News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules

[xondk]

If people don't want to be attacked, then all they have to do is to stay in solo mode, I did not buy this game and it's extension at full price to get banned because FDev is bowing in front of care bears that can't assume that they are playing a game with PvP interactions. If I want to kill someone in game, there is no TOS or whatever to stop me from doing it, and if they do so, well, then all they have to do is to refund the people that they screwed.

You are basically saying people can't join open to do other stuff then PvP, they can't use open to meet random people and interact with including everything PvE and PvP that might happen, and simply dislike those people that soly run around blowing people up so they can mark a kill, and enjoy knowing that their victim will lose something?

It's this simple:
They CAN'T MODERATE ON INTENT. Either killing is ok or its not you can't moderate off of your moral standards. The game was advertised as being allowed to hunt other players and players can do just that no matter their intentions.

We don't care about you attacking the minor faction, we care about Frontier being incredibly hypocritical in allowing you guys to harass us but trying to ban us for what they deem is harassment even though it is specifically allowed within the TOS, EULA, and the mechanics of the game.

They are not moderating "intent" they are moderating actions, if your action is harassing other people, your action has no in game reason, or no in game gain, which is pretty easy to figure out, then they can act on your actions...so yeah, they aren't moderating on 'intent'
And going into a group, joining it to specifically disrupt it, is an action, that SDC did..

And sorry, but no one is harassing you, gathering you are part of SDC, but guess what you started it, now you are upset with the consequences to your actions? sorry, but that's not harassment, that's consequences, throwing around care bear and similar as people seem to do because you are upset that people that people reacted to what you did? because you underestimated the beehive? sorry....but that is not harassment.

You punched a beehive, you are getting stung, don't punch beehives?

 

[Red Anders]

I think the main thing to take away from this is that people have called for FD to clarify their stance on recent events, and now they have. So at least we should all feel a lot more sure now about what FD consider unacceptable behaviour.

I called for exactly that in a thread yesterday, quite strongly actually, so it's only right that I acknowledge the fact that it's been done.

I will of course now expect a 24 hour turnround on any other issues I raise. [big grin]

Seriously though, kudos for this. As I said yesterday it's not where the line is drawn that I think is especially important because we will all have a different idea of where it should be and that's not going to change. The important thing is that people are aware of wherever it is drawn.

 

[Alex Traut]

I didn't misunderstand anything, you are just not catching the meaning of what I say. Read the post I sended above.

Look, your take on this announcement is provably, objectively wrong and bears little relationship to the actual meaning of the words that were written. I can't be any more blunt than that without crossing the line into rude, and I'm not trying to be rude here. Every single time you post on this subject you demonstrate that no, you did not understand this policy at all, because the post explicitly goes out of its way to note that it is very specifically targeted at those who deliberately set out to harass or inflict distress on others.

If you're actually trying to argue that deliberately abusive behavior intended to upset other players should be allowed, then we have nothing further to discuss. But I don't think that's what you're trying to say. It sounds like you think this policy is targeted at anyone who ganks anyone else in Open. That is factually false.

As I pointed out on Reddit, you are a non-native English speaker with an emotional investment in this subject. You need to stop and listen to those who are telling you what the words you have misunderstood actually mean.

 

[Red Anders]

Let's be real for a second here, you guys don't even ban hackers or combat loggers with video evidence so I don't see you doing anything against people making alt accounts to "be disruptive". It's easy to say what people want to hear but when you start backing it up then it might be taken seriously.

You and the boys should probably give it a whirl then bud, see how it pans out.

It's this simple:
They CAN'T MODERATE ON INTENT. Either killing is ok or its not you can't moderate off of your moral standards.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but FDEV can actually moderate based on whatever the hell they want when it comes down to it because it's y'know, their game.

 

[bitstorm]

This is shaping up to be a excellent thread.

 

[Elethiomel Zakalwe]

...

Off topic but I just looked at your signature and lol'd.

 

[xondk]

Very limited ? Almost the half of the people I interdict for piracy are combat loggers. Anyway, I don't really care about what they did or plan to do, it 2 videos showing combatlogging are not enough for them to ban someone, then they should at least not try to convince us that they are going to take actions against harassment.

