One of the first things I was told when i joined Goonswarm, was to kill myself.
ISP providers should give every person who gets an internet connection a box of tissues.
Wait i am resposible for you.
Do you still feel the need to kill youself now?
How about in the last month?
Do you have a plan?
(I hate this, this shit is serious. But people are just so warped by this PC crap and bloodthristy to blame someone (in the name of justice), they get to thinking things like that is never acceptable. And you cannot say that. Or your actions have consequences, even if they are driven by a maligned understanding of reality and personal resposibility; which insure someone pays, we don't look at the real issue, and no one in power get sued).
now you're not even trying to read what people are saying are you?
Ecoces how could you be so incensitive, didn't you read, he was told to kill himself. We have to make sure he doesn't. I mean who knows maybe that statement made him want too.
Ecoces are you saying that you don't want him to get help? What?
Ecoces are you ignorning his situation , he said he was told to kill himself. And you want to ignore that?
(Maybe i am reading, maybe your ability to read subtext is lacking.
See, if guy 1 can threaten to kill himself as a way to attempt to save his ship and guy 2 says tuff and for that i am going to encourage others to pod you also, so go ahead. And this all leads to guy 2 being a bad bad boy. Then, ignoring people told to kill themsleves without making sure they are ok, is as bad as guy 2. You as bad as guy 2. If this is the logic we are applying. He encouraged it your turning a blind eye to it [if your going to hold guy 2 resposible for guy 1's actions, then saving someone encouraged to kill themselves would also be our resposibility]).
(I know its not simple, but this isn't about what you want, or how you feel, its about right and wrongs, and a person's duty to society, i guess).
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
What a bunch of BULL. You wanna kill yourself.... ok. What does that have to do with a guy playing a game...
The issue is that someone took a point, the guy telling the goon he had suicidal thoughts, that as you yourself say has nothing to do with playing a game, and rather than just ignore it and continue to play the game and hitting the other guys in game assets using Internet spaceships, called the guys in game name out whilst being broadcast live on a CCP public platform and told people if they wanted to get him to kill himself to hit him in game. You tell me what the point was?
Yeah you wrong. You might not want to be but you are.
Guy 1 is MENTALLY UNSTABLE.
gUY 2'S JOB /DUTY IS NOT THE KEPPER OF GUY 1.
Guy 1 wants to do whatever in EVE , he gets caught / begs using im am gonna kill myself if you kill me.
Guy 2 .. too bad shut the f up, no special treatment.
Guy 1 no really i will
Guy 2 hey everyone kill this xxxxx whever you see him for trying to blackmail my ass into not killing him with threat of suicide.
.. yeah totally guy 2's fault .
Come down to earth. If this is the standard then even should remove all action able to upset other players from the game. I mean if you really wanted not to upset the person planning to kill themselves.
Guy 2 doesn't need to care and shouldn't , i mean if he should i should be able to walk up to your house and say let me take you tv or ill kill myself. Your wife? Your dog? I mean you wouldn't want me to kill myself, would you? In this case it is at least obvious that i am imbalanced, in This situation in EVE there is no way anyone could have know or should have know.
Don't kill my lvlv 100 orc in wow or ill kill myself. Get a grip, this is BULL.
Did you actually read my post?
Yeah the point was, he doesn't need to care about x guy in a game threating to kill himself. There ya go there is the reality of it.
its one thing not to care in game about someone threatening suicide, its another thing to go to a public forum and tell others to try and get the guy to commit suicide.
i can't believe people don't see the difference.
as i said before Mittani could have killed this dude 100 times and have the police find the guy a week later dead with a suicide not saying "he killed himself because of Mittani". I would have sided with Mittani however when he went to this public forum and told the people in attendance the guys ingame name and said they should try to get him to commit suicide, that is completely mittanis fault.
Ok lets get this squared up.
If in-game Mittani said, hey guys there is a xxxx over here threating to kill himself in an attempt not to get podded, lets pod him till he does. That us ok ? According to you and that one other guy in this thread.
Now if i am in at a get together and say the other day this xxxx over here threating to kill himself in an attempt not to get podded, lets pod him till he does. That us NOT ok ? According to you and that one other guy in this thread.
Now if i am using a video chat and say the other day this xxxx over here threating to kill himself in an attempt not to get podded, lets pod him till he does. That is NOT ok ? According to you and that one other guy in this thread.
Now if i am in a voice chat and say the other day this xxxx over here threating to kill himself in an attempt not to get podded, lets pod him till he does. That is ok ? According to you and that one other guy in this thread.
Do you understand the things coming out of your heads via your fingers?
Lets try this.
If in real life, someone called you on a blocked number and said, transfer xxxxx amount of funds to xxxxx account in the caymens or ill kill myself. And you said f'ing do it prixx. Thats ok? But if you told someone else in real life to tell that azz to go ahead and do it. That is not ok?
