Your options are basically biased to number 2, which I believe is your preferred course of action. While I want to believe you were trying to be fair, options 1 and 3 are throw-away/straw man courses of action that are not plausible.

All of this isn't a hard thing to accept, CCP is a business and will run it's business as they see fit. If they feel they need to update the EULA or change their policies, they will and they don't need a poll from the General Discussion boards or CSM input to do it. If you don't like the decisions that they are making, then learn to live with it or vote with your wallet. It's not hard.

Branching off the cookie cutter list: I want CCP to clearly, in black and white terms to define what "harassment" is.

Does OP represent the unified position of the entire CSM?

Speaking about being objective your forgot the part where this choice will include famine in Africa and killing little ponies.

I am fairly sure that the CSM could advise that to CCP, but it is not feasible for CCP to take on that route as something as "harassment" cannot be easily or clearly defined, and would do little change. Your view is the dramatic one of an iron fist rule by CCP, which would not be the case.

What does it mean for the CSM that people would go for "option one" have you truly considered the implications of option one and three, or just forwarded the logical conclusion that the second option brings and opened the thread?

Could you also advice CCP to state their position on policing activities outside of EVE. i'm all fine with CCP imposing whatever rules they want on us, in game. however, if my account is at risk for things i do outside of eve, then i'm not particularly comfortable with that.

in eve, i am dave stark.
outside of eve, i am dave not-stark.

Wait a second. I never said that. I don't want #1, #2, or #3.

I never said that I wanted the bar to be a set at a far lower level then what we have. Otherwise, I would have just said "1" and ended my post.

I never said the defination needed to be "rigid". Simply clear, concise, and applicable to most of the situations that come up. - while retaining some flexibility for situations that fall outside of the scope of the rules. The special situations - sure, I can understand those needing the current system of personal judgement calls by CCP.

I want clear, simple to understand, concise rules with a degree of flexibility that allow for specific situations to be addressed within the scope of the rules, I want transparency as to how these rules are applied on a case to case basis, and I want them clearly communicated to all players via the EULA.

That's not too much to ask.

Wow.

I am speechless.

You get to have a seat on the CSM, and you openly refer to paying customers and your fellow gamers as "Dickbags".

Simply awful. I hope you are removed from the CSM soon. I don't want you representing the game I love.

Let us ganking as an example.

Is ganking somebody once every 2 days for 30 days harassment?

Is ganking somebody once a day for 30 days harassment?

Is simply following somebody around for 5 days saying your going to gank them but actually not ganking them intimidation and a form of harassment?

Would it be intimidation and a form of harassment if you followed them for 6 days, 7 days 8 days?

What option would 1 would require is for CCP to arbitrary give specifically numbers on many different things it would be insane and for ganking, just easier to ban it outright.

So, what you are saying is a system of "Don't be a "dickbag", if you are found being a "dickbag" (whatever the hell that means from person to person), you may be banned, you may not be banned, figure it out on your own." is a valid system to run our beloved game by, and will be effective in keeping Eve amazing and providing for a sandbox experience with emergent gameplay?

Please, explain to me how the idea that CCP defining this will lead to your dramatic view of things.

If the community feels itself unable to keep itself within reasonable limits, then the alternative is for CCP to explicitly define those limits and I doubt anyone would like the result of that, because that definition would have to cope with the most vulnerable and least resilient of CCP's customers.

I can see it defined clearly yet still leaving room for flexibility, I am surprised you cannot, to be honest.

How about we start simple. Let's clearly state that threats against a person in the real world are a banable offense, and will not be tolerated. Let's clearly state if out of game communication channels can be considered as evidence in deciding if a player can be subjected to a suspension or a ban. Let's come to a logical agreement (We could even take a vote!) in regards to how we feel about allowing homophobic or racist communication inside our game.

It's a start. We don't even have to go much further from that, i'm wonderful with the rest being as it stands: up to CCP, and on a case by case basis.

