Yes, we’re all idiots for wanting to see the policy about handling real life threats clarified and publicized.
2 Likes
Parts in bold:
In 1003, the Danish King Sweyn Forkbeard started a series of raids against England. This culminated in a full-scale invasion that led to Sweyn being crowned king of England in 1013.[30][31] Sweyn was also king of Denmark and parts of Norway at this time.[32] The throne of England passed to Edmund Ironside of Wessex after Sweyn’s death in 1014. Sweyn’s son, Cnut the Great, won the throne of England in 1016 through conquest. When Cnut the Great died in 1035 he was a king of Denmark, England, Norway, and parts of Sweden.[33][34] Harold Harefoot became king of England after Cnut’s death, and Viking rule of England ceased.
Further supporting information, particularly against the idea that they were repelled by armies:
The son of Denmark’s King Svein Forkbeard, Cnut (or Canute) helped his father conquer England in 1013. However, when Svein died the next year, the exiled Anglo-Saxon king, Aethelred the Unready, returned to power. Aethelred passed away in 1016 and was succeeded by his son, Edmund Ironside. Later that year, after Cnut defeated him at the Battle of Ashingdon, Edmund signed a treaty that gave Cnut power over part of England
No. The rule isn’t “you can’t say word X,Y and Z.” You are making this up.
They specified that they’ll look at reports on a case by case base. As I’ve said before, I could say extremely profane things using extremely innocent words. If I did in game, your understanding of the rule would not get me punished, while the reasonable thing that CCP is doing is to look at the context and then decide.
No, you are making this up. The zero tolerance approach was specified against harassment and real life threats. Those things may not yield you a 2nd chance before perma-ban. Other things, depending on the internal data CCP has available, as has been explained to you before, may get you a warning first, then a temp ban and only then a perma-ban.
Yes and this is exactly what CCP is doing in looking at things on Verbal Abuse and other things from that category in a case by case way. This is, as they’ve explained, due to the complicated matter of language and other things.
You on the other hand want to enforce that every use of the word “fu*ck” should be immediately bannable, which is going against the decision you are citing yourself. You’re being the non-gallant here.
The only thing that they’ve clarified to have a zero tolerance policy towards are real life threats and rightly so. This doesn’t mean that they won’t check logs and so forth, but the punishment will be argueably harder and they may even call the proper authorities in on it, as it can constitute a crime.
Just as a reminder, real life threats of violence/murder are not protected by freedom of speech in North America and in the United States most if not all states penalty codes see it punishable as a misdemeanor or even felony, depending on the specifics.
1 Like
I believe you are correct. I had wrongly assumed that the Danes were from Germany.
I apologize for being stubborn and closed minded
2 Likes
No. As I’ve explained, we’re not going to publicly provide a list of what you can and can’t say. It doesn’t work like that. Context, past history and intent matter.
4 Likes
Your patience is incredible 
1 Like
I may at one point have had a slight lapse in patience and judgment, informing someone that they would at some point wake up taped to a chair and find themselves forced to watch as I very slowly shaved their hamsters. Which context could I frame this in to get away with it?
Edit: To clarify, I would probably have to provide the hamsters beforehand.
Btw, as a sidenote, did it ever occur to you that Judge Stewart had a great sense of humor?
Porn. I know it, when I see it. Lel.
1 Like
Two groups of people with much in common will not become as offended with one another as two groups that are as near polar opposites as possible.
i.e.-A person raised with little to no manners will offend somebody raised in a high class monied family easily where it would take more for a person to offend a fellow low mannered person were as that behavior is the norm.
Should an outside body need to step in for judgement they would need to know the entire conversation to get a sense of each person in the case. With as many different demographics in a place such as Eve, some will play the offended card quickly were as others will have thicker skin and try to bear through it as best they can. This makes each case different, unable to be put under cut and dry laws.
I find your assumptions about me as a person very distasteful btw. Why do you immediately assume I am a vile and toxic person when you being the one that makes constant accusations and implies bad intents?
I’ve given examples on why I think it’s necessary to clearify the rules, and you are free to disagree with that. I found them to be quite reasonable. You don’t? Fine, your choice but please stop accusing me of things that I am not.
Your first text without assumptions and I like it. I totally agree with what you said here.
No, the proper response to that would be to start a dialogue to clear up the conflict of opinion. Yes, that might end up in violence if you are not a decent human being. It might also end in an exchange of vile comments, but it is the ONLY way to solve the conflict within the community. Ofc, it is very easy to say “I think that I am right and I won’t engage with people whose opinions doesn’t matter” and if you want to be that kind of human being, go ahead and take the easy way, I am not going to blame you for that.
