News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules

[SkipRat]

For my two pence worth. If SDC are in this thread complaining, then they only have themselves to blame for acting like complete and utter twonks, that brought this upon them and everyone else.

I personally see this as tempary until FD get the mechanics and punishments in place that they want too. This also means creating the mechanics for proper piracy, missions, better use of pirate bases and things I have mentioned many times.

What I love is all the crying of people complaining that their fun is being spoilt despite the fact they did not give the slightest damn about the fun they destroying of other people. KARMA!!

Yes, I love PVP, I want PVP to remain, I want Piracy, I want criminal activities, I want a living and breathing universe.... but time and time again people fail to see that this game is under development and not everything is place and FD can not code for every eventuality.

 

[Chance-]

but time and time again people fail to see that this game is under development

It's released as a full game. Surely there can be some expectation of finality yes?

 

[Patrick_68000]

It's released as a full game. Surely there can be some expectation of finality yes?

This game with its philosophy of total freedom and its infinite potential, will never be complete

 

[Alex Traut]

If I'm plodding along minding my own business and engaging in a bit of Fed killing and I see another player, interdict and kill them, doing so multiple times in one session because they're fighting for the other faction, how am I to know if they're one of the chosen ones doing one of their 'community celebrity' twitch streams? Suppose I video my kills as well like any other PvP player does. By the very nature of those innocuous and totally gameplay mechanic legitimate actions, if the other party decides to report it to Frontier I could face a shadow ban or at the very least investigation.

I'll answer your hypothetical. And hopefully when I do, you will understand why this is a tempest in a teapot that does not affect legit PvP one bit.

Yes, in such a situation, FDev might investigate. And that investigation will conclude that there is no violation. Why? Because of the context.

In your hypothetical scenario, there is no evidence that you targeted that player specifically in order to harass them--especially not in the video. The context in which the video occurs includes what you say in the video or its description, the comments, and the way it's presented. A video titled "Ganking noobs in Erevate", comments about finding this guy's stream, or voice conversation in the video gloating about how much you're <Ahem> this guy off... yeah, that's likely to raise some eyebrows and suggest to any objective observer that you're engaging in harassment, or specifically targeting the stream.

Something titled "Powerplay hunting", comments about "kicking Imperial scum out of our system", or seeing you exchange "gg" with your target, on the other hand... Support's going to take one look at a video like that, and respond to the complaint with "this doesn't look like harassment, you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time in Open".

That's how context works. Every last one of these contrived hypotheticals that I've seen in this thread depend on completely ignoring the context in which they take place.

 

[Boomer Kay]

And hopefully when I do, you will understand why this is a tempest in a teapot that does not affect legit PvP one bit.

A warning to put things in context is always a good idea.
NPC style: "You're in the wrong neighborhood, leave or face destruction"
(should just try not to explode 5 seconds after that threat is issued )
If someone comes to your system over and over, a warning is issued for the context and he keeps coming back, he *is* fair game.

 

[Leavism]

Would something like <snip out naming and shaming link>, or any kind of player issued bounty a form of offense as it is " taking action such as seeking out and targeting specific players purely for the purpose of being disruptive, to cause offence, or to upset players within the community."

EDIT: Woops sorry about the name and shame subreddit link. Forgot about it and thanks for editing it out

 

[New Duke]

Would something like <snip out naming and shaming link>, or any kind of player issued bounty a form of offense as it is " taking action such as seeking out and targeting specific players purely for the purpose of being disruptive, to cause offence, or to upset players within the community."

That depends entirely on the context as explained in Zac's post. Lots of people here (not you) are picking at the detail and not grasping that it's about the wider context. People know full well if they're misbehaving or not.

It's released as a full game. Surely there can be some expectation of finality yes?

You're correct. The forums often treat the game like it's some sort of early access project. The truth seems to be that FD were not prepared for multiplayer gaming and are still playing catch up. Doesn't mean they aren't right in their reaction though ;-)

 

[Cosmos]

PvP will be affected by this though. If I'm plodding along minding my own business and engaging in a bit of Fed killing and I see another player, interdict and kill them, doing so multiple times in one session because they're fighting for the other faction, how am I to know if they're one of the chosen ones doing one of their 'community celebrity' twitch streams? Suppose I video my kills as well like any other PvP player does. By the very nature of those innocuous and totally gameplay mechanic legitimate actions, if the other party decides to report it to Frontier I could face a shadow ban or at the very least investigation.

I must say whilst I am fine with the anti pg harrassment the bit about people streaming is a big concern. If people are streaming in Open then that their choice and doing so shouldn't recieve any sort of impunity. I get a sense of a nannying over reach here from FD. Now if someone goes into a private group and screws up a stream different matter entirely.

 

[Alex Traut]

If people are streaming in Open then that their choice and doing so shouldn't recieve any sort of impunity.

Nor would they. Again, it's about context.

If you gank someone and they happened to be streaming in Open, that in and of itself does not fall under the stated definition of harassment.

If you find someone's stream, and there is clear evidence that you used their stream to gank them, that may be actionable.

