Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Sunday, March 30, 2014

On the side

I wasn't going to write about Erotica 1 again. I was content to let this vile person and his doings fade to black. Still, there is one more thing that needs to be said. I'll keep it short.

I spent most of yesterday not thinking about EVE except when dragged back or forced to. I've read most or all of my EVE mail on the matter (currently running about four to one in favor of my role in this, thank you guys). I got pulled into a five or so in-game conversations and a couple of Skype chats. And in those conversations and mail, there's an issue that keeps coming up that I'd like to address.

If you want to talk to me about Erotica 1, that's fine. But if you're going to talk to me about him, have the courage to talk to me about the main issue, not side issues. Because I'm sick to death of people desperately trying to use side issues to cover the main one. And 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?

Whether CCP had the right to ban him? Side issue. How much influence I or the rest of the CSM had on the final punishment? Side issue.(1) Whether what Erotica 1 and his followers do is "torture" or merely "cruel, demeaning, and humiliating"? Side issue. How I or the victim should be punished for our own actions? Side issue. How the victim now feels about what was done to him? Side issue. Why CCP acted now instead of months ago? Side issue. Whether or not you are "disappointed" about how I brought this situation to light? Major side issue.(2)

I certainly have my opinions on these and other side issues. I think I've made my feelings on all of them plain enough. But every time I drag people who want to talk about these side issues -- and these side issues only -- back to the main issue, all they want to do is nervously shuffle their feet and bring up another side issue. Once again, if you want to talk to me about this, have the courage to face the main issue and be willing to talk about that, too.

(1) Though I find it ironic that people who say the CSM has no influence at all are suddenly saying I somehow caused or enforced this ban.
(2) I had two people I respect try to play that card in the last 48 hours and I shut them both down quick. If you won't even look the main issue in the eye, you certainly don't get to say you're disappointed with me.


  1. I think you will regret this specific post down the road. I know how tempting one of these can be, but once you open a can of worms - it is open. You can't turn around later and blame people for not focusing on the issue as you want them to, once its out it takes on a life of its own. You should know this better than most.

    Either don't open the can, or open it, there is no middle ground.

    1. Jester is absolutely right. People can discuss their side issues all they want.

      Jester has been perfectly clear that he is discussing whether or not people like Erotica 1 should be a part of our game.

      That's what should be focused on. Everything else will resolve itself if we as a gaming community DECIDE on that one issue.

      Do we want this type of person to be included?

      I say no. Flat out. No thank you.

    2. "Do we want this type of person to be included?"

      Personally, I want communities to function by rules, not by assigning types to people; that way leads to witch hunts and madness. That is my main issue; Jester is free to have his own main issue, and he's free to call people who disagree with his priorities cowards; and I'm free to lose respect for him for doing so. We're all free here.

      "Everything else will resolve itself if we as a gaming community DECIDE on that one issue."

      Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? "Everything will resolve itself if we can just get rid of group 'X' which is holding our nation back " ...seriously?

    3. If you had half his self control, I'd read your blog more. You don't, though. You're incredibly self-indulgent. Save your comments for your own blog, please. So I don't have to read them.

    4. @anon 604 pm: Sorry, I'm going to keep forcing you to read his comments at gunpoint, it's the torture that puts the bonus round to shame.

    5. If you follow your own advice, then you'd realize Jester's pet issue isn't going away either. Once it's out it takes on a life of its own.

  2. Jester,

    I agree completely and still get hung up when people try to use the "but all play styles should be valid in EVE" type argument. If your *play* requires someones elses misery, then its time to take a long hard look in the mirror folks.

  3. The Eve community is weird this way. Every time there's an issue of some kind raised there's a vocal minority that will twist it to fit whatever agenda they are currently obsessing over, and usually it's so transparent one wonders if they have any self-awareness at all. Sometimes I think it's just amateur-level trolling, but either way it's neither entertaining nor helpful (to their issue or the issue they're derailing).

    That still happened here, of course, but the overall sentiment was loud and clear: there's a line and the line wasn't just stepped over it was destroyed utterly. For the majority of players, there's really nothing else to discuss. The community collectively affirmed that this behaviour was completely unacceptable, period. I think most of us don't really care all that much about how the issue came to be, or other mundane minutiae. If another incident arises that is more murky, then it's going to be an interesting debate. This wasn't the incident to anchor those arguments around! This one was cut and dry, wrap it up, good riddance Erotica 1, and let's move on.

    1. I wish this site allowed up votes. You said what I have been thinking in a much better way than I could.

  4. One way of dealing with the "side issues" is to address them.

    Does CCP have the right to ban someone for anything? Yes. It's their game, and they can simply choose to no longer provide you with the service. It's in their rights as a service provider, and they reserve themselves the right to terminate the provision of service at any time, for any reason they deem fit.

    Is what Erotica did a form of torture? That is an important issue, regardless of how peripheral you feel it might be. If you allow yourself to use hyperbole, you'll end up sounding like Dinsdale. I want to read Jester's Trek, not Dinsdale's Trek.

    Should the victim be punished for the things they do or say when being run through the wringer? I'd suggest a stern talking to is in order, but why would you take more action than that for an outburst that was clearly triggered by the situation? This is a discussion that some people do need to have because they are naive and want to believe that we are always in control of our thoughts, words and actions.

    By dismissing these arguments as "side issues" you are basically saying, "you have to argue by my script, or I'm not talking to you." People raise the side issues because they think these are important. People tell you they are disappointed with the way you've handled this situation because they feel you're acting out of character. You need to find out why they feel this way, not just dismiss them out of hand. Perhaps you are behaving out of character because you have an emotional investment in the issue? Perhaps something like this happened to you at some point in time (being sold a car you didn't want, for example).

    You also need to restate your question to avoid pre-judging people who disagree with you. Take the emotive language out, and you'll end up with something like this: "Do you really want someone who takes their scam out-of-game to deliberately evade punishment, who then publishes the recordings of the event on the Internet and boasts about the tears they extract, to be part of our community?" Leave the emotive language out, define what the behaviour is that you're upset by, and let us make the value judgements on our own.

    Don't presume to dictate my opinion on the matter.

    So tell us, Jester, what is it that happened to you or someone you know, which Erotica 1's Bonus Room painfully reminded you of?

    1. I don't know about Jester, but I listened to the recording and saw the Mayonase picture, and that ticked me off.

    2. Whatever your kind says, or asks does not matter. Human beings should not feel respect to lower leeches and pests like you. You dont deserve to be taken seriously and answer your sick questions which are only made to argue about nothing and make someone angry. Go back to your cave and beat the rocks. Not people who actually have feelings and morals. When you will get these two come back with your rules you animal. Bb.

    3. Mara, I think it says something interesting about you, and not in a good way, that you apparently cannot accept that Ripard took action simply because it was the right thing to do. It seems you have lost sight of the fact that not everyone is motivated by self-interest and greed.

    4. Read more carefully Mara.

      Jester's not opposed to discuss the side issues. He's just sick of people wanting to discuss only the side issues as if the main issue was irrelevant.

      Like you.

      So let's hear it out: Do you want to be part of a community that include E1's or not?

      Unless you have a self-interest motivated reason for not tackling the main issue and keeping to the side ones.

      Just saying.

    5. I believe Mara is right, the only way TO get the side issues out of the way is to address them, rather than try to get others to argue by his rules, that's not how debate works to my understanding.

      However, I think that if Ripard hadn't brought this up at all, then I don't think there would be a sizeable number of EVE players that would all of a sudden care about this.

      If CCP had actually had the time to make and act on a judgment of their own, as to me Jester/Ripard preempted them, and THEN he published these posts, I don't think I'd care all that much. I didn't plan on interacting with E1 when I came back to EVE at all, and I don't think he actually affected as many people as the hyperbole in general would have us believe.

  5. plus 1 dude in my eyes your doing it right

  6. I've seen all of those side issues trotted out repeatedly on the forums for the last few days, and I'm 100% in agreement with you, Jester. I knew there'd be blowback even for someone as prominent as you bringing this issue to light. I don't envy you your inbox.

  7. Just because you started this doesn’t mean that you get to dictate the terms of the discussion or control the narrative. What appear to you to be side issues may not seem that way to everyone in the community – that should be a no-brainer.

    For me, the main issue now is that you took public action that swiftly resulted in another EVE player being permanently removed from the community, both against his will and over the objection of many players.

    We should be asking ourselves: is this really the way we want to decide who stays in the EVE community and who doesn’t?

    1. Jester isn't trying to dictate terms. All he's doing is noting that various issues are not logically relevant to the the central question of Erotica!'s conduct and its effect on Eve Online.

      If you want to argue that various other things are relevant to that question, that's your undoubted right, but you can't, as many posters have, simply take that relevance as given.

      No-one can simply dictate that Issue X is relevant or irrelevant to the central question.

    2. @Anonymous: In good faith, I encourage you to re-read Ripard's post. Emphatically re-defining the main issue, dismissing other parts of the discussion as irrelevant "side issues," putting down those who want to discuss something else as not having "courage," and then this line here: "If you won't even look the main issue in the eye, you certainly don't get to say you're disappointed with me."

      This is pretty much a textbook example of trying to dictate the terms of a discussion, and not in a good way.

    3. "Over the objection of many players"? I have seen no indication whatsoever of significant objection. The vast majority are flat out in support, and a smaller segment are in support of the specific ban but concerned about its repercussions. The number flatly opposed is minuscule.

      This was an extraordinary case. If any scammers, AWOXers, and other Eve villains are actually concerned they'll get banned, then I don't know what to tell you other than it's the usual manufactured concern and trolling. There's no concrete evidence whatsoever that Eve won't be business as usual. People have posted to C&P since forever about their stuff being stolen or blown up and nothing happens except getting told to HTFU. The boundaries of play in Eve seem pretty clear to me.

      This really, really isn't that complicated.

    4. oh yeah and if jester doesn't want to talk about a specific subject with someone he doesn't have to, after all he is paying to play his own game like us all.

      Also he didn't take public action, he made the public aware.
      CCP just listened to the people who pay the bills.(the public majority)

      As for the comment"We should be asking ourselves: is this really the way we want to decide who stays in the EVE community and who doesn’t?"

      Look up the definition of community and tell me where e1s actions fit?

      Every community needs variety of different people we don't need people who take the fun away from any player, being scammed can be funny but lines were crossed that could ruin this community and the same as in real life actions were taken.