No, I really won’t, because discussions are hard. Listening to opinions you might not like is hard. Taking opinions you don’t like into consideration is even harder and refining on your opinion to have a more clear picture is much harder again.
I for one agree that violence is bad. I however do not agree that speech can be violence. I also do not care if you hate someone or you don’t, because hate is an emotion to overcome with reasoning. However, I do care about it if you use speech to get someone hurt. I don’t agree with that. However, what I consider to be that kind of speech may vary.
I would very much like to have a conversation about those differences in opinion. There aren’t many, but instead of discussing things, you proclaim me as the lesser human being because I have a different opinion on some topics. Why do you do that? Do you think that will convince me? Because it doesn’t. It only makes you even more antagonistic and makes me want to not discuss things with you.
The result of that is: we can not have a discussion and that’s a bad thing if you ask me. Don’t you think discussions are needed/mandatory? Why do you shy away from them in such a distasteful way?
It’s quite arrogant to say that everyone that is not of your opinion is a lesser human being that doesn’t deserve to be heard. You imply that you know what’s right, but how do you know that if you were never open to other opinions and you haven’t even tried to discuss things. Just because you repeat something over and over with people that do think the same way as you do doesn’t make it right, especially not if you silence everyone else.
You have to have a discourse to find arrangements that work for everyone. You have to challenge yourself and your point of view constantly in order to have progress. Proclaiming that you already have the answer is the direct opposite of it. That is btw why people on the far left are often called “regressive”, because proclaiming things as the ultimate truth without challenging it is the opposite of progress. That’s not how you improve things and that is not the way to make the world better for everyone.
Sure, it might make the world better for you, who cares about others, right? They are “the enemy of human kind and deserve to be treated just as such”, right? Only people that agree with myself can be right, right? What kind of a nonsense attitude is that? (the last one was the serious question btw).
We have established rules that everyone agrees on for 2000 years (you know the moral foundation of society, the things that were delivered by god himself?)? If you want to add new things to that, you better have a discussion about it. When you want to make that an accepted standard, you better have arguments for that too and you better be prepared to listen to criticism too. Believing that there “shouldn’t be a discussion” about whatever you come up with, is utterly mental.
Again, I find it distasteful that you have to resort to attacking me for things that you’ve made up just to discredit me. But I am the “lesser human being”, right? I deserve that because I don’t agree with you, right?
Heroic fairytales where one is the unquestionable hero and the other one is the lesser human being that deserves to be severely acted against over a difference in opinion? Why does this sound so familiar?! I wouldn’t know. Nice Hero btw, truly admirable.
It was a reference to the fact that the na_i-ideology still exists even after 50 years of severe censorship. It should tell you that censorship doesn’t make these thoughts to go away. It should have told you that censoring people is not a way to improve the root, only a mere fight against a symptom.
You have to educate people if you truly want to have an impact, and you do that by delivering them facts and by disproving their ideas, not by censorship.
Yes, and I’ve seen a fair share of comments that people like you might find offensive and that were accepted as accepted behaviour in the past (aka totally within the framework that was established). My entire point was if that has changed or not. I don’t know how you can interpret so many vile things into that, but I guess I shouldn’t question an unquestionable Hero that decides who is worthy of being part of the conversation and who isn’t, right? 
Terribly sorry, but why do you need to bring racism into the picture? If they make a real life threat, that’s already in violation of the EULA and is (IIRC) a bannable offense. All you’ve done is expand the powers of GMs so they can ban for lesser sleights, including a “yo mama” joke. How is that reasonable?
This was designed to clarify the policies and punishments. You’re the one who brought up racism, not me. I was simply pointing out that this is about real life threats, not the other stuff. That list is straight from the TOS.
1 Like
Yes Wahabbi. It’s the most the most radical and you can compare them to when the Christians used to burn the heretics if you like. But simply talking as we are now will get you and me labeled by some as ‘a closed online hate group spreading racial hatred’, simply because you say they have batsh!t crazy ideas or because we want to discuss the merits or failings of their belief system. That’s how ‘hate speech’ is used today, to actually silence the kind of talks we’re having right here. Let the Wahabbi say what they want and put them on the national news too. When the whole nation is talking about them how will they wind themselves up into a frenzy or spread their ideas? They can’t. The only reason those Mosques in Canada were allowed to grow was because they thought they were free from criticism. And I do understand what you are saying about a collective mentality leading to an ugly place because of one psycho leader. That’s why ideas must be discussed and criticized rather than forbidding all but the party line. It’s only people who have something to hide who want to stop speech, hateful or otherwise, and I think your government is going the same way because they are afraid of political criticism, social criticism and other ideas they do not want us to talk about. The only way I have ever seen the term used is as a protection from exposure. Most nations already have laws forbidding incitement to violence (as far as i know) so I don’t think we need hate speech laws.
