I reported it by filing a support ticket, but was told that the Forum was not considered part of the game in that way and that Forum moderation alone needs to decide what happens with transgressions here. That being said, I didn’t know if there is some place where one can file Forum-specific support tickets.
Yeah, that’s why when he told me that he “can cut off my face AFK” I think it was reasonable to assume he wanted me to understand that he’ll come with a knife and kill me. The posts have been hidden, not even deleted though.
As said before, if it happened because he lost a ship and was enraged for a minute, I wouldn’t really care that much. In this situation there was no need for it, which means that the usual “ah, it’s just people raging on the internet” kind of falls short. If someone threatens your life and you can’t be sure it’s “just” a joke, it opens really dark paths.
there isn’t, whether you being threatened ingame or here on forums, it should be reported either way.
This just means that flagging a post is one way of getting ISDs attention (CCL division in my case), but it may not get you the result you were looking for, due to the fact we can only act on what we can read here on the forums.
This could be a solution to your problem:
First remove player and his alts from your contact lists.
Secondly, go into mail settings and tick the “Block unknown characters” bullet.
Is trying to get other users blocked and banned by inciting others to do so illegal?
Also, is an information released in regards to this (such as details on the system design and functioning of the moderation) against the rule, if it is to discuss moderation while unauthorized to do so?
Thirdly, and not least, is it circumventing security measures from the new system, which previous groups tried to do, as operational feasibility for such activity was implemented as valid, with a valid check for it authorized, while the rule was already in place before 2012.?
And an infringement against Intellectual Property and the rights derived from the creation of such security systems for the benefit of the perpetrators.
There’s also a difference between a block and other systems running, such as publication on the forums.
I get the same from other communication systems and the authorities in relation to it.
That is why I have to automate communication systems, because of the deliberate intents to interfere against this.
For the block abuse, the party can be liable of using automation illegally to cause damage.
It depends on what is going on and why.
I have to automate mine because otherwise security and emergency critical data would be destroyed, and not communicated to the proper international authorities, and synched with the proper local authorities.
False reports are against the rules, both regarding the Forums and in-game. If the reports are not false, there is nothing wrong with asking your friends to report someone as well. If you think someone is rallying people to get you unjustifiably banned, report it to the GM.
The rule against discussion of moderation has only one goal: for moderation to have a chance to function. The line is soft. If you ask honest questions (as opposed to trolling) about rules or if you discuss moderation in general, in a non-confrontative way, it usually will not be touched. Only if you try to discuss specific decisions, undermine the rules by discussing them (like for instance happened at least once with the rule against hate speech) or be overly negative when mentioning moderation-related stuff, it will be closed.
That being said, ISD’s will usually recommend writing a mail to customer support for clarification of a rule, but only if the overall thread creates too much negative tension. A friendly advise between fellow players won’t get shot down.
So for instance, if I said: “It would be nice if there were more capacities for moderation, so that threads could be saved by decisive moderation action, before they go downhill too hard. A lack of moderation capacities leaves the moderators no choice but to close threads entirely, even if there are only two people fking it up for everybody else.”
This is probably borderline, but it has good intent and thus might be acceptable.
Asking about the details of a rule is fine, unless this leads to a thread in which people question the rule.
You didn’t finish your question. Generally, circumventing security measures in regards to login procedures or any piece of code that is part of EVE, is against the ToS/EULA.
I’m not quite sure where you are getting at with this. CCP cares about their own IP, but they generally don’t mind if it is being used to further their interest, such as in the form of advertisements. If you are speaking about IP that you hold, you need to give more details. Depending on what it is, you can always file a DMCA request or if not something that falls under this, write a ticket and request clarification.
The Forums are usually not the right place to find such.
Are you saying that you are using input automation with the EVE Client? Because that is, no exceptions, a banable offense.
So how many Texas lawyers do you have at your disposal right now? Seriously though: you don’t have to automate any input in order to protect your security or any data in relations to the EVE Client. If so, please go into details so we understand what you mean. If you only automate the read-out of text-files which are locally saved on your computer, to save chats and so forth, this is not against the rules btw.
That being said, all of what you are writing seems to go beyond the capabilities of the Forum. You might need to write a GM ticket or find other official feedback if you think/feel that there is something going on which needs you to contact “international authorities”.
Just how much details go in the false reports, and what scientific truth is used to verify those facts?
It seems other truth such as administrative truth are used.
Also, once those reports are made to appear not false, because of how their friends are trying to make it true, although not scientific, others join the bandwagon.
I would personally not discuss if I think that someone or some entities or groups of people of groups of entities were rallying people and how they were trying to do so, or how they have justification to do so, even though they may do it wrong, banned, reported, blocked, cause loss of privilege, interfere against business, commits acts of war, endanger public safety, etc. to a GM.
I already had to deal with CCP about this on other scientific grounds.
If you notice , the second option is much more feasible technically and scientifically than the first more administrative part.
