All true, but...
How about repeatedly going into a private group for the expressly stated intent of breaking the rules? Especially changing IDs to get back in?
FD seems to have pretty clearly delineated where the line is for that. About time.
News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules
- Thread starter Zac Antonaci
- Start date
All true, but...
How about repeatedly going into a private group for the expressly stated intent of breaking the rules? Especially changing IDs to get back in?
FD seems to have pretty clearly delineated where the line is for that. About time.
Yeah, clearly not reading the oxford definition...and intend can be seen by actions, actions speak very loudly and if there's no in game reasoning or in game gain, then actions seem to indicate that the gain is gotten elsewhere but not in the game...
As for harassment definition being brushed off, according to who do they not apply? last I checked that is not something you decide, in fact Frontier has decided that, via their EULA/TOS.
As for judging you, I don't know you, not one bit, so I'm not judging "you", I'm judging the actions I have seen and heard and read on this forum, that, and that alone, if you don't like how I react to your actions, then maybe you should try doing something else?
As for 'action against you' in legal context I'm not even sure anyone has talked about that, the only place legal action has been talked about is from a player towards frontier, if frontier bans them or similar, of which several posts that you have not read? indicate that, a ban from the game is not likely, shadowban which has been seen done before, is far more so, and would avoid any legal issue, unless someone decides wanting to sue frontier for something along the lines of "They aren't allowing me to play together with others in their game because I broke the rules that they have in their game." ?
So yeah....you seem to take this very very personal, don't you think it is possible that those on the other side of the spectrum, the victims, take getting harassed and insulted with such terms as care bears and such do equally so? But you feel fine with possibly subjecting them to that, but don't want to be the subject of others rulings and actions, in this case frontiers?
As for me, I have no real issue with griefers, they are very very easy for me to spot, I find them a sad bunch of people, that at worst are annoying, at best hilariously funny to watch them feel like they need big ships to take down small ships because apparently somehow taking down someone without any defences or skill and blowing them up is a mark of pride/joy/kill for them, something I will never be able to understand.
And if someone feels hurt by that statement, it isn't meant to insult, it is how I view griefers, if you feel you qualify for such yourself, then there's little I can do about that, but I don't know who specifically are griefers, because I don't know what goes on in anyone's head, I can only judge from what I see people do.
Last edited:
Everybody seems to be throwing proverbs around today so I'll give you another one; two wrongs don't make a right. Combat loggers could be thrown down a well for all I care.
I would say that from what I know about it, the reference to the charity streamers incident isn't general at all but specific to one of them. If I recall there was one in particular where the player had obviously been pre-targetted precisely because a lulzworthy reaction was anticipated and the player's response was even referred to in a post on the forums as 'exactly what was expected'
So here's the thing. Merely 'killing a charity streamer' wasn't the issue there at all - you can tell that from Zac's post if you actually read it, or rather if you stop being deliberately disingenuous for a second as people caught with their hand in the cookie jar often do. Zac even says specifically that simply killing a player in open isn't any kind of deal and that players who play in open need to expect that it may happen.
The issue was that the chirpy kid who did it loves to run his mouth and couldn't stop himself coming onto the forums to crow about it, in the process making it clear that he deliberately set out to antagonise a specific player in order to prompt a reaction from them.
Nothing you have posted on the forum suggests to me that you aren't intelligent enough to be fully cognisant of that fact. Your comments are therefore nothing more than the same tired obfuscation that always presents itself in situations such as this.
I would however like to thank you for the emergent meta gaming experience that you're providing. Of course, since I'm technically having fun at your expense here I can appreciate that you may consider it griefing; if so please file a report with support.
Oh one last thing, sorry if you've already mentioned it but I skipped a few posts. Read Zac's description again. Now consider the situation of players using a high speed Cobra to repeatedly interdict a player and then run away, with the sole intention of trolling the interdictee out of a system. Who does that usually happen to, 'carebears'? Damn no, it's pvp'ers isn't it? Now, would you say that fits Zac's description?
Last edited:
The point that everyone seems to be missing is that PvP by itself is not harassment, whether you consented to PvP or not. It's when the intent of the PvP goes beyond just playing the game and turns into "I am ruining your charity event for the lulz" or "I am invading mobius on an alt account for the lulz" or "Watch me impersonate these other people and ruin their reputation" or "There is an official FD livestream happening, let's go disrupt it with a couple wings so they can't do anything" that it becomes an issue.
You think that despite Zac saying this in his post?
His comment may be specifically framed within the context of livestreaming but it's as clear as day that pvp in open will not in itself be bannable and I'm sure that if a player contacts support to say 'a nasty man shot me' that is exactly what he will be told, that playing in open includes the opportunity to interact with other human players and that such interactions may not always involve unicorns and rainbows.
The example in your comment is just pvp. You know it, I know it and anybody else with half a brain knows it. There is absolutely nothing in any of Zac's post which would make a reasonable person think otherwise. Open is an environment in which PVP can happen.
This is not ultimately about 'pvp' it is about players setting out to deliberately screw with other players. It is, as others have noted, entirely about intent and despite some of our forum friends seemingly being unaware of this, our real-world legal systems fully recognise the concept of intent so I'm damn sure a computer game's rules can also take account of them.
