What about based on their beliefs.
Are you permitted to refuse service based on a conflict of values?
(I ask because in recent years we had an example of that in my city)
2 Likes
Good ! Then you probably see why expanding the “jurisdiction” of a business via ToS/EULA is a very serious matter if it involves elements that have nothing to do with what happens in EvE.
As to your question
I do not know of any legal obligation for a business owner to do business with just anyone who presents him/herself. They may go belly up if they refuse too much business for reasons unknown, that’s always the thing, isn’t it 
That’s why there is a ToS/EULA, a clear stipulation of when and why a business owner will refuse to do business with someone. It’s not a religious work, it’s a business tool.
What are you demanding here ? That anyone who pays for an account has to provide a copy of his rap sheet and keep it updated ? That people come online under the supervision of a lawyer, just in case ?
1 Like
You people think that CCP at all cares about morality and engaging in contemporary political correctness bushido? They couldn’t possibly give less of a crap about that. Everything they do is to make as much money as possible. The reason that they’ve adopted this stance is because they did their market research, and determined that a considerable majority of wallet-owning customers and potential customers want this kind of response.
And it’s true; most people do want this kind of response. Maybe you all have your blinders on toward the rest of society as you post frothy-mouthed rage about “them damn SJWs,” but reality check: most members of western societies actually do think that way. Now, I’m not arguing for whether or not it’s a good thing, just that that’s how it is.
This isn’t a CCP problem. CCP as a company is only trying to fulfill its legal obligation to increase value for its stockholders. If you don’t like it, stop posting pseudo red pill garbage here, and start looking toward your friends, coworkers, and family members.
1 Like
No no you misunderstand, its all theoretical marxist revolutionaries.
Its nothing to do with making money no no no.
Hilmar is just like Bob Iger, a kindly old uncle looking out for us all.
1 Like
I think there are precedents for that. I don’t know all the details but some courts have ruled that it is lawful to refuse service or entry based on conflicts of values and beliefs but I doubt it’s widespread, I think it’s somewhere in U.S bible belt, I don’t pay much attention to cases like that as I believe that if I own the place I should have the right to deny entry.
I’m not demanding anything 
I’m not complaining, not ranting or raving…
This whole tangent is based on my position and others trying to challenge my point of view.
Actually surprised it’s gone on so long.
I have no problem with CCP banning players for bad things they may be caught doing on other platforms or even in real life.
Yeah, that is a pretty dangerous precedent to set.
1 Like
CCP is not in a legal position to “catch” anyone on any other platform or in real life. In fact they may be in legal trouble if they make efforts to obtain such information (the term “jurisdiction” we have used a few times). Back to square one 
1 Like
I agree, yet I think we’re way past precedents. The train has already left the station.
You seem to be mixing metaphors there.
1 Like
They don’t want or need to catch. All they’re interested in is safety of the players and if it means banning someone then so be it
Unless someone from CCP would like to clarify…
Not at all. It’s a bit late to worry about all that is what I’m trying to say.
But its exactly what CCP are asking us to consider, even though its a bit of a dereliction of responsibility.
They asked us to consider but they will make the final decisions. I’m ok with whatever they’ll decide.
Doubtful
2 Likes
That’s the thing with culture wars. You think you have a bastion, a refuge, and then you wake up one day and the New Eden Post is talking about “how can we make EVE Online safer for women”, and CCP is talking about “diversity/inclusivity/equity”.
And then you point out - hey guys, despite the nice sounding words, this stuff is actually a toxic cancer. You try to explain some of the dubious origins of these politics - in Marxist thinking, in postmodernism (which is an intellectual swamp), in the Frankfurt school (which wanted to “deconstruct” western society). You don’t think this is anything controversial because you study this stuff in graduate school, since “Critical Theory” has become a huge influence in mental health (something to seriously keep in mind if you’re looking for a therapist btw) only to be told that you’re a “conspiracy theorist” who’s “ranting about Marxist revolutionaries”.
You find that, despite your best efforts to avoid it and just go about your life, the “culture war” follows you. But it isn’t Republican or conservatives or even far-right exremists harrying you. It’s the other side of the equation that just won’t let up and leave you alone.
