Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Keep EVE Dangerous

Erotica 1 has apparently been banned after a witchhunt largely stirred up by Jester.  I have not said much about this, but I find myself still thinking about it.  And so, instead of another episode of me stupidly dying or me killing someone stupid, you get this stupid stuff.  Blame Jester.  Man, I hate politics.  Politics is the mind-killer.  Consider yourself warned. 

Erotica 1
First, if you're not up to speed on what happened, there is (or was) a player in EVE called Erotica 1, touted by some as EVE's foremost ISK doubler.  The player is male; the character is female.  Since I want to discuss the player and his actions, I henceforth refer to him as "him", and I use moniker E1 to indicate that it is the player's actions that matter here, not the in-game actions of Erotica 1.  In addition to the "normal" business of the vanilla ISK-doubling scam, E1 ran a special "bonus round" event for selected suckers.  Supposedly this was every 100th ISK-doubling player or round.

The scam is described in this article, which you should read if you want a balanced look at it.  It appears to be authored by one of E1's helpers, so grain of salt.  Nonetheless, it describes the reason for the "torture", as Jester would have it, of the sucker:
Is it a Scam? ... Yes. Absolutely. But you CAN win! ... As scams go in EVE, the ability to disassociate your activity from a scam, the better it’s going to work. In ISK doubling you see this with people getting small amounts of ISK doubled, but lose larger amounts.

Winners are guaranteed in nearly all EVE scams, because winners bring in contestants.

Now, many would still be wondering what is the goal of everything AFTER the asset transaction. Is it pure sadism? Is it just sick individuals getting their jollies off on others misfortune?

While sometimes entertaining for multiple parties involved, that is not the goal. To maintain the illusion of legitimacy, there has to be a reason for someone to lose. So long as there can be made the case that the contestant simply lost by not following the rules, it becomes easy to keep a scam going.
(Emphasis mine.)  This seems reasonable to me, at least given the context of scamming.  So, what of "torture"?  Well, Jester (of the blog linked on the right) recently got up on a very high horse and denounced E1.  You can read his cri de cœur at his blog.
I do not use the word torture lightly. Look at any list of psychological torture methods you like. ... I remind you again that this is happening in the game that you play.
EVE is real. And I assure you, what is being done to this man is also real. If you -- for even a single moment! -- would think to defend what is happening here or if you think it is "funny", I invite you to share this recording with your mother or your aunt or your grandmother or your sister. Tell them that this is something that happens in the video game that you play. ... Play her the recording. Let her judge this recording from outside the bubble that you're living in.
His goal was to get E1 banned from the game.  The thing went a bit viral.  It appears his side prevailed. CCP never discusses bans, but E1 is apparently banned.

So.  That's the background.  Now, what's my take on it?  I am quite sure you want to know.

First, let me say that I do not scam, will never scam, and I do not want to closely associate with scammers.  It's not my cup of tea.  I find trust much more rewarding (and indeed, even E1 has his trusted agents).  If I found out E1 was in my corp, I'd kick him.  Jester and the pharisees are right that what E1 recorded is a nasty bit of work.  At least, if what I have read about it is accurate.

Let me also say that I neither listened to the bonus round recording nor did I play it for the nearest woman.  I value my time, and I don't need to do that to grasp what's in it.  Basic human psychology is enough to imagine both the agents and the sucker.  The only reason for listening is to inflame one's heart with indignation, the better to hunt witches with.

Yes, as I have suggested, this is a classic witch hunt, or more specifically: moral panic.  As such, I rejected it and revile it.  And when I see people I respect, such as Jester, engaging in that trope it makes me sad.  What a bunch of monkeys men are!   And look what it drives them to.  Not only do we get "for the children", we get the abuse of language ("torture" my ass), the moral preening, the holier-than-thou attitude, the "shocked, shocked" surprise at the existence of a contrary opinion.  We get the strawmanning, and the lying imputation of the most awful motives to opponents.  And we get the attempt to control the discourse, where what Jester cares about is "the main issue", and what anyone else cares about is a cowardly attempt at distraction.  This is all classic dirty politics.  I hate it all.  Mindkiller.

But what of Jester's challenge? "The main issue is this: do you want this vile excuse for a human being and people like him playing our game and being part of our community?" The answer is yes.  Yes, I want that vile excuse for a human being playing my game.  In-con-ceivable!

