News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Infiltrating a private group to grief and cause harassment should be handled in a manner as advertised.

Attacking players who happen to be twitch streaming in open should not even be considered in such a manner.

i agree.... if in open then any and all actions (baring cheating) should be handled by in game consequences imo (of which there are pretty much none right now). streamers should not be special snowflakes getting different protection from the great unwashed.

however if said streamers were in a private group with set rules which were broken, then i agree... drop the hammer already.

 

[Marcus Franconium]

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.

My group and i support this there are a lot of groups ganging up on players new and older and or groups just starting out and shown on you tube to brag ans shame those commanders .
It hurts the game and experience of players ,commanders who just starting playing .

So every one please support this initiative and report what you have en    ered .

 

[Goose4291]

How is someone putting up YouTube videos of their PvP endeavours (in open) any different to someone streaming video feed of them playing?

 

[Krieger]

How is someone putting up YouTube videos of their PvP endeavours (in open) any different to someone streaming video feed of them playing?

As Zac said:
.
"...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..."
.
and:
.
"...Ultimately it’s about context..."
.
So a player has to judge for him/herself whether his/her behaviour could be experienced as harassment by other players and Frontier. Same as in everyday life really.

 

[Goose4291]

getting that, but context and doing this on a case by case basis is not the way to do things like this. It'll lead to arguments and further toxicity.

For example one of the victims herself took part in a spot of ganking outside Kamadhenu a few months back attacking powerplay players trying to go about their business with a wingmate using the overarmored orca slow ram exploit to get unpunishable kills. Would such a action be considered griefing under these guidelines? Possibly (but closer to definitely). Will such actions be punished in a matter as advertised? Probably not.

This leads to aggrieved parties not feeling they got the 'justice' they deserve, and further turning this games community toxic.

 

[Shanaeri]

I don't think my local Tesco's has enough popcorn for this thread. I brought the last of it two days ago..

The amount of tears people have mined from this thread is fantastic and way more whinging, moaning and QQ than I think was possible. What makes it especially fun is the majority of those tears and salt has come from those who enjoy mining it from others. Alas I have run out of pop corn so...

It really is quite simple. Frontier have stated what the official developer view is and tbh in a simple and concise way. If you don't like them, either follow them and continue to play or if you are unwilling to, then leave. It's not a democracy, we the community have an opinion and that's all. The only vote we get is with our decision to play or not.

It really is as easy as that.

 

[AJW]

What it ultimately comes down to is this: certain people have argued in the past that any behaviour not specifically excluded by the EULA is permissible in multiplayer. FD have pointed out to the contrary that harassment is forbidden by the EULA (not that you need an EULA to take action against online harassment), and have made clear that certain specific actions taken by a specific group of players will not be tolerated in future. And anyone who has difficulty understanding where FD is drawing the line in general needs to ask the question "will my behaviour be seen as harassment?". Not "do I consider this harassment?", but "are FD likely to see it as harassment?". If the answer is "yes", don't do it. If the answer is "I don't know", you should seriously consider not doing it anyway, since there are plenty of things you can legitimately do in multiplayer without the issue arising. If you find that the EULA restricts your playing options more than you find acceptable, you should probably consider finding another game.

 

[Krieger]

<snip>...
This leads to aggrieved parties not feeling they got the 'justice' they deserve, and further turning this games community toxic.

Only if people refuse to accept the authority of the party that issues the final verdict (the Frontier Support team in this case).

 

[Goose4291]

Only if people refuse to accept the authority of the party that issues the final verdict (the Frontier Support team in this case).

And judging by the way that a lot of the vocal elements of the community react when something fails to go slightly their way (or if not effected personally, the way they think it should have gone), how do you think they'll react to case by case assessments in a community where people may perceive frontier as showing preference to its favourite members?

 

[xondk]

And judging by the way that a lot of the vocal elements of the community react when something fails to go slightly their way (or if not effected personally, the way they think it should have gone), how do you think they'll react to case by case assessments in a community where people may perceive frontier as showing preference to its favourite members?

Which is the core of the matter, though that said it seems like a select few rather then "a lot" of vocal elements.
But yeah, some people seem to think that this is PvE vs PvP, but it is not by a long shot, yet people make it out to be, the vast majority of the Elite community, PvE, and PvP, and everyone else, vs those select few that want to and knowingly cause grief? Because PvP and everything else is 100% unaffected by this clarification, and it has never been 'allowed' it was always disallowed this was just a clarification.

So yeah there's no favouritism or similar, not one bit.

 

[Krieger]

And judging by the way that a lot of the vocal elements of the community react when something fails to go slightly their way (or if not effected personally, the way they think it should have gone), how do you think they'll react to case by case assessments in a community where people may perceive frontier as showing preference to its favourite members?

They'll react the same way forum users react to moderators. It's the same type of process.

 

[Goose4291]

Which is the core of the matter, though that said it seems like a select few rather then "a lot" of vocal elements.
But yeah, some people seem to think that this is PvE vs PvP, but it is not by a long shot, yet people make it out to be, the vast majority of the Elite community, PvE, and PvP, and everyone else, vs those select few that want to and knowingly cause grief? Because PvP and everything else is 100% unaffected by this clarification, and it has never been 'allowed' it was always disallowed this was just a clarification.

So yeah there's no favouritism or similar, not one bit.

