tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post5900523694256184866..comments2023-06-14T17:33:55.624+10:00Comments on Foo's Eve Musings: The incident in a certain roomFoohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-80111339458232604132014-04-01T06:21:28.881+11:002014-04-01T06:21:28.881+11:00Another example: a corporation, in the future, buy...Another example: a corporation, in the future, buys a small nation, and becomes both a corporation and a nation. If you lived in that nation, and you made that argument; "" As I'm sure you understand, there are qualitative differences between a citizen's relationship to their government and a customer's relationship to a business."", it would be a false dichotomy, because you would be making the argument that "X is either A, or B; here X is A so it is not B", but in reality X is allowed to be both A and B. This is a classical false dichotomy, whereas the false dichotomy you were accusing me of was merely that implied by not explicitly listing all the alternatives, which is not a very valid accusation in an informal setting, where people aren't as obligated to check every box. This is a similar situation, because CCP is both A and B, though B only in a fictional sense; and yet the fictional sense is the one that people are generally more interested in. The actual business relationship is not very interesting; CCP's role as a pseudo-government/worldcreator is much more intriguing. Anyone who focuses on the strictly real business relationship is probably trying to be deceptive, in general--but I'm open to the possibility that you're simply very confused and not really part of the discussion yet; and now, since you're not responding, never will be.Yaysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-74076804402523437722014-04-01T06:13:58.814+11:002014-04-01T06:13:58.814+11:00" As I'm sure you understand, there are q..." As I'm sure you understand, there are qualitative differences between a citizen's relationship to their government and a customer's relationship to a business."<br /><br />Yes, you keep saying that, and it is absolutely true for most corporations. However, we're not discussing an analogy with "most corporations", but specifically with CCP and EVE online, where your business relationship is paying a corporation to act as a government in a virtual world: and the analogy is directed inside the virtual world, not outside. If you're not capable of making that distinction, then I simply wasn't talking to you, and all of your posts replying to me have been a giant waste of time.Yaysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-307182866555511262014-04-01T00:59:29.839+11:002014-04-01T00:59:29.839+11:00Don't be too surprised, Foo -- you write a goo...Don't be too surprised, Foo -- you write a good blog. Sometimes just takes a bit more to get the lurkers to decloak...<br /><br />Nosy Gamer's article is a good read. One thing that tends to get overlooked in all these discussions is that CCP reserves the right to change the EULA and TOS at their discretion (as most MMO companies do). When they do, you end up click-approving the changes when you log in, or you don't log in.<br /><br />The bottom line is that CCP is going to do what they feel they need to do to protect their business, and bonus-room controversies hurt their efforts to recruit new blood. The best thing to come out of this is that CCP has (somewhat) clarified their position on out of game harassment -- we'll see if it plays out the way they intend.Naysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-44463615841375349612014-04-01T00:22:39.336+11:002014-04-01T00:22:39.336+11:00Your metaphor between CCP and government is fundam...Your metaphor between CCP and government is fundamentally flawed. As I'm sure you understand, there are qualitative differences between a citizen's relationship to their government and a customer's relationship to a business. Citizens have obligations to their government, and vice versa, that simply don't apply in the context of a business relationship.<br /><br />I'll leave it at that. If you want the final word, feel free.Naysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-72264762951505484492014-03-31T15:21:37.572+11:002014-03-31T15:21:37.572+11:0027 comments on an article, on this blog. Just wow...27 comments on an article, on this blog. Just wow.<br /><br />I feel the TOS is overbroad, and covers too much. The majority of comments I have read are happy with scamming to continue. The questions seems to relate to whether a certain scammer went overboard once the scam was complete.<br /><br />Some feel that Erotica 'did nothing wrong'. I feel he did. For me, over a line was when he started providing advice about the wife. A timeout is in order.<br /><br />Very worth reading is Nosy Gamer's article : <a href="http://nosygamer.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-eula-and-limits-of-sandbox.html" rel="nofollow">http://nosygamer.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-eula-and-limits-of-sandbox.html</a><br /><br />He saved me the necessity of writing another post, covering what I wanted covered.Foohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-16869606763476965802014-03-31T13:20:53.537+11:002014-03-31T13:20:53.537+11:00"You are making a fundamental error here (asi..."You are making a fundamental error here (aside from the false dichotomy), one which many people make, and which I failed to explain fully in my original response. "<br /><br />Ah, this is the misunderstanding here. I'm trying to have a conversation with those other people only, those people who can properly understand the metaphor between CCP and government. If you're not one of those people,you're not part of the conversation. Buh bye now.<br /><br />p.s.<br /><br />Here's a hint, to help you (possibly) catch up with the rest of us, eventually.