No my intent was to point out the sheer ridiculousness of the hyperbole coming from those people calling people terrorists and criminals for playing a game.
Open letter to Frontier
- Thread starter Cowboy Bats
- Start date
- Status
No my intent was to point out the sheer ridiculousness of the hyperbole coming from those people calling people terrorists and criminals for playing a game.
Still no argument.
Well, i never called them "Terrorists for playing a game" I have made it abundantly clear on several threads that they are "Playing as terrorists in side the game" and we need to deal with that with in game law changes. If i have not made that clear somewhere, link me or pm me and i will edit the post.
"Harassers", yep thats me i said it, guilty as charged.
Last edited:
My apologies for taking liberty with your statement.
If that is what you meant, I would agree with you that the action of SOME is excessive. The transparency of the folly I will not get into,,,,,,,
But I do think the response to SDC by members of Mobius that are staying within the game is great,,,,,,,,
Additionally: If the use of the term(s) terrorists and criminals are broadcast in a RP way, so what? It's all part of the game....
Last edited:
I dunno, a post meager and general like this won't necessarily be effective at making a point.
I can only stand on my explanation. I can't be responsible for understanding by the reader.
I would be fine with that too Riktar, however this has not been the case. It's not been stated as RP.
That isn't role play, no matter how you cut it.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
this is true however, you aren't the only person I've been dealing with here
Something something the novel sucks and we'll just wait for the movie.
Fair enough MahdDogg. This is where I am in agreement with SOME of your point(s).
See what I did there?
Last edited:
Fair enough MahdDogg. This is where I am in agreement with SOME of your point(s).
See what I did there?
I really don't believe it was necessary to add the word "some" as it was very explicit in context to whom I was referring. But I shall endeavour to clarify in later posts in future for those who won't look back.
I make it a rule to NEVER read the novel and then see the movie. To date I have never seen a movie that equals the story of the book. Some have come close, but,,,,
Yeah. See the movie, read the book for further clarity.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Oh it wasn't. Hence the
on the end. Just trying to lighten it up. Admittedly my humor is quirky sometimes.
Fly well Cmdr,,,,,
Last edited:
You'd be surprised, I actually agree with your argument, and have stated it elsewhere if not in this very thread (can't recall now) a few days ago.
Edit: It is the way you make it which I personally find offensive and condescending. That is just my opinion.
Last edited:
And you know this how? you know every player in every group?
So that we're clear: criminal harassment requires a course of conduct which causes the victim to feel harassment, alarm or distress.
A 'course of conduct' requires there to be more than one incident of harassment, which are clearly distinct in time so as to be seen as two separate incidents (although if the incidents are too far removed from each other the court may not recognise them as a course of conduct in any case).
The Protection From Harassment Act 1997 is distinct from the Public Order Act offences, in that the suspect does not have to be shown to be acting through spite or malice, and does not have to be threatening, abusive or insulting. This is because the PFHA was intended to deal with problems of 'stalking', which may for example include ex-partners seeking to 'win back' the victim by sending unwanted gifts.
The Points to Prove for a harassment offence are that:
The suspect has pursued a course of conduct
The conduct amounts to harassment of another (not specifically defined but considered to cause harassment, alarm or distress)
The suspect knows or ought to know that the behaviour amounts to harassment
If these points are satisfied then a prosecution can be mounted.
In this particular case, the most compelling argument against the application of the PFHA would be the ancient legal principle of "For the love of God, please get some perspective".
Believe me, I've no truck with 'Smiling Dog Crew', or whatever they call themselves to rationalise their lulz; nor any time in general for people whose idea of fun is to prevent someone else having any. As a matter of fact, to address the point DHMeyer made, I personally would have no problem accepting that such people are akin to real-world terrorists: as DHMeyer said, their thought processes and their motivations are very much comparable and, in other circumstances, the same drives might well lead such people to pick up guns or set off bombs.
Now is that a useful comparison to make here on this forum? No, it absolutely isn't. For a start, the circumstances are as they are here - not how they might've been in some alternate reality. It's commonly said that high-performing business types have many characteristics of psychopaths, and that's fascinating - but that's to make the same mistake. We have no legal system that judges someone based on how their mind works or what personality they have. Our system judges people on what they do. So until one of SDC does actually start shooting at real people in the real world, the comparison, whilst no doubt valid and interesting in its way, is absolutely no use to us here. Blowing up players in a game is worlds away from blowing up real people, and attempting to link the two acts for the sake of a forum argument is to venture beyond reason.
I do not say this because I support griefing, nor ganking, nor even 'Legitimate PVP Gameplay'. I have no time for PVP; no interest in people 'roleplaying pirates' or 'roleplaying psychos'; and I've no interest whatsoever in your community goals, your factions, your background simulation, your system influence or your PowerPlay. I honestly couldn't care less about any of that. I always have been and always will be a firmly Solo player: I have no interest in being your game, and I do not want you to be mine. It is of no concern to me whether you want to call me a carebear, or talk about my tears, or whatever other ideas excite you. Your game it yours; mine is mine, and if I have any say in the matter the two will never meet.
Seriously, let's get a grip here. There are rules within the game, and legitimate debates to be had about what those rules should be or how they're policed. But in no realistic way does disrupting a private group in a game of Internet spaceships constitute a criminal act under UK - or any other - national law. Besides anything else, the police and judicial system are already hopelessly overstretched, and it's hard to see how prosecuting gamers because they've annoyed other gamers could possibly be in the public interest. Unless there is real, tangible, demonstrated harm to a real person in their real life then we have no call to be entertaining this notion - and for all the "it might cause someone to..." arguments I've seen, there's not been a single hint (fortunately) that it actually has. Cyberbullying has been mentioned, and at this point it's necessary for me to point out that I'm not saying crimes online don't matter. Of course they do - in fact I've always argued we should drop the 'cyber-' prefix, because crime is crime; that we shouldn't speak of 'trolls' when we're talking about genuine abusers. Online crimes do matter - it's just that this isn't one of them, however much I'd like it to be, so that griefers and gankers could be removed from the otherwise enjoyable games that they spoil. It just isn't.
I get that we're all trying to out-threaten each other and make our point of view sound as grave and foreboding as we possibly can so everyone knows just how very seriously we all take all this - but this isn't serious. Really, it's not. It's a game about spaceships. Play it; don't play it. Have fun; refuse to have fun. Whatever. But let's let the law deal concentrate on dealing with things that matter.
To be honest Yaffle, I wouldn't mind if you went ahead and closed this thread. The real world threats the other night opened my eyes. While I still see huge problems arising from this divide amongst the players, I'm now aware that Frontier is aware of it, and will take action when they're ready. So, I'd really rather not throw more gasoline on the fire here in the forum.
As an SDC member who did not invade mobius cause i dont agree with it.
Does that mean under UK laws i can sue everyone that has told me or SDC as a whole bad words? defamation of character / bullying / harassment?
i guess it works both ways
Does that mean under UK laws i can sue everyone that has told me or SDC as a whole bad words? defamation of character / bullying / harassment?
i guess it works both ways
Man, its threads like this that make we question "When is the next hit gonna be?" because honestly, the outcry is something special.
- Status