So, Von, you want psychopaths in your EVE?  Yes.  Yes I do.  Let me explain that.

EVE is real to us, because there is permanent gain and permanent loss which we care about.  (Cf.: The Fundaments of EVE's Design.)  Play well, and you get to have fun.  Play badly, and it's less fun, even a grind.  This is the genius of the game design.  This is why I like the game, and after all this time I am still logging in.

Put another way, I like EVE because it is dangerous.  Of course I try to minimize danger to myself.  I zip up my system to run sites.  I use warp core stabilizers.  I don't autopilot much.  And, not being two-sigmas of stupid and/or greedy, I do not engage with scammers.  But while I do minimize my risk, I don't want risk to be absent from the game.  Quite the opposite!  I want the game to be dangerous.  Part of that is keeping the game wide open, and that includes to scams.

I want EVE to be a game that attracts the best gaming minds, and for those minds to engage with each other, and with me, in a battle of wits for resources.  Sometimes that battle is purely in-game.  I twitch-click-click-type-type; your Epithal blows up.  But EVE is a multiplayer game that rewards coordination.  Battle can and must go outside of the game, too.  For just as I can meet you and have a beer and laugh about the things we've done, I can plot with you to attack our enemies and take their stuff.  And so, too, can I get you on coms and try to convince you to help me.  Or try to convince you to give me all your stuff, and agree that I should not return it.  All of that should be allowed.

When I think of Jita, I want to think of Mos Eisley.  Not some kind of Coruscant.  The former was alive and fascinating and dangerous; the latter was dead and boring and safe.  It is said of Austin, Texas: Keep Austin Weird.  Well, I say of EVE: Keep EVE Dangerous.  The witchhunt against E1 is a small step in the wrong direction.

But... "for the children!"  Yes, what of newbies?  Someone has undoubtedly been scammed and given up, finding the game unfun and too hard.  Well, that's too bad for him.  One can hope that he will HTFU and try again.  Let me note that most newbies are, actually, adults.  (I note that E1's sucker in the recording is an adult, and he has not quit, even though he must have lost everything.)  But it is to be hoped that the newbie sucker will learn a very valuable lesson about his own greed and gullibility, and at a remarkably low real-world cost; and that is regardless of whether he stays or goes.  EVE: educating suckers since 2004.  Keep EVE Dangerous.

But Jester demands to know: what would women think?  Unless they play EVE, I don't care.  (Tell me what Sugar thinks; I respect her opinion.)  EVE is full of nasty stuff as viewed from the perspective of muggles, from "I'm killing this guy because killing is fun", to "jewing", to "rape cages", to "dickstars", to pornography.  "Gay" is routinely used to insult.  Guys talk about fucking and screwing each other, meaning hurting each other.  They talk about going "balls deep".  I accept this stuff and HTFU for the exactly the reason I already stated: I want the game to be hard, and this is the way that young men express themselves when they are not being censored.  I play with a seven year old lurking around me on the weekends, so I know something about censoring.  Just as I don't hunt when he watches, I don't show my wife some random porno some idiot in local linked.  And I do not play them E1's recordings.  Does it matter that muggles think EVE is an awful and dangerous place?  Yes!  That's the goal.  EVE is gaming in hard mode.  Keep EVE Dangerous.

There's two more loosely related things I want to mention.  First, some have made the argument that there is a slippery slope here.  Ban E1, they say, and next thing you know, James 315 is out.  A year later, EVE is squeaky clean and not fun.  Certainly those would be bad outcomes; but I do not think this slope is at all slippery.  It's barely even a slope.  Jester and would-be busybodies have only so much energy, while moving CCP is hard because ceteris paribus, they like paying customers.  And we all have only so much attention.  So, in the long run, do I care that E1 is out?  No.  Bad riddance to bad rubbish.

Second, there's a very modern idea out there, that (a) we can define all righteous behavior in pre-written rules, and (b) doing (a) is both necessary for justice and sufficient to achieve it.  This is bollocks.  Not only is the rule of law overrated, it's literally impossible.  We cannot do (a) and (b) is consequently moot.  Rule is always of men, never paper, at least until we invent strong AI.  As such, you'd better try to place yourself under the rule of good men; and so far as I can tell, CCP are good enough.  I fully support their right to ban anyone from EVE at any time for any reason; it is this that is both necessary and sufficient for a good environment to prevail.  I feel they have given into the mob on this occasion, but I don't blame that on them, but the mob.


