Griefers make open impossible, and how easy the solution is.

[lenna]

The “naming and shaming” narrowly applies to channels controlled by frontier.

however, you can do it on other platforms/social media. To go a step further, I do not think there is any reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to a CMDR’s conduct in the game. Playing in open is consenting to play with a world wide audience. People are free to discuss your in game name and actions.

However, any spill over into ED or FD's media channels and they have you by the proverbial genitals as the instigator (if you engage in "Naming and Shaming").

Also, most on-line media channels include prohibitions against harassment which regardless of your opinions includes "Naming and Shaming". This is not about privacy, but rather about reasonable civilised behaviour - Social Media in general is not meant to be a tool to engage in ridicule and harassment in general.

 

[nafeasonto]

You need to buy more ARX. All the griefers will just respond to this thread and say you are wrong. You are right though, the game is crap in open. And try hard will always defend it.

 

[Sup3rfluiD]

Well in my view many people, even the devs bandy around terms like witchhunt as if it somehow extolls someones right to anonymity regardless of thier actions.

Witches dont exist. Witchhunts are just an ignorant mob seeking vengeance or retribution for perceived actions without any real or credible facts or evidence to justify these actions.

How is this in anyway relevant to real, factual video evidence of actual events as shown ?

It did happen. Why cover it up by invoking this redicolous naming and shaming waffle?
Its a crock. Plain and simple.

 

[Old Duck]

Block all griefers and let God (FDev) sort them (cheaters) out.

 

[lenna]

Block all griefers and let God (FDev) sort them (cheaters) out.

In the context of ED, FD are God - in the context of real world religion the definition is more complicated.

 

[lenna]

How is this in anyway relevant to real, factual video evidence of actual events as shown ?

Long and the short of it - publicly releasing such alleged "evidence" (which could have been doctored) is a breach of the EULA that all players of ED agree to by playing ED.

It does not matter whether the accused in the video is guilty or not, there are approved ways and means of reporting such incidents and personally I would not trust "Namers and Shamers" as far as I could throw an un-powered vessel containing them.

Griefers, Cheaters, Namshamers, are all as bad as each other - FD should just shadowban the lot of them.

The right way to deal with Griefers/Cheaters is to report them and block them (not necessarily in that order - see the Code of Conduct/FAQs for how) rather than to engage in namshaming (which puts you in the wrong as well).

 

[lenna]

The “naming and shaming” narrowly applies to channels controlled by frontier.

Not quite - that is the only place they can control the restriction but the act itself is still prohibited by the EULA/CoC and could come back to bite you in the backside if in-game/in-channel consequences ensue from that.

Neither "Griefing" nor "Cheating" nor "Naming and Shaming" are acceptable in the context of the EULA and FD's games as a whole (the same restrictions seemingly apply across the board).

"Naming and Shaming" is comparable to "Preachers of Hate" - ultimately they are responsible if someone acts as a result of their claims.

(sorry for the secondary response - should really have probably dealt with it as an edit to the first response)

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

that is the only place they can control the restriction but the act itself is still prohibited by the EULA/CoC

This is false/ doesnt make sense. Fdev cannot control or punish me for things I do on twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. Their License agreement pertains to their product/ forums. They cannot enforce their EULA on products or services they dont own or manage.

ultimately they are responsible if someone acts as a result of their claims.

This is the most salient point. the anti naming/shaming thing is a rule to have so they are covered if someone gets bullied and offs themselves or something. Essentially to protect themselves from a potential lawsuit.

I do find it odd that the greifers/ gankers get to exist in a nice consequence-free grey area. Actively frustrating other players ( to the point of ruining the game for some) while nothing can be done to them.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Given the above it is quite clear the intent is to let FD support deal with matters that could count as an EULA/CoC/ToS breach, and while they can not stop you from doing so on media channels outside of their control they are clearly opposed to it and if they discover it happening they are well within their rights to impose sanctions (in-game and/or on their media channels) against anyone engaging in "Naming and Shaming" (especially if it results in a witch hunt in-game or on their media channels).

