I am mildly conversant in law, posses some slight experience in courtrooms, yet can still say with absolute authority that any first year law student in danger of failing, could still win any lawsuit against frontier as described, armed with nothing more than the words private group and charity. A competent shark could have the jury frothing at the mouth and demanding that the judge remand the plaintiff to a criminal court to face the death penalty. There is the law, and there are arguments that sway jurors and jurists. The two (3 really) are rarely the same thing.
News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules
- Thread starter Zac Antonaci
- Start date
Just in case you didn't feel silly enough yet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/49x5r0/first_night_in_open_play/
100% of your post is irrelevent to this thread and the other 10% was just personal insults/ condescending comments. We are all having a discussion (most of my reply was directed toward someone else) so why don't you join in respectfully or don't bother showing up? Again, mate, your litter like to cultivate salt, It's great to see you sharing so much of it!
Actually princes, I'm neither baiting nor is it off topic. The subject under discussion is acceptable behaviour, FD have clarified what they consider that to be. This is a public board, my comment is as valid as anyone else's- even your fellow group members. Life can be so hard at times, I know...Your cohort accused my friends of harassment, I have replied to that charge and passed comment on your posting and gaming style.
You (as a collective player group) seem to derive pleasure from behaviour FD deem unacceptable. You (as forum participants) seem prone to projection and demands for special treatment, usually accompanied by damselling comments like the one you just made. I commend you, it's a great way to close down dissenting opinions. Any reply to you can be spun as a personal attack- so while my last post probably will stand, this one, unless the mods grasp what I'm saying, may not.
Something that is off topic is how you (personally) seem perpetually offended and hurt by light hearted comments on this board, but seem to be fine with actions in the game we both play that cost third parties many hours of effort to recoup. I find that a strangely contradictory stance. If you want to reply, please continue this in PM, I'd hate to be to blame for locking the thread.
Last edited:
I rest my case, almost every comment is by your groups members.
but do you remember this very tasteful entry. using ISIS theme music.
oh and worth reading the comments that members of your group offer to others.
[video=youtube;dhliSBWWghs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhliSBWWghs[/video]
Last edited:
Thought maybe you could search around a little bit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/49wboo/sdc_reverse_gank/d0vgu1o
That is the streamer.
The "thanks for the salt" is pretty irrelevant imo, i know youre on the major agreement with us here, but you cant really tell what is friendly banter from baiting in text, if you get what i'm saying.
Can you link where you posted in your group about SDC having a small you-know-what issues?
you seem to only be posting things in your favor but not the whole picture where you made an insulting remark also.
Nice one, I predict that video vanishing or modified rather soon.
I don't think you are benefiting your point by pointing out a single other person target or not, as it is not unlikely that there are some people that enjoy some of what has been done...
Last edited:
do you mean the comments I posted about SDC on our private facebook group after they griefed our group then posted videos about it to troll the elite community.
no not really but feel free to link to it yourself.
Why would we get rid of such a glorious video?
My simple mind.....
Zac = Bruce Lee
SDC = Chuck Norris
Bruce: Welcome to my kung fu studio, feel free to fight, hit, kick and be kicked...but please follow the house rules.
Chuck: I signed a form that says Im willing to be kicked, hit and allowed to kick and hit others...
As chuck says this, he spots a White Belt in the corner tieing his belt...Chuck sneaks up behind him, sweeps the White belt to the ground and proceeds to make fast work of him.
Bruce: Wait chuck, you cant do that...there are rules, and you are breaking them.
Chuck: I signed on, you said I was allowed to kick and hit anyone as they are allowed to hit and kick me too...so Im following the rules as I see it.
Bruce: No Chuck...I said you are not allowed to break the house rules...and I will explain them again if you need.
Chuck: I play by my own rules...and since you cant stop the ones I pick on from running to the bathroom and locking the door(combat logging) I will keep playing how I see fit...
Lets watch what happens next.....
[video=youtube;gpbXCj2RqBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpbXCj2RqBw[/video]
Zac = Bruce Lee
SDC = Chuck Norris
Bruce: Welcome to my kung fu studio, feel free to fight, hit, kick and be kicked...but please follow the house rules.
Chuck: I signed a form that says Im willing to be kicked, hit and allowed to kick and hit others...
As chuck says this, he spots a White Belt in the corner tieing his belt...Chuck sneaks up behind him, sweeps the White belt to the ground and proceeds to make fast work of him.