But this is starting to wander away from CCPs rules. Why would CCP use such a blanket term when we have seen how the term is used? We are going to talk with each other while we sit on a bubble waiting for @CCP_Guard to wander by. It’s just a matter of can we separate game from life, and I agree with what he posted earlier, yes keep it separate or the warnings come and then the ban. It’s just that using terms like this does not make it any clearer.
1 Like
Judge Stewart is hysterical and the decision made legal history. Most people recognize pornography when they see it. The problem is that the criteria are subjective and vary from person to person.
To address your earlier comments however, please find the Terms of Service here (https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/terms-of-service-en/)
Please note section 2:
“You may not use any abusive, defamatory, ethnically or racially offensive, harassing, harmful, hateful, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, threatening or vulgar language. (Alternate spelling or partial masking of such words will be reprimanded in the same manner as the actual use of such words.)”
Notice how the words “obscene” and “vulgar” are listed there. Now lets look at the definition of obscene.
Obscene:
- Disgusting to the senses;
- a) abhorrent to morality or virtue;
b) containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage;
c) repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles;
d) so excessive as to be offensive.
Now lets look at the definition of vulgar.
Vulgar:
- a) lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste;
b) morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate;
c) ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display; - a) offensive in language;
b) lewdly or profanely indecent; - a) generally used, applied, or accepted;
b) understood in or having the ordinary sense - a) of or relating to the common people
b) generally current;
c) of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind;
I would implore you to search for any list of “obscene” or “vulgar” words which would not include the word “■■■■”
Now, the preface to the terms of service clearly states:
“Failure to comply with these regulations can result in the immediate termination of your account and you will forfeit all unused access time to the game. No refunds will be given.”
The point that I am making is that rules should be based around clearly defined criteria. Using words with vague definitions to craft policy leads to vague interpretations and enforcement. You seem to be too busy trying to quantify the level and intensity of the violation and im just saying a violation is a violation.
Also, according to section 2, you are likely in violation of the TOS as you masked the word “■■■■” so the word filter would not catch it
Last point here…if the word “■■■■” is not obscene or vulgar, then why in the ■■■■■■■ ■■■■ did they ■■■■■■■ block it?
This exactly is the issue. If you know that different people understand different things to be “racist” (as an example), you have the obligation to define what you see as racism or not. I agree that context matters. But context for what exactly?
Legal terms always have a clear definition. That should already tell you that they have a reason for existence. Laws and rules in general state the action that is penalized by it (definition!) and the sanction one can expect for violating it. The context matters to define the extend of penalty.
Without a definition, you can not define a sanction nor the extend of the penalty. That’s why we have rules and laws with definitions. It’s a good thing, but:
In a time where definitions for some rules are unclear, how do you expect people to follow them? In the past, HTFU was used (figuratively and literally) and the question is: has that changed? If not, all is fine and dandy, if yes: Houston, we do have a problem and need more details.
So stuff like
Kill Yourself (In Game of course)
or
Go Kill Yourself (as uttered at fanfest by some influential guy in a wizard hat)
is fine but
I will cut off your hands.
is an insta-ban?
…and so it begins… 
I would add only that race is a non sequetor. seeing as this is a game and takes place in space, if anyone asked us what “race” we are the answer has to be
‘human’ because no alien would understand american, african, jamaican (mon) and so on. on to sexism…dunno what that means now so…there ya go.
not all pricks are goons, but goons are all pricks.
lol. hate speech is dead…what is hate speech btw? no one can ever give an answer. if its anything that differs with the opinion of the boss (or ccp) i’d say it doesn’t exist.
you wanna know what one corpie did to get a reprimand? hotdroppers caught us in our home system and killed a rorq, they were laughing and waving as the left…we were new to null or at least i was so i just fumed about it. one corpie though was not so caught off guard so he posted a gif…its called “the buttfish” and its been around for a long time…but showing that link to the gif got him a stern warning. face it, with 3/4’s of ccp staff already in goonswarm it’ll be better to move to a different game or like me, stop all of it and save money. lol