Just for transparency how many CSM members asked for this?
2 Likes
Yes, punished, not to the extent he should have. Can we just start with the Mittani with this new policy and go back to that event? Start from there, and work forward? That event was exactly why these rules need to be here, no doubt.
2 Likes
Kinda agree with this. Its simple, as much as i love playing eve its a great game its a â â â â â â â Game . That means if you cross the pixel line and start Doxxing you deserver the ban. The toxic element in the community really has driven of so many new players.
3 Likes
Rules are updated as society and gaming tech evolves. If mittani does it again he will get the ban hammer im sure
1 Like
lol insults dont count . READ The damn new item its do with RL threats against the player themselves
1 Like
Enough of them can easily count as harassment, as written in the Policy. 
And enough of them always could under the old policy as well.
But CCP did not hive a f**** about old policy, but MUST OBEY new policy, that is big difference.
Relevant:
Itâs from 1994, that how âhotâ the topic is. He even predict the reaction some people here have. Kinda incredible.
4 Likes
Does this mean we no longer have to deal with very bad âŚlike BAD ârape jokesâ under harassment in relation to eve on 3rd party platforms?
EDIT: It literally turns my stomach this is a part of eve.
1 Like
If half the player base is banned for real life threats then that means a new half that can be occupied by new players.
There was a time when a corporation called the Defias Brotherhood would constantly post comments regarding âraping asteroidsâ on the forums as their reason why they ganked miners. That was years and years ago.
1 Like
Can you provide a reasoning behind that? Why should it be this way? You know, âproclaimingâ things, then expecting that everyone follows doesnât work unless you are a legal body. Thatâs the entire problem at the moment.
I want CCP to tell me (us) what they expect from us (aka I want them to be the legal body) because itâs not as clear as you make it to be (i.e. you donât provide reasoning, you donât open a debate, you just proclaim things that I find ridiculous and which I canât accept because you are not a legal body).
CCP, in my opinion, has the obligation to tell us whether they define unclear terms one way or another. They define their rules and therefore, their rules need to be understandable. In times where definitions for various issues vary vastly, a more refined approach is needed.
How about you provide a definition based on reasonable thoughts or common sources, then play a thought game of âIf I donât be silly and try to get within an inch of this, how silly a definition does it need to be for me to get in troubleâ
And donât go trying to point at the rabble rouser types of definitions, start somewhere decent but accessible and common.
Then youâll realise you are panicking over nothing, unless your intent is to go within an inch, then realise that intent is why CCP wonât provide you a strict definition.
1 Like
Which is exactly what I did. And I found vast discrepancies.
I am nowhere near panic nor am I affraid to do things wrong. Iâve never smacktalked in my Eve Career. I have not found a need to offend people and I general chose to not engage in discussions about sensitive topics unless I feel that I have to, which is extremly rare (I think this is pretty much the only instance where I felt this is necessary).
Oxford dictionary = common source, easily acessible to everyone
UN definition = common source, easily acessible to everyone
So, I did just that, but as I said: there are substantial differences and there is as much room to âwiggleâ as there is between the sun and the center of the milky way (infact, there is infinite space to argue about it).
My intent is to ask CCP for a more refined explanation because by common and accessible definitions, at least one term is absolutely unclear.
I am also not fearmongering. I am not a person that predicts the end of free speech or implies that people will get banned over ânothingâ. I did none of that and I found it rather distasteful that you imply bad intentions based on the grounds that Iâve used to argue so far.
1 Like
I have seen miners, who where going complete ballistic in chatsâŚ
Never reported that. Because EVE.
As long as it doesn´t become a SJW-shitshow, I don´t realy care.
2 Likes
Those two sources youâve quoted are not wildly different but actually very similar.
Itâs been explained to you in this very thread how they are common
Yet you are sitting there insisting they are wildly different.
You are clearly attempting to make a major drama out of something that doesnât exist.
Why?
1 Like
Iâve elaborated on the differences I see. Feel free to check this post:
No common agreement has been found on that, nope. So far, we have differences in opinion and thatâs it. CCP hasnât commented on it and I am not willing to make assumptions on what CCP might think. Therefore, I ask for clearification.
If you canât treat this simple plea for a better understanding serious and you think thatâs a âDramaâ then we can agree to disagree and stop the discussion between us.
You can argue with me all day long if you are willing to have a discussion based on arguments. I donât accept proclamations from a random person on the internet though that come without reasoning nor explanation.
The reason for my postings is: I donât think Publishers should get away with vague definitions for which no common consent has been established. The âpublic discourseâ is very much ongoing and far away from something you could call an agreement. They should take responsibility for their rules and not leave that to others.
Now, again, I emphasize that I do not care whether or not CCP choses to use an established definition or a more progressive one, I will strive to abide to whatever CCP asks me to in any way.
I think this policy can be summed up as âAnything you say or do that has a negative action to a player outside of them playing EvE can be perceived as actionableâ
I also donât see where all this B.S. for free speech is coming from, we had Google basically ban Alex Jones off all their platforms for not agreeing with him. That was an American company banning a American for what is law in America. If that doesnât set the precedent that the internet âis not freeâ and companys can clearly âdo as they wish on their platformsâ, then I donât know what is.
Remember it is not popular speech that needs protection, it is the unpopular speech, and people have clearly shown by âdoing nothingâ that this is the way it is.
Which could be pretty much anything, as literally everything can upset players to the degree of them harming themselves. Quite vague, but I guess thatâs about as much as we can expect (if at allâŚ).
1 Like