Especially if those beliefs are wrong. If someone thinks being gay is a “lifestyle choice”, I want them to feel free to voice that perspective - so I can persuade them, using the biological literature, that they’re wrong and people who are gay are actually just born that way (same as heterosexual people).
I also want TRA’s and so-called “gender theorists” to spout some of their false beliefs so I can correct them, too.
No, they actually don’t. Not according to polls. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, and aren’t either far left or far right. Most people are just trying to make their way through life; pay their rent, feed their families, and be left alone. It’s like the abortion debate in the USA; a small minority want unrestricted abortion up until birth, another small minority want absolutely no abortion under any circumstances, and most people fall somewhere in the middle, wanting a cutoff at about 8-15 weeks with some exceptions for extreme circumstances (r-pe, inc-st, life of the mother, etc). Some people are radical SJWs who go on and on ad naseum about white privilege and “patriarchy”, some people are radical right wingers who want women back in the kitchen, most people fall somewhere in the middle and are more inline with 1964 and Dr. King.
We’ve been talking about “jurisdiction”. I would like to point out the concept of “ideological capture”; for those radical, progressive, SJW types (the “woke” or whatever you want to call them), there is no such thing as “jurisdiction”, because they are on a literal crusade to “deconstruct” western society in order to destroy the “systems of power and oppression that privilege some (identities) while marginalizing other (identities)”. Our “SJW” professors in school literally give us training on how to influence our future workplaces and “be agents of change” to “promote equity” in the office. F-ck, we’re even given a “diversity audit” to fill out and are encouraged to inform on our sites for the experiential, practicum fieldwork portion of our studies.
And if we disagree with any of the woke stuff, we’re told that we’re “perpetuating harm”.
And now here we are, literally discussing whether CCP should ban people for things they did outside of EVE.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
3 Likes
And yet pandering to it still makes companies a big big pile of cash.
I guess thats not a motivating factor at all.
1 Like
Hah, business opportunity vs. moral consideration. A very old topic.
Okay, I’m out of here. Need to log in. Last one on the grid is a ninny.
1 Like
(bolded emphasis mine)
This is kind of hilarious to see from you. Especially since you’re obviously sincere.
Because this is exactly what I’ve been on your case about for months now. Except the “culture war” here is the way you’re trying so hard to deflect the blame from CCP onto bittervets, perma-greens, and now “victim mindsets”.
The two parts I bolded are exactly what happens between the PVE carebear mindset and the PvP gankbear mindset. And you can bet the reason CCP doesn’t touch these forums is because they’re more than happy to have players pointing fingers at each other for “the reason the game is failing” rather than at CCP.
You keep trying to identify and blame the ‘bad actor’ players (and posters) and I keep trying to put the heat on CCP, the people who’re actually in control. That’s the difference.
Yes, and just to be upfront to everyone in the thread - I don’t flag anything for social sensitivity or politics or mean speech or ideas I’m intolerant of. But when 2-3 posters exchange 50 posts that basically boil down to completely off-topic “U! No U! No U said! No I didn’t” exchanges, then I’ll rarely go back and flag the whole derail.
Generally only when it’s a good thread and looks like it might be heading towards a complete derail.
On a separate point to you Shipwreck, please be aware that while I may disagree strongly and harshly with you on various topics, I at least respect that you’re doing your best to put forth coherent arguments in favor of the things you believe in. That makes you a worthy poster. In fact I’m somewhat harsher on you because I know the level of posting you’re capable of when you don’t get mired in the ‘good player/bad player’ culture war. So keep up the ‘whatever you need to’, and don’t take it personal if I tell you you’re nuts.
Because, hey, squirrels will still love you!
4 Likes
I understand that I sometimes use the odd word that gives too precise or imprecise meaning, it is a fault and I hold my hand up to it, but when I clarify they always ignore my clarification and double down on the absurd strawman argument they have developed. Once you have seen that happen with the same people multiple times, then of course I have to doubt their sincerity, and feel that it is pure malice…
Alinsky understood that the best way to destroy a persons arguments is to use out of context absurdities to define the target as mad, never attack the arguments, always attack the person, Rules for Radicals by Alinsky, read it.