Privateer’s Alliance Charity Event Targeted for Griefing

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

That seems to me like a shorthand for saying..."I like to do things other people disapprove of...and don't want to be criticized for it" Any environment in which people interact with each other comes with moral judgements...Or are you suggesting that a Griefer who blows up a First Time Sidewinder leaving its starter station in his G5 Engineered FDL is exactly the same as a Fuel Rat dragging himself 20,000LYs to rescue a stranded explorer? Etc etc...
There is no Superior Moral Position in a Single Player Video Game...but anything that involves people comes witha moral dimesnion...thats a direct function of choice, action, effect...

If you let it effect you.

We arent letting it get to us. The awesome BGSers in our group kick the crap out of this stuff all the time.

Did you know we have a guy named Elvis Kremmen. Hes a legend. He holds the record for carrying the most media for the Colonia initiative. He made like a bagillion trips.

Just like im a B/A PVPer, We got some B/A BGSers too.

Just when you think you all have the answers, We change all the questions.

PA 4 Lyfe

 

[Drelthar]

Morality-aside, it's hard to argue with that logic.
I just wish people could sometimes aspire to something greater, overcoming petty differences and egotistic needs when something really worth doing happens. Like charities.
Surely real-life support for people with actual life-threatening issues takes precedence over making a point in a fracking game.
Or is it just me that thinks so?

Nah, not just you. Your right really. I mean, personally, I wouldn't mess with a charity event like that, but that is just me. Thing is though, the people giving in items in the game itself, doesn't give money to charity does it? in effect, the attacks, are probably going to bring more attention to it.

for instance, I had no idea it existed until this thread about it being attacked. I might donate now.

So... there's that?

 

[Drelthar]

OK, so let me summarise the responses so far in order to attempt to achieve a consensus across the entire community.

The options - radically different though many may be - are that:

(A) Frontier should impose a ban - to be rigorously policed - of all financial fund-raising using their product, to include most obviously charity fundraising.

(B) Frontier should create a new mode - 'CHARITY' - within which all forms of direct and indirect PvP are forbidden, including UA bombing but also any other kind of BGS attack and, obviously, Orcas, Clippers, not to mention (obviously again) Fer-de-Lances. Actually, hard points are banned. As well as collisions. Did I mention Cutters? Frontier to decide case-by-case which good causes are sufficiently good to qualify for Developer-guaranteed-immortality-plated-immortality. (Noting that if they approve one yet refuse another, someone will probably go to the press. Realistically in the UK at least they'll have to approve anything to do with pets.)

(C) Frontier should state publicly that they will only permit matters to continue as now ... organically ... if all charity fundraisers understand and agree that anything goes in ED. One last chance ... any more complaints from charity fundraisers and option (A) applies.

(D) Frontier should do as they always should have done. Now is the time to make all systems, players, stations and ships immune to all forms of hostility in all circumstances. The charities will be saved, but only as part of a wider salvation. Heaven awaits!

(E) Perma-ban all PvP griefers.

(F) Perma-ban all UA bombers, zerg swarmers, goons, BGS attackers, authority-ship-killers, Powerplay 5th columnists, thread spammers, mod-pesterers and reddit brigaders.

(G) Ban everyone and everything except me, my Cobra III and DBOBE. (At last, we might meet...!)

.
.
.

Did I miss anything out?

Yeah, you missed out "Chill out, it's all fine"

 

[RexKraemer]

That seems to me like a shorthand for saying..."I like to do things other people disapprove of...and don't want to be criticized for it" Any environment in which people interact with each other comes with moral judgements...Or are you suggesting that a Griefer who blows up a First Time Sidewinder leaving its starter station in his G5 Engineered FDL is exactly the same as a Fuel Rat dragging himself 20,000LYs to rescue a stranded explorer? Etc etc...
There is no Superior Moral Position in a Single Player Video Game...but anything that involves people comes witha moral dimesnion...thats a direct function of choice, action, effect...

I think in our generality we are both right.

If we are interacting in a game the moral consensus of social interactions are not the same as in real life. They could be the same but they need not to be. So there is some lack of definition for this. Based on this I say "do not judge others for their behaviour in game", where "judging" refers to a real life judgement, like "he/she is a griefer".

No problem with critics or questioning others behaviour in game, because from discussions like this, we could create an in game ethics.

But mixing real life (e.g. charity) with in game roles and behaviour, and judging from this to others real life being is not the way to do it.

