Policy Update - Real Life Threats & Harassment


(Wander Prian) #649

They are as broad as is required to take into account loop-holes,rules-lawyering,the evolution of language and the ingenuity of Eve-players.

(Nevyn Auscent) #650

Nice cherry pick ignore of the fact Ccp have already addressed this point. At this stage it’s becoming obvious you are just trying to cause drama

(Mingja) #651

Where did they? Show me and I’ll shut up. Did I miss that?

(Nevyn Auscent) #652

Scroll the thread yourself. I’m not searching the thread for a quote you will likely claim doesn’t say anything while on a smart phone.

(Mingja) #653

Please give ma a hand if you can. Do you remember who said it?

(Aetrid) #654

*sniff :worried: Regardless of what it becomes, I will remember fondly the EvE that was:

(Nevyn Auscent) #655

Which… hasnt changed and again CCP have mentioned that (even though it was originally aimed at competitors not at the players). Just Htfu is not referring to player to player interactions but gameplay elements of not crying over getting blown up. People have just recently begun trying to use it as an excuse to be foul people. Rather than keeping it to inside the game affairs.

(Mingja) #656

Well, you are right.

“not really” is good enough for me. Blame’s on me, thank you for pointing that out.

(Brisc Rubal) #657

I don’t believe that’s the case. I think we’re all giving the GM team too little credit if we believe that they can’t tell the difference between a real life threat and something that’s obviously related to in-game mechanics.

There is a clear difference between using the game mechanics in the way they are intended - and chasing players around and killing their ships and pods is a clear, obvious thing the game allows - and making threats that aren’t connected to in-game activities. That’s the point of this policy.

In the end the policy will be administered by the GMs, who have ample experience in doing this and who have their own internal guidelines that we’re not privy too. They have no desire to get rid of paying customers who aren’t actually breaking the rules or letting themselves become catspaws of players trying to trick them into banning their opponents for in-game stuff.

(Vilar Diin) #658

At the time when this happened Mittens was probably the most powerful and influential actor in the Eve-verse and that is including most devs. Remember that when the Summer of Rage happened CCP went to him with hat in hand begging him to record a conciliatory message to the players in an attempt to put out the flames.

There was no way that CCP was ever going to ban him. At this point I don’t think he would even care if he were banned. Does he even play anymore or has he handed the reins to his buddies and they act in his name?

Is it hypocritical? Yes. Is it going to change? Nope.

(Wander Prian) #659

That’s because he was in the CSM and the CSM had chosen him to be the chairman for that year…

(Teckos Pech) #660

Then I’m fairly satisfied provided they follow this kind of a policy. This kind of thing was not in the Dev Blog…at this point, I’m going to just going to trust the “commen sense” will win out and that the idea of removing the HTFU song is meet with a “■■■■ no” response…I’m good.

(Mevatla Vekraspek) #661

(Teckos Pech) #662

Yes he plays and yes he is involved in the running of GSF.

(Predvodnica LSG) #663

We need to hear this from official CCP employee, not from you.

(Aequitae) #664

EVE is a game where your actions have consequences. As long as those consequences stay related to the game itself, I am perfectly content with people singling out enemies and targeting them. We aren’t here to cuddle everyone who does something to piss someone else off. Hell, CCP themselves advertised the principle of the butterfly effect. As CCP is trying to curb undesirable activity such as RL threats, harassment etc, they also are negatively impacting that which made EVE so great. A real sense of impact on the world.

There are absolutely ways to make these rules more specific and clear without opening up to rule lawyering. That’s what rules are for, they need to be clear enough to understand which boundaries are considered to be applicable, and broad enough to be able to catch fringe activities.

@Steve_Ronuken: If CCP had prefaced their rules with an introduction that would outline the intention and scope of the rules, especially in regards to legitimate in-game actions including cloaky camping, ganking, hunting enemies down, interdiction, wardecs etc, it would be different. But right now, under the current interpretation of the rules, I could be reported by players for having a cloaky character in a system to disrupt rental empires. CCP already responds from a point where “if someone complains, we take action” and with these rules being so broad, what stops a rental group to mass report legitimate players with legitimate strategies?

In the end, I am not asking for specifics on what is and isn’t allowed. I would rather see a “preface” in which CCP outlines that they will take a zero tolerance approach to harassment transcending the game, but that they will be more “held back” when it involves in-game actions. I also would really appreciate a clause that frivolous reporting of harassment as well as bandwagoning to report harassment en masse, should be something that can be punished.

It seems that CCP_Guard gave some additional insight, but I am hesitant to see how that plays out. EVE is a game, but within that game we’re not handholding snowflakes with gelatine skins.

(Aequitae) #665

See, the problem is that while there are many experienced GMs, there are plenty of previous cases where a single GM could change the outcome of a problem based on personal perspectives. Maybe this has changed, I hope so, but in the years I play it has been very “flexible” in regards to how two independent GMs interpret the same situation. For me personally, that isn’t a reassuring precedence because it would imply a personal bias may be at play by GMs in cases like harassment.

Please allow me to step outside of EVE for a second. I am sure you, as a politician by profession, can understand that there is a major disconnect between a portion of a population and the manner in which laws and rules are described. A legal system requires a certain form of writing but as a result the majority of people not versed in these rules do not understand exactly what is expected of them. That leads to situations where people break such rules unintentionally, because the legal jargon does not match those bound by it.

I strongly feel that these new rules, while very neccesary, fail to capture the essence of what CCP tries to achieve while assuring players that their regular in-game activities aren’t neccesarily a bannable offense by itself. One example would be the case of harassment. For you, harassment may be something that happens over a timespan of months, but for another person, harassment may happen over a period of hours. If these rules are targeting prolonged, structural and targeted harassment of people, that is a lot more specific.

As it is, barring the explanation by CCP Guard, the letter of the rule would enable a player to claim verbal abuse if someone taunts them roughly after killing their ship. At what point is something abusive. Is it when you send them an e-mail with their loss mail and ask them why they suck? Is it when you say “■■■■ you”?. And what happens when one player would for example decide to park an alt into a system to camp it for a month, as part of the war effort. Is that also “harassment”?

In order for a rule to be effective, it needs to be clear what the intention is. It doesn’t need to be specific on exactly what falls under it, so as long as said rule is understandable without reasonable doubt on what exactly falls under it. I therefore would absolutely like to see you, someone I voted for in CSM, to push for CCP to add the “spirit” of these rules to it. A clarification on how they perceive “harassment” but also to include a section that clearly outlines what will happen to those who use said rules maliciously to try and get a fellow player punished. When that clarification is included, especially to such a broad subject, I believe that it would make the rules a lot more clear to players.

I am personally against structural harassment, but there are players whom I will kill on sight if I see them live near me until they leave, due to their prior transgressions against friends and myself. That is part of EVE, and needs to stay while weeding out the racism, the toxicity and the real-life threats.

So please, Brisc. Could you ask CCP to include their “vision” to the policy to set a scope of these rules?

(JackJohn Shizah) #666

I do not think you should spend your time and money on playing police. We have the user blocking, maybe add an optional chat word filter and that’s it. Only punish bots, spam and obvious scams, do not care about anything else.

(Aequitae) #667

I disagree.

Any person who can not separate their private life with their online persona, and the actions committed by/against that persona needs to have a time-out. It is a game, and it is unacceptable that people threaten to do harm in real life. End of.

(amatormundi) #668

[laughing til i piss my pants emoticon]
I feel a kinship with those miners. You’re alone in space. Your weed is slowly running out. And it’s F-----G COLD, GODDAMIT. JESUS F-----G Christ.