  1. I think there should be scams for ISK, and see nothing in this ruling stopping that.

    I do not think there should be griefing that includes the perpetrator offers medical advice on how to treat the victims partner, so that the scam can continue.

    It was this that crossed the line for me. On this basis I support a holiday from eve for 'E'. Also, apparently the victim made threats against the first life person behind 'E'. On this basis, I also would support a holiday for the victim.

    If it was not published, CCP would not know, so could ignore it. As it was published and brought to CCP's attention, they could no longer afford ignorance as a defense.

  2. The issue, and response given by CCP, seems more to do with what happened outside the game of EVE. By all means, keep EVE dangerous, but there is obviously a line that can be crossed out of game. Whether the line was correctly drawn in this situation is up for debate.

    EVE is somewhat unique in that it allows for all sorts of "unacceptable" behavior in-game- scams, pirating, griefing, betrayals, etc, but those things don't float in real life.

    That's not a moral soapbox- that's simple reality.

  3. Foo (and Nony), I agree that it was the publicity that moved CCP. I disagree that the scammers were taking the sucker's wife seriously. It seems absurd to many people that an anonymous phone call with strangers would feel threatening. Of course the wife probably had a different idea of it.

    I do not support sanctioning the sucker because he was doing exactly what the scammers wanted: getting mad. In that context the threats are just as understandable to me as the scammers' actions (again, they are trying to get the victim to quit as a cover for the next scam). I propose we do not take seriously anonymous IRL threats uttered under (for want of a better label) duress. This is, I think, common sense. Again, see my last point. A hard/fast rule of "no IRL threats" is not realistic when applied to us monkeys; it requires judgement.

    Nony: I suppose I should make it explicit that I like the ability to do "unacceptable" things -- but only in the sandbox. I suppose the question here is how you feel about the scammers getting the sucker on coms: is that part of the sandbox, or it is IRL? To me, given that the internet is basically anonymous, and that there was no physical presence, it's part of the sandbox. No reasonable person should feel physically threatened by anonymous others on coms, regardless of what is said. Obviously, others differ on this point, and I expect a big part of people's differences on the E1 issue is how they feel about this.

  4. As the previous commentator suggests this has little to do with what happens in game, beyond the fact that in game actions events and conversations were used to coerce the victim into entering into a team-speak chat room that he wouldn't have otherwise and engaging in actions that led him to breakdown emotionally.

    Despite a great deal of debating and obfuscation from those on both sides of the debate but particularly Jester and the organisers and supporters of the bonus rooms, this really comes down to one thing from CCPs perspective - real-life harrassment.

    In contrast with the community, CCP have actually published very little on this issue.
    There's the sticky in the general forums entitled "An Announcement Regarding Real Life Harassment" - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=332912 which in has as it's second paragraph "The freedom to scam and commit piracy, espionage, and extortion are all fundamental to the EVE Online experience, and CCP will never change that. However, it is important to remember that the EVE universe is a virtual world, and behavior of this nature should remain firmly within that virtual world." It then goes on to expand a little on what constituents real-life as opposed to in-game harrassment, and why they might have banned Erotica 1.

    There is another relevant post from CCP Falcon which gives a little bit more details on their thinking behind why they consider this harassment. It is found in Malcanis' thread for feedback on the TOS. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4412145#post4412145

    Suffice to say, I feel it it is very much along the lines of your last paragraph.

    While CCP don't generally comment on disciplinary actions and such and the CSM are bound by the NDA, someone did let slip that Erotica was banned for the entirety of his behaviour, rather than this single incident. There are apparently at least another two bonus room recording that the organisers have also linked to from the forums, and there were hundreds of them made. The organisers have also vowed to continue the bonus rooms, but if they don't change the way they run them, they will continue to cross CCP's line and should be banned.

  5. I personally would view it as IRL, and moving to coms is a specific action taken by EI and the victim/sucker. It suggests that if the same actions were taken within EVE channels, the boot would be fairly quick. This further suggests that CCP understands there is a line somewhere termed harassment (but good luck objectively pinning that down!).