My problem right now: there's WAY too much gray area. We can't and should not eliminate it all, but we need to narrow it down a touch. It's the right thing to do.

As a player, I would not be appalled by what he said.

As a member of the CSM, I assumed he would keep his conversation a touch more highbrow and respectful. I was wrong. It's not a big deal, I was not personally offended. Just surprised.

Malcanis, you're not objectively presenting the points. Your disgust of option 1 is just appalling and that's fine, you have your own opinion.

Don't make that so obvious though and answer every question about option 1 with "is that really what you want? REALLY?".

In the end, the answer is pretty obvious. I mean, here's an example:

Everyone here agrees that **** is a horrible, bad thing. Lets say I come across the blog of an Eve player that discusses an incident of what I feel to be classic date ****. They also talk about Eve online on the blog too, making it a part of the Eve community.

It's incumbent on CCP at that point to take action against this person, for violating the EULA and ToS. Again, everyone agrees rapists are horrible scumbags, and advocating for **** has utterly no place in our community. Having known a few **** survivors in my past, they would be quite horrified knowing that CCP might be allowing people like that a place in our community. Their feelings are just as justified and legit as anyone else, and should be respected.


The only answer is, as I said, CCP needs to ruthlessly and pro-actively remove anything that could be considered a form of harassment to anyone, no matter where it's found.

option 2

However I would like the EULA to be looked into again in the scripting of rules and regulations.

I think a higher authority of escalation is required and not just stop at say GM Nova. I believe in certain high cases a GM panel needs to review with an elected CSM.

This gives total balance to certain grey areas within EULA

So, if the CSM already spoke with CCP then what's the purpose of this thread? How will the numbers effectively help the CSM?

Hence it being case-to-case, and those variables are reviewed to return a satisfiable outcome.

OK Malc, you know I normally agree with you, and I laid it on kinda thick with those posts, for sure, but:

You're telling me you'd be perfectly fine with someone being banned from EVE, because of a post on an external blog, that someone else decides fits their definition of daterape? I have activist friends who's definition of the act means "asking more than once=coercion"

I really hate sounding like a Goonspiracy nut, but the idea "dictating the narrative" and "viewed out of context" comes to mind. You can make an innocent act look pretty horrible if you present it with the correct context and framing.

My concern is, what recourse do I have when Joe HatesGanks gets all superstalky, finds my crazy fetish blog, frames the context to CCP as "OMG look at this horrid sicko, ban them or it goes to the media!".

The real question is: "Do I think CCP's definition is flexible based on perceived popular opinion?"

No, it means lynch mob. Pure and simple. It means if I get enough people following me who can't think for themselves, and decide to get someone banned, then I can.

There are a whole lot of people waiting with baited breath hoping that isn't the case.

so. much this. up to and INCLUDING. the banning of all forms of scamming. that is the root cause of the issue and it has been CLEARLY shown the EVE community IS NOT mature enough to handle its unique freedom

You'd definitely wouldn't keep quiet about it. You're rather blunt, which is needed a lot of times. And I respect the bluntness and your willingness to voice your opinion, no matter what people may think.

Malc, can I ask you a question? Feel free to say you can't comment.

Was E1 banned based on the totality of his behavior or simply on that one bonus round instance?

Thanks

Malcanis,

While you are here I just want to take the opportunity to say "I'm sorry". I was misunderstood your initial position in the original thread and I was rather harsh.

Thanks

Option 2 would be the best option.

If CCP has to clearly define harassment or other "illegal" activities, then the "griefer community" will do everything they can to circumvent it.

Last night on Eve Radio it was revealed that one of the bonus room operatives has HUNDREDS of recordings from roughly 80 bonus room sessions.

