Except I do write about how things are in addition to express my opinion.
You’re trying to make it look like all opinions are equally valid, when that’s obviously not the case. The opinion of someone that dismisses as fake any facts that he doesn’t like, or that’s unable/unwilling to understand what’s wrong with his “reasoning” when someone proves him wrong, is utterly worthless…
What I don’t like is you spreading misinformation, e.g. by claiming some fact is fake just because it doesn’t meet your expectations. Your opinion is worth ■■■■ if it contradicts what a GM said is CCP’s current stance on this issue.
Unlike you, if the reply given by the GM had been different, I’d have changed my opinion accordingly, not claim it’s fake or pretend I know better than him. If I disagreed with CCP’s stance on the issue, I would still explain what that stance is to anyone asking, and then maybe say that I don’t like it or whatever, but under no circumstances would I try to make someone believe things are different than they are simply because I may not like them.
That is the difference between explaining how things are, like I do, and merely expressing an opinion and spreading misinformation, like you do…
I’m sorry but I don’t follow sometimes I have a hard time reading between the lines when it’s written in English ah hell even in my own native language I have trouble sometimes.
But truthfully I took your text “who has a lot of anger stored inside…” As a voice of concern, because I took some of his first comments like that. So yes you are right it was coming from me and a miss in the language. and when I ask myself why I had the need to try and explain that I have the experience of the reverse persona it was based on the information given above.
What a coincidence! I have been thinking about this today! Isn’t it funny when people have no idea what they’re doing, or reading, or talking about.
Aha! Sometimes I win even in English here you have wrong, not really wrong wrong but you have made a language mistake by using a common term instead of the clinical term, John Burnham coined it as an acronym and it has since then evolved.
Just so I don’t do the same mistake again what was it that offended you so much? I get the feeling that you felt belittled by me and that was not my intention.
Interesting… There is no way I’d find that to be fun in RL… Which makes me wonder… Why on earth would you find that to be fun in RL, but not in EvE, which is the exact opposite of what I would consider reasonable?
EvE is not just a spaceship shooting game, indeed, if that’s what you mean. Not sure how this is relevant to anything I said…
No, it isn’t. That’s exactly what I tried to explain in my reply, that nobody expects you to like being victimised, much less pay for that. Did you understand what I said there?
No. What makes it more valid is that I base it on facts, and change it if the facts prove me wrong, something that happens very rarely precisely because I don’t even form an opinion about something until I’m fairly sure I got all the facts right. This is in contrast to forming an opinion based on prejudices or wishful thinking first and then dismissing any facts that might prove it wrong…
What makes it more valid is being able to argue it, as opposed to dismissing any arguments to the contrary on the basis that they’re too long to read or whatever…
Your reasons were invalid, and I showed why already. That you decided to ignore why they’re invalid doesn’t make them valid. It just proves your inability to read and argue properly.
ROFL. Except I did. You just dismissed the post where I did on the basis that it was too long to read, which I’m perfectly fine with, I don’t care at all whether you in particular understand a thing. But you pretending that what you didn’t want to read didn’t happen is ■■■■■■■■.
The fabrication are the “reasons” why you claim it’s fake. Pretending that it cannot be true because there is something allowed by the game mechanics but is forbidden by the ToS/EULA in particular, which you kept repeating again and again, is complete ■■■■■■■■, and I showed why already.
It is your fault that those “reasons” aren’t valid. It is your fault that you’re unable to see that by yourself. And it is your fault that you’re unable/unwilling to read the posts where someone does the reasoning you’re incapable of doing yourself to see why they’re invalid.
The truth is that you simply don’t want to believe it could be true because it doesn’t fit your narrative, proceeded to try to justify your unwillingness to believe it with ridiculous arguments that don’t have a leg to stand upon, and then decided to dismiss anything that could prove you wrong on the basis that it was too long to read or whatever…
Because, unlike you, I base my opinions on facts. So if CCP states their rules are different than what I thought they were, I’ll base my opinion on that…
Because, unlike you, I don’t pretend I know better than them what should constitute harassment in EvE and what not…
Because, unlike you, I do my best to try to help others understand how things are, not try to make them believe things are the way I’d like them to be. If I happen to not like how they are, I’ll still explain how they are and then maybe proceed to explain why I don’t like them myself…
I’m wondering whether CCP does make a distinction between following someone around and shooting them, and following someone around and flying into their smartbombs, on the basis of who’s using the offensive module.
Well, the OP asked and got a reply from a GM that she paraphrased in this post because CCP policies don’t allow quoting them verbatim:
Basically, their current stance on the issue appears to be that anything that the game mechanics give the opportunity to do isn’t considered harassment, even if it’s the same player that’s being repeatedly targeted and you’re following him around.
