EVE Search - Sticky:New Dev Blog: Alliance Panel at Fanfest 2012: The Conclusion

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:New Dev Blog: Alliance Panel at Fanfest 2012: The Conclusion

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 135	Posted - 2012.03.30 06:57:00 - [1] - Quote First, I like CCP's decision. I think it's fair. Mittani was clearly out of line, but permabanning him would ignore the fact that it was not just him alone being an ass. To be fair, it's not like everyone else was being polite and sober in one corner and he suddenly dashed off and crossed the line by jumping over it; it's more like there was and has been for some time a crowd at or across the line and he was drunk and staggered one step too far in the wrong direction. Question to CCP and/or CSM: Considering that this event was not an isolated incident, but a culmination of a culture where it is considered normal and acceptable (even desirable by some) to publicly humiliate rivals and verbally abuse other players in order to "harvest tears" (and I assure you those are RL tears), are you planning to take steps to fix the underlying bully-friendly culture? Or do you consider the culture just fine, as long as suicide etc are not mentioned? (Before anyone cries about making EVE a WoW in Space, no, that's not what I am after. I want an EVE where baiting, ganking, blobbing, scamming, trapping, using clever tricks, gloating on local and PR wars are still possible. But I also want an EVE where it is not ok to point and laugh when someone is upset, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc slurs to hurt people for real. And where we all admit that part of why EVE is great is that it is a serious game and to be good at it you have to take it seriously - compare to RL sports - and that's why losing actually matters. See more of that in this discussion.)
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 137	Posted - 2012.03.30 07:40:00 - [2] - Quote The EVE that CCP sells is a sandbox game where you can do anything. They by no means have ever, anywhere, sold a game where you can go on stage in their live event and use your limelight time to point and laugh at other players, let alone call them names and incite other players to harass them in game to drive them to suicide. They also do have rules in place about what is acceptable language (though it does seem they do not have the resources and/or interest to enforce those). That they let it go as far as actual reference to driving someone to death before they intervened is what should surprise people here - not that they did eventually do something. A sandbox is for building whatever you want and playing whatever games you like. There is no fixed plot you have to use and you can use the toys provided the way you like. But if you start calling other kids names and throwing the sand in their eyes, a kindergarten teacher is going to come and pick you up and put you on the timeout bench, and no amount of kicking and screaming about how it was your sand will save you. The only thing left to do at that point is to grow up and realize that despite having the freedom to play you do not have the freedom to bully.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 137	Posted - 2012.03.30 08:20:00 - [3] - Quote GeneralDisturbed wrote: Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote: The EVE that CCP sells is a sandbox game where you can do anything. They by no means have ever, anywhere, sold a game where you can go on stage in their live event and use your limelight time to point and laugh at other players, let alone call them names and incite other players to harass them in game to drive them to suicide. They also do have rules in place about what is acceptable language (though it does seem they do not have the resources and/or interest to enforce those). That they let it go as far as actual reference to driving someone to death before they intervened is what should surprise people here - not that they did eventually do something. That they let it go on so long shouldn't surprise anybody. This is the eve a lot of players, including myself were sold on when we joined. A game where you can be a space bastard and CCP gives no fucks. They looked at the slides, they knew what the goon presentation was about- all the players we've griefed over the year, and they approved it just fine. I agree on this 100 %. They looked away and let it go on so long and so far that people actually honestly join the game expecting that public humiliation of other players and pointing and laughing in order to "harvest tears" is CCP-encouraged policy, rather than a result of them not having a policy they enforce and letting a particular player group sell their idea as The Truth About Eve. (And some people probably join and leave without CCP ever hearing of them, because that point is sold to them too, so well that they never even attempt petitioning.) That's a huge problem, and while I think Mittens's punishment is fair, it should not be made so that he will be made the sole scapegoat of what is a wide-spread cultural problem in the whole EVE. That would not be in the interests of anyone, not the ones who want the right to make other people cry for real, and not the ones who oppose it. I am rather shocked they approved of slides that consisted of nothing but berating other players. Yes, they say in the devblog that the alliance panel is supposed to be a really open forum and yes, I see the value in that... but still. I am even more WTF about the players who think this is what we should hear from our most successful alliance leaders, whom I am pretty damn sure would have actually interesting things to provide, instead of what you can hear on any high-sec local any day. I mean, whether or not you like that stuff being on locals - would you still rather not hear something more unique in the alliance panel?
