I was contacted by Laughing Anom, who claimed to be neutral in the great conflict between heroes and bot-aspirants. Despite his alleged neutrality, he filed three petitions against us. In principle, I have no problem with neutrals, in EVE or elsewhere. I just wish I encountered more good neutrals and fewer bad neutrals, you know?
Above is the form response that Laughing claimed to have received from CCP. The link is to the forum thread posted back in January, in which CCP confirmed that bumping is a fine thing to do. Laughing wasn't laughing when he got this answer, so he sent a reply, as he explains below (he didn't use quotation marks, so I drew a gray square around the excerpt he provided):
Laughing Anom took the wrong approach, I think. Instead of apologizing for wasting the GMs' time by complaining about the New Order, he insulted them for using an efficient form response. For his efforts, he got his own personalized answer from one of the GMs. Here's the text of it that Laughing sent me; he put the interesting part in larger yellow text:
With that, Laughing Anom wished me luck and congratulated the New Order for earning the approval of the GM staff. Judging by the highlighted portion, it seems we do have some fans at CCP. Wonderful news!
Now for some bonus intel, courtesy of Agent Zak Fey. Zak went to Iceland for this year's Fanfest. Along the way, he got a chance to meet members of the CCP staff.
"So I ended up doing the pub crawl with some GMs. They had some very interesting things to say about the New Order."When you think about it, CCP and the New Order are natural allies. CCP punishes people for botting and violating the EULA; we punish people for aspiring to be like bots and violating the Code. All Agents of the New Order, take heart that your efforts are appreciated at the highest levels.
...
"Well one GM gave me a high five. The senior one told me that we cause more workload [ganking] and bumping than any other mechanic/group in the game. So he hates us for that, even though they have an automated reply. He also wouldn't comment on if he enjoyed the miner tears or not. But I could see it in his eyes that he really did."
The day a tree is cut down is the happiest day of its life. For that is the day when a tree remembers that it is alive.
ReplyDelete"appreciated at the highest levels"
ReplyDeletei havent felt so warm and fuzzy since i sold my first permit!
I knew it! They love us, everyone loves us, we're awesome.
ReplyDelete-Oink
Pay attention, son. This is the part of the story that's really important.
ReplyDeleteNOW this is the Code of Highsec, as old and as true as the sky,
The miner that shall keep it may prosper, but the miner that shall break it must die.
As the ice that glistens in the dark of space, the Code brings joy when seen,
For the strength of the miner is the Code, and the strength of the Code is James 315.
James Three-Fifteen*
DeleteDespite the tone of the article I give thanks to Laughing Anom for sharing the petition defeat with us. For me it feels a bit like LA is offering the New Order a "GG" in defeat - a truly honourable and code complaint behaviour. It's also great to see how it's handled by CCP.
ReplyDeleteI do wish CCP would be a little clearer for everyone''s sake. e.g. in the lengthy reply the part after the highlight yellow sections encourages more petitions if a player "overstep the policy" without saying what actions CCP considers overstepping the policy. This can only lead to teary eyed non compliant bot aspirants thinking their case is a special one and that they deserve special treatment - according to the imaginary rules in their head - at the same time ignoring the CCP rules and game mechanics. CCP being very clear and explicit would help bot aspirants realise that non compliance with the New Halamia Code of Conduct is mandatory across the whole of high sec. Non compliance results in educative sanctions and involuntary ship dismantling at the pleasure of our Glorious Saviour of High Sec, James 315.
Ambiguity in policy benefits no one - neither the Knight enforcing the Code and punishing bot-aspirants, nor the bot-aspirant filing petitions with CCP, and certainly not the GMs tasked with wading through mountains of frivolous petitions. Maybe I am being a bit harsh in my judgment, but CCP's decision to leave room for interpretation shows a lack of conviction that borders on cowardice. It would be refreshing to see a spike in unemployment among 'space lawyers' due to clear, concise policy.
DeleteThere is no way to fully remove ambiguity from this subject, mainly due to the fringe example of using a valid game mechanic to target and repeatedly harass a specific player. If an exception is not specified a priori, it has no legal or moral grounding.
DeleteTargeted, personal and continuous harassment in an online game should land a ban, always.
Have in mind though that the above have nothing to do with the noble cause the New Order of Highsec exercises.
As my grandpappy was fond of saying, "Never ask a question you don't want to hear the answer to." Grandpappy didn't think a preposition was a bad thing to end a sentence with. I digress.
ReplyDeleteAs much as we all say we would like to have clear guidelines, what we really mean is that we want clear guidelines that are in our interest. Since clear guidelines are not likely to be in the interests of both sides, somebody loses. I am happy to have things left at least somewhat vague, to allow for a wider range of gameplay options.
What? No. There are more than two sides in EVE, your analysis is a false dilemma fallacy. Clear guidelines are good, unless you want to be banned for something that was unclear.
DeleteBobbins where are you?
ReplyDeleteI think hes on another thread calling us names and being a general douchebag, while claiming that he doesnt follow The New Order, The Code, or every other facet of what we do on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteOr, maybe hes watching My Little Brony on VHS for the 1,064th time, and is unable to rant and be dumb here.