I think this thread could also be titled: “I want to wardec somebody, but CCP amputated that part of Eve.”
1 Like
Some of us are problem solvers…
1 Like
Ganking input automators is best.
The correct amount.
Seriously though, staff has said before that they will not supply a specific number on most things that involve infractions.
They will look at each complaint on an individual basis.
–Helpful Gadget
2 Likes
CCP would seem to disagree with you. Their TOS and EULA apparently hint that there are sequences of gameplay which constitute “harrassment”.
But I think that I agree with your statement, here.
Again, CCP disagrees with you. There are sequences of gameplay they would deem “harrassment”. And, we cannot know the aggressor’s “intentions”, not least of which is because the aggressor, being that he/she is some sort of organically based “natural” intelligence (NI), probably does not fully understand his/her own intentions. We can only look at outward expression, but I can tell you from experience that the sweetest, most unaggressive intention can yield an outward expression of pushing a girl down onto the concrete and making her cry and skin her knee. We can’t READ intentions, only actions.
A favorite joke of mine goes: “In New York, when they say, ‘Up yours!’, they really just mean ‘Excuse me.’, and in Los Angeles, when they say ‘Excuse me.’, they really mean ‘Up yours!’.”
Aggression can occur along a very wide and deep spectrum. If CCP does not wish for their spaceship aggression simulator to facilitate aggression at a certain point along that spectrum, then why does gameplay even exist at that point of the spectrum? If you don’t want your players to call eachother [expletive deleted], then why are you giving them a chat room?
I have have had my life threatened on more than one occasion, with fists (Yes, it is a deadly weapon.), guns, knives, dogs, a BMW . . . I don’t sit and wonder, “Does he mean it personally?”. I don’t care.
If I am under physical threat, I am under physical threat. If you threaten me or attempt to harm me in some manner, I take it personally and you are subject to a “personal” response. All my counter-aggression, in EVE and in life is “personal”. Should I be banned?
Because you can always log out . . . so wouldn’t the “harrassment” have to breach this boundary to even be considered harrassment?
The TOS and EULA is essentially the word of God, as far as New Eden is concerned. Of course it is “force”.
Well, the TOS and EULA are not “in-game”. They are externally imposed.
Just what are you arguing? Are you even arguing in good faith?
It’s his normal argumentative spiel disguised as pseudo-intellectualism; ignore it, your forum experience will be better for it.
2 Likes
Yes, but what should their game BE? What should their TOS and EULA say? It is not meaningless to ask.
Show me where I have told you what I think.
If you don’t understand my “argument”, maybe you should read it again, more carefully. I don’t know what part of it is unclear to you based on your responses.
It’s totally situation, lets say he keeps coming into your corps space, kill him as many times as you like.
On the other hand lets say you keep following him to dozens of different systems.
I cannot imagine a case where 2 or 3 would be an issue unless there was some hard additional evidence like mails or something.
It’s only harrassment when I’m the victim. Everyone else is just a potato in a chair… clicking the mouse with it’s eyes. That’s gross.
Disagree on what? I already said that there are sequences of gameplay that might constitute harassment and be against the ToS / EULA. What did I say that CCP would seem to disagree with me? How does anything you said prove or even be an indication that CCP disagrees with anything I said?
You’re missing the point. We (or rather CCP) don’t need to know the intentions, nor do those intentions matter, if what the player is doing can be considered acceptable gameplay regardless, which suicide ganking is. It’s only when the player does something that evidences unacceptable behaviour that those intentions come into play.
The key here is that neither you, nor me, nor the victim of a suicide gank, get to decide what constitutes unacceptable behaviour within the game, CCP does, so you better understand what does and doesn’t constitute unacceptable behaviour in EvE and learn to deal with it if you want to play and enjoy the game.