    The victim/sucker was dumb, and driven by emotions- definitely not rational. And, as an adult, he supposedly should have been able to simple walk away. However, it's the perception/response that usually carries the most weight when it comes to cyber bullying/internet situations like this. As much as EVE calls "sandbox!", it is still limited within the bounds of its player's real life governing laws (US, Europe, etc laws on internet harassment for example).

  6. CCP Falcon's post in Malconis' thread contains the clearest indication of what the line is, and why this case is different from all the silly examples involving singing ransoms or your typical alliance comms. The relevant part is: "However, there's a line as to how severe those circumstances should get, and I'll paraphrase Mynxee by saying that this line needs to be drawn at the point where the alleged victim starts to lose emotional control. We can't set an arbitrary line for this, as this is different for everyone, and every situation. There must be a willingness by those involved to recognise when that point has been reached and realize, with positive community spirit in mind, that they should stop and honor that line with humane and decent behaviour."

    My interpretation of that is ultimately it boils down to recognising that you've gone to far and stopping.

    Now you can argue with CCP as to whether that line in the right line to have, but it's the line they've chosen.

    One could also suggest (as some of E1's supporters have) that the organisers of the bonus room and Erotica 1 in particular attempted to diffuse the situation in the recording, which very well may be true, but AFAICS it was to keep the mark engaged in the process and so increase their entertainment at his expense, which doeesn't seem particularly humane to me.

    1. " AFAICS it was to keep the mark engaged in the process and so increase their entertainment at his expense"

      That's not seeing, that's guessing.

      "Now you can argue with CCP as to whether that line in the right line to have, but it's the line they've chosen."

      I have nothing against that line; if they're banning people for crossing that line for actions taken before they drew the line, I do have an issue with that. It's one thing to leave the borders vague, it's another thing to wait until someone crossed that vague border a bunch of times, then say "well, they crossed it a bunch of times, so we're banning him for the totality of his actions". Why not just warn him after he crossed it once?

      Now, the above is all speculation, since I haven't seen any official communication from CCP regarding E1 specifically. Perhaps they did warn him; perhaps he's not even really banned.

      I support von keigai's general theme of "keep eve dangerous", and I can't help but feel that this episode will have a dampening effect on that. There are hundreds of people who have posted "don't be ridiculous, this doesn't affect ganking/scamming/etc in the slightest", as far as I can tell, none of these hundreds of people are gankers and scammers themselves, so the fact that they don't feel any uncertainty about the possibility of getting banned for ganking or scamming carries absolutely zero weight with me.

    2. Well, it's probable that was always the line, and they haven't really felt the need to explain it beforehand, but obviously I can't speak for CCP.

      I guess it's possible that you don't trust the opinions of all those hundreds of posters so why don't you get your favourite ganker / scammer to read the two CCP posts I linked above.

      Here's another paragraph from the second link:
      "In the end, scam, AWOX and betray eachother as much as you like. Steal from eachother as much as you like. Gank, pod and sabotage eachother as much as you like. These are the stories that drive gameplay in EVE, and we are not looking to re-define the sandbox. We do however need to make it clear that in the, end every sandbox has edges just the same as EVE has limits, and those limits are built on a basic level of empathy, understanding and humane behavior. "

      If you engage in ganking or scamming purely inside eve then you're inside the sand-box and nothing has changed. If you running a scam that relies on pulling people onto an external team-speak server then you've left the sand-box, and you might need to think about real-life considerations.

      Ultimately though this thing isn't really about scamming at all. It's about harassment and that can happen both in game and out. The relevant parts of the TOS don't limit what CCP considers when determining whether something is harassment. They also don't delineate between the character and the player, and what should be considered as belonging to each.

      So, like Foo, Von Keigal, Erotica 1 and many other commentators, I feel CCP need to do more to try and explain the limits of the sandbox and how when it comes to communication and harassment, it differs from the real-world it is embedded in.

    3. "Well, it's probable that was always the line, and they haven't really felt the need to explain it beforehand,"

      Yes, that's exactly the problem with CCP. Possibly they just haven't felt the need to communicate this extremely important information.

