|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 19 post(s) |
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
16
   |
Posted - 2014.03.28 20:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
The OP is well and clearly stated. Other actions beyond that are not really my business; I have confidence that future situations will be dealt with appropriately, if not necessarily in accordance with my wishes.
I am going to go buy some PLEX right now, and further promise to buy pretty spaceship models as soon as CCP can produce them. A company with brains, heart and courage is welcome to my money. |
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 20:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Six PLEX just purchased from a well-run company that cares about its players. |
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 21:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:[quote=Ban Bindy]OK, so point me to "the answer". Point me to where it states what is considered by CCP as "too far". Since the definition varies wildly from person to person, scamming and messing with people will become the equivalent of spinning in circles with a blindfold on throwing darts in a crowded pub. If you don;t hit anyone, it's blind luck.
I don't know how many more times specific answers to vague hypothetical questions are going to be demanded, but real-life lawyers don't give or get those, not even in court. Amateur space lawyers aren't going to get them here.
|
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 00:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
It's not complicated. CCP becomes aware of the sick stuff going on, and decides to end its association with an offender.
CCP cannot police everything that happens on private chat servers, and might never have learned about the Bonus Room. When the cyberbullies publish to the web, however, word gets around and eventually finds its way to the GMs. No cloak-and-dagger theories need be invented to explain some mysterious delay.
And nothing need have changed inside CCP for them to have decided not to allow EVE to be a part of the bullying. |
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 20:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:CCP were caving to public pressure brought on by the witch hunt Ripard started. What are your opinions on that?
Player opinions don't much matter. It's been explained many times that sick crap like the Bonus Room is not something CCP wants associated with their games. Not closely, anyway. The Bonus Room gang stalked people in game, lured them out, and tormented the victims to the limit of their ability.
You think you've discovered a weakness in CCP, that they might worry about public pressure? Every business on Earth shares that worry, and every one will act in ways analogous to what CCP did, when a customer goes creepy on their turf. Caring about hurt feelings is important to human being, and companies care about their images. Furthermore, enthusiastic customers care about those images, too, as well as their own personal reputations.
Just don't expect me to be surprised by this amazing revelation. "Caving"? Find a more substantial accusation, and don't expect this one to sting.
|
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
37
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 14:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Danalee wrote:...So we are in agreement than, when paying for a service where you can do whatever you want unless it crosses a hidden line it's good practice to warn paying customers they are crossing the invisible line...
The line still isn't invisible. This case is clearer, not murkier, than most, in that one of the perps posted the audio files to the Internet for all to see. Multiple instances of verifiable, real-life harassment connected to the game.
I can understand some confusion in a poster who is unaware of the extent of the toxicity, but serial harassers foolish or compulsive enough to out themselves to the world in close association with EVE IP may not merit a warning. Particularly "paying" customers who may be paying only with PLEX converted from scams. I doubt your implied revenue argument is relevant.
If you're running your own bonus room, though, I recommend not publishing the evidence. You'll probably get away with it, without any need for conspiracy theories about invisible lines. |
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 15:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Danalee wrote:Snupe Doggur wrote:Danalee wrote:...So we are in agreement than, when paying for a service where you can do whatever you want unless it crosses a hidden line it's good practice to warn paying customers they are crossing the invisible line... The line still isn't invisible. This case is clearer, not murkier, than most, in that one of the perps posted the audio files to the Internet for all to see. Multiple instances of verifiable, real-life harassment connected to the game. I can understand some confusion in a poster who is unaware of the extent of the toxicity, but serial harassers foolish or compulsive enough to out themselves to the world in close association with EVE IP may not merit a warning. Particularly "paying" customers who may be paying only with PLEX converted from scams. I doubt your implied revenue argument is relevant. If you're running your own bonus room, though, I recommend not publishing the evidence. You'll probably get away with it, without any need for conspiracy theories about invisible lines. The more people dance arround this, the more strongly I feel about how the warning is the best and most common sense solution. To make it totally clear once more; This isn't specificly about that single case. If however in the one case where this whole debate sprouted from, a warning had been issued, we wouldn't have had all the bad publicity, hurt feelings, lost players, frustrated CSM members et all. We'd all be playing the game we love. So, if CCP and the CSM are honestly looking for a way to prevent this kind of things happening and have a better community from it there is no need to choose from an elaborate list of choices and no need to change the rules. They just need improve their communication with the players a little bit. D.  No rules were changed, and a ban is one good way to prevent future similar occurrences.
