Ship/Cargo Scanner to give penalty e.g. suspect timer

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
,
583

I feel like I have covered this before, and I have my doubts that going over it again will be well regarded, but I am naive. The post is long, and while I’ve got several grievances with various points that have been raised, I will focus on just one of them to avoid writing a novel, the appeal to real world law.

There are a good many cultures scattered across our real life globe, and each culture has a form of government, and each government has its own set of laws. Laws that are by no means static. In America, even fundamental laws protecting our freedom of speech are amendments, or revisions added on to our constitution, and these laws only extend to the edge of our border. Outside of them, the 1st amendment does not apply. In North Korea, watching a television show from a foreign country is considered a crime against the state and someone caught can be executed for it. Not a law I would want to see widely adopted, even though it exists in real life.

Criminal law, and the rights of the people are determined by people and only exist at all because of people. As people change, encounter new problems or situations, so do their laws change to adapt to the same. That a law exists in the real world does not automatically mean that the law is a good idea to implement in, or even applicable to, every real and virtual region.

Eve is a deliberately dystopian universe. To quote the wikipedia on the subject (emphasis mine):

Dystopias are often characterized by dehumanization, tyrannical governments, environmental disaster, or other characteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society.

The system is not meant to portray a progressive benevolent government that has your best interests at heart. It is a harsh future wild west where the government is, at best, well meaning but unable to protect you (but probably much worse). In the context of Eve law, I don’t believe we are entitled to our privacy like people in real life should be entitled to it. I am skeptical of arguments that are an appeal to real world law because I do not see real world law as applicable to the fantasy setting that is Eve, especially if that law is just and moral because New Eden is not a just and moral place to be.

You are a Capsuleer, and because of the inept or corrupt government you are the law and that law extends as far as you can enforce it. Can you defy the corrupt and all powerful CONCORD officials and enforce your morality and sense of justice on these scouts? I’d like to see someone try. Eve-mail me a story if you do. I’d love to hear it whether the attempt turns out favorably for you or not.

3 Likes
584

When we actually look at the formula of Benefit for a Risk at a Cost.

585

Hate to say it but these are contradictory positions. An “if by whiskey” argument.

586

You know what is really funny…

The ones against this so much keep saying “crime”

If it is a “crime” then we are talking about the Global Criminal Flag(red) and Concord???

That this thread was about “Suspect” which is yellow, no concord, and allows players to interact if they so wish??

587

It’s because they can’t answer the question without throwing a strawman in the way and setting it on fire. Every time they are redirected back to suspect they change the target to ganking, then when they are corrected back from ganking they redirect to criminal.

588

How about someone quote a few posts where someone said that they thought the scout would get concorded for scanning, and used that in an attempted counter-argument. It’s a long thread, and I have no recollection of these.

589

Way the heck back in post 72.

Or 82.

Which is still obviously funny as you can get concorded for a non-hostile act and you don’t get concorded for stealing from jetcans…

Marcus went this way by trying to attach “intentions” rather than “actions” as a concequence. It was latched onto by Knowledgeminer in the immediate post afterwords.

@ISD_Chanisa_Nemes pulled out the mop and bucket and then cleaned thread up when everything went bonkers. Props for that btw.

It’s been quite a while.

591

I believe there is a psychological hurdle here.

Putting aside what CONCORD is in the meta sense, they are thought of as benevolent. In our free country where we have safety and freedom, we have a relatively positive view of the police and see them as the good guys. When we get shot at, the police come to the rescue.

For people who identify as criminals, being labeled as a criminal seems reasonable. Calling a spade a spade. For people who identify as good guys, though, being treated as a criminal is far more unpalatable. I think it was Black Pedro who mentioned that the NPCs could be renamed to something more… I don’t know… neutral? Something that would make it more clear they are impartial to good or evil and care only about the letter of the law, just or otherwise.

I give Ryan the benefit of the doubt and assume he means to generate content. (I said I was naive.) I know a lot of folk are only selfishly concerned with the safety of their greedy enterprises, but I think it is possible that some people are trying to reconcile why they are labeled a criminal for doing what they believe is a good thing, and I don’t want to just dismiss these people out of hand because I mistook them for the less well meaning sort.