      "I guess it's possible that you don't trust the opinions"

      What? I don't 'mistrust' the opinions, I just don't value them highly, because these opinions consist of them passing judgement on something they don't have experience with. I have a hard time even considering that an opinion. If someone who isn't blind gives you their 'opinion' on what it's like to be blind, would you call that an opinion? An opinion about what it would be like to have an opinion on the subject? A O^squared, for short.

      " If you running a scam that relies on pulling people onto an external team-speak server then you've left the sand-box, and you might need to think about real-life considerations."

      I don't agree that the scam "relied" on the TS server, it was just more fun/convenient to do it that way...hey, those are the same reasons I use a TS server for my EVE activities! So really, I'm in just as much danger in that respect as Ero1. It all comes down to the definition of harassment, which isn't defined at all...just as your last paragraph notes. Possibly CCP just hasn't felt the need to explain it beforehand.

    4. p.s.

      "passing judgement on something they don't have experience with"

      should read something more like

      "passing judgement on the emotional effect of a situation they've avoided getting anywhere close to."

      or it doesn't make much sense.

  7. The most disturbing thing to me was hearing a sitting CSM on a podcast repeat a piece of Goon propaganda as fact, and she's not in Goons. It makes me wonder what other "facts" were decided on in my case behind closed doors.

    A 30 day tops and some guidelines would have been nice. A chat with CCP would have been nice.

    It was a unique scam that tied multiple elements of EVE accepted behavior together. I would have gladly toned things down or stopped altogether if asked.

    You should listen to the EVE Radio interview.

    In any case, even if I can never play EVE again, please continue to fight for 2 key issues, which I wanted to do as CSM:

    1. Protect the Sandbox
    2. CCP needs to be more transparent.



    1. A temp ban would have been more appropriate my opinion.
      The reason not to make it permanent would be because of the withchunt caused by CSM member Ripard Teg (and secondly because it wasn't clear where the line is drawn in what is acceptable.)

    2. Or Ero could have just applied some common sense before pulling this sort of crap. That would have been much easier and saved everyone involved a whole lot of typing.

    3. Note: In this reply, I use you to refer to the player behind Erotica 1, and E1 to refer to the character.

      I listened to your interview with DJ FunkyBacon and I found it interesting at times. Unlike, some other people I didn't really find it particularly revealing, perhaps because you weren't really asked the important questions, and it too often felt like it was the bonus room participants trying to excuse their actions.

      The details revealed about the bonus room did nothing to change my opinion of it. It's still a nasty glimpse into the sadistic part that resides in most of us, and I can see why CCP doesn't want that associated with their game. It is also unnecessary, and I suspect even you see that.

      I don't think there's enough evidence to state that you are a sociopath, just like I don't think that the player behind Sohkar should be called a racist.

      Separated from the bonus room and E1, you seem like a pretty good guy, with intelligence and an obvious love of the game.

      I think that if you could demonstrate that to CCP, that they should allow you to continue to play the game, even if it's probably better for everyone that the E1 is retired.

      Under the right circumstances I might even vote for you for CSM.

      On that front, I think DJFunkyBacon and DNSBlack are two candidates that have had quite a bit to say on this topic and are both in support of your key issues, so are well worth a consideration for anyone's CSM votes.

  8. Best post I have ever read about all this stuff. Nicely supported by good links (not EVE related), references and facts... I just loved it... and I can't agree more with this:

    "EVE is gaming in hard mode. Keep EVE Dangerous."

    I only can say thanks for this quality blogging, I know how much time consuming it is.

    You were on my top reading list, but this post made you my #1

  9. Von, I would like to propose a thought experiment. lets say that someone offered you the chance to prove your point, that this isn't torture and its so much over reacting... All you have to do is go into a teamspeak, One will be provided, and face half a dozen people with a decidedly twisted sense of humor, and follow all their directions without losing faith in the process of proving yourself.... I give you an hour before you decide it isn't worth it. Maybe 2 if there was a ticket to fanfest in the bargain... Think about it all you would have to do is face 3, maybe 4... maybe a bit more hours of abuse to not only have an opinion, but evidence to back it up. could you do it?

    my money is on the people running the bonus round.

    1. I like experimentsApril 2, 2014 at 3:07 PM

      A. Ero1 actually performed a similar thought experiment, a week ago.

      B. Your thought experiment, as defined, is nonsense.

      "lets say that someone offered you the chance to prove your point, that this isn't torture and its so much over reacting"

      "I give you an hour before you decide it isn't worth it."

