Malcanis, in many cases I'm right there with you. I've seen people take things to incredibly cruel levels before they are done.

But I have to be honest, asking someone to read text and sing the gummy bear song doesn't fall into that category in my book... and it apparently doesn't fall into that category in Sohkars book either.

Still, I can appreciate the position that CCP and the CSM was in... and respect the decisions made. It's just unfortunate that it makes it look like caving in to the mob mentality (which I personally don't believe it was).

I think it is clear from the very fact that you raise the question that (a) your intent -- to explain, not to abuse -- would be obvious and also (b) you would have the presence of mind to recognize that you weren't helping and end the conversation.

As anyone who has started a petition knows, EVE GM and Community Reps are battle-scarred veterans with hearts of coal, their bodies increasingly deformed by the horrific demands of their jobs (CCP Guard, for example, was over 2 meters tall when he started at CCP). You would have to work hard to convince them you are a blackguard worthy of banishment to the outer darkness (ie: World of Warcraft or Hello Kitty Online).


I do not agree with the concept of absolute free speech (for example, the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre, or incite a crowd to violence); rather, any limitations on speech should ideally be limited to those intended to prevent harm and encourage rational discourse. I recognize this is a horrible grey area, and that well-intentioned people can disagree on where to draw the lines.

Regardless, you -- as a staunch defender of absolute free speech, no matter how much it hurts -- will have absolutely no problem with me making a statement of my position on the harrassment opinion.


I beg to differ. IMHO, Sohkar was psychologically trapped -- read up on concepts like sunk costs -- and his tormentors took advantage of this.

EVE is CCP's game, and they set the rules of what is and is not acceptable in-game and in its penumbra based on their business interests -- as a believer in absolute free speech, I am sure you also believe in pure laissez-faire capitalism. If you don't like it, you are free to stop doing business with them. But you probably won't -- your own sunk costs will keep you playing, despite the agonizing existential despair you must now be feeling.

Feel free to prove me wrong by quitting -- in which case, can I have your stuff?

Oh stop, these histrionics are unbecoming hardcore gent such as yourself.

CCP made it clear in previous statements in this thread that that would never happen. The CSM did also. You are just being willfully ignorant.

Go forth and fleece some sheep they are waiting for you, and all of their furious bleating notwithstanding, CCP will look on in pride at you nefarious deeds.

However, please refrain from acts out of game that are outright creepy and disturbing, that mayo or mayonoto go good for you...

If this is true than it makes me happy CCP would punish someone for this kind of psychological abuse. It wasn't about scamming, it was about the unneeded abuse that took place after. It is obvious where the line has been drawn.

Also; is this YOUR opinion or is this opinion shared by CCP and updated into the ToS/EULA?

Minerbumping.com is saying E1 has been permabanned.

CCP is very skilled at typing a lot of words to say nothing at all.

Also; is this YOUR opinion or is this opinion shared by CCP and updated into the ToS/EULA?

Yes, I have. And it basically says "don't make people sad out of game".

...
The CSM has a unanimous position on this. CCP have fully satisfied us that they are acting according to the existing TOS & EULA and that erotica1 was fairly treated according to the existing rules.

So Mittani should have been banned in this environment is what youre saying.

Also; any time someone ganks a miner and the miner rages, they ganker will be banned? That meets that emotional requirement that this seems to need. That will change this game HUGELY if true

So the next time someone like Mittens tries to get someone to commit suicide (drunk or otherwise) a ban will be forthcoming?

Why was THIS such a HUGE problem that deserves an instant permaban and that wasnt?

Erotica1 should just say he was drunk. Thats how the last guy got away with it.

Hey tell him to say he was drunk.

So Malcanis, why in your professional opinion should someone running a scam be entirely responsible for stopping? Why in all of this, while the "victim" is fully capable of ending it at any moment does absolutely no responsibility fall to him?

Mynxee said it best, and tbh, this was the argument that persuaded me. Like yourself, I was very concerned about where the line should be drawn so as to prevent attempts to use the "ugh" as a tool for metagaming:

"I guess you have to draw the line at the point where the victim starts to lose emotional control, and that's a different place for everyone and every situation. And there has to be a willingness to recognize that line and honor it with humane behavior. I don't get a sense from Erotica's recording that there was any intent in ever doing that. Not one bit."

to expand on what mynxee said there is that the person with the position of power in the situation is the one with the responsibility to ensure that it doesn't cross the line. Erotica1 signally failed to do this. She very precisely articulated the philosophical issue with what he did (as opposed to a mere emotional reaction), and expressed clearly what he did wrong. Like yourself, I wanted a good definition of "the line" before being comfortable with CCP proceeding. There it is.

So Mittani should have been banned in this environment is what youre saying.

Also; any time someone ganks a miner and the miner rages, they ganker will be banned? That meets that emotional requirement that this seems to need. That will change this game HUGELY if true

This used to be clearer to you, Lucas. You've changed.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3564714#post3564714

The CSM has a unanimous position on this. CCP have fully satisfied us that they are acting according to the existing TOS & EULA and that erotica1 was fairly treated according to the existing rules.

He was banned in this environment. 3 months or so iirc

"Tries to get someone to commit suicide" Read what you just wrote. There shouldn't be any doubt in your mind that a ban should be forthcoming we are talking about human beings here. Are you mindless?

He was banned in this environment. 3 months or so iirc

This used to be clearer to you, Lucas. You've changed.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3564714#post3564714

This used to be clearer to you, Lucas. You've changed.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3564714#post3564714

So Telling someone to go off themselves is worth 3 months, While making a snide remark about someones speech impairment is worth a perma? Please tell me more about how thats even remotely fair...

So Erotic is just 3 months banned, not permabanned then?

Depends whether it's him or whoever he's sharing the acct with that's at the keyboard.

Mr Epeen

Fair enough. Well spoken.

I"m absolutely sure some knuckleheads will try to cite this case after "losing emotional control" to get compensation for a gank or war dec (which will be unsuccessful of course).

I'm a bit concerned about people throwing a fit just to force a person to back away from a scam or prank... but hopefully that flexibility built into CCP's official stance will keep people from abusing it as a "you can't touch me" card.

,,,.

Different situation entirely so I have no idea.