If you have trouble differentiating between game and RL, you’re going to have a hard time understanding how something that would constitute unacceptable behaviour in RL might constitute acceptable behaviour in EvE, and hence won’t be able to understand where the line has to be drawn, but that would be your problem, not a problem with the game or with the ToS / EULA…
Obviously because it’s not possible to prevent unacceptable behaviour using game mechanics alone without breaking or ruining the game in some way. That’s precisely why those situations are dealt with by a GM on a case by case basis, because they cannot be dealt with algorithmically…
WTF are you on about here? Obviously you give them chat rooms so they may communicate with each other, not for harassing each other…
As would I, because that’s RL, not a game…
That would be fine… as long as you keep it within the game and don’t do things like making RL threats in game and crap like that…
I’m pretty sure you would even be able to follow that player around to try to disrupt his gameplay and still not be breaking the ToS / EULA in this case, because you would be seeking revenge, which is fine, again as long as you keep it within the game and don’t abuse the system.
No. Nobody is forced to do anything because there are lots of things you can do and tools at your disposal to be able to do them. You appear to be confusing not being able to do something with not being able to do it safely… You’re not supposed to be able to do anything safely in EvE, at least not in space, don’t confuse that with being forced to do or not do something…
I’m not sure I understand this question. Someone trying to make you log off could definitely be seen by a GM as breaking the ToS / EULA, if that’s what you mean, but you logging off because you’re unable/unwilling to deal with the situation, wouldn’t by itself make the situation rule breaking…
Please, refrain from omitting relevant parts of what I said to try to make it look like I said something else…
What I said is this:
The part I’ve emphasised now and that you purposely omitted (which is what you were talking about that I was replying to when I said that, btw), is precisely what makes that statement correct.
Of course the ToS / EULA enforces certain things. What I said is that none of the things that it enforces are play a “game of peace love and harmony”…
Again, so what? What does this have to do with the fact that all players have to “resort to game mechanics in pursuit of their desired outcome”?
Whatever CCP wants it to be, of course, as long as it abides by the RL laws of the countries where it’s intended to be played, including what EvE already is and the ToS / EULA already says as a perfectly acceptable possibility. WTF are you on about now?
The rules are quite clear. You can gank the same person over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. It is up to them to make a minimal effort to play the game and easily avoid you. That is their responsibility.
5 Likes
if the person makes no effort to avoid being ganked, ie they dont move systems or they only move 1 over it is legal
if the person moves to whole regions and you follow than it becomes harassment
3 Likes
So if for example the gankers who gank in Uedama try to avoid some ag they can move to Aufay to gank and if the ag follows that is harassment?
1 Like
They could petition and see what happens… 
If you can’t be arsed to read the relevant, quoted passage an inch above my response to that passage, then we cannot continue this “discussion”. You are not communicating in good faith.
Do you see how I might get confused? On the one hand, you’re talking about intentions and on the other hand you are completely discounting intentions.
wat? I thought we were talking about harrassment. Why are you narrowing possible gameplay to just suicide ganking?
I have no problem differentiating acceptable behavior from unacceptable behavior in real life. I never suicide gank or commit theft when I’m flying around in my real spaceship.
That’s actually what I am trying to discuss, but you guys are going on about “acceptable behavior” 'n [expletive deleted]. @Nana_Skalski responded to one of my posts that aggression in the game is not limited.
My real question is: Why isn’t aggression limited? That’ strikes me as a failure of game design. In chess, if you are too aggressive, you run out of pieces. In boxing you worn down and knocked out. In football, the opposing team just stops you. In tennis, you get wrong-footed. etc., etc., etc. Why is it that in EVE Online, there is no natural check on the aggression players can exhibit towards one another?
Okay, but if you don’t want certain kinds of communication to take place, you have to go into the business of censorship. Do you understand the magnitude of that task?
So, how and WHY should my response to virtual threat differ from my response to “real” threat? What is the point of differentiating the two? It just seems like you’re complicating the analysis for no reason whatsoever.
The chat room is within the game. If someone threatens to murder you in the chat room in the game, that’s within the game field. Maybe you’d like to rephrase that.
Beyond that, it goes back to censorship. Determining what is “acceptable” communication is a huge undertaking. It doesn’t seem worth it to me unless people are actually killing eachother in real life (or cutting eachother’s hands off or whatever).
