It depends on what it is for, your poor attempt at distraction with "my rules are bring me..." rubbish is nonsense and you know it.
Someone clearly lying with the intent to break the group no PvP rules is a real matter and a serious one Frontier failed to address.
You say real world should not be connected to the game system, but it is connected - every time you click play in the real world you agree to the real world terms of service;
If you breach the ToS, then the service part should be removed. Simple.
Perhaps spending another £40 on the game will teach someone to follow the rules and not load the game to maliciously harass / grief other players.
Also, laws and consequences of actions are not pushed aside when you sit in a computer chair.
I thought a ban from the game was quite lenient of me, but perhaps we should also look at the time those people lost when they lost their ships to fraudulent use of the game software by another player.
Compensation at say £10 per in game hour lost + expenses (electricity to run the computer, heating for the room it is in, the actual hardware it is played on.... you get idea).
Or perhaps the answer is, an open PvE mode - so we don't end up with it happening any more and all players can enjoy the game their own way without others forcing themselves on them through deceit.
My friend, of course it was rubbish, thats the point.
Your other links are based on real world laws. No laws have been broken, and there has been no "fraudulent use of game software". Tweets, facebook, and other stuff is REAL WORLD. Elite Dangerous is not. No part of the ToS was violated. Since this thing wont let me repost, ill just quote from those links directly for the parts you circled.
"You may not use the game in any unlawful manner"
This isnt talking about breaking rules that players have set down. It means you cannot use the game to fund terrorism or provide encrypted forms of communication that cannot be tracked by the govt. Things like that. Real world stuff, legal stuff that can land you in jail. The virtual scam used 50 THOUSAND DOLLARS of real money. You have NO real money invested in ED. What you choose to do with your free time is never going to be billed as real money lost. If that was the case, losing your job to play an MMO would be considered grounds to sue the MMO, since they took your time. Its a game, not your lifeblood, and nobody forced you to spend hours playing it.
As for the second part, you only circled the parts that pertain to your argument. Its pretty much saying "dont be a racist or break any laws". The key word is LAWS. Shooting another ship is not illegal.
That last part about you thinking to sue someone for time and cost in a game is hilarious. Good luck with that.
My memory of the issues that Mobius experienced due to the increasing size of the Private Group were related to the ability to accept new members - while Frontier may have underestimated the popularity of a PvE group, there was no stated limit on the size of Private Groups.
Actually, the lack of enforcement does not equate with there not being rules. Like I said, if so many people thinks that this is an allowable/acceptable way to play the game..get organized and start joining the group and keep killing players in it. A secretly organized group, with the intent of forcing PVP into Mobius will prove once and for all the devs will not enforce the issue...and everyone can agree.
On the rest, I know it's my opinion...and you are welcome to disagree with that opinion...on whatever basis you would like. Your points will not change that.
I dont think people are going to do that mate. All that time and effort just to shoot a few players that arent guaranteed to even be there? Im pretty sure it was done before to prove a point and thats it.
As for your opinion, of course. I dont think I have come across as thinking it doesnt matter or should be changed, as I have stated here before I just enjoy the debate. That would be very boring if everyone shared the same opinion
Joining a Private Group with out-of-game rules is not an in-game action. Requesting to join a Private Group cannot be achieved from inside one's ship / SRV. Therefore it is the player themself who applies to join the group on behalf of their avatar. If the player chooses to lie when agreeing to the rules of the Private Group then that is not in-game role-play.
Actually, the lack of enforcement does not equate with there not being rules. Like I said, if so many people thinks that this is an allowable/acceptable way to play the game..get organized and start joining the group and keep killing players in it. A secretly organized group, with the intent of forcing PVP into Mobius will prove once and for all the devs will not enforce the issue...and everyone can agree.
Be interesting to see how many of the 16,000+ PvE players would move to Solo or stand by the threat of just quitting the game.
Not that FD would care, not until next December for the sales of Season 3.