And if there's clear evidence, it should be. It's not only sleazy and low, it's arguably outright cheating. If you ever played games like Counterstrike, you'll understand when I say that it's the equivalent of using a spectator mode to see where the other team is and relay that information in an external voice chat--it's why your living teammates can't see or hear anything you say in-game when you're dead.

Stream sniping is the same thing: gaining an unfair gameplay advantage by abusing an out-of-gameplay ability to see where the opponent is and what they're doing.

Nor is it merely an offense against the players involved. It harms the community as a whole by reducing the number of players who are willing to take the risk of livestreaming their gameplay. I know I sure wouldn't.

 

[Cosmos]

Nor would they. Again, it's about context.

If you gank someone and they happened to be streaming in Open, that in and of itself does not fall under the stated definition of harassment.

If you find someone's stream, and there is clear evidence that you used their stream to gank them, that may be actionable.

And if there's clear evidence, it should be. It's not only sleazy and low, it's arguably outright cheating. If you ever played games like Counterstrike, you'll understand when I say that it's the equivalent of using a spectator mode to see where the other team is and relay that information in an external voice chat--it's why your living teammates can't see or hear anything you say in-game when you're dead.

Stream sniping is the same thing: gaining an unfair gameplay advantage by abusing an out-of-gameplay ability to see where the opponent is and what they're doing.

Nor is it merely an offense against the players involved. It harms the community as a whole by reducing the number of players who are willing to take the risk of livestreaming their gameplay. I know I sure wouldn't.

Well thats one of the points. It all seems rather up in the air as to what would be an offence. I would have thought it would be hard to find conclusive evidence of intent and 'harrassment' short of a person or group making a video incriminating themselves.

I also take issue with the term gank which gets thrown around and misused a lot. At best its subjective and therefore has little weight in determining guilt of any percieved offence. If people want to stream and are concerned about that then they can do so in solo or private group.

The example of counter strike doesn't really fit either. Firstly, if playing in a premade team and not a PUG most people would be using a seperate VOIP program and so could relay information even if they game doesn't support that. ED isn't much of a competitive game either with 99.99% of the game being tied to PvE.

But lets put this into context, how many times has a stream been ruined by other players? I'm curious if this is a real problem or one that people are largely imagining.

I'm happy to support actions against genuine harrassment but it seems to happen so infrequently I believe its largely a perception in peoples minds and not something grounded in reality. The concern being players are going to find themselves subject to spurious claims of false harrassment and there are likely enough drama queens around for that to happen.

 

[GG7]

So basically, you are lowering your pants for people that are unable to assume the fact that they can be killed by other players. You should basically rename the game Elite: Mostly Harmless, that's the least you can do seing on how it's turning right now, but hey, all big game devs always turn their backs to the minority of players to listen to the majority of crying care bears.

That is not what Zac said AT ALL!

Seems to me you want this game to be all about screwing with other players, which unfortunately for you is a "minority" viewpoint. You are free to create your own private group and invite as many like-minded players into it as you want. Then you can take turns paying out your insurance bills until the cows come home.

They are pointing to specific types of PvP engagements, not every single PvP engagement in OPEN. So ultimately, this is only going to be a problem for those who make griefing a sport and their primary focus when playing this game. If you happen to fall into that category, then I think its time that you found another game to abuse. Players of ED with that warped view of how this game should be played really do need to go.

When you get right down to it, many who engage in this kind of crap are sociopaths in need of professional help and really have no business interacting with the public in the first place!

And based on what Zac said, if those players don't leave voluntarily, then FD will show them the door, followed by a swift kick out that door.

Sounds great to me!

 

[Boomer Kay]

I must say whilst I am fine with the anti pg harrassment the bit about people streaming is a big concern. If people are streaming in Open then that their choice and doing so shouldn't recieve any sort of impunity. I get a sense of a nannying over reach here from FD. Now if someone goes into a private group and screws up a stream different matter entirely.

If you're not a complete ninnyhammer about ghosting a streamer, it's one of the harder exploits to actually verify (and it is considered an exploit in most competitive online games .. there's a "fog of war" for a reason).
IF you are a complete ninnyhammer about targeting streamers, you ... let me quote "had it coming".

The ED streamer community is not all that large. I personally prefer actually CQC/Arena streams. They're just that more interesting to watch.
Most successful streamers avoid open like the plague .. which can not really be the message Frontier wants to send out to the unsuspecting spectator (and yes, there's non-ED players watching streams). "Play Elite, but avoid open, because a single ninnyhammer with his 3 poodle friends can spoil an entire evening of gameplay fun"?

All that gunrattling talk about "streamers painting a red cross on their backs because they stream from open"? Absolutely counterproductive rubbish. If FD were not really forgiving (and as a good ex-roman-catholic christian, I will never blame anyone for being forgiving even to the worst), they'd shadowban someone to solo for the sheer notion of painting their game and a mode they try to promote in a bad light.

Option 2 - FD declares this policy in the pre-purchase game info... and suffers the resultant loss of sales.