This system to monitor and restrict the freedom of expression of specific users is designed with the goal to keep the system under control.
Some of the reasons that are better for that not to be discussed on the forums are secrecy , and the use of that secrecy to be used for the intelligence of the system.
It is their forum, and they have the right to do what they want with it.
When they get reports from groups of people, they not only do have access to those reports for analysis, but also can use them later as evidence to corroborate other facts related to timing of other events.
Not every action has to be directly related.
Even monopolies are not directly related.
The finished question was, is, and will be:
is it circumventing security measures from the new implemented security system, which previous groups tried to do (to discuss moderation on specific places, methods, and times), as operational feasibility for such activity was implemented as valid (they decided it was valid to do so, but it was against the police and rule), with a valid check for it authorized, while the rule was already in place before 2012.?
In other words, is it circumventing security measures to say it is not, and the info related to it is incomplete, when they try to divert from the fact that it is, and say it is not?
The rules existed, and the new rules exist, and they do both the same on both systems. Both the same people, groups, entities, with the same dynamics and goals and tactics.
Well, this is the best part.
I have never had any IP problem with CCP, especially not when they are not promoting my work, but also, and on top of that, go beyond their duty as a business, and also inspire my work, which helps to prevent it from being a form of brain dead artificial intelligence, pun intended (two measures).
You are asking if I am using input automation with the EVE Client.
If I was, I would have to make sure the input system doesn’t process the data into information which would be redirected into the EVE Online Client, to be interacting with the data system while it is running, without proper authorization, and within the limit set by CCP.
They do authorize me to do this, and any suggestion to provide any less accuracy, such as you suggest, would have to be reported to them for misleading and as false.
I understand the ban function and process, and what it can be used for , and what it can be good for, and other.
Good question.
lol, let me try to find out if I can get one.
I’m not sure what’s the best deal I can find, but I don’t need one in particular for that yet, although, if business is good, then, why not?
The OP’s question is about harassment and
he wonders if someone was blocked
because maybe he asked that someone would be blocked.
However, he says that he did block him himself, possibly from the block function from the EVE Online menu.
The user then used other alts to continue to harass, or cause functioning of the EVE Online client to malfunction.
Now, that is left to verification, because I don’t think a user alone can really verify that data.
That is server data, and only CCP can verify that.
Sure, users can see the technical symptoms, report it.
If it’s functioning as intended, and a feature, not a bug, tough luck.
User spam target and makes an alt, and spam, gets blocked, makes alt, spam, blocks, spam, block, alt, spam, block.
User gets block to prevent harassment, makes an alt, and conduct an EVE Online activity, like, PvP the blocking player, takes his loot, and gets reported as harassment.
Now the second can qualify as valid, but the first may be circumventing security.
GM’s will look into the logs. These are hard facts and they’ll be the base for any decision.
What are you even talking about? Get to the point, tell us your story or let it be. You’re dancing around the hot pot.
Well then go into specifics and tell us who is doing that and what exactly they are doing. Otherwise we can’t know how to give a proper answer.
The limit set by CCP is: NO input automation whatsoever. None. Nade. Niente. How would they authorize you to automate input, apart from if you were trying to deflect the question by claiming that you have the right to use input automation as long as it doesn’t effect EVE. Duh, sure, but that has no relevance for EVE or your question.
Yes.
Correct.
Aha, so you are the guy, now I get it. You used some method, like sending 1 ISK or something to continue pissing him off. Well guess what: the rules about harassment are not set in stone. If you do something that is clearly just “an act of communication”, not a “mostly game-related action”, they (as in CCP) can decide to understand that however they want.
Just because something is technically possible, it doesn’t mean you won’t get in trouble for abusing it.
It depends how CCP sees it. For instance, if you simply shot someones ship over and over: no issue at all, accepted behaviour. If you send someone hundreds of channel invites or thousands of ISK in 0.1 ISK steps, you’ll get into trouble.
Yes and no. It is not “circumventing security”, because blocking a player is not a security measure. It’s also not generally against the rules to contact someone from an alt against their will. But, let me make an example:
If you created a bunch of alts to start a lot of contact requests towards a player you are currently fighting, this may be seen as an abuse of the system. I’m not sure.
If the user is harassed and he blocks them with the EVE Online ingame function to block a user in chat,
can they ban the user if he is using 2 or more alts to continue the activity to bypass the block.
(no question mark statement formatted in a way to find a solution to the problem , not create false statement with attacks leading to war.
Then I put the question mark after that, after marking a pause.)
.?
First, the block function is not designed to make it possible for alts to be related to the block.
2nd, if it was to bypass a block, that system would be illegal, since it is not possible to block an alt and make it bypass systems.
Systems in EVE Online should not be bypassed.
3rd, You can ban any players, alts, for any reasons.
CCP can do it, you can’t do it.
I expect the troll to come back and lie his way to make it seem incomplete and try to marginalize it as before, for the last 6 years and more, and to try to continue to perpetrate the same acts of war.