      Kind Regards

      Member of the paying public

    5. @Chris - How do you know that E1 has been permanently banned? The last I heard E1 did not know any details and his character has not been removed from his corp.

    6. @ Chris: Honest, I think E1's actions are what got it him banned if he is indeed banned.
      If CCP felt pressured into action by the general public being made aware of this scumbag, it's because the scumbaggyness of the story caught the public eye.
      A bit like Mittens fall from grace a few years ago.

      The general public would have ignored an ordinary scam, like Jester himself would have.

      If you persist in seeing a witch hunt in the process, it could be because your part of the minority which scumbaggyness threshold was not triggered by the story.

    7. @NoizyGamer: You're right, I don't know for certain that Erotica 1 has been permanently banned, that's an assumption on my part. I'm taking at face value what James 315 wrote in his blog on 28 March. Maybe not the most reliable source of information, eh? Shame on me. :-/

    8. @Chris: It's Jesters blog, he can dictate the conversation in whatever direction he wants. You disagree? Start your own blog and then you dictate the direction of the conversation.

    9. "It's Jesters blog, he can dictate the conversation in whatever direction he wants."

      You must have missed the part where Jester was expressing rage and calling people names for not having the conversation go in the way he wanted it to go, on forums/blogs/etc that were NOT his blog; or you wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.

  8. more likely Jester, its time for Damnatio memoriae.

    Sorry, who were we talking about?

  9. We bring up side issues because we think that they are important in discussing the main issue. By trying to keep the side issues quiet, you want us to discuss the issue while keeping some questions off the table. Even when the answers to those questions affect what we think about the main issue.

    > Why CCP acted now instead of months ago? Side issue.
    This is not a side issue. This is actually what I think is the most important question in this whole thing because I think that the most important thing for a developer to do is treat their customers consistently so that players know where the line is.

    The way this has resolved, I still don't know if there is a line other than "don't go public". When someone repeats the bonus room, will CCP ban them when it first gets reported ?
    Or will the people running the new bonus room remain unpunished until someone like you makes it widely known ?

    Erotica 1 wasn't the only person in the bonus room harassing the victims. Have the others been banned ?

    Is letting in vile people like Erotica 1 the price we have to pay for the in-game freedom that Eve offers ?
    Without knowing where the line is, I can't answer that question. Without answering that question, I can't answer your main question.

    1. Actually, I think the most important "side issue" is: Has this policing action driven the unsavoury behaviour underground? What is being done to investigate? Does CCP employ informers? - if so, how are they compensated for their - um - info.
      I suspect there is much much worse lurking behind a screen of silence over at the community office at CCP.
      Are they stum for a reason? - of course, media circuses are tiresome. Am I curious to see some stats on the types of incidents CCP has to deal with. You bet-ya.

    2. Your not curious? or dare I say it - perhaps not in a position to be smug if the lights get turned up to full brilliance.
      There will be a lot of cockroaches scuttling for cover now. Don't worry poor lil mites, EVE is still a dark, dank and terrible. Just never get so comfortable as to feel that it is safe to publish your victimisations in a public forum.
      Meantime, please, rear back and hiss all you want.

  10. Why isn't anyone talking about the research? Would you want one of these people as your neighbor?


  11. First it's "lets talk about this issue" now it's fingers in the ears and "la la la lar"?
    Not knocking you mate, your discomfort strikes me as ironic 's'all; it's almost as if you are being harassed out of game for your actions against a fellow EVE player...
    No good deed goes unpunished, just, you know, take your licks like the hero the good guys know you are. It's won't be long before the super-trooper light find their next rabbit, um, victim, er - whatever.

    1. Oh noes, harassed out of game!

  12. This witch hunt has been pathetic. Shame on all these do-gooders and hangmen and pitchfork wavers. Shame on you all. Removing this player through your actions will be bad down the road for this game. You took a personal dislike of someone and their actions (which tbh weren't that much worse than anything else in this game of torture-lol) and hounded them out, drove them to the noose and abused a position to make him swing.

    It is a sad state of affairs. I am extreemly disappointed with a big majority of the eve community. Sad times ahead.

    1. CCP are the only people who can drive him out of the game.

    2. If you are disappointed in the majority of Eve's playerbase it may be time for you to move on and find another sandbox instead of wanting the majority to cater to what you think Eve should be played like.

    3. I agree, his actions weren´t much worse than some stuff which happens ingame.

      And those other online sadists need to be permabanned also

    4. Sad state of affairs?
      When a community can decide that something is harmful to it.
      I hope it is the shape of things to come.
      CCp protecting its community and its income.

  13. I love reading the griefer tears as the price of plex skyrockets. Oh. utter joy!!! The irony brings a large smile to my face. Who buys plex and infuses the economy thus lowering the overall Jita plex prices? Primarily new players. Oh wait, you chased those guys off, didn't you?

    Maybe CCP will save you with a plex sale...if you cry hard enough.

    1. u sound liek the mad 1 br0. lel

    2. hehe nope. Just enjoy the irony. Off to breakfast with a smile.

    3. Love this comment, you are right. i had 3 friends join eve. one subbed for a month and didnt really like. The other 2 bought 12 plex and shared them coz they though the game was awesome.after a month of play they both thought the game had to many asshats in it scamming,of course they both got scammed everyone does at some point but they also left coz they felt that it was rl cash that was scammed out of them and for them it was.
      I bought the remaining plex so ccp hasnt lost out on that one but Eve needs casual players who convert plex to isk instead of grinding missions or mining for hours to make isk.

      which of the following supports eve and the community more.
      player 1
      Buy Plex
      Sell Plex
      Buy Pvp ship
      Pew pew
      repeat until scammed
      maybe quit?

      player 2
      scam some isk from player 1
      pay for sub with scammed isk
      scam some more isk
      feel content with free subscription
      buy something shiny
      scam more noobs make them reconsider subscription

    4. I know you asked rhetorical question, but I will answer nonetheless. Player 1 is more advantageous to CCP and community. Player 2 is harmful to the game in short and long term.

    5. yes your right rhetorical, but thanks for answering.
      its probably the question cpp ask themselves, they more than any of us need eve to to stay alive and bring in new blood.

  14. So is dude banned, perma banned or suspended

  15. Normally I like your posts Jester and I agree with the vast majority of what you post. This time though I think you are making a mistake.

    Focusing on E1 did in this one instance and saying "that's the main issue" is wrong.

    Yes people like E1 shouldn't be in the game. I agree wholeheartedly there is a line that was crossed.

    The problem is that the main issue isn't really what E1 did but rather the environment which allowed a player like E1 to thrive. E1's actions are simply a symptom of a much deeper problem which constantly gets ignored.

    The main problem is that Eve actively encourages people to treat other people badly. Eve is the most unfriendly game on the market and is the only game I know which takes pains to ingrain paranoia and distrust.

    Why should E1 think his actions were going to far when the game has purpose built methods of griefing, encourages people to cheat others, and the biggest press releases are all about how someone screwed someone else over.

    There's a reason Eve can't keep players and E1's actions are simply an indicator of where the true problem lies.

    1. This is an excellent point. However, I think the topics you are raising aren't "side issues" at all, they're the logical generalization that arises from this specific incident. How can we stop behaviour at this extreme from happening? Is there something systemic that encourages it or leads some individuals to normalize it? And so on. I think these are important questions and very different from Jester's "side issues", which are simply detracting or pedantic.

    2. Why should this player think their actions were going to far?

      Because this player resorted to using TeamSpeak in an attempt to circumvent CCP's regulations.

    3. That is actually an excellent point, Thank you for your insight.

    4. I'm going to have to pay that one Jester.

      Personally I don't care too much either way as my on again off again subscription with EVE is tenuous at best.

      However, I think you've strayed into the no-go zone of balanced community reporting here; which is, "Don't take it personally, don't make it personal."

      If one thing is clear now the cat's clearly out of the bag. CCP now claims ownership of your out of game activities be it voice communications, social media, forums, scrawls on an alley wall and blog comments like these etc. etc.

      I'm not trying to claim the slippery slope argument, but if CCP wanted to ram home another level of meta-paranoia with the EVE player base and creating games around trying to paint people as complete psychopaths / sociopaths (as your name and shame series has done) then I imagine it's mission accomplished.

      Good one CCP Community management, just keep reinforcing your ability to fail.

    5. @Ruar So true

    6. It is the reverse, people come to this game because they can screw people over, that is EVE's major selling point. I actually first came to EVE for the story of the biggest screwing over in EVE's history, the fall of BoB.

      You can worry about gankers and the like "driving new players from the game purposefully," but you don't actually have the numbers and reasons of why players new and old leave the game. All you have is your own opinions on what behavior causes players to leave, and it isn't your job to say who is right or wrong for EVE, that is up to CCP WITHOUT being pressured.

      Your own experiences with the general assholery of EVE does not make a representative sample of what happens. Only CCP has a definite say on what is doing what.

    7. Alistair,

      I think you are misjudging the ability to discern why people leave Eve. First take a look at the major MMO's on the market and then take a look at the servers they offer. The vast majority of those servers are PVE. Even the PVP servers almost always have some form of PVE area where player combat can not happen. So when you look at what the average player is interested in playing it's clear to see that PVE is the main focus, not PVP when it comes to MMOs (FPS obviously is a different genre with different mechanics).

      Then you look at how Eve functions and it's not very difficult to add 1 + 1 and see that the average MMO player is not interested in Eve because there is no safe area.

      So add an unsafe playing environment, combine that with a development team which actively ridicules people who prefer PVE, mix in a player base with actively degrades anyone who prefers PVE, and blend it all together over a period of years which creates a game culture which is overtly hostile to everyone.

      Finally I can pressure CCP with what I think the game should be. As a paying customer I have every right to pressure them to adjust the game so I enjoy it more or I can stop paying them. Which I've done yet again because the game just isn't interesting to me.

      As for examples of assholery as you say, I only have to look for pretty much 9 out of 10 news articles about Eve online. I personally haven't experienced very much threat but that is more due to the fact I play ultra paranoid then anything else. Just because I don't experience it first hand doesn't mean I can't read about it or see how it affects other people I see in game.

  16. Jester said: "And 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?"

    So, how do I go about getting someone I don't like banned, without addressing any "side issues" like whether or not CCP can or should ban him under the existing TOS and EULA?