Combat loggers is an issue, yes, but again we don't know if or if not frontier is acting or not, even if you see them after reporting it it doesn't mean they haven't been reacted to? that said, currently there's no way from your perspective to see if they are actually combat logging or just waiting on logout timer, unless they vanish rather suddenly shortly after action, but if they simply are sitting still for 15 seconds and then vanishing since timer allowed it, then I don't think that currently qualifies?
Hacking was my point as to limited, combat logging is not hacking.

 

[Alex Traut]

It's this simple:
They CAN'T MODERATE ON INTENT.

Wrong. The legal system takes intent into account every single day. How? By evaluating actions in their proper context, and examining what that context says about the intent behind the actions. Motive and context are the difference between manslaughter and murder. The act of causing the death of another, in and of itself, is not necessarily a crime. But if someone posts a video of what they did on Facebook, or has a long paper trail of public statements bragging about how much they enjoy the upset reactions they get from people... those things are evidence of intent to commit murder. People get life in prison on less evidence than that.

This is no different. Killing someone in Open? Putting a bounty on someone? Not a violation per se. Keep on having fun in the spirit of the game.

Deliberately entering a private group with the explicit purpose of breaking its known rules? Mocking a newbie you ganked or bragging about how much "salt" you've "mined" with your actions? These are clear evidence of malicious intent and motive, and you have zero right to expect them to be tolerated.

 

[Chance-]

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.

I'm going to make a final statement and leave it at that because I'm going out to lunch. You can not ban people for this as you can not prove intent no matter what they say or do. It is that simple. You have scenario a and b.
Scenario A) Releasing footage to create upset. How do you prove this intent? How do you 100% definitively prove that a player had intent to upset others?
Scenario B) Releasing footage to gain notoriety. How do you define the intent to gain notoriety?

EVERYTHING that was said within this post has absolutely NO legal standing within a court of law and has arbitrary and vague definitions. This isn't just in this post either. It can be seen in the EULA as shown below:
"When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behaviour, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation."
This is left incredibly vague so that they can ban people for whatever reason they feel because they can interpret it any way they feel and would be entirely void in a court of law. They have protected their asses by creating a roundabout way of saying they can define harassment however they like but in the end it has no definitive meaning and is entirely meaningless in a legal context. If Frontier keeps pushing the boundaries they'll find that their moral ambiguity, while beneficial against a single player, will be their own downfall in a legal manifestation.

 

[Roybe]

They won't do anything at all, they don't even ban combat loggers, how can you expect them to seriously take actions against harassment ?

As long as we are all using the same definition that FDev is using for 'combat log', the inelegant ending of the game when under fire, then all I can say is how do we know they do not?

Just because someone exits during battle does not make them a 'combat logger' by FDev's rules. They ARE allowed to use the menu option to quit the game and be shot at for 15 seconds while they exit. THIS is not combat logging. My understanding is that there are metrics within the clients that FDev can use to determine how a client was closed out of the game.

 

[Noob]

...and the need for Open PvE is getting more and more obvious.

+1, Zac

 

[Roybe]

Combat loggers is an issue, yes, but again we don't know if or if not frontier is acting or not, even if you see them after reporting it it doesn't mean they haven't been reacted to? that said, currently there's no way from your perspective to see if they are actually combat logging or just waiting on logout timer, unless they vanish rather suddenly shortly after action, but if they simply are sitting still for 15 seconds and then vanishing since timer allowed it, then I don't think that currently qualifies?
Hacking was my point as to limited, combat logging is not hacking.

It's even harder to understand if they began to boost or run...since the ship will continue to move and then 'Poof!' disappear. And to point out once more...this is legit play as per the devs.

 

[Nerf Buck]

Okay then, in this case, I'm just gonna open tickets each time I get streamsniped because I am a pirate.

Oh wait, Zac said deal with it... Positive harassment, negative harassment, all a question of point of view, and now we know FDev's POV.

You may not see the difference as referenced in Zac's message, but it is there. If you're playing the game in a private or PVE only group and other players take a video of themselves attacking you in said group, publish your profile name and gloat in the process. And if they express their intention to repeat that process then yes, you should report that person. If all of those conditions are met, because that is definitely harassment and it has happened.

