Policy Update - Real Life Threats & Harassment

feedback
official

(Aequitae) #689

“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:

Sure, new avenues need to be tried but you are missing a few key problems here.

Let us assume that they will do what you say and as a result PVP goes down.

  1. A large group of players will quit the game in space outside high-security space as their primary content dries up.
  2. Markets, industrialists and missioners run into a gradual but steady reduction in demand due to the reduced amount of stuff simply dying. That by itself means that PLEX prices will skyrocket whilst profit per item goes down as you are competing with others.
  3. As such, the market for bots and RMT becomes more interesting to many because it becomes harder to earn the money manually. For those type of results, see Serenity.
  4. All marketing for EVE gets hurt because PVP is what brings the majority of new players into the game.

One of the largest problems with your assessment is that you ignore the power of long-term players that are loyal and willing to pay up. A lot of MMOs forget that after a while, if they alienate their community by pushing for the new player rush rather than cultivating loyal players, that they eventually see a decline in their profits. A game such as WoW has this problem but still banks on the casuals because they are much more famous. EVE has this problem but it’s addressed by players who run multiple accounts or buy PLEX from time to time (along with other items).

PA needs to understand that a big portion of the EVE community is loyal to a fault, and that by pushing us to new directions you lose people that are the backbone of the game. This game is nothing without content creators. FCs, streamers and other personalities that bring people together to play. Whenever they leave or take breaks, you already notice major slumps in activity in many groups. Let alone if they are permanently gone because CCP keeps gouging their members and add new player friendly things.


(Balos Tritapo) #690

All you stated is not helpful at all,it just tries to cement an opinion that is already negated due to the loss of players in the last years.

The “pvp over all time” has come to an end otherwise players wouldn’t vote with their feets and you trying to constantly repeat the old arguments do not help in this.

It’s about time for a 180° change even if it will be harmful to loose the ragequitters it will be a benefit in the long run because those dogmatic people will be replaced by others that THEN see the game as something playable.
And -beside what PVP is trying to tell you- they are not the majority in this game,just a loud 25% minority(also thanks to csm)

The game(and its loyal players) will adept to the changes,the ragequitters will be replaced and eve will carry on after those needed changes…the main reason some are complaining is the fact that they are not WILLING to move,adept or come out of their cozy neck in the woods…it’s lazyness nothing more…


(Teinyhr) #691

Ah, no, you’re just being obstinate just because you can. You know full well that If what you did before didn’t get you in trouble, it won’t get you in trouble in the future. And if you really do harass people IRL then honestly you’re a person EVE can do without.


(Aequitae) #692

All you stated is not helpful at all,it just tries to cement an opinion that is already negated due to the loss of players in the last years.

It isn’t. It is simple reality that without ships dying, other avenues of the game will be affected too. We aren’t in a traditional MMO economy where you can change one thing and automated drop tables account for that. Whenever you remove a part of the game or reduce their impact on the game, that affects many other aspects. If you’d remove industrialists, all ships will become more expensive to buy and restock. If you remove the PVPers, the ratio of dead items goes down which makes the demand on industry and trade shrink as well, with devaluation of money as a result.

EVE needs a healthy balance between the various playstyles for it to flourish and keep moving. At the moment, that balance is there because PVPers kill something that Industrialists built with materials Miners gathered. Remove any step of that process and the entire economy will crash in on itself.

And -beside what PVP is trying to tell you- they are not the majority in this game,just a loud 25% minority(also thanks to csm)

A lot of players enjoy PVP at different paces, just as a lot of players enjoy PVE as well. Neither are a “minority” and both need the other to make it worthwhile doing.

The game(and its loyal players) will adept to the changes,the ragequitters will be replaced and eve will carry on after those needed changes…

That is naive. Loyal EVE players take many changes as long as the cultural identity of the game and the base concept remains the same. We’ve had many many swooping changes and indeed some have left. But all those changes kept the core concept of “EVE is harsh, deal with it” in place. Should CCPA change this fundamental baseline concept on which the entire game and 15 years of history is built, you will see revolts. We saw that during the “Greed is Good” issues, where the community lashed back.

To put it into a numerical perspective.

This is the average user for the last five years. On 15/11/2016, the Alpha Clone functionality was enabled, resulting in a peak of users that eventually tapered off back to levels prior to that release. The majority of players that are actively playing are those loyal customers, with the peaks being those who temporarily return for a little and then move on because the game may not live up to their expectations. If CCP would choose to forsake their “loyal” people because they are resistant to change, that number will drop down even more.