<br /><br />" CCP has no more (or less) than a business relationship with Erotica 1"<br /><br />Yes, and that business relationship consists of what? CCP takes our money, for which they maintain the servers, software, and enforce the rules. Ironically enough, your argument here is a...ding ding ding...false dichotomy! A real one, after all this time.<br />Yaysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-39616081924024174372014-03-31T07:48:47.274+11:002014-03-31T07:48:47.274+11:00I'm also quite comfortable letting the readers...I'm also quite comfortable letting the readers here decide whether your earlier argument constitutes false dichotomy, particularly given that it starts with the classic "there are two groups of people" and then sets up two wildly exaggerated strawman positions.<br /><br />It sure quacks like a duck to me.Naysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-50566558612834808642014-03-31T07:43:31.068+11:002014-03-31T07:43:31.068+11:00You are making a fundamental error here (aside fro...You are making a fundamental error here (aside from the false dichotomy), one which many people make, and which I failed to explain fully in my original response. Relating CCP's action or lack of action vs Erotica 1 to governmental action is not valid, and that relation has characterized most of your reasoning in these posts. CCP has no more (or less) than a business relationship with Erotica 1 -- Erotica 1 has no "rights" to continued gameplay on CCP's servers or access to their private intellectual property whatsoever, so concern over those nonexistent rights is pointless, whether or not there has been a TOS violation (although in this case there clearly has been).<br /><br />If CCP suddenly decided to stop offering the game to subscribers in, say, Denmark due to expenses, taxes, or some other reason, Danish players' "rights" would not be violated in any way -- CCP can offer their game to whom they wish under any terms they wish, as long as they comply with appropriate laws.Naysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-46798788894758032192014-03-30T19:48:41.222+11:002014-03-30T19:48:41.222+11:00Im still confused about the fuss. Im one of notano...Im still confused about the fuss. Im one of notanons group 2s. The guy got mad and started yelling when he realised it was a scam and they wouldnt give him his stuff back. He got mad cos he was scammed. So ban scamming? I think it should be banned. I dont see banning it harming the game. Or dont ban scamming, keep it, but in which case dont punish scammers just because of whom their eve enemies happen to be.<br /><br /> I dont see anyone speaking out for the guys on local who get ganked and when they say "why?" they get told cry moar cupcake. Even when its a 1 week old toons venture and some sod drove a catalyst into it. Why? theres no expectation of profit there. Thats not a 4 yr old character with resources to fall back on. Why is that "lol hftu or go back to wow" ok, but Er1 all of a sudden isnt? espec when the victim himself after he calmed down said good fight guys you got me good.nightgerbilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555431875907240808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-81176208535191580142014-03-29T10:26:10.469+11:002014-03-29T10:26:10.469+11:00Apparently Erotica1 has been banned. I'm a li...Apparently Erotica1 has been banned. I'm a little disappointed that CCP would ban someone for something they were fine with before, just because Jester stirred up a shitstorm. This sets a bad precedent for mob rule in the future.<br /><br />However, someone pointed out that Erotica1 explicitly says on the recording that they're on TS explicitly for the purpose of not breaking the TOS. That's pretty much an admission of guilt, which tempers my concern somewhat.Notanonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-63341707538280599962014-03-29T09:17:04.643+11:002014-03-29T09:17:04.643+11:00I find a few things. E1 isn't the problem, his...I find a few things. E1 isn't the problem, his audience is, and once the idea of cheering sociopaths isn't cool, e1 losses his power. <br />and keeping the fallout to a minimum is the other. Goblin is still talking about it, and it gives publicity and ammo for e1Kate 'Onhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993019414595472147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-15266129979634806092014-03-29T08:02:25.690+11:002014-03-29T08:02:25.690+11:00Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we forgot ...Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we forgot all about rules and laws and just went around randomly killing each other? Now you know why I've picked such an optimistic name for myself, everything makes me happy!<br /><br />"To me the legalistic ramifications (which you seem to revel in one minute and disdain the next) are irrelevant. "<br /><br />I'm sorry that my attitude towards the 'legalistic ramifications' has confused you. The united states has a ton of weird laws that are no longer enforced, but they have neglected to take them off the books. I'm not for randomly enforcing those laws against people because the government is angry with them for some unrelated reason. There's a legal principle against doing so, 'selective enforcement': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement. I am against selective enforcement; I am also against enforcement of laws which do not even exist; which I gave an example of in my last post satirizing yours quite directly. I do not believe that these two positions make up a 'false dichotomy'; at this point I doubt that you even understand what a false dichotomy is.Yaysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-67230263216477293232014-03-29T07:53:42.338+11:002014-03-29T07:53:42.338+11:00To me it's simple-- Naysayer is a piece of hum...To