    Your main issue is a joke and boils down to "I don't like someone so they should be banned, and if you disagree with me based on any set of rules or any issue I can't rebut I won't talk to you about it." May as well put your fingers in your ears and yell "nya nya nya I can't hear you."

    1. He doesn't like that someone for some very specific reasons. Why are you not addressing those reasons?

    2. CCP made it perfectly clear that ero1 was banned due to breaking the existing TOS rules.

    3. "CCP made it perfectly clear that ero1 was banned due to breaking the existing TOS rules."


  17. I know the comment section of a blog is not the place to have this conversation. But I want to give it a shot just the same.

    Yes. I want this vile, contemptable human being to be a part of my community. Because, as a rule, I do not care for mob rule.

    By what metric is this man not one of us? Do you not like his scamming? No, you approve of the scam until it hits teamspeak. Is it the humiliation? It can't be, for you have no issue with "singing ransoms", which are nothing more than longer-form bonus rooms with a high-value ship and pod at stake in return for your degredation. Is it the victims feeling trapped, as you so -tastefully- put it, "like an abused wife"? If a Wormhole camp catches my T3 and tells me to "Dance or Die", am I allotted the same outrage as Sohkar? Are my agressors to suffer the same pain?

    Or is it because someone got mad? I pray not, but I am at a loss. In the same way I could dance or die if caught in a camp, anyone caught in the bonus room gets the same option. If they don't want to dance, or get tired of dancing, they can stop. Leave. Do the adult thing. Say "I can not handle this. This is a video game and not worth my mental well being. I can get more ISK later."

    It's what I would do. And no one can stop you from walking out on your ISK or your T3.

    I know people don't like E1. -I- don't like E1. I find her scam tired and the bonus room an over long singing ransom that by it's nature refuses to ever get to the point.

    But "not liking someone" is not a valid reason to ban them. Which is what this is all about. Which is why the lynch mob came when you called.

    So E1 is sacrificed in the name of aimless outrage. Because something had to be done about people not protecting themselves from humiliation by just walking away. Scammers still scam. Wormholers still sing. The universe still turns as it did before, save it's short one player. A player people didn't like, sure. A person who will not be missed, certainly. But was that enough to get him removed from the game?

    I guess so. I guess we should all be careful who we offend. Especially if that person runs a popular blog.

    So do I want E1 back? Yes. Because "offending someone" should not be cause for a ban and the mob should not be able to dictate who lives and who goes. Neither should you, Jester.

    And make no mistake, CCP has done this for the mob.

    1. He wasn't banned because he offended someone. He was banned based on the totality of the information regarding his game play (as per Malcanis).

      A lot of info was presented to CCP, they chose to ban him for harassment. Which would be the equivalent of jailing Al Capone for income tax evasion.

    2. Or you can fight back with your t3 and escape or kill them all. Which you cannot do in the bonus room.

    3. 'Or you can fight back with your t3 and escape or kill them all. Which you cannot do in the bonus room.'

      You're right because its even easier to escape a bonus room, its called clicking one button marked disconnect, which E1 himself admits many bonus players have done once they realised what was really going on.

      Oh and for the record I completely agree with Anon 5.49PM.

    4. Way to completely miss the point.

      The people who "just click the button to leave" aren't at issue, because they don't come close to breaking. The people who sing for their T3s aren't at issue, because they don't come close to breaking. As long as it's people acting in good fun, nobody cares. In the recording at issue, Erotica 1 brings someone to the point where they're obviously starting to lose it, and then keeps right on going for 45 minutes *after* they lose it. That's the difference that you refuse to see, the part where Erotica 1 made a huge project out of breaking a weak person. Yes, it's "subjective," because you have to have the baseline capacity for empathy necessary to tell when someone is about to snap, but I think most people can muster that.

      Also, BTW, Ero had accused his alt of "stealing" all of Sohkar's assets, and Sohkar had bought PLEX to make him whole again. So it wasn't even comparable to a simple "save your T3" scenario.

    5. Anyone saying mob rule decided E1 got banned is totally right. Not the way anon @5:49 thinks. But right still.
      Take a step back to IRL you have speed limits where you live and other laws. Who agreed they were a good idea? The mob of people living in that area.
      Why don't I find and kill you IRL? Because the mob/community agrees it's a bad idea that could ruin everyone's experience.
      Why did CCP take action against E1? Because they as a corporation seeking profit puts the majority of players interests first. Only a handful of sociopaths deflecting from the question are making this an issue.
      Jester asks do you want him in your community?
      I say HELLS NO.
      E1s behaviour would be akin to a rapist pedophiles promising freedom if you just "play along a little more"..
      Also this wasn't a "thing" until the twisted stood up to defend E1's heinous behaviour.

    6. The bonus round process is selective. The "just click to leave" people DO SO. They do so early, and never enter the bonus round, anymore than reality TV shows film people that can't be goaded into acting like asses. And only the greatest hits get aired.

      We only have recordings of a few such sessions. There's a whole mountain of failed attempt which were lost in the aether: people who didn't read local, people who roll their eyes at scams, people who couldn't be enticed into TeamSpeak, and those who listened to Erotica 1's pitch and declined. The scam was eternal, and though it made Erotica 1 all his ISK, may not have been the most important thing to him. What he was proudest of, or got the biggest psychosexual thrill from, was the posting of the bonus round sessions where he got someone to crack.

      The ones who could or did "just click the button to leave" DID, and never went through the abuse that got Erotica 1 banned for cyberbullying.

  18. They may be side issues to you. But not to me. Look, I get it, that the bad man touched you. You want him gone. But that's your opinion, and your problem. I don't care about E1. I dislike scammers and scamming, but I want EVE to stay as hard as possible, and that includes scammers.

    I do care that you are trying to manipulate this whole thing in the way you want, and that even though you say you want a "conversation", what you really are indicating is that you just want a megaphone. Stop shouting and listen for a minute. It is possible to not care about E1 while at the same time caring about the use of "torture". Hey. You might learn something.

    1. As has been mentioned a large number of times, this isn't about scamming. Ero1 wasn't banned for scamming, and hardly anybody, including Ripard, seems to have a problem with the scam itself. It was the two hours of behaviour after the victim's assets were taken that people are objecting to. Do try to keep up.

    2. Yeah, get with it, dude. The bonus rounds were what happened after the scams, and scams weren't what got the bannee banned.

    3. "Ero1 wasn't banned for scamming,"

      "scams weren't what got the bannee banned."

      Do either of you have hard proof that he was banned at all?

  19. erotica1 may be gone permanently, or just on vacation with his main a la the failed lawyer.

    What I want to know is when despicable people like mynnna, who is far more destructive than erotica could ever dream to be, are removed from the game.

    1. Proof that mittens failed at being a lawyer please?

      Also Mynnna is worse than erotica? howso?

    2. Mynnna ~mindcontrolled~ CCP into proposing the reprocessing rebalance. of course.

      It's a Sith thing; maybe you won't understand.

    3. Mynnna is apparently responsible for every highsec nerf since forever. Never mind that CCP has said many times that nullsec should be where the most isk and "endgame" content is found.

      For highsec, CCP rewards team play over solo activity, because it benefits their plan of making EVE into a multiplayer game. For example, you can make more isk/hr running in a good incursion fleet than doing level 4's.

      If you find the occasionally holier-than-thou attitude of Goons to be annoying, the solution is to find friends of similar opinion and grow to a point where you can challenge them. Then try not to become co-opted by similar attitudes if you succeed.

  20. The EVE community is a big place, and even with all their volunteers and employees, CCP can barely keep up. I'm not at all surprised that it took public outcry to bring their attention to it. Tell me, is it mob rule when people bring an *ongoing* abusive situation to the attention to one entity (CCP) in a position to actually do something about it?

    I don't see it as them caving to public pressure or a pitchfork-waving mob -- oh noes, our customers are soo unhappy! -- but as a number of CCP people who have a goddamn conscience listening to those audios and saying FUCK NO, get this shitbag away from our intellectual property.

    It's sad how common it is for people to shoot the messenger on stuff like this, but seriously. The garbage needed to be taken out. And the garbage truck needed to know where the trash was.

    1. You're deluding yourself, if you think this is true. CCP clearly knew all about this. By the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, interested? Great Toll opportunities.

    2. I think it's important to note that CCP didn't suddenly become interested in this -until-tye mob appeared. It's a chicken-or-egg argument to if CCP cares because the situation was brought to them IN a threadnaught or if they only care because it was brought to them BY a threadnaught. Do not underestimate the power of the mob, if only because I can promise you, people have petitioned CCP about E1 before. This was not her first round.

    3. All this twaddle about 'the mob' belongs in the mouth of an archduchess of the seventeenth century and those who keep mouthing it should at least be using a lorgnette while they post.

      Eve is ruled by its customers like any other business. If the product doesn't attract the customer they go away. No amount of passionate pearl-clutching can alter that.

      Moreover, the same groups that are so suddenly convinced the 'mob' is about to fart at their soirée, rip up all the paintings and smash all the statues has previously made an art-form of dominating the forums by mass postings.

    4. Anonymous March 30, 2014 at 6:28 PM
      I read:
      I have a bridge in "Brooklyn for sale, interested? Great T[r]oll opportunities."
      which I suspect was your intent. Made me chuckle. Rejoice, the balance has been restored to the force.

    5. "Great T[r]oll opportunities.""

      Trolls are indeed notorious for living under bridges. And in Iceland.

  21. When I read the first blog I'd would agree with you, that type of person has no place in Eve. Scamming is fine, but outright destroying someone's character, emotionally tormenting them during the process is wrong. I had believed your post and supporting commentators that Erotic 1 was using people's attachments in game to manufacture mental and emotional breakdowns. People like that should be ignored and removed.

    Then I listened to the audio recording. My opinion changed, my mind was more open. As the drama unfolded and more information was made available I then understand that Erotica 1 was not that type of person.

    The more you post about this issue the more wrong you sound. You cannot accept you were wrong about someone, this makes me upset. As an representative of the community you should know better. And now you are openly dismissing all the 'side issues' you might as well as dismiss the eve community.

    So, you are not going to get an answer you will like or accept, because it requires the person to be guilty of the crimes that you describe. He is not, it is all in your imagination. So why don't you drop it - clear off the side issues - and move on.

  22. This whole thing makes me regret ever giving you my vote for the council of stellar management, I'd rather have Gevlon Goblin representing my space consumer rights.