Note: "Naming and Shaming" prohibitions include both "ridicule" and "accusations".

FTR...

So hypothetically nothing there precludes a video so long as there is no commentary about what was going on in the video.
So if a CMDR made a video of them docking whilst in open and there happened to be an invincible ship opening fire on other CMDRs then that would not be naming and shaming would it?.

What is being suggested here is cheaters get "protected" more than any other players. It seems to me IF by playing in open we are by default accepting having to put up with other players, as well as possibly be part of other streamers content, then cheaters surely get the same treatment.

Personally I don't want to be content for a purple haired heros video on YouTube whilst he blows me up to some crappy music but I am told to suck it up if I am in open.

What is good for the Goose etc......

 

[lenna]

Well in my view many people, even the devs bandy around terms like witchhunt as if it somehow extolls someones right to anonymity regardless of thier actions.

Witches dont exist. Witchhunts are just an ignorant mob seeking vengeance or retribution for perceived actions without any real or credible facts or evidence to justify these actions.

Everyone has a right to being dealt with fairly, and true fairness requires anonymity, that is why jurors, judges, and law enforcement officers in the real world should recant themselves from being involved with an incident if they have some personal relationship to the involved parties OR have had their views coloured by a third party OR have some vested interest in the outcome being one way or the other. True justice is blind.

The term witchhunt is a colloquial expression that has it's foundations in time of the Inquisition but is used generally to refer to anyone that participates in a vendetta against any perceived wrong doing (normally involving others but may not necessarily do so). "Naming and Shaming" can in essence be considered a witchhunt in itself if not at the very least an attempt to trigger one.

True impartiality is difficult to achieve, but in the context of ED - the only acceptable evidence are (or should be) any metrics FD may have gathered in relation to the alleged breach of the EULA/CoC. However, in the case of true naming and shaming - tracking down (and proving the guilt of) those that flaunt the prohibition becomes harder. Time that could have been spent on the Cheaters/Griefers could get wasted on those that engage in "Naming and Shaming".

If you engage in "Naming and Shaming" and then complain about FD's lack of action against Cheaters/Griefers then you should keep the above in mind.

 

[lenna]

This is false/ doesnt make sense. Fdev cannot control or punish me for things I do on twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. Their License agreement pertains to their product/ forums. They cannot enforce their EULA on products or services they dont own or manage.

You agree to the EULA, and publishing videos from their game is essentially making use of their product. If you use such material in contravention of the provisions of the EULA then they have every right to sanction your activities in relation to the continued use of their product due to the provisions of the EULA.

The same goes for ALL EULA/CoC breaches - you may not agree with it on principle, but we all agree to the terms by using their product and FD do try to keep us all aware of any changes to those terms. The CoC is nothing new and supposed ignorance of it's contents is not likely to be considered an excuse.

The clause/paragraph regarding "Naming and Shaming" is clear and unambiguous - it covers TWO prohibited items.

1. The actual act of publicly "Naming and Shaming".
   

   The act of publicly naming an individual or group of players for the purpose of ridiculing or making accusations is prohibited.

   
   
2. The use of their communications devices to do so.
   

   We do not allow such discussions, or any other method of communication deemed to be naming and shaming on Frontier channels.

They also clearly state the correct way to handle potential incidents where you may be incited to engage in "Naming and Shaming".

If you wish to report the conduct of another player, please do so privately using the in-game methods we provide. Alternatively, contact our customer service or forum moderation team for assistance.

There is nothing ambiguous about this, nor their position on the other prohibitions. It is clear and simple language that should not be hard for anyone to understand the intent of.

 

[galahad2069]

So hypothetically nothing there precludes a video so long as there is no commentary about what was going on in the video.
So if a CMDR made a video of them docking whilst in open and there happened to be an invincible ship opening fire on other CMDRs then that would not be naming and shaming would it?.

What is being suggested here is cheaters get "protected" more than any other players. It seems to me IF by playing in open we are by default accepting having to put up with other players, as well as possibly be part of other streamers content, then cheaters surely get the same treatment.