      How does him deciding it isn't worth it have anything to do with proving or disproving the point of whether it's torture or not?

      Here, I'll propose a similar experiment.

      "lets say that someone offered you the chance to prove your point, that the Earth is not flat, and is not only 6000 years old"

      "All you have to do is go into a teamspeak, One will be provided, and face half a dozen people with a decidedly twisted sense of humor, and follow all their directions without losing faith in the process of proving yourself.... I give you an hour before you decide it isn't worth it."


  10. There could be plenty of “hard mode” to Eve, without it being sadistic*. That’s the line many of us don’t want crossed. In real life or in Eve. And because this line is fuzzy at times, we should stop and consider if someone went way over it. Many think that this is the case with Erotica 1 and his cohorts.

    I am a war vet. I’ve seen and experienced the ultimate “hard mode” that humans can dish out. But even in war human society established a widely accepted set of rules. The norms for treating prisoners of war is a good example.

    You don’t need to have very high emotional intelligence to realize that the victim did not know (emotionally) how to press the escape button. This weakness was viscerally understood and fully exploited by Erotica 1 and his team. What ensued was emotional torture** (reading Merriam Webster’s definition of torture below, you’ll notice the absence of forced confinement).

    All in all this is an important debate and I’m glad you weighed in on it. This process will make this amazing game even better.

    * sa•dis•tic: deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others.
    ** tor•ture: the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something: something that causes mental or physical suffering : a very painful or unpleasant experience

    1. "(reading Merriam Webster’s definition of torture below, you’ll notice the absence of forced confinement"

      negative, I did not notice that. If something causes suffering, and the victim feels free to leave, he will leave. Hence, the victim made a choice to stay, therefore he felt leaving the bonus room would have been greater suffering than remaining in it. For your argument to be consistent, you would then also have to consider scamming torture; but we have been repeatedly assured that scamming cannot be torture; therefore, we have a logical inconsistency within the given definitions.

  11. Dude you should at least listen to parts of the recording. Otherwise you're not making an informed judgement at all. If you're as open minded as you come off in your blog, you should be able to listen to it rationally and form an opinion off of what YOU heard.

  12. ..I wholeheartedly agree with this blog entry. It hits on almost every valid point, and I haven't read a better article on the subject.
    But there are two things I feel aren't getting any traction:
    First, the Ero 1 and sohkar incident was not harrassment. It was two individuals who each declined to withdraw from the engagement that they both agreed to enter.
    Saying that sohkar "couldn't" leave the TeamSpeak room because he didn't want to lose all those assets is a very weak position to take. He could have left at any time, but he didn't. Why? Because he felt that continuing to jump through hoops for Ero 1 and his cohorts was worth the prospect of receiving his assets back. That was a choice, and whichever choice sohkar decided to make, the consequences are not severe. Lose 2 billion ISK? Easily recoupable. Spend another hour on TeamSpeak? Gamers have been known to spend multiple hours playing games and talking with people. These are not significant consequences.
    An example where someone is forced to stay in a bad environment with significant consequences at stake is an abused wife. Stay- continue to receive abuse. Leave- have no shelter or money. This is not the situation that sohkar was in, and Teg suggesting that he was makes a mockery out of people who have experienced true harrassment.
    Second, the mental wellness of sohkar. On that note, everyone who is spewing that Ero 1 not only did all this, but he did it someone who obviously has a mental health problem. To that I say nope.
    None of us are qualified to diagnose the mental state of sohkar. Only a mental health professional is capable of that, and furthermore, a mental health professional wouldn't be able to make a positive diagnosis from the short recording of sohkar.
    Even furthermore, for the sake of argument, let's say sohkar does in fact suffer from some sort of mental health problem. What does that mean? Are Eve pilots advised to treat everyone they come in contact with as an individual who potentially has a mental health disorder?
    And if so, does that mean we are not allowed to continue correspondence with such pilots?
    Are we allowed to gank pilots who we suspect might not be in the best state of mind?
    I've corresponded with angry pilots who I have recently ganked or AWOXed. Oftentimes they have lashed out in a belligerently violent manner in these correspondences. What is my obligatory actions now, in the age of Teg v. Ero 1?
    Tears are a mainstay in almost any online game. In Eve, tears are celebrated. Publishing tears in the C&P forum is the highlight of many pod pilots, and CCP sanctions that venue. Ero 1 and company stumbled upon a gold mine of tears, something they might be able to share with their peers and enjoy a hearty laugh at.
    Instead Ero 1 got a permaban.

  13. I decided to withhold judgement until I listened to the audio. Having now listened to (parts of) it, I can say that I completely agree with Von. The guy was a rank noob, was far too trusting, and lost everything for the promise of riches, and humiliated himself to boot. All for what? The payout (from what I gleaned) was 1.1B at a 5x multiplier. That is 220 million ISK he put up. That is equal to $5.35 if he were to replenish it by purchasing a PLEX. He allowed himself to be put through a lot of humiliation, frustration, and anger because he couldn't look at what he was doing objectively. I wouldn't put myself through 2 hours of that kind of BS for any game, period. This guy was an idiot, and was exploited. He likely would have rage quit EVE after the first bad thing that happened to him in game. It just so happens, the first bad thing that happened was recorded and broadcast to the world. As Von said, hopefully he learned a valuable life lesson, and at a remarkably low cost.

  14. This is a dangerous slope CCP is going down. What goes on in TS is still the virtual world. Else, anyone doing any plotting for the good or bad over 3rd person comms is consorting in the real world.
    As exhibit "A" I present you Mittani's plot to ruin game play "common grunt in the enemy fleet," for no other reason than conquest in eve, and thus the lol's, on a clearliy out of game site, write in plain English for the whole world to see: http://themittani.com/content/soss-57-art-nullsec-war-5

    Are you going to Exile him as well CCP?? Comms are an extension of the virtual world, else you wouldn't have spies trying to gain access for profit in the virtual world

  15. `"This is a dangerous slope CCP is going down."
    Dangerous because it might hurt the game?

    What about the other side of the slope? What could happen in an un-published bonus room? Could that be dangerous?

    I would consider a minor giving a nude picture to someone, even if the minor cannot be identified, as dangerous. Yes this could happen anywhere on the internet, but I feel the "bonus room" is ideal for this. I'm not OK with saying, "It happened because of bad parenting, so it was no ones fault but the parents." That's just the first thing that comes to my mind, and I understand that all these statements are debatable. I know other people will say, "What's the worst that could happen in a bonus room? Nothing really bad.", and I think that is why this is being discussed.

    I don't see slopes here, I see a correctly drawn line. I think this line allows for the game play we want and provides a good buffer against people who are looking for more than tears and lulz.

  16. IMO, Jester's main point is being missed here, as it was in so many other discussion threads.

    He's repeatedly said that he's happy with the fact that people scam, gank, bump, and all the rest. And as Von says above, without all that then EvE just wouldn't be EvE.

    If someone bears me ill-will, for whatever reason, they can war-dec me, camp the station, harass my pilots, spoil my trading, infiltrate my Corp and steal everything, then offer to give it all back as long as I visit every system in the cluster proclaiming them the Lord High Poobah in Local. What they *can't* do is come to my house, key my car, nick my TV and punch me on the nose...

    There's actions against characters in-game, there's action against people in real life. And as EvE "play" spreads out from the game client via TeamSpeak, blogs, forums, Jabber, and so on there are large grey areas where character/player and game/life mingle and merge. The line *cannot* be drawn cleanly but, as Jester said, it needs to be discussed.

    E1's actions come at the "black" side of that grey area. In a previous bonus room he demanded that a *player* either break a real-world law or lose -- the German who had to sing a banned nationalist song. That's not only morally wrong IMO, it is also illegal in most countries -- incitement.

    Like Von, and many others commenting, I have no problem with E1's scams. Wouldn't do them myself, try to avoid falling prey to them, but I think they are a valuable part of the game. And what goes on outside the game client, the whole meta-game thing, is equally important. But when it goes beyond that, when the main intent of an act is the deliberate and public humiliation of the player in a real-life context, the line has been crossed.

    And by the way -- loving the blog. One of the best reads around, on EvE or any subject. Long may it continue!

  17. Well said!

    I'm just a NRDS mission-runner.
    If there wasn't a dangerous dark underbelly EVE would be dull and I would leave.