There is no such thing as bad publicity. This thread is entirely about the complaining that came after SDC's actions and to deny that would be silly. This is behavior done by SDC members and this entire post is about targeting that behavior and making it ban worthy by giving entirely vague definitions of harassment.
News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules
- Thread starter Zac Antonaci
- Start date
Firstly, SDC, thanks for the lulz, the salt was delicious, just the thing for my popcorn!
I feel your pain. Check out my sig- I too am distressed by FD clarifying their stance- it's not what I want to read and I'd rather they took a different approach. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. You can cry about it, you can play forum lawer, but FD have just made their stance crystal clear on how they view your antics. There will be no mass refunds, no terrible, mass exodus- they can refund all 18 of you and recoup the cost in the time it takes for the transaction to process. You're not special, you're not unique and if they think you're hurting their sales, you'll be out the door. Feel free to contact your local 'no win, no fee' ambulance chaser for a second opinion on how likely your case action would be to win...
The offer to indulge in a little PvP down in Wolfberg stands. Most of the guys they accuse of 'hiding in solo' and such like are doing their thing against the NPC faction that bears their name in open. I've yet to see a single combat rig- Cobras and Asps are popular, some of our American Allies are using Pythons. Easy pickings for a PvP rig, you would have thought? Alas, in spite of their bold claims, they don't seem particularly interested in PvP against willing and ready opponents, even those flying cheap, multi role ships. This is not harrassment, they chose not to play with us; we accept that. We are not 'infiltrating' their group with the express intention of breaking their rules, we are not hunting them down in gangs of superior combat rigs so we can post up youtube vids of our 'gud skillz'.
They seem prone to projection. One member accused me of 'insulting' them. The insult? After they stated we were 'talking smack' I listed examples of them doing just that. Apparently it's ok when they do it, because reasons?
I feel your pain. Check out my sig- I too am distressed by FD clarifying their stance- it's not what I want to read and I'd rather they took a different approach. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. You can cry about it, you can play forum lawer, but FD have just made their stance crystal clear on how they view your antics. There will be no mass refunds, no terrible, mass exodus- they can refund all 18 of you and recoup the cost in the time it takes for the transaction to process. You're not special, you're not unique and if they think you're hurting their sales, you'll be out the door. Feel free to contact your local 'no win, no fee' ambulance chaser for a second opinion on how likely your case action would be to win...
The offer to indulge in a little PvP down in Wolfberg stands. Most of the guys they accuse of 'hiding in solo' and such like are doing their thing against the NPC faction that bears their name in open. I've yet to see a single combat rig- Cobras and Asps are popular, some of our American Allies are using Pythons. Easy pickings for a PvP rig, you would have thought? Alas, in spite of their bold claims, they don't seem particularly interested in PvP against willing and ready opponents, even those flying cheap, multi role ships. This is not harrassment, they chose not to play with us; we accept that. We are not 'infiltrating' their group with the express intention of breaking their rules, we are not hunting them down in gangs of superior combat rigs so we can post up youtube vids of our 'gud skillz'.
They seem prone to projection. One member accused me of 'insulting' them. The insult? After they stated we were 'talking smack' I listed examples of them doing just that. Apparently it's ok when they do it, because reasons?
Ok, so... My statement "Thank you for proving my point about reception" doesn't need any special reading. I stated in my post that attempting to contextualize an action based upon unknowable motives and unforeseeable reception is dangerous. You said, nonono it does have value, and then proceed to apply arbitrary rules of engagement that fit your own personal view of how interaction should be conducted. Problem with that process is you're now scripting my engagements for me. Dictating my actions. Am I even playing the game? or are you playing it for me... So: are we going to judge your hypothetical engagement upon the facts (i attack, they die or don't, the end) or upon your personal interpretation of the chain of events and how you arbitrarily interpret that chain?
The difference between my post and yours is: you propose imposing morality and etiquette whereas i speak of leaving the variable and ambiguous in favor of evaluating provable facts.
Your post proves my point about the dangers of attempting to enforcing the arbitrary as it attempts to define these variables, griefing and harrasment, in the contexts of the game, and fails to define anything at all outside your own personal vision of how a player interaction should progress.
That's what I mean.
90% of your post was irrelevent to this thread and the other 10% was just personal insults/ condescending comments. We are all having a discussion so join in respectfully or don't bother showing up.Firstly, SDC, thanks for the lulz, the salt was delicious, just the thing for my popcorn!
I feel your pain. Check out my sig- I too am distressed by FD clarifying their stance- it's not what I want to read and I'd rather they took a different approach. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. You can cry about it, you can play forum lawer, but FD have just made their stance crystal clear on how they view your antics. There will be no mass refunds, no terrible, mass exodus- they can refund all 18 of you and recoup the cost in the time it takes for the transaction to process. You're not special, you're not unique and if they think you're hurting their sales, you'll be out the door. Feel free to contact your local 'no win, no fee' ambulance chaser for a second opinion on how likely your case action would be to win...
The offer to indulge in a little PvP down in Wolfberg stands. Most of the guys they accuse of 'hiding in solo' and such like are doing their thing against the NPC faction that bears their name in open. I've yet to see a single combat rig- Cobras and Asps are popular, some of our American Allies are using Pythons. Easy pickings for a PvP rig, you would have thought? Alas, in spite of their bold claims, they don't seem particularly interested in PvP against willing and ready opponents, even those flying cheap, multi role ships. This is not harrassment, they chose not to play with us; we accept that. We are not 'infiltrating' their group with the express intention of breaking their rules, we are not hunting them down in gangs of superior combat rigs so we can post up youtube vids of our 'gud skillz'.