If you are affected in real life by others in game behaviour (legit game play) than you have missed something to learn in your childhood ("you" is not ment you personally). You may have missed that loosing is part of it and part of the fun. "function of choice, action, effect" is in-game-choice, in-game-action and in-game-effect. If you suffer real-life-effect, you have some missconception (again, "you" is ment in general).

 

[Deareim]

That seems to me like a shorthand for saying..."I like to do things other people disapprove of...and don't want to be criticized for it" Any environment in which people interact with each other comes with moral judgements...Or are you suggesting that a Griefer who blows up a First Time Sidewinder leaving its starter station in his G5 Engineered FDL is exactly the same as a Fuel Rat dragging himself 20,000LYs to rescue a stranded explorer? Etc etc...
There is no Superior Moral Position in a Single Player Video Game...but anything that involves people comes witha moral dimesnion...thats a direct function of choice, action, effect...

wait, i am going cry.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

wait, i am going cry.

Is this the legendary Deareim from colonia?

 

[Chrystoph]

Since you are conducting a charity in part for a charity in the United States, and that charity is based in an online function, you could contact the FBI and request an investigation for cyber terrorism.

The only qualifier would be that you would need to reasonably prove that the griefers cost the charity more than $5,000.00 in lost revenues, that being the lower limit required by the FBI to open an investigation.

This is a very dangerous road to go down. There are harsh penalties if this is not done in the correct fashion. That will mean actual world consequences. I think it’s incredibly foolish to even suggest such a thing without some genuine legal advice prior.

There are anti-swatting laws in many jurisdictions in the US now. False claims are taken seriously. Real people are hurt by such actions. This has the potential to be a very stupid thing to do. Even for good intentions.

Please think about what you are saying. No offence.

I did think about what I am saying. The people that are taking in game actions to affect a real world charity event have stepped beyond being abusive in a game, they have moved on to attempting to prevent a charity from collecting money by using an in game mechanic.

Their actions are no longer JUST an in game situation, yet they, and apparently, you, want to claim this is nothing more than toxic Online Disinhibition Effect. The chosen actions have real world consequences to the charity, the abusers should also be held responsible for their actions' effects.

To do otherwise is to validate the position that the abusers are not doing anything in violation of the social contract, and gives a defacto validation of their opinion that they can get away with immoral behavior because no one will stop them.

 

[Raumfahrer Spiff]

they have moved on to attempting to prevent a charity from collecting money by using an in game mechanic.

Please tell me, in short sentences with simple words, how on earth is any in game action preventing someone from sending a charity money via PayPal?

Seriously, I’m stumped.

 

[MickyG1982]

I'm not the one kicking up a fuss and expecting special in game treatment because of things going on outside of it and using it as a way to pejoratively label other players of the game.

Also I feel rather uncomfortable with people using charity events to virtue signal, which is all this really is I'm afraid.

Actually, neither is the charity. The OP is however & I don't believe they actually have much to do with them at all given that they are asking for something specifically not requested by either group.

 

[GunnerBill]

Since you are conducting a charity in part for a charity in the United States, and that charity is based in an online function, you could contact the FBI and request an investigation for cyber terrorism.

The only qualifier would be that you would need to reasonably prove that the griefers cost the charity more than $5,000.00 in lost revenues, that being the lower limit required by the FBI to open an investigation.

I did think about what I am saying. The people that are taking in game actions to affect a real world charity event have stepped beyond being abusive in a game, they have moved on to attempting to prevent a charity from collecting money by using an in game mechanic.

Their actions are no longer JUST an in game situation, yet they, and apparently, you, want to claim this is nothing more than toxic Online Disinhibition Effect. The chosen actions have real world consequences to the charity, the abusers should also be held responsible for their actions' effects.

To do otherwise is to validate the position that the abusers are not doing anything in violation of the social contract, and gives a defacto validation of their opinion that they can get away with immoral behavior because no one will stop them.

Jeesus wept, now I've seen it all.

It's a frelling game.

Given a chance, based on the opinions of you and similar in this thread, I'd vote to ban all charitable activities via this game <fullstop>.

Incredible.

 

[RexKraemer]

The people that are taking in game actions to affect a real world charity event have stepped beyond being abusive in a game, they have moved on to attempting to prevent a charity from collecting money by using an in game mechanic.

It is just the other way round: the charity/event is using the game and brings the real world into the game. It all starts with that.

Others may have fun with that or not. Thats up to them and as long as they just play the game with all mechanics there legally are, they are not to be judged by others who are not playing just the game but brought their real life concerns/charities/events/whatever into it.

