| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
Iron Oxide.
0
   |
Posted - 2014.09.11 22:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm glad CCP is taking action against a subset of the players who abuse their game and I am sure this agenda of non-harassment is furthered by their policy of being 100% cryptic all of the time ~ |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
Iron Oxide.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 22:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Just block him. You know someone is going to be upset after you harm him. If he gets mad, do the smart thing and ignore him. There is no need to further rile people up for tear harvesting purposes. Be the better man and move on with the game.
So what you're saying is that there is a group of self-selected Honourable Space Folk to whom rules do apply, and another group of people in pods who can do or say whatever they like. |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
Iron Oxide.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:^This. Additionally, they should ban all the well known doxxers, because that **** is just plain creepy. If anything, the bans don't go far enough.
If CCP wants to start handing out liberal bans for that sort of behaviour, while at the same time clearly explaining why the ban occured and which behaviour is not allowed, wellGǪ I'd certainly be cheering them on.
Mira Robinson wrote:If they're upset, maybe you, oh I don't know, don't screencap tears to post on a blog.
Have people been banned for doing that? Is that not allowed? |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
Iron Oxide.
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 01:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I can't think of any reason why having a public ban list would be a bad thing...
I guess it could be free intel, but if the characters are banned what difference does it really make.
If they reveal too much information (say, all banned characters belonging to a player rather than only whichever character was involved in the violation) it might actually promote doxxing.
Properly implemented it could remove a lot of the FUD around EULA/bans, though. |
Helene Fidard
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 19:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Me, I would settle for the occasional statistic or information release . . . LIKE what Falcon did as the OP of this thread. People were investigated and banned. I would also like if later there was the occasional 'upon appeal one of them had their ban overturned' showing that you do have recourse.
Just pointing out that in fact, neither of the points in bold was actually stated in the OP.
From information from other sources, we can come to the conclusion that these things are true.
But they were not stated by CCP here. |
Helene Fidard
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 20:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm really impressed that the ISD managed to delete an on-topic post from a CSM, but not the pages and pages of blithering beforehand. |
Helene Fidard
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
This, so much.
The rules about real-life harassment right now are a grey area, because CCP won't define what they are. Keep your grey area, but define where the grey area stops.
Just because you are firm about what is absolutely not allowed doesn't mean you have to throw away discretion in all other cases. |
Helene Fidard
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 04:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Snupe Doggur wrote:It's like no one ever heard of Ray Rice.
I agree that it's good the NFL (eventually) accepted third-party evidence. |
| |
|