(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.
.

(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.

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.

42

2 is the only workable option.

as this is the only mmo i play , i'm curious on how other mmo's drawn the line in the sand . anyone care to enlighten me?

option 2 is where i'm leaning to.

Example: you are not able to publish online someone's profile in the game saying "That imbecile 'tard was so 'tupid that I took all of his money! Lol" and such.

It was deliberately presented that way, yes. Laden with Malcanis' trademark sarcasm.

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.

There goes EVE-kill, then.

Option 1 is actually highly viable; it's so viable that it's the industry standard.

I'd hate it, of course, but that doesn't make it unviable.

Pretty much.
That's something which cannot be copy-pasted into Eve as you've stated there are parts like Eve-Kills which are valid in here.
But for other stuff they may be valid... not my place to decide but there it stands.

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.

That's because both #1 and #3 ARE silly, not just because he tried to present them as being silly. Also, he's gathering general consensus which, being a CSM member, seems like a good thing to do. I'll agree that there's at least a small amount of trolling going on, this being Malcanis, but that doesn't necessarily take anything away from the discussion.

As member of the staff shouldn't you be objective and not tell us your personal choice including your reasoning for it in order to keep this vote objective as possible?

Not necessarily, that's the ethical thing to do, but not the one he must do.

Number one please.

This is a game about spaceships, blowing up spaceships, and assorted economical results from that. Getting your spaceship blown up does not give you license to harass other people.

People who say "OMG U (derogatory term for a homosexual male) U ganked me!" deserve to be shown the door. EVE Online should not get a reputation for allowing bigotry and intolerance, no matter the circumstance it happens in.

Heck, even if you take the "third party site" out of the equation, sharing killmails goes bye-bye, too.

dunno about you but I hope he wish to be ethical in this case.
Sharing with us his opinons on the matter is doing a disservice to this entire endeavor.

Well you could argue that has been going on for years with Eve with people commonly referring to others who like to earn isk as "Jew"

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.

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.
.

Where is the option that involves fairly dealing with players outside of pressure from blog post and threats to run to the media?

None of the above.

The options are presented in such a way that #1 and #3 are utterly silly, and #2 is basically "Do nothing and keep things just how they are."

If you want feedback and provide a list of three options to chose from, with two of the options being totally against the spirit of the game - I am left to assume you are being sarcastic and don't want any feedback, which seems a bit odd coming from a member of the CSM.

Branching off the cookie cutter list: I want CCP to clearly, in black and white terms to define what "harassment" is. Of course, there will be some gray area (there always will be), but this recent drama with Erotica 1 simply proves that clear and concise rules that are provided to all players in regards to what is unacceptable behavior need to be provided.

Otherwise, we stick with the status quo. Which, as it seems to many of us - is simply "Get a CSM member and/or a popular blogger to present a one sided story and cause a bunch of blow back - and it just might cause CCP to start issuing bans without even bothering to explain to the community what rules were violated, how they were violated, and what action was taken."

The lack of transparency shown lately by CCP only serves to fuel vicious rumors, player base discontent, and general confusion as to what the rules even are in the first place.

Also, perhaps it is a good time to require all players to be of legal adult age in their county of origin in order to hold an account. I don't like name calling, cursing and smacktalk personally, but I have no desire to try to control what other people say. Ensuring that no under age players are using this service would simplify things in my opinion.

Fix it.

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

As a Jewish myself I find this offensive and this is one reason red lines should be made and the rules should be more clear.

Does OP represent the unified position of the entire CSM?

As member of the staff shouldn't you be objective and not tell us your personal choice including your reasoning for it in order to keep this vote objective as possible?

This is option (1). If you want to force CCP to give a rigid definition of what harrassment is, then they will be forced to set the bar at a far lower level than we're currently used to: essentially any unpleasant communication will be sanctioned.

You sure you want the CSM to advise CCP to down down that route?

This is option (1). If you want to force CCP to give a rigid definition of what harrassment is, then they will be forced to set the bar at a far lower level than we're currently used to: essentially any unpleasant communication will be sanctioned.

You sure you want the CSM to advise CCP to down down that route?

Trixy CSMses. You can't fools us. We knows the answers, don't we precious?