Bruce: Wait chuck, you cant do that...there are rules, and you are breaking them.
Chuck: I signed on, you said I was allowed to kick and hit anyone as they are allowed to hit and kick me too...so Im following the rules as I see it.
Bruce: No Chuck...I said you are not allowed to break the house rules...and I will explain them again if you need.
Chuck: I play by my own rules...and since you cant stop the ones I pick on from running to the bathroom and locking the door(combat logging) I will keep playing how I see fit...
Lets watch what happens next.....
[video=youtube;gpbXCj2RqBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpbXCj2RqBw[/video]
Harassment:
aggressive pressure or intimidation. The act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands, against another party.
"they face daily harassment by reading a forum and playing a computer game".
.
Idealism:
the unrealistic belief in or pursuit of perfection.
"PvP is the only way to play ED" "Players should be able to do whatever they desire in the game"
.
It's my experience of humanity that the latter causes the former.[sad]
aggressive pressure or intimidation. The act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands, against another party.
"they face daily harassment by reading a forum and playing a computer game".
.
Idealism:
the unrealistic belief in or pursuit of perfection.
"PvP is the only way to play ED" "Players should be able to do whatever they desire in the game"
.
It's my experience of humanity that the latter causes the former.[sad]
Last edited:
This strikes me as being completely unenforceable. Where is the line between legitimate PVP and harassment? How far does this go? So you interdict someone flying through supercruise in Open, interdict them, they combat log, then you see them again a few minutes later and interdict them again and destroy them. Next thing you know you've been banned for harassment, because the person thinks anyone doing PVP is a griefer, and doesn't understand this is a legitimate game mechanic. I don't see how FD can define the line on this except for always coming down in favour of the carebear.
going back to your original reply to me: "Yes....yes they do, if you attack a person, and blow them up, not talking, giving no indication of your reasoning, and especially if you do it while out powering them significantly, your actions say a lot about that, simply making a demand or a statement, and not blowing them up unless they don't comply with that statement changes the whole thing. Just going blowing them up, and moving on to blowing up someone else without having any in game based reason or gain from it, makes it quickly lean towards griefing and harassment."
if you attack a person then you've attacked a person
if you blow them up then you've blown them up
not talking, giving no indication of your reasoning, and especially if you do it while out powering them significantly, means that i attacked without contacting them.
simply making a demand or a statement, and not blowing them up unless they don't comply with that statement, means only that you sent a message... and showed some mercy
Just going blowing them up, and moving on to blowing up someone else without having any in game based reason or gain from it means you're shooting other players.
You explicitly outline what it is i need to do to 'legitimize' my actions. Where are these metrics coming from. You are LITERALLY telling me how to play the game and what constitutes right in terms that are not outlined in the EULA. You are LITERALLY applying value of a moralistic nature to these actions. It is LITERALLY arbitrary. It is LITERALLY moralizing. Morals are LITERALLY variable. You're telling me that there's absolutely nothing variable about it. You say in game harassment and griefing are constants? Ok, define them for me in terms that do not take into consideration unproveable factors such as intent or reception. And furthermore, detail how it is in violation of the EULA/TOS in terms that do not use unproveable factors, such as intent, or reception. Show me, please, how you can reasonably define, outside the terms of did it happen, and is that happening allowed, And how can you do all that without imposing morality and/or arbitrarily thought policing? Because what you've already stated does nothing of the sort.
There's that carebear wording again, and honestly it is baffling, I don't think I've seen anyone but a select few state that they dislike PvP on this whole topic.
But in your example, if you are interdicting them to say pirate them, you state demands and such, they vanish, then I wouldn't think you get in trouble in any situation, remember when GM/Devs handle subjects it isn't just a one way street, they aren't just going to go "oh he's reported for harassment" *banhammer* that's not how these things work, as it is not in any developers interest to ban those that do not deserve it, also might be one of the reasons that people get warned and such and why some may say "Devs aren't doing anything" because you can't see a warning.
However if you say, see a random person, you decide he needs to die, "because" and proceed to interdict and begin shooting at him nothing else, no other interaction, and he combat logs or dies. (note you should report combat logs)
You see him later, and do the exact same thing, you have nothing to gain from doing it other then wanting to see him blow up, and so you attack him again, and he maybe combat logs or dies again, then yeah you are working towards harassment.
