It is. Let me rephrase my exemple.
Would much rather to not draw unwanted attention.
There, fixed it… The wording isn’t important, the idea behind the story is.
1 Like
ohhh
to bad
that other cat did nothing wrong IMO
Okay? I’m not sure what argument you think you’re making. Acts of cruelty and violence are not on the same legal (or moral or ethical) level as “mean words”, even if those mean words are egregious and unlawful.
You seem to have trouble maintaining a cogent thread of thought.
You did.
This is what’s known as a “though terminating response”. It’s devoid of substance as no actual points are being made. It basically boils down to “oh well, we can’t do anything about it”. This is the sort of weak kneed and milquetoast attitude that enables sh*tty policies to be enacted and for those in power to abuse said power unopposed.
Tweaking your example because it worked out poorly isn’t going to help you here. You still have yet to address anything in any meaningful way.
1 Like
That would be up to a judge to decide.
1 Like
The argument is: should CCP ban players who display threatening and unlawful behavior towards a fellow human being.
I said they should be able to and I explained why.
You explained your position.
We disagree.
That’s ok.
Yes, I’m totally off my rockers and I can barely understand the words I’m writing right now.
Nice chatting with you.
Drones and wrecks are a quick give away, the mindset should be to destroy the wrecks as soon as the Rat is looted and not to use drones while at the same time be aligned to a safespot.
That’s not an argument, that’s the position you’re arguing in favor of. But you have not done a very good job supporting that position.
So if I get in a bar fight, completely unrelated to EVE Online in any way shape or form, CCP should have the right to ban me from the game should they find out about it?
It’s one thing to ban people who threaten other players or break the law through official CCP channels, aka, the game client, official CCP discord services, official CCP endorsed EVE meetups, etc (since, y’know, that’s where CCP has “jurisdiction”). It’s an entirely different matter for CCP to meddle in the activities players engage in outside of CCP’s jurisdiction (at best) and, at worst, to meddle in the private lives of it’s customers.
You seem to be arguing in favor of some sort of weird, dystopian surveillance/police state where gaming companies spy on the private lives of customers and sanction them for activities that have nothing to do with the game or the company.
“Agree to disagree” is a fallacy.
2 Likes
Flaggers are overly sensitive thou. Not exactly sure how they are surviving the real world if they can’t even handle 2/10 lvl smack talk on a video game forum where everyone is anonymous xD
But my thoughts on the subject:
Content works both way’s, there shouldn’t be a victim if both are prepared for what they sign up for: (undocking).
What transpires from the interaction could swing both way’s and the aggressor themself knows this very well probably as “bait” is a very common thing in this game.
And if people roam and they find someone willing to engage then both are neither the victum and hence are both each others content, the best way this game is played imo.
Compare that to stalking (ganking/hot dropping) and gate camping which usually stack’s the odd’s in the hunters favour before hand, where that content is very diminished, short lived and lacking in substance/competitiveness/excitement. These players are closer to victum’s but not really as they usually are out in dangerous space taking that risk for that extra reward usually in some type of pve ship to min max their time vs the reward part with no thought/care of the risk.
So by the time they finally get ganked they have already payed off that risk with the rewards. If this is not the case and they over-invested were impatient and didn’t start slow then they have that lesson to learn from and at least walk away with something.
1 Like
I’ve mostly been trying to keep my distance from all this crap. I made one comment in the official dev thread, but it became increasingly clear that it had become a battleground for the culture war. And, I just didn’t want to deal with that, and checked out. Unfortunately, it feels like I can’t escape it.
Okay, let me say this to anyone that needs to hear it…
The culture war is a means of control. It divides us, and gets us pointing fingers of blame at each other, instead of at the people who designed, maintain, and benefit from the current state of affairs.
Sigh.
I have said this to people who agreed with me -they agreed that it was a form of control, and that the real people to blame were the people in charge… and yet they still couldn’t stop focusing the stupidest beliefs and worst behaviors of the either side. They still couldn’t stop viewing “the other side” as the enemy. And, I don’t know what to say to stop it. Moreover, there’s a decent chance this post will get flagged for politics. So, I guess I’ll just leave it at that for now.
Oh, btw, some of the posting has gotten kind of aggressive. I don’t know who started it, or who’s to blame, and I don’t care. Please try to be civil towards one another.
6 Likes
This, and hands up I admit to it. So now what do?