Mr Epeen

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

The only thing that clear rules will do is that people will find loopholes in them. "don't be stupid and if you are we'll decide what to do with you" is a much better rule, partly because of the basic nature of EVE and mostly because being able to determine the borders on your own is part of being a normal human being.

The OP is gathering information.

CSM basically are what your 'government representatives' are in reall life.People choosen by the people to stand for what they believe in .As such they will like your government representatives outline what they stand for before they get chosen and will also speak out on how they feel against/for certain changes during the time they are a representative.



So in short , yes he can outline what his view on the matter is .

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?

Here is a great example, you find people using the word Jew in this context offensive and that is completely understandable.

Now this has come under discussion before, many people who state they are Jewish and have no issues with people using the word Jew in this context.

Who is right?

It's extremely feasible for CCP to go down that route. Why wouldn't it be feasible to do what every other MMO does?

The only thing that clear rules will do is that people will find loopholes in them. "don't be stupid and if you are we'll decide what to do with you" is a much better rule, partly because of the basic nature of EVE and mostly because being able to determine the borders on your own is part of being a normal human being.

As I stated, there will always be some grey area and some situations that will require a judgement call by CCP - but the fact that some specific situations will fall into this category is no reason to simply abandon bothering to specify in clear and concise language what the rules are in the first place. I am not comfortable with a solution that amounts to "Well, since sometimes a situation may fall outside the rules and require a judgement call, there's no point in bothering to specify rules in the first place."

That's a cop-out, and a sad sad way to treat the game we love.

I am not comfortable paying a subscription fee to a company that has a policy on harassment that literally consists of "Don't get blogged about in a poor light or we might decide to ban you".

As paying customers, we deserve to have the rules of the game we pay to play spelled out clearly - so that we may avoid breaking them and continue to enjoy what is, in my opinion, a game that is like no other and something very special that deserves clear and concise rules to it's user base.

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.

Here is a great example, you find people using the word Jew in this context offensive and that is completely understandable.

Now this has come under discussion before, many people who state they are Jewish and have no issues with people using the word Jew in this context.

Who is right?

This is option (1). If you want to force CCP to give a rigid definition of what harrassment is, then they will be forced to set the bar at a far lower level than we're currently used to: essentially any unpleasant communication will be sanctioned.

You sure you want the CSM to advise CCP to down down that route?

None of the above.

The options are presented in such a way that #1 and #3 are utterly silly, and #2 is basically "Do nothing and keep things just how they are."

If you want feedback and provide a list of three options to chose from, with two of the options being totally against the spirit of the game - I am left to assume you are being sarcastic and don't want any feedback, which seems a bit odd coming from a member of the CSM.

Branching off the cookie cutter list: I want CCP to clearly, in black and white terms to define what "harassment" is. Of course, there will be some gray area (there always will be), but this recent drama with Erotica 1 simply proves that clear and concise rules that are provided to all players in regards to what is unacceptable behavior need to be provided.

Otherwise, we stick with the status quo. Which, as it seems to many of us - is simply "Get a CSM member and/or a popular blogger to present a one sided story and cause a bunch of blow back - and it just might cause CCP to start issuing bans without even bothering to explain to the community what rules were violated, how they were violated, and what action was taken."

The lack of transparency shown lately by CCP only serves to fuel vicious rumors, player base discontent, and general confusion as to what the rules even are in the first place.

Also, perhaps it is a good time to require all players to be of legal adult age in their county of origin in order to hold an account. I don't like name calling, cursing and smacktalk personally, but I have no desire to try to control what other people say. Ensuring that no under age players are using this service would simplify things in my opinion. Don't like someone's use of language? Use the block feature. No under age players are exposed. Problem solved.

Fix it.

"many people" doesn't mean a thing, I'm sure many people were fine with what happened in WW2, slavery and whatever ever other terrible point in history, but that doesn't make it right.

In this case it's bad, mostly because people start accepting it as a normal word.

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.

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.

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?

Unless this is a dictatorship where are all other "Government Representatives" to voice their opinions as well?
Also if this is a merely survey to hear the voice of the people the Government high-ups usually do not try to affect the results with their opinions in the matter.