me it's simple-- Naysayer is a piece of human scum who makes this blog worse for other readers and damages the reputation of all humans at the same time. The government is well-justified in taking any action they wish to against this person. It's their decision. Personally, I think they would be well-served by sending him to hell, but it's not my call.Yaysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-4926986652177721972014-03-29T00:15:03.257+11:002014-03-29T00:15:03.257+11:00Wow, Anonymous -- this is like a textbook case of ...Wow, Anonymous -- this is like a textbook case of false dichotomy. To me the legalistic ramifications (which you seem to revel in one minute and disdain the next) are irrelevant. <br /><br />To me it's simple -- Erotica 1 is a piece of human scum who makes the game worse for other players and damages the EvE brand at the same time. CCP is well-justified in taking any action they wish to against this person. It's their decision. Personally, I think they would be well-served by permabanning him, but it's not my call.Naysayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-53766480601487786972014-03-28T16:21:12.097+11:002014-03-28T16:21:12.097+11:00To all the anonymous, please give yourselves a pse...To all the anonymous, please give yourselves a pseudonym. Even notanon made an effort.<br /><br />I generally am against "Make everything illegal and selectively enforce it". However the rules are there for a reason, and if anything is going to be acted on, the outliers seem to be suitable candidates.<br /><br />I consider certain actions that inspired a ragestorm (on both sides) to have crossed several lines.<br /><br />Oh for the record, you would get me to sing, read boring stuff, and probably other stuff as well, but because I too love an audience. My kids hate it when I sing; as all the rest of the family have more musical ability than I do.Foohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-29787362516275785132014-03-28T13:52:52.333+11:002014-03-28T13:52:52.333+11:00Another clarification:
There are two groups of pe...Another clarification:<br /><br />There are two groups of people.<br /><br />A. Group 1 thinks that singing 2 songs and reading some piece of text aloud for 2 hours is torture, and got this guy screaming and yelling in anger.<br />b. Group 2 thinks that singing songs and reading boring pieces of text for an hour reminds them of many other boring things they have been forced to do in their life, and that the reason these guys always get mad and start screaming is that they FINALLY realize they've been scammed.<br /><br />Group 1 thinks this is a huge problem, and that people who have this happen to them probably all commit suicide eventually. Group 2 realizes that the real emotional distress these people suffer is that they got scammed, and this boils down to people being against scamming being allowed in EVE online. Many of the people who are in group 1 claim that this isn't true, that they are actually for scamming, but I have yet to see anyone in group 1 be a scammer, praise a certain scam, or anything else that would make me actually believe them when they claim that. People claim things like that all the time, Bush Jr said he was a 'compassionate conservative' who was 'for the environment'. Often when people say, "I'm against A, but don't worry, I'm for B in general", the actual meaning one can take from that statement is "I'm against A, because he is B".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-33417839379752640052014-03-28T13:36:20.179+11:002014-03-28T13:36:20.179+11:00To clarify:
There are two things going on here:...To clarify: <br /><br />There are two things going on here:<br /><br />A. There is what people actually want CCP to ban Erotica1 for, being mean to some guy on teamspeak.<br /><br />B. There are various violations of the TOS that are extremely common, that people find and offer as 'sticks' that CCP could apply to Erotica1 and ban him in accordance with the TOS.<br /><br />A and B are different; there is no real benefit, legally or in terms of public relations, accruing to CCP for participating in a charade where they ban Erotica1 for A while claiming they are banning him for B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-67228170391988152912014-03-28T13:29:44.356+11:002014-03-28T13:29:44.356+11:00"If you offered ISK for recordings of certain..."If you offered ISK for recordings of certain behaviours, then published them so that CCP becomes aware, then consensual or not, it is prohibited by the TOS"<br /><br />This is common behavior, however, and so if CCP enforces them in this case, while ignoring it in every other case, there will be a large outcry. The TOS contains some very broad phrases that one could probably use to justify banning every single player of the game; there's really no practical point to playing 'find the loophole' as you have done there. (I think it actually includes the phrase "we can ban anyone for any reason whatsoever", or some reasonable facsimile thereof, does it not?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-18857981323418281542014-03-28T13:25:15.798+11:002014-03-28T13:25:15.798+11:00No. How is that relevant? If you're going to...No. How is that relevant? If you're going to say "Because Ero mentioned ISK to get the person into TS", don't bother.<br /><br />1. Most uses of TS in EVE have to do with ISK in one way or another, so focusing on that basically bans mentioning TS in EVE, for those that prefer to not skirt on the edges of the rules.<br />2. It would be trivially easy to get around any restriction based on that, by simply not mentioning ISK until the person was actually in TS. Heck, he could even still use the term "bonus room", as long as he avoided defining the term bonus room as having any certain meaning in the EVE client.