(Balos Tritapo) #693

Well…if the needed changes are made and the game dies afterwards it’s most likely that it would have died even sooner if the changes were not made…so all your states are not valid…

What you are basically saying is that something does not work because we never tried it so we don’t need to try it because we never tried it.

This is called dogmatism


(Predvodnica LSG) #694

OMG you really believe in all this you wrote ???


(Aequitae) #695

So as to quote myself from an earlier post above:

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.

I do not believe at any point that we should allow behaviour to transcend the game and move into a real-life environment. I am absolutely for the punishment of those behaviours and to that end the new policy DOES actually bring great boundaries. What I am adamantly questioning isn’t that these rules apply to real-life, but that the way these rules are described enable players to abuse the system by (mass-) reporting on a (false) accusation. It implies, based on the written policy, that anything within the game that someone considers harassment, can be a reason for a banishment.

That would mean that anyone who gets their freighter ganked, could claim it is harassment of players and start a procedure. I want to trust the GM team in doing their job, but the customer service has been very spotty for a long time and time and time again there have been situations where your decision is depending on which GM you get, rather than actual clear guidelines. So I am asking, from CSM and CCP, to clarify their intention and their perspective on in-game activities related to game mechanics and part of “understandable gameplay” within the policy itself rather than buried in hundreds of responses.


(Balos Tritapo) #696

What i believe is that a “carry on like we did for 15 years” is the death of eve…something you deny just because what not has to be will not be


(Mevatla Vekraspek) #697

So dropping goon rorqs in Delve is harassment?


(Aequitae) #698

That is a half-truth.

It may be a situation where having made the change can lead to a better situation, but at the same time it can also be the catalyst for the demise of the game. As a business, CCP will want to avoid the latter, as that would effectively mean that they destroy their primary livelihood. I am not discounting that you may have a point, but I am very skeptical and definitely do not agree with the direction you’re proposing.

One of the most important things to remember though is this. While EVE hasn’t grown a lot and did lose a fair bit of players over the long-term, it is remarkably stable for the amount of marketing effort it does. You try to portray the idea of sticking to “15 years of doing something” as a bad thing, but I think that is exactly why EVE has been so stable for the longest time while other MMO’s fail after awhile.

Personally, I’d rather add a lot more content in the likes of the NPE starting missions, where there’s an actual story for newer players to follow at a quality level befitting 2018. That would retain many more people than removing PVP. Are there balance changes to things neccesary? Yes. I am not happy with how abusive the war declaration system can be.

As for your question, @Predvodnica_LSG, I do. If you have a compelling argument that you could use to persuade me I would challenge you to change my mind. A new perspective is always welcome, even if we may not neccesarily agree on the idea itself. Feel free to let me know what you disagree with and why exactly.


(Aequitae) #699

This is one of the cases exactly why I believe this set of rules needs a clarification. It is irrelevant who the ships belong to, but people will use this to try and claim harassment. That is what I am not happy with. Other than that aspect, I like it for RL stuff.


(Rexxar Santaro) #700

Just ‘googled’ it

Hate speech

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[1][2] The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[6] Additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[7][8][9]

United Kingdom[edit]

Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of people. The statutes forbid communication that is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[3][82][83][84][85][86][87] Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches,[ citation needed ] does not criminalise jokes about people’s beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.[88]

United States[edit]

Main article: Hate speech in the United States

The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[8] There are several categories of speech that not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.[89][ not in citation given ] Court rulings often must be reexamined to ensure the U.S. Constitution is being upheld in the ruling on whether or not the words count as a violation.[90]

Proponents of hate speech legislation in the United States have argued that freedom of speech undermines the 14th Amendment by bolstering oppressive narrative which demeans equality and the Reconstructive Amendment’s purpose of guaranteeing equal protection under the law.[91]

Iceland[edit]

In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:

Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years.

In this context “assault” does not refer to physical violence but only to verbal assault.strong text

Abusive messaging

It hasn’t direct ‘World Wide’ definition, but for online video games your version is ok. Let me point to a more complex and practical case. Imagine a scenario where you lent someone $100 and a week later decided to send him a message about the return of the debt. He “GFY” in response and blocks your number, because he don’t want to listen to you. You deciding to send him an e-mail about to return the debt afterwards. He runs to local police office to sign a complaint about your abusive messaging and persecutions. I know, it’s not an accurate sample, but it explain the issue in a nutshell. Tanks in IRL there are many laws, organizations and procedures, which allows to solve this kind of situations other ways.

