Policy Update - Real Life Threats & Harassment

feedback
official

(Nevyn Auscent) #669

Harassment has always been against the rules. this is nothing new. So all that butterfly effect is still valid. You can wreck the guys corp and drive him away. You just cant hound him across Eve after he folds his corp in fear till he quits. But you never ever could do that without it being harassment. (ok if he quits because you blew up his citadel that obviously isn’t).


(Balos Tritapo) #670

All those special snowflakes that can’t even stand the slightest CLEAR word spoken out loud MUST be protected…

THAT’S the real problem today…

That a discussion in which the TRUE opinion is spoken out in clear words and not covered in cotton wool is automatically understood as insult by the special snowflakes.

This would be no problem if there weren’t the “snowflake protectors”,the “political correctness police officers” that try to tell you,even against the will of the snowflakes,that you “can’t say it this way.”…

No…just no…

CLEAR words are the ONLY way to discuss…cottom wool just fills your mouth and makes a discussion impossible…

What those people want is called CENSORSHIP


(Nevyn Auscent) #671

I have no idea why you replied to me with that random caps rant. It’s nothing to do with anything I said.
Would you care to try again to actually formulate a logical argument that explains what your point is.


(Balos Tritapo) #672

just because it’s under your post does not mean it’s for you buddy…i did not quote you did i?


(Nevyn Auscent) #673

No it just flagged me as a direct reply to me, and you can do that without a quote. I guess you hit the wrong reply button then if it wasn’t aimed at me.


(Steeve In-disguise) #674

Honestly? New policy is bananas.
No offense, but we are in the game, ffs. Games are:
1)Competitive to some degree.
2)Rely on that “inner kid” to do the actual lifting of transforming bunch of incoherent menus and windows into big magical picture of universe.

With new policy you are trying to still use that “inner kid” to work, yet being full-package-adult with full-scale RL restrictions. You are trying to get cheap fertilizer without funky odor. It just won’t happen, you’ll either will have to not really enforce this policy or watch the world die. Latter is undesirable to you, so the former will be in place. And nothing kills obeying the rules faster than fuzzy lines between breaking the rules and actual punishment. It’s PETA pamphlets all over again.


(Marat Khan) #675

Unreal invented. The virtual world is attacking reality.


(Kaelen Mosar) #676

Like cfc trolls flagging your Posts abusing flagging


(Balos Tritapo) #677

I’m happy when it rains, because if I’m not happy, it rains too.

Karl Valentin

:slight_smile:


(Aequitae) #678

Harassment has been illegal but never defined. As such there was a lot of leeway. Right now CCP is hard at work to add definition to what they consider to be harassment. You may not care, I do. We’ll never get along on these points as I find the lack of clarity problematic. I’ll have to agree to disagree with you.


(Aedaxus) #679

You play a game. Then you decide to tell another player you will kill him in RL. You get permaban and if you want a trial, go to the local police and ask them to note that you wanted to murder someone but you got high. Enjoy the public trial.


(Teinyhr) #680

Only EVE players can complain for over 600 messages that a policy condemning RL threats and harassment curbs their playstyle. And most of you are bloody grown men, 30+ yrs old. SMH.

If you’re so worried about this change, maybe you should evaluate what you’re doing that skirts on these new policies, and stop them. HTFU and all that.


(Balos Tritapo) #681

Well…in my eyes everything regarding unwilling and unaccepted pvp is harrasment.
This includes gatecamps and miner ganking (in high) but also any form of mission relevant item stealing and scanning and disturbing a mission…pretty far definition hm…?

No i don’t think so…

Think about it this way : if I would be in his place would i like or want what i’m trying to do ?
If the answer is : no then it’s harrasment…

And yes…i know that many people don’t care eve is a pvp game,you better should play single player games ect .p.p. blablabla…but this has no effect on the definition


(Aequitae) #682

We’re not complaining about the policy being put in place, but rather that the policy isn’t clear enough on certain aspects that can open up routes for abuse and an erosion of EVE’s culture. By any means, anything in form of harassment that is transcending the boundaries of game mechanics should be punished. But in-game there are actions some will consider harassment while others do not. We want that latter part, on how it works of in-game stuff, to be more clear.


(Aequitae) #683

I am sorry but,

EVE’s own development team has stated over and over again that someone becomes a valid target whenever they leave the safety of a station. It is a basic tennet in what the game is about. A gatecamp isn’t harassment. Ganking players on their mining adventures, isn’t harassment. Stealing from corporations isn’t harassment. It is harassment when your behaviour takes structural steps to inconvenience specific players for personal reasons, beyond reasonable in-game behaviours.

Harassment to me would be that when I block someone from conversing with me, that they proceed to log into new characters to contact me. It would be people that deliberately contact your CEO’s to try and get you removed over a grudge. But all these aspects have a structural element to them, while a gatecamp is incidental.

And yes, this is EVE. If you want perfect safety with no one “harassing you” according to your definition, you best find a game that suits that style of play.


(Balos Tritapo) #684

The real problem here is that the big alliances voted themselves into csm and therefore directly defined this policy and what actually IS harrasment by their needs…
There never was a “discussion”…
And so nothing is really clear…
Maybe we simply need getting rid of csm and start a real discussion where every aspect and every need of eve players is defined and not just those that tend a minority of players…


(Balos Tritapo) #685

Yes they stated this…
I’m not negating that state…

But the costs were a thinner and thinner player base and my opinion is that now that ccp has been sold there is a much needed opportunity to change things.

PA will want to make profit and a thinning out player base is a clear sign that some things are going out of hand and the answer is not “carry on like the last 15 years”…

“less pvp instead of more” was never tried and just because some say it is does not mean it would be really bad…i mean if you see a direction leads you into a pit are you still walking straight into it because you walked straight for an hour now so no need to go around it? :slight_smile:


(Nevyn Auscent) #686

CCP disagree with you. So yeah. (Balos that is)

@Aequitae The harassment part of the policy isnt changing at all. That’s already the current policy.


(Balos Tritapo) #687

CCP is not in charge anymore regardless the “still be independent propaganda” this is what some are not willing to understand.

The “we did this for 15 years this way” times are over…


(Balos Tritapo) #688

Don’t you really see that the change made here is already a first sign that the game will be driven into a more “market compatible direction”?
In my eyes this is crystal clear…