2 Likes
592

We all identify as the good guy. Even criminals have good reasons to be so.

There is no good/bad in reality. Only conflicts of interest.
The only people to tell you bout the “bad guys” are the people who want to put their propaganda in your brain.

593

Again it’s not about being criminal but suspect. It’s like someone break in to you car to see what you have inside so you have the right to kick his ass, there is no standing loss or police intevention here, just suspect.

594

I still don’t see why it is “funny”. It’s perfectly reasonable to draw the line where it is and say looking is fine, stealing is a bad but a minor offense, and shooting someone is punishable by death.

Maybe it is some confusion that arose over years of development around what you can shoot as somethings generate a suspect flag, and somethings a criminal, but largely it make sense. The current rules are not the only place to draw lines, but it isn’t unreasonable to say looking is fine but when you try interfere with someone’s equipment the space police will get involved.

We can change it if there was some compelling reason, but I just don’t see why we would waste the development time. It’s a niche issue, only important to those butthurt over a loss, which is a big red flag that most of this thread is just people metagaming for a rule change that gives them an in-game advantage.

1 Like
595

B&E still isn’t “fine” but that’s what we got going on. Which is why you converted trailers into plexiglas.

Go back up and tell me how you “look” inside that trailer.

596

This is dumb. You can freely “look” pretty much anywhere in a public space, especially at just goods. There are a handful exceptions where this is prohibited and subject to minor legal penalties - generally where there is some expectation of privacy (but never such it allows another party to violence you with no legal consequences) - but you are allowed to look at stuff with whatever devices you want.

This is a video game though, and regardless if you feel violated that someone looked at what imaginary pixels are in your imaginary spaceship, we can unequivocally say no harm was done to the imaginary items or your imaginary space ship by activating a scanner or probe. It’s perfectly reasonable to save suspect and criminal flags for actual harm/influence and not hand them out for gathering intel.

If there is some compelling game design reason why the game would better if suspect flags or whatever for scanning or probing I’d might be swayed but so far, I see no reason to waste a minute of developer time pandering to the butthurt.

597

Answer: You can’t. Excessively long answer but still given. This is why you keep trying to change the topic.

598

Again this is dumb.

So very dumb.

But trailers can have windows. I can look in them. I can also use an infrared camera to peer through walls. I can use radar or sonar or some new electromagnetic scanning tech I invented in my basement. As long as I don’t touch someone’s trailer or damage it or put someone in direct danger by irradiating them I have done nothing that allows them to kill me or physically assault me without reprocussions.

The few laws that exist that break this general rule that ‘public observation is fine but interference is not’ are the exception, not the rule. They specifically exist to protect privacy that normally wouldn’t be protected under the common law. And even these special exceptions don’t allow vigilantes to assault people they observe invading someone’s privacy.

But again, this is silly. Cargo scanners are a game mechanic in a video game about piracy, not a recreation or simulation of real-world laws regarding privacy. They exists for a very good game design reason. We can change how Crimewatch interacts with cargo scanners if there is a good game design reason, but doing so because it doesn’t conform to real-world piracy conventions is inane and doing it to assuage some people who are upset over once losing something to space pirates in a game that has piracy as a profession is downright asinine.

599

And the one I listed doesn’t have windows. You can’t look thru windows that don’t exist. Try again.

But the contents are not producing heat so it won’t help you identify if it’s a tv, a rv, a frying pan, or a diamond.

Radar stops at the edge you can see the object at. Sonar doesn’t work in AIR. Electromagnetic doesn’t work on non-metalic objects.

Then you don’t see the contents. But we’re repeating the “I am not actually” when you are actually. Incidentally if you are looking inside a closed garage with the door down that has no external windows by using a device in Texas YOU WILL GET SHOT. Which is why this is not equal to Eve’s theme of a future where suspects aren’t attacked by the police and arrested but we are free to defend ourselves with any means we can against suspects.

Which counters your entire argument.

600

It’s kinda ridiculous how long this thread has gone on, and how both sides are resorting to just saying the same things over and over again in the hopes one of these times they’ll sink in.

