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.

They stated their position yesterday. It boils down to: if you're too much of a dickbag to one of our customers then we don't want to do business with you.

So long as you confine your dickbaggery to reasonable limits, you're fine.

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.

What could possibly go wrong?

Yet in these particular cases, is using the word "Jew" to describe somebody in game earning isk and using the term "Rapecage" acceptable to you personally?

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.

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.

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.

You did ask for option (1), because it's the logical consequence of what you asked for. A "clear concise" set of rules has to be able to cope with the vulnerability of the least resilient customers. Ergo: if you force CCP to use a rigid set of rules, then you'll have to treat every other EVE player as if they were a PTSD suffering veteran minor who'd been recently sexually assaulted.

If that's the route you want to go down rather than being trusted to exercise your own adult judgement on when you're taking it too far, then so be it, dbut don't try to fool yourself that you can have your cake and eat it.

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.

You're gonna miss me!

if some one is being a dickbag, they're being a dickbag. it's irrelevant of if they're paying customers or not.

Again, not necessarily, you are once more dramatizing the outlook of option one, effectively showing your bias. What you don't seem to understand is that such a set of rules (even if written down) doesn't automatically imply a dictatorship, or lack of judgement. The reason this subject exists is because judgement itself is something that doesn't belong to the playerbase collective, nor the responsibility of CSM to carry out.

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?

If that's the route you want to go down rather than being trusted to exercise your own adult judgement on when you're taking it too far, then so be it, dbut don't try to fool yourself that you can have your cake and eat it.

The process to remove me from the CSM is already in place, and should take effect in about 4 or 5 weeks.


You're gonna miss me!

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?

The alternative is that CCP define it for us. Would you prefer that?

Really?

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?

Again, not necessarily, you are once more dramatizing the outlook of option one, effectively showing your bias. What you don't seem to understand is that such a set of rules (even if written down) doesn't automatically imply a dictatorship, or lack of judgement. The reason this subject exists is because judgement itself is something that doesn't belong to the playerbase collective, nor the responsibility of CSM to carry out.

I think in the interest of gender equality, we should refer to them as "genital-bags".

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.

CCP give a specific exception to new players, but apart from that, merely shooting someone's spaceship in game is not harrassment. If it was, alliance warfare would be impossible, for instance.

EDIT: Or hi-sec warfare, come to that.

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.

What happens when somebody (which they will) does something which is deemed to be bad by everybody but is not mentioned in these clear and concise rules?

Do you then add this something terrible but not enforce any kind of punishment to the player as it was not in the rules?

Do you add this something in the rules and then apply punishment retrospectively ?

Option 2 accepts that the world is not black and white, that it is not possible to conceivable off every eventually so you need room to adapt to anything new.

Yet at the moment under the current rules if you continue to bump a miner and then follow said miner to another system and continue to bump then and so on is that not classed as harassment?

Not sure on what the rule is there.

The alternative is that CCP define it for us. Would you prefer that?

Really?