League of Legends has a very very strict EULA and pretty strict enforcement including automatic bans.
LoL has 32 million active players worldwide (70 mio accounts .. but it's free to play, so .. ^^). I would guess taking it's player's enjoyment (of a pure PvP game) seriously and weeding out the complete fails adds to that.
It does not have an all that nice or friendly community .. average age of about 15 might add to that, however their beatings continue, until morale improves.

 

[Goose4291]

I'll answer your hypothetical. And hopefully when I do, you will understand why this is a tempest in a teapot that does not affect legit PvP one bit.

Yes, in such a situation, FDev might investigate. And that investigation will conclude that there is no violation. Why? Because of the context.

In your hypothetical scenario, there is no evidence that you targeted that player specifically in order to harass them--especially not in the video. The context in which the video occurs includes what you say in the video or its description, the comments, and the way it's presented. A video titled "Ganking noobs in Erevate", comments about finding this guy's stream, or voice conversation in the video gloating about how much you're <Ahem> this guy off... yeah, that's likely to raise some eyebrows and suggest to any objective observer that you're engaging in harassment, or specifically targeting the stream.

Something titled "Powerplay hunting", comments about "kicking Imperial scum out of our system", or seeing you exchange "gg" with your target, on the other hand... Support's going to take one look at a video like that, and respond to the complaint with "this doesn't look like harassment, you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time in Open".

That's how context works. Every last one of these contrived hypotheticals that I've seen in this thread depend on completely ignoring the context in which they take place.

Again there's that word 'Context'.

A case by case basis, with way to much room for leeway and interpretation is not the way to go. The problem I have is that in the answer you've given, someone who's done something totally allowed within the context of game mechanics has even got into the situation where they've been investigated in the first instance. I don't like the idea that I could potentially log on one day to find I've been shadow banned without warning or notification as to the reason (which is what happened to the first Shadowbanned player) because I inadvertently kicked over some Prima Donna wannabe internet celebrities sandcastle whilst going about killing Feds or what not, based on the assessment of one or two members of the support team, followed by having to potentially go through the rigmarole of getting the decision overturned. Additionally, I wouldn't call the scenario I describe contrived either seen as that is literally how I and any other Powerplay commander plays when they dust off their Thrustmasters.

As I've said, I welcome the rules however they need to be tighter and their descriptions more clear. Having rules that can be argued based on indvidual judgement are only going to worsen issues in a community where even the slightest hint of interpretation in a decision or comment leads to either party using it as justification for their agenda as to how the game should be played.

 

[Wescott]

Thats exactly what some people would want the game to be like. Sadly the truth is if the game was like that it would probably a bigger following / online community.

Gamers live for the gank, its what games like EVE, Ark, DayZ etc. are based on.

Then I would suggest they go play Eve etc. Their problem is they cannot abide being moderated in a game who's basic play style by design is not to their liking. so seek to convert it without concern for those folks for whom it was designed.

 

[Wolfzx12r]

I think what all in game groups should consider is to purchase a copy of ED and set up a group account with the group faction name, all group faction members can be added to that account without having any chance of been added to an individual's account.

 

[Reaper99]

So basically, you are lowering your pants for people that are unable to assume the fact that they can be killed by other players. You should basically rename the game Elite: Mostly Harmless, that's the least you can do seing on how it's turning right now, but hey, all big game devs always turn their backs to the minority of players to listen to the majority of crying care bears.

First, the term care bears is a derogatory term against those that have no desire to participate in pvp action...those folks have a rite to play the way they choose to without other folks imposing their terms of play on them period. end of story.

Second, it is perfectly fine to play as a pvp person or take part in pvp action, but not go looking to purposely cause trouble for someone who has no desire to interact with a person in that manner...unwanted and un warranted attention in that manner is harassing and detrimental.

third, folks...its not rocket science to know the difference between rp'ing, pvp in a good natured way, vs unmitigated griefing and harassment...its common sense plain and simple.

Personally Aigaion if you shoot at me, trust me if I'm rigged for combat your getting someone to shoot back....if not im running...but I play both sides pve and pvp...I just happen to believe in others rights to play unmolested if they choose to. and you should to...if not...hey that's skin off your nose not anyone elses. Plus one to FD for standing firm on their rules and protecting their rules. its good to see a company standing behind what they say.


Peace and prosperity by any means!!

 

[DanaM]

First, the term care bears is a derogatory term.....

Hey now....I like being a Carebear!

DanaM: Carebear 4 life. Peace, out.

(repped for message, though)

 

[Chance-]

First, the term care bears is a derogatory term against those that have no desire to participate in pvp action...those folks have a rite to play the way they choose to without other folks imposing their terms of play on them period. end of story.

And griefer isn't? I feel like we're arguing the same side of the same argument.

 

[Fyrd Judge]

First, the term care bears is a derogatory term

Incorrect.


Derogatory is defined as showing a critical or disrespectful attitude, insulting some one or people. Calling a group or a person care bear/s is not derogatory. A good example of PC going insane.

 

[Shar]

Griefers are just a part of life you don,t have to like them but we who are somewhat more evolved learn to tolerate them, but i would caution against debating them as that would be pointless. to put it simply - Don,t wrestle with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig likes it. i,ll apologize to the pigs in advance it,s just a very old and wise saying.