News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules

[Boomer Kay]

it's open and for me is like wild wild west.

The Will Smith movie? Largely lame except for Selma Hayek.

Well, you should remember what happened to the bad guy in the end. Hint: he did not get to "live happiely ever after".
That's what would happy to any disruptive organization (google your own examples) when you can not hide behind endless respawn and not risking anything.

And the points have have been clarified (if you haven't read them yet, please do so .. if you haven't understood what's written there, please read again) have nothing at all to do with that "cutthroat universe" that's constantly referenced. In a cutthroat universe, those guys would end up in something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAxm5CVg4uM

 

[Kazacy]

The Will Smith movie? Largely lame except for Selma Hayek.

Well, you should remember what happened to the bad guy in the end. Hint: he did not get to "live happiely ever after".
That's what would happy to any disruptive organization (google your own examples) when you can not hide behind endless respawn and not risking anything.

And the points have have been clarified have nothing at all to do with that "cutthroat universe" that's constantly referenced. In a cutthroat universe, those guys would end up in something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAxm5CVg4uM

I love the risks of open mode, that's the reason i play only open (except when i change the solo to refresh mission board). Apparently a lot of other people doesn't like the risks in open and they came here on forums to complain and ask FD to change the open mode to be a more "friendly" one. Personally i don't want this, because i play this game like a FPS game, more kills = more fun.
Also unlike in an FPS game you have something to lose, only a measly 5% from your ship value, just to make a tiny feel of lost. This is the reason i don't like CQC aka Arena, you can't lose anything and even worse even if you lose the game you get more and increase your level. In my opinion the losers should get at least demoted from their levels not to mention the insurance cost of the ships lost.
EDIT: anyway back to my original questions: how can i know in game who are the players i don't have the permission to kill? And why they have immunity?

 

[LoneKharnivore]

The only players you don't have permission to kill are a) a player you are only finding by watching their stream, b) a player in a Private Group with non-PvP rules or c) the same player exclusively and repeatedly.

That's it. That's all.

 

[Boomer Kay]

But none of the points you mention have anything to do with the initial post?!? I did read it again, just in case I missed something.
It boils down to:
- don't join private groups with the goal of causing grief
- don't target specific players with the goal of causing grief.

And just a personal point - if one has a hard time distinguishing between the "CMDR" and the "Player", one should take time to evaluate the own actions and how they are percieved.
There are completely ungriefing ways of killing or pirating other comanders. There's examples of them on the forums as well.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

EDIT: anyway back to my original questions: how can i know in game who are the players i don't have the permission to kill? And why they have immunity?

They are the ones who kicked you out of their private group, and will not accept your request to rejoin. Leave it be, and don't try to trick them with a reroll CMDR just so you can do it again for the lulz.

Never been That Guy? No, of course you haven't. So it's obviously not applicable to you.


Frontier are simply saying to the playerbase... don't be That Guy.


Frontier are also saying,

Ultimately it’s about context.

Just play the spaceship game.

As you do, Kazacy.

 

[Stigbob]

I love the risks of open mode, that's the reason i play only open (except when i change the solo to refresh mission board). Apparently a lot of other people doesn't like the risks in open and they came here on forums to complain and ask FD to change the open mode to be a more "friendly" one. Personally i don't want this, because i play this game like a FPS game, more kills = more fun.
Also unlike in an FPS game you have something to lose, only a measly 5% from your ship value, just to make a tiny feel of lost. This is the reason i don't like CQC aka Arena, you can't lose anything and even worse even if you lose the game you get more and increase your level. In my opinion the losers should get at least demoted from their levels not to mention the insurance cost of the ships lost.
EDIT: anyway back to my original questions: how can i know who are the players i don't have the permission to kill? And why they have immunity?

I think you've missed the point of Zac's announcement. There are two main parts :

1 PvP is an acceptable fun part of the game, no sanctions have been threatened against anyone for PvP, PvP itself is not under any threat.

2 Deliberate griefing (not PvP) or harassment (for example deliberately infiltrating mobius to go on a rampage, or attacking a charity steam and uploading it to youtube for lulz) are already banned under the EULA, FD have had to remind people of this as some were unaware of or ignoring it.

The only mentions of PvP being under threat in this thread come from people who have failed to understand the EULA and Zac's reminder.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

I think you've missed the point of Zac's announcement. There are two main parts :

1 PvP is an acceptable fun part of the game, no sanctions have been threatened against anyone for PvP, PvP itself is not under any threat.

2 Deliberate griefing (not PvP) or harassment (for example deliberately infiltrating mobius to go on a rampage, or attacking a charity steam and uploading it to youtube for lulz) are already banned under the EULA, FD have had to remind people of this as some were unaware of or ignoring it.

The only mentions of PvP being under threat in this thread come from people who have failed to understand the EULA and Zac's reminder.

He hasn't misinterpreted it, he is deliberately pretending not to understand, in order to present his position as "I will play the game as I see fit and nobody can tell me otherwise..."

As it is, nobody expects this announcement from Zac to be anything more than the toothless hand-wringing of the past; so Mr Delaine supporter will be able to continue pointing his shotgun into the fish barrel with impunity.

 

[Boomer Kay]

so Mr Delaine supporter will be able to continue pointing his shotgun into the fish barrel with impunity.

Fun fact: none of the commanders from my ignore list seems to actually be Delaine pledged.

 

[Kazacy]

They are the ones who kicked you out of their private group, and will not accept your request to rejoin. Leave it be, and don't try to trick them with a reroll CMDR just so you can do it again for the lulz.

Never been That Guy? No, of course you haven't. So it's obviously not applicable to you.


Frontier are simply saying to the playerbase... don't be That Guy.


Frontier are also saying,




Just play the spaceship game.

As you do, Kazacy.

Thank you for clarification, i never joined a private group, i find it too restrictive to follow someone's else rules.

I think you've missed the point of Zac's announcement. There are two main parts :

1 PvP is an acceptable fun part of the game, no sanctions have been threatened against anyone for PvP, PvP itself is not under any threat.

2 Deliberate griefing (not PvP) or harassment (for example deliberately infiltrating mobius to go on a rampage, or attacking a charity steam and uploading it to youtube for lulz) are already banned under the EULA, FD have had to remind people of this as some were unaware of or ignoring it.

The only mentions of PvP being under threat in this thread come from people who have failed to understand the EULA and Zac's reminder.

No i don't care to watch another people streams, my problem is how can i tell the difference between stream players and "regular" players? Maybe it's better to this kind of players to go in their private groups or if they stream in open they should accept the consequences. Just my two eurocents.

He hasn't misinterpreted it, he is deliberately pretending not to understand, in order to present his position as "I will play the game as I see fit and nobody can tell me otherwise..."

As it is, nobody expects this announcement from Zac to be anything more than the toothless hand-wringing of the past; so Mr Delaine supporter will be able to continue pointing his shotgun into the fish barrel with impunity.

I don't play to "grief" another players, i just shoot people with my weapons, which seems it's still permitted by EULA; funny thing is i really love frag cannons and they are the closest you can have in this game for a shotgun

 

[Kazacy]

Fun fact: none of the commanders from my ignore list seems to actually be Delaine pledged.

If you try to pledge to Delaine you will understand, most of the time you get a lot and i mean a lot of interdictions from npc's. Personally i am fine with that i consider the excessive amount of interdictions against me by the npc's to be something like the npc police from another game EVE.
And i bet in the future we will have some tougher npc police and it's better for me to be ready

 

[LoneKharnivore]

my problem is how can i tell the difference between stream players and "regular" players?

'Fraid you've missed the point again chief. You don't need to. The problem is not "killing someone who is streaming," the problem is "using someone's stream to find them in-game." Are you doing this? No? Then carry on as you were.

 

[bitstorm]

Just on this point.

For me I would much rather Frontier fix the above by improving ED's group management system rather than threats of bans that may or may not be carried out.

Sure they're not exclusive and Frontier may be working on improvements, but the way I see it people have been asking for better group management for over a year and it just hasn't happened. If it finally does happen it'll turn out SDC have caused some temporary butt hurt (where the outrage was waaay out of proportion compared to the actual damage) in exchange for some much wanted permanent improvements to the game.

If fixes happen yes you could argue that they happened despite SDC but I can;t help feeling tht in the end this is just a game, and as such the end can justify the means.

I do feel we almost need groups like SDC, players really need to push the boundaries of the game in all sorts of ways points to act as a catalyst for improvements.

Some things may not be fixable but if the preferred solution to players pushing limits is to ban then you're removing what essentially is a driving force for improvement.

David Braben himself in Lave Radio ep 100 said that players do the same thing over and over and it's frustrating because there's a bunch of undiscovered stuff out there, it seems your average player does not push the framework of the game. If no-one's pushing to breaking point then the game is just not gonna evolve.

FD won't add PvE flags to private groups, if that's what you expecting.

No. I'm saying I hope Frontier don;t think this is now done and dealt with.

A statement threatening bans for behaviour Frontier don't like to me is no solution.

I WANT people pushing the boundaries and testing the limits of the game, I want this encouraged not suppressed because ultimately that's how the game gets better.

If players killing newbies in LHS 3447 is a problem don't threaten bans on grounds of "harassment" or "non-consensual PvP", fix the bloomin' game.

I do not like the concept of fixing in game problems with out of game solutions, such solutions are bad solutions and can be a way to avoid addressing the actual issues.

And that happens we all as players lose out.

In the end you can fix broken or poor game mechanics/systems or you can threaten people with being expelled from the game. As someone who wants this game to be all it can be, I prefer the former.

 

[Huros]

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.

Thank you for taking the time to consider, in a reasonable and balanced manner, the recent difficulties. It is a welcomed statement and places a thoughtful red line on certain behaviours that many people do not appreciate and do not want. We all want to enjoy the game and I agree that CONTEXT is the absolute arbitrator of harassment or genuine game playing.

Though as i am sure you are subscribed to this thread i will take the opportunity to once again state that the game itself needs to have a much more rounded and balanced approach to bounty hunting and piracy. One that promotes and punishes PVP in equal measure. I have posted on this in detail before, as have others with variations on a similar theme.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

No i don't care to watch another people streams, my problem is how can i tell the difference between stream players and "regular" players?

You don't need to. Because...

Ultimately, it's about context.

 

[Boomer Kay]

In the end you can fix broken or poor game mechanics/systems or you can threaten people with being expelled from the game.

Well, if it helps your roleplaying understanding of the political game in the ED universe, you can think of a ban as the Dark Wheel disposing the comander's escape pod in SAG A*.

Of course it would be funner if such crime and punishment were performed publicly - revoking the pilot's license up to public permanent execution and planting some commanders helmet on Dalton Gateway's Airlock, but I first want to have atmospheric landing, then they can move on to such fluff.

 

[Kazacy]

You don't need to. Because...

Ultimately, it's about context.

Yeah context it's a nebulous definition.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Yeah context it's a nebulous definition.

...which is why FD will assess on a case-by-case basis.


And note...

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.

Again, that's not you.

 

[DHMeyer]

That's a move in the right direction. Now FD, please make it easier on yourself and your support staff in the future and think about at least providing a framework for players to set group specific rules themselves. Please allow group moderators to set hard coded, no PVP ruleset, so that we don't have to rely on players to follow a verbal agreement. This way workload for Frontier support staff will be diminished when it comes to issues similar to mentioned in the OP. Yes, this requires some work to be done by Frontier programmers and will take time, but this is the kind of issue that will come back to bite you if not addressed in some more permanent, in-game manner.

 

[crushdepth]

So basically, you are lowering your pants for people that are unable to assume the fact that they can be killed by other players. You should basically rename the game Elite: Mostly Harmless, that's the least you can do seing on how it's turning right now, but hey, all big game devs always turn their backs to the minority of players to listen to the majority of crying care bears.

If you can't respect the rules and objectives of private groups there's no place for you in the game. Just like life, work and the traffic.

 

[CMDR Crustatious Cornelius Pig]

The game should support all types of play within the context of the rules set forth when you bought and joined ED. Killing other players within the context of the game and its rules is not the issue, Player harassment is the issue and I applaud Frontiers efforts to control this. This has nothing to do with "crying carebears" or big game devs turning their back on minority players, who in this context never had the big game devs on their side to begin with.