This must be where you are getting confused. I’m pretty sure CCP said it’s not harassment unless the victim is being followed despite attempts to move away.
Aggression is not harassment. Nor is theft.
Victim blaming is a wholly different kettle of fish. For one the whole point of eve is that you can and probably will encounter players who will try to kill you.
What you’re now trying to call victim blaming is questioning a boxer that’s complaining they got punched during a match, or kid playing an fps complaining he got shot at by other players.
Or do you think boxers punching eachother during a match is harassment too?
lol what? Now you are conflating two different meanings of harassment.
harass
verb
subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.
make repeated small-scale attacks on (an enemy).
This whole time you’ve been talking about the second? And you think thats what CCP were talking about when they outlined the rules for harassment? You think thats why wardecs are ‘legal harassment’? because of the SMALL-SCALE attacks?
In neither of your definitions there is the need for the victim to make a move.
So your claim about “if the victim” is wrong. What you are doing is victim blaming.
no.
AFAIK I did not affirm such a thing. Especially I told you that according to CCP wardecs are NOT considered harassment. However they make harassment legal. And that’s a reason for which they were used.
It may have started out as this post, but i do believe, like the others, that it was extended to anything where if you persistently target the same person with any activity despite attempts to get away, it can fall under harassment. But if the victim makes no attempt to get away, it is not thought of as harassment.
It’s the same bait that militant SJWs use to eliminate people and industries they dislike. They don’t try to convince anyone that something or someone is bad, as much as they try to convince impartial observers that they’re being negatively impacted by it.
That’s how they got sports and competition out of schools (they make children feel inadequate when they lose), and ridiculous sexual harassment laws passed (you don’t need to harass someone, they just need to feel like they’re harassed). Similarly, being attacked in EVE can be interpreted as “harassment” if you choose to do so; it doesn’t matter that PvP and competition is an integral part of the game.
It trivializes the nature of the term being used for the sake of fulfilling a personal social agenda. Where I live (and I assume in most civilized places), harassment is a necessarily criminal concept. Which means that it’s against the law. As far as the game goes, CCP defines the laws. This means that CCP defines the nature of this term in EVE, which they do quite well. But these people have co-opted the term to fulfill their needs, by extrapolating the concept of real-life criminal harassment to the virtual world of a consensual video game experience. Don’t fall for it.
And don’t fall for the straw man either. Dictionary warriors will try to use this tactic where they switch up the term being used even though it had nothing to do with the initial argument, in order to try to confuse you.
A: “getting punched in the face is harassment!”
B: “sure, in some cases, but in a boxing match, it’s a part of the legitimate rule set”
A: “violence is always harassment; just because a boxer agreed to being punched, doesn’t mean that they aren’t being harassed”
B: “uh…hmm”
The trick is to immediately point out that what goes on in the boxing ring doesn’t meet the definition of violence. You have to play their game. Pull out the dictionary and go to town on them.
No, I mean harassment. AFAIK there is no aggression that CCP forbids which becomes allowed under wars. unless maybe rookie griefing ; but this specific case is irrelevant to the topic, which was why did CCP consider the wars in their previous form had a bad impact on the game.