New policy on player kills in private groups?

[Vedmo]

7.3 Communication and interaction with other users
7.3.1 The Game and/or Online Features may allow communications between users by means including but not limited to text and voice. When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behaviour, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

7.3.2 Frontier reserves the right, but not the obligation, to record, monitor and retain all or some of the communications described in clause 7.3.1 in order to safeguard other users and our community. You acknowledge that Frontier shall have the right, but not the obligation, to pre-screen, refuse, move or remove any content available through the Game or the Online Features, including, but not limited to, content that violates any law or this EULA, the Privacy Policy, or any other applicable legal or contractual obligation.

Infiltrating a no PvP PG is imho a clear form of harassment, but in the end that's FDs decision. The Eula grants them the right if they interpret it that way.

Appreciate the link, but I am taking no position on whether or not infiltrating a PG with the intent of breaking player made rules is a violation of the EULA. I was simply stating my opinion that when you put stipulations on a PG and someone breaks those player made rules, kicking them from the group is adequate recourse.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

This sounds completely new to me. Apparently FD are reimbursing player kills in private groups on a case by case basis now?:

Interesting development if true.

Literally nothing has changed. What Paige said is they that Frontier do not automatically reimburse, and all requests are handled on a case by case basis.

This is the same policy they have always had, as far as I know.

 

[Mohrgan]

FD has said that they see any second attempt to infiltrate a Private Group as a breach of their agreement (ToS/EULA blah blah blah), and can result in action account wide. Changing your Cmdr name won't help. The initial infraction of the PG's rules results in what ever the PG's originator decides, and what he/she can actually do. Which is expulsion at this point.

 

[Bigmaec]

FD has said that they see any second attempt to infiltrate a Private Group as a breach of their agreement (ToS/EULA blah blah blah), and can result in action account wide. Changing your Cmdr name won't help. The initial infraction of the PG's rules results in what ever the PG's originator decides, and what he/she can actually do. Which is expulsion at this point.

Link?

 

[sollisb]

Further;

[FONT=&quot]4.1 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in any unlawful manner, for any unlawful purpose, or in any manner inconsistent with this EULA, or act fraudulently or maliciously

[/FONT]Joining a group you know to be PvE only and agreeing to it's T&C with he the sole aim to harass and kill the players within would be deemed at minimum fraud not to mention malicious.

 

[Stigbob]

Further;

4.1 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in any unlawful manner, for any unlawful purpose, or in any manner inconsistent with this EULA, or act fraudulently or maliciously

Joining a group you know to be PvE only and agreeing to it's T&C with he the sole aim to harass and kill the players within would be deemed at minimum fraud not to mention malicious.

Cobblers.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Maybe, just maybe FD will find the time some time to expand on the private group functionality, allowing the owner to set rules that then are enforced in code. Like no PvP damage everywhere except CZ, which would probably be the Mobius preset. Shoot all you want, players in a group with that flag on don't take damage.

 

[Mengy]

I don't have a problem. I'm asking if this is new policy. FD has never before reimbursed players killed by "gankers" in private groups. At least not to my knowledge.

Frontier has in the past, this is not a new stance.

 

[Stigbob]

Maybe, just maybe FD will find the time some time to expand on the private group functionality, allowing the owner to set rules that then are enforced in code. Like no PvP damage everywhere except CZ, which would probably be the Mobius preset. Shoot all you want, players in a group with that flag on don't take damage.

The code for damage free weps already exits in smart rounds. You'd still need to deal with collision damage and greifers pinning people against pads or whatever they think of next though.

 

[Mohrgan]

Link?

I don't link. I haven't the patience. All of this happened after the second, and last, large Mobius infiltration. Prove me wrong.

 

[Rampant]

If I make a no PvP PG with five friends, then one of them figures out that I'm the one who has been stealing his toilet paper when he has company over, then decided to take it out on my Adder, I'm assuming the help desk won't care (and they shouldn't).

I don't think it should be any different for any PG, boot people who break your rules, because that's all they are, your rules.

Nice try.
Entering into an agreement to join a no-PvP combat based PG under false pretences and with forethought and planning, never intending to abide by the agreement you made in the first place is an entirely different concept to you and your 6 close friends. It is the premeditated *intent* to not abide by your agreement that matters here.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Globusdiablo]

Literally nothing has changed. What Paige said is they that Frontier do not automatically reimburse, and all requests are handled on a case by case basis.