Let’s continue that line of reasoning. At times where public outrage, staged or not, seems to be the norm rather than an (often non-justifiable) exception, here’s what else may happen. Clay’s butcher refuses to sell him meat, his grocer doesn’t want him in his shop, Clay is barred from the local shopping mall, his baker no longer wants to sell him any products, his employer lays him off because his ethical values no longer match. You see where this is going, don’t you. So Clay’s life is over ? He needs to assume a new identity ? Emigrate ? Or worse ?
Casting someone out is about as primitive as public “justice” can get - bar stoning of course. That’s one hell of a way from siding with an alleged victim to becoming an executioner, and something we should all be protected from, even - and perhaps especially - the ones who were found guilty of something and paid their fines/served their sentence. It’s too easy to manipulate. Cui bono ? All it really does is instill fear in a community, and a very long queue for who’s next.
2 Likes
I can follow that clearly enough, but whats the outcome of it here?
Im not trying to draw a strawman, Im literally asking; Should everyone be immune from being banned? That seems to be the outcome here.
No, not at all. The business owner has his own type AND scope of “jurisdiction” as @Xuixien pointed out, in his own domain - namely the product or service he sells - via the EULA/ToS rules. When someone has broken any of those rules to a degree that justifies a ban, the owner has that power. No one contests that.
The whole argument that is being developed since a few posts is one where the business owner is being urged by certain other customers to broaden the rules in such a way that what happens in real life AND is unrelated to the product/service being sold, should lead to some form of punishment (banning, permabanning, w/e, and even extending that to other people who are in some way associated with the person e.g. being present at a meeting). @Xuixien argues against that, and so do I. CCP itself can never leave the “confines” of its own product/service, and certainly not (be allowed to) become a moral judge/jury/executioner for anything that happens outside of EvE and is unrelated except that it may involve a customer of theirs. I find the discussion very unsettling, especially since the “victim” mindset rears its head with a concealed blade up its sleeve.
2 Likes
I think I see.
Ok, then the only objection I had is one in absurdium so its withdrawn; the sanctions against such an act as I was imagining would preclude access to their EvE account anyway.
Yeah ok, Im onboard there.
1 Like
How many ex-convicts of violent crimes had to assume a new identify, emigrate or move away from their city/town? That would be interesting data for our Convo here.
Violent are as primitive. The justice system may have its way to deal with people like that but we as individuals aren’t in any obligation to welcome them with open arms once they step out of the jail.
Banishment from an entire community is harsh and that’s not my exemple anyway, the club in my exemple represents the game and as owner of such anyone reserves the right to serve.
Many things are manipulated, it wouldn’t be the last thing to be. The worse crooks are the ones who make the rules.
That’s a bit dramatic. Refusal of entry into a club can hardly be likened to ostracizm and exile.
I think Shipwreck’s post is fairly civil. It asserts a theory that is his genuine belief and tries to back up that theory with evidence he believes proves that theory. My real issue with the post is mainly that it invites only people who are likely to agree with it to comment or analyze it. It could have invited you, at least, to refute it.
People need to be able to express their honestly held beliefs, though, even if those beliefs are critical and especially if those beliefs are wrong. Presenting our ideas so that others have the chance to challenge them helps point out where we have made mistakes or simply enlightens us as to others’ points of view.
I think I understand you and what you’re trying to say most of the time. It doesn’t seem logically inconsistent with what I think you believe. It just seems to me you have very specific definitions for terms that differ from how people generally use those terms and that people get hung up on those terms and definitions trying to understand what you mean.
Still, when people do misunderstand, you tend to attribute their misunderstanding to malice, immaturity, or as a personal attack and indicate as much clearly in the tone you take even if the person would otherwise have been willing to listen to a clarification and debate you on your actual stance.
I can criticise Shipwreck all I want and he says literally nothing worse to me than that he believes I am mistaken or that I’ve made a flawed argument. There’s no implication that because my argument is bad that I am bad also. I consider us on friendly terms, but I would expect him to call me out if he catches me saying some BS, as he should.
Honest criticism is not, in my view, an uncivil personal attack. Had I never been criticised, I would not have gained the skills I have gained to defend my positions, nor would I have realized on my own all those times I found was actually in error. People respect a person who is gracious both when they are right and when they are wrong.
9 Likes
That isn’t the exemple I used and the argument is simply: should a business owner be forced to serve anyone and can he reserve the right to restrict access to anyone based on a misdemeanor or felony.
I’m not talking about mob justice and lynching.