Of course, it is easier to whine about the 'grey areas' then to actually help CCP remove them.

There is, but the problem here seems to be that you're banning people who weren't even involved in outright harassment at all. Permanently. No realistic chance of appeal. It's absurd.

.

Are we supposed to believe CCP because reasons?

The difference of course being that the carebears are incompetent delicate ******* flowers who need mommy CCP to deal with the big bad ganker baddies. They throw tantrums when CCP doesn't act and pretend it was their doing when CCP does.

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.

The difference of course being that the carebears are incompetent delicate ******* flowers who need mommy CCP to deal with the big bad ganker baddies. They throw tantrums when CCP doesn't act and pretend it was their doing when CCP does.

Oh hey you removed my post where I kindly suggested to a player that they should pod themselves repeatedly.
I extend that to you.

They're also not giving people any reason to believe they won't be next, simply for playing the game as intended.

Really? That's cute, because a good portion of your community believes that scamming and ganking constitute harassment.

So is ganking for fun not okay?
What about holding people for ransom?

I feel pretty strongly that this outcome is going to depend on which GM I happen to get.

People have been warned or banned for less.

You should feel blessed that I even deigned to acknowledge your post, peon.

Mr Epeen

And so can I.

Stop acting like customer-company relations is a one-way street where the company just does whatever it wants without consequence, because that really isn't the case.

If CCP starts banning a bunch of people under questionable and ambiguous circumstances, others will get fed up and take their patronage elsewhere.

I know the consequences of taking the game to the real world. The person who did it to me is still playing the game. Why, they're online right now.

No, it kind of is your job to do this.

What concerns me (and frankly should concern everyone) is people are being banned because of who their friends are.

says everyone who has never actually had to deal with GMs

Just to bring you up to speed on the conversation, some folks would like to know what, exactly, is going to cause trouble.

Your analogy is flawed. A better one would be that you've been riding the bus for a couple of years. While on the bus you engage in some form of behavior every day. Every day you do the same thing on the bus, and the bus driver doesnt seem to have a problem with it. Then, out of the blue one day, the bus driver kicks you off the bus. He doesnt give a reason, but the following day he makes a vague statement about the form of behavior you had always engaged in was now against the rules. A couple of weeks later he kicks your friends off the bus, too.

I am but a passenger on that bus. I'd like to know what the rules are so that I don't get a surprise kick off the bus as well.

Admittedly, this is what makes it extremely difficult for me to empathize with these individuals. They actually enjoy taunting and provoking negative reactions from others. And they proudly post and display "tear collection" trophies publicly so that others like them can enjoy and stroke their ego. If they can get their victims to rage-quit or rage-banned, that's just the sweet cherry on top. It's very sadistic behavior.

And by no means am I suggesting "they deserve to be doxxed" or threatened in real life. No one does. But how much empathy could you have for someone like this? They enjoy making others angry, upset, and miserable for cheap laughs and giggles.

i also find it hilarious that he believes he's important enough to be shown evidence

Remiel was playing EVE in a perfectly acceptable and legitimate way.

This does not ******* excuse doxing and real life threats to person and family. If you think so you are blaming the victim.

Driving a car puts you in constant danger of a sudden and early death. Does that mean I deserve it if I get into an accident?

I'm pretty sure that every step between "CCP says x person was banned because he specifically did this thing" and "we've cracked CCP's security scheme" is something along the lines of "Mr Epeen talks out of his ass and suggests some causal link between completely unrelated things for the sole purpose of being a contrarian."

There's a 3 hour recording on sound-cloud of a man and his wife taken past breaking point, when they already had possession of all his assets. Not only did they not stop when it when it was clear that the man was agitated well beyond necessary, but they further increased their efforts to humiliate him. To top this off, they then uploaded the audio of this as a trophy for what great job they had done to these individuals, and shared them publicly.

Now, I absolutely love scamming and making people sing for their pod (even if they still blow it up anyway). I however, do not appreciate when people find it necessary to break an individual down to point of physical distress for the sake of self enjoyment alone...

I say you should stop moving the goalposts.
Driving drunk is not a legitimate (i.e. legal) way of driving.

to blame the victim

[quote=Snupe Doggur][quote=evepal]
This is what you and CCP think we want, and have been using as a strawman

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.