My watchlists tell me that he has not as of today. Hth.

Also he did post in the original threadnaught. He said it was NBD and that everyone should let it go. Not that the lynch mob was going to let that happen, especially after Riptard gave them the scent of blood and worked them into a frenzy.
]

To make things cristal clear: That goes for every single poster on this forum, regardless of status.
Of course factors as topic, sub-forum, severity of the rule breaking, etcetera are always taken into account.

This as far as I will allow discussing forum moderation, so from here on please post on topic and within the boundaries of the Forum Rules.

He was being 'tortured' whether he thought so or not.

CCP doesn't need any indication of harm, or any rationale at all to cut a player from the game.

They haven't indicated any action against Erotica1 had anything to do with the recording, with Ripard Teg's blog, or with Sohkar so I have no idea where you're drawing the conclusion that it did.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4412145#post4412145

To make things cristal clear: That goes for every single poster on this forum, regardless of status.
Of course factors as topic, sub-forum, severity of the rule breaking, etcetera are always taken into account.

This as far as I will allow discussing forum moderation, so from here on please post on topic and within the boundaries of the Forum Rules: please.

Good point - CCP could provide a new API for lawyers to build out-of-game apps for getting the contact info of players like Ero1.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4412145#post4412145

Excellent idea.

However, in the wake of Erotica 1's assumed banning, I do not feel that CCP went by Malcanis's wording of option 2. To my mind they interfered where it was not necessary and their actions fell somewhere between options 1 and 2.

Fair points. And totally agree on the actual interface. Its a total nightmare. The only thing Id add is risk vs reward, but I also see your side of the line already by saying a player group shouldnt have that as an issue, but, meh I guess I like Spycatching, politicking and Roman-senatesque backstabbery :)

But +1 for you friend.

Are. You. Kidding. Me?

The recordings in this thread are enough to tell anyone Ero1 is bad news.

Lots of ad hominem and bad sentence structure, but what exactly is it you are arguing?

By the way, I hold a masters in English Lit. If you are interested I could arrange for some one on one lessons to improve your grammar and sentence structure. Hit me up in game bro.

Are. You. Kidding. Me?

The recordings in this thread are enough to tell anyone Ero1 is bad news.

UhOh, the next form of espionage, grammar awoxers. I can see it now ninja, edits on oog forums and rulesets:

That is completely subjective, banning should not be based on sensationalized opinions. The entire point of this thread is to clarify the issue of acceptable behavior, not to resume the arguments from the 380+ page threadnought.

I'd like to thank the CSM for continuing their involvement in this issue. Putting aside my disapproval of Erotica 1's apparent ban, I think CCP can provide us with more closure before calling this issue settled.

Option 1 would be devastatingly corrosive to EVE's long term well being. Our universe has grown to be cold and unforgiving, and that's been the selling point for many a new player to EVE. Making New Eden a 'nicer' place would take away one of EVE's most defining characteristics.

Previously, I would have immediately endorsed option 2. However, in the wake of Erotica 1's assumed banning, I do not feel that CCP went by Malcanis's wording of option 2. To my mind they interfered where it was not necessary and their actions fell somewhere between options 1 and 2. To me, this middle ground is a dangerous position because players are left with too much guesswork as to what is acceptable.

I'm not so naive as to support CCP's tolerance of illegal behavior as option 3 suggests. However, for a company whose employees put out a song called HTFU, CCP's recent action too much resembles the hand-holding that makes the rest of the MMO market so bland.

TLDR: Option 2, but make it 'harsher' and allow for more freedom of player behavior.

How about public polls to determine guilt or innocence in sensational cases?

Thanks for sharing your irrelevant opinion.

They actually took their time and thought hard about not softening the sandbox. I don't really think they would have arrived at their decision without the public backlash and negative publicity and liabilities that were being developed.

Why not? Thats what happened here




and thanks for sharing your flavoursome tears. I see the sociopath enablers are still hard at work here trying to work through their butthurt to no avail

and thanks for sharing your flavoursome tears. I see the sociopath enablers are still hard at work here trying to work through their butthurt to no avail

Why not? Thats what happened here

Personally I choose Option 2, with some added points, because there seems to be one too many defenders of E1's behaviour.

These points can go something along the following lines :-

- Using in game mechanics to PVP / interact with others is acceptable
- Griefing players in / out of game is not acceptable
- Someting about not abusing the petition system concerning Griefing, ( I don't know how to put this coherantly ).

IMHO all griefing, in/out of game is bad.

It hurts the victim and such behaviour spoils the reputation of the playerbase and CCP.

As such :-
- Scamming is ok ( not good, simply ok )
- Griefing is unacceptable

How do you know what happened here? Were you part of the process? Did CCP tell you?

Tell me, oh wonderful NPC corp alt, what is "griefing", precisely?