It's time to revisit the PVP rebuy. Distant Ganks 2 makes the point.

[babelfisch]

That you think I owe you one is telling of your narcissism. I was never apologising. I don't apologise if I've done nothing wrong.

Do you think it's possible for you to write a single reply without insults?

 

[PeLucheuh]

By the time you typed this, you could have hit Google and found it yourself;

https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

4. Acceptable Use Restrictions
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, including but not limited to hacking into, inserting malicious code (including viruses or harmful data) into the Game, any Online Features or any operating system.

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.

Dishonestly requesting to join a PG for the sole purpose of breaking the rules of that PG (Joining Mobius PvE groups and then shooting people for example) is malicious bullying and harassment.

Not that any of this matters, as those who do it are clearly not punished for it, by the fact they still post YT videos of them playing.
So the entire EULA isn't even worth the paper it's printed on (if any).

Thanks google i guess :

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237761

Hi everyone,

In light of recent issues relating to the way a small collective of players have been approaching and targeting specific private groups and other community events such as charity livestreams, we wanted to reinforce an important part of the existing rules regarding in-game harassment that every player agrees to when creating their account.

We wanted to reiterate some examples regarding the rules of Player harassment. If a player has been blocked from a private group, or a group/individual has taken every step possible to remove a player from their gameplay, then attempting to circumvent this in any fashion is a serious offense and action will be taken accordingly. Attempting to re-establish contact with an individual who has blocked a player through secondary accounts or other methods of attempting to evade the block are against the rules. Action can and will be taken against both the accounts in question and the main accounts of players that we deem to be harassing players through this method.

In addition 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 can also be considered harassment. A perfect example of this is deliberately attempting to disrupt public livestreams such as the charity ones mentioned before. This includes, but is not limited to, the capturing of footage and releasing it publically in an attempt to create upset or gain notoriety through the actions listed above.

We have previously stated, and it remains true, that Frontier are not able to manage group specific rules. Players considered to be breaking these group rule sets as established by group moderators should be removed from those groups by said moderators. In addition, running a livestream in Open does invite the potential for players to approach and impact your gameplay and running a livestream in which you are declaring war on another group and they come and take action against you is reasonable and should be expected.

Ultimately it’s about context. The support team can and will review these kinds of offences and will be taking action against accounts that set their entire purpose on harassing players and groups in this way. They are currently investigating a number of incidents and will be dealing directly with any parties involved.

The Frontier Support team take the protection and safety of the community very seriously, they strive to ensure that the game remains fair and friendly. If you feel the need to report an incident, please do get in contact with support via our support site at https://support.frontier.co.uk - please include as much detail of the event as possible.

You can see a copy of the rules that everyone signs up to by creating an account, including harassment, here:
https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

Thanks for reading.

Requesting a PG access is not an agreement to its rules. The malicious bullying and harassment seems to be when a player attempt to circumvent the block/ban from the PG.

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

You haven't read the EULA covering the game, therefore in your 'legal' opinion, it does not exist, or at best, is heresay and speculation. That demotes any credibility you 'may' have had, to a grand total of zero.

We're done.

There is no disagreement that the EULA exists. I think this conversation is a little out of your depth.

What there is (or was, thanks to Jockey79 for referencing) disagreement on is the specifics of exactly what text you are relying on. Its no use asking me to find your evidence, as I have no idea what you are interpreting as evidence. If you had ever been in a courtroom you would understand this. It would be no good turning up to court and the Judge asking me "And on what evidence do you intend to rely?" and me responding with "Evidence, Sir? You mean to say you haven't read the Working Times Regulations 1998? There is something in there which is my evidence. Go and find it!" (Not that we have situations like that as we have a disclosure of documents before court, so both parties have a copy of any evidence which either party perceive to be relevant). So, now you have been educated a little perhaps we can move on

 

[Powderpanic]

There is no disagreement that the EULA exists. I think this conversation is a little out of your depth.

What there is (or was, thanks to Jockey89 for referencing) disagreement on is the specifics of exactly what text you are relying on. Its no use asking me to find your evidence, as I have no idea what you are interpreting as evidence. If you had ever been in a courtroom you would understand this. It would be no good turning up to court and the Judge asking me "And on what evidence do you intend to rely?" and me responding with "Evidence, Sir? You mean to say you haven't read the Working Times Regulations 1998? There is something in there which is my evidence. Go and find it!" (Not that we have situations like that as we have a disclosure of documents before court, so both parties have a copy of any evidence which either party perceive to be relevant). So, now you have been educated a little perhaps we can move on

I have managed to extract my tongue from my throat.... Normal transmissions can continue.

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

By the time you typed this, you could have hit Google and found it yourself;

https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

4. Acceptable Use Restrictions
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, including but not limited to hacking into, inserting malicious code (including viruses or harmful data) into the Game, any Online Features or any operating system.