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 139	Posted - 2012.03.30 08:59:00 - [4] - Quote I do not think Mittens wanted the person to actually die. My guess is he really just did not think about it that way at all - he made a joke, and the thought that it might have real consequences just did not occur to him at the moment. Had he stopped to think things like "Do I really want that person to hurt themselves? Is there any risk that he might?", he probably would have just not made the joke at all. For me this issue does not really depend on whether Mittens intended it as a joke or not, and whether the victim was at any point in any real danger. This is not primarily about the victim (and sorry if that sounds harsh), this is about what kind of behavior is acceptable. It is very usual in school bullying incidents for the perpetrators to be totally astonished when they are punished: "It was just a joke! We did not really think he cared!" And the point is, a lot of them really never did. That does not make bullying ok. Beyond that, CCP has spoken about the issues you mention in another related devblog: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28575 - you probably get more out of that than from me trying to interpret their intentions to you. :) For the record, I do think they botched stuff here and before - to use my metaphor, they are not very good kindergarten teachers here and need to do some shaping up - but so do they.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 145	Posted - 2012.03.30 10:46:00 - [5] - Quote Darth Gustav wrote: Duly noted and I will be posting a quote from this thread to that thread. Not like I expect my questions to be answered - or even considered. CCP's actions speak volumes here. Volumes. EDIT: Also, having to consider any possible risk to any victim in this game ever pretty much negates the whole game, as there's no telling what emorage from internet spaceship violence might bring out in an otherwise well-adjusted but relatively new Eve player. I'm absolutely serious, think about the culpability that implies. No one is asking you to think of any possible culpability. As I read CCP's statements on this, they have been absolutely not at all against the miner having been blown up in the first case. Their condemnation only concerns what was said about it, to whom, and how. There has been a discussion about this on GD (thread asking for clarification on this), and like I said there, based on the CCP statement and GM comment in the thread, I interpret it this way: If you are shooting someone's ship, and at quarter armor they tell you they are suicidal and ask you to stop, it is fine (as per EVE rules - individual morals aside) to continue shooting. It is not fine to tell them to go ahead and do it, point and laugh, or share the message with others encouraging them to drive him to it, not even as a joke. If seriously you cannot tell the difference and think that the only way to avoid doing what Mittani was punished for is to never do anything at all in EVE just in case you hurt someone, I don't think you should be playing the game. It's obviously way too complex for you.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 157	Posted - 2012.03.30 16:05:00 - [6] - Quote Quote: i disagree that CSM speaks and represents ALL of EVE players. you however DO represent those who VOTED for you. Sorry, but while you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. "The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the GÇ£greatest good for the greater player baseGÇ¥. --- A council of nine player Representatives will be democratically elected by EVE players." http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM (empasis mine) In a democracy, typically when there is an election to choose representatives, the idea is that whoever is chosen becomes a representative of the whole thing. They are supposed to represent the good of the whole population, not just those who voted for them. The vote is there for so that the population can have a say what sort of things they consider "good" - they are supposed to vote for someone who holds their values and ideas, say. But after they are chosen, they become, for example, "the president of Finland", not "the president of those Finns who bothered to get off their asses on the election day and thought this guy was a good candidate". There is nothing in the CSM rules that makes me think this is intended to be otherwise in CSM. Quite the opposite, the quote above speaks of "good of the greater player base". And while 10k accounts is a lot as far as votes go, it is still only about 4 percent of all accounts - not very great a base.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 157	Posted - 2012.03.30 16:52:00 - [7] - Quote Quote: Can we ban CCP? Sure. It's called "cancelling your account". If you think CCP acted criminally, cancel your account and report to local authorities. Quote: I dont understand if someone asked "victim" player. "Are you healthy? Did you not kill yourself? Did you visit family or a doctor?" CCP has spoken to him. Mittens has also (according to him) apologized to him personally. He has been reported to be ok. As I gather it, he does not want further publicity.