“trailers made of plexiglass” would mean anyone and everyone can always see what you’ve got without effort. Over-exaggerate much?

Scanners are not turning you transparent for the rest of the universe. Only the person scanning can see what you’ve got. And being scanned only violates your assumed right to privacy, which has no bearing in a universe where the players are freelancer space mercenaries intent on killing one another.

Now… there’s a lot of talk about invasion of privacy being “illegal” in the modern world. But as @Qia_Kare has explained, some countries are more or less lenient toward what they consider to be crimes. Some places, a random stranger cutting off another random stranger’s hand, for whatever reason… Would be considered an assault on that person. But in other places, you can cut off another person’s hand for stealing your loaf of bread.

So anyway, here’s a thought. Concord isn’t going to give two hairy shits about your privacy. As long as you aren’t actually being injured, they’re going to leave the Scanner guy alone. When the Scanner guy (or one of his friends) starts shooting you, then they’ll care.

But maybe we could consider turning the Scanner into a Faction offense. Like how some misc cargo items can get you in trouble in certain spaces. So maybe using them in a 0.9 - 1.0 system will make you lose a bit of Faction standing. Or maybe just if you’re using it in those systems, in sight of a station or gate. Since you only get in trouble with cargo if they notice you have it when you undock or jump a gate.

So you still aren’t getting Flagged, but the local officials are still frowning on your actions. And eventually you’d ruin your Faction standing to the point that the Navy chases you around.

601

No. This is exactly what they want. You merely have a “high speed camera” photographing the “completely and totally visible” objects with a cargo scanner. Over-exaggerating is that they can see thru solid objects.

This is why you can’t claim the object you are scanning is “completely and totally visible” but is against the argument of that these things are doing exactly that. Back to “Your ship is plexiglas to mine so I get to look” again.

“Freelance mercenaries which can’t do anything because it’s not a suspicious action to bypass walls with a device to look at another ship with zero chance of repercussions so that a benefit can be gained at a cost of using a device for zero risk.” Totally fits Eve’s theme right? I call ■■■■■■■■.

Their entire objective isn’t if they give a hairy ■■■■ or not. There is suspect which you’re free to retaliate on the person and there is criminal which they will respond to. You do not lose standings because you go suspect. Not a single ore thief loses their 0.0 security standing. Not a single person who remote reps loses their security standing. Not a single piece is related to any standing whatsoever in this entire thread.

602

You think people are really criminals or really have a criminal mindset because they blew up your pixels?

You seriously need to go outside and get a sample of real life.

603

If a Scanner were merely a high speed camera in your nonsensical scenario, then anyone anywhere would be able to get some idea of your cargo just by looking. And the camera would just be for taking a clearer picture.

But since we know that the Scanner is necessary to get any kind of idea… you’re wrong.

We fly intergalactic war machines on a daily basis. We fit planet-devastating weaponry to those ships without a thought. Unless there’s a lot of “concealed carry permit” type stuff happening in the background that we’re unaware of, then we’re constantly doing a lot of modern-day illegal stuff, and yet Concord doesn’t care about that either. So no… if they don’t care about someone flying a Battleship with guns capable of shooting bullets the size of a sedan, then they aren’t going to care about an invasion of your privacy.

And that’s my point… You guys are arguing for too strong of jurisdiction. Concord is in charge of keeping the peace for the whole freaking universe. They care about BIG offenses, like people actually shooting and killing each other.

Factions are in charge of their own regions of space, and they’re in charge of the smaller things. So if you want to whine and cry about someone invading your privacy, then you take it to the local cops. Not the Supreme Court. Which is why I said maybe it’s time someone starts suggesting that you lose Faction Standings (not your Sec Status, but your Caldari rating specifically) for using a Scanner in view of the Navy or Customs in a 1.0 - 0.9 system. Then the Scanners sitting in Jita or Amarr will slowly start to ruin their ability to hang out in Jita and Amarr. And they won’t be able to buy back entry with those dumb Security Tags. They’ll have to go Grind a ton of Caldari or Amarr missions and rebuild their Standings.

So there will be a “punishment” for invading your privacy. But it won’t be having Concord’s permission to shoot them just for looking at you funny.