However, now Star Citizen is gaining some traction and has private servers that do update from the main game - I think a few would move that way, though I doubt anyone would try the Mobius experiment again.
SO PVPers can play their way, people who play in Solo can play their way, but PVErs who like social contact and can only play their way by making a PVE private group are now apparently "breaking the system" and PVPers should try and break up the PVE group?
I pointed out in my last post Frontiers own rules they have failed to enforce regarding this.
Which explains why I'm spending less and less time in Elite: Dangerous and more time in other games.
I find it difficult to support a company that does not stand by its own standards / ToS / EULA.
The phrase "Play your own way" is just a bad joke at this point in time.
Let me know when you find one. Call me cynical but after 30 years in the IT business they are akin to hens teeth.
More seriously, while joining Mobius for the express purpose of violating the group rules, doing so and then getting ejected from the group once probably doesn't rise to the level of a ToS violation in FDs eyes. A concerted effort to "grief" the group probably would be. You'd need to multibox or have an orgized group of cmdrs (at least 2) to do that effectively though, one account is the "banker", joins the group and DOESN'T break any rules. The other joins with a fresh save, gets bankrolled into a combat ship by the first then sets out to cause mayhem. When they are ejected, they sell up, buy expensive stuff to give back to the "banker" account in open and wipe their save. Then join again with a different cmdr name. They could keep this up forever since there isn't an effective means for Mobius to actually ban an account from his group
For that reason I would strongly urge, even if a single incident from a single player may not be considered an actionable violation, players violating the rules of any group should be reported as well as ejected. If a single account has a spate of reports of "breaking group rules", particularly if they are repeated reports from a single group under different names, that could well take them quickly over the action threshold, as the intent to disrupt the group would them be provable.
SO PVPers can play their way, people who play in Solo can play their way, but PVErs who like social contact and can only play their way by making a PVE private group are now apparently "breaking the system" and PVPers should try and break up the PVE group?
I dont think anything is breaking the system. I play in open and have no interest in infiltrating anything, id go play EVE if I wanted to do that again. Nothing is wrong with the mobius group, my line of discussion was wholly in reference to Jockey's opinion of game bans for those who did.
My friend, of course it was rubbish, thats the point.
Your other links are based on real world laws. No laws have been broken, and there has been no "fraudulent use of game software". Tweets, facebook, and other stuff is REAL WORLD. Elite Dangerous is not. No part of the ToS was violated. Since this thing wont let me repost, ill just quote from those links directly for the parts you circled.
Did you not read the ones from Second Life, a computer game - where thing like IP infringement, theft, copyright - these are all real life consequences for something that happens in a game.
The precedent is set. People can and currently do prove, regardless of the software, be it Chrome / Facebook or a game - online actions have a real world effect.
Again, stalking / harassment / fraudulent misrepresentation - these are well established laws in the UK, and the US has similar laws I believe.
Lying for the purpose of depriving someone of something they spend time and effort earning, without their consent.
Fits the bill to me, and I used to do this for a living so.......
Anything that costs another person time or money has a real world value attached to it [See below for more on this].
The virtual scam used 50 THOUSAND DOLLARS of real money. You have NO real money invested in ED. What you choose to do with your free time is never going to be billed as real money lost. If that was the case, losing your job to play an MMO would be considered grounds to sue the MMO, since they took your time. Its a game, not your lifeblood, and nobody forced you to spend hours playing it.
So you're also going to ignore the times Second Life was sued (or other players) over items created in the game by players, being taken without their consent.
After all, they were just playing the game. Why should their time and effort belong to them.
Suppose they'd better give that money back then.... I'll let them know you said so.
As for the second part, you only circled the parts that pertain to your argument. Its pretty much saying "dont be a racist or break any laws". The key word is LAWS. Shooting another ship is not illegal.
You also ignored "including but not limited to....."
It's how rules become robust and are able to be adapted to other situations.
For example, take "Assault" - we all have a rough idea what an assault is right? A person hitting another person without consent (aka Boxing ring is consent by getting in it).