Seems like a rather weak/ non-existant distinction.
Plus its a game, remember Mittani only encouraged in-game actions. Thus i think your premise is faulty. As in game or out, only in-game actions as part of regular EVE game play were encouraged.
or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts ....
if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem
going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem.
so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples.
what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said.
Calling this dude "a legend" is over doing it a bit. I have been playing EVE since 2006, and never even heard of the guy until all he started popping up in the news. You can play EVE and be ENTIRELY independant of all this nonsense.
I am actually pretty happy with this site's coverage of this issue. The article confuses 'The Wiz' and 'The W' as they are two different chars but otherwise spot on.
After the coverage fiasco and various websites showing their true colors, I think I'll stick with IGN/MMORPG and Gamespot.
Yes, IGN! At the very least, they do not lie to get page views like Eurogamer/Massively etc.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
1. Troll down glad to see this game company is more serious than gamers first with Exile clan constantly griefing and pushing people around in Fallen Earth.
2. Still currently subscribed still playing, havent had one issue of Drama, or griefing myself in EVE online I am glad of that.
PVP in eve is absolutely fine its part of the game, however there is a point when things to way too far and it becomes Harassment
Personally, I believe doing anything in the hope that it gets someone to kill the self is wrong, you seem to think differently.
Now your guilty as Alex. His real mistake is he assumed the guys he was talking to in-game was talking BS, and wanted to just save his ship (which is partly true, but this individual was also unblanced and sucidal).
Now your assuming alex did "anything in the hope that it gets someone to kill the self" . What factual bases do you conclude this on? About the same level that Alex thought that guy was actually suicidal.
How do you defend your statements? If anything its pretty clear alex didn't think the individual was going to kill himself, and thought he was being a Bixxh (Here is the kicker he didn't). Nope didn't kill themsleves, didn't even really mind it it was "hurtful" Rofl, ahaha hurtful. Your allowed to be hurtful. There is my point. Its acceptable, maybe not desireable, but acceptable to be hurtful. Well unless you live in a place that requires you to be resposible for others actions and never be hurtful. PS can i have your dog now, if not ill be hurt.
But yeah you want blood i get it, i get it. Its just not acceptable when its suicde or when a person is "hurt"? So are you ready to give me your dog yet? You are not resposible for others actions. (More so, alex and goon really didn't do much to this guy, did that seem to slip the naritive some how?) Like i said please stick to reality.
Your not really addressing any logical or moral arguement i have made only bypassing them making new statements or claiming i having read (not why, only that i didn't).
For good measure, did you even read any of my posts?
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Personally, I believe doing anything in the hope that it gets someone to kill the self is wrong, you seem to think differently.
Now your guilty as Alex. His real mistake is he assumed the guys he was talking to in-game was talking BS, and wanted to just save his ship (which is partly true, but this individual was also unblanced and sucidal).
Now your assuming alex did "anything in the hope that it gets someone to kill the self" . What factual bases do you conclude this on? About the same level that Alex thought that guy was actually suicidal.
How do you defend your statements? If anything its pretty clear alex didn't think the individual was going to kill himself, and thought he was being a Bixxh (Here is the kicker he didn't). Nope didn't kill themsleves, didn't even really mind it it was "hurtful" Rofl, ahaha hurtful. Your allowed to be hurtful. There is my point. Its acceptable, maybe not desireable, but acceptable to be hurtful. Well unless you live in a place that requires you to be resposible for others actions and never be hurtful. PS can i have your dog now, if not ill be hurt.
But yeah you want blood i get it, i get it. Its just not acceptable when its suicde or when a person is "hurt"? So are you ready to give me your dog yet? You are not resposible for others actions. (More so, alex and goon really didn't do much to this guy, did that seem to slip the naritive some how?) Like i said please stick to reality.
Your not really addressing any logical or moral arguement i have made only bypassing them making new statements or claiming i having read (not why, only that i didn't).
For good measure, did you even read any of my posts?
Alex was drunk on Jager when he lost his grip on the differenence between fantasy and reality , what's your excuse?
What COULD have happened...
"Yes your honor, just because I stood on a company sponsored platform and encouraged the crowd to harrass a player in game who had previously warned me he was suicidal, hoping that he would in deed comit suicide, I feel at no point responsible for him taking his own life or for the actions of those that listened and did harrass him."
Wrong is wrong and if you can't see that...seek help.
Once again INTENT.
You are making a huge assumption that I don't think is supported by any evidence., That assumption being that Alex really thought the guy was serious about offing himself.
I think it's perfectly clear that Alex did not in fact believe that the threat was serious (it wasn't BTW).