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.

Dishonestly requesting to join a PG for the sole purpose of breaking the rules of that PG (Joining Mobius PvE groups and then shooting people for example) is malicious bullying and harassment.

Not that any of this matters, as those who do it are clearly not punished for it, by the fact they still post YT videos of them playing.
So the entire EULA isn't even worth the paper it's printed on (if any).

Thanks for the reference.

I would argue it is very difficult for Fdev to show that it was someone's sole purpose to fire on/kill players in a private group. Hence why they most likely won't punish for it. It is worded to allow the vast majority of people to play as they would like, and "breaking" any rules would be a matter of interpretation, which is a grey area.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

Open is PvP. Everyone is well aware of that, and you enter it at your own discretion. I take on board the ideal 'is it what Frontier want' in relation to ganking etc and I admit, I'm torn on that one. PvP is PvP, regardless of the player level. There are already mechanism in place if you are 'targetted' as harassment.

Do Frontier want, or are Frontier happy, to have players forced into solo/PG. Well all modes are equal in terms of play-type etc the only difference is Open is PvP, so I'm not so sure about the 'forced', as I think it's more a style of play you choose.

Neither am I sure, that Frontier 'prioritise' any band of players. I would say they very much fail to manage the various modes. But then, are we paying for that? Players that infiltrate a private group to cause harassment and upset should be banned outright, but we have no-one to do that.

Fair enough. So the outcome could be open is pvp only and there is no option for players in open who don't want ganked. If you think that's a good outcome then i guess that's your right. To me, as a game design, it's pretty poor. I'm honestly surprised at the numbers of people who won't go into open now because of this. From my point of view, that's a major failing of the game designer - people are put off playing as they would like to because you cannot (or are unwilling to) execute a mechanism to make PvP consensual. In terms of game fundamentals, it's kind of a big one. And then people complain when the victim determines they don't want to play the pvp combat game and switch off their machine. So you have to pvp and you're not allowed to stop playing the game when it suits you? Yeah right. Excellent implementation.

 

[Navynuke99]

A-rated means nothing. You need engineering in any case other than a 1v1 gank attempt. It may be annoying, but fitting properly is the open "tax".

A way to see it is that a trader, miner or explorer willing to engage in open must be willing to debuff his income w.r.t. PvE for a higher chance to not get blown up for giggles.

The way I see it : PvE should require the same level of protections and planning.

They *are* engineered, G5 reinforced.

Now, what's the next line on the victim- blaming script?

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

I have managed to extract my tongue from my throat.... Normal transmissions can continue.

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

Welcome back, Cmdr. 07

 

[sollisb]

There is no disagreement that the EULA exists. I think this conversation is a little out of your depth.

What there is (or was, thanks to Jockey79 for referencing) disagreement on is the specifics of exactly what text you are relying on. Its no use asking me to find your evidence, as I have no idea what you are interpreting as evidence. If you had ever been in a courtroom you would understand this. It would be no good turning up to court and the Judge asking me "And on what evidence do you intend to rely?" and me responding with "Evidence, Sir? You mean to say you haven't read the Working Times Regulations 1998? There is something in there which is my evidence. Go and find it!" (Not that we have situations like that as we have a disclosure of documents before court, so both parties have a copy of any evidence which either party perceive to be relevant). So, now you have been educated a little perhaps we can move on

One would expect that when you turned up in court you were basing your argument on legislation both you and the judge were aware of. If the trial judge is unaware of the specifics of the evidence s/he will adjourn to assess it and any relevance it may have.

As the EULA is quite a short document, and in no way requires any intelligence above the norm for say a 12 yr old, I expected you'd be able to extract any relevance yourself, you being a legal whiz. Obviously I was wrong.

 

[voidwalker]

Read the EULA/Code Of Conduct

Which part? Can you be specific?

 

[voidwalker]

Do you think it's possible for you to write a single reply without insults?

Nothing I've posted is intended as an insult. Again, don't conflate insult with observation. I can't help it, nor is it my problem, that you take offence easily. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Do you think it's possible to make a point, or ask a question, with relevance?

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

One would expect that when you turned up in court you were basing your argument on legislation both you and the judge were aware of. If the trial judge is unaware of the specifics of the evidence s/he will adjourn to assess it and any relevance it may have.

As the EULA is quite a short document, and in no way requires any intelligence above the norm for say a 12 yr old, I expected you'd be able to extract any relevance yourself, you being a legal whiz. Obviously I was wrong.

You wouldn't even make it to court without first supplying any documents you intend to rely on. That would include an excerpt of any legislation on which you intend to rely, or to give the other party the referencing index to immediately locate it themselves. However, you would still be expected to provide the excerpt in the courtroom itself. The judge doesn't have time to do your job on your behalf and locate your evidence for you.

But again, you're not quite grasping this exercise.

Best hope you never end up in court, Son.