But what about;
Shaking your fist at someone ( Stephens v Myers 1830 )
Silent phone calls (R v Ireland 1997)
Peering through a window (Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station 1983)
^^ All real, all went through as Assault. This is why laws are written in a robust way, so they can be used to cover the way society advances.
More and more actions online are being put under the microscope of real world laws. You may not like it - but at some point, you will be seeing more headlines of gamers being dragged in to courts over online actions.
Side note (in relation to robust laws and use);
You should have seen what was used in the UK before the Wireless Telecommunications Act came out, man that one had me in fits of laughter.
Abstracting Electricity - talk about a trumped charge. lol. Trumped up "charge"... not done this gag in years !!! But yes, that is what was used when one person "hacked" or used another persons Wifi without permission[/quote]
Hey, if you're time is cheap / free - more power to you.
But I'm in demand, so my time is limited and valuable to me - if someone wants to hire me for their "content" - £45 / hour with a minimum of 2 hours pay per session (regardless of how much is used, the full amount is due at the start of each session). I book up to 2 hours per time.
I believe we call those who *give it away free* a "harlot"
(Also, as for quoting pictures from someone - the best way is to right click it, save URL then repost it yourself back in to the quote. If the URL is an off site link (so not stored on FD forums) then tick the box to store locally)
I have not read this entire thread so if this is off point forgive me.
I think the bggest mistake FD have made about the modes in the game is allowing open mode to simply become a playground for PVP. By saying that I do not mean I am opposed to players engaging in PVP combat. What I mean is that the only difference Open mode currently offers in the game that the Private mode does not is actually PVP.
This is a fundamental problem. FD have gone to the trouble of building a game where the only way players have to interact with each other is on the basis of combat. In doing so they have created a game where when two strangers meet all they can do is engage in combat. They have no other ways to interact. This has created a situation where the concept of even talking to another player is the furthest thing from their mind and they see everyone as an enemy.
I have said it many time in other threads that the only way you have to interact with other players in this game is with your trigger finger. FD need to make moves toward adding things to the game where players need to interact for mutual benefit. Things they cannot do alone. They need to break this cycle they have created.
The coming looting system and the current synthesis feature seem like a very small but good place to start. Currently materials are not lost when a player dies. The only way to acquire them is through the hard slog of searching for them. I think that players shoud be able to trade these items in much the same way you can transfer cargo in the game. By doing so the prospect of trading materials with other players would present itself and it would be a baby step toward strangers not always eyeing each other as an enemy.
When you compare ED to the likes of DayZ anyone who has played that game will know what I mean. PVP is always going to exist but unlike DayZ your killer is not in a position to loot your carcass when he kills you. If he wants what you have he needs to talk to you and be civil. This would also help to create drama and cagey situations just like those that happen regularly in DayZ when players meet. Is this person thrustworthy? What are they really after?
FD has so far done little to create a game where groups of players can interact socially. I am not saying people do not do that. They do! But the game itself does not lend itself well to encouraging this. The biggest problem is that the game currently is too central and focuses on the earning of credits to buy ships. Players pretty much focus on themselves and so see no reason to play in Open. Shallow, but that is currently the strongest (or weakest depending on your point of view) motivation to play for many people playing in this game. The game needs to create new ways for players to work toward common goals. Personal goals. Goals that actually encourage players to be social and cannot be achieved alone. Community goals are an attempt to address this problem but fall flat because there is absoloutely no need or reason for a player to ever talk to another player while doing them. Again, they just encourage introverted play.
The strongest card FD has to play is the BGS and the expansion of that module of the game. It needs greater detail added where players can effect true physical change on the systems they work to improve, grow and culture to become co dependent on one another. Something players can achieve outside of personal gain. Something that allows them to be part of a team, again another place Power Play falls flat.
If FD can do these things they will see their Open Mode shine and a real living galaxy start to emerge.