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-30610131258538929742014-03-28T13:20:58.215+11:002014-03-28T13:20:58.215+11:00@notnanon : I only use a pseudonym, though I do ti...@notnanon : I only use a pseudonym, though I do tie mine to in game characters. I think that using a pseudonym is sensible.<br /><br />Erotica1 offered ISK in return for humiliation. That the ISK was never meant to be paid does not change this. This ties it to EVE, and makes the behavior subject to the TOS.<br /><br />Did you offer ISK in exchange for certain favours from your girlfriend? Therein lies a slippery slope, but if it was consensual, then no one is likely to know. <br /><br />If you offered ISK for recordings of certain behaviours, then published them so that CCP becomes aware, then consensual or not, it is prohibited by the TOS<br /><br />The ISK as bait prevents it from falling outside TOS#5. If at any point the violator said your ISK is gone, with no chance of redemption, but we would like to still toy with you, then TOS #5 could then apply.<br /><br />The TOS may in fact be over-broad. The legal language is there, should CCP wish to use it. <br /><br />"You may not abuse another player." (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse for a definition of abuse.)<br /><br />"You may not use “role-playing” as an excuse to violate these rules. While EVE Online is a persistent world, fantasy role-playing game, the claim of role-playing is not an acceptable defense for anti-social behavior. Role-playing is encouraged, but not at the expense of other player. You may not create or participate in a corporation or group that habitually violates this policy."<br /><br />You may not advertise, employ, market, or promote any form of solicitation – including pyramid schemes and chain letters – in the EVE Online game world or on the website.<br /> <br />You may not market, sell, advertise, promote, solicit or otherwise arrange for the exchange or transfer of items in the game or other game services unless it is for in-game sales of in-game services or items.<br /><br />The sticks are there should CCP wish to enforce them.Foohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-47880693830297933772014-03-28T13:03:39.898+11:002014-03-28T13:03:39.898+11:00Anon: Did you offer ISK as the basis of your relat...Anon: Did you offer ISK as the basis of your relationship?Foohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02444693774790165427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-7464894421039860202014-03-28T12:32:53.373+11:002014-03-28T12:32:53.373+11:00Ok, I'll use a pseudonym, how about..notanonym...Ok, I'll use a pseudonym, how about..notanonymous. Am I now not hiding? Dating someone I met in an MMO is something I consider embarrassing; but no one here is using their real name, so I suppose I'm still fitting in.<br /><br />"If you abuse your wife out of game, there are legal recourses, including divorce. I assume someone who gets married has more than Eve's isk in common."<br /><br />There are always legal recourses, but you might lose, or the police might ignore your complaint. That's the gist of what you're saying above, is it not, that if this guy took his complaint to the police, they would ignore it? I agree, they would.<br /><br />"If you offered someone ISK for a real life conjugal visit, then yes, I consider that subject to the TOS. Even if you never intended to pay that ISK."<br /><br />I agree, that would indeed be covered by the existing TOS.<br /><br />I agree with everything you've said in your reply; none of it seems to relate to Erotica1, or anything I said, really.<br /><br />I don't agree with anything Erotica1 did, and I wouldn't associate with him in EVE or out; but that doesn't mean I think what I do when I'm not playing EVE is CCP's business. How can CCP ban Erotica1 taking victims into teamspeak without banning all mention of teamspeak/etc from EVE online? If you come up with a reasonable proposal, then I think CCP will implement it; if no one can, then I foresee them not implementing it, due to it not existing.Notanonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-4985920329693906992014-03-28T11:58:40.134+11:002014-03-28T11:58:40.134+11:00"Was your relationship based soley upon both ..."Was your relationship based soley upon both of your in game identities? I think not, therefore your counter arguement falls flat.<br /><br />The conversations carried out in the Bonus room were in-character. "<br /><br />"adversely affecting players outside of Eve (as alleged in this instance), "<br /><br />Your counterargument disproves the original argument, which was my intent all along, so I see no need to argue against your counterargument. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-2657752059753506712014-03-28T09:11:48.122+11:002014-03-28T09:11:48.122+11:00Mabrick probably sums up why we should be having t...Mabrick probably sums up why we should be having this discussion the best:<br /><br />http://mabricksmumblings.com/2014/03/27/it-a-discussion-the-gaming-community-needs-to-have/comment-page-1/#comment-2804Quixilvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17023873805585340556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4068894994922552535.post-80949366538801859302014-03-28T07:41:21.385+11:002014-03-28T07:41:21.385+11:00Was your relationship based soley upon both of you...Was your relationship based soley upon both of your in game identities? I think not, therefore your counter arguement falls flat.<br /><br />The conversations carried out in the Bonus room were in-character. Characters and their names are owned by CCP, therefore one could argue CCP has a duty of care that their property is not abused in a way that would bring it into disrepute and use the EULA/TOS catch all clauses for punitive action.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183853996974248316noreply@blogger.com