Personally I don't want to be content for a purple haired heros video on YouTube whilst he blows me up to some crappy music but I am told to suck it up if I am in open.

What is good for the Goose etc......

The whole concept of "naming and shaming" is pretty weird in the context of this thread. What is "naming" without an actual name? "CMDR Haxor1234" is not a name, therefore it's pretty hard to "shame" the totally unknown person behind it.

 

[lenna]

The whole concept of "naming and shaming" is pretty weird in the context of this thread. What is "naming" without an actual name? "CMDR Haxor1234" is not a name, therefore it's pretty hard to "shame" the totally unknown person behind it.

It relates to their on-line persona with which they use to engage with the game. Regardless of how it relates to their real-world identity (or other on-line identities) it is still "Naming and Shaming" since that on-line persona is owned by them personally. Officially speaking (also prohibited by the CoC) - no-one else is allowed to use that persona in the context of ED. Probably referring to Account Hijacking/Use and/or attempting to impersonate that persona through another account when you are not actually that individual.

I have no doubt that some parents may allow their younger kids (or other friendly third party) to fly their ship/SLF or drive their SRV for a bit BUT ultimately the account owner would be held responsible for any sanctioned third party use of their account.

 

[Max Bothin]

well... are you really discussing about "naming and shaming" and thinking about the poor little cheater, who had a hard childhood? Is this correct?

What about the victims? I was almost a victim of this cheater, left with 8% hull. Almost my Eagle was destructed. What if I play "kill me and I really die"-style...my Commander would be gone, if killed by a cheater. What if I'd only play in open, at risk to be killed by pvpers...and I want it. But I don't see the point in someone flying god-like Condas like yesterday.

Don't care about the cheater. Care about his victims.

Am I correct?

 

[lenna]

What about the victims?

FD cover that in their Code of Conduct which we are ALL bound to abide by via the EULA - they provide the tools to block any further interactions, and the means to report the offending individual to an independent party who should be able to deal with the individual as appropriate.

 

[Ezren]

The whole concept of "naming and shaming" is pretty weird in the context of this thread. What is "naming" without an actual name? "CMDR Haxor1234" is not a name, therefore it's pretty hard to "shame" the totally unknown person behind it.

It names/shames them within the context that Frontier controls - the game. That is their name and identifier within Frontier's product, and the name used when interacting with other players.

Saying that "CMDR Haxor1234 is a combat logger and griefer" can affect their game experience.

 

[Ezren]

well... are you really discussing about "naming and shaming" and thinking about the poor little cheater, who had a hard childhood? Is this correct?

What about the victims? I was almost a victim of this cheater, left with 8% hull. Almost my Eagle was destructed. What if I play "kill me and I really die"-style...my Commander would be gone, if killed by a cheater. What if I'd only play in open, at risk to be killed by pvpers...and I want it. But I don't see the point in someone flying god-like Condas like yesterday.

Don't care about the cheater. Care about his victims.

Am I correct?

This mentality is pretty well the worst kind possible. You've automatically assumed that anyone targeted by "naming and shaming" is a cheater. Somebody making the accusation is the victim. The accused is an offender.

You rather unintentionally made a very strong case against naming and shaming by wholeheartedly embracing a problematic aspect of it.

 

[Bigmaec]

FD cover that in their Code of Conduct which we are ALL bound to abide by via the EULA - they provide the tools to block any further interactions, and the means to report the offending individual to an independent party who should be able to deal with the individual as appropriate.

Except they don't, as the cheater is still around (for at least two days now).

 

[Old Duck]

So can we post videos of cheaters if we block their name? I'm more interesting in the mechanics of the cheating than who the cheater is.

 

[lenna]

Except they don't, as the cheater is still around (for at least two days now).

You have the option of blocking them, and no doubt any sanctions against them may take time for FD to gather the appropriate metrics. If the metrics do not support the accusation, they can always use more active means of monitoring their future interactions and perhaps catch them red handed - assuming they can detect the cheat via the means at their disposal.

Whether FD do or don't deal with them is irrelevant - Still no excuse for engaging in or promoting other EULA/CoC breaches.