Tell you what. Bookmark this post and come back to me in a year; if you've been banned for in-game piracy, or even for simply killing a player without asking them for anything other than their final wishes, I will donate a tenner to a charity of your choice.
I have to say that I strongly question the motivation of people who are inclined to read this statement in such a creative way. All it actually does is indicate where some boundaries may be drawn and if you play the game in the way your comment suggests, you are nowhere near that boundary. If it was me, I would wait until I actually had something to moan about, which in this case would be the time that you are actually threatened with a ban by FD, rather than getting outraged about entirely hypothetical situations which are very unlikely to happen.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Many are deliberately missing it in the mistaken impression that enough faux outrage will create a myth around it. This will be roughly the 8,000th time I have seen it happen in online gaming.
Last edited:
From the oxford definition: (In an online game or community) a person who harasses or deliberately provokes other players or members in order to spoil their enjoyment:
Notice the last part... that's intent. And I have no problem with *you* judging me =D as i said it's of no consequence to me. The legal portion is the major issue. The contract between FDev and a player in the player's acceptance of the EULA and their acceptance of the player's money. This is the only context where any of this matters. Call me griefer all day, the fact of the matter is, in a legal context, the term is not defined in a way that would allow someone to take legal action such as contract termination (Which is what a ban is as defined in the EULA) against a user.
As I said, anyone can come to any conclusions they like about the character of another player's actions all they want. but in the context stated in the OP... that's where there are issues.
Harassment? You gave us: 'the act or an instance of harassing, or disturbing, pestering, or troubling repeatedly; persecution' and 'Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation'.
Try to apply that in game without nullifying many aspects of this game... You can't. Why is this important? Because everyone playing the game, signed up to play the game.
Lets say FDev tried to though: the act or an instance of harassing, or disturbing, pestering, or troubling repeatedly - How many times is too many? How do you define harrassing/distrubing/pestering/troubling in the context of a game where players attacking players is allowed? How do those players communicate that enough is enough? How do you legitimize their desire for the PvP to stop without removing the freedom choice from the attacking player?
Yes you've stated, do this do that etc, but those actions are not mandated to me in the EULA (nor should they be), so why do I have to do them?
Oh and the taking this very personal comment? classy. I'm merely trying to have a discussion. My point being, in terms of the EULA, a legally binding contract between the player and FDev, this language is legally devoid of meaning and inactionable. And every time you reply, you bring some very simplistic representation of a very legally complicated issue. And every time it relys on interpretation of intent, which will get FDev nowhere.
I attacked a player, is it allowed, or is it not?
I requested to join a group, that group accepted me, is it allowed, or is it not?
Many people dislike 'griefers' and I have no trouble being labeled a griefer... that is until FDev latches on to 'griefer', and 'griefing' and relays that they intend to take action against it. Even then though, I really have no issue. Their stance has no legal basis, and they would have to fold if challenged.
A simple solution would be to just send out wings of bounty hunter npc's, who want to interdict and kill people with "substantial bounties".. just make the game kill them for being silly...
Fly safe out there
Which could explain why FD have a shadow server where they dump all the anti-social types who won't play nice.
They can still play the game even having been banned, so contract termination is an absolute non-starter FD just dump the miscreants into the naughty server. Which has no impact on the BGS and the only other CMDR's they see are as bad as them. They can't even complain they've been removed from the MMO part of the game as they've simply been allocated a server with like-minded players.
None whatsoever of merit. It's just FUD.
The person who used the word "disingenuous" was spot-on: this is manufactured outrage. There is no good-faith way to interpret FDev's post to be an attack on PvP or Open as a whole, even non-consensual PvP. Nobody's going to get banned for trying to "blockade" a system or even for being a murder hobo. It's made crystal clear that the line is being drawn between attacking in-game characters or ships and attacking another person with the intent of ruining their fun. It's a pretty bright line: are you attacking a blip on your radar, or is your target someone or something in the real world? It doesn't take much self-awareness to figure out whether or not you're setting out with the intent of disrupting a real-life event, ruining another person's fun, or taking pleasure in the fact that you managed to get them upset. The only people who seem to be having trouble finding that line are the people whose self-interest is served by having its definition remain vague.
And notwithstanding some of the disingenuous arguments presented to the contrary, there are centuries of case law and practice on how to fairly prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt from factual evidence presented. An online service doesn't even need that high bar met in order to justify banning a player from online play while leaving them the option of playing solo.
Yet another instance of name-calling towards the PvP community. Play nice is nowhere in the EULA. Miscreant and naughty imply we've broken some rules. We haven't. Explicitly stating that we're bad? And a shadowban is still punitive action taken within the bounds of the EULA and as such must meet the terms of the EULA.
See that is where our definitions and experiences differ, I and others here in this thread cannot understand how you come to the conclusions that you do, in a legal context, through my experiences you would have no leg to stand on, you can argue intent all you want, that we don't "know" what went through your head, by your definitions no one could really ever get legally hit for harassing people, but they do repeatedly, because of the actions they chose to do, and that is what is what they are judged on, their actions, the consequences of the actions and their behaviour. And all of that is judged from actions and how they act, what they say, do. And in these cases griefers, have repeatedly proven in many games that they did action a b c d with the intent to enjoy another persons suffering.