    1. Well let's not go crazy here. If you'd voted in Gevlon we'd be having this same conversation about dabigredboat or mittens.

    2. I'm quite glad I voted for Jester - and he's right. The main issue keeps being sidestepped because it's uncomfortable to many.

    3. Everyone who cares at all will have his or her own favorite main issue, and try to frame the debate that way. The *real* main issue, I submit, isn't any of the apologists', nor is it even Jester's, necessarily. It's CCP's, when you get down to it. See the "Isn't that the game where...?" post for further instruction.

      CCP chooses who gets to play their game, and someone who appropriates in-game stuff and contacts to pursue something like the Bonus Room, then publishes the evidence to the Internet? That's not going to end well.

      If Erotica 1 weren't so driven by hiss ick need to dominate, and to be seen dominating, he wouldn't have tripped himself up or provided the evidence for his own banning.

  23. Before we address the side issues, first you need to answer one question:

    When did you stop beating your wife?

    1. Thank you for proving the point in the first place which touched off this episode. Comments like this which raised the question about quality of attitude within the Eve community. Based on this event, thankfully it appears that Eve players still value decency and respect.

    2. @Malcolm

      You nailed it!

      If the minority of people could just address the main issue of E1 publicly beating his wife (odd analogy but let's run with it), we could then move onto the side issues.

      So Malcolm, you lead the way. address the main issue and then proceed with the side issues. We're all waiting... (not really).

    3. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

      Is a common retort when someone asks a confrontational question where the verdict is built into the question.

      "do you want this vile excuse for a human being and people like him playing our game and being part of our community?"

      The only question we are allowed to ask Ripard is this. Which implies the verdict already because of course no one would want a vile excuse for a human being as a part of any community they are in. So along with all the "side issues" we're not allowed to discuss with Ripard, we are also not allowed to discuss if E1 is the horrible monster he has portrayed E1 to be. Hence:

      When did you stop beating your wife?

    4. Malcom pretty much hits the nail on the head regarding this blog post.

    5. beat your wife?

      obviously an American "thing" - but to the rest of the world it just sounds offensive and intended to wound.

    6. "obviously an American "thing" - but to the rest of the world it just sounds offensive and intended to wound."

      No, it's obviously a "thing" which was first used in whatever country you're from/live in/most favor. Obviously.

  24. How someone listens to the one where the guy has to take a pic with his mouth full of meat and mayo-jizz on his face and can still say Erotica 1's not that bad a person I have no idea. And yes theres public proof, for the Erotica homies who flock in and try to deny it.

    1. Erotica1 is a bad person, by the evidence I've seen. However, he also shouldn't have been banned. That's the point Jester can't comprehend in his zeal to be a champion for the poor downtrodden nerds who are apparently chained to their computers against their will and forced to log on to TS with no off switch or way to log out.

      I regret voting for him, and will be glad when he is no longer representing me on the CSM.

    2. Ultimately CCP can do whatever they want to encourage more people to play this game, and maximize their subscriber base.

      Having half a hundred sociopaths getting upset over this and unsubbing is going to be worth it in the long run when 10,000 new players who sub after starting a trial (for whatever reason) continue to play because they don't have those sociopaths driving them out of the game.

    3. The scammers won't quit over this, because they too are chained to their computers by their own compulsions. They'll grumble and paint themselves as victims in an effort to deflect attention away form their activities, but they won't quit. My only hope is that they'll have to be more careful in how they attack players instead of toons.

  25. I think if you can flash boobs for gifts, then get hired by CCP, then surely you are allowed to play game shows.

  26. This is why I think you were wrong to cancel your series. The furor over Erotica 1 was almost entirely about side issues. I would even argue Erotica 1 himself is thoroughly a side issue. Based on this post, the point you wanted to make had only the loosest requirement to bring him up. IMO, declaring victory when Erotica 1 got banned was getting yourself caught up in side issues.

    Please, finish the series. By quitting after the Erotica 1 thread, you misidentified argument over particulars as discussion of what you actually wanted to discuss. There is still more to discuss.

    1. Agree. I'd really like to read those last three posts in the series, Ripard. Like it or not, the community obviously has a great deal more to say on this issue.

    2. Agree 100%! Don't give up now, Jester!

    3. Yes we really want to hear more about this. please don't stop now!!!

  27. "How do we not remain silent in the face of abuse?"..."Isn't your silence a form of consent and complicity? Well, the 'bystander approach' is about giving people the tools to interrupt that process and to speak up and to create a peer culture climate where the abusive behavior will be seen as unacceptable. Not just because it's illegal but because it's wrong and unacceptable in the peer culture. And if we can get to the place where [people] who act out in [bigoted] ways will lose status"..."as a result of it. Guess what? We'll see a radical diminution of the abuse because the typical abuser is not sick and twisted, he's a normal guy in every other way. Isn't he? Now, among the many great things that Martin Luther King said in his short life was, 'In the end what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends'"..."It's not easy in male culture for guys to challenge each other. Which is one of the reasons why part of the paradigm shift that has to happen is not just understanding these issues as men's issues but they're also leadership issues"..."Because ultimately, the responsibility for taking a stand on these issues should fall on the shoulders of adult men with power, [whom] we need to be holding accountable for being leaders on these issues."..."When somebody speaks up in a peer culture and challenges and interrupts he or she is being a leader."..."We don't need sensitivity training, we need leadership training"..."Caring deeply is not enough. We need more men with the guts, with the courage, with the strength, with the moral integrity to break our complicit silence and challenge each other." ~Jackson Katz

  28. Perhaps Erotica 1 and his supporters should, how do you put it? HTFU.

    Whatever happened to Eve is real/Sandbox? Erotica 1 took the issue out of the game world to extract more tears. Jester brought the issue up outside of the game to shut him down. Well played Jester. It's not like you can blow up Erotica 1 in-game, he doesn't need to leave station to commit his scams. It's not like you can scam him, he know's every trick in the book.

    People keep trying to divert with 'Side Issues'. Not surprising as it's the main tactic for winning arguments on the internet. Which usually revolves around ignoring the main issues, trying to exploit side issues or veiled personal attacks. Victory ensues when you can derail enough that the main issue is forgotten, or when the other party looses it.

    1. As his own bonus round showed, Erotica 1 wasn't even clear on how to pilot a frickin' spaceship. He was a scammer, ISK doubling is a scam, and he was a bully who couldn't keep it in his pants/game. We're better off without him.

    2. Yeah, I noticed that he was having difficulty even getting himself *podded* properly. New meme: if you're shit at the actual game, you can always give up and become a scammer.

  29. A summary of arguments related to "side issues" that I've seen so far...

    CSI: ARGHHHH!!!! CCP arbitrarily chose to ban someone!!!!!!
    SP: It wasn't arbitrary. There is evidence and reasons why they did this.

    CSI: OK, but they stopped doing business with someone and that's wrong!!!!!!
    SP: Businesses in the free world are usually allowed to choose who they do business with. Why is this a problem?

    CSI: It's against the law! And EULA! And freedom of speech! And civil rights!!!!!
    SP: No it really isn't. Please provide proof for your accusations.

    CSI: Meh. Doesn't matter because Ripard called it torture and that was wrong so what Erotica 1 did was OK. They should ban Ripard!!!!!
    SP: eh? I haven't got a clue wh...

    CSI: Ha got you! Plus, CCP should not police anything we do outside of the game!!!!!
    SP: They're not. It's just that using CCP & EvE to facilitate your real life asshole activity makes them look bad so they choose not to do business with such people. You can still continue being a real life jerk.

    CSI: Irrelevant! It sets a dangerous precedent! So I've been told anyway.
    SP: eh? Care to explain?

    CSI: Got you again!!!! You see every player will never know if they're going to be banned now for something super trivial like having a cup of coffee!!!!!
    SP: Stick to the EULA. Don't use EvE to identify gullible people for the sole purpose of psychological torment on out of game platforms. Continue to play EvE for a long time.

    CSI: Wrong!!!! They will ban everyone!!!!. EVERYONE!!!! Tell me why CCP didn't ban him ages ago huh huh huh?????
    SP: Guessing they weren't aware of what was going on / hadn't seen the evidence / hadn't reviewed it properly. I'm sure they prefer to assess things properly and not jump to rash decisions.

    CSI: But it's a major part of the game and they're ruining it!!!!!
    SP: I thought you were implying it was a completely separate and unrelated out of game thing that CCP shouldn't meddle with because it sets a dangerous precedent?

    CSI: Did I? Oh maybe I did. Still, dangerous precedent (mumble mumble)... Anyway it doesn't matter, they've ruined the game and you'll get banned if you scam people now!!!!!
    SP: I think you'll need to prove this. Go and sell all of your assets, give all of your ISK to an ISK doubler and then petition CCP over it. When you get your ISK back and the ISK doubler is banned, you can come back and prove me wrong.

    CSI: I will! You'll see...

    (a short time later)

    CSI: Shit, I haven't got any ISK left now. Doesn't matter because I'm quitting in protest anyway.
    SP: pew pew pew gf gf...

    Have I missed any other of these "side issues" that some people use as deflection away from / vindication for being a real life asshat?

    CSI: = Confused Shouty Idiot
    SP = Sensible Person

    1. Twofer. That is a F*cking brilliant spot on explanation I for one congratulate Jester for calling this prick and his ugly minded, juvenile cohorts out and convincing others to make a stand. well done sir.

      Jester have you reconsidered running for CSM again? please?

    2. So the tl;dr of your enormous post is that if you write the dialog for both sides of an argument you can easily make one side look like the clear loser?

      That's not news. If I had the inclination to waste my time I could write exactly the same thing with the roles reversed and ridicule every argument made for the banning of Erotica 1.

    3. So the tl;dr of your insignificant post appears to be nothing.

      "If I had the inclination to waste my time..." you'd shit post on eve-o forums non-stop for hours and hours. Which is exactly what you did.

    4. Twofer: they aren't idiots. The attempts to derail the debate, to obscure the issue, is done on purpose.

    5. "So the tl;dr of your insignificant post appears to be nothing."
      Gotta love rage posts. Calm down bro, it's a game.

      Now go back up and read twofers post and tell me wit ha straight face that he's not written the whole thing with a clear bias.

    6. Hi Lucas, I had to try and keep it short so the meaning didn't get lost. It looks like I failed on that front with you. I'm sorry that the "enormity" of it (really? it's not that long!) proved to be a bit too much for you.