This is the same policy they have always had, as far as I know.

FD has said that they see any second attempt to infiltrate a Private Group as a breach of their agreement (ToS/EULA blah blah blah), and can result in action account wide. Changing your Cmdr name won't help. The initial infraction of the PG's rules results in what ever the PG's originator decides, and what he/she can actually do. Which is expulsion at this point.

Further;

[FONT="]4.1 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in any unlawful manner, for any unlawful purpose, or in any manner inconsistent with this EULA, or act fraudulently or maliciously

[/FONT]Joining a group you know to be PvE only and agreeing to it's T&C with he the sole aim to harass and kill the players within would be deemed at minimum fraud not to mention malicious.

Ok. So FD is simply starting to enforce existing policy? Good news for Mobius PvE and all other private PvE groups like it. Fine by me.

Will FD start kicking said gankers also?

 

[Saxon Kili]

Just think if FD created an open PVE mode that disallowed PVP weapons fire, or a similar option when in a group mode, they wouldnt need to handle all these tickets. This is about the third thread I've seen in an hour about ganking, infiltration, unwanted PVP.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

I see this as a 'We dont Auto reimburse' if you are killed in a PvE group. Each case is taken on its individual merit.
Meaning Fdev can in some circumstances, but you shouldn't automatically expect it. So if they don't....don't cry over it.

IMHO
Void opals are making billionares quotidian... so who cares if you got blown up. move along.

Edit

(although..... sucks if you are on DW2)

 

[IndigoWyrd]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Support should be offered to all players in the same manner, they should benefit from all paid-for services in the same way. Certain support features shouldn't be available to a "select few" who are FDEV's best buddies.

Assuming there will be a new wave of "emerging content" done in Mobius (whether you agreee with Mobius is an entirely different matter, personally I used to hate it), should those players not benefit from the possibility of asking, not necessarily receiving, some sort of reimbursement? Are they lesser players, have they not paid for the game like everyone else?

I did not say they shouldn’t. What I said was they need to not broadcast it. Huge difference. You put in your soppier request, they respond, you say thanks and go about your business. It’s no small secret Elite has great support, and they can and have gone to great lengths to make things right on countless occasions.

FD is doing the broadcasting. I'm merely relaying and asking if this is new policy, as I hadn't heard of this practice before.

It has always been the policy to address individual support request individually, with perhaps the very rare cases where those requests are the direct result of a bug or issue, such as the old Mission failed automatically/Unknown Contact problem, but even then support requests opened still got individual responses, even if they were of the “Thanks, we know, we’re trying to fix this” variety.

 

[Goose4291]

I don't link. I haven't the patience. All of this happened after the second, and last, large Mobius infiltration. Prove me wrong.

I'll second that.

Though i could have sworn that they did say this very clearly after the first mockrage incident.

 

[bigity]

Or maybe you're just one of those people who like to be offended?

"...we deal with each ticket on a case by case basis and being killed in a private group that doesn't allow PVP is not basis for an automatic reimbursal..."

Not being basis for an automatic reimbursal surely suggests that some players are being reimbursed? I've never in my 5 years of Elite: Dangerous heard of this practice before.

I'm not sure you and I read the same post.

 

[bigity]

Not sure how EULA is relevant to what I said. The person invited to a PG broke the player enforced rules, and the enforcement is to remove them from the group. That's exactly how it works.

If I make a PG with a no Gutamaya policy and find a Clipper, should the offender be punished for breaking the EULA, should it be worthy of a support ticket?

Are you implying by breaking the EULA through not following rules made by another player that you agreed to by joining their group, one would be cheating, therefore any damages received from the cheating party should be reimbursed?

I agree. Remove from group, case closed.

FDev has no need, reason, or profit from enforcing whatever rules a PG makes up outside of conduct covered by their general rules.

 

[bigity]

EDIT: delete

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Not sure how EULA is relevant to what I said. The person invited to a PG broke the player enforced rules, and the enforcement is to remove them from the group. That's exactly how it works.

If I make a PG with a no Gutamaya policy and find a Clipper, should the offender be punished for breaking the EULA, should it be worthy of a support ticket?

Are you implying by breaking the EULA through not following rules made by another player that you agreed to by joining their group, one would be cheating, therefore any damages received from the cheating party should be reimbursed?

I can't give you enough props for this reply.