The idea of alchohol not being an excuse in a setting is a legal conciet to prevent people from using it to get away with intentional criminal activity. Driving under the influence is illegal because it's that alchohol impair judgement and reaction time and as such one is expected to take precautions (while still sober) to avoid being in a situation where one would end up operating a vehicle while drunk. This is because an automobile is effectively a deadly weapon.
But you know what? even the legal system recognizes that there is a difference between driving under the influence and killing someone as a result vs killing someone intentionally while sober. That's why the charge is Manslaughter rather than murder. Because context and circumstances provide mitigating and exacerbating factors.
The guy who goes out and kills 3 kids as a result of driving while drunk is not treated the same legally as one who picks up a revolver and goes out and shoots 3 kids to death.
It's the difference between stupid and evil.
If Alex were the sociopath people are claiming he is and he really believed that The Wis was sincere in his threat and really wanted to see the guy kill himself don't you think he's shown sufficient intellegence so far in his years of play to avoid pushing the issue in such a public place as the alliance pannel at Fan Fest? An event that was being recorded and streamed to all his many many in game enemies who where waiting for the slightest misstep to pounce on?
Get real. It is glaringly obvious that Alex did not believe The Wis, that he thought the guy was full of it and the ill advised drunken call to spam him was not in fact intended to make the guy kill himself.
boohoo , Ross Mcderp wants to kiss piece of shit Alex ''da mitarded'''s behind but to not make it so obvious , he hides it behind a long article. What I don't understand is why MMMORPG let people like this write all that garbage in their website
I didn't see anything in the article that was overtly kissing Mittani's arse. I saw alot of community reflection which may not appease to your own prejudices but that doesn't mean he's kissing Mittani's ass.
------------
Additionally, Mittani was in no way an Eve Online legend however, he was and still is a legend within the greater Goonion. The Eve Online Legend title would typically be held for entities (corps/alliances) or massive scandals; only one case of a single person who could be labeled a legend would be Chirbba and that's it.
Alex was drunk on Jager when he lost his grip on the differenence between fantasy and reality , what's your excuse?
What COULD have happened...
"Yes your honor, just because I stood on a company sponsored platform and encouraged the crowd to harrass a player in game who had previously warned me he was suicidal, hoping that he would in deed comit suicide, I feel at no point responsible for him taking his own life or for the actions of those that listened and did harrass him."
Wrong is wrong and if you can't see that...seek help.
Once again INTENT.
You are making a huge assumption that I don't think is supported by any evidence., That assumption being that Alex really thought the guy was serious about offing himself.
I think it's perfectly clear that Alex did not in fact believe that the threat was serious (it wasn't BTW).
The idea of alchohol not being an excuse in a setting is a legal conciet to prevent people from using it to get away with intentional criminal activity. Driving under the influence is illegal because it's that alchohol impair judgement and reaction time and as such one is expected to take precautions (while still sober) to avoid being in a situation where one would end up operating a vehicle while drunk. This is because an automobile is effectively a deadly weapon.
But you know what? even the legal system recognizes that there is a difference between driving under the influence and killing someone as a result vs killing someone intentionally while sober. That's why the charge is Manslaughter rather than murder. Because context and circumstances provide mitigating and exacerbating factors.
The guy who goes out and kills 3 kids as a result of driving while drunk is not treated the same legally as one who picks up a revolver and goes out and shoots 3 kids to death.
It's the difference between stupid and evil.
If Alex were the sociopath people are claiming he is and he really believed that The Wis was sincere in his threat and really wanted to see the guy kill himself don't you think he's shown sufficient intellegence so far in his years of play to avoid pushing the issue in such a public place as the alliance pannel at Fan Fest? An event that was being recorded and streamed to all his many many in game enemies who where waiting for the slightest misstep to pounce on?
Get real. It is glaringly obvious that Alex did not believe The Wis, that he thought the guy was full of it and the ill advised drunken call to spam him was not in fact intended to make the guy kill himself.
I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.
The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.
True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on. There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it. His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.
You are making a huge assumption that I don't think is supported by any evidence., That assumption being that Alex really thought the guy was serious about offing himself.
I think it's perfectly clear that Alex did not in fact believe that the threat was serious (it wasn't BTW).
The idea of alchohol not being an excuse in a setting is a legal conciet to prevent people from using it to get away with intentional criminal activity. Driving under the influence is illegal because it's that alchohol impair judgement and reaction time and as such one is expected to take precautions (while still sober) to avoid being in a situation where one would end up operating a vehicle while drunk. This is because an automobile is effectively a deadly weapon.
But you know what? even the legal system recognizes that there is a difference between driving under the influence and killing someone as a result vs killing someone intentionally while sober. That's why the charge is Manslaughter rather than murder. Because context and circumstances provide mitigating and exacerbating factors.
The guy who goes out and kills 3 kids as a result of driving while drunk is not treated the same legally as one who picks up a revolver and goes out and shoots 3 kids to death.
It's the difference between stupid and evil.