      The real intended tl;dr of it (coming from me, the author) would be that the majority of arguments I've read from those in the "defending E1 / anti-action" camp (for want of a better grouping) are bloody terrible.

      Everything above "CSI: I will! You'll see..." is my view of what are the most common arguments against any action being taken. All of them are, imho, just plain shit arguments with incredibly simple counters, hence my tongue in cheek writing style. That they're so easy to counter is surely not my fault. And yes I'm biased, we all are. My bias is formed from reading many arguments for and against CCP taking action.

    7. They're only so easy to counter when you word them in your way, applying your bias, and this could easily be done either way. If you wanted to invalidate the arguments properly, you'd properly state them and respond to them.

      And there are several instances of questions being raised that are legitimate worries for parts of the community. It's no secret that I don't get along with Erotica 1, and that's long documented, even going back to when it was last on the forum and I was all for setting a precedent to ban that type of harassment and Erotica 1.

      Where I worry is that CCPs lines of jurisdiction aren't being drawn in, an in fact are stated as having not changed, yet when other players have submitted clear evidence of harassment to CCP, they have been told that under no circumstances to CCP investigate any interaction outside of EVE.

      This is clearly in contrast with this latest decision. This means that either their policy has changed, in which case they should define to what extent that policy has changed (is it harassment on voice media only, or do blogs, forums, other social sites come into it too, etc), or it's been done as an exception to the rules, in which case I'd worry that it's a slippery slope to allowing people personal opinions to influence CCPs rules if there's enough noise generated.

    8. The thing is, the lynch mob preempted them before they could make a decision they could clarify to make the line in the sand very clear. Ripard told in his very first post that CCP had yet to make a public decision, if not the post itself, then in the comments responding to his supporters, and letting them go rabid on the detractors. Some good examples of labeling as sociopaths, evil, FUBAR moral compasses come to mind.

      That's the inconsistency, before now third-party evidence was a no-go for CCP, and now they are even using third-party evidence retroactively to ban a player they have no doubt known about. Quite honestly, I think that if Ripard hadn't made these posts, CCP would have been quick to handle this in-house rather than letting it get out of hand. Who knows, they may actually have banned Ero1 without all the hullabaloo.

  30. One argument I had put to me was this.

    "So you say that CCP can't do anything about anything you do out of game, even if it starts in game"

    Person X goes on Eve to find younger players, while they shouldn't be playing we all know younger kids play Eve. Player X makes friends with kids. Player X invites kids to TS and convinces them to do things kids should not be asked by an adult to do.

    By our original argument that person can be arrested IRL but CCP can't ban Player X

    1. That's a slightly different situation. That's someone using EVE as a platform to commit crimes, which is explicitly stated in their EULA. This instance is different. We are not talking about kids being abused here, we are talking about someone asking someone to sing a song and that someone doing it. We are talking about players making choices to try to get more isk, later regretting those choices and screaming at the people that asked them to make those choices.

      As is often the case in these types of debate, you are taking the situation, comparing it to an absolutely absurd situation and claiming the two go hand in hand, and so by disagreeing with the actual scenario, we must support CCP allowing their game as a platform for child abuse. It's called "reductio ad absurdum" if you are interested in going and finding out more.

  31. "do you want this vile excuse for a human being and people like him playing our game and being part of our community?"
    I don't think we have the right to answer that question, and neither do you. That's taking a personal opinion and deciding whether or not someone should be allowed to play the game they like to play based on that opinion.

    Plenty of people don't like you. Should we be allowed to take a vocal minority of people we rally together against you to decide your fate? I know I have plenty of people who dislike me. Should public opinion decide whether I get to play?

    No, in neither case should the public opinion mean a damn thing, and it's exactly the same in the Erotica 1 case. Our personal opinions on how others conduct themselves mean absolutely nothing. If Erotica 1 had broken an existing rule, then by all means he should be banned under the normal terms that CCP ban.

    But since CCPs rules have stated explicitly up to now that anything happening outside of the game on a third party service is not something they can act upon, the decision they have made is a departure from their own rules, clearly based on public outcry. If they want to take public outcry and change their rules, they are by all means welcomed to do so and can tell Erotica 1 to stop with immediate effect. But to change the rule and retroactively apply a ban to a player who performed all actions while the rules did not extend to their 3rd party medium is an absolute disgrace.

    1. There was no public outcry, Just numerous blog posts fed by Ripard and his 'followers'.

      CCP got played by media saturation of the issue.

      Most players (including the aforesaid victim) didn't care that much after the fact.

    2. "[CCP]... is an absolute disgrace."

      CCP choose who they do business with. If you find their actions so absolutely disgraceful, I suggest you also choose who to do business with. Why "foam at the mouth and stamp your feet" so much? Just move on...

    3. I guess the term 'public outcry' was a bit strong here, but I think the thing that got them to act was the vocal minority stomping up a 400 page thread on the forum inside a day. It's easy for a CSM member to stir up enough followers to do that as people tend to be reading what they say anyway for information.

    4. Nobody is going to start a campaign to get you banned because they don't "like you".

      That is unless you're disliked for predatory, harassing behavior outside of the game.

      I'm feel really sorry for all the players that now have to go through the anguish of thinking twice about acting like E1. It's so sad, I know. The court of CCP has no shame.

    5. yeah but thats the point we need more paying players, reports of these incidents wont help bring in real money/new players.

      It has to be a difficult balancing act keeping current player base happy while still making the game inviting to new players.

      But hey maybe the promotional idea might work.
      "Come to New Eden where you can make your own Eve, you might be one of the lucky ones who gets all of your wealth taken from you just for not understanding the game mechanics.
      Never mind that though you can earn that money again, you could even scam someone else.

      That not enough for you?

      Well how about being bullied and humiliated, In new Eden we have Bullies who will happily humiliate and ruin the game for you they will not only take you money but they will happily drive you to rage quit.

      If you like the sound of this it only $ 14.95 a month

    6. "Why "foam at the mouth and stamp your feet" so much? Just move on..."
      Typical response. "We can demand anything we want, but if we get it you have no right to speak against it so should just shut up".

      Understand, I don't have to be on one side or the other. I can in fact make my own judgement calls of individual scenarios without having to be a sheep to either side. I don't disagree with everything that CCP do, but in this instance I think their response is disgraceful.

      And it's not even just the fact that they retroactively ban someone for a rule that didn't exist. Other victims of harassment reporting harassment from a third party service are being given the standard CCP response of "We can only offer assistance or take a further look when all the correspondences or conversations happened within EVE".

      So I stand by what I said, and I'll even rephrase it for you to understand it clearly:
      I think it is disgraceful that while CCP continue to tell victims of harassment that their case does not fall into CCPs jurisdiction, a single case was made an exception to the rule. And not because the victim was upset, the victim clearly stated that it was his choice and he didn't think Erotica 1 should be banned, it was due to a single CSM member's personal opinion of the perpetrator and a the vocal minority being led to stamp their feet and protest.

    7. "I think it is disgraceful..."
      But I will still give CCP my money every month...

      "Typical response."
      I was quoting you back at you. I'm not surprised that you found it rather asinine.

      Your whole argument is based around shooting down the law maker, shooting down the judge and shooting down the messenger in the hope that people will forget about the villain.

      Unfortunately for you, *most* EvE players are a lot smarter than you believe them to be.

    8. "But I will still give CCP my money every month..."
      See above, I've already responded to this. The bottom line of it being that to disagree with one action CCP takes does not mean I have to disagree with every action they take. It's not hard to understand.

      "I was quoting you back at you. I'm not surprised that you found it rather asinine."
      Except the part I disagreed with was what you added. The typical response that we've seen on the forum. The same people who refuse to accept anything and will continue to argue to the end of the earth when things go against them are happy to tell others to shut up when it's in their favour.

      "Your whole argument is based around shooting down the law maker, shooting down the judge and shooting down the messenger in the hope that people will forget about the villain."
      Uh, no, my whole argument is that the rules should be consistent. If they choose to ban Erotica 1 for things said on out of game comms, that's their right, but they should ban all other third party harassment too, of which there is plenty being ignored. They shouldn't make an exception for a single case just because a bunch of people are shouting, especially since the victim is not even one of those shouting people.

      "Unfortunately for you, *most* EvE players are a lot smarter than you believe them to be."
      If most players were smart, scamming wouldn't exists on the level it does. Most people are sheep. They will go along with what other people say, and when it's someone in a position of power like the CSM, they will unerringly follow whatever they are told without question.

    9. "If they choose to ban Erotica 1 for things said on out of game comms, that's their right, but they should ban all other third party harassment too"

      Because ALL harassment is the same!

      Lucas has previously tried to argue semantics and may pretend that he didn't say that. But if you read what he wrote, it is *exactly* what he is saying. i.e. Ban for severe and purposeful psychological harassment? Then CCP MUST ban for something as trivial as "oh you idiot how did you lose point on that Machariel". because calling someone an idiot could be construed as harassment.

      In Lucas' fantasy world, if you're going to allow friendly & petty name calling, you MUST also allow deeply disturbing psychological abuse and threats. IMHO that goes past morally corrupt and into the realm of idiocy.

      Me: "Unfortunately for you [Lucas], *most* EvE players are a lot smarter than you believe them to be."

      Lucas: "If most players were smart, scamming wouldn't exists on the level it does. Most people are sheep. They will go along with what other people say"


      The contempt you have for EvE players is quite astounding Lucas.

      That you're happy to dedicate days of your time & effort to criticizing CCP for pandering to the majority of players but still willingly pay them money to continue interacting with people you have contempt for... That's... that's just a whole new level of special.

    10. "But if you read what he wrote, it is *exactly* what he is saying. i.e. Ban for severe and purposeful psychological harassment?"
      That appears to be your interpretation of my wording. I'm not saying all harassment is the same, but since CCPs rule is that they won;t even INVESTIGATE other third party harassment, how can you possibly say that they are being fair to other victims.

      "In Lucas' fantasy world, if you're going to allow friendly & petty name calling, you MUST also allow deeply disturbing psychological abuse and threats. IMHO that goes past morally corrupt and into the realm of idiocy."
      No, not at all. I just think they need to draw the line to show where people stand and they should treat ALL THIRD PARTY HARASSMENT with the same level of investigation. They don't. I shouldn't need to copy paste you their standard GM response again, but they don't even look into the harassment to determine if it's actionable.