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?

...., 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.

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.

I am more than happy for people who boast about being rapists to be removed from the EVE community, since they should be in prison.

The only thing I want is a clearly drawn line. I don't care if that line is set at racial harassment, real life threats, inappropriate sexual harassment, or just calling people douches, but at least then we have a line. So in that aspect, yes I want option 1.

Option 1 doesn't mean that every single thing you say is a policy violation. It just means that we have a line, known and visible for everyone that can't be crossed. That's all really. If that line is drawn at racial slurs, so be it. If the line is drawn at calling someone an ass, well that would suck but at least we have a clear line then.

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

The issue is that not each case is the same, coming up with a specific policy could harm cases that do not need to be harmed. Assuming a strict set of policies and following them religiously is not a viable option for this. That's why there's an invisible line that mustn't be touched.

This issue was raised with CCP, and you'll be happy to know that in this specific incidence, CCP consulted the CSM very throughly indeed.

You have this clear violations on one side, and you can come up with a policy or not how to deal with them. But how can a non-clear violation from a "gray area" even be punished more severely than an obvious "non gray area" violation?

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.

To find out how big a cup of hemlock I have to drink at Fanfest, of course.

So, if the CSM already spoke with CCP then what's the purpose of this thread?

No because CCP has no control over outside sources, forums, IRC, twitter or whatever else and as such it's impossible to have them police them. All they can do is look at way over the top cases (like this one) on an individual basis (like they have). Ingame those rules already exist.

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.

Needless to say, my strong preference is for option 2.

(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.

I am more than happy for people who boast about being rapists to be removed from the EVE community, since they should be in prison.

I'm even willing to tolerate people who conflate the punishment due to rapists with that due to people who commit far lesser offences, although not, of course, to agree with their obviously fallacious logic.

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!".

Do you think CCp's definition would match that of your activist acquaintences?

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

I believe that this is the case.

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

Flexible is good, it means there was a reasoned debate on the issue.

The NDA prevents me from giving specific details, but I am reassured that they're not quite the weathervanes you fear. You can take my opinion for what it's worth.

In fact I was very much reassured by our discussions with CCP.

You don't even need to ask for the 100mill, you can just do it on account of the fact that this is a game. It's also a pvp game. It's also a sandbox game.

People are failing to grasp the obvious fact that the Player is not the Character. Only the character exists within the game, the player does not despite the fact that the player controls the character's actions. Hence anything a character does to another character within the game mechanics is fine.

When the line gets crossed and the player sees him or herself as the character that's when problems begin and you get people taking things way to personally. The obvious extension to this is real life death threats for in game actions.

"It's only pixels, it's only characters and it's only a pastime that should result in fun," should be highlighted in big letters on the login screen as some people are incapable of separating the character and it's actions from the player/person at the other end of the screen.

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.

Let me put it to you in these terms:

If I honestly thought that CCP had banned erotica1 purely because of forum pressure, do you really think I - of all people -would be quiet about it?

Do you think CCp's definition would match that of your activist acquaintences?

he started the whole thing by trying to awox someone.

Again, if you treat people badly, do you expect them to not get mad, and not do anything about it?

If you don't want trouble IRL, don't make trouble for other people. Golden rule. Basis of every civil society.

Now if you want to mess with people, then accept the consequences for doing so. Or at the very least, accept the responsibility for seeking out a conflict.

This is best option.

Eve is game about spaceships, about economy and simulation of economical environment (everything comes down to isks).
Latest event showed us that people in this game are not able to (Not 100% of them but major part enough) behave in an adult manner and limit themselves.

Place a red line, set the boundaries.

Let me put it to you in these terms:

If I honestly thought that CCP had banned erotica1 purely because of forum pressure, do you really think I - of all people -would be quiet about it?

this ^^^

some players cant understand people that DONT PvP and just want to mine, explore or mission run

(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.

You don't get to pretend this is a single player game.

Cool thread, asking for feedback and then making 2 ridiculous extremes of the spectrum as options to choose from, that no one in their right mind would support as they are.

So here, I choose 2, that's the whole purpose of this thread right ? Make it look like everything is A-OK and the community thinks that nothing needs to change.