And E1 said himself why that was: in case there were any violations in the EULA.
(And of course Sohkar is going to be all nice and "let's forget it" about someone who has the power to go to the police and report him)

We might find it hard to fathom, but that dark side of the community is ALL ABOUT circumventing every rule in such a way that they can cause distress and then when called out on it, make every attempt to act coy, like the victim, and get away with it, because that is also part of their shtick.

Option 2 does not give them a chapter, paragraphs, sub-paragraphs, and lines in which to cite, twist the meaning of, and hide behind. They can't stand the idea of CCP dealing with a case-by-case basis on this, meaning that (oh God forbid) that their actions might be judged. Option 2 removes a major part of their "game".

And yesterday, the griefers were all over the announcement forum threatening to start "reporting everything". If that's not indication of their MO and goals, then I don't know what is.

Option 2 will keep this crowd and check. If they don't like it they can always go back to WoW and camp a graveyard on a PVP server.

So, whenever vince draken runs a fleet on TeamSpeak and calls me a niggercunt I can scream cybermobbing and ask ccp to ban him? Or when progod screams for more logi, can I get the guys who don't switch banned for causing progods blood pressure to rise exponentially?

BTW, this conversation just happened.
I think this encapsulates everything wrong with this game, and the sociopaths defending their right to be sociopaths:

---

Channel ID: -58667330
Channel Name: Private Chat (Dieter Rams)
Listener: Dinsdale Pirannha
Session started: 2014.03.30 14:42:16

---

n++[ 2014.03.30 14:42:20 ] Dieter Rams > hi there o/
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:42:22 ] Dinsdale Pirannha > hello
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:42:40 ] Dieter Rams > I need some quick help with a combat site, my DPS is too low to kill the NPC
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:43:06 ] Dinsdale Pirannha > sure. Let me get into a PvE ship
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:43:26 ] Dieter Rams > alright, what dps can you bring?
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:44:17 ] Dinsdale Pirannha > well, I have a pretty pimped out Marauder that can bring about 1200-1300. But that is without much tank
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:44:39 ] Dinsdale Pirannha > To get that I have to fit 4 faction damage mods
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:44:45 ] Dieter Rams > we only need to kill 3 elite battleships so I think that wil do
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:45:32 ] Dinsdale Pirannha > what mission?
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:45:48 ] Dieter Rams > it's a combat site, like lvl 4 in difficulty
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:45:58 ] Dinsdale Pirannha > which one?
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:46:44 ] Dieter Rams > blood den
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:48:17 ] Dinsdale Pirannha > interesting. This one? https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Blood_Den
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:48:32 ] Dieter Rams > hehe you're sucha carebear
n++[ 2014.03.30 14:48:34 ] Dieter Rams > sad loser

Well, given you believe that it is perfectly acceptable to torment someone after blowing up your ship, I am not surprised that you believe that this behaviour is acceptable. If I was dumb enough to jump into his fleet and get trapped, yeah, my stupidity.

But the last 2 lines of his display the issue with this game.
Personal attacks because I would not walk into a trap.

Oh, and BTW, the first thing I check when anyone opens a convo with me is their employment history and bounty. Took me all of 5 seconds to recognize this for what it was. And the part of the no tank, 4 faction damage mods, that was my own little trolling. And no, I don't fly no tank, pimped out ships.

Speaking the truth on the forums has had consequences, and I can no longer fly optimized PvE ships.

Look man.

It is LOSES, not looses.
You want to troll, at least do it using proper english.

roflmao... how many times do I have to tell you Im a high sec missioner before you get it through your head?

AGAIN, Ill take it slow as you seem to have issues.


The

Danger

is

part

of

the

fun

thats why Im arguing this side of things.

Hope that isnt too complicated for you

So gankers then ah ok

Especially the ones that are doing it "for the luls" and not for the money?

Again, that definition kills Hulkageddon, as that was to collect tears primarily, remember?

Might wanna troll better malcanis, that was pretty ****** man.