      "The contempt you have for EvE players is quite astounding Lucas."
      I don't have contempt for them, but at the same time I understand that they are not as smart as they like to think.

      "That you're happy to dedicate days of your time & effort to criticizing CCP for pandering to the majority of players but still willingly pay them money to continue interacting with people you have contempt for... That's... that's just a whole new level of special."
      Sigh... So again ignoring huge parts of what I've stated. I get it. YOU think that if I hate ONE PART of CCPs decision I MUST hate the whole of them. You are incorrect. Get over it.

      Now honestly if you want to sit there and twist words go ahead. People can clearly read the whole thread of comments so they can clearly see you are talking out of your ass. They can also go ahead and read anything I've written before as I'm not hiding behind anonymity.

    11. "I don't think we have the right to answer that question, and neither do you. That's taking a personal opinion and deciding whether or not someone should be allowed to play the game they like to play based on that opinion."

      I think you're wrong. We have the right to *answer* that question. What seems to be up for debate is whether we have anything we can *do* about that answer. From what I've seen, the answer was not exactly unanimous and the ability to do something about it seems to begin and end with "media shitstorm". This is why I think the conversation is far from over, but I worry it will be forgotten as soon as the media shitstorm disappears.

    12. That's exactly why Ripard/Jester brought it up in the first place, he didn't want CCP to rule in some way he thought would not serve his purpose, which was making them act on his opinion to get someone banned. I can already hear the arguments for your "golden boy" right now, that no his word is the word of EVE-God, which it isn't, he's only posting his opinion which the flock is going to hang onto as if it were gold.

      The thing is, all arguments on both sides are based on opinions, no matter what justification is given from either. It is entirely based on the interpretation of the audio recording, which Ripard is trying to guide the readers here to his opinion rather than their own, he can't ask loaded questions like Lucas Kell pointed out and still say he's asking for neutrality from his readers, it is simply bad journalism.

      If he wanted the neutrality he claims to want, then he would have simply posted the link to the recording and said, "Make of it what you will."

    13. You seem to think that calling something an "opinion" somehow devalues it to nothingness. Yes, everyone has opinions on each side. I happen to like people presenting written-out sets of thoughts designed to convince the reader, because then I can evaluate it and decide if I actually find it convincing. I'm not sure where you see this desire for neutrality, actually. From where I sit, Ripard Teg looks like an editorialist, and that's okay; he wanted to present a series of arguments to get people thinking.

      I don't go to Jester's Trek to get handed links. I go to read someone else's opinion and then think about it. For that matter, "I'm just leaving this here," and "Make of it what you will," is incredibly passive-aggressive. For example, he did that with his TSR essay, and I was incredibly unimpressed as a result. (Okay, I was also unimpressed because he betrayed a poorer understanding of the business facts of something he lived through than I have of it despite not having been born yet.) I'm disappointed again that he called it quits on his series, here, because really, I don't think this conversation is over, and if we let it go, it's just going to result in another explosion over a minor sticking point. The important part, in my opinion was the stuff he hasn't gotten to yet, about how new players get bullied out of the game.

    14. Where is your evidence of this bullying? And why absolutes, do you know this to be concrete fact? Has CCP made a public statement about this subject?

  32. "Though I find it ironic that people who say the CSM has no influence at all are suddenly saying I somehow caused or enforced this ban."
    I don;t think you as a CSM member forced CCPs hand, but as a CSM members, you can reach a lot more of the community with your posts, so it was easy for you to rally a bunch of foaming at the mouth players to stamp their feet loudly enough for CCP to pay attention. At the end of the day though the result is that you used your position to push your agenda, and damn anyone that goes against you.

    1. tl;dr If I don't agree with you it means you're foaming at the mouth and stamping your feet.

    2. No, it means if you storm onto the forum and make a 400 page thread of the same repeated posts screaming that a player should be banned because a CSM member equated taking the piss out of someone on optional comms with every opportunity to leave to Geneva Convention style torture, then you are foaming at the mouth and stamping your feet.

      The actual victim in the case here was against the banning of Erotica 1. How can you not understand that the action taken here wasn't anything to do with what took place, it was the overreaction of the vocal minority to an overly extreme view from someone in a position of power.

    3. Not a word about Ero1's behaviour, but for Jester to criticize it is 'extreme' and 'foaming at the mouth.'

      Moral vacuousness is rarely so clearly illustrated.

    4. So Lucas, you've moved onto "the victim won't testify and said the villain should not be punished so the villain did not do anything wrong" argument.

      It's so perfectly extraneous to everything that your non-argument is now dazzling me with it's irrelevance.

      CCP had, has and always will have the right to choose who they do business with and that happens not to be with Erotica 1 because they dislike what he does & what he stands for.

      Why you still *willingly* give money to CCP every month is one of this threads great mysteries. The riddle of your non-existent argument having been solved a long time ago though.

    5. "So Lucas, you've moved onto "the victim won't testify and said the villain should not be punished so the villain did not do anything wrong" argument."
      Did I? That's funny, because I remember explicitly avoiding any mention of my thoughts on the "villain". Feel free to dig around the forums, and you'll see that my opinion on Erotica 1 has been clear for a very long time. But this isn't about my opinion, and it's not about yours, it's about whether or not it's fair for a systems rules to be bent due to public opinion. It's about whether it's fair for victims who have complained about harassment on third party sites to be told it's none of CCPs business while a CSM member gets a single case special treatment.

      "CCP had, has and always will have the right to choose who they do business with and that happens not to be with Erotica 1 because they dislike what he does & what he stands for."
      Sure they do, but they also have a responsibility to both the players they ban and the victims they claim to protect to implement a system that is fair and robust. They shouldn't cave because a single CSM member demands it and stirs up a shitstorm based on personal opinion.

      "Why you still *willingly* give money to CCP every month is one of this threads great mysteries."
      It's only a mystery if you're a complete moron and think that for me to disagree with a single action CCP takes means that I MUST disagree with everything they decide to do. Honestly, if you can't understand how someone can disagree with one thing someone does without disagreeing with them as a whole, there's probably no point in me explaining it to you.

      "The riddle of your non-existent argument having been solved a long time ago though."
      Yes, if you ignore the whole of my argument because you disagree with it, then sure, the riddle is solved. If that's the case though, why are you wasting your time responding? Surely there's nothing to be said, right?

    6. He keeps giving CCP money because they're holding his assets hostage. Owait.

    7. You have the ability to reach the the same amount of people from the community as this blogger has, the fact im replying to your post proves this.

      You or anyone could have rallied together a mass of mouth foaming, foot stomping people to disagree with CCPs actions. But that is where the problem lies, the mass of foot stomping players that disagree do not exist.

      If the masses felt that CCP were in the wrong, feet would be stomping, mouths would be foaming and CCP would have to listen.

      Highlight something you feel needs addressing, if the masses agree then CCP will eventually listen.

    8. also the csm would hopefully listen and help the community voice be heard!

    9. "If the masses felt that CCP were in the wrong, feet would be stomping, mouths would be foaming and CCP would have to listen."

      Funny thing is, Lucas is all over the place and contradicting himself a hell of a lot with regards to this.

      When he's blaming CCP's rule enforcement policy he says it is (quote) "due to public opinion" that they banned E1.

      When he's blaming Ripard or trying to negate any defense of what CCP did, he says (quote) "the thing that got them to act was the vocal minority".

      Even me, a not smart EvE playing sheep (Lucas' description of the EvE player base) can see that he's one seriously confused individual who will stop at nothing to try to distract attention & responsibility away from the villain and apportion blame onto CCP / public opinion / vocal minority / Ripard Teg or anything else.

    10. Please by all means point out where I am contradicting myself by stating that CCP need consistency in their rulings. Whatever your personal problem is with me, get it out of your system and start reading like a rational person, or is that too much to ask for a regular member of this blog?

      I tell you what, I'll boil it down to this simple question. Do you think it's fair that the victim in this case saw the perpetrator get banned, while a victim who sent an hour long recording of a group of players insulting him and his family over voice comms when their group fell out was closed off with him being told that CCP do not investigate third party communications?

    11. As Malcanis said has previously stated, E1 was banned for the TOTALITY of his actions in and out of game, not just the one instance.

      CCP will never share all of the info they received with the players because some of it might be privileged. Malcanis didn't go from standing in front of of the "pitchfork wielding mob" ( which I might add you were one of and then did 180) asking for "due process to calling him "evil" for no apparent reason.

      How much clearer can it be made to you?

    12. "Please by all means point out where I am contradicting myself"

      I did, but you ignored it. Funny that.

      As for your question, I can't answer it as I haven't heard the other recording. It's not so simple as you describing it and me deciding.

      Were the perpetrators specifically probing, searching and digging for weak spots to make the victim "flip"? Were they using well know techniques for "breaking down" victims like giving them no respite and coercing them to think about "good things" that will come if they co-operate? Were they holding a ransom over him with his sunken costs, giving him reason to continue to endure the harassment for several hours? Was the whole thing aimed at causing psychological torment? etc. etc.

      That you're not someone to compare like with like when it suits you tells me they probably weren't doing these things. I'll be happy for you to prove me wrong though...

      Above all though, you are clearly a massive troll. You operate under the guise of "I have a specific problem with CCP on this one issue" but you consistently refused to take up your concern with CCP on the eve-o forums when asked to do so multiple times.

      Alternatively, you're just very childish in your foot stomping tantrum by refusing to take it up with the people you have an issue with, but scream about it to anyone else who will listen. Grow up dude, that's the actions of a 5yr old.

    13. "Troll" is only one explanation. There were others involved than Erotica 1, that much is plain from the recordings. Interested parties may really, really want to try to minimize what occurred in the bonus rounds, and could be flailing about on the forum and blogs even now to try to build themselves (or their friends) escape pods. They could just be following the code, the whole point of which is ridiculous, disingenuous extremes.

    14. Sure sure, I ignored it, must be it. Even though from the start I've wanted CCP to be specific in what has changed in their rulings, how it will be taken going forward, and to consistently apply their rules across the board.

      And I like how because I disagree with you on this matter, I'm a "massive troll", then you continue a tirade of personal attacks. Good job buddy, good job.

    15. "Even though from the start I've wanted CCP to be specific in what has changed in their rulings"

      But refuses to ask CCP and just bitches on forums about it. Yup massive troll is a possibility. Or maybe just very childish.

    16. ""Troll" is only one explanation."
      LOL! You got me, despite my incredible disdain for everything involved with CODE, I'm secretly one of them. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that I just have differing view to you right? I must be a troll or an alt or somehow involved.

      Now I know where all the tinfoil went (well, what Dinsdale left behind anyway).

    17. "But refuses to ask CCP and just bitches on forums about it."
      Yup, you wanted me to go ask CCP, so they could either completely ignore the question or shut the ticket down for talking about a ban, you also assumed nothing was sent to CCP in the first place. The fact was I wanted to continue to talk about it in a public forum, and have every right to do so. It's not my fault that you think everyone who has a different point of view from you should just shut up, and it certainly doesn't make me the childish one here.

  33. This whole post just smacks of damage limitation and trying to mute anyone elses opinion through denial.

    Now the discussion is leading towards how a CSM member used an out of game blog to get someone banned he's not playing anymore.

    Please step down 'Jester', any respect I had for you (and it was a lot) has diminished completely.

    Also Shame on CCP for getting 'played' like this.

    1. Funny. This reply just smacks of re-hashing the witch hunt argument.

      My respect for Jester has somehow deepened over the incident; and it was a lot too.
      Please step UP and get back on the CSM next year, Jester.

      And thanks CCP for finally drawing a line, for pete's sake.

    2. CCP drew no line, they felt this was the best way to stop the mob.

  34. 'Do you want this vile excuse for a human being and people like him playing our game and being part of our community?'

    No. Totally no. Anyone saying the opposite should check whether he was born with a full set of human emotions.

    1. I don't want you to be part of the community. You know, people happy to voice their opinions from the safety of complete anonymity. People who lack so little conviction to their words they can;t even put their character's names to them.

      How is that any different? It's the personal opinion of one player against another. It's based on a very limited view from a single element of your character.

    2. " People who lack so little conviction to their words they can;t even put their character's names to them." Using your character's name is still effectively being anonymous. Using your real name is not anonymous.

    3. When someone lacks any form of a coherent argument on the 'net, they almost always resort to personally attacking the poster or indeed, messenger in some way. As Lucas does not know who "anonymous" is, he'll use that to attack them. Anything that distracts from the main issue basically. Sad I know.

    4. It's not really though, is it? I mean partially since it would take very little time to resolve the two if you really wanted. Secondly because it means that you as a player have to stand by what you say going forward and can't just claim it was a "different anonymous". Standing by what you say, even with a unique alias means you commit to what you are saying. Posting as a complete anonymous shows you lack the conviction to back your words.

      But that's just my opinion and that's not really the point of the post. The point was that people can dislike others for a variety of reasons. Taking personal opinion and treating it like everyone should share that opinion and agree or they are subhuman is wrong. I wouldn't declare that you must adhere to my thoughts on anonymous comments and that failing to do so shows you are scum. It's an opinion, they differ.

    5. " Posting as a complete anonymous shows you lack the conviction to back your words." No, it means I do not want to to have EVE connected to my real identity because of the likes of Erotica 1 and his supporters and that I do not have throwaway e-mail addresses to use. Do not make assumptions, you only make ass out of yourself.

    6. People post anonymously for a variety of different reasons, not all because of "cowardice".

    7. i post anonymous because its quicker easier simpler.
      sorry to inconvenience you but if it helps my real life name is David Jones.

      Nice to meet you lucas, oh no your not lucas are you?
      Lucas is just internet spaceship pixels.
      who is behind anonymous internet pixels.? answer dosent matter you opinion however does but just because you have a name doent make your point more valid

    8. " Posting as a complete anonymous shows you lack the conviction to back your words."

      You are such a character! You think because you post as "Lucas Kell" that you have any more credibility than "anonymous"?

      You are just hiding behind your toon. Post your real name and then take about convictions,At that point you will stop being anonymous.

      I bet that you won't and that would be a smart thing but don't get up on your high horse and say you have any more or less credibility than the rest of us.

    9. I prefer posting anonymously because then there shouldn't be any preconceptions and your message can be taken as it is, except when people ignore your argument and attack you for your use of anonymity.

    10. The difference being that as an anonymous, you can say quite literally anything, whether you believe it or not, without any worry that someone might later see you in game or at fanfest and go "oh you're that guy that said X". If you can't see the distinction between complete anon and attributing what you say to a specific character, there's really no point in trying to convince you.

      What's even better is, that wasn't even remotely the point of the post. That was merely something I dislike as an example for why I could decided that I don;t want that particular anon poster as part of the community. And the point of that was to show that personal opinions differ and shouldn't be used as a reason for someone to be booted out, and certainly shouldn't be used to state that anyone not sharing your opinion is subhuman. So way to miss the point :D

      It's clear I've got few fans out of Ripard's little army. How long until he starts a hate campaign against me and gets CCP to ban me too?

    11. Lucas Kell, let me present you with a gift. Here is your very own tin foil hat.

    12. Finally! Mission accomplished.

    13. I think that most people on here would agree that they find you annoying and willfully obtuse. I bet some dislike you, maybe even hate you. Some would decline to have a drink with you at fanfest should the opportunity arise because they find you off putting.
      Yet, I would be willing to bet that almost every person here would fight for your right to play no matter how disagreeable they find you. A hate campaign against you would fail miserably unless it could be proven that you were a peanut butter and humiliation fetishist that takes pleasure in other's pain.

  35. "If you want to talk to me about Erotica 1, that's fine. But if you're going to talk to me about him, have the courage to talk to me about the main issue, not side issues."

    Was this the reason why you declined to go on Eve Radio with FunkyBacon (CSM9 candidate) ?

    "The CSM Vice chair was invited, but declined to attend, QGazQ (Eve Radio)

    source: http://eve-radio.com/news-compendium/eve-radio/2651-funkybacon-erotica

    Regards, a Freelancer

    1. Why would the vice chair of the CSM and the most widely read blogger in the community share a platform with an attention-whoring sleaze? Ero was salivating for DAYS at the prospect of a debate with Ripard, moderated by Chribba, the highest profile player in the game.

      Dream on, dirtbag.

      FunkyBacon is a credulous fool, at best, for giving Erotica airtime. The cynic in me says it was just to call attention to his CSM campaign.

      Lost my vote then and there.

    2. Funky Bacon lost my votes when he made the whole thing about Ripard Teg and not the actual issue of abuse on TS.

      His inability to grasp the real major concern of the players and his propensity to play the person and not the issue tells me that he's going to make a terrible CSM member. You'd be crazy to vote for him.

    3. I fourth that thought. Makes you wonder why an old november rain sob story got trolled under Jester's nose in the midst of a series on ethics, just before the CSM elections got underway, and as "Ero" decided to nominate himself.

      Handy to have an obvious alt (i mean, come on! just look at the 'victims' evewho) step up and pincushion Jester.

      oh wait...lemmie put on my tinfoil hat and add this: If CCP stayed true to it's head in the sand attitude, and "Ero" got away with this, i'm sure throwing egg in Jester's face and making him eat crow would have been an awesome talking point to attract votes to the 'villain' bandwagon.
      Didn't work out so well, did it?

    4. Ripard would not get into this debate because he is more concerned of name calling and dismissing anyone who doesn't share his view as sick sub-humans. At least Funky had the decency to talk to people before judging and publicly shunning them.

      Ripard would be torn apart in such a debate, and he knows it. His actions are emotionally and not logically driven, much like his followers.

    5. Considering Ripard Teg did not ban Erotica 1, but CCP did (assuming Erotica 1 did not lie about it) I don't see any need for him to go and debate Erotica 1. CCP has seen enough evidence (kindly provided by Erotica 1) and acted, which is all that there should be in it. That Funkybacon wanted to join Erotica 1's cohorts in muddling water only makes him seem either as morally reprehensible or stupid. Either way, it makes him someone I would not vote for.

  36. Wow, so many words - I'll make mine brief.
    1) Bravo Ripard for taking up this battle
    2) "Disappointed" people really didn't want this subject brought up at all. It's an attempt to shame you for pointing out the elephant in the ball room.
    3) Erotica 1 apologists are simply engaging in spin-control. They recognize (on some level) that their personal play style is not that far from Erotica's and are trying to cloud the issue. It's the linguistic equivalent of squid ink.
    4) Just because "every play style" has been allowed in the past does not mean it's good for EvEs future. Too many existing players view new players only as food.

  37. EVE continues to be a game that sells on drama and big fights. Sadly, drama and big fights are also the reason many people leave the game. Do the right thing: stop playing EVE.

  38. I can understand your frustration with the inevitable blizzard of parsing and concern trolling, but even people who agree with you are going to be keenly interested in the "side issues."

    Let me put it this way: if you see two doctors debating the exact ratio of chemo to radiation vs. various surgical approaches, do you remind them that the core issue is that the tumor is bad and should be eliminated? or do you assume that they know that, and they're in the debate because the "side issue" of how to eliminate it is critical both to the success of the treatment and the patient's quality of life?

    1. The analogy is disingenuous at best; the "side issues' have clearly been used largely to detract from the core issue, not to clarify it.

      It would be more appropriate to say that the doctors were standing around arguing about what to blame for the cancer (such as whether the patient himself was at fault, or maybe it was a hazard of his work conditions, etc.) while sidestepping the fact that the cancer exists, and avoiding all talk of treatment.

    2. No, that's the case I dispensed with at the outset as "parsing and concern trolling." It's not even worth the time to analyze, because it's dishonest and, as you point out, it detracts from the core issue.

      I'm just saying, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Nosy Gamer has a great post up now, for example, doing exactly what I'm saying needs to be done.

  39. @anon 932 - Bravo on that analysis. You could even say that Jester's detractors are arguing "Cancer isn't bad, it's just an alternative lifestyle"

    1. That would be a reasonable extension of my analogy, though I would use polluters arguing that no studies have been done proving that they've done anything wrong, and they won't say what they're doing.

      FWIW, I agree with Anon @ 9:32.

  40. - Sohkar was never directly contacted by Ripard Teg before Ripard went on his crusade against Erotica1
    - Sohkar states Ripards coverage has done MORE harm to him than Erotica1's bonus room
    - Sohkar does NOT believe Erotica1 should be banned
    - Sohkar REJECTS the assertions he was 'tortured'
    - Sohkar admits much of what HE said should technically get him banned
    - Ripard has REFUSED to reply to any of Sohkars emails (at time of article writing yesterday)


    Well done, idiots.

