Could we change the rules of engagement in the eve forum?


I don’t think this kind of forced behavior implements well into the eve universe.
People might get a false perception of the game itself if the rules are forced to offensive.

at least I like to be aware who a person really is instead of this forced “good” behavior.
off course it still would be possible to be nice to others if you want people having a false perception of you.
but this would be effort in a way and could therefore be respected.

the point is I would prefer rude discussions over fake not honest discussions.

What is offensive to you is probably not offensive to me.

This is offensive as ■■■■ to some people. Click at your own risk. I'm not offended by someone calling me a jew, speaking in disbelief of the holocaust, making black jokes, mom jokes, fat jokes, or jokes about suicide. Practically nothing is sacred to me.

Sure I know other people find it offensive, but that to me is their problem, not mine. If someone has a stupid idea, I’ll call it stupid. If they can prove me wrong, I will think better of them. It has certainly happened.

If they can’t, I’ve not wasted time beating around the bush.


Are there really some people here that actually take it to heart? Or regard it at all? I know that I don’t. If some person strikes me as self-absorbed, incompetent or outright stupid, I have no problem calling them out as such.

As evidenced by several players posts being hidden or removed on a daily basis, I think it’s safe to say that we have several easily offended snowflakes on this forum…

That’s completely false. You meant “what makes me feel offended” . Offensive means it is done to harm. If I knock your balls and you don’t get hurt (probably because you have no balls ?) it is still an offensive action.
offensive = goal is to harm someone, defensive = goal is to not be harmed. Communication = goal is to convey a message. When you decide to add aggressivity in communication that means you don’t want to communicate.

If you can make two discourses conveying the same message, and you choose the one that has the potential to hurt the most, then you are making an aggressive action.
eg. if you could just not post because you have nothing to add in the topic, and yet you decide to call someone stupid, this is an aggressive action. Even if nobody is aggressed because they all know you are a troll and just ignore you.
In this case, you are just using an aggressive discourse as a pain relief, because the complexity of life is too painful for you to accept.


But that’s related to flagging, not self-moderating ones post. Those guidelines in the OP are aimed at self-moderation.

At no point does it define a malicious intent as a prerequisite to being offensive.

  1. for the purpose of attack rather than defence

False equivalency.
Rudeness is not a prerequisite of truthfulness.


Why are they attacking rather than defending? Was it malicious? The context of “attack” itself does not imply malice. I’m attacking your argument right now - that doesn’t mean I hold ill will towards you, or intend to cause you distress.

1 Like

Who talked about malice, besides you ?
I was talking about the goal to harm/hurt someone as a requisite to take an offensive action.

The goal to harm is inherently malicious.

Edit: If it would make you feel better, substitute “malicious” with “goal to harm” - the argument remains unchanged. I have no desire to harm you, cause distress, or hurt your feelings. Yet, you (or someone thinner skinned) could easily find it offensive.

Perfect example. Someone loses a ship, said someone is female. I infer that they lost their ship because of their gender, purely in jest. Turns out they’re feminazis and completely fly off the handle. I had no intent to harm, I was making a joke (certainly one in poor taste, but that’s basically the topic of this thread).

and this flagging could lead to your account being banned ect.
from my pov the forum should be an extended playing field to eve itself.

even csm is an extension of the playing field.

therefore humiliating people should be possible.
humiliating triggering and what not suits a purpose.

to lure some one into a trap make him avoid you and other stuff.

Then the context of attack is inherently malicious, thus

is absurd.

Plus you use the wrong term.

Is what you mean, though it is used as a synonym of offensive in the physical meaning.

to be offending is to effectively cause harm, to be offensive is to try to cause harm (whatever is the result)

1 Like

Inherently, no. There are a great many ways an attack, as described above, is not done with malice.

Fair enough, never the less the argument remains valid. To offend someone is not inherently done with the intent of harming them. It can be done (and frequently is) with complete ignorance to their position or disposition.

Further to the point, the very first definition of “Offensive” as an adjective can readily describe the topic we are debating.
a. Causing anger, displeasure, or resentment: an offensive gesture.

Actually from that text emerges that we can post things that UNREASONABLE person would consider offensive or abusive.

Now who can decide if person is unreasonable or reasonable? dont see definition of reasonable there. :thinking:


I’m sure there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. Somewhere.


Reasonable explanation? But what is definition of a reasonable explanation then?

Something that only an unreasonable person could argue with.

But what is the unreasonable person definition then?