It's an Open forum. I can kill whoever I want. If you don't like it, go into Private Messages or Solo Notepad
[hotas]
New policy on player kills in private groups?
- Thread starter Globusdiablo
- Start date
[hotas]
It's an Open forum. I can kill whoever I want. If you don't like it, go into Private Messages or Solo Notepad
Is that because NotePad++ is full?
Disclaimer: I by no means advocate for ganking, griefing, or any other forms of antisocial and sadistic behaviour for self gratification, whether in game or real life.
That being said ... Private Groups are the responsibility of the group's owner. The game has a single Frontier enforced set of rules. Anything outside that is not Frontier's concern. There's nothing in the EULA that says that people get special privilege for being in a Private Group. It's basically just Open with less people. So it's 100% in the hands of the group admin(s) to enforce their own rules and kick people out who break them.
That being said ... Private Groups are the responsibility of the group's owner. The game has a single Frontier enforced set of rules. Anything outside that is not Frontier's concern. There's nothing in the EULA that says that people get special privilege for being in a Private Group. It's basically just Open with less people. So it's 100% in the hands of the group admin(s) to enforce their own rules and kick people out who break them.
Do you have enough leverage against them that would make them think twice before breaking your rules? And how important is it for you that they follow the rules?
The way I deal with this is even simpler: do I know you in RL or from a long time on the Internet? If yes, you're in.
Well, you know that the group owner has no leverage except kicking them after they have behaved badly. After being the key word. And it's very important they follow one rule. No PvP.
Which means no events like Distant Worlds are possible. Keep in mind the original idea behind Distant Worlds was a small group of about explorers retracing Erimus' journey to Beagle Point. But then it exploded into 1,500 participants. The current iteration has more participants than anyone could have imagined.
So the choice becomes: be more discriminate and only have small groups of friends events. Or allow for events like Distant Worlds to happen and request Frontier assistance when excrement meets the airconditioning.
Go read the EULA again... It's against the rules to join a PG, accepting it's ruleset with the sole aim to break those rules to harrass the players within.
The EULA doesn't say that. The EULA has a short and deliberately very vague section on the matter of behaviour and communications and doesn't say anything about being invated into private groups and then breaking their rules.
In fact it is so vague nobody has so far been punished for attacking players in Mobius, or any other private group for that matter.
Last edited:
seems your reading skills could improve a bit? paige expressly says a player kill in a private group is not a case for reimbursal per-se.
which makes total sense because 'no playah evah kill me!!' is a private rule set by the owners of the private group, what the heck should or could frontier rule about that?
Until now... Special strokes for special folks, don't you know...
It doesn't need to; the vagueness of it allows for it to act like an umbrella term; it talks about behaviour - joining a PvE PG with the sole aim to harrass and PvP is pretty ghastly behaviour and one could make a case that it violates the EULA; however, ultimately, it's up to Frontier to decide if that's the case. Although, harassment is against the EULA in pretty much all online games.
There's several very good reasons EULA clauses against deliberately going out of your way to "annoy" or "harass" other players are vaguely written in a way that allows for situational enforcement.
For starters, it's impossible to write a code of conduct that comprehensively covers literally every possible situation, and to attempt to do so would leave you with a rules document the length and complexity of the actual game code.
Another reason is that whenever you draw a hard line of what is and is not acceptable and tell everyone where it is, you'll find a certain class of people putting their toe right up to that line and deliberately being as provocative as they can be without actually stepping over it - and that line will never be ideal for all situations (see the first point, above). In fact, in other games that have rules like this, they'll often bait other players into crossing it so they can get them banned. Anyone who's ever played Space Station 13 knows what banbaiting is. And killbaiting, for that manner. You can do that in the C&P system - interdict a clean ship while being clean yourself, you'll only get a fine, and if they rise to your provocation and fire on you, they get an assault bounty and you can freely blow them away (or let them kill you and saddle them with a murder bounty and notoriety, if you're in a cheap enough ship to not care). Likewise, head to Sothis and go around manifest-scanning the passenger runners in a sidewinder, you'll annoy them immensely by failing their VIP missions while technically not commiting a crime so they'll get wanted if they fire on you.
A third reason, from the admin's point of view, is that while you can lawyer your way out of having technically broken the letter of a comprehensive EULA, you can't lawyer your way out of being an aggravating little pustule. This is why so many smaller groups and private game servers employ Wheaton's Law as rule number one.
For starters, it's impossible to write a code of conduct that comprehensively covers literally every possible situation, and to attempt to do so would leave you with a rules document the length and complexity of the actual game code.
Another reason is that whenever you draw a hard line of what is and is not acceptable and tell everyone where it is, you'll find a certain class of people putting their toe right up to that line and deliberately being as provocative as they can be without actually stepping over it - and that line will never be ideal for all situations (see the first point, above). In fact, in other games that have rules like this, they'll often bait other players into crossing it so they can get them banned. Anyone who's ever played Space Station 13 knows what banbaiting is. And killbaiting, for that manner. You can do that in the C&P system - interdict a clean ship while being clean yourself, you'll only get a fine, and if they rise to your provocation and fire on you, they get an assault bounty and you can freely blow them away (or let them kill you and saddle them with a murder bounty and notoriety, if you're in a cheap enough ship to not care). Likewise, head to Sothis and go around manifest-scanning the passenger runners in a sidewinder, you'll annoy them immensely by failing their VIP missions while technically not commiting a crime so they'll get wanted if they fire on you.
A third reason, from the admin's point of view, is that while you can lawyer your way out of having technically broken the letter of a comprehensive EULA, you can't lawyer your way out of being an aggravating little pustule. This is why so many smaller groups and private game servers employ Wheaton's Law as rule number one.
Goose4291
Banned
It does, so they can cite it as and when it suits them.
Slew of streamsniping of 'unknowns': Nothing
One 'celebrity' approved FDev streamer gets sniped: FDev cite the EULA as a reason for punishment of any one sniping their chosen few.
It really annoys me how much FDev have a 'one rule for one, one for the rest of us' approach to things like this.
But what really grinds my gears is how many people in the community sycophantically lap it up and defend it.
Last edited:
Favouritism of the "celebs" tickles good fefe's; good fefe's result in positive exposure by the celebs; positive exposure = good for business.
Just would be nice if it was a little less ... obvious.
It is dirty pool though, so stuff them.
This is still the most on point post in this thread. The EULA guarantees nothing to the player. You are basically accepting that FD decides the rules and that their interpretation of how the game works is solely at their discretion. And if FD decides to change how they think the game should work and be administered then you basically have to suck it up or move on.
All that means is Frontier has no real code of conduct they're just reserving the right to screw with their customers at any time for any reason.
It means you should always ask Frontier to give you your stuff back and be prepared to make a big stink about it if they don't give you what you want. And if you DONT do this, you're a sucker. It means support tickets are gameplay.
This.
Some people seem to be upset by other people not losing things. I'd like to say it's weird, but actually it's well-known human nature. :-(
What it means is that they've given themselves leeway enough to determine if an action violates the EULA; it's practically impossible, and completely unfeasable to write a EULA that covers every single instance/scenario of say harrassment. Thus, the umbrella term.
It's not something unusual to Frontier and you'll likely find similar wording in most (all) EULA.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Hmm I always thought this seemed a bit strange. Guess I shoulda killed them in that BGS war when I had the chance.
Last edited: