There have been those who have taken offense in the past in my using analogies to characterize Eve behavior; the roles ones play in Eve. I am sometimes accused of of getting the game confused with real life over this. But am I really confusing the game with real life? Take a look at my previous blog post, and you see I use analogies to things like Borg Drones and Firefly Reavers, clearly neither of which are real life comparisons. Even if they were from real life, it wouldn't matter, as these are analogies.
Analogy (noun): a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Furthermore, and most significantly, I am most often discussing character behavior, not the disposition of the real life person behind the character. So at what point might I actually be saying something about the real life person behind the character? When is there some crossover into real life as I see it?
First, lets clarify my position on villains versus good guys. In most games, it doesn't really matter much. There is usually no loss associated with getting killed by another character. If I kill your character in Battlefield 1942, you don't lose anything. You respawn with all the same gear you had before. But in Eve, there is a real loss, and it takes real in game effort to replace that loss. This makes the distinction of good guy versus villain far more significant in a game such as Eve.
How does this translate into the interactions between characters in Eve? At first, it might not be apparent that there is much difference between attacking an opposing alliance member who is a known enemy in terrible standing with your alliance, versus attacking a neutral player who happens across your space. Here's where the analogy can help with clarification. If two countries are at war, and one uniformed combatant comes across an enemy uniformed combatant, and the first kills the other, who is the villain? There generally isn't one; it was state sanctioned combat. Now what if one uniformed combatant comes across a plain clothed person carrying a Playstation, and he then kills that person and takes the Playstation. Now there is a clear villain in the interaction.
At this point, we are still just talking about what happens in game. Why does any of this matter? Here is where real life starts to creep in just a little bit. If a clear villain attacks without provocation, and that is causing a real loss in terms of game effort to replace that loss, this can cause negative emotions in some players whose characters were the victims. Now, if they are level headed, they will let it go, as it was just part of the game as it was designed. But those emotions were still both real and negative, and can drive players away. And that is why I feel it is better for the entire community if players refrain from playing villains in a game like Eve where losses have significance. Try to stick to the "state sanctioned combat", as there is still plenty of that to go around and it helps avoid driving people away.
Now that's all still pretty minor. So where does real life get confused with game in a significant way? There is only one case I can think of, and it's been at the heart of a lot of the controversy over the last year or more. When players, often beginning with high-sec ganking, attempt to grief other players. When this happens, their intent is to anger and/or emotionally hurt the real life player on the other end of a character. When they are called out for this, they hide behind a shield of "it's only a game". So I ask you -- who is it really that is confusing game with real life?
Showing posts with label Ethics and Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics and Philosophy. Show all posts
Friday, July 17, 2015
Thursday, July 9, 2015
What Is NRDS?
NRDS is a philosophical categorization for the behavior of an organization within Eve. The common categories an organization's philosophical behavior can fall into include:
Members of such organization can be anywhere, but behavior is tightly controlled by CONCORD within the core high security systems, so it's only out in low security and null security space where this becomes significant.
Eve is the world. Your organization's sovereign space is your yard. Your main outpost or station is your home.
NPSI means anyone not in your fleet is a valid target to attack. Such groups are short term and unorganized, having no sovereign space. They are, by definition, just a fleet. If you are NPSI, you really can't be anything else, as being NPSI for even a day likely would violate the rules of any NBSI or NRDS organization. NPSI groups are nomadic savages that attack anything they come across. Like Reavers in Firefly.
Using the home metaphor, NPSI groups are herds of rabid dogs that occasionally run through your yard looking for anything they can kill.
NBSI means anyone who hasn't been set to good or better standing (set blue) is a valid target to attack. Unknown visitors are not welcome. While NBSI groups generally have their own sovereign space, their NBSI rules generally apply across the entire universe; it doesn't matter if an NBSI ship or fleet is out in someone else's space, if they come across someone not set blue, that someone is a valid target to attack. Arguably like the Borg in Star Trek, or lesser known, perhaps the Krenim Imperium from Star Trek Voyager.
NBSI groups are classic stereotypical backwoods hillbillys. They have a home and a yard, but if some stranger happens across their yard, they shoot first and ask questions later, if they ask questions at all.
NRDS means only those who have aggressed or have been set as terrible standing are valid targets to attack. Individuals, corporations, or alliances are set to terrible standing when they have proved themselves as aggressive and in violation of NRDS rules. Visitors or those previously unknown are safe around those who are NRDS, and may find NRDS pilots to be friendly, but sometimes stern if they have not obtained good standing. Somewhat like being around the Federation and the late generation Federation-allied Klingons in Star Trek. Run across a Federation ship, and they generally greet you with a smile. Run across a Klingon ship, and you may find your encounter less friendly. But you are still safe so long as you haven't been declared an enemy and you are following the rules.
Visitors to NRDS soverign space should consider themselves safe around NRDS pilots, but are strongly encouraged to obtain good standing so as not to potentially disrupt the activities of others in NRDS space (unfortunately, neutral visitors often turn out to be aggressive, so generally speaking, NRDS folks don't like seeing neutral parties in NRDS space. Work on getting your standing set blue if you plan on frequent or extended visits into NRDS space). Even if you consider yourself a neutral visitor, YOU SHOULD VERIFY YOUR NEUTRALITY BEFORE VISITING NRDS SPACE. You may be considered to be of terrible standing without your knowing it. For example, if your corporation or alliance have been set to terrible standing, all those members within are also considered to be of terrible standing. To verify your standing, use a publicly available KOS checker, if they have one, or join a diplomacy channel for the organization to ask, or ask around folks in the NRDS alliance and they should point you in the right direction.
Non-NRDS pilots and fleets frequently tresspass in NRDS space, so even if you have your standings in order, note that it is not always safe space. NRDS protectors are often standing by to render assistance should someone be unjustly attacked, but response time isn't instant, and fights often don't last long. Be wary of pilots with bad or unknown standing in the system.
NRDS groups are civilized patriots. They have a home and a yard, and if some stranger happens across their yard, the stranger may be greeted with a friendly smile or may be asked to leave until they are better known and verified non-aggressive.
Simple. If you don't consider yourself a rabid dog nor a backwoods hillbilly, you have no other choice; you have to be NRDS. If you don't aspire to be a Firefly Reaver or a Borg drone, you have to be NRDS. If you are not NRDS, then you are either a rabid dog, a Reaver, a backwoods hillbilly, or a Borg drone. Own up to it. Either accept that you are one of these things, or straighten out your shit and be NRDS.
CVA and it's allies are all NRDS. CVA and it's allies traditionally hold sovereign space in the Providence region, and operate in a number of nearby low security regions as well. Many groups operating primarily in high security space are probably also NRDS, but just haven't really thought about it. Come by Providence some time and say hello, but check your standings first, and be on the lookout for rabid dogs and trespassing hillbillies.
Fly Safe!
- NPSI: Not Purple, Shoot It
- NBSI: Not Blue, Shoot It
- NRDS: Not Red, Don't Shoot
Members of such organization can be anywhere, but behavior is tightly controlled by CONCORD within the core high security systems, so it's only out in low security and null security space where this becomes significant.
Eve is the world. Your organization's sovereign space is your yard. Your main outpost or station is your home.
NPSI: Nomadic Savages
NPSI means anyone not in your fleet is a valid target to attack. Such groups are short term and unorganized, having no sovereign space. They are, by definition, just a fleet. If you are NPSI, you really can't be anything else, as being NPSI for even a day likely would violate the rules of any NBSI or NRDS organization. NPSI groups are nomadic savages that attack anything they come across. Like Reavers in Firefly.
Using the home metaphor, NPSI groups are herds of rabid dogs that occasionally run through your yard looking for anything they can kill.
NBSI: Closed And Aggressive
NBSI means anyone who hasn't been set to good or better standing (set blue) is a valid target to attack. Unknown visitors are not welcome. While NBSI groups generally have their own sovereign space, their NBSI rules generally apply across the entire universe; it doesn't matter if an NBSI ship or fleet is out in someone else's space, if they come across someone not set blue, that someone is a valid target to attack. Arguably like the Borg in Star Trek, or lesser known, perhaps the Krenim Imperium from Star Trek Voyager.
NBSI groups are classic stereotypical backwoods hillbillys. They have a home and a yard, but if some stranger happens across their yard, they shoot first and ask questions later, if they ask questions at all.
NRDS: Open And Civil
NRDS means only those who have aggressed or have been set as terrible standing are valid targets to attack. Individuals, corporations, or alliances are set to terrible standing when they have proved themselves as aggressive and in violation of NRDS rules. Visitors or those previously unknown are safe around those who are NRDS, and may find NRDS pilots to be friendly, but sometimes stern if they have not obtained good standing. Somewhat like being around the Federation and the late generation Federation-allied Klingons in Star Trek. Run across a Federation ship, and they generally greet you with a smile. Run across a Klingon ship, and you may find your encounter less friendly. But you are still safe so long as you haven't been declared an enemy and you are following the rules.
Visitors to NRDS soverign space should consider themselves safe around NRDS pilots, but are strongly encouraged to obtain good standing so as not to potentially disrupt the activities of others in NRDS space (unfortunately, neutral visitors often turn out to be aggressive, so generally speaking, NRDS folks don't like seeing neutral parties in NRDS space. Work on getting your standing set blue if you plan on frequent or extended visits into NRDS space). Even if you consider yourself a neutral visitor, YOU SHOULD VERIFY YOUR NEUTRALITY BEFORE VISITING NRDS SPACE. You may be considered to be of terrible standing without your knowing it. For example, if your corporation or alliance have been set to terrible standing, all those members within are also considered to be of terrible standing. To verify your standing, use a publicly available KOS checker, if they have one, or join a diplomacy channel for the organization to ask, or ask around folks in the NRDS alliance and they should point you in the right direction.
Non-NRDS pilots and fleets frequently tresspass in NRDS space, so even if you have your standings in order, note that it is not always safe space. NRDS protectors are often standing by to render assistance should someone be unjustly attacked, but response time isn't instant, and fights often don't last long. Be wary of pilots with bad or unknown standing in the system.
NRDS groups are civilized patriots. They have a home and a yard, and if some stranger happens across their yard, the stranger may be greeted with a friendly smile or may be asked to leave until they are better known and verified non-aggressive.
Why Be NRDS?
Simple. If you don't consider yourself a rabid dog nor a backwoods hillbilly, you have no other choice; you have to be NRDS. If you don't aspire to be a Firefly Reaver or a Borg drone, you have to be NRDS. If you are not NRDS, then you are either a rabid dog, a Reaver, a backwoods hillbilly, or a Borg drone. Own up to it. Either accept that you are one of these things, or straighten out your shit and be NRDS.
Who And Where Is NRDS?
CVA and it's allies are all NRDS. CVA and it's allies traditionally hold sovereign space in the Providence region, and operate in a number of nearby low security regions as well. Many groups operating primarily in high security space are probably also NRDS, but just haven't really thought about it. Come by Providence some time and say hello, but check your standings first, and be on the lookout for rabid dogs and trespassing hillbillies.
Fly Safe!
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
A Response To Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad
In my last post, I wrote Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad. There have been a few comments on that post that I would like to respond to. Initially, I was just going to post a follow up comment, but what I wrote ended up being longer than a simple comment should be, so I decided to make a new post of it.
The comments on the Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad post are actually helping reinforce the message of that blog post. I have explained from a position of neutrality how the actions of infamous High-Sec ganking organizations can bring people to escalating tensions and an unhealthy level of real hate. In response, there have been several hate filled responses and a comment from Kudzu who is escalating tensions by suggesting I was comparing blowing up ships to real life murder.
The "tear collecting" style comments need no response. They are clearly meant to be antagonizing and are without any real substance.
As for the close to real crime comparison, it would be far more accurate to compare the more infamous actions of High-Sec ganking organizations to theft, vandalism, harassment, and defamation, all of which can be real life crimes. In making such comparison, we are talking not just about the High-Sec ganking of ships, but more importantly the actions of awoxing and attacks on a person's real life character that often go along with it. It is that combination that I am talking about when I wrote about Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad. In affect, I let myself fall prey to the stereotype that organizations like CODE. are building for High-Sec ganking in general. Perhaps I should call it, High-Sec CODEing.
Some people seem to have a naive view of the world as being black and white, when in reality it is mostly shades of grey. Real life money is nothing more than a virtual construct that determines how much stuff a person can acquire with the time they spend earning the money. Once you are past basic needs, the difference between time in game for isk or time in life for dollars doesn't look as clear. Harassment and defamation can happen in a game just as easy as it can outside of a game, especially when in game keeps creeping further and further out of game, like on gaming message boards or people's personal blogs or the infamous bonus rooms. The line can get blurred.
It takes a level of decency and maturity to be able to step back and realize when you are pushing conflict too far with someone in a game -- when the line is getting blurred -- even if it was all for role play, and to step back and give them some breathing room. Maybe come out of character occasionally and demonstrate that being a dick is just a role and not your natural disposition (assuming that's the case). I'm pretty level headed and can take the heat, but clearly some people are getting real life upset about ganker actions and the ganker image CODE. is popularizing. It's bad for the players who are upset by their actions, and bad for other well meaning gankers who will be lumped into the stereotype being built for them. And that, my fellow capsuleers, is Why High-Sec CODEing Is Bad.
The comments on the Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad post are actually helping reinforce the message of that blog post. I have explained from a position of neutrality how the actions of infamous High-Sec ganking organizations can bring people to escalating tensions and an unhealthy level of real hate. In response, there have been several hate filled responses and a comment from Kudzu who is escalating tensions by suggesting I was comparing blowing up ships to real life murder.
The "tear collecting" style comments need no response. They are clearly meant to be antagonizing and are without any real substance.
As for the close to real crime comparison, it would be far more accurate to compare the more infamous actions of High-Sec ganking organizations to theft, vandalism, harassment, and defamation, all of which can be real life crimes. In making such comparison, we are talking not just about the High-Sec ganking of ships, but more importantly the actions of awoxing and attacks on a person's real life character that often go along with it. It is that combination that I am talking about when I wrote about Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad. In affect, I let myself fall prey to the stereotype that organizations like CODE. are building for High-Sec ganking in general. Perhaps I should call it, High-Sec CODEing.
Some people seem to have a naive view of the world as being black and white, when in reality it is mostly shades of grey. Real life money is nothing more than a virtual construct that determines how much stuff a person can acquire with the time they spend earning the money. Once you are past basic needs, the difference between time in game for isk or time in life for dollars doesn't look as clear. Harassment and defamation can happen in a game just as easy as it can outside of a game, especially when in game keeps creeping further and further out of game, like on gaming message boards or people's personal blogs or the infamous bonus rooms. The line can get blurred.
It takes a level of decency and maturity to be able to step back and realize when you are pushing conflict too far with someone in a game -- when the line is getting blurred -- even if it was all for role play, and to step back and give them some breathing room. Maybe come out of character occasionally and demonstrate that being a dick is just a role and not your natural disposition (assuming that's the case). I'm pretty level headed and can take the heat, but clearly some people are getting real life upset about ganker actions and the ganker image CODE. is popularizing. It's bad for the players who are upset by their actions, and bad for other well meaning gankers who will be lumped into the stereotype being built for them. And that, my fellow capsuleers, is Why High-Sec CODEing Is Bad.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad
For many of you, the content of today's blog post probably goes without saying. But I know some people, especially the gankers out there, would benefit from being reminded as to why High-Sec ganking is bad.
Yes, it's just a game. It's only pixels. Or is it? CCP has done something with Eve that very few other games do. When someone blows up your ship, your ship doesn't respawn, and you can't just go run to your wreck and put all of your modules back on (maybe a few of them if someone else didn't loot it first). Each loss is a real loss. The killboards have gone so far as to attach real currency values to every loss. Real time is lost. Real effort is lost. It is this kind of battle for resources that makes real conflict in the real world really serious. It spawns hate, endless war, and causes real suffering. And CCP has brought a piece of this undesirable realness to Eve by making losses so real.
To keep a game fun and civil in light of such mechanics, neutral zones are needed. Places where people can be free to do commerce without unexpected conflict. Then when it's time to get the battle on, that's when you head to the PvP battle areas to fight with others.
In Eve, Low-Sec and Null space are the PvP battle areas. High-Sec space is the neutral zone. CCP has provided war declarations as a way to bring additional conflict even into the High-Sec space, but in those cases the conflict is expected.
The criminals of CODE. seek to breach this friendly construct and make it so there is no safe place for players, in a world where every loss is real. They wish to steal real people's real time and effort for their own often twisted amusement while allowing no refuge for the weary. It brings their activities frighteningly close to the blurry line between real and fake crime.
These are the reasons why some care bears become so livid at what should be just a game. This is why some within the Anti-Gank (AG) community and the High-Sec Militia believe they are not only playing the role of the good guys, but actually, to some real extent, are real life good guys battling against legitimate real life bad guys.
These AG and HSM community members want conflict within the game to be structured and fun, as a game should be. Those within CODE., whether they realize it or not, are attempting to bring real pain and hardship, the terrors of real world conflict into the game, finding their entertainment in the sometimes real suffering of others.
It is just a game. But even in a game, and perhaps especially in a game, it is important to harbor goodwill towards others and preserve and protect an environment of fun for everyone, and not just oneself.
Yes, it's just a game. It's only pixels. Or is it? CCP has done something with Eve that very few other games do. When someone blows up your ship, your ship doesn't respawn, and you can't just go run to your wreck and put all of your modules back on (maybe a few of them if someone else didn't loot it first). Each loss is a real loss. The killboards have gone so far as to attach real currency values to every loss. Real time is lost. Real effort is lost. It is this kind of battle for resources that makes real conflict in the real world really serious. It spawns hate, endless war, and causes real suffering. And CCP has brought a piece of this undesirable realness to Eve by making losses so real.
To keep a game fun and civil in light of such mechanics, neutral zones are needed. Places where people can be free to do commerce without unexpected conflict. Then when it's time to get the battle on, that's when you head to the PvP battle areas to fight with others.
In Eve, Low-Sec and Null space are the PvP battle areas. High-Sec space is the neutral zone. CCP has provided war declarations as a way to bring additional conflict even into the High-Sec space, but in those cases the conflict is expected.
The criminals of CODE. seek to breach this friendly construct and make it so there is no safe place for players, in a world where every loss is real. They wish to steal real people's real time and effort for their own often twisted amusement while allowing no refuge for the weary. It brings their activities frighteningly close to the blurry line between real and fake crime.
These are the reasons why some care bears become so livid at what should be just a game. This is why some within the Anti-Gank (AG) community and the High-Sec Militia believe they are not only playing the role of the good guys, but actually, to some real extent, are real life good guys battling against legitimate real life bad guys.
These AG and HSM community members want conflict within the game to be structured and fun, as a game should be. Those within CODE., whether they realize it or not, are attempting to bring real pain and hardship, the terrors of real world conflict into the game, finding their entertainment in the sometimes real suffering of others.
It is just a game. But even in a game, and perhaps especially in a game, it is important to harbor goodwill towards others and preserve and protect an environment of fun for everyone, and not just oneself.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Cloak Inhibitor
There is no such thing!
But I think there should be.
Sometimes you hear people complain about "cloaky" campers in null space. But you don't really respect the problem until you experience it. A cloaky camper is someone who sits around endlessly in a cloaked ship, occasionally scanning down and attacking anyone they can find, usually by "hot dropping" a fleet on the victim. This is fine out in the wild, but when one of these cloaky campers sets up shop in one of your alliance's industrial systems, it can disrupt the activities of hundreds of players for hours, days, or longer, bringing an otherwise active industrial system to a near standstill.
You can't scan these people down because they are cloaked. You can set traps for them, but you'll likely need a fleet to set a proper trap, and much of the time it won't help because the cloaky camper will be largely afk.
The goal should be to provide a counter to the problem without making it too easy to do or otherwise breaking people's ability to utilize cloaking. To that end, I suggest the creation of the Cloak Inhibitor.
The Cloak Inhibitor would be something alliance's or corporations could deploy in their key systems to limit cloaking in those systems. These could only be put in null space systems and the effects would be system-wide. You don't want alliances putting these things everywhere, though, so there should be a significant upkeep cost for operating a Cloak Inhibitor. My thought is that it could be a structure that gets anchored to a POS. It would have heavy power grid and CPU requirements, possibly requiring a large POS. Onlining them would take a significant amount of time as well, on the order of 15 minutes, to prevent them from being placed everywhere and then flipped on and off like light switches. Alliances would be forced to either pay for regular fueling of a dedicated Cloak Inhibitor POS, or would have a time investment when selectively onlining them.
The Cloak Inhibitor would not completely prevent cloaking. That would be going too far. Instead, I propose there be 2 new timers that work in combination with active Cloak Inhibitors. A Cloak Drop Timer, and a Cloak Reactivation Timer.
If you are in a system with an active Cloak Inhibitor and you engage a cloaking device, or if you have a cloaking device engaged when a Cloak Inhibitor is brought online in a system, you get a Cloak Drop Timer. This would be a timer with a duration of maybe 15 minutes. Once this timer is up, your cloak automatically drops along with the timer. If you manually drop cloak before the timer is up, the timer drops immediately. Either way, when the Cloak Drop timer drops, you get a Cloak Reactivation Timer.
During the period of the Cloak Reactivation Timer, you cannot engage a cloaking device in the system. The duration would be significant, on the order of maybe 2 to 4 hours. The duration needs to be long enough to make jumping between alternate characters to avoid the new mechanic impractical. When the timer drops, you can cloak in the system again, which starts the cycle over.
In addition, the timers will drop and reset when switching systems (but not when logging out and back in). Someone wishing to abuse the system might try to jump back and forth between systems to keep clearing the timers, but pilots are vulnerable when jumping through null space gates even when fitted with cloaking devices, so I don't think this would be a serious loophole.
End result is alliance's can make cloaky camping far more difficult in key systems. Pilots in general could no longer afk for extended periods of time in null space, without fear of someone activating a Cloak Inhibitor and decloaking them. But pilots would still have a guaranteed 15 minutes of cloaking safety in each system.
But I think there should be.
The Problem
Sometimes you hear people complain about "cloaky" campers in null space. But you don't really respect the problem until you experience it. A cloaky camper is someone who sits around endlessly in a cloaked ship, occasionally scanning down and attacking anyone they can find, usually by "hot dropping" a fleet on the victim. This is fine out in the wild, but when one of these cloaky campers sets up shop in one of your alliance's industrial systems, it can disrupt the activities of hundreds of players for hours, days, or longer, bringing an otherwise active industrial system to a near standstill.
You can't scan these people down because they are cloaked. You can set traps for them, but you'll likely need a fleet to set a proper trap, and much of the time it won't help because the cloaky camper will be largely afk.
The Solution
The goal should be to provide a counter to the problem without making it too easy to do or otherwise breaking people's ability to utilize cloaking. To that end, I suggest the creation of the Cloak Inhibitor.
The Cloak Inhibitor would be something alliance's or corporations could deploy in their key systems to limit cloaking in those systems. These could only be put in null space systems and the effects would be system-wide. You don't want alliances putting these things everywhere, though, so there should be a significant upkeep cost for operating a Cloak Inhibitor. My thought is that it could be a structure that gets anchored to a POS. It would have heavy power grid and CPU requirements, possibly requiring a large POS. Onlining them would take a significant amount of time as well, on the order of 15 minutes, to prevent them from being placed everywhere and then flipped on and off like light switches. Alliances would be forced to either pay for regular fueling of a dedicated Cloak Inhibitor POS, or would have a time investment when selectively onlining them.
The Cloak Inhibitor would not completely prevent cloaking. That would be going too far. Instead, I propose there be 2 new timers that work in combination with active Cloak Inhibitors. A Cloak Drop Timer, and a Cloak Reactivation Timer.
If you are in a system with an active Cloak Inhibitor and you engage a cloaking device, or if you have a cloaking device engaged when a Cloak Inhibitor is brought online in a system, you get a Cloak Drop Timer. This would be a timer with a duration of maybe 15 minutes. Once this timer is up, your cloak automatically drops along with the timer. If you manually drop cloak before the timer is up, the timer drops immediately. Either way, when the Cloak Drop timer drops, you get a Cloak Reactivation Timer.
During the period of the Cloak Reactivation Timer, you cannot engage a cloaking device in the system. The duration would be significant, on the order of maybe 2 to 4 hours. The duration needs to be long enough to make jumping between alternate characters to avoid the new mechanic impractical. When the timer drops, you can cloak in the system again, which starts the cycle over.
In addition, the timers will drop and reset when switching systems (but not when logging out and back in). Someone wishing to abuse the system might try to jump back and forth between systems to keep clearing the timers, but pilots are vulnerable when jumping through null space gates even when fitted with cloaking devices, so I don't think this would be a serious loophole.
End result is alliance's can make cloaky camping far more difficult in key systems. Pilots in general could no longer afk for extended periods of time in null space, without fear of someone activating a Cloak Inhibitor and decloaking them. But pilots would still have a guaranteed 15 minutes of cloaking safety in each system.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Taking a Bite out of Bumpers
A few of us within the AG community have taken to the idea of engaging "bumper" ships to stop freighter ganking in high security space. Bumpers, of course, are the ships -- usually Machariels -- that repeatedly bump into freighters to keep them mis-aligned and unable to warp away until either the freighter pilot pays a ransom or a gank fleet arrives to attack the freighter.
Attacking these bumper ships to stop the freighter ganks is usually referred to as "bumper ganking", or "Machariel ganking". I would like to suggest that we should not use the word "ganking" for this activity. The word "ganking" suggests a criminal activity, and engaging these bumper ships is more aligned with a police engagement rather than a criminal activity. For now, perhaps we should just call it "bumper engagement". I would also like to suggest alternatives to what is usually imagined for this work.
By strict Empire law, attacking a bumper ship in high-security space is a criminal activity. But this is due to the limitations of the programming and the inability of the programming to take into consideration intent and the inability to respect the spirit of the laws rather than just the letter.
As capsuleers in Eve, we can go further and act in a more intelligent manner than what basic Empire laws can accomplish in ensuring liberty and justice in Eve. Brave officers within the AG community risk themselves to protect the people. In this way, these capsuleers, who I today will call officers, are like officers in a police force. I have thought this from the beginning, as is evident by my use of McGruff the crime dog as a stand in mascot.
This policing need not happen everywhere. There should be plenty of places and ways in Eve to engage in PvP combat (which I will address in a separate blog entry at a later date). But as a civilized people, we must draw a line somewhere. And it almost goes without saying that attacking non-aggressive freighters ferrying cargo through high-security space should be viewed as a criminal activity that the people should not tolerate. Police officers should respond to such behavior and work to stop it from occurring.
To that end, I would suggest that we review the manner in which we engage bumper ships in high security space. In the past, there has been a mindset much like criminal ganking -- to sneak up on them, drop attack ships on them without warning, and destroy the bumper ship. While potentially effective and certainly exciting, it lacks the element of police diplomacy.
I would like to propose we consider a few changes to this tactic. In situations where there is sufficient lead time before an impending attack on a freighter, I would propose the following:
Attacking these bumper ships to stop the freighter ganks is usually referred to as "bumper ganking", or "Machariel ganking". I would like to suggest that we should not use the word "ganking" for this activity. The word "ganking" suggests a criminal activity, and engaging these bumper ships is more aligned with a police engagement rather than a criminal activity. For now, perhaps we should just call it "bumper engagement". I would also like to suggest alternatives to what is usually imagined for this work.
By strict Empire law, attacking a bumper ship in high-security space is a criminal activity. But this is due to the limitations of the programming and the inability of the programming to take into consideration intent and the inability to respect the spirit of the laws rather than just the letter.
As capsuleers in Eve, we can go further and act in a more intelligent manner than what basic Empire laws can accomplish in ensuring liberty and justice in Eve. Brave officers within the AG community risk themselves to protect the people. In this way, these capsuleers, who I today will call officers, are like officers in a police force. I have thought this from the beginning, as is evident by my use of McGruff the crime dog as a stand in mascot.
This policing need not happen everywhere. There should be plenty of places and ways in Eve to engage in PvP combat (which I will address in a separate blog entry at a later date). But as a civilized people, we must draw a line somewhere. And it almost goes without saying that attacking non-aggressive freighters ferrying cargo through high-security space should be viewed as a criminal activity that the people should not tolerate. Police officers should respond to such behavior and work to stop it from occurring.
To that end, I would suggest that we review the manner in which we engage bumper ships in high security space. In the past, there has been a mindset much like criminal ganking -- to sneak up on them, drop attack ships on them without warning, and destroy the bumper ship. While potentially effective and certainly exciting, it lacks the element of police diplomacy.
I would like to propose we consider a few changes to this tactic. In situations where there is sufficient lead time before an impending attack on a freighter, I would propose the following:
- Issue the bumper a warning. Something like the following: "You are engaging in an activity with criminal intent. Withdraw from this area immediately or we will take action."
- There is no real need to sneak up on the bumper. In fact, coordinating an attack may be somewhat easier without trying to drop a fleet right on top of the bumper. Move your police fleet into position next to the freighter. It is fine if the bumper pilot sees this happening.
- If the bumper flees, the engagement was a success. The attack was stopped and the freighter pilot can continue on his way. If the bumper persists and continues bumping, the police fleet attacks without the difficulty of attempting to time a warp in.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Is Ganking Bullying?
I'd like to make a quick post regarding the "Ganking Is Bullying" crew and what they have to say. Some members of CODE have been suggesting that the Ganking Is Bullying blog is my blog, or have associated me with them in some way. I would like to officially state that the Ganking Is Bullying blog is NOT my blog. Furthermore, I have no association with their crew nor do I even know who they are.
That said, I have read the one blog post on that blog. It makes a case as to why ganking is bullying and reads like a FAQ. If you are wondering my opinion on it, I would say it's a reasonable argument, but only for ganking that pushes the role play boundaries too far and intentionally attacks the person behind the screen and not just his or her character and ship. But maybe that is how they define ganking. So it depends on how you define ganking. By my own definition, not all ganking is bullying. Some of it is just playing the game. But intentionally try to attack the actual person behind the screen emotionally and it becomes bullying. That's where I stand on it.
I do wonder why anyone troubles to make such a blog, though. Even if their argument is sound, who is the audience? A bully will not be swayed by their arguments. Do they believe that some people are being bullies without realizing it? Maybe, but I don't believe you will convince such people that they are actually being bullies. I think they need a different strategy. Some other way to persuade people to change their behavior, if that is their goal. But some bullies will always be bullies. They need to also help people learn how not to succumb to bullying tactics. If they haven't tried that, they should.
That said, I have read the one blog post on that blog. It makes a case as to why ganking is bullying and reads like a FAQ. If you are wondering my opinion on it, I would say it's a reasonable argument, but only for ganking that pushes the role play boundaries too far and intentionally attacks the person behind the screen and not just his or her character and ship. But maybe that is how they define ganking. So it depends on how you define ganking. By my own definition, not all ganking is bullying. Some of it is just playing the game. But intentionally try to attack the actual person behind the screen emotionally and it becomes bullying. That's where I stand on it.
I do wonder why anyone troubles to make such a blog, though. Even if their argument is sound, who is the audience? A bully will not be swayed by their arguments. Do they believe that some people are being bullies without realizing it? Maybe, but I don't believe you will convince such people that they are actually being bullies. I think they need a different strategy. Some other way to persuade people to change their behavior, if that is their goal. But some bullies will always be bullies. They need to also help people learn how not to succumb to bullying tactics. If they haven't tried that, they should.
Friday, January 2, 2015
End of the Argument: Role Play vs Real Life
I'm making one last statement regarding the argument that who someone is in game does not reflect on who they are in real life, and the impact it has had on relations between CODE and the Anti-ganking (AG) community.
This argument has been going round and round lately, and it's getting tired. Forum participants are tired of it, Anti-ganking moderators are tired of it, everyone is getting tired of it. So I'm saying one last piece and then letting it go.
I have never outright suggested that the average supporter of CODE is a bad person in real life. What I have suggested and continue to believe is that by pushing the boundaries of role play too far (under the assumption that it is role play), they have made it very difficult for others to distinguish between role play and real life. That the argument persists incessantly is evidence of that. Some CODE supporters will say on forums or elsewhere that in game behavior does not reflect on who people are in real life, but their argument always ends there. Have you ever seen one of these people step out of character about specific incidents and demonstrate that there is a good friendly person underneath? I haven't. Not to say it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen it. I want to see it. I haven't. It makes their argument feel shallow and suspect.
Ultimately, it should be no surprise that some people continue to question the real life character of CODE members and affiliates. It is the bed they have made for themselves. They blame the AG community for not being able to tell the difference between role play and real life when it is they who bare much of the blame for making it so incredibly difficult to tell in the first place.
I write this not to badger or berate CODE members and affiliates. I write this hoping they will read it, consider my words carefully, and start to change the manner in which they conduct themselves. I will take a leaf of faith and accept that the CODE community is mostly good people. But you have to do something too. Step out of character more often, leave the whole "tear collecting" meme behind, and try to show people that you are here to have fun and not just to trample on the fun of others. Do that, and you will find many people, myself included, be much more amiable towards you. I will never join you; I like playing the good guy; but I and many others would very much like to play against you with more a feeling of confidence that we play against friends.
This argument has been going round and round lately, and it's getting tired. Forum participants are tired of it, Anti-ganking moderators are tired of it, everyone is getting tired of it. So I'm saying one last piece and then letting it go.
I have never outright suggested that the average supporter of CODE is a bad person in real life. What I have suggested and continue to believe is that by pushing the boundaries of role play too far (under the assumption that it is role play), they have made it very difficult for others to distinguish between role play and real life. That the argument persists incessantly is evidence of that. Some CODE supporters will say on forums or elsewhere that in game behavior does not reflect on who people are in real life, but their argument always ends there. Have you ever seen one of these people step out of character about specific incidents and demonstrate that there is a good friendly person underneath? I haven't. Not to say it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen it. I want to see it. I haven't. It makes their argument feel shallow and suspect.
Ultimately, it should be no surprise that some people continue to question the real life character of CODE members and affiliates. It is the bed they have made for themselves. They blame the AG community for not being able to tell the difference between role play and real life when it is they who bare much of the blame for making it so incredibly difficult to tell in the first place.
I write this not to badger or berate CODE members and affiliates. I write this hoping they will read it, consider my words carefully, and start to change the manner in which they conduct themselves. I will take a leaf of faith and accept that the CODE community is mostly good people. But you have to do something too. Step out of character more often, leave the whole "tear collecting" meme behind, and try to show people that you are here to have fun and not just to trample on the fun of others. Do that, and you will find many people, myself included, be much more amiable towards you. I will never join you; I like playing the good guy; but I and many others would very much like to play against you with more a feeling of confidence that we play against friends.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Announcement From Scott Bacon
I recently read through the Announcement From Gorila thread on the Eve forums and would like to make a post of my own in response. I will add this to the Eve forums if I can, though currently the Eve forums are not accepting new posts, so I am initially posting it here in my blog. My response follows:
Being away for the holidays, I did not get a chance to comment on the recent Announcement From Gorila thread before it was locked. I am therefore making this post, as I feel my viewpoint is important.
I started playing Eve back in early May of 2014, about 8 months ago. To date, I have never been ganked in high security space. That's not what got me into the Anti-gank (AG) community. I learned of ganking and the Anti-ganking channel via someone mentioning buying permits in the rookie help channel. Since that time, I have become very much on the side of the AG community, primarily in opposition to CODE and their backers. Not just because I like to play the good guy -- which I do -- but more so because of what I have seen and heard from both sides over the last 8 months.
Each side has vocal members claiming the other side is "toxic". But what I have personally witnessed over my last 8 months is a lot of arguably toxic activity coming from the CODE side and very little if any coming from the AG side.
I don't have anything against role playing, but I expect players to remain civil and respectful towards others. If tempers flair over "bad guy" activity, I think it is important that the "bad guy" be able to step out of character and attempt to explain and defuse the situation. In my 8 months, I have never seen the "bad guys" step out of character, except in forum posts where the "bad guys" use it as a tool to attempt to paint the AG community in a bad light. When this happens, a person role playing a bad guy becomes indistinguishable from someone who is truly trying to hurt people, albeit through a game. To borrow a quote from a movie, "Deep down you may still be that same great kid you used to be. But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."
Furthermore, this role playing, if that is truly what it is, should not extend outside the context of the game. But an argument can be made that it does. I would argue that the take over of the Anti-ganking channel by CODE in late December went beyond role play into attacking the mechanics of the game that allow players to communicate. That is perhaps debatable, but it's not the only example. There are the blogs. CODE players troll me personally about my Eve blog, which stretches and arguably surpasses what qualifies as role play. The fact that "tear collecting" is a phrase gankers use is also evidence that their intent goes beyond role play into attempts to emotionally attack real people. When the Anti-ganking channel was taken over, before I was muted I suggested that perhaps they had stolen Gorila's account, and my suspicion was met with laughter by members of CODE. Given the severity of what I was suggesting, it would have been a good time for a good person within CODE to step out of character to set the matter straight. That didn't happen. Then there was the whole bonus room fiasco. None of these things by themselves prove anything, but all of these things together start to build a convincing case that it is CODE and their ilk that are the real "toxic" community. It is for this reason that I hold such a dim view of CODE, and the reason I am rather harsh towards Gorila for joining up with CODE and allowing them to vandalize the Anti-ganking channel, even if it was only for a short period of time.
Maybe I've got it all wrong. But CODE has spent the last 8 months convincing me I'm not. It takes time to build trust. Right now, I trust that members of CODE are generally disrespectful towards other players and are a detriment to the Eve community. If that is not really true, it will take at least as long to undo that damage to my perception of them. I know there are likely those within CODE that believe they are good people and that some of the AG community is unjustly biased against them. But perhaps this viewpoint has been taken to the extreme to where general respect has been lost, and it has led them into becoming the very thing they claim not to be.
Believe what you will. I believe that honor trumps all. I may not agree with some of the folks in the AG community on certain issues, but it looks to me that most of the time their hearts are in the right place, even when I think they are wrong. For that, they have honor. It saddens me that I can't say the same for CODE.
I know some CODE members have reported receiving real life threats from members of the AG community. I am not personally aware of any such threats. But I would like to emphasize that I do not condone such activity. Real life threats are never appropriate. If someone feels they have been wronged in a serious way, they need to maintain proper discipline, keep a cool head, mind their tongue, and report it. But always remain respectful.
Being away for the holidays, I did not get a chance to comment on the recent Announcement From Gorila thread before it was locked. I am therefore making this post, as I feel my viewpoint is important.
I started playing Eve back in early May of 2014, about 8 months ago. To date, I have never been ganked in high security space. That's not what got me into the Anti-gank (AG) community. I learned of ganking and the Anti-ganking channel via someone mentioning buying permits in the rookie help channel. Since that time, I have become very much on the side of the AG community, primarily in opposition to CODE and their backers. Not just because I like to play the good guy -- which I do -- but more so because of what I have seen and heard from both sides over the last 8 months.
Each side has vocal members claiming the other side is "toxic". But what I have personally witnessed over my last 8 months is a lot of arguably toxic activity coming from the CODE side and very little if any coming from the AG side.
I don't have anything against role playing, but I expect players to remain civil and respectful towards others. If tempers flair over "bad guy" activity, I think it is important that the "bad guy" be able to step out of character and attempt to explain and defuse the situation. In my 8 months, I have never seen the "bad guys" step out of character, except in forum posts where the "bad guys" use it as a tool to attempt to paint the AG community in a bad light. When this happens, a person role playing a bad guy becomes indistinguishable from someone who is truly trying to hurt people, albeit through a game. To borrow a quote from a movie, "Deep down you may still be that same great kid you used to be. But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."
Furthermore, this role playing, if that is truly what it is, should not extend outside the context of the game. But an argument can be made that it does. I would argue that the take over of the Anti-ganking channel by CODE in late December went beyond role play into attacking the mechanics of the game that allow players to communicate. That is perhaps debatable, but it's not the only example. There are the blogs. CODE players troll me personally about my Eve blog, which stretches and arguably surpasses what qualifies as role play. The fact that "tear collecting" is a phrase gankers use is also evidence that their intent goes beyond role play into attempts to emotionally attack real people. When the Anti-ganking channel was taken over, before I was muted I suggested that perhaps they had stolen Gorila's account, and my suspicion was met with laughter by members of CODE. Given the severity of what I was suggesting, it would have been a good time for a good person within CODE to step out of character to set the matter straight. That didn't happen. Then there was the whole bonus room fiasco. None of these things by themselves prove anything, but all of these things together start to build a convincing case that it is CODE and their ilk that are the real "toxic" community. It is for this reason that I hold such a dim view of CODE, and the reason I am rather harsh towards Gorila for joining up with CODE and allowing them to vandalize the Anti-ganking channel, even if it was only for a short period of time.
Maybe I've got it all wrong. But CODE has spent the last 8 months convincing me I'm not. It takes time to build trust. Right now, I trust that members of CODE are generally disrespectful towards other players and are a detriment to the Eve community. If that is not really true, it will take at least as long to undo that damage to my perception of them. I know there are likely those within CODE that believe they are good people and that some of the AG community is unjustly biased against them. But perhaps this viewpoint has been taken to the extreme to where general respect has been lost, and it has led them into becoming the very thing they claim not to be.
Believe what you will. I believe that honor trumps all. I may not agree with some of the folks in the AG community on certain issues, but it looks to me that most of the time their hearts are in the right place, even when I think they are wrong. For that, they have honor. It saddens me that I can't say the same for CODE.
I know some CODE members have reported receiving real life threats from members of the AG community. I am not personally aware of any such threats. But I would like to emphasize that I do not condone such activity. Real life threats are never appropriate. If someone feels they have been wronged in a serious way, they need to maintain proper discipline, keep a cool head, mind their tongue, and report it. But always remain respectful.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Gorila Vengaza: Ramifications
For those of you who do not already know, on the evening of 12/23/2014 (US time), the Anti-ganking and Gank-intel channels were taken over by CODE. using the account of Gorila Vengaza who had moderator access to the channels. It was fairly obvious it was done from his account based on some of the things that were said in the channel, such as this:
[ 2014.12.24 06:03:42 ] Gorila Vengaza > Kill: Krauss Koskanaiken (Mackinaw) OOPZ
What's not as clear is what happened behind the screen of the Gorila Vengaza account. But none of the possibilities are innocent, and all of them paint CODE. in an even worse light than has ever been the case before. I will summarize the various possibilities below. I also submitted a ticket to CCP asking them if they would restore the channels back to one of the other original moderators. I felt that was a reasonable request without knowing more. But the AG community may end up just having to start new channels.
So what are the possible options of what happened?
It's possible Gorila simply switched sides. He has always held CODE. in higher regard than many others in the AG community. He has frequently stated how he believes in game activity does not reflect on people in real life, and he is quick to pick fights with those on the AG side who he feels are too obnoxious (for example, Veers and the Ganking Is Bullying crowd).
What would surprise me about this possibility is that Gorila would allow events to unfold as they did, with the takeover of the AG channels in particular. These are legacy channels joined by hundreds of people. To do this would be shockingly dishonorable towards the Eve community as a whole. I've never been one to jump on the ban badwagon, but if this is what happened, a suspension of even a ban of his account would be reasonable for what amounts to vandalism against Eve. If control of the channels was promptly and voluntarily returned to other original channel moderators, then a warning might would be sufficient.
This possibility can go one of two ways. The more likely being that Gorila was never really on the AG side and served as a double agent for CODE. What seems unlikely about this is a long history of kills against CODE. If this is what happened, much like the Gorila switching sides scenario, I believe their is reasonable cause for CCP to temporarily suspend or even permanently ban his account for the same reasons as in the Gorila switching sides scenario (again lessened to as little as a warning if control was returned promptly and voluntarily).
Other interesting possibility, although probably the least likely of them all, is that Gorila has faked switching sides, and is actually beginning a campaign to infiltrate CODE. in an attempt to do serious internal damage to them once granted authority within their ranks. However, once again the case for vandalism may still apply. If this were proven to be true, it might not warrant as serious a reprimand.
Either way, and beyond this situation, I don't know why anyone ever willingly becomes a double agent. The problem with being a double agent is that no one is on your side. You can't trust your enemy you are infiltrating, and those who you intend to serve can't trust you. Simply put, once double agent activity becomes highly suspected, you lose all credibility. No one can trust anything you say ever again. Credibility is one of the few things that matter in this world, be it in game or in real life, and it's reckless to throw it away. What would we be able to believe that has been said by Gorila? Everything he has ever said in the past suddenly becomes suspect.
This possibility is arguably the most damning to CODE. At first, I thought this is what had happened, but based on other people I have talked to so far, it's starting to look as though this is not what actually happened. Still, I can't be sure yet. If this is to have happened, it would likely mean a violation of the Eula and worse.
How would they attack his account? It would most likely be from collecting information from him and having either guessed his password based on knowledge of him or possibly even Gorila giving his account password to someone he thought he could trust. When you think about what events transpired over the past year, you think about points where Gorila may have been more vulnerable to someone violating his trust. You think of the loss of his spouse, and how he said some of the CODE. people were very compassionate towards him in those difficult times. You start to think CODE. may have used that event to leverage information out of him. The picture gets real ugly real quick. If this were the case, it could mean real life crimes being committed. It could mean political fallout, not just in game, but in real life. It could mean national news stories. It could mean the suspension or ban of possibly every CODE. affiliated account there is.
Whatever the case, it reflects poorly on CODE. And I mean, even more poorly than is usually the case. And in all but the last case, it reflects poorly on Gorila Vengaza as well. There will likely be fallout from this, and not in CODE's favor. For the first time since I started playing Eve almost 10 months ago, I feel CODE. has finally crossed a line they should not have crossed.
As Gorila himself has said repeatedly in the past "I have always believed that how you play a game has NOTHING to do with who you are in RL". I accepted this as possible in the past, but suddenly it is brought into question. It doesn't matter which of the possibilities are actually the truth. These events have transcended CODE. role playing as bad guys into actually being bad guys.
I hope these events finally push others of honor and respect to finally stop standing on the side lines and stand up against CODE. and those who would support them. Everything from attacking them in game to getting their accounts banned suddenly seems reasonable. Whatever happens, the days ahead will heavily impact Eve history and where it goes from here.
It appears as though, through whatever means, the Anti-ganking channel has now been reclaimed by rightful moderators. As for the disposition of Gorila Vengaza, the general consensus so far appears to be option 1 above, that he simply threw his honor in the trash and switched sides.
[ 2014.12.24 06:03:42 ] Gorila Vengaza > Kill: Krauss Koskanaiken (Mackinaw) OOPZ
What's not as clear is what happened behind the screen of the Gorila Vengaza account. But none of the possibilities are innocent, and all of them paint CODE. in an even worse light than has ever been the case before. I will summarize the various possibilities below. I also submitted a ticket to CCP asking them if they would restore the channels back to one of the other original moderators. I felt that was a reasonable request without knowing more. But the AG community may end up just having to start new channels.
So what are the possible options of what happened?
- Gorila switched sides.
- Gorila is a double agent.
- Gorila was a double agent from the start and never really on the AG side.
- Gorila is a double agent for the AG side.
- Gorila's account was hacked/stolen by members of CODE.
Gorila Switched Sides
It's possible Gorila simply switched sides. He has always held CODE. in higher regard than many others in the AG community. He has frequently stated how he believes in game activity does not reflect on people in real life, and he is quick to pick fights with those on the AG side who he feels are too obnoxious (for example, Veers and the Ganking Is Bullying crowd).
What would surprise me about this possibility is that Gorila would allow events to unfold as they did, with the takeover of the AG channels in particular. These are legacy channels joined by hundreds of people. To do this would be shockingly dishonorable towards the Eve community as a whole. I've never been one to jump on the ban badwagon, but if this is what happened, a suspension of even a ban of his account would be reasonable for what amounts to vandalism against Eve. If control of the channels was promptly and voluntarily returned to other original channel moderators, then a warning might would be sufficient.
Gorila is a Double Agent
This possibility can go one of two ways. The more likely being that Gorila was never really on the AG side and served as a double agent for CODE. What seems unlikely about this is a long history of kills against CODE. If this is what happened, much like the Gorila switching sides scenario, I believe their is reasonable cause for CCP to temporarily suspend or even permanently ban his account for the same reasons as in the Gorila switching sides scenario (again lessened to as little as a warning if control was returned promptly and voluntarily).
Other interesting possibility, although probably the least likely of them all, is that Gorila has faked switching sides, and is actually beginning a campaign to infiltrate CODE. in an attempt to do serious internal damage to them once granted authority within their ranks. However, once again the case for vandalism may still apply. If this were proven to be true, it might not warrant as serious a reprimand.
Either way, and beyond this situation, I don't know why anyone ever willingly becomes a double agent. The problem with being a double agent is that no one is on your side. You can't trust your enemy you are infiltrating, and those who you intend to serve can't trust you. Simply put, once double agent activity becomes highly suspected, you lose all credibility. No one can trust anything you say ever again. Credibility is one of the few things that matter in this world, be it in game or in real life, and it's reckless to throw it away. What would we be able to believe that has been said by Gorila? Everything he has ever said in the past suddenly becomes suspect.
Gorila's Account Was Hacked
This possibility is arguably the most damning to CODE. At first, I thought this is what had happened, but based on other people I have talked to so far, it's starting to look as though this is not what actually happened. Still, I can't be sure yet. If this is to have happened, it would likely mean a violation of the Eula and worse.
How would they attack his account? It would most likely be from collecting information from him and having either guessed his password based on knowledge of him or possibly even Gorila giving his account password to someone he thought he could trust. When you think about what events transpired over the past year, you think about points where Gorila may have been more vulnerable to someone violating his trust. You think of the loss of his spouse, and how he said some of the CODE. people were very compassionate towards him in those difficult times. You start to think CODE. may have used that event to leverage information out of him. The picture gets real ugly real quick. If this were the case, it could mean real life crimes being committed. It could mean political fallout, not just in game, but in real life. It could mean national news stories. It could mean the suspension or ban of possibly every CODE. affiliated account there is.
Fallout
Whatever the case, it reflects poorly on CODE. And I mean, even more poorly than is usually the case. And in all but the last case, it reflects poorly on Gorila Vengaza as well. There will likely be fallout from this, and not in CODE's favor. For the first time since I started playing Eve almost 10 months ago, I feel CODE. has finally crossed a line they should not have crossed.
As Gorila himself has said repeatedly in the past "I have always believed that how you play a game has NOTHING to do with who you are in RL". I accepted this as possible in the past, but suddenly it is brought into question. It doesn't matter which of the possibilities are actually the truth. These events have transcended CODE. role playing as bad guys into actually being bad guys.
I hope these events finally push others of honor and respect to finally stop standing on the side lines and stand up against CODE. and those who would support them. Everything from attacking them in game to getting their accounts banned suddenly seems reasonable. Whatever happens, the days ahead will heavily impact Eve history and where it goes from here.
Anti-ganking Channel Update
It appears as though, through whatever means, the Anti-ganking channel has now been reclaimed by rightful moderators. As for the disposition of Gorila Vengaza, the general consensus so far appears to be option 1 above, that he simply threw his honor in the trash and switched sides.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Eve Principles of Interstellar Conduct (EPIC)
This entry serves as an official online location for the Eve Principles of Interstellar Conduct (EPIC). Any capsuleers who have action taken against them for violation of the EPIC can be directed here.
The Eve Principles of Interstellar Conduct serves as a reminder to all Eve capsuleers to behave with good conduct in Eve space, and acts as an order to take corrective actions against those who are in violation of the good conduct listed herein.
Eve is a conflict and combat rich environment. While good conduct is always important to maintaining a healthy community, this is especially true in an adversarial environment such as Eve. In service to ensuring a healthy community in Eve, all capsuleers, corporations, and alliances are expected to adhere to the following:
The Eve Principles of Interstellar Conduct serves as a reminder to all Eve capsuleers to behave with good conduct in Eve space, and acts as an order to take corrective actions against those who are in violation of the good conduct listed herein.
Eve is a conflict and combat rich environment. While good conduct is always important to maintaining a healthy community, this is especially true in an adversarial environment such as Eve. In service to ensuring a healthy community in Eve, all capsuleers, corporations, and alliances are expected to adhere to the following:
- With the exception of faction warfare, active war declarations, actions against criminals (a.k.a. "flashy reds"), disciplinary actions for violations of this mandate, or where there is mutual approval of further conflict, aggressive actions
against another capsuleer should be limited and not exceed what is
reasonable:
- Bumping another capsuleer shall be limited to 15 minutes or less per bumpee per day.
- Destroying a non-military ship in high security space is not permitted. This includes pods, ORE mining ships, cargo ships, and freighters.
- Kills shall be limited to two ship kills, or 100 million in losses per day -- whichever occurs first -- unless said capsuleer is in low or null security space.
- Aggressive actions of any kind against a capsuleer should be limited to two days per week unless said capsuleer is in low or null security space.
- Language that is offensive, gloating, or condescending towards an adversary is never appropriate.
- Spamming chat channels is never appropriate.
- Scamming other capsuleers is never appropriate.
Monday, August 4, 2014
A Mandate For Good Behavior
I am beginning work on something a little more official in the anti-gank arena, and it actually goes beyond anti-ganking and addresses behavior in general. I currently call it the Eve Principles of Interstellar Conduct (EPIC). This will be a long term effort, as I skill up further and eventually gain fleet bonuses that I can use to command security fleets. These fleets will be used to enforce the EPIC. I do this on behalf of all Eve capsuleers, and in representation of my corporation, Maximum Q, as part of the Maximum Q security operations division.
I hope for this to become a more coordinated and collaborative effort over time. I don't aspire to be the leader, but I will be training to lead should better commanders not be ahead of me. I welcome feedback on the EMM and will work with like minded people, revising it as needed, even changing it's name if so desired. Below is the initial draft:
The Eve Principles of Interstellar Conduct serves as a reminder to all Eve capsuleers to behave with good conduct in Eve space, and acts as an order to take corrective actions against those who are in violation of the good conduct listed herein.
Eve is a conflict and combat rich environment. While good manners are always important to maintaining a healthy community, this is especially true in an adversarial environment such as Eve. In service to ensuring a healthy community in Eve, all capsuleers, corporations, and alliances are expected to adhere to the following:
In time, a fleet or group of fleets will be assembled to enforce the EPIC. Members will act as a democratic corporation or alliance, though the corporation or alliance need not be official. Where and what will be enforced will be up to the will of the members. Members must be in good standing and have reasonably good security standing (I would recommend -2 or higher).
Obviously, at present time, the CODE. alliance would be a primary target of EPIC enforcement, until such time as they improve their conduct. At this time, I am certain the CODE. alliance violates items 1a, 2, and 3.
There are already many "white knights" who honorably group up in adhoc fleets to oppose the criminal activities of CODE. What this effort seeks to do is create a formal declaration and organization that can take more coordinated measures to protect the Eve community, not only from CODE. ganking, but from any alliance, corporation, or individual that goes too far in hurting others for their own benefit. There has often been talk of better organizing anti-gank activities, but to date there has not been a lot of real progress to this end. Maximum Q seeks to change that. It will take time, but if some other coordinated effort doesn't manifest first, Maximum Q will answer the call.
I hope for this to become a more coordinated and collaborative effort over time. I don't aspire to be the leader, but I will be training to lead should better commanders not be ahead of me. I welcome feedback on the EMM and will work with like minded people, revising it as needed, even changing it's name if so desired. Below is the initial draft:
Eve Principles of Interstellar Conduct (Draft Copy)
The Eve Principles of Interstellar Conduct serves as a reminder to all Eve capsuleers to behave with good conduct in Eve space, and acts as an order to take corrective actions against those who are in violation of the good conduct listed herein.
Eve is a conflict and combat rich environment. While good manners are always important to maintaining a healthy community, this is especially true in an adversarial environment such as Eve. In service to ensuring a healthy community in Eve, all capsuleers, corporations, and alliances are expected to adhere to the following:
- With the exception of faction warfare, active war declarations, or actions against criminals (a.k.a. flashy reds), aggressive actions against another capsuleer should be limited and not exceed what is reasonable:
- Bumping another capsuleer shall be limited to 4 minutes or less per bumpee per day.
- Kills of another capsuleer shall be limited to two ship kills, one pod kill, or 75 million in losses per day -- whichever occurs first -- unless said capsuleer approves of further conflict, is in low or null security space, or is subject to official discipline due to violations of this mandate.
- Aggressive actions of any kind against a capsuleer should be limited to two days per week unless said capsuleer approves of further conflict, is in low or null security space, or is subject to official discipline due to violations of this mandate.
- Language that is offensive, gloating, or condescending is never appropriate.
- Spamming chat channels is never appropriate.
- Scamming other capsuleers is never appropriate.
EPIC Enforcement
In time, a fleet or group of fleets will be assembled to enforce the EPIC. Members will act as a democratic corporation or alliance, though the corporation or alliance need not be official. Where and what will be enforced will be up to the will of the members. Members must be in good standing and have reasonably good security standing (I would recommend -2 or higher).
Obviously, at present time, the CODE. alliance would be a primary target of EPIC enforcement, until such time as they improve their conduct. At this time, I am certain the CODE. alliance violates items 1a, 2, and 3.
There are already many "white knights" who honorably group up in adhoc fleets to oppose the criminal activities of CODE. What this effort seeks to do is create a formal declaration and organization that can take more coordinated measures to protect the Eve community, not only from CODE. ganking, but from any alliance, corporation, or individual that goes too far in hurting others for their own benefit. There has often been talk of better organizing anti-gank activities, but to date there has not been a lot of real progress to this end. Maximum Q seeks to change that. It will take time, but if some other coordinated effort doesn't manifest first, Maximum Q will answer the call.
Friday, June 6, 2014
A Lesson For CODE -- How to be an honorable band of pirates.
The problem with CODE is their lack of proper honor among thieves. There is a proper way to be a mobster or a pirate, and anything less is being a petty band of thugs. As I promised, it's time for me to provide the first lesson on purpose, dignity, structure, order, guidance, and leadership.
To be honorable pirates, you must offer something tangible for those you wish to profit from. Taking CODE's mining permits as a good example, there must be reasonably guaranteed incentive for miners to buy the permits. Here is how this can be done.
Set aside a medium to large number of systems for which you will issue mining permits. Anything outside of this list of systems, the permits do not apply. A miner can then choose any number of those systems to be included in her permit. Each system has it's own price, and the expiration of the permit can be flexible as well. This provides maximum flexibility for the miner to choose where and for how long they wish to be able to mine and provides flexibility to the pirates in deciding which systems are included and charging different rates for different systems.
Just as miners must follow the rules, so must the pirates. Miners should be explicitly guaranteed that no pirate from within the pirate organization will gank a miner that is operating in a system for which they have a valid permit. Furthermore, as part of this guarantee, as incidents will happen, whenever a miner is ganked by a member of the pirate organization in a system for which they had a valid permit, that miner will be compensated by the pirate organization for ... lets say ... 125% the value of the mining ship, it's fittings, and cargo. This assurance gives the contract validity.
Pirates are allowed to bump permit holding miners not responding to chat that they think are AFK. That and other violations can result in warnings and/or revocation of the mining permit, but permit holders will be notified of permit revocation before any violent actions are taken against the miner. Furthermore, to avoid abuse or concern of abuse of issuing mining permits and then immediately revoking them, the pirate organization will agree to refund ISK spent on any revoked mining permit. If you want to get fancy, you can prorate the amount rather than refunding in full.
Pirates must therefore have a spreadsheet or other database of valid permit holders. I recommend having name lists grouped by system for quick and easy lookup. If a pirate wants to attack a miner, they check to make sure they are not a valid permit holder. If they are a valid permit holder, any violation of terms must be dealt with under the rules of the permits. Wrongly attacking a permit holder will likely result in the permit holder reporting the offending pirate to the pirate organization; the pirate organization will then compensate the miner and may optionally take corrective action against the offending pirate.
Pirates should clearly state that money collected from the permits are used to enforce the good ethics dictated by the permits and cover insurance costs of wrongly attacked miners. Of course, some of the money will just be going to line the pockets of pirates, but this little nuance need not be mentioned.
This is alot of rules for pirates to deal with, but it makes the racketeering far more palatable to the miners. You might find the miners become far more cooperative. Rates and what percentage of miners will pay them, of course, will be subject to what the market can bare.
Once you start following this practice or one derived from it -- congratulations, you are now honorable pirates.
To be honorable pirates, you must offer something tangible for those you wish to profit from. Taking CODE's mining permits as a good example, there must be reasonably guaranteed incentive for miners to buy the permits. Here is how this can be done.
Set aside a medium to large number of systems for which you will issue mining permits. Anything outside of this list of systems, the permits do not apply. A miner can then choose any number of those systems to be included in her permit. Each system has it's own price, and the expiration of the permit can be flexible as well. This provides maximum flexibility for the miner to choose where and for how long they wish to be able to mine and provides flexibility to the pirates in deciding which systems are included and charging different rates for different systems.
Just as miners must follow the rules, so must the pirates. Miners should be explicitly guaranteed that no pirate from within the pirate organization will gank a miner that is operating in a system for which they have a valid permit. Furthermore, as part of this guarantee, as incidents will happen, whenever a miner is ganked by a member of the pirate organization in a system for which they had a valid permit, that miner will be compensated by the pirate organization for ... lets say ... 125% the value of the mining ship, it's fittings, and cargo. This assurance gives the contract validity.
Pirates are allowed to bump permit holding miners not responding to chat that they think are AFK. That and other violations can result in warnings and/or revocation of the mining permit, but permit holders will be notified of permit revocation before any violent actions are taken against the miner. Furthermore, to avoid abuse or concern of abuse of issuing mining permits and then immediately revoking them, the pirate organization will agree to refund ISK spent on any revoked mining permit. If you want to get fancy, you can prorate the amount rather than refunding in full.
Pirates must therefore have a spreadsheet or other database of valid permit holders. I recommend having name lists grouped by system for quick and easy lookup. If a pirate wants to attack a miner, they check to make sure they are not a valid permit holder. If they are a valid permit holder, any violation of terms must be dealt with under the rules of the permits. Wrongly attacking a permit holder will likely result in the permit holder reporting the offending pirate to the pirate organization; the pirate organization will then compensate the miner and may optionally take corrective action against the offending pirate.
Pirates should clearly state that money collected from the permits are used to enforce the good ethics dictated by the permits and cover insurance costs of wrongly attacked miners. Of course, some of the money will just be going to line the pockets of pirates, but this little nuance need not be mentioned.
This is alot of rules for pirates to deal with, but it makes the racketeering far more palatable to the miners. You might find the miners become far more cooperative. Rates and what percentage of miners will pay them, of course, will be subject to what the market can bare.
Once you start following this practice or one derived from it -- congratulations, you are now honorable pirates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)