...., regardless of the clear trend of escalating unpleasantness.

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

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.

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.

Quite simple, if you do it to be a **** it's harassment, if you do it for ingame reasons (ransoms, forcing people out of an area, stuff like that) it's fine. That rule has been around for years.

no, that's not even remotely close to what i just said.

i'm just saying if some one is being a dickbag, there's no reason not to call them a dickbag. and being a paying customer or not, has no bearing on that fact.

you know, since you seem so appalled by what malcanis said.

So in order words so long as you say at the begging "Give me a 100mil or I will just continue to bump you its fine"?

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.

Threats are already interdicted. The GMs can and do exercise discretion in determining whether to take them literally or not.

The other 13 CSMs are polite. I am the token representative of social diversity.

The other 13 CSMs are polite. I am the token representative of social diversity.

Great, so as it stand right now so long as you tell a miner to give you x millions or you will follow him and bump him so he can not mine, you can do this for x amount of time and there is no problem.

Somebody show me where in the current EULA/TOS it states this.

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?".

http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/

6. CONDUCT, A. Specifically Restricted Conduct.

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?".

I'm just making sure, because some of the posters here seem to be unaware that their choice doesn't reflect their stated aims. If you were looking to lose weight, and told me that you'd decided to go on an all fudge cake diet, I might well comment on that too.

Great, so as it stand right now so long as you tell a miner to give you x millions or you will follow him and bump him so he can not mine, you can do this for x amount of time and there is no problem.

Somebody show me where in the current EULA/TOS it states this.

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

(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.

What really bugs be is not the invisible line CCP draws.

It's that some people who have no affiliation with CCP get the banhammer for stepping over this invisible line, while others like personal friends of CCP like the Mittani or SOMER Blink guys get a temporary ban in one case (for the attempt to get someone to kill himself!) and nothing at all in SOMER Blinks case for obvious RMT which are in both cases clear violations of written down rules and not a "gray area".

In the SOMER Blink RMT case, they even told us explicitly that we don't even have to join the discussion if we just call for blood. And now they rule because of a call for blood over a "gray area" with a probably permanent ban.

So before CCP changes or defines any rules, they should first work on their consistency when it comes to the application of the rules or non-rules in this public cases.

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.