I don't believe that is what he is saying. I don't believe that is what anyone is saying. Btw, what is your definition of in-game gain? What if I am provoking a miner (repeated ganking, smack, evemails, whatever) in the hopes to clear them out of my territory? Is that acceptable motivation? How does CCP decide whether my motivation is a) sincere and b) within acceptable tolerances? Do I abandon my strategic goals if the miner rages? How much rage is too much? What if the rage is manufactured? Is this where the meta game is going?

What about if my goal is to get them to buy a mining permit and post "I support the New Order" in their bio? Is that acceptable?

No, Malcanis doesnt. I have yet to see CCP say that. I have yet to see a blue tag say "we dont want your business"

Sorry Malc. Can you point me to the post in this thread where you indicate what acceptable "in-game gains" are? I mean, you are the one making statements. I am just struggling to understand the situation so I don't step over this line you claim is so clearly defined.

I like to awox for no personal gain for example. My typical tactic is to stay in corp as long as possible and watch the corp members implode in a frothing rage. Sometimes I ask for a ransom, just so I can dishonor it and generate even more tears. So CCP doesn't want my business because there is no in game reward for my actions? Maybe this is silly to you, but it is literally all I do in Eve anymore. And by your very own statement, CCP does not condone my playstyle.

Edit: I am honestly not trolling. I really appreciate having a CSM who is willing to engage members of the community with your level of frankness.

Methinks it's not his judgment he's worried about.
It's the next CSM that takes offence in a practice that has been A-OK for long time that is worrisome.
But do keep trolling and insulting people, it's nice to see all CSM members fell from the same boorish rotten tree.

D.

Hmm. So awoxing is no longer condoned by CCP unless there are tangible in-game rewards. Got it.

Is my being told to **** off an official CCP position? Or just you being an arrogant **** (especially considering this is YOUR troll thread)?

Agreed. CCP, are we invited to use our own discretion or not?

Of course he wasn't. However, if he wasn't under the notion he was doing anything wrong, why would he stop?

Hello, friend. I dont know Erotica1 but that supposedly makes me his friend therefore you too are now my friend, for the same reason.

I am not as such, rallying for a repeal on the ban, I am merely putting a new light on how it could have ended. And also stating i do NOT want the IN GAME rules to be changed in the slightest.

The situation at hand occured 99% out of game. The game merely served as a vessel to initiate the incident. CCP cannot police teamspeak or vent or mumble or skype or whatever comms program one chooses. CCP cannot actually stop anyone holding such a "event" in 3rd party software and we have no idea just how many others could be running the same schemes behind passworded ts servers never to see the light of day. Its the act of posting them publicly that triggered everything. the CSM guy in question decided enough was enough and he had all he needed free to use against the sound file uploaders.

In essence my suggestion, means these ppl can keep trolling ppl to tears on ts, but at least they arent degrading CCP's image along the way, with some rulesets in place to apply action should such 3rd party "trollings" appear in the public internet again.

Again NOTHING should change with how ppl can interact IN GAME

LOL, you actually think anyone would vote for something else? Most leading poll ever

I or anyone else could have easily done this, only difference is my thread would be locked after post 12 not page 12. I guess that's one of the perks of CSM, being allowed to break forum rules? Intresting...

During the Sansha live events and pre-incursion nerf time frame, I was part of a growing community, finding stuff out, how it works and building relationships. During this time, you get exposed to some mental bullshit as well, either directly when the stakes get high or even perceived, because you take stuff personally.

The one rule for these situations everyone uses, is the mental bullshit you are get exposed to worth the potential isk reward ?

In some scenarios this gets out of control, and you will lose emotional control, especially if the reward is not present in the end.

This is were self evaluation should kick in, but if you lack the capabilities or a social safety net you can not disengage from the out of control situation, however there is another circumstance to where you can not disengage; gaming addiction.

Will CCP with the help of CSM provide perhaps a helpful document to it's costumers when to turn of the game off and go take a walk outside ?