|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5561
   |
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:The information we have so far from Ero on this latest round of bans is very disconcerting. We will update as more information becomes available. More griefer clickbaiting blogger tears.
Fixed that for you.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5563
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Given that just lost weeks or months worth of effort they are going to be in a far more emotionally vulnerable state than you are
Huh
Veers Belvar wrote:It's just a game, no reason to get angry.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5563
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The fact that you should look at it as a game, and should not get angry even when suffering significant losses, does not change the fact that some people do in fact get hurt/angry when weeks or months of time they invested goes up in smoke. To actively prey on that anger, to solicit it, to try and inflame it, is what gets people into trouble. There is nothing wrong with ganking/scamming/profiteering in Eve. But what I think that most people would appreciate is that there is something wrong with doing activities solely to antagonize other people, with no benefit to yourself other than to elicit an emotional response from the victim. That is why these folks got into trouble, not because they are gankers or scammers, but because their goal was to emotionally affect their victim. 5 minutes into the bonus room they could have kept all the assets, explained it was all a scam, said gg, and moved on. Why spend hours making the victim do humiliating things by dangling the vain hope of him getting his assets back? How does the benefit the scammers?
The sentence I quoted was in your response to a scenario that went directly from a gank to a racist rant by the gankee. By setting up your response as if it was about the bonus room scandal, you've set yourself up a nice straw man. So I won't respond to that.
So, why should one party in a consensual encounter* be bound by the rules of the game and the other party not? Why is it up to the victim of harassment to "be the bigger man" and not up to the harasser to refrain from harassing them in the first place?
Why is it that you think that the people whose gameplay you dislike should have to muzzle themselves while their harassers attack them?
*The nature of the game is such that all encounters between players that follow the rules of the game are inherantly consensual. e.g. the ganker-gankee encounter.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5568
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 19:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:As a last aside. Did you know that we CSM members are the ONLY people in the game who have our true names and countries of residence trotted out officially? The rules themselves Dox us, to a certain extent, that is the price of the office.
m
I think there was a thread on that last time changes to the whitepaper were being discussed. It's a ridiculous rule. It serves no legitimate purpose for me to know your name and where you live. All the electoral "benefits" the rule could provide can be provided by other, more narrow rules that don't, y'know, expose the candidates to potential RL harassment.
But there CCP is, telling us all the information needed to find where you live (I won't because I'm really lazy and also not nuts, but the information is out there for the industrious crazies to use, and CCP put it out there).
I'm making ribs today, want me to send you one? (No promises on food safety after a trip through the mail, but it'll leave here warm and delicious). 
*Aside* I was going to toss in a joke relating to how a package of ribs fits a lot of the criteria for deciding that a suspicious package is dangerous, but I don't think this is quite the context for that.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5570
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 20:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:La Rynx wrote:There is no roulette.
Yes, lets talk about a Senior GM dictating that telling people your alt is you will get you banned. Wrong.
The final result in that thread isn't the issue. The fact that a Senior GM told people at any time that my saying "I am also Pipa Porto" could be against the TOS indicates that dealing with the GMs is like playing roulette.
Compare that post to GM Karidor's post earlier in that same thread:
GM Karidor wrote:What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account.
Again, that this interpretation was later retracted (thankfully) doesn't change the fact that a Senior GM made and publicly posted it. Nor does the reason why the GM's interpretation was overturned (whether because the GM was that muddled, the rules that unclear, or the new rules changed is interesting, but irrelevant).
But this is all wildly off topic, and I would have thought that the ISDs wouldn't dive into a discussion solely to engage in an off-topic tangent. 
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5573
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 20:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: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.
The same empathy I have for someone who gets threatened or harassed for bragging about a Chess tournament win (bragging which sometimes makes the losers of the tournament angry, upset, and/or miserable).
They are the victim of a crime/EULA violation*.
And there you are blaming them for being such.
*I don't know if doxxing is a crime everywhere/anywhere, but making threats certainly is in many jurisdictions.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5574
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
evepal wrote:So how do you define the difference between harassment of a real person and hurt feelings?
It's not particularly hard.
"Harassment" is an action or instance (or pattern) of speech that fits certain criteria.
"Hurt Feelings" are subjective results that can occur as a result of any number of actions or instances (or patterns) of speech that may or may not fit the criteria of harassment.
Actions and Results are very clearly different.
I listed an example of a set of criteria defining harassment, but cleaning lock 404ed my post.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5575
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 00:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
evepal wrote:Whilst I appreciate the attempt, it's unfortunate that the cleaning removed your examples. There's a lot of context to my quote, as it's following a series of questioning, building upon the latter. It's most probable that you had that in mind when responding, but the clearing has lost the contextual meaning of that chain of reasoning.
Here's an attempt at a definition suitably for use in EVE (certainly not complete).
"Harassment" is defined such that it:
1) Generally doesn't include in game actions (with some notable, but well defined exceptions).
2) Does include speech, regardless of medium, and out of game actions that fit any of the following criteria:
consist of threatened violence to anyone outside the game
consist of any other threats to anyone outside the game
include out of game personal information not disclosed by the recipient to the sender
are part of a pattern of explicitly unwanted communication
"Hurt Feelings" are a subjective result and thus cannot be part of a ruleset. I can get my feelings hurt by someone taking my queen in Chess; that doesn't mean they're wrong for doing so.
Again, it's probably a little light (i.e. may need some more bullet points), but I think it pretty well lays out the difference between Harassment and Hurt Feelings.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5578
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 06:55:00 -
[9] - Quote
Anslo wrote:You nerds are still victim blaming? Go play eve and stop bitching.
I am way too drunk to play EVE,. I do what I want.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5578
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 07:50:00 -
[10] - Quote
evepal wrote:With the inclusion of that, I find no fault with how it's currently presented, personally. Of course, the exceptions to the in game actions are a potential vice, but as they're not stated, I have no issue. It serves a good foundation to be clarified if necessary.
The in-game actions classified has harassment are alreadymentioned in a number of disparate Dev and GM posts, tracking them down sounds like not-fun work best left for others.
Quote:Disappointment carries the connotation that I have some sort of hope or expectation as to the conclusion of the discussion, this is contrary to what I've stated before. Though you're correct in that I was in the midst of a socratic method, which is why I said it lost its context.
If you don't have a specific point to make, you're not using the Socratic method very well, since the method is designed is to show that the other guy agrees with you even if he initially disagrees with yo,.
In other words, skip the Socratic series of leading questions and state your claim/inequality directly (assuming you have one). We're pretty good at asking questions to clarify the definitions of obscure mathematical operators (and other operators) as needed.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
|
|
|
| |
|