting, and like it or not this game is in need of new blood.

Maybe. If you had any relevance and your opinion was in any way acceptable to more than 10 people out of the 500,000 subbed in the game.

If uou have questions about CCP policy, ASK CCP

You dont need a law degree to understand that. I was taught in 2nd grade, how to write "Dear, XXX" at the beginning of a letter, and how to write the right address on the envelope.

Grief play (source)
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.

This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.

An example of grief play would be the so called "Can baiting" in starter systems. An experienced player drops a cargo container with some items and waits for a new player to take from it. The new player is flagged and promptly attacked and killed by the owner of the container. Doing the same in the systems the Blood Stained Stars epic arc takes you through is also considered grief play and will not be tolerated.


Where does CCP draw the line between a Griefer wardec and Grief Play? And will recent events change the way the rules are interpreted and/or enforced?

In CCP's case, I think the big issue is going to be that certain entities in game now hold vast amounts of virtual property, some properly in the area of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars given the conversion rate of isk to plex. In light of that it may become worthwhile and cost effective for someone to eventually sue CCP for damages in respect of losses.

Yeah I quit. Unsubbed all accounts. Won't be resubbing unless CCP scrapes the crap out of its themeparked sandbox.

Awesome.

- continues crying that he can't destroy infrastructure without fighting the owners ("but i want to! therefore i'm entitled to" )

- complains eve is "themeparked"