Online/Social Media stalking

It hasn’t any direct juridical definition. There is another official and juridical terminology for such kind of harassments - Cyberstalking.

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization.[1] It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or gathering information that may be used to threaten, embarrass or harass.

Cyberstalking is often accompanied by realtime or offline stalking.[2] In many jurisdictions, such as California, both are criminal offenses.[3] Both are motivated by a desire to control, intimidate or influence a victim.[4] A stalker may be an online stranger or a person whom the target knows. He may be anonymous and solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target.

Cyberstalking is a criminal offense under various state anti-stalking, slander and harassment laws. A conviction can result in a restraining order, probation, or criminal penalties against the assailant, including jail.

Now, them most important and dangerous moment about Cyberstalking!!!

It is important[ according to whom? ] to draw a distinction between cyber-trolling and cyber-stalking.

Identification and detection

CyberAngels has written about how to identify cyberstalking:[8]

When identifying cyberstalking “in the field,” and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment and threats.

A number of key factors have been identified in cyberstalking:

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

  • False accusations: Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms, or other sites that allow public contributions such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.[9]
  • Attempts to gather information about the victim: Cyberstalkers may approach their victim’s friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective.[10]
  • Monitoring their target’s online activities and attempting to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.[11]
  • Encouraging others to harass the victim: Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim’s name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.
  • False victimization: The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him or her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.[12]
  • Attacks on data and equipment: They may try to damage the victim’s computer by sending viruses.
  • Ordering goods and services: They order items or subscribe to magazines in the victim’s name. These often involve subscriptions to pornography or ordering sex toys then having them delivered to the victim’s workplace.
  • Arranging to meet: Young people face a particularly high risk of having cyberstalkers try to set up meetings between them.[12]
  • The posting of defamatory or derogatory statements: Using web pages and message boards to incite some response or reaction from their victim.[13]

… go with these definitions on EVE Reddit to generate a ‘storm of ■■■■’. A lot was discussed about GigX again here. Therefore… Calling a male Mrs GigX in NO IN GAME environment (IN SOCIAL MEDIA), with respective humiliations, falls under False accusations, Sexism, False victimization. Maybe I’m wrong, but on Reddit a subscription was signed not by virtual capsuleer GigX, but by a real human personality, which is protected not by lacking EVE laws, but by real local and international laws, constitution. Therefore, a lot of unclear definitions leads to unknown consequences…

Verbal abuse

It’s beyond imagination, which requires to ban almost all known Dictionaries, Freedom of speech and leads to ‘Selective justice’. It leads to some kind of ‘Virtual dictatorship’.

Finally, your and my definitions can be very good, accurate and professional but they haven’t any power. We can successfully participate in Project Discovery: Police Harassment, but we can’t participate at ‘court decisions’. Сontroversial situations will be solved not by your, not by my definitions, but by published on official page definitions:


(Balos Tritapo) #701

All of this text would be unnecessary if people would use their common sense.

Then they would undersatnd that there is only a problem because interested circles have made it to one.

Those circles have to be closed and the problem does not exist anymore…

Yes it’s THAT easy…


(Brisc Rubal) #702

I will ask, but as I noted before, at least in regards to that list that folks are claiming is vague, all of those things currently exist as prohibited activities in the TOS and they’ve not been treated any differently in this document - this is primarily designed to explain what will be the future treatment of real life threats, not some kind of change in policy as to how they handle the same kinds of disputes they’ve been dealing with for the last fifteen years.


(Jeremiah Saken) #703

Why it can’t just be “we won’t take resposibility for our players RL actions” clause?


(Nakota Joe Nakota) #704
A large group of players will quit the game in space outside high-security space as their primary content dries up.
Markets, industrialists and missioners run into a gradual but steady reduction in demand due to the reduced amount of stuff simply dying. That by itself means that PLEX prices will skyrocket whilst profit per item goes down as you are competing with others.
As such, the market for bots and RMT becomes more interesting to many because it becomes harder to earn the money manually. For those type of results, see Serenity.
All marketing for EVE gets hurt because PVP is what brings the majority of new players into the game.

pvp is about 25% of what eve has to offer…in all honesty it may be less than that. i don’t think anyone suggested doing away with pvp, your description of the decline of eve is amazing, all based on a pvp ban? i spent my first 4 years in the game having nothing at all to do with pvp, running missions, making t1 items and ships, making t2 items and ships, exploring…the list of things to do is a long one…even without pvp.