PvP will be affected by this though. If I'm plodding along minding my own business and engaging in a bit of Fed killing and I see another player, interdict and kill them, doing so multiple times in one session because they're fighting for the other faction, how am I to know if they're one of the chosen ones doing one of their 'community celebrity' twitch streams? Suppose I video my kills as well like any other PvP player does. By the very nature of those innocuous and totally gameplay mechanic legitimate actions, if the other party decides to report it to Frontier I could face a shadow ban or at the very least investigation.

To be clear as well, when I say community favourites, I'm not referring to the tired old PvP v PvE schtick we've had here since day one (for the record, though I'm pro open mode, I have no issues with PvE players and consider myself to walk a line between the two camps like most players). I'm referring to specific community members who's opinions matter more than the rank and file players in the eyes of Frontier. A prime example of this is the ranking of the player groups with some receiving 'more' from Frontier than even other groups might. It generates a sense of entitlement and preferential treatment that a game community really doesn't need to award to certain individuals, as anyone who's played the dreaded Eve with it's Council of Stellar Management will tell you.

They'll react the same way forum users react to moderators. It's the same type of process.

If by react in the same way forum users react to moderators, you mean not say a word to them, but instead start 90+ page hate threads on the Forums, Reddit and Facebook where we all turn on each other and become increasingly negative, you're absolutely right. I really don't want that to happen, particularly for a game I've dumped £120+ into in the past two years.

 

[AJW]

If you don't want negativity, how about not filling this thread with pointless speculation about hypothetical scenarios where you assume the worst?

 

[Goose4291]

If you don't want negativity, how about not filling this thread with pointless speculation about hypothetical scenarios where you assume the worst?

There is one hypothetical situation in there, and that's to underline the point of how easy it is to come at the very least under investigation under these guidelines. Everything else is currently happening in the community now.

 

[AJW]

There is one hypothetical situation in there, and that's to underline the point of how easy it is to come at the very least under investigation under these guidelines. Everything else is currently happening in the community now.

What exactly are you trying to achieve here though? FD aren't going to get into debates about what will or won't happen in hypothetical scenarios, and nobody else in this thread has any control over what they do.

 

[Stigbob]

getting that, but context and doing this on a case by case basis is not the way to do things like this. It'll lead to arguments and further toxicity.

For example one of the victims herself took part in a spot of ganking outside Kamadhenu a few months back attacking powerplay players trying to go about their business with a wingmate using the overarmored orca slow ram exploit to get unpunishable kills. Would such a action be considered griefing under these guidelines? Possibly (but closer to definitely). Will such actions be punished in a matter as advertised? Probably not.

This leads to aggrieved parties not feeling they got the 'justice' they deserve, and further turning this games community toxic.

I didn't know about that, it has no bearing at all on the Mobius issue but it certainly shows the streaming issue in a different light. Provided the stream was in open not a private group.

To stream ganking then complain when attacked one on one (even though flying in a wing) whilst in a later stream shows a typical gankers attitude (it's only funny when you do it to someone else). It's also massively hypocritical.

The Mobius thing was a shoddy move by SDC, but I can't condemn them for streaming shooting a ganker who had previously streamed ganking.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Thanks Zac.

If the situation arises just be sure to show teeth and not your bark.

 

[Goose4291]

What exactly are you trying to achieve here though? FD aren't going to get into debates about what will or won't happen in hypothetical scenarios, and nobody else in this thread has any control over what they do.

I'm not trying to 'achieve' anything. Just like most of the other people who've posted here I'm expressing my opinion on the statement and also at the same time my misgivings about the way it's being handled. I'm also explaining myself if someone questions my stance on something, just like any grown adult does.

I didn't know about that, it has no bearing at all on the Mobius issue

Exactly right, but not all of this announcement is about the Mobius issue (you'll notice a few posts back I agree with your stance going into a PG to cause mischief wasn't a very nice thing to do). My concerns are how it's likely to spill out into the wider community because much like breaking up a playground fight, sometimes the guy who's pulled in front of the headmaster isn't alway the one who started the fight.

We have enough issues as it is without everyone thinking they'll have the opportunity to shout "Harassment" every time a in-game interaction doesn't go right for them citing the initial vague statement from FDev as justification.

 

[Stigbob]

Exactly right, but not all of this announcement is about the Mobius issue (you'll notice a few posts back I agree with your stance going into a PG to cause mischief wasn't a very nice thing to do). My concerns are how it's likely to spill out into the wider community because much like breaking up a playground fight, sometimes the guy who's pulled in front of the headmaster isn't alway the one who started the fight.

We have enough issues as it is without everyone thinking they'll have the opportunity to shout "Harassment" every time a in-game interaction doesn't go right for them citing the initial vague statement from FDev as justification.

I didn't pay much attention to the streamer thing but now I've read more about it there are a few issues :

The stealth slow ramming orca is an exploit to get around FD's speed limit which was introduced to stop ramming griefing. It's a shoddy trick favoured by griefers.

Streaming ganking sets you up as a target for PvP, complaining when you lose is a shoddy trick.

Harassment must be a one way thing, here it clearly isn't and doesn't apply. The victim act by aggressors when losing is a shoddy trick.

Zac is right context is important, it's a shame it took 33 pages of this thread to get some.

 

[SkipRat]

Certain players combat log by pulling the plug when they are pulled into an RP situation. Sound familiar? They should be banned long before people are banned for their play style.

And that goes for pirates too... They inderdict someone, they realise they just angered a beast they can't handle, then they combat log.

All types of players do it. I just tlove the one sided arguements of everything...