 

[sollisb]

You wouldn't even make it to court without first supplying any documents you intend to rely on. That would include an excerpt of any legislation on which you intend to rely, or to give the other party the referencing index to immediately locate it themselves. However, you would still be expected to provide the excerpt in the courtroom itself. The judge doesn't have time to do your job on your behalf and locate your evidence for you.

But again, you're not quite grasping this exercise.

Best hope you never end up in court, Son.

Been in court many times (military) boy.

 

[sollisb]

Which part? Can you be specific?

It has already been provided above.. try to keep up.

 

[voidwalker]

It has already been provided above.. try to keep up.

That's just it. I have been keeping up. The EULA makes no specific reference of private groups. The only time that comes up is not in the EULA. The only thing you have of the EULA is your personal interpretation, and a quote from Zac which specifies, "We have previously stated, and it remains true, that Frontier are not able to manage group specific rules. Players considered to be breaking these group rule sets as established by group moderators should be removed from those groups by said moderators", and "Attempting to re-establish contact with an individual who has blocked a player through secondary accounts or other methods of attempting to evade the block are against the rules. Action can and will be taken against both the accounts in question and the main accounts of players that we deem to be harassing players through this method." That's also been provided above, the full quote, with full context. So how about YOU try keeping up.

I asked you for the section of the EULA that specifies the rule and consequence, as you outlined it, because I knew it didn't exist. The only threat of account action is to do with circumventing player-initiated group bans and blocks. That's it. One of these days, you're going to have to stop and consider that maybe, just maybe, you don't know everything, and it's possible for you to be wrong.

 

[sollisb]

That's just it. I have been keeping up. The EULA makes no specific reference of private groups. The only time that comes up is not in the EULA. The only thing you have of the EULA is your personal interpretation, and a quote from Zac which specifies, "We have previously stated, and it remains true, that Frontier are not able to manage group specific rules. Players considered to be breaking these group rule sets as established by group moderators should be removed from those groups by said moderators", and "Attempting to re-establish contact with an individual who has blocked a player through secondary accounts or other methods of attempting to evade the block are against the rules. Action can and will be taken against both the accounts in question and the main accounts of players that we deem to be harassing players through this method." That's also been provided above, the full quote, with full context. So how about YOU try keeping up.

I asked you for the section of the EULA that specifies the rule and consequence, as you outlined it, because I knew it didn't exist. The only threat of account action is to do with circumventing player-initiated group bans and blocks. That's it. One of these days, you're going to have to stop and consider that maybe, just maybe, you don't know everything, and it's possible for you to be wrong.

Which part of 'In addition 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 can also be considered harassment. Do you not understand? Harassment is against the terms of the EULA.

What I'm reading here from you is that unless the EULA explicitly mentions all variations of an activity, it does not effect you.

Which is fine by the way, I don't care how you play, you can never effect me.

 

[paulca]

Solving the PVP/PVE player divide is simple. Really simple.

Until you fire in combat you should be free to run away without impediment. The current FSD warm up, mass lock etc. etc. makes this difficult enough that you can't always get away unscathed.

This works because if the PVP in unsolicited and the victim does not want to be involved they can run away. However if the person does want to engage in PVP they won't run away. However as soon as they open fire that option of an easy get out would be forbidden to prevent people starting fighting and only running if they start losing.

This will cause PVP'er tears as they won't be able to entrap and kill innocent victims just trying to go about their business and might have a major impact on PVP pirating role play, but... if you can just run away from an unwanted PVP fight people will happily play in Open again.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

if you can just run away from an unwanted PVP fight people will happily play in Open again.

People are already happy to play in open.

 

[Powderpanic]

Which part of 'In addition 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 can also be considered harassment. Do you not understand? Harassment is against the terms of the EULA.

What I'm reading here from you is that unless the EULA explicitly mentions all variations of an activity, it does not effect you.

Which is fine by the way, I don't care how you play, you can never effect me.

Why are you so angry and rude, if no one can ever affect you?. You are acting like some who was effected.

Powerpanic
The Voice of Griefing

 

[aaaabcv]

Hi, just contributiong to this discussion of EULA and regulataions (which has little to do woth the OP request of a PVE mode I think) please also consider that the EULA speaks of the players and the Player is to be distinguished of the Player's In-Game Character (The Cmdr).

Bullying or harassing the Player violates the Eula but attacking other Cmdrs in game unprovoked is. (yes, shooting at other space ships is allowed in the game currently and is punished by the C&P in game). Sometimes it is a thin red line whether a specific behaviour harasses the Player or the In-Game Character, especially if role-play is involved and that's why FD will finally judge about it. "General Ganking" I'd consider not harassing the Player. Specifically concentrating on a specific person for the single purpose of not letting him/her play the game would be harassing the Player.

PG special rules are to be managed and enforced by the PG owner as these rules are not made up by FD.