Incel, for those who are unaware, means “involuntary celibate” …
… which is a funny way of saying “evolutionary rejects”.
I am not going to link to their subreddit, because it’s a cancer.
1 Like
freegigx#
1 Like
Whilst I agree on some parts of the new policy, for example harassment and real life threats in game or forums I am concerned about how CCP are going to police social media and other platforms like Youtube and Twitch. As everyone knows, players in Eve online often blow things way out of proportion and will miss out details on purpose just to smear ■■■■ on someone.
Now imagine for a minute someone posts a video on Youtube calling someone out for being an idiot in game, using questionable tactics and what have you. Do they then face being banned if the mentioned player gets salty and goes crying to ccp? If someone is breaking a 3rd party sites policies then it should surely be up to said site to deal with it and not CCP.
I surely will never condone anyone who harasses or threatens someone in real life over a game, but for the sake of content creators this needs to be clarified. Content creators are a vital part of the community and should be entitled to fair comment and criticism, whether it’s of ccp themselves or any of it’s players. If they’re scared of creating content for fear of being banned (due to unclear policies) then that’s simply wrong.
It’s good to save and copyright posts to prevent harassment and worst damage from others.
In fact, it may even save life, if the material which they seek to forfeit is intended to save life or yours, because of previous damage and attacks.
I do have more about due to my work, and for work, but won’t post it here since it may wrongfully be deemed as inappropriate because the community or part of it, or a member of the community feels it is offensive, abusive, or a violation of [our community guidelines].
They may also see it as their only means to try to diminish their liability, due to erroneous notions misleading them into false assumptions and fears.
I think the problem is that people with different motives discussing the same thing. For me, Wahabbi and others alike, muslim or not, are against what I think of as basic human decency. They’re anti-democratic to the core and enforce rulership with violence. That’s why I oppose them. However, there are also people who generally oppose muslims (not their religion as a religion, that I’d understand) and take fundamentalists as the example and then try to generalize it on to everyone who either practises any of the many subdivisions of muslim religion or is practically not religious, but was born in a country/family where this religion is mainly present. It’s as if someone took John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy, pointed their finger towards North America and said “look, this is how Americans are”. It’s not only a false generalization, it also screams intention.
Many people I know detest racism and also detest fundamentalism. The few muslims I personally know: the same. (Which I guess is fairly obvious since muslims are the first and foremost victim of such Wahabbi and the likes).
I don’t think either CCP or even anyone whos main focus of work is against hate speech would do that. Wahabi themselves are a hate group. There may be cases where people are so eaten up by racist hate speech, that they lose their navigation system - and call if hate speech if someone points out the issues with fundamentalists. Those people are wrong, but they are - if anything - a minority and certainly not representative of the normal people who are against any form of hate speech, but I can see how hate groups would and probably are trying to make them look as if they were representatives in order to divert the discussion.
Of course, most ideas can be or must be discussed. They fall under legislations of free speech and so on. However, there are always limits to this. When the presumptions of the idea already include the discrimination (maybe even violently) of groups of people, according to my attempted definition of “hate speech”, they are not willing to let the discussion influence them. I think the same goes for fundamentalists of religious kind or neonazis. Each their sole interest in open discussion is to find a stage to further their anti-human agenda and find out just how far they can go with it, how often they get away with (nearly) breaking the law and so on.
The idea of free speech and open discussion is related to the idea of democracy. Groups that want to abolish democracy and even specify smaller steps towards that, should not be given the same courtesy. They may say whatever they want to say (unless illegal) at home or to people who want to hear it. No one else is obliged and no one should give them the courtesy to give them a stage anywhere else.
In my country you can say pretty much anything. You can’t incite crimes though, because that counts as a crime. So I mean: you can do it, but you have to expect lawful punishment.
As many other western countries my country currently lives through a foreseeable thing that had to happen. After the end of socialist states, the stale-mate between social state and pure capitalism broke apart. Not that the socialist states had been super socialist, but economically they provided not only safety for their own inhabitants, but also put pressure on the other states. This is over since about 30 years. Since then the western states had seen the difference between poor and rich get greater at an ever accelerating rate. The attempts of states to form international bonds, did not nearly fit the extremely fast globalization of capital. In return we’ve seen crisis after crisis and the former middle class feeling insecure.
A perfect time for demagogues to enter the stage so to say. They efficiently manage to divert large groups of peoples attention away from the pressing social issues and manage to incorparate them as the useful idiots they are. Racists are working against their own best interests, by instead of pointing the finger upwards, they point it downwards. And the rich are laughing their asses off.
In Germany we had this before, right after the wall came down and Millions of east Germans basically got bestolen by western companies. They successfully started a racist campaign and that was it. Forgotten where the rising rents, the unemployment and all of that.
All this means is that any state has only one choice: again limit the negative consequences of capitalism by introducing stronger social measures, or fall victim to despotes of the right who just wait around the corner. If the latter case happens, many people who vote for them will have the bad taste of a wrong decision afterwards. When the “charismatic” leader makes all kinds of promises, heats up the racism and all that and in the end all you’ve got is less money in the pocket, higher debts and so on - people start thinking again.
Until 20 years later it is all forgotten and the next generation of demagogues tries again, fails again. It’s always just a way to make hefty worsening of social situation, wages and so on digestible for those, who are happy to believe in racist lies. I think they are happy to eat this lie, because it is obviously the less harder opponent. Go on strike against the company? Nah… why not just chase the refugees out? It doesn’t change anything, but the few years you think it actually does, one can feel great. That this is a cowards move and useless on top of it, may only occur after the final outcome of this phase is visible.
I trust in CCP being super reasonable when it comes to looking at and enforcing their rules. While they say their Forums are not meant for political discussion, they rarely stop it, unless it evolves into name-calling and the likes.
1 Like
I think you try to look at this in a elementary school mathematics way, which it is not. Society is far more complex and so are laws. That’s why you have judges and different levels of jurisdiction to interpret laws for any specific circumstances. The laws in “normal” countries don’t define list of words you can or cannot say - so neither does CCP. In Germany it is illegal to incite hate or violence against groups of other people, for instance foreigners. What exactly that means is to be interpreted by the court and rightly so. The reason being is that the intention behind the specific formulation of the law is what matters. It is always about the intention of the law. In Germanys example for instance, the intention is not to limit negative expressions about groups of people per se - those are valid under freedom of expression. They limit those negative expressions which a normal person would consider a call for crimes or the substantiated preparation for such a call for crime.
Again, laws are always interpreted according to their intention or the intention that the court sees in them.
Otherwise law would not function, because there can’t be a preemptive definition of any possible case.
Personally I think this should be looked at in the specific context, but in your example I see that the “in game of course” could merely used as a ironic add-on, to try and avoid punishment.
In my country you can’t insult a cop. Some smart-ass tried to circumvent this by saying “It would be illegal if I called you an asshole now, wouldn’t it?”.
The reaction of our highest court was great: beyond the normal punishment the guy got a few thousand extra in fines, because he tried to evade lawful punishment and make a joke of the judicial system.
Same case here I think.
2 Likes
come to think of it that incident was actually what got me into eve.
Hmm, yes, interpretation is key, and so are interpreters, computer programs also use interpreters and one more other method to process program code.
The crown or accusers are sometimes given free will, even though they may damage, since the judge will be held liable and accountable and responsible for the interpretation of the case.
Of course, some jurisdiction do not interpret law based on case law.
The forums policies are also not laws.
Laws are policies in place by government, and deal with penalties, fines, imprisonment, and sometimes other more serious consequences.
This is done to get your clone to a Corp. Alliance main station / citadel, and not meant with bad intention.
It’s like saying, kill the light.
Of course, if you take it out of context, it can be suicidal, and therefore, illegal, as suicide not a legal way of dying, as is murder, or assassination of character, as for (for, not changed to the word if, which was not intended to be ‘if’) assassination of character of written words or material, or context in which electronic files are.
Also, in programming, when you are privy to a system used for coding, you can’t give away all parts to parties not intended.
You know about it, and it’s meant to be that way.
Just because someone takes your action out of context can’t be something that is not going to happen, but it’s partly meant to be that way.
The nature of the code is that way.
You have the context very right, and I saw this proliferate not long after Mittani’s KYS drunk comment and again after the gigX hands incident, plus mostly on the r/eve discord, so that’s more likely than not the intent.
I’ve never seen it in the context of deathcloning. Usually they would tell you to self-destruct, not kill yourself ingame.
Yes, self-destruct your pod, and kill yourself in the process.
I’m also very lucky to have written to Buzz Aldrin, a luminary, innovator and explorer,
a person who inspires or influences others, especially one prominent in a
particular sphere, including information system and coding.
To help correct an error or 2 or 3, while still being able to retain a certain amount and level of anonymity for security reasons.
This a luxury which is not possible is certain condition where human judgment is necessary, and the decisions taken lead to consequences which make correcting error a different ball park.
Lol, you’re getting a bit ahead of yourself aren’t you? “Thousands of years”, sure. Look, I’m not the word police and I have no intention to be. Not only does context always matter, but also mistakes are made all the time and it’s fine. Mistakes lead to conflict and if the society is on good terms with itself, these will be discussed and people elevate themselves onto the next level of understanding, productivity and social strength.
Now, that being said, I don’t think that banning words helps to protect society from the ones who want to dismantle and abolish it, want to go back to medieval times or whatnot. I personally think that only firm and decisive action of the democratic majority can help with that. Rather than passive-aggressively saying what should and shouldn’t be said, focus on those who use deragatory language in an extensive way to rallye for hate, separation and downfall of our societies. Focus and those and not tell them “don’t say this”, but oust them from the society they’re trying to destroy. Put them all onto an island where they can see how “nice” it is to live only amongst their peers. Then the rest, the normal people, who just want peace and propsperity, mutual respect and a good life, can go on without the haters.