FIRST a game, ment to be just played, SECOND charity or other real life issues.

(its getting difficult for me, can someone take over?)

 

[RexKraemer]

My arguments are not against PA or charities and not against DoveEnigma and his event.
I am talking against OP and others, who start to attack players during or after these events here in this forum, because of actions they did in game with legit in game mechanics.

(just to be clear)

 

[Red Anders]

I did think about what I am saying. The people that are taking in game actions to affect a real world charity event have stepped beyond being abusive in a game, they have moved on to attempting to prevent a charity from collecting money by using an in game mechanic.

Their actions are no longer JUST an in game situation, yet they, and apparently, you, want to claim this is nothing more than toxic Online Disinhibition Effect. The chosen actions have real world consequences to the charity, the abusers should also be held responsible for their actions' effects.

To do otherwise is to validate the position that the abusers are not doing anything in violation of the social contract, and gives a defacto validation of their opinion that they can get away with immoral behavior because no one will stop them.

Right. Only:

1) This isn't actually preventing any money being collected by the charity and
2) One of the organisers has already posted in the thread to specifically ask that people don't get outraged on their behalf because they're fine with what happened.

Also the FBI do have slightly more important things to attend to and are not capable of policing morals.

This thread needs a lock, even by the standards of similar threads on here it's jumped the shark now.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Make charity streams a ban-able offence with an update to the EULA.

This stuff causes way too many problems.

 

[Goose4291]

Dry your eyes mate.

If you dont want to play a game where others cant affect you through their own actions, dont play multiplayer games.

Dressing this up again with victim politics yet again is painful to watch and cringe-worthy.

However, again well done to those playing the game and fixing it, rather than whining for a god mod.

 

[jasonbirder]

This stuff causes way too many problems.

I wonder why? After all..when people use other leisure activities IE dog walks/running/walking/cycling/knitting/cake baking etc etc..to raise money/awareness for Charity.there doesn't seem to be an issue using THOSE activities (which similar to Elite are enjoyed by a wide variety of people for a whole selection of different reasons) there don't seem to be any problems...nor people trying to DISRUPT those activities...I wonder what the difference between them and playing Elite is?

 

[Goose4291]

My arguments are not against PA or charities and not against DoveEnigma and his event.
I am talking against OP and others, who start to attack players during or after these events here in this forum, because of actions they did in game with legit in game mechanics.

(just to be clear)

Despite the strawmanning of your well made point by others, I think most casual readers get the gist of what you're saying.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I did think about what I am saying. The people that are taking in game actions to affect a real world charity event have stepped beyond being abusive in a game, they have moved on to attempting to prevent a charity from collecting money by using an in game mechanic.

Their actions are no longer JUST an in game situation, yet they, and apparently, you, want to claim this is nothing more than toxic Online Disinhibition Effect. The chosen actions have real world consequences to the charity, the abusers should also be held responsible for their actions' effects.

To do otherwise is to validate the position that the abusers are not doing anything in violation of the social contract, and gives a defacto validation of their opinion that they can get away with immoral behavior because no one will stop them.

ALRIGHT FRONTIER FORUMS:

Lets make the best of this situation. Remember we are not the ones that made the post. Nor complaining that its happening.

We told you this was not a big deal and we could handle it. So since YOU GUYS keep poking at it.

Im gonna give you all the chance complaining about it to do something about it.

Here is the link to the Fundraising site for The Heart Foundations. https://iheartpa4lyfe.causevox.com/ We are at $480 now.

For Every USD $Dollar$. I will Deliver 1 Meta Alloy.

1$ for 1= Meta Alloy.

Make the Donation, Then report in this thread the amount. If you dont report in this thread the amount. It wont count as we are receiving donations from all over. So since its you guys still complaining about in game mechanics. You will also have a chance to leave a message somewhere when you donate. Type "Frontier Forums" when you do so they match. NO funny business.

Here is your chance to make a difference.

At Midnight California Time PST. I will come back here and count the numbers. Then stream it all.

I know I have some fans out there on these forums. This is your chance to gank a PVPer. By watching me BGS.

 

[LeoBartlet]

Make charity streams a ban-able offence with an update to the EULA.

This stuff causes way too many problems.

tbh though this only causes problems on the forum echo chamber where outrage is the common factor in all discussions.

Still its adorable that the moment something happens in the game that others don't like people ask for it to be banned.

 

[Goose4291]

Make charity streams a ban-able offence with an update to the EULA.

This stuff causes way too many problems.