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 157	Posted - 2012.03.30 17:06:00 - [8] - Quote You do realize, I am sure, that the mail that was read in the panel was months old? Beyond that, it is not at all our place to judge whether he was really suicidal or not. Regardless of whether he was, and what has gone on between CCP, him, and possibly the local authorities (which is none of your business, and under confidentiality, and neither the victim nor the CCP has any reason, let alone duty, to tell you any details about it), joking about something like that was a crap thing to do. If someone makes a suicide threat you believe not to be genuine, you report to whoever can take action in case it is genuine, and then STFU about it, not coax everyone to harass him for punishment. I trust I do not have to explain why.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 158	Posted - 2012.03.30 17:46:00 - [9] - Quote Darth Gustav: No, that it was months old does not make anything ok. But sending cops over somewhere because of a months old suicide threat without checking with the guy who threatened will make said cops really, really pissed off. ;) As to why that was not handled at the time by CCP is probably because no one who saw it then bothered petitioning it, instead of circulating it internally and making fun of it - not because of petition backlog. A lot of petitions get looked at fairly fast, e.g. stuck petitions, EULA/TOS violations and suspicions of exploiting; I expect this would have. Again, how the guy fares now and what his contact with authorities, legal or medical, has or has not been, is none of your effing business. If one of us knew what his medical status is and spoke of it here, we could be banned. ("An immediate permanent ban of an account may result if a player: b. Divulges private and/or personal information about another subscriber or an official EVE Online representative through the EVE Online client or web site."). Back off. I am not going to explain to you for a hundreth time why Mittani's behavior was out of line. If you do not get it yet, you either will not read the explanations, or will never get it. Ibn: I have never said, and neither has CCP said, that you cannot blow up my ship if I threaten with suicide (which I won't do, but as a hypothetical ;)). For the hundreth time, Mittani was not punished for blowing the guy up; he was punished for what was said about it. This is not black and white. We can at the same time accept blowing people's ships up no matter what they say to you to plead or threaten you to stop, think threatening with a suicide in a game is a crap thing to do, and think that pointing and laughing at people who are OOCly upset is also a crap thing to do. If you cannot handle that many different aspects of thinking at the same time, maybe you should not be playing EVE. It is such complex game, it might be too much for you.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 158	Posted - 2012.03.30 19:21:00 - [10] - Quote Selinate wrote: If CCP puts him back on the CSM or lifts his ban before 30 days, I'm unsubbing and taking a hiatus again. I am not too big on playing games where this kind of behavior is allowed. Think it very likely CCP will change their call on something like this just because forumragetears? Yea, me neither.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 158	Posted - 2012.03.30 19:28:00 - [11] - Quote I think the reply uses "forum" in the generic sense, as in, a place where people talk about stuff, as opposed to "forum" as in these specific thingies on web. The reply is about the fact that yes, Fanfest alliance panels are covered by CCP rules of conduct, as they are places "sponsored by CCP", as opposed to say tables in a random pub. And anyone who thinks that the fact that they need to "intuit" the idea that is is NOT OK to encourage other players to harass someone in order to hurt them in RL, even as a joke, is a problem... well, they should not be communicating in any shape or form with the civilized world anyhow, so cannot see it as a problem myself if they cannot see the line and get banned as a result.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 159	Posted - 2012.03.31 07:56:00 - [12] - Quote Demon Azrakel wrote: Seriously, most of the player base had no issue with the event setup itself or the comments made. We were rather happy about the setup, and some of the presentations were rather good, including the controversial presentation in question. I don't doubt it that from where you are, it looks like that "most of the player base" had no issue; from where I am, however, it seems that most of it did.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 169	Posted - 2012.03.31 13:51:00 - [13] - Quote ASuperVillain wrote: Now much like the fact there are warning labels on vending machines, "do not tip may crush you to death." Will EvE be packaged with a "don't play if depressed people may grief you to death?" or how about "trust no-one you don't have a physical address for and have met at LEAST once." Current EULA actually reads: "You may encounter and converse with people who are rude, offensive, belligerent, and who may use indecent, obscene, and/or threatening or harassing language while playing the Game. You may report any instances of such behavior to CCP. CCP will investigate and take such measures as CCP, in its sole judgment, determines are reasonable under the circumstances. CCP does not guarantee that you will not encounter behavior of others that you may view as insulting, demeaning, offensive, threatening or harassing. You assume all risk associated with playing the Game, and CCP assumes no responsibility for the conduct of any other players, and shall not be liable to you or any other person for their conduct. "