It sounds like what you’re saying is that you can’t force other players to explode. Is that what you’re saying? I’m actually pretty sure there are lots of ways to force players to do lots of things. Are you sure you want to assert this? It is patently wrong.
Are you actually reading before you type? You just asked what having to resort to an out of game mechanic because there is no in-game mechanic that facilitates the same outcome . . . I can’t even.
Right, but if they actually want others to play their game, then . . . uhhhh . . . not so much. They kind of have to cooperate with other people and make a game that those others want. But, yeah, they can make whatever kind of game they want as long as they are willing to just play by themselves or with select friends or people they kidnap and force to play . . . or whatever.
I think that’s good for now.
Obviously nothing will happen. This is all normal gameplay. Running away and hiding will not safe you in EVE, that would be silly. I’m not sure why people think that. The run “away and mine somewhere else” thing was a suggestion some GM made on the topic about bumping. People try to space-lawyer that since, which is exactly the reason CCP doesn’t usually make such statements and hold those rules pretty vague.
Thread needs to be closed. I’m sure the op will get an in game mail if his/her exploits break Tos.
Threads close 3 months after the last post. Be patient.
I am the one not communicating in good faith? LOL.
You claimed CCP would seem to disagree with me about two statements you quoted from me that you then completely ignored and proceeded to talk about something else, as if that something else supported your claim in any way, in the first of those cases even using as “argument” something I had already stated myself…
Precisely because I did read several times what you quoted to try to figure what you were talking about, and couldn’t find anything in what you said that would be an indication that CCP would disagree with anything I said there, is why I asked what exactly was it that CCP supposedly disagreed with me, because it couldn’t be the passages you quoted, at least not based on what you said in reply to them…
That you lump everything together and make a mess of it all, thus causing you lose track of the very things you say yourself, is your problem, not mine…
What I’m saying is that intentions do matter and are taken into consideration by GM in determining whether a situation constitutes harassment, but only when there is some evidence of potentially rule breaking behaviour, i.e. that it doesn’t really matter that it’s not possible to know the intentions in general, because it’s only in situations where there is evidence of those intentions that they need to be taken into consideration.
You and me are talking about harassment in general, but the thread in which we’re doing it is specifically about suicide ganking, hence why I made reference to that particular case, not to narrow anything. What I said can obviously be extended to anyone other than CCP not having a say on what constitutes harassment within the game…
Nor did I say you do. It’s in game that you seem to have a problem with that…
But it is limited. That someone said it isn’t doesn’t make that statement true and probably not what she meant either.
For starters, criminal timers do impose a hard limit on how often illegal aggression can be done by any given character, but then the circumstances and the extent to which that aggression is allowed is also limited by the ToS/EULA.
What isn’t limited (and is probably what that other poster meant because that’s what the OP was asking) is the number of times you can gank the same player over and over…
If you analyse carefully where the limit to “aggression” comes from in those games/sports, you’ll see that, as long as the “aggression” is acceptable gameplay, it always comes from the opponent taking advantage of the exceedingly aggressive behaviour, not from any game mechanic intended to limit such aggressiveness.
The question you should ask yourself is not why there isn’t some game mechanic to limit aggression, but rather why the victims of aggression in EvE don’t do the same that “aggressed” players do in other games/sports…
It’s actually simpler than you seem to believe. You don’t need censorship at all, just the ability to report inappropriate behaviour in the use of those tools.
The main point is understanding that a real life threat is a big deal, but having your spaceship shot in a spaceship shooting game isn’t. Everything else follows from there.
There is nothing wrong with reacting to your ship loss in any way you want… as long as you keep it in game and don’t make a big deal of it…
You may use in game tools like chat or mail for out of game harassment, e.g. RL threats, hate speech, etc. That’s against the ToS/EULA.
No. I meant what I said. Nobody can force you to do anything in this game, and not because you may log off to avoid that.
Such as?
Yes, often more than once, actually. Do you? I don’t think I asked what you just said I asked there, but can’t say for sure because I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re talking about. That sentence does not even seem grammatically correct to me…
You understand it’s simply impossible to make a game that everybody would like, right? That’s why there are lots of different games out there…