    1. Thanks. You're totally welcome.

    2. On a positive note, the more time the fanatics spend on the forums and blogs frothing at the mouth about unbanning Erotica and pontificating on the sacredness of their "Emergent Playstyle", the less time they're in EVE making ISK and getting better at the game.

      If you've ever listened to their TS (and I have, a number of times), you know how shitty they are at the actual game. I figure it's only a matter of time before "Content Creation" and "Emergent Playstyles" become synonymous with Bad At EVE.

      Can you imagine what'd happen if these assclowns used their scammed ISK to buy their way into the Alliance Tournament? LOL

  41. This just in: the ends justify the means.


    1. It thinks it's clever, Godwining itself to make a point about...something about the way a GM hit a ban button?

    2. "It thinks it's clever, Godwining itself to make a point about...something about the way a GM hit a ban button?"

      That's a side issue, stfu.

    3. @Anon 12:49 Godwin's Law states that as an internet discussion grows longer, at some point Nazis and/or Hitler will be mentioned. As the above article does not discuss Nazis in any way, Godwin's Law does not apply.

    4. Yes, but now you did mention them.

      However, that's a side issue, stfu.

  42. Nah, he's just trying to whore traffic from a more popular blog. Happens all the time. Usually they're selling Viagra or something, though.

  43. I can not believe I am going to post on this again. What is the main Issue?

    Was what Erotica 1 did wrong and in violation of the EULA/TOS. Survey says yes, not only are the side issues irrelevant to the main discussion, they are also rendered ineffective through proper arguments.

    1. Whether CCP had the right to ban him?
    The Specific terms of the TOS are "You may not abuse, harass or threaten another player or authorized representative of CCP, including customer service personnel and volunteers. This includes, but is not limited to..." There is no statement limiting their actions to actions carried out only in EVE Online, CCP acted entirely within their rights as EVE Online Moderators within the terms of the TOS.

    2. But their ruling is inconsistent with their previous actions!

    Inconsistency implies that CCP alternated between banning third party actions and then not banning them. Simply banning Erotica 1 is not inconsistency, it is a simply a change in the way CCP rules in these cases. And that is only IF the exact case of Erotica 1 has happened before.

    Even if Erotica had been reported for his actions in the bonus room before, I am assuming the average ticket does not have much investigation put into it. Ripard's blog posts garnered community interest, this interest sparked an investigation into the totality of Erotica 1's actions, including these phantom Mayo pics floating about. After this investigation, remember CCP took a few days to post their decision it was not instantaneous, the decision was made that Erotica's actions were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (Valid Proof is the main thing that makes third party rulings difficult) and that his actions violated the TOS because what he was doing was Harassment.

    3. But Ripard incited a pitchfork wielding mob/ witch hunt that CCP caved to.

    Since when did it become wrong for a community to stand up and demand that action be taken, when the actual action in question is both wrong and violates the rules of the society. By implying that the community response is a 'lynch mob' implies that
    1. Erotica's actions weren't wrong in the first place, which they were.
    2. Erotica's actions did not violate the TOS, which they did.

    4. But Ripard called it torture and used inflammatory language!

    Technically speaking Ripard was right, the actions of Erotica met all his parameters of torture. Whether it was ACTUALLY torture is more debatable. But those who are implying that Ripard is equating Sohkars harassment with actual physical torture are being deliberately obtuse and argumentative.

    CCP did not ban Erotica for 'torture' they banned him specifically for the harassment that did occur, was proven to have occurred, and did so fully within the rights of the TOS.

    At worst Ripard is guilty of slightly shoddy journalism.

    5. But Sohkar himself said it wasn't harrassment!
    Considering what Sohkar actually posted, and that he did so after a closed TS conversation with Erotica 1 it is clear that he either did not understand the issues of the argument in the first place, or was deliberately misled by Erotica 1 on the server.

    1. Continued from my own post at 1:25

      6. It is a slippery slope! Soon all scams, ganking and other depravity will be outlawed in EVE Online.

      Using Erotica 1 as a base case CCP says that you cannot, Take someone into a third party app, harass them for over two hours, post it publicly to the Internet with both yours, and the victims name. And then admit to doing so publicly to CCP and the community. Everything less then this is either OK under the current rules, or is impossible to prove as accurate by CCP.

      For those who don't believe me. Go listen to corbexx's interview podcast at Cap Stable. He talks about how he was invited to the ACTUAL BONUS ROOM for a TS discussion, which he then left because he was not comfortable being in there.

      If the banning of Erotica didn't even stop the god damn bonus room itself. How in the HELL is it going to escalate into banning scamming, and ganking. People who are actually putting this forth as an argument are being extremely and unnecessarily alarmist.

      7. Ripard only got Erotica 1 banned because he didn't LIKE him.
      Erotica 1's actions were wrong, they violated the TOS and they went unpunished. That is what originally sparked Ripards post. His own opinions and inflammatory language did make it into the post. If you believe that somehow CCP was bullied into improper actions by the CSM and the 'lynch mob' fine that is your opinion.

      I say that I believe that CCP observed the opinions of the community and their CSM representatives, checked for evidence of wrongful behavior. Decided whether their actions to take were right from a moral, legal, and business perspective, and acted accordingly.

      8. Ripards dismissal of the side issues.
      Ripard wants to move on, he has done half a dozen blog posts on this issue, had somewhere close to several HUNDRED comments on them, as well as having to deal with a couple hundred page thread naught, discussions with CCP Employees and CSM members. AND CCP has rendered a decision on the issue.

      Understandably he doesn't want to deal with an infinite amount of side issues raised by everyone who has come out of the wood work on this. If he feeds it he could milk this topic for weeks. But, like most of us, he is tired with the shit posters, the trolls, the personal attacks, the idiots, the glaringly wrong, on both sides of the issue.

      He, and all of us want to move on, and put the situation of Erotica 1's horrid behavior behind us.

    2. "He, and all of us want to move on, and put the situation of Erotica 1's horrid behavior behind us."

      Too bad, you can bury your head in the sand if you want though. Have fun doing that.

  44. Even though there will be those that will attack me for this (believe me I know it will be coming), but I contribute these blog posts of the other side of the story dealing with this ugly matter:





    All I ask is you read these, and make your own opinions.

  45. as a quick thought (didnt have a chance to read all of the comments to this, so it might have been said before) I think that really the slippery slope argument can be summed up this way: Is what you are listening to/doing/causing something that you could look at and smile at 2 weeks from now (vary the length of time) take an example from another comment section, 2 weeks from now you could probably laugh at getting out of a gank for a poorly recorded rendition of barbie girl. The pain in this case is smaller than the value you sold it for. that type of person i am fine with. It seems to be a common form of male friendship "hey dude remember the time you got [bleep] from that [bleeeeep] and then realized that the person had a [bleep]" everyone can laugh at it (even the poor soul that is getting picked on) because they all know that there are similar stories about themselves. there is nothing extraordinary about what you were brought to do. Erotica becomes filth, not because he is willing to humiliate another human being, but because he wants to take that humiliation to whatever extreme extent he can. There is a former corp CEO of mine. We did not part on good terms, and I do think him the scum of the earth from time to time. I would enjoy scamming him. i would enjoy pushing his buttons, but engendering the hopelessness that erotica one revels in.. that strange place where you know your stuff is gone, but one more task, and maybe you will get it. specifically holding someone in that limbo for as long as he could. that is the torture part. that makes him someone i do not want to be associated with.

  46. I have been a long time reader of Jester's Trek, and have enjoyed many of you blogs during that time. This has been one of the few issues that I have been unwilling to agree with you on. E1 is most certainly a villian, and not someone that I would recommend anyone to put an ounce of trust in, but I fully support that the scum have his ban lifted. I consider myself of high moral fiber and would never participate in something likened to the "Bonus Room", but I am compelled to defend a villain because of the side issues you choose to not address, specifically using your blog to single out one incident, and in turn, applied precision pressure at CCP from a mob you, either intentionally, or unintentionally frenzied to have one individual banned, and at what cost? You exploited the victim, who is now being paraded around like some type of village idiot martyr, and quite frankly,a joke. E1 will get a new account and a private proxy, but the victim will never get his dignity back.

  47. tl;dr
    Quit beating the hornets nest. Foster dialogue, don't squash it. Provide solutions while remaining open to other stakeholders wants/needs.


    There is the rule of law and the rule of man. What you are condoning here is that we judge Erotica1's actions based on how we feel (or, how silly, how our mother would feel (1)). Not based against a set of rules; rules are merely 'side' issues. What we need to do is play the recording to our 90 year old grandmother and she will be Solomon and split the baby for us. This is indeed an act of true desperation. When all else fails you have sunk to the level of rallying the peasants with pitchforks to attack the evil doors.

    In reality we should judge their actions based on the rule of law. What do the rules say? Was erotica1 in violation of the EULA? This unfortunately is the shtick. You have no rules to condemn these activities occurring outside the game outside of what you claim to be human indecency (which isn't in the EULA last time I checked, HTFU FFS). Sure CCP can ban him outright, but in doing so they themselves would be operating out of shear power and outside the rule of law themselves. This is a terrible precedent to set. Who gets banned next when someone doesn't like the way they were talked to in a reddit subforum? Where are the lines? That is why you cannot discuss the side issues. Hidden in the side issues is the rule of law which is not currently on your side (as well as a slope that remains slippery).

    What you should be doing is offering up solutions. Assume these are reprehensible actions and these activities need to be prevented. What is a set of rules that will help prevent this style of play? How will these rules reinforce, reward, and/or punish various types of legitimate and illegitimate game play? Lead the discussion, don't wave issues off as side issues. Foster a dialogue that will actually help the community, not simply rally the troops for a cause in which you have provided no real non-flippant solution.

    And to speak to the 'main issue' as you so implore; I don't care what you see as morally unjustifiable, that has no hold in this game. I care that the rules are upheld. Rules that are generated with the players as stakeholders. Let the collective conscious rule. In that light, I recommend you provide said rules let them be vetted and beat on and honed. Erotica1's behavior is irrelevant outside of being a catalyst for potential change. Step off your moral high horse, quit dividing the populace, and foster a path forward that scammers, carebears, pirates, and themittani can all agree to as reasonable.

    (1) Also, I was wondering, if you played a recording of you and your significant other doing relationship building activities to a female relative of yours, what would their reaction be? Would you base all future relationship building activities based on this reaction?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.