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 177	Posted - 2012.03.31 19:55:00 - [14] - Quote Hasn't learned to credit his sources yet, though. Maybe he'll learn that next. ;)
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 179	Posted - 2012.04.01 08:24:00 - [15] - Quote Quote: truly believe he deserves to be singled out & mocked in public That's the major problem with the EVE community currently: people seriously believing other people can deserve this, and not even just as punishment for something actually heinous or criminal they did after a proper investigation(), but just because they think the person did something ridiculous. () Personally I don't really believe in public naming&shaming even as a punishment for actual crimes, but I can understand a contrary viewpoint in that case. Talking about people who made a silly mistake "deserving" what is nothing but a mob bullying them disgusts me.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 182	Posted - 2012.04.01 17:09:00 - [16] - Quote Azran Zala wrote: I dont believe he wanted to make the guy hurt himself. I do believe he told others that if they are interested in ganking the guy his char is.... In a previous alliance, we had some highsec carebear smacktalking our FC's mining alt, and bumping it etc. In response we decked his corp and our ENTIRE ALLIANCE spend the war targeting this single player, ignoring his corp mates. when the dust settled we'd made an absulute fool of him, destroyed several of his ships including an orca, and scammed him out of 500mil. That could be regarded as player harasment, but I'd surely be pissed off if a presidence was set that allowed entire our alliance to be banned for defending our FC's honor. You went in war because of smacktalk, and you exploded some ships to defend the honor of the guy who was smacktalked. The Mittani encouraged others to go after someone in order to drive them to suicide. I am sure you can figure out the difference between those two yourself. ;) Once more: The Mittani was not banned for his alliance having explodered the miner's ship. He was banned for what he said about the evemail the guy had sent to public while on stage. Any alarm about how we will soon not be allowed to exploder spaceships anymore is premature and frankly quite ridiculous.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 182	Posted - 2012.04.01 17:12:00 - [17] - Quote What if I cry louder? They seem to like crying.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 184	Posted - 2012.04.01 17:41:00 - [18] - Quote Azran Zala wrote: Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote: The Mittani encouraged others to go after someone in order to drive them to suicide No he didn't, many may have interpreted it that way. In any case, *CCP* apparently does not think that what he did was the same as killing a dude's ship in game. So even if you do not see the difference, you should be safe from banning.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 185	Posted - 2012.04.01 17:52:00 - [19] - Quote I don't personally believe for a moment that was the case. But whatever. Tinfoil is tinfoil and won't change to anything else by us talking about it, and I doubt even a dev coming up and telling you that YES, there was a difference, would not remove it.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 185	Posted - 2012.04.01 18:24:00 - [20] - Quote I've said this before but since apparently not everyone has read it: 1) Blowing up someone's ship does not make it ok for them to pull the suicide card. 2) Someone threatening with suicide does not make it ok for to publicly mock them and encourage others to drive them to it. 3) Someone publicly mocking a suicide case does not make it ok for others to mock him back, let alone threaten his family. "He started it" and "he was asking for it" are not good excuses for escalating RL hurt. Whether The Wis was really suicidal or not is not relevant for whether it was ok for The Mittani to say what he did. If someone threatens with RL suicide inside the game, you are supposed to use petitions to report it to CCP, who know his RL details and can forward the threat to the proper RL people.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 192	Posted - 2012.04.02 08:03:00 - [21] - Quote Without even reading the post, I have to point out it's dated 04.02, so for an April Fool's, it's a tad late...