They seem prone to projection. One member accused me of 'insulting' them. The insult? After they stated we were 'talking smack' I listed examples of them doing just that. Apparently it's ok when they do it, because reasons?
Last edited:
Dunno man, I think the example we talked about earlier is pretty clear, I kinda think you see it too but might not want to admit it.
I do think there are other examples that are a bit vague though, but generally I think if you keep it all "in game" and use no "out of game reasons" I think you'll have a strong defense.
In the end sure FD could just ban regardless but if you keep it in game, I'm thinking any ban action would be unjust. (probably!)
Out of game actions for me would include the options menu, so private group griefing. Also areas that only really have significance out of game, arguably this would include LHS3447.
CG's for example, clearly in-game.
For me if it's kept in game, Frontier's response to any action they don't like really should be via game mechanics. And when that happens we all win.
Last edited:
$5 it stays up even though it's clearly baiting and off topic
Sounds like you're confident that you'll be fine, so nothing to worry about CMDR. Good luck, and fly safe.
As I wrote above, SDC was the last straw, but are in no way unique or sole responsible for this, its been building for quite a while.....so thinking SDC is the sole source is of bit hubris.
...Yes...yes, there is a difference, its pretty hard to harass someone when you are reacting to what they do. Because if they didn't do it, you wouldn't be reacting. However I will grant that some can go overboard (though this is hardly the case here), the SDC faction attacked some people, people attacked back, that's what happening here, this isn't a case of say, someone punches a guy, and later the guy murders him.
Also, do note that even if you guys do die, even if you die a lot, it is your own actions that cause those deaths, so it isn't really a point you can use as a defence in my book. In my book doing so is akin to "My car breaks when I drive it intentionally into trees."
Looks like I'll be owing you $5
His name is Zac by the way but in any case, you clearly didn't read the part about how SDC has a lot of positive interactions with the players of open but only the negative interactions are publicized.
Exactly this. As soon as ED starts getting a reputation as a noob-hostile griefers paradise FD have to act to protect their bottom line. The recent publicity around certain events hasn't exactly been good for the game's image.
What exactly did SDC think was going to happen after they stream-sniped kateclick during a charity event, and posted a gloating video of it afterwards? I mean, it's not like her only recourse would be to make a forum post about it. She probably just picked up her mobile and called DBOBE.
Thanks to FD for clarifying exactly what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, the game will be better for it.
...and this, ladies and gents, is the essence. This thread may end now.
I was making the point about it being all about context and intent, not a point about what play mode you're in. Of course that's only one factor. I was giving a precise example and assumed folks could interpret that... but nevermind.
Nice clear statement from the powers that be,in my opinion.
At the end of the day,there will always be a wavy line on this sort of thing,context really matters.. and I am very sure I would rather have FD making these sorts of decisions and not some of the people involved in this thread.
At the end of the day,there will always be a wavy line on this sort of thing,context really matters.. and I am very sure I would rather have FD making these sorts of decisions and not some of the people involved in this thread.
Am honoured to have my post sit below yours great leader.
Great. Now how about that combat logging fix
Wait....what...
You are comparing a background mechanic that works equal across the board, do x missions get y benefit.
To.
The entirely variable attackers ship being able to or not take out the variable victims ship who may or may not be able to run away?
These two things are not in any way similar or comparable...
As for people promoting combat logging, I have not seen this, but this is frowned upon, and shouldn't be done, but again, you can't compare "use the background faction simulation" to "variable attacker ship A and their combat ability of pilot to variable ship B combat and their players ability to get away" especially given that the situations referred to, griefing, said attacker is in full control of who their target will be, and just how weak their target needs to be for them to want to attack them.
The background simulation is equal between all parties. And only the amount of people and the effort put into working said simulation determines the outcome.
And if a smaller group, attacks a larger group, well, that's going to get a bad result for the smaller group, in this case SDC, you may not like it, or enjoy it, but you could have avoided it by not doing what you did.
As for them using the forum, SDC has made several threads before and after in relation to the nature of this topic, and just like Powerplay, attacking a faction is not an attack on a player or players, it is an attack on something in game, something yes those players support and work with, but it is not naming and shaming last I checked, that part only refers to players, people, not an in game faction...
Ok, I am not imposing morality, I am looking on actions, and actions alone, and the definitions on these things are plain and clearly cut out in dictionaries, and many other places valid sources that you can find online.
I am only reacting to the actions done, I cannot know what goes on inside anyone's head but I can react to actions, and actions that have no in game reason attached or do not have any in game gain possible, seem to be motivated entirely out of game, so the motivation comes from outside the game, and the motivation is apparently to grief people, again. I am not against pvp in any way or shape, I enjoy it, but for example, the actions of ramming people at community goal, to get them blown up by the station to "enforce" the speeding limit, is a clear abuse of mechanic in order to cause other people harm, this, is the definition of griefing..
So yeah, I couldn't know anyone's intentions, but I can see their actions and the results of them, and I can see your own posts on the forum stating the wish to do actions that are clearly against EULA/TOS.
So please stop making up stuff about what "my point" is, just read what I wrote, don't make up stuff, griefing and harassment are not variable, they are constants, clearly defined constants if you want to use those terms.
Last edited: