GM's holding strangers accountable for toxic behavior

There’s been reports elsewhere where this sequence of events happens:

  1. PvP occurs between two parties, initiated because one party uses the element of surprise
  2. The surprised side – and the losing side – begins making IRL death threats
  3. GMs hold the other party (the one who did the surprising) as accountable for the toxic behavior of the second party. Under some “provocation principle”.

I don’t think I have to explain how this kills off PvP or makes it risky. For the peanut gallery I’ll explain anyway: as a low sec pirate, I don’t want to have to screen potential “pew-pew-partners” for mental stability lest risking my ability to play the game because GMs will ban me, and I don’t want to adjust my gameplay to wait for the other person to initiate the limited engagement timer as “proof” I didn’t provoke.

Can the CSM please raise this issue to CCP and get this GM process fixed? The only person that should be accountable for being toxic and spewing IRL death threats is the person making them. Other major gaming companies get this right.


I concur, @Brisc_Rubal .
With the way this game has been portrayed and marketed over the years, blaming the pirate/ganker/whatever for the toxicity that spews from the victim is wrong and will potentially kill off pvp.

1 Like

You can guarantee I’ll raise this issue.


This reminds me th dozens of emails and convo invites from players I ganked where they wished me cancer, death, death to all my family and slow death with a lot of pain. Yet we are the wrong ones…

1 Like

Thank you Brisc.

What kind of a joke of a GM holds you responsible for the other party threatening you? I honestly don’t believe this and I kinda want to see these reports myself. If there is a GM banning people for this, they need the boot. The risk in PvP should be your ship and pod, not randomly being removed from existence by the hand of god because your target made threats against you.


I can’t satisfy your request but if you reach out to @Aiko_Danuja maybe they can.

1 Like

The fact that a GM says a mission expires after downtime and shown proof that it shouldnt, and still wanna punish someone says a lot about the current gee em pool of poo

Maybe the GM in question (if exists) considers this a metagame move. :upside_down_face:


Ok… that one sentence alone made me think I might just know why the GM said that. I always find it interesting that in those cases the other side of the chat is never revealed. Were these people invited to a convo perhaps or a channel or even discord maybe? Those threats are never ok, but is it ok for people to pester, prod or torture a person until he does? And then report them?

Maybe when that happens both sides should get a warning or boot? You see how this is just going to be a downward spiral. If you are going to meta game people to get themselves into a possible banning or warnings, and then complain when the GM sees the whole picture. Just be careful that you also do not get your own type of meta gaming into CCP/GM crosshairs as well as some point in the future.

@Brisc_Rubal Just be aware there is a lot of context here that also needs to be looked into.


If it relates to Aiko, then if you play the villain, you need some thick skin.

While the toxicity of the community is something that needs to be addressed, someone blowing off frustration at being killed isn’t toxic, it’s just an emotional response at a point in time.

If it carried on, then that would be different, but I hope we don’t all get crazy with what community safety means. People still need to be able to express their frustration and villains should expect the momentary lashing out of someone that had their space pixels destroyed.


Then people play “villain” just to cause toxic outburst. Masking it under tag of RP. And at this point. GM decision was rather adequate.

@Brisc_Rubal when talking with CCP about this. Pay very close attention and look into both sides. We are starting to steep on razor blade thin line of meta gaming bans. With big history record of how GM’s handle stuff around here. It just looks like scary future.


That’s a bit of a stretch. People can just play the villain as part of enjoying the game. They can’t control how others respond, but they should expect it.

Ultimately, it’s very immature to have an emotional outburst, but there are lots of immature people playing the game.


Maybe the GM has no idea what they are doing and has never played the game and needs some training before taking on that roll.

Obviously the victum is in a highly emotional state and probably immature/spoilt #kids of this era, but that is no excuse to blame the person executing the gank. Only the victum for their lack of emotional control/respect for other players.

Should the victum get banned instantly? No I think warning first time followed by suspention then ban imo. What is the purpose of punishment if they cannot learn from it and become a better person.

But the person doing the gank should never get any type of punishment unless he/she too responds aggressively with counter death threats.

Jumping to conclusions just on very basic overview of situation (or rathe lack of any overview) from OP is “a bit of a stretch”. I just showed other side of the coin. That everyone here, in very biased forum community. Forgets about.

Nah. You just jumped to a single motivation for ganking. It’s been done before and it’ll be done again, but it’s always a misguided and incorrect assumption.

Did I mentioned ganking somewhere?

OK sure. You jumped to a single motivation for playing the villain. It’s been done before and it’ll be done again, but it’s always a misguided and incorrect assumption.

1 Like

I personally don’t metagame. I shoot stuff because it’s fun and it’s a game. I am on the receiving end of convo requests. Sometimes minutes after my pirate activity (yes, people AFK in low sec).

When people private Convo me, in my experience, there’s about a 80% change they ask me “why”. I am straight with people. “It is fun and a game”. Those folks simply can’t handle that truth. They start wishing IRL harm on me in response. Calling me “dented in the head” or some variation is the most common IRL initial insult. It usually gets worse from there as I say nothing.

I typically report chat, close chat, and move on with life. I want to play a fun game. I do not want a ban from the game from just living my pirate life. I simply bring this issue up as a lay player, if there are additional circumstances for specific issues, OK. I don’t care to know more. But there’s no transparency for little guys like me to be assured without asking the CSM for help.

Edit: for shoe on the other foot, those guys spewing IRL garbage that I report shouldn’t get a free pass either under some “provocation” shield since they lost a ship. That shield is what would protect the toxic reputation of EVE that CCP claims to want to address.


Okay, I don’t know the specifics or veracity of the reports lo mentioned. However, I want to say this:

First, “surprise PvP” is the only thing necessary to make some players go off the handle. I don’t antagonize my targets, yet I have gotten some extremely nasty responses. Sometimes, they will persist by repeatedly trying to start private chats or sending Evemails, and sometimes, they will even make real life threats. Thus, I don’t want anyone to be under the illusion that if prey start behaving toxicly and/or break the EULA, then it must be because player killers antagonized them. Truth is, sometimes the only thing you need to do to set someone off is to kill them (or a friend of theirs).

Second, trash talk isn’t against the EULA. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either hunters or prey doing it, and it can be an effective strat for baiting people into making stupid mistakes. Thus, I don’t want anyone to confuse trash talk with hate speech, cyber-bullying, or real life threats. These things are not the same.

Third, it doesn’t matter whether it was the hunter, the prey, or both who violated the EULA, or who started it. Anyone who violates the EULA should be held accountable. Naturally, this does not mean that I think that everyone should immediately get the harshest punishment possible. However, no one should get a free pass just because “someone else started it.” Two wrongs, do not make a right.