So when another person does the same actions, that is what people base the judgement on, past experience, if you don't want to be judge according to that, don't do exactly the same actions as many so many have done int he past, and will continue to do so, and it is continually revealed over many many cases that people do those actions because they enjoy hurting others, the judgements are reinforced even more by that, so even if you do A B C D for an other reason then griefing, then your actions and the consequences of those are going to get judged according to previous experience, unless you for example clearly regret or similar the consequences those actions caused...but this does not seem to be the case when you argue like you do that FDev has no 'legal' thing to do?
Here's the thing, by any and all legal work I know, you are the one that have no leg to stand on, none, and the weapon you are basically trying to wield is "I will sue!" which many are fond off, this is what I read from your words.
But guess, what, no one forced you to buy Elite: Dangerous, you chose to do so, No one forced you to agree with the EULA/TOS, you chose to do so upon playing an online multiplayer game. And no one forced you to do that one action that very very clearly has been stated even clarified, out of the many possible actions you could do. These are all your choices, and choices have consequences, the consequences of breaking EULA/TOS is a punishment by Frontier, and I seriously doubt you would be able to sue frontier because "you did nothing wrong" or arguing intent as you do now.
Because if that were the case it would have already happened, there are a ton of games, even many I've played that have banned griefers, who have then used almost exactly the same phrases as you are doing, trying to divert the attention from the main issue and blame FDev, or try to pick apart the words to find a small tiny thing that to argue and stand on, and I've yet to see any court cases from it... So yeah, griefers is nothing new, these arguments being used as defence is nothing new, it was in the past a deliberate attempt to talk around the issue because people knew they had done wrong but wanted to keep doing so. So yeah, I doubt I need to keep repeating myself, and I want to remain civil.
It is Frontier's game, their rules are very clearly stated, they can do whatever they chose to you if you break said rules in their eyes, and as much as people threaten with suing, that is not going to happen.
In short, don't grief, play the game, enjoy the game, do one of the many many possible things you can do in the game rather then wanting to do the few things you aren't allowed to do, if you can only find fun in those few things, then maybe it is you that need to change and broaden your horizon, and not others that need to change to adapt to you, just saying.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Not really, I see 2 interpretations...
Those that agree with Zac and that's it because it is a clarification of something we already knew.
Those that want to do said thing and is trying to twist words in such a way so they can talk around the issue.
The later has been seen so so so many times, in so so many games, and guess what, eventually they can't grief effectively in one game and move on, and the game itself continues to thrive, the griefers move onwards to another game, and another and another, where those that actually play the game, and want to interact with other people, create something in the world, stay and the community grows stronger and better.
Hopefully Mobius will now stop moaning and except the fact they can't change the rules to fit their agenda.
Last edited:
If you think there's name calling at individuals (even you) in my post or anything directed at the PvP community you should report it, even though you are wrong on both counts.
I was posting about cheats and deliberate persistent griefers who harass for lolz, both of whom the game is better of without. They are also the reason the shadow ban was developed and it's the perfect mechanism to rid the game of these undesirables.
The shadowban isn't punitive it's proof that FD are reasonable even towards cheats.
http://imgur.com/RylO5ep
Hunt other Commanders except Streamers? The "safety of your community" is going to go a lot lower. No wonder FDev is missing promised revenues for the Quarter. Cant even uphold promises on the main website.
Hunt other Commanders except Streamers? The "safety of your community" is going to go a lot lower. No wonder FDev is missing promised revenues for the Quarter. Cant even uphold promises on the main website.
Oh, no you don't.
You don't get to conflate "the PvP community" as a whole with the very specific and bright-line definition of harassment that he laid out. It's a transparent rhetorical ploy to confuse the outlines of the issue and fool anyone who enjoys ordinary everyday PvP into thinking that they're being targeted too.
The reality is that the target of Zac's post and the official stance is a tiny minority of PvPers who set out to screw with real-life people or events with the intent of ruining their fun, for out-of-game reasons. A tiny minority who get their lulz specifically and openly from "mining salt" or "tears"--in other words, from inflicting distress on other real-life human beings and laughing at them when they get upset. When you strip away the cute euphemisms, it's abhorrent, abusive behavior that no society tolerates--or should.
Like I said to someone else: if that shoe does not fit you, then you are under no obligation to insist on wearing it.
People have been screaming revenue doom since about 6 months before the game was released and continually since, it was rubbish then and it's rubbish now.
The actions people take, and the consequences, regardless of their intent prove their purpose.
If someone repeatedly beats a small frail person repeatedly and often, it doesn't matter what their intentions are, their purpose would be to beat that person up for a reason, the reason does not matter, it is how you present yourself to the world that matters, if it looks like your purpose in life is beating up frail people then other people are going to act and treat you accordingly, and it is up to you to change how you are viewed, by...for example, not doing very questionable acts, such as beating up frail people?