However, now Star Citizen is gaining some traction and has private servers that do update from the main game - I think a few would move that way, though I doubt anyone would try the Mobius experiment again.
I dont think Star Citizen is going to be any more PvE mode friendly, mate. If you listen to this interview, Chris Roberts says "If you attack people in a PVE area, the game wont ban you, but youll get REAL bounty on your head". Also he has a great risk vs reward policy. If you dont go out to the lawless areas, you cant get the special stuff that people who do get. "You can still get the same amount of wealth, it just may take a lot longer".
Nit picking.... Jumping players in the Mobius group, or the like, is just the same kind of breach of etiquette as Combat Logging is. It's cheap and underhanded in the same way. The fact that there is little anyone can do about them as issues, associated them as well. Why anyone would go around using the finite definition of harassment, or griefing to defend a player like that is a mystery to me. The offending parties just broke the spirit of the games design to ..... prove a point? The only point they proved was 'haters gonna hate'. Like that one needed any help.
Did you not read the ones from Second Life, a computer game - where thing like IP infringement, theft, copyright - these are all real life consequences for something that happens in a game.
The precedent is set. People can and currently do prove, regardless of the software, be it Chrome / Facebook or a game - online actions have a real world effect.
Again, stalking / harassment / fraudulent misrepresentation - these are well established laws in the UK, and the US has similar laws I believe.
Lying for the purpose of depriving someone of something they spend time and effort earning, without their consent.
Fits the bill to me, and I used to do this for a living so.......
Anything that costs another person time or money has a real world value attached to it [See below for more on this].
Can land you in jail, let me see......
Stalking... yup
Harassment... yup
Fraud.... yup
Still fits the bill.
So you're also going to ignore the times Second Life was sued (or other players) over items created in the game by players, being taken without their consent.
After all, they were just playing the game. Why should their time and effort belong to them.
Suppose they'd better give that money back then.... I'll let them know you said so.
You also ignored "including but not limited to....."
It's how rules become robust and are able to be adapted to other situations.
For example, take "Assault" - we all have a rough idea what an assault is right? A person hitting another person without consent (aka Boxing ring is consent by getting in it).
But what about;
Shaking your fist at someone ( Stephens v Myers 1830 )
Silent phone calls (R v Ireland 1997)
Peering through a window (Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station 1983)
^^ All real, all went through as Assault. This is why laws are written in a robust way, so they can be used to cover the way society advances.
More and more actions online are being put under the microscope of real world laws. You may not like it - but at some point, you will be seeing more headlines of gamers being dragged in to courts over online actions.
Side note (in relation to robust laws and use);
You should have seen what was used in the UK before the Wireless Telecommunications Act came out, man that one had me in fits of laughter.
Abstracting Electricity - talk about a trumped charge. lol. Trumped up "charge"... not done this gag in years !!! But yes, that is what was used when one person "hacked" or used another persons Wifi without permission
Hey, if you're time is cheap / free - more power to you.
But I'm in demand, so my time is limited and valuable to me - if someone wants to hire me for their "content" - £45 / hour with a minimum of 2 hours pay per session (regardless of how much is used, the full amount is due at the start of each session). I book up to 2 hours per time.
I believe we call those who *give it away free* a "harlot"
(Also, as for quoting pictures from someone - the best way is to right click it, save URL then repost it yourself back in to the quote. If the URL is an off site link (so not stored on FD forums) then tick the box to store locally)
No, no, and more no. The entire post is written like you are correct. I indeed referenced the land scam of 50k, you snipped that part. Stalking you in a game isnt stalking IRL. Attacking you in game isnt assault. Its a game. Facebook posts, twitter, and social media arent directed at avatars, they are directed at PEOPLE, so yes, thats a bad thing.
As far as my time being worth money, sure it is. However, you cannot put a cost on your "free time". Nobody is paying you to play the game, its a recreational choice. Can I sue FD for opting to play the game instead of take a vacation? No, likely not.
And yes, damnit, id be a harlot in two seconds. Being married *checks for wife..* sucks!
(Tried to do that, for some reason that particular site is blocked. Im using a govt' computer that has rediculous site blockers)
Nit picking.... Jumping players in the Mobius group, or the like, is just the same kind of breach of etiquette as Combat Logging is. It's cheap and underhanded in the same way. The fact that there is little anyone can do about them as issues, associated them as well. Why anyone would go around using the finite definition of harassment, or griefing to defend a player like that is a mystery to me. The offending parties just broke the spirit of the games design to ..... prove a point? The only point they proved was 'haters gonna hate'. Like that one needed any help.
I dont think Star Citizen is going to be any more PvE mode friendly, mate. If you listen to this interview, Chris Roberts says "If you attack people in a PVE area, the game wont ban you, but youll get REAL bounty on your head". Also he has a great risk vs reward policy. If you dont go out to the lawless areas, you cant get the special stuff that people who do get. "You can still get the same amount of wealth, it just may take a lot longer".
Not a permanent ban, but a few days in the penalty box seems appropriate. Let them play on their own for a day. Look at some of the bile spewed at Combat Loggers. Just have a look st some of the punishments the forum goers have suggested for them. Some would say; Only the inherently underhanded would be a mouthpiece for a Combat Logger or a Group Crasher. I might not, but you get the idea.
Not a permanent ban, but a few days in the penalty box seems appropriate. Let them play on their own for a day. Look at some of the bile spewed at Combat Loggers. Just have a look st some of the punishments the forum goers have suggested for them. Some would say; Only the inherently underhanded would be a mouthpiece for a Combat Logger or a Group Crasher. I might not, but you get the idea.
I think the problems with this are the lack of rules governing it. FD has flat out said combat logging is an exploit, but nothing is done regarding it because it is almost impossible to PROVE. Likewise, the viewpoint from what is actually considered grief play differs drastically from player to player - on both sides of the argument. Most likely why it hasnt been done.
See, you missed a few points - mainly that court rooms are making more and more judgements on what is / is not acceptable in the online world - not just from Facebook or Twitter, but in games as well.
(And I've not even touched the attack on gaming by Feminism yet - it's a sad time to be a gamer, so many problems from so many directions)
But this is the biggest miss you've had.
I do not have "free" time.
I have my time, that I choose who to share it with.
Or I have paid time, where I am on the clock providing a service to others for which I now get to pick the rate of pay I do that for.
Currently, you are getting my time for free - but that does not make it, "free" time.
( I'm actually waiting to do some remote PC work, so you're staving off the boredom for me )
I think the problems with this are the lack of rules governing it. FD has flat out said combat logging is an exploit, but nothing is done regarding it because it is almost impossible to PROVE. Likewise, the viewpoint from what is actually considered grief play differs drastically from player to player - on both sides of the argument. Most likely why it hasnt been done.
So, it seems loop-holes are perfectly fine with you, as long as it defends PvP. Any punishment aside, the act of crashing a Private Group is just as despicable as Combat Logging. So long as people rant about the correct punishment for Loggers, there will be a voice against the Crashers.
So, it seems loop-holes are perfectly fine with you, as long as it defends PvP. Any punishment aside, the act of crashing a Private Group is just as despicable as Combat Logging. So long as people rant about the correct punishment for Loggers, there will be a voice against the Crashers.
No sir. Loop holes arent what I am defending, nor the PVPer in general. I dont advocate crashing of a group, I am just pointing out that there are no rules to say you cannot do it. As such, levying a ban on someones account really cant happen.
No sir. Loop holes arent what I am defending, nor the PVPer in general. I dont advocate crashing of a group, I am just pointing out that there are no rules to say you cannot do it. As such, levying a ban on someones account really cant happen.
i guess I just don;t see the difference. Pointing out a loop-hole and using to justify something as underhanded as Group Crashing, but denying Combat Loggers any slack is, let's say, understandable.
