Operation Enigma, breaking the code!

[Ian Phillips]

I'll just point out that these forums you're a moderator in have WAY more rules and regulations, vastly more, in fact, than the game designed by the same company which hosts these forums, does.

So by implication, does FDEV care more about behaviour of participants in these forums than it does participants in it's game?

My function as moderator is not relevent to the discussion.

In both cases it is all about creating an environment to experience.

An open forum accessable to the whole world is a different environment to a game world. How the company wishes to try to enure a welcoming environment for it's varied customer base on their forums has zero relationship to an in-game environment.

To answer your question: I have no idea. I'm not privy to how they view forum members vs Elite: Dangerous players. But I do wonder why you bring this up - it is not in any way relevant to the point of FD having supposed 'responsibilities' to prevent players playing in certain ways.

 

[Heater]

Some of these threads are better than comedy central.....
Popcorn and beer

 

[lenna]

The player's perspective on whether or not it is harassment is irrelevant. It falls within the game's guidelines, and thus is considered fair play. The only thing that needs to change is the players perspective, since they misunderstood the game.

Actually, no it is not... Harrassment like it or not is all about the victim's perspective, there are many cases where the perpertrator of harassment genuinely believes they are not harassing but ultimately it is the perpetrator's view that is irrelevant.
---
The point at which harassment becomes a legal matter is debatable but no EULA can protect a potential harasser from the consequences of their actions.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Actually, no it is not... Harrassment like it or not is all about the victim's perspective, there are many cases where the perpertrator of harassment genuinely believes they are not harassing but ultimately it is the perpetrator's view that is irrelevant.

And in those cases there are clearly defined standards of what constitutes harassment, and you agreed to what those standards were when you agreed to the EULA. PvP is not harassment, and this was nothing more than PvP.

 

[Ian Phillips]

I have already stated it is a "grey" area

Yes, but in the absence of any defined boundaries (IE. a definition of these responsibilities) that "grey" area conveniently extends to anything you may choose it to include.

Anyway thank you for your responses. I'll leave it here as there is nothing but vague assertions to go on, and that really isn't going to clarify anything in this vast "grey" area.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Bottom Line: Every last person who played in Open during the Hutton Orbital event chose to engage in and contributed to the activities that occured. You willingly, actively logged into Open Play and flew to a place where you knew other commanders would be gathering.

You can't harass yourself.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Shooting enough police that they no longer appear is assumed to be a bug by you.

Whether bug or not, it was something which was taken advantage of, and admitted by the player-cluster in question. I personally consider that a bug - it's a gaping hole in the lack of System Security mechanics within the game, one of many.

People don't just continually run into a slaughter-box they know everyone else has been dying in unto eternity.

People don't. NPC's can - especially security NPC's.

Exploits are exploits, they are not harassment. If the invulnerability on the landing pad was a problem FD can fix that, simple as that.

Using in-game exploits/coding gaps in order to gain advantage is against the Code Of Conduct.

This was not a witch hunt, this was an organized event. This was not griefing, nor did it have anything to do with a mob mentality, it was clearly constructed, organized, and carried out.

I dunno. In my opinion a cluster of players who decide to unite together under some name or other certainly could be interpreted as being a mob. Especially if that cluster of players have organised themselves and are specifically targeting a subset of player types, each of whom were acting on their own and were not organised under a 'trading player-cluster'.

One big mistake people are making: Community Goal events are not just events to give traders a goal to cooperate on. They are also focal points for the PvP players to attack you. Frontier deliberately creates these situations.

Ah, but this particular community goal was created in order to achieve the goal of creating the Hutton Mug. The 'mob' in question decided to go on a witch-hunt (trader-hunt).

 

[lenna]

Yes, but in the absence of any defined boundaries (IE. a definition of these responsibilities) that "grey" area conveniently extends to anything you may choose it to include.

Anyway thank you for your responses. I'll leave it here as there is nothing but vague assertions to go on, and that really isn't going to clarify anything in this vast "grey" area.

While it may be grey in precise definition the consequences to the victim are what make any given activity harassment. That was the point, you can not define the activities to the n-th degree because what one person considers harassment another may not - that is where the grey area is.
---
In short any form of repetitive targeted behaviour can be considered Harassment if the victim feels harassed (notionally that requires a measurable detrimental effect on the target).
---
That is as close to a precise definition as any I can think of.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Elite : Consumer Law
Blaze your own paper trail

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

To answer your question: I have no idea. I'm not privy to how they view forum members vs Elite: Dangerous players. But I do wonder why you bring this up - it is not in any way relevant to the point of FD having supposed 'responsibilities' to prevent players playing in certain ways.

It is exactly clear as to why I brought this up, but I'll try to explain it for the benefit those incapable of getting it.

FDEV make the game, and they also make these forums.

The forums have rules/code of conduct.

The forums differ, as you point out, in that they are publicly accessible. But I think you'll find that most of the forum participants here play the game.

The game also has a code of conduct/rules.

By way of making the forums, FDEV are responsible for creating the rules/code of conduct for them, and making sure they acquire people like yourself to ensure that these rules are adhered to.

Equally, by making and producing a game, FDEV are responsible for creating the rules/code of conduct for the game. They publish this code of conduct, and they say they will punish players who break this code of conduct.

That's where FDEV have responsibilities to prevent players in certain ways. I have pointed out at least twice where the player-cluster in question may have infringed the ED code of conduct.

I'm puzzled as to why you are trying to assert that FDEV have no responsibilities to prevent players playing in certain ways. This is simply and obviously untrue.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Whether bug or not, it was something which was taken advantage of, and admitted by the player-cluster in question. I personally consider that a bug - it's a gaping hole in the lack of System Security mechanics within the game, one of many.