If this about lobbying for a second chance a the banned player, you should probably address all the known actions, and explain why lifting the ban would be more likely to prevent recidivism than would leaving it in place.
Lest this sound snide, I really do believe that a permaban sends a stronger and clearer message about acceptable behavior. I think it is an example of the better communication you say you want. No lengthy explanations or hair-splitting; just a this-is-unacceptable for anyone who cares to familiarize himself with the evidence, with the evidence provided by the banned player out there if anyone cares to divine levels of unacceptability.
I don't see a mystery. No doubt there are other cases where I might complain, but in this situation there's more than enough to show why any game company might move quickly to distance itself.
|
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 17:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
There's no legal precedent anywhere for everyone getting a second chance to commit every offense, not even for minors. I don't know why anyone would expect CCP to change their TOS in that manner. Some mud you drag CCP's name through is too muddy, and some offenders don't get second chances. |
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2014.04.05 13:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:Taking into account t20, Greed is Good, Mittens, and now Ero, I think it's pretty safe to say one of the unwritten rules of EVE is "Cause CCP embarrassment, expect bans."
In this, of course, CCP is completely unlike every other game, ever. 
CCP Falcon wrote:...CCP strongly disapproves of clear and extraordinary levels of real life harassment against our players in the outside world...real life harassment is morally reprehensible, and verifiable examples of such behavior will be met with disciplinary action against game accounts...We will continue to monitor and evaluate claims of harassment based on our policies and acceptable standards of behavior....
Some fools fall for scams, but epic fools scam themselves right into oncoming banbuses.
|
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 20:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tysun Kane wrote:Man I am just learning about this incident from the Cap Stable podcast I listen to. IMO this RL harassment just went to far BUT I also believe that the only thing that CCP seems to think is wrong is that it made it to there forums and that brings it to to the large audience and including all the new players we have had lately...
That's not the position taken in the OP:
CCP Falcon wrote:...CCP, in collaboration with the CSM, have agreed and would like to state in the strongest possible terms and in accordance with our existing Terms of Service and End User License Agreement, that real life harassment is morally reprehensible, and verifiable examples of such behavior will be met with disciplinary action...
That the perp brought it to the forum himself just made it easily verifiable, obviating questions such as "Did it really happen?" and "Who was involved?" Things could have turned out very differently, but despite all the CSM-blaming tears, the perp did it to himself. For that we can be grateful. |
|
|
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 18:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:...asking CCP to state more clearly what they will tolerate and what is beyond the pale in the game so that you can be a barrack room lawyer and find fault with whatever they come up with.
+1 Thread tl;dr right there.
Harass outside of CCP's servers if that's what floats your boat, but if you choose to associate the harassment with CCP's trademarks and are dumb enough to leave evidence behind, those choice may have consequences inside CCP's servers. If you see a danger to your harassment hobby, get better at it--or at least more discreet about it--before you're told to leave.
|
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.04.12 11:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:...Even if noone puts in a ticket...
Even if. Anyone who's still hazy on the subject should consider actually reading the published TOS/EULA.
|
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 23:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:...All companies will respond to copyright issues, but that's a far cry from responding to player interaction out of game. That's a legal issue, not a ToS issue. I'd very much expect CCP to respond if someone violated their copyright. But nothing on that recording is copyrighted material...
Still fighting the good fight, I see, and still wrong:
CCP Falcon wrote:...CCP, in collaboration with the CSM, have agreed and would like to state in the strongest possible terms and in accordance with our existing Terms of Service and End User License Agreement, that real life harassment is morally reprehensible, and verifiable examples of such behavior will be met with disciplinary action against game accounts in accordance with our Terms of Service.
Harassment poses a potential problem in any virtual world, and CCP has dealt with cases of this nature for more than a decade. We will continue to monitor and evaluate claims of harassment based on our policies and acceptable standards of behavior...
It's really no good continuing to claim that the harassment cases before us aren't TOS/EULA matters, when CCP clearly says they are in post #1. |
Snupe Doggur
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 21:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:[quote=Katrinna Voight-Kampf]just remember, if someone in EVE touches you in a bad place, you blog about it...
Reminder: if you use the game to lure a player outside of the game to harass them, then are careless enough to brag about it on CCP's own forums, posting the evidence of your misuse of the game and making it easy for the rest of the world to find it in close association with CCP's trademarks, in-game consequences are more likely--no matter how many accomplices complain.
|
|
|
| |
|