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 199	Posted - 2012.04.02 19:22:00 - [22] - Quote Darth Gustav wrote: You seem to miss the point. If there were some grievous offense against a suicidal person, why weren't the authorities called and dispatched to the victim in question? If the victim is, in fact, fine - two things: 1) CCP needs to deal with this by contacting law enforcement. Fake suicide threats are serious business. 2) CCP's punishment against The Mittani is entirely baseless. No victim means no offense. If the guy isn't suicidal, then all this can possibly boil down to is sarcasm and allegory. I have said this to you before, but here goes again: 1) You do not know whether authorities have been informed. 2) You do not know what they did if they were. 3) You do not know what lead to them not being informed, if CCP decided to refrain (after contacting the victim). 4) Most importantly, it is none of your business to know. CCP will never and can never publish that information. It is another player's private information that has no place whatsoever on a public announcement or forum. 5) Now stop making a fool of yourself by behaving as if absence of confidential information in public is proof of something.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 199	Posted - 2012.04.02 19:45:00 - [23] - Quote Darth Gustav wrote: 4) I like the, "Nyeah! None of your business!" argument. We knew Alex's personal information, and now he's been smeared all over the internet with REAL CONTACT INFO. And that, obviously, makes it ok to demand that we post about real life information of the guy he targeted? Could you explain by which logic? If you know anything for a fact about what happened to him in this case, posting it is bannable offense. HTH, HAND.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 199	Posted - 2012.04.02 19:56:00 - [24] - Quote Darth Gustav wrote: Where is the vitriol at his local donut-eater station then? Who will champion this poor sad man teetering near the edge? It's hard to answer the real ******* questions, isn't it? It isn't, but it seems to be hard to read the answers (hint: there's 70ish pages of this discussion here and 200+ in the apology thread and yes, that question too has been answered multiple times). That, or you are just trying to get the final word, regardless of any arguments presented.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 225	Posted - 2012.04.06 07:36:00 - [25] - Quote The beginning of the above post had sense (EVE is important, we do care, we are looking for boundaries). Then it went down the drain, assuming that all or most of the outrage would be abusing someone's perceived hurt to attack one person, instead of actually, well caring about the boundaries.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 225	Posted - 2012.04.06 08:14:00 - [26] - Quote I have no idea why you are talking to me about CCP's responsibility in this as a response to what I posted; the two do not seem related. As before, you seem to labor under the illusion that there's only two sides to the debate and if someone holds one opinion, they hold a bunch of others too. I posted nothing that as far I can see could be construed as defense of CCP or denying that they had their share of the responsibility too? I am afraid the thought has crossed my mind that you must be Mittani alt - who else but the person in trouble himself could be so hurt by the event that the perception of it being UNFAIR that his response to anything posted (even posts that do not mention him at all) is to find someone else to blame? Thank you for the kind words though. I quite like how that portrait turned out myself.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 230	Posted - 2012.04.06 17:38:00 - [27] - Quote Nevermind, you either totally missed my point about the sides, or intentionally misinterpreted it. It does not seem you are able to see anything in this except people who agree with you on everything related to it, and "self-serving rabble" who disagree with you on everything. The idea that someone might agree with you on some things and disagree with you on others seems to be completely impossible... Just remember that you saying it is so does not make it so - not even if you get the final word. It would serve some agendas to make this a Mittani vs the World issue, but that's not what it is.
Elsebeth Rhiannon Gradient Electus Matari 235	Posted - 2012.04.08 19:22:00 - [28] - Quote ^ Without intending this as on a comment on The Mittani's case, has it occurred to you that people who contemplate ending their lives might not be in a state where they are very good at rational thought? Such things are usually decided in a mental, emotional state where things feel irrationally hopeless, and where you are under the illusion that everyone and everything is against you. Adding to such feelings by behaving in a way that seems to confirm the feelings can really matter, even though similar behavior would at worst merely annoy someone who is not at the brink already.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.