People don't. NPC's can - especially security NPC's.



Using in-game exploits/coding gaps in order to gain advantage is against the Code Of Conduct.




I dunno. In my opinion a cluster of players who decide to unite together under some name or other certainly could be interpreted as being a mob. Especially if that cluster of players have organised themselves and are specifically targeting a subset of player types, each of whom were acting on their own and were not organised under a 'trading player-cluster'.



Ah, but this particular community goal was created in order to achieve the goal of creating the Hutton Mug. The 'mob' in question decided to go on a witch-hunt (trader-hunt).

No. Once again you're assuming a lot. You have to add in code to set a finite limit to spawns. That was a deliberate choice by FD.

This community goal was created around the Hutton mug, the player activity that occurred was the Frontier's goal. There was no mob. There was no witch hunt. Stop dramatizing the situation.

 

[lysan]

The issue here is not that the CODE did what they did, because you can do it in the game perfectly legal. The problem is in general that if you in game commit a crime you can trick the game and surpass the punishment.

Denied docking can be surpassed by wake out and try again. High bounties doesn't really matter as the stations doesn't respond to your bounty. The flaw are in the system, not that the incident occurred. This bring us back to the whole contraband mechanics. The problem is that there hardly is one installed.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

This is a witch hunt.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...cmdr_guns_down_an_explorer_holding_months_of/

https://plus.google.com/+IainMcC/posts/YjQiPjuk58w

So far as I know Cluseau was shamed into quitting the game and hasn't returned, over a simple mistake. People need to get their head straight. Your internet spaceship does not act as an appendage of your real body, your interactions within the game are not directly connected to your real social, professional and/or political lives. It's just an internet spaceship. Get over it.

Edit: There used to be an opinion article on a very popular gaming website condemning Cluseau and calling for all players to kill him on sight. That article was taken down because, guess what? That's what qualifies as harassment. That is a witch hunt. That is mob mentality.

Getting some buddies together to stage an event is none of the above.

 

[Jesters09]

Cough cough, this thread is getting off topic, cough.

I believe it is supposed to be about opposing code, not debating if they breached any FD policy or what not.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Cough cough, this thread is getting off topic, cough.

I believe it is supposed to be about opposing code, not debating if they breached any FD policy or what not.

Yeah, and people's idea of oppose them quickly turned into "Make FD do it for us!"

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

This is a witch hunt.

… People need to get their head straight. Your internet spaceship does not act as an appendage of your real body, your interactions within the game are not directly connected to your real social, professional and/or political lives. It's just an internet spaceship. Get over it.

Edit: There used to be an opinion article on a very popular gaming website condemning Cluseau and calling for all players to kill him on sight. That article was taken down because, guess what? That's what qualifies as harassment. That is a witch hunt. That is mob mentality.

…

Interactions within the game are "not directly connected to your real … lives", but calling all players to "kill" somebody in a game is harassment. Hm. No more "get over it"?

Interactions between humans - not matter if they face each other, talk with each other on the phone, write letters, chat in an internet-chat room, interact in a game always affects the humans involved. The way people react to certain actions depends on the situation and the individual. It's not just a virtual space ship, it's not just a game. People accept different things in human interactions.

 

[Jesters09]

Yeah, and people's idea of oppose them quickly turned into "Make FD do it for us!"

I like the idea of "others" opposing the code, whilst I get on with doing my own thing in another part of the galaxy far far away.

Maybe the Code and the small dogs can get together to make lil cuddly pups, people love pups

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Interactions within the game are "not directly connected to your real … lives", but calling all players to "kill" somebody in a game is harassment. Hm. No more "get over it"?

Interactions between humans - not matter if they face each other, talk with each other on the phone, write letters, chat in an internet-chat room, interact in a game always affects the humans involved. The way people react to certain actions depends on the situation and the individual. It's not just a virtual space ship, it's not just a game. People accept different things in human interactions.

There is a difference between a community event staged by the game developer which fully supports the behavior that was witnessed outside of the exploits and blacklisting a single person until they're forced to quit the game. Perhaps this same lack of depth in your perspective of the spectrum and the gap between these activities is what's leading to all of the confusion.

 

[mxcross2002]

I like the idea of "others" opposing the code, whilst I get on with doing my own thing in another part of the galaxy far far away.

Maybe the Code and the small dogs can get together to make lil cuddly pups, people love pups

big LOL o7

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Still have not seen any defintion from you.

You REALLY wouldn't believe the number of times that vague 'legal' reasons have been attempted to be used to justify a stance that someone has adopted.

Dragging "Legal" into a discussion on gaming mechanics just adds to the comedy, and using the "Legal" word isn't a magic wand.

You still have not addresed my question.

Where is the defintion of 'Responsibilites' that you are hanging FD out to dry on?

When creating a game with the type of open play that FD want us to have it is very strange to have a 32 player limit on an instance - This alone can create an instance where any trader arriving can be faced by the whole of Code, all 24 of them that took part. Now how are the players supposed to combat this?

Simple, they can't. FD should have realised that the entire 32 player limit and P2P would cause these problems. They are nothing new. Anyone who has an ounce of MP games design knowledge will tell you that to make an MMO with P2P is just wrong and will lead to complaints of imbalance, networking issues, failure to connect and then there is the whole security issue. P2P is not secure, many steps have been taken to improve it but so far it is still like leaving the door to the bank vault open overnight.

This is 2015. 32 Player limits belong in 2005. P2P networking in an MMO - No thanks, it never has worked nor will it ever work well for such games.

PvP - Have you even seen ESO with a couple of hundred players... This is what ED could have been, so yes FD dropped the ball. What they told us was an open galaxy is in fact only big enough for 32 players because that's all you will see at any one time.

And who is responsible for making these games design choices Mr. Phillips?