I'd agree with you 100% if you said that the person losing emotional control has a primary responsibility to turn the game off and walk away. Judging when someone is having a breakdown can be extremely difficult, especially online, and you're doing a disservice to the community by placing the burden on the bad guy (which you're still encouraging to be bad) and not the so called victim.

harcore sociopaths

exactly. They have the FREEDOM to leave at any time.

I say, do what you want, if you get banned, walk away and say **** ccp.

Get all your friends to do the same. Theyll change their minds when the reprecussions hit them in the wallet. See: summer of rage.

Thats a powerful tool/weapon right there

Hey, my dog in this fight isnt that Im a scammer, Im a high sec miner/missioner who wants to know who he can report now that things have changed without anything changing

Please can you help the CSM by choosing which of the three courses of action the CSM should recommend to CCP as the way forward.

As you are all no doubt aware, CCP Falcon, the leader of the EVE Community Team, yesterday published a communication on the subject of player harrassment. As might be expected, this issue, and CCP's reply, has caused a certain amount of contention. The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.

In other to get some actual numbers into the discussion, please can you select from one of the following three options for the CSM to present to CCP as the opinion of the community.:

(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.

(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.

(3) CCP should stand back and allow without comment the members of the community complete free reign in using CCP's IP and property to engage in and facilitate whatever activities they desire, regardless of damage done and regardless of the clear trend of escalating unpleasantness. This option, so far as I am aware, is not available anywhere and may in fact contravene the laws of quite a few nations including several which comprise large sections of the EVE playerbase.

ah now we move on to the old people will leave argument.

Isn't this the same tactic that everyone ridiculed the carebears for citing in response to hi-sec gank, miner grief etc. But now that self professed non-carebears want to use it its ok right................

"In every EVE scammer / pirate / AWOXER there is a care bear trying to get out"

Does it have to be restricted to these 3 options? Since I would argue that none of them fits the bill.

I'd argue that 2 is the right course of action with the addendum that CCPs involvement explicitly continues to end with EVE itself. Third party forums, communications tools, blogs and websites should continue to stand outside of the jurisdiction as previously stated by GMs in official responses where third party sites have been used to harass or attack. Those sites and services should remain exclusively under the policies of their respective owners and CCP should have no involvement with them.

It may be regarded as an "arbitrary" decision from the outside, but generally issues of this nature are investigated by multiple teams within CCP for a number of weeks before any action is taken and due to our privacy policy, we aren't going to release information on individual cases.

(1), of course.
[...]
Only the sick people will want 2 or 3.
[...]

I hope you are aware of the irony :p

(I did, in fact, feel insulted there for a second..)

2)

Ero should be temp banned though if a large portion of the community demands it.

Ero should be temp banned though if a large portion of the community demands it.

so we should have a community vote to determine guilt in these cases

sounds fair

Yeah, I thought CCP wouldnt use 3rd party sites as evidence against ppl. Thought I saw a CCP dev quote of exactly that?

Don't mind Dinsdale. He can't wait for EA to drop big bucks in CCP's lap, so that they can run the show instead of the null cartels.

No where in there does it mention the word bumping, mining, or ransoming miners

Don't mind Dinsdale. He can't wait for EA to drop big bucks in CCP's lap, so that they can run the show instead of the null cartels.

the largest segment of your subscription base

The answer is simple.



In terms of hard data based on player age, we have an extremely mature community.

It's quite clear that we also have an extremely intelligent community, even if sometimes the content posted on these forums is to the contrary. I think that playing EVE requires a certain level of intelligence, thickness of skin, and ability to deal with your fellow man in circumstances that are sometimes not to your favor.

However, there's a line as to how severe those circumstances should get, and I'll paraphrase Mynxee by saying that this line needs to be drawn at the point where the alleged victim starts to lose emotional control. We can't set an arbirarty line for this, as this is different for everyone, and every situation. There must be a willingness by those involved to recognise when that point has been reached and realize, with positive community spirit in mind, that they should stop and honor that line with humaine and decent behaviour.

In the same respect, there must also be a level of responsibility held by CCP to ensure that we have the wellbeing of our community and each of our players at the forefront of our minds during the decision making process when an issue like this comes up.

It may be regarded as an "arbitrary" decision from the outside, but generally issues of this nature are investigated by multiple teams within CCP for a number of weeks before any action is taken and due to our privacy policy, we aren't going to release information on individual cases.

We have done this only once in the past, and this was due to the fact that the individual involved was the chairman of the Council of Stellar Management, which put us in an extraordinary position in terms of clariflying the situation.

In the end, scam, AWOX and betray eachother as much as you like. Steal from eachother as much as you like. Gank, pod and sabotage eachother as much as you like. These are the stories that drive gameplay in EVE, and we are not looking to re-define the sandbox. We do however need to make it clear that in the, end every sandbox has edges just the same as EVE has limits, and those limits are built on a basic level of empathy, understanding and humaine behavior.

EVE has a community that to be perfectly honest, I've been extremely proud to be a part of for the last 11 years despite all the ups and downs, the drama, the summer of rage, the bad posting and the sometimes inappropriate content that comes out of it. That community is core to EVE's continued success, and the last 11 years of history is built on the shoulders of everyone who has touched New Eden.

Being asked to take on the role of Community Manager for EVE Online last year was both a surprise and a priviliege. Believe me, after being so close to the core of the community we've built over the last 11 years, there's nothing more I want than to see it continue to grow, but we are not in a position where we can paint ourselves into a corner in terms of being able to act on our own policies with the health and wellbeing of our community in mind.