(Mevatla Vekraspek) #705

Pvp is not limited to combat. You compete against other players in industry, ressources gathering and in market.


(Steeve In-disguise) #706

pvp is about 25% of what eve has to offer…
But it’s one of really few money burners because outside of rookie steps, for PvE purposes people burn test dummies on SiSi. EVE economy relies on a lot of pvpers destroying ships. Don’t believe me? Take a look at t1 market, which is as healthy as taking cyanide, with horrible margins.
If pvp will die, these margins won’t become more horrible. They’ll go inverse, giving you net loss. This will remove a lot of incentives to produce just about anything (

So you was the member of market pvp. Trouble is, without ship exploding pvp, market pvp loses overproduction stalemate resolve known as “burn everything till their margins are back to base and losses will take months to recuperate.”


(Salt Foambreaker) #707

Two reasons:

  1. Lawyers
  2. Politicians

Surprised?


(Rexxar Santaro) #708

Can be a place for ‘Amnesty’ in EVE, @Brisc_Rubal?

I hardly remember a game server, where the amnesty procedures were applied to some banned and perma-banned players after one year time period.

Trivial policy violations were applied next way:

  1. First time violation - a warning.

  2. Second time - 1 day ban;

  3. Third time - 10 days ban.

  4. Forth time - 60 days ban.

  5. Fifth time violation - permaban with a chance for amnesty.

  6. Another respective police violation after amnesty leads to a ban forever.

Serious policy violation were permabanned, with an only one chance for amnesty.

IRL

In IRL the amnesty is frequently used to free the convicted for serious crimes, which happened intentionally with a motive. EVE community is represented by people, at age between 12 and 60 more or less, from around the World, with their own local laws and subculture. Among them, there are people from different professions, military and ex-military. It’s no need to notice the aspects of conversations between ex- Special Forces members. Afterwards, these players can say something subconsciously, without any intentions. Moreover, every human has own character, temperament (like Choleric), hard childhood. If to combine all these together…? Will we ban people just because they have a Choleric temperament? Isn’t it some sort of discrimination? I’m not worried about ‘screamers’, I’m worried about those which stay silently and act seriously. ‘Harassment screamers’, seem to me ill-bred. Maybe I’m living in another kind of world.

The modern IRL life threatening is a very big problem, no doubts. But… I remember the tragedy, which happened at Las Vegas last year, a week before EVE Vegas 2017.

Due to the official information, Stephen Paddock (mass murderer) did not any public harassments and threats before that.

Another case

Mark David Chapman (born May 10, 1955) is an American murderer who shot and killed John Lennon at the entrance to the Dakota apartment building in New York City on December 8, 1980. Chapman fired five times at Lennon, hitting him four times in the back and later sat down on a nearby curb reading J. D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye until he was arrested by the police. He has repeatedly said that the novel was his statement.

Chapman’s legal team intended to mount an insanity defense that would be based on expert testimony he was in a delusional psychotic state at the time of the killing. As the trial approached, Chapman instructed his lawyers he wanted to plead guilty, based on the assertion what he had decided was the will of God. After Chapman denied hearing voices, the judge allowed the plea change without further psychiatric assessment and sentenced him to a prison term of 20-years-to life, with a stipulation mental health treatment would be provided. Chapman has been imprisoned ever since, having been denied parole ten times amidst campaigns against his release after he became eligible in 2000.

In my opinion, the EVE police is missing one sufficient paragraph - ‘Calls for …’. As an example, I’ll point to less known ‘Thousand Hills Free Radio and Television’, which were an important part of the process of mobilising the population for Rwandan Genocide.

About EVE and amnesty

I saw just too many comparisons between the Mittani and GigX deeds and their consequences, presented by EVE community. GigX fanboys have an obvious ‘rage’ position, while another big part of the community stay silently, by keeping in mind ‘the Harry Potter’s privileges at Hogwarts’. This leads to a ‘polarized political state’ of the EVE community, which obscures GMs. A ‘reset button’ is required…

P.S. Thanks for reading and sorry for my fluent English.