If Alex were the sociopath people are claiming he is and he really believed that The Wis was sincere in his threat and really wanted to see the guy kill himself don't you think he's shown sufficient intellegence so far in his years of play to avoid pushing the issue in such a public place as the alliance pannel at Fan Fest? An event that was being recorded and streamed to all his many many in game enemies who where waiting for the slightest misstep to pounce on?
Get real. It is glaringly obvious that Alex did not believe The Wis, that he thought the guy was full of it and the ill advised drunken call to spam him was not in fact intended to make the guy kill himself.
Some people aren't interested in logic or what's intuitively obvious. They want blood, and it seems no resolution short of physical harm or total ostracism will satisfy them.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.
The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.
True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on. There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it. His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.
Considering the fact the news reports outright lied about the things he apparently did, I'd be mad too.
If a news report came up to say 'JPNZ called John Smith to do bad thing' when the truth was 'JPNZ called Batman do bad thing', wouldn't I be upset?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I wouldn't even call the people described in this article as "gamers".....
Gaming is all about sharing a MUTUALY ENJOYED shared activity. It's about EVERYONE having fun. Not about beating up on somebody else (whether the game is PvP or PvE focused). In baseball you may defeat the other Team 15-0 but at the end of the game, you walk over and shake the other teams hands and say "Better luck next time, you guys just had an off day...happens to everyone." Things that are on the field, stay on the field....and the second it starts to be about something happening off the field, is the time to stop.
If I encountered someone in a game....any game, where what I was doing was making them feel miserable in real life, the very first thing I would do would be... /Whisper "OOC: Hey, are you ok with this? I thought we were just playing, but you seem to be getting upset for real?"
If they were getting upset, I'd stop the activity immediately. If I thought they would be ok and were just having a bad day, I'd just walk away. If not, I'd stop playing...talk to them...and if they really were that depressed maybe see if I could get them some RL help. If that means I lose the game.....big frickin deal....it's just a game, I'm an adult.
The fact that we are even DEBATING about what the right thing to do here is or shaving hairs about the situation just points out exactly how low some elements of this hobby have sunk.
Do you folks even know what GAMING is about.... It's about playing FAIR and EVERYONE enjoying the time we spend together.
Griefing has absolutely no part in gaming. Wanting people to have miserable experiences while playing is the absolute anthisis of what games and gaming is supposed to be about. Anyone that is interested in doing that has no business even calling himself a gamer. Period.
It's funny how even the Mittani admits what he did was wrong and yet people here keep trying to justify it, i wonder why they just dont let the story die rather than endlessly post about how a man who admitted he did something wrong did nothing wrong.
or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts ....
if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem
going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem.
so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples.
what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said.
i have to ask ... are you drunk?
Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.
They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.
All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it. You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.
To your example , yes its ok. Becuase your are not in control of anothers actions. (Wow the first person in this thread to attempt a stright answer, might you be spining sir?).
Now i do not mind EVE taking action, however, it should be of approprate nature. Like sorry braw, no more fan fest speeches for you. That is logical.
So what are the facts agian?
Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says? Correct?
Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?
Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.
Answer that. The guy is not dead from everything i know /read about it.
Because this is not part of the narative you know its a witch hunt. But dead or not doesn't change the actions of Alex (It goes both ways, and I am fair enough and in touch with reality enough to admit that).
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts .... if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem. so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples. what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said. i have to ask ... are you drunk?
Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.
They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.
All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it. You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.
To your example , yes its ok. Becuase your are not in control of anothers actions. (Wow the first person in this thread to attempt a stright answer, might you be spining sir?).
Now i do not mind EVE taking action, however, it should be of approprate nature. Like sorry braw, no more fan fest speeches for you. That is logical.
So what are the facts agian?
Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says? Correct?
Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?
Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.
If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship. If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong. Which bit of that is causing you trouble?
I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.
The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.
True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on. There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it. His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.
He does sound like an immature wierdo that cares more about destroying others ego and confidence in order to inflate his own below average self esteem. But isn't that what Goon Squad has always been about? Scamming, ganking, belittling, condescention, etc. I suppose they act that way in order to get that rush that you feel when you have a sense of power.
This was video game trash talk. There was no one threatening him at his workplace. There was no one sending him hate mail. There was no one calling his phone or talking to his friends or relatives. Thinking that someone is going to act on their, "I'm going to commit suicide," prattle in a video game is assinine.
The blame of the suicide still rests solely with the person that commited the act. People are and always have been evil pricks to each other. In videogames or otherwise. But to blame this guy for the suicide is more dark and twisted than blaming the person actually responsible for the suicide. The person that did it.
This article started really well with a good summary of the complexity of the situation and the author had a valid observation to make at the end about the complex motives of the community reaction. But without the over-reaction of the polarized community and media, would the original issue have actually been confