To all you player groups UA bombing places like Robigo and Sothis...

[Karl Marx]

You need to explain why characterizing a legitimate game mechanic in Elite as "terrorism" is appropriate. Not just linking a definition and applying it in a way that clearly makes no sense, but actually explaining and justifying your choice of words. Same as how I asked you to justify your use of "intellectual dishonesty" by showing what exactly was "intellectual" and "dishonest" about my post. You didn't do that either, because you can't. I've had these types of "conversations" before, it's like trying to talk to someone with a Liberal Arts degree who knows very little about anything and yet somehow thinks that they can craft an "argument" just because it personally makes some sense in their own mind.

Go ahead. Start with "intellectual dishonesty". Show me where, exactly, in my post I was being both "intellectual" and "dishonest".

Then, after you've made some half-hearted attempt to justify your ridiculous choice of words, try the same thing with "terrorism". Not by trying to get out of the orignial statement you made and claiming it's "economic terrorism" (which it isn't either), but try to justify your first statement. You can't do that either.

You're just putting words together because you think they sound "impressive" or "inflammatory" or whatever else you're trying to accomplish.

Sorry. It's just not going to work, because I'm going to call you on it. Every. Single. Time.

You can try to call me out on whatever you want, that doesn't mean your reason is actually valid. Anyway, a legitimate game mechanic doesn't change what the consequences of that game mechanic are. If I go around and pop some lowly miner in a belt somewhat without reason, that's murder (in-game). If I go around and destroy economies, that's economic terrorism. If I go and shoot at a station, that's attacking infrastructure. If I go and sit over a landing pad that isn't mine, that's loitering. The positive or negative connotations mean absolutely nothing. If it fits the definition, it is that. Just to annoy you, I'll go ahead and post out of your desired sequence.

I hope you know your Ps and Qs. According to the definition outlined, we have this:

" “economic terrorism” would be undertaken by
transnational or non-state actors. This could entail varied, coordinated and sophisticated or
massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a
group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious
motives. "

a) Is the UA-Bombing coordinated and a massive destabilizing action? Yes.
b) Is the UA-Bombing done in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of the society, a segment of it, or the state? Yes. It negatively affects not only the faction and the individual states in power in the system but it negatively affects the trading community by and large.
c) Is the UA-Bombing done for ideological reasons? Most likely, yes. As a response to what others may consider to be an unbalanced game mechanic.

Thus: It fits the definition and can be called economic terrorism. Deal with it.

Now let's go to intellectual dishonesty. You want an example? Alright, you just gave me one right there. You're ignoring the objective nature of the definition and how it applies to this specific situation. Intellectual dishonesty can be explained simply by this example: "Deliberately ignoring facts and arguments that would undermine your position." Now, either you're ignoring the facts of that definition and the fact that the conditions contained within that definition can be applied here, you are being intellectually dishonest. You're attempting to walk around the definition instead of confronting it directly. That's also intellectually dishonest.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

...and yet as I already said in another thread, being a online is still being a .

Indeed.

 

[Daffan]

This game needs;

1) Separate galaxy with open only and fresh saves. So i can finally play multiplayer-MMO without competing against solo grinders and whiners

 

[CMDR ColD_ZA]

I have to giggle at the misapprehension of the word griefing...


With that appropriation of the word griefing I guess the following scenario would also be considered griefing...


CMDR John gets mission on mission board to assault surface base for Engineer material rewards... and by doing this mission picks up a wanted status in the system.

CMDR Steve sees your wanted status, interdicts you, and promptly sends you to a black screen with white writing on it, you did nothing to him?? why is he being such a doo doo head???

Is CMDR Steve a griefer?... no he is a bounty hunter...


On the other hand going out to kill unarmed clean players in explorer hotspots is in some ways Griefing... but not to its full extent....

Npc's are more guilty of being called Griefers than even the highest profile seal clubbers as NPC's go around and exploit some game mechanics to interdict you, or magically appear in unpopulated systems gas giant metallic rings

A CMDR Sitting in a shieldless Eagle ram suiciding people "speeding" at a station is full blown Griefing as it is misusing a game mechanic to an end of creating nothing but grief...


UA Bombing a station is in no way griefing, they could be acting as anti-capitalists, biowaste rights group , or any other number of things... these "terrorists" used legitimate game mechanics to upset a particular systems regular activities...


Complaining on a forum is not a game mechanic.... Gathering meta alloys to counter the corrosive damage to the station on the other hand is...

 

[Devari]

It's like you're not even reading my posts.

“economic terrorism”

Didn't read my post, did you? You started by calling them "terrorists". You need to justify that choice of words, you don't get to downgrade it with "economic terrorism" which is not the general concept that someone thinks about when you call someone a "terrorist". You're not getting out of it that easily.

Now let's go to intellectual dishonesty. You want an example? Alright, you just gave me one right there. You're ignoring the objective nature of the definition and how it applies to this specific situation.

Sorry, but "ignoring" a "definition" isn't "intellectual dishonesty" at all. Again, you're using terms inappropriate and inaccurately, and are completely unable to justify the words that you used. When someone disagrees with you they aren't being "intellectually dishonest" because they choose to avoid your attempts to bring irrelevant concepts into the discussion. Intellectual honesty or dishonesty is a completely different concept than what you seem to think it is.

I take back the part where I was criticizing the education of Liberal Arts students. That would imply we're having a discussion at the post-secondary level. This is more like having an argument with a high school student who hasn't passed their basic high school English classes yet.

 

[Vasious]

Called it. I'll go role-play a murderer in-game. But it's not really murder because it's just a game. The police will hunt me in-game all the same... yet somehow that doesn't happen here. Funny that.

What are you going on about.

You were going on about how it is terrorism against the whole player base, as if you are trying to
1) put everyone other than the UA bombers in a distinct victim group
2) Making it an attack on the player base, as if it is aimed at the pelk0opel and not playing the game

It is a game
Sometime the game does not go your way.
But it is a game, so it does not matter

 

[StiTch]

This griefing debate is still going????????

Let's make this really simple.

You can't judge this on your own moral grounds. Very simple. Everyone would have their own definition, as the above proves. So realistically every person's individual interpretation is just that. It means absolutely nothing in terms of your interactions with other people.

So how would..."griefing"...be judged? Well, whatever is set in the game terms. Let's see what the terms describe as unacceptable player interactions, as per the current EULA: https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

7.3 Communication and interaction with other users
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.

That's it.

Does anyone want to point out the bit in this EULA that indicates this UA bombing is unacceptable player harassment? No? Right, that's what I thought. It isn't there. There's no player harassment, no inconsiderate interaction (please let's not try and lump the UA bombing under this, UA bombing is interaction with the BGS, not with you), no discrimination.

The conversation does not need to go any further than this. Finito. If it's not unacceptable against the EULA, then it's acceptable in game, and any anger is your own indignation-regardless of your personal moral feelings. If anything, they're doing y'all a favour by making you do something worthwhile in the game. That is if you've actually done something in the time it's been down rather than waiting on the forums for something to change it.

 

[Kigre]

They are stopping nothing, getting richer everyday!

 

[Flavourless]

...So how would..."griefing"...be judged? Well, whatever is set in the game terms...

Negative. Griefing is universal. FDev cannot define what it is. They can just say whether it is sanctionable or not in a particular game.

 

[Infinity Eagle]

This griefing debate is still going????????

Let's make this really simple.

You can't judge this on your own moral grounds. Very simple. Everyone would have their own definition, as the above proves. So realistically every person's individual interpretation is just that. It means absolutely nothing in terms of your interactions with other people.

So how would..."griefing"...be judged? Well, whatever is set in the game terms. Let's see what the terms describe as unacceptable player interactions, as per the current EULA: https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

7.3 Communication and interaction with other users
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.

That's it.

Does anyone want to point out the bit in this EULA that indicates this UA bombing is unacceptable player harassment? No? Right, that's what I thought. It isn't there. There's no player harassment, no inconsiderate interaction (please let's not try and lump the UA bombing under this, UA bombing is interaction with the BGS, not with you), no discrimination.

The conversation does not need to go any further than this. Finito. If it's not unacceptable against the EULA, then it's acceptable in game, and any anger is your own indignation-regardless of your personal moral feelings. If anything, they're doing y'all a favour by making you do something worthwhile in the game. That is if you've actually done something in the time it's been down rather than waiting on the forums for something to change it.

Also in the EULA https://www.frontierstore.net/usd/ed-eula/

4.4 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in a manner that could damage, disable, impair, overburden or compromise our systems or security or interfere with the experience of other users of the Game or any Online Feature.

 

[nathdixon92]

Also in the EULA https://www.frontierstore.net/usd/ed-eula/

That doesn't apply as it's not "interfering" with the game or its features. Interfering in this case is probably limited to hacking etc.

 

[iFred]

As long as ingame mechanics are used, everything is cool for me. I don´t see an EULA relevant case here.

 

[Darius Brinn]

I don't think that this is even remotely related to EULA.

There are certain game mechanics implemented by FDev. Some players, for their own reasons, are making use of those mechanics, inside the rules and boundaries stablished by the game itself. The consequences to other players are completely and absolutely IRRELEVANT.

As long as they're not cheating/hacking, it's allowed.

The problem here is HOW LITTLE WE UNDERSTAND of those mechanics. The bombers know that bringing UAs will cause an effect, but they're not sure how many they have to bring. The rest of us know (ehem) that bringing MAs will somehow revert the situation.

That's clearly not enough, for any of us. Bombers or "fixers".

As I said, these particular mechanics should be revisited. As in explained, measured, and detailed, so both types of users know where they're standing.

Poorly explained mechanics are not fun, FDev.

 

[Goose4291]

https://www.frontierstore.net/usd/ed-eula/[/url]

4.4 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in a manner that could damage, disable, impair, overburden or compromise our systems or security or interfere with the experience of other users of the Game or any Online Feature.

If you cite 4.4 as justification for EULA violation regarding UA's, then everyone has fallen foul of it and we should all have our accounts revoked, seen as simply Shooting NPC's/trading/Exploring/running missions similarly interferes with the experience of other users of the game or any online feature by nature of design of the BGS and PP mechanics (which UA bombing is also intrinsically bound to).

 

[nathdixon92]

I don't think that this is even remotely related to EULA.

There are certain game mechanics implemented by FDev. Some players, for their own reasons, are making use of those mechanics, inside the rules and boundaries stablished by the game itself. The consequences to other players are completely and absolutely IRRELEVANT.

As long as they're not cheating/hacking, it's allowed.

The problem here is HOW LITTLE WE UNDERSTAND of those mechanics. The bombers know that bringing UAs will cause an effect, but they're not sure how many they have to bring. The rest of us know (ehem) that bringing MAs will somehow revert the situation.

That's clearly not enough, for any of us. Bombers or "fixers".

As I said, these particular mechanics should be revisited. As in explained, measured, and detailed, so both types of users know where they're standing.

Poorly explained mechanics are not fun, FDev.

Around 500 to take a station totally out

 

[super steve1985]

Wow it's still goin on lol......what's really funny is Frontier devs find it funny when someone uses UAs in this way....I would know as the galactic intern Ed told me at elite meet...frontier won't do a damn thing

 

[JuicerPrime]

You need to explain why characterizing a legitimate game mechanic in Elite as "terrorism" is appropriate. Not just linking a definition and applying it in a way that clearly makes no sense, but actually explaining and justifying your choice of words.

From an in-universe perspective, a deliberate, pre-meditated attempt to cripple an inhabited station by depriving it of vital functionality and services through the use of violence (in this case the invasive damage caused by the UA's) in order to effect a political or economic outcome (in this case the ending of certain economic activities) would be the very definition of terrorism to at least one of the parties involved. Elite does have at least the basics of political and economic simulation in the BGS and UA bombing can affect them, so from an in-universe and immersion standpoint I'd say yes - what's happening at Sothis and the other systems involved could be argued to be a form of economic terrorism.

Out-of-universe, it's legitimately using in-game mechanics to inconvenience other players, which is something else entirely. Which perspective you use would depend on your emotional investment in the game, I guess.

 

[StiTch]

Negative. Griefing is universal. FDev cannot define what it is. They can just say whether it is sanctionable or not in a particular game.

Then that makes griefing an opinion. What do we know about opinions? They mean nothing here.
Either it's acceptable for people to do it or it's not. If it's acceptable then FD would be turning back on their own terms of use by reversing the effects of the UA. If it isn't, then this griefing would need to be outlined further in the terms.

Also in the EULA https://www.frontierstore.net/usd/ed-eula/

See below.

That doesn't apply as it's not "interfering" with the game or its features. Interfering in this case is probably limited to hacking etc.

Correct. Otherwise giving someone cargo would be "interfering with their experience". You've conveniently highlighted text in a section discussing abuse of their resources and features.

I don't know why this is so difficult for people to get into them. What is not acceptable for you to do in game - so actions that would give you a disciplinary/ban - are actions such as targeted and intended/prolonged harassment, bullying, out-of-game intimidation, manipulation of networking to change someone's game experience etc. etc.

If it isn't something outlined as unacceptable, it's opinion. And everyone has one. It's really that simple. How many are banned for a random attack with no ulterior motive? How many for UA bombing without an ulterior motive?

So put on the big boy pants and deal. We're drowning in salt here while the UA bombers find this thread funnier with every post (don't blame them), because that's one more post instead of helping sort the problem (there's a MASS more Sothis users than UA bombers) or finding somewhere new and improved.

CMDR out.

 

[Devari]

From an in-universe perspective, a deliberate, pre-meditated attempt to cripple an inhabited station by depriving it of vital functionality and services through the use of violence (in this case the invasive damage caused by the UA's) in order to effect a political or economic outcome (in this case the ending of certain economic activities) would be the very definition of terrorism to at least one of the parties involved. Elite does have at least the basics of political and economic simulation in the BGS and UA bombing can affect them, so from an in-universe and immersion standpoint I'd say yes - what's happening at Sothis and the other systems involved could be argued to be a form of economic terrorism.

Except it meets none of those criteria. Nathdixon92 has stated his only real goal in doing the UA bombing was to use it as a reason to find PVP interactions within the game. He simply wanted to play the game and give other players an in-game reason to interact with him, he wasn't making any particular statement or goal. He wasn't making an in-game (or out-of-game) "political statement" of any kind and really could care less about the economies of Sothis and Ceos. Based on the definition you're trying to use the fact that Powerplay activities and even most of the CGs have a "political and economic effects" would mean that they would considered "terrorism" as well using such a broad definition which is ridiculous. And the idea of "economic terrorism" just doesn't cut it here, that is not how the term is used even in the media who have a strong tendency to "sensationalize" whatever they can. The original word used was simply "terrorism" and that particular choice of words needs to be justified as such, not diluted down to mean something that it clearly doesn't mean.

 

[andrak]

Every time one of you creates a whine post every one of these trolls gets off on it. They grow stronger on your salty tears.

Instead of the whine we need more discussion on the methods of obtaining and numbers of meta alloys required to be delivered, and at what time, to reverse their pathetic efforts.

I'm worth about 5 billion in game, as are many people now probably, and prepared to throw 100s of millions at this to return Sothis to a working state, just to wipe the smile off the troll's faces.

So,

1. How many meta alloys does it take to bring a station back online?
2. When are they required to be delivered?
3. Is it too much of a grind to obtain them from barnacles, or should they just be bought for convenience?

 

[StiTch]

Every time one of you creates a whine post every one of these trolls gets off on it. They grow stronger on your salty tears.

Instead of the whine we need more discussion on the methods of obtaining and numbers of meta alloys required to be delivered, and at what time, to reverse their pathetic efforts.

I'm worth about 5 billion in game, as are many people now probably, and prepared to throw 100s of millions at this to return Sothis to a working state, just to wipe the smile off the troll's faces.

So,

1. How many meta alloys does it take to bring a station back online?
2. When are they required to be delivered?
3. Is it too much of a grind to obtain them from barnacles, or should they just be bought for convenience?

Respect ^