If someone simply attacked you in Open and you happened to be streaming your game then it is not. In a nutshell.

 

[Roybe]

...and the need for Open PvE is getting more and more obvious.

+1, Zac

Good point! Same one I made way back up the list! LOL!

 

[bitstorm]

I'm going to make a final statement and leave it at that because I'm going out to lunch. You can not ban people for this as you can not prove intent no matter what they say or do. It is that simple. You have scenario a and b.
Scenario A) Releasing footage to create upset. How do you prove this intent? How do you 100% definitively prove that a player had intent to upset others?
Scenario B) Releasing footage to gain notoriety. How do you define the intent to gain notoriety?

What's wrong with this ?

• Player A "harasses"
• Frontier shadow ban
• Player A threatens civil action
• Frontier check again and stick with their original decision
• Case goes to court
• Judge looks at the evidence and makes a decision

Does that not work?

 

[Roybe]

You may not see the difference as referenced in Zac's message, but it is there. If you're playing the game in a private or PVE only group and other players take a video of themselves attacking you in said group, publish your profile name and gloat in the process. And if they express their intention to repeat that process then yes, you should report that person. If all of those conditions are met, because that is definitely harassment and it has happened.

If someone simply attacked you in Open and you happened to be streaming your game then it is not. In a nutshell.

Not true sir:

'n 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.'

These occurred in Open.


He does state that there should be an expectation of attack...however, even Open has some lines that will not be tolerated if crossed.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

I'm going to make a final statement and leave it at that because I'm going out to lunch.

I am 100% serious and not mocking. I will be transfixed watching you represent the first legal case brought about as a direct result of Zac's statement. I think it will be groundbreaking in terms of case law.

I searched as fully as Lord Chief Justice Google would allow and found 3 cases: 1 trying to sue NCSoft for making Lineage too addictive. 1 trying to sue Fallout 4 for causing the breakup of his marriage and one asking for advice on suing Quake Online for "his brother" being unfairly banned on the accusation of using 3rd party software.

This will be massive for the online gaming industry when you take a test case to court.

 

[AJW]

It is probably worth pointing out that you don't need an EULA to ban people from a multiplayer game for harassment. As with any other internet service, providers are under a legal obligation in most jurisdictions to take appropriate action when notified of significant online harassment. Whether the specific activities discussed in Zacs's statement would qualify under such legislation may be open to debate, but a claim that 'they can't take action against harassment because it isn't covered by the EULA' is simply false.

 

[Roybe]

What's wrong with this ?

• Player A "harasses"
• Frontier shadow ban
• Player A threatens civil action
• Frontier check again and stick with their original decision
• Case goes to court
• Judge looks at the evidence and makes a decision

Does that not work?

How it works in the good 'ol US of A. No firm is afraid of anyone taking them to court. Most firms have deeper pockets and the cases will generally outlast most games lives anyway.

 

[Cosmos]

I don't have a problem with this concept of a non harrassment policy for private groups etc.. but the livestream thing seems like its treading a fine line and I think its going to be a difficult policy to fairly enforce. If people do want to live stream they always have the option for solo and private group, if they are doing so in Open well thats their choice. I could not even be aware of a stream and come across the streamer, none of us should have to check who is and isn't streaming. Its also possible the so called streamer harrassment could be deliberately used against players to attempt to get them into bother. Ultimately, streaming shouldn't provide some sort of immunity to what occurs in game with game play mechanics.

edit:

7.3.1 The Game and/or Online Features may allow communications between users by means including but not limited to text and voice. When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behaviour, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Hate to say this but whilst I suspect this is well intended this section could basically be used against any player, the clause basically says were have to be friendly towards anyone we come across. Considerate? Am I to consider another player if I am shooting at them? Bullying? Again could be understood to restrict how people can play using the game mechanics Indirectly offensive? lol have you guys read the forums these past few years? I'm not likely to ever be verbally abusive to anyone in game but this is of a concern.

I hope some common sense will prevail. This whole saga began because a HANDFUL of people in a popular private group were attacked. Yes on the anti pg harrassment, but lets not start placing arbitary and smothering conditions and restrictions on how people play the game. You know, Ultimate Freedom, Blaze your own trail and all..