Like I said, that would make sense were the context it was used had anything to do with deathcloning, getting to or from Jita, or to and from the staging or whatever. Usually it lines up more with how zluq zabaa used it; as an insult hurtled in the middle of heated or troll-infested discussions, wherein it would be absurd to give the ‘in-game’ qualifier any real merit. Then again its use is typically lighthearted, like when people would normally say ‘go screw yourself’ or such.
If the context and terms are misused, now you know it’s taken out of context, as I mentioned above.
It’s like if you take a request for systems services out of context to mean to endanger public safety because someone says so, and they earned so much money for over 20 years from interfering, that it would be a financial problem to them…
They don’t care if they were right or wrong, they just would suffer damage.
I rather move elsewhere .
At least their intention to take it out of context is bad enough to warrant making better opportunities somewhere else.
You will also notice that to have to move somewhere else is also taking someone out of context, out of the context of association with the place where he lives, like for displacement during emergencies to prevent damage due to risk.
The Apollo project has this huge advantage for me to have started when I was 2 years old and before, and have all the knowledge gathered during my lifetime.
They also put it in practice for harassment and real life threats.
They are also aware of intent to take code or facts out of context and have systems to record it and prevent it.
Nein nein nein!
The game itself is not about being nice or not nice. The game is supposed to be hard and competetive in every single way.
For this to work, the game needs to be the game. It needs a virtual environment in which it happens and the interactions that happen, have to happen within it. For language this is of course difficult, but in order to be lawful and competetive, this should also be specifically focussed on the game.
The final consequences of what you are asking for is that people break the chain of the game itself and start hunting each other down in real life. Because why wouldn’t you hunt someone down who threats your real life? Why wouldn’t you - alternatively - file a report to your state police, have CCP hand over customer data to them, so you can press charges and possibly evoke a restraining order against them?
People need to stay focussed on the game.
The outside stuff is not to be introduced into it, lest we want things to escalate dramatically and the game to be destroyed as part of the consequence.
That’s why it is totally fine to shoot each others spaceships, but is totally not fine to harass the person behind the char, threaten their real life or take actual action outside the game.
That’s what this is about. Normal people who can differentiate between the game and their real life, will have no issues with this at all.
I’m not entirely sure, what you are pointing towards and I’m not well informed about the GigX case and the discussions around it on reddit.
Let me say this: as far as I know GigX was banned due to the part of the sentence which was “… hands, as long as he still has them.” Now, a bunch of things come to mind. First off, in a legal sense, this might not be a threat, because it wasn’t directed at the potential victim and he said it assuming that this would stay in private.
Generally all the “leaking” of interpersonal communication in EVE, lest they happen in public channels, local chat or such, seems to me quite problematic in legal terms, as several countries protect the right to privacy. While CCP owns the content including the words people utter in-game, a 3rd party, such as another player is (in some countries) forbidden from collecting and publishing assumed private communication - by law.
Now, this out of the way, legal definitions aside, of course this was a “threat” to the physical health of another player and should not be accepted as normal. Alas, I’ve personally seen much much worse threats before and after within the game and on the Forums. I don’t know GigX and I don’t know the history before that famous moment, but if it was only this one thing, I personally wouldn’t have opted for a permanent ban. But as I said, I don’t know all the details and CCP knows them, so yeah.
Next thing, a player called “Mrs GigX” appeared and it became a joke on reddit because people assumed that this is actually GigX playing. Possibly confirmed by spies and so on - I don’t know the details of it.
If this assumption leads people to think Mrs GigX = GigX, it would be no surprise that they call GigX also Mrs GigX. They may be wrong and it may feel as an insult, but I think this is one of the cases where the malicious intent seems unclear.
And actually in this case, EVE Online, I think this is good. If we could decide about who gets banned or not, people would do that for the meta-game. CCP is there to ensure (at least that’s the idea), that the game stays in-game as much as possible.
Well said.
As you say, interpretation is key. If this statement happens as a suggestion of how to avoid pod-travel, it’s not an issue.
If after a long aggressive, borderline rl-threat, arguement one says it, I’d say it is just a code for a call to the other to real life harm himself, while trying to avoid punishment for the one who says it.
Since it’s probably not CCP’s intention to let people get away with real life threats, by using flowery language or methods of evasion, depending on the context, the cited sentence could be a bannable offense.
People who complain about “Politically Correct” are usually the ones who want to say rude and mean things but are afraid.
Same for people who complain about restrictions on hate speech.
Just like bigotry, it is a form of cowardice.
2 Likes
The high road is to redirect you towards a quick understanding of the Overton window:
If we can’t see where the real edges are (the worst of the worst ideas), how do we steer things back to the actual middle.
Suppression of free speech is how we collectively get to the worst places in history.
Or if I follow your example and take the low road it could go something like this:
People who want to suppress free speech are usually the ones who want to actually do evil things in the real world, but are afraid to get caught and so dont want anyone to talk about it.