And that is the key point I am trying to make, even the smallest amount of interaction, threaten him, tell him that this is your system (and obviously you shouldn't claim every system as yours), or maybe the system belongs to your minor faction and you don't want to see him here ever again, let him high wake out. If he refuses, you blow him up. If he complies, congratulations, you just made an impression on a person, good or bad, and improved the game by interacting with someone, and should you see him again in the system, you can of course chose if you want to give him a beating, maybe destroy some of his modules but not blow him up completely, or just destroy him, what have you, there are many options. And just like that you establish that, the system is "protected"/"enforced" or similar wording, by you, and that you only allow in certain people, heck the guy might even contact you and ask what he can do to be permitted into said system, and you can state a demand and maybe collect toll?
The only situation that begins to work towards possible harassment is the "Interdict, blow up" especially since seen from the victim side, that's all that happens, that's all your actions that you do, then yeah, then you look like a griefer, but if you interact, communicate with others, you know...play the game and like you are a part of it. Then it opens up for so many possibilities....
That is...an odd way of looking at it, I was trying to inform you of the single and only thing that really is going to be an issue, and that there are so so so many more options you can chose from, that only this one thing is the main problem, and it seems people are going "But I want to do that!" to be contrary as if it is the only thing they can enjoy about the game?
There are many things you can do with scissors, just don't run with them can cause problems? but you insist on running with them?
As for defined alright.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/griefer
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/griefer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
is a good amount of examples of griefing
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/harassment
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harass
And again, it seems you are using that people are judging intent as a shield? no...no, they are not, it is actions that and that only that is being judged on, not your morals not anything in your mind, entirely and fully what you are doing. So yeah, when someone interdicts and blows up someone up without any other interaction, that is all we can base our judgement on, them doing it and bragging about it posting videos and whatnot is all we can judge around.
Heck by your own words, the target does not know your intentions or anything so they can only assume from what you do, so in essence those griefing are giving no choice but to be assumed to be griefers as they make no intentions clear, or statements or reasons..doing any of such, stating in game reasons, intentions and whatnot, would be steps away from griefing...
So yeah....you are actually in your defence using the exact things you could use to avoid being seen as griefers?
Thanks Zac for clearing that up and +1 to FD for making it clear.
In my mind it seems fair that people should be able to play the game the way they choose to play it and not be forced to play it in a manner that someone else decides and FD have just stated as much.
In my mind it seems fair that people should be able to play the game the way they choose to play it and not be forced to play it in a manner that someone else decides and FD have just stated as much.
The griefer definitions? Intent, Intent, Intent over and over and over again.
Inferring intent? sure. Proving intent? Good luck.
You can guess, and you can judge on a personal level. But when you take action in a legal context (i.e. banning, terminating a contract, etc.), you cannot use uncertain terms.
The harrasment definitions? They apply to real life. In game? Where aggression is part of the game? Those definitions don't apply.
Judge me on a personal level all you want. Like me dislike me it's no matter to me. Taking action against me in a legal context, however, requires a concrete provable basis.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that limits be put on Open. Open has always been 'anything goes' and when you select to play Open you accept the good with the bad. Combat logging happens and FD has already stated that they frown on it and will take action against it. In the situation you are describing the attacker would be in their rights to post a complaint against the combat logger and is in their rights to make the kill. There is no harassment there.
BINGO. The penny drops, sir. This is what FDev is talking about when they refer to "looking at the context". This is how you discern intent based on evidence.
If you're wondering whether something you want to do would be prohibited, consider this very simple litmus test: who and what are you really attacking?
Because if you step back and use empathy and self-awareness for their intended purposes, you'll have your answer. Did you see a ship pledged to an opposing power and attack it? Wanted to test your skill against a tough opponent? Or even just got bored and interdicted some random person because you wanted to blow something up? Whatever one thinks of these as gameplay styles, none of them--in and of themselves--are what FDev is talking about here.
On the other hand... is your choice of targets based on who or what they are in real life, or a desire to take advantage of a real-life event like a stream? Are you trying to get the other player riled up, or taking pleasure in it when they get upset about being attacked? Are you repeatedly attacking someone not because they're wanted or hostile, but because you don't like that player? Does your campaign against another group involve lying to other human beings out-of-game and deliberately breaking the real-life rules of their group under false pretenses?
In the latter examples, you have crossed the line from attacking the character to attacking the person, and from destroying game assets to destroying real-life trust and community.
The only people in this thread who seem to be having trouble with identifying where the line is drawn are the people with a vested self-interest in keeping that line blurred. If the shoe of "griefer" does not fit you, then you are under no obligation to insist on wearing it.