Note that this doesn’t mean you can do anything that the game mechanics allow you to do, just that it isn’t considered harassment. You may still be banned for doing things that the game mechanics make possible, but that are declared exploits or expressly forbidden in the ToS/EULA.
AGAIN, the things that the game mechanics make possible but aren’t allowed are expressly forbidden, so it makes perfect sense that a GM would say or mean that you’re allowed to do anything that the game mechanics make possible, unless expressly forbidden.
AGAIN, you cannot use what was CCP’s stance on the issue six years ago as “proof” that it must still the same, because they already stated themselves years ago that their stance on the issue had changed.
So yes, your “reasons” why you pretend a GM cannot have said that are ■■■■■■■■.
Not to mention he may not have said it with those words, but rather, AGAIN, he may have said something to the effect that it’s allowed to do anything that the game mechanics make possible unless expressly forbidden, which makes perfect sense…
Of course all exploits are expressly forbidden in the ToS/EULA. What isn’t there is a list of exploits, but exploits are expressly forbidden, all of them.
It’s really funny how you pretend your “reasons” are valid by completely ignoring why they’re invalid…
Of course you’re basing your “reasons” on what their stance on the issue was years ago when you pretend you may use as “proof” what their actions were years ago. For you to have a point here, you would need a recent case of someone having been banned or warned for following someone around, not someone having been banned or warned years ago…
I must say that I am astonished by the lack of appreciation by the OP.
Here is a guy who follows you over and over again through many systems, just to explain and to show you that using smartbombs in high-sec is not really smart and that you should put your safety back up. And do you appreciate all that hard work? Not at all! That guy deserves a medal for caring so much about your education. Not a harassment complaint. I assume that when your math-teacher gives/gave you extra home-work because you clearly showed that you didn’t get, you call/ed that also harassment?
Really…People are just trying to help. Appreciate it!
Well, to be fair, as funny as your post may be, the OP is actually happy that she got a GM answer saying this kind of things don’t constitute harassment…
The line of harassment in that particular situation is where you yourself take every precaution and still get chased time and time again, whatever your activities, through no fault of your own. An exception would be when you cannot have the relevant knowledge yet (like rookies in rookie systems). You insisting on using smartbombs and making yourself vulnerable to easy attacks is not taking every precaution.
The fact is, OP, that you insist on using a technique, with inherent and widely known vulnerability, that others would avoid using. You changed your safety settings, a deliberate choice for which you have every right, which also shows you have knowledge of those game mechanics. After all, there is a reason why CCP put the smartbombs behind the orange safety settings.
OP claims the risk he’s taking to not be a risk but a right conferring him immunity to attacks.
OP claims he cannot play the game because he cannot use smartbombs.
OP suggests that moving 30 and 28 jumps is sufficient cause for calling it harassment.
These claims, obviously, are misplaced. One cannot claim the right to use smartbombs while denying one’s vulnerability imposed by the game mechanics. OP knows these consequences. Chasing any other player 30 or even a 100 systems for an easy kill is a hunt, maybe not fun for the prey but not unfair either because perfectly avoidable. The hunter has rights too, including chasing and trying to kill characters who make poor choices. Hence, no harassment, logic dictates. And I had fun writing this
What? This is a lie and it perfectly illustrates how you make things up when facts don’t meet your expectations…
Where did I say that it’s in the EULA where it has to be explicitly forbidden? Actually, why would it matter where it is expressly forbidden? What matters is whether it’s expressly forbidden somewhere, anywhere…
Let me guess… You’re going to dodge this and not provide any proof of your claim that I said what you pretend I said, on the basis that my reply is too long to read or something…
Of course harassment is covered and expressly forbidden there too, just like exploits. So what? Where have I said or meant otherwise?
The discussion is about what constitutes harassment, not whether it’s allowed, which it obviously isn’t…
You keep not getting it. This is not about you and me. This is not about me being “wound up” by someone having an opinion that differs from mine. It’s you spreading misinformation and trying to make others believe the GM reply the OP got has to be fake that I care about…
I don’t care whether you accept my reasoning as objective or whatever, or even whether you’re capable of understanding anything at all… I just want to make it clear how ridiculous is your claim that the GM response the OP got has to be fake, for others to see…
Of course harassment is a bannable offense and will always be. That’s not the question. The question is what constitutes harassment and what not…
You don’t understand. The change in their stance on this issue happened a few years ago, as they stated in that old thread themselves, before PA took over CCP, so this is yet another ridiculous invalid “reason” of yours for that reason alone…
AGAIN, you seem to believe I care whether you in particular are able to understand a thing or not. I don’t.
You may believe anything you want, that the earth is flat too for all I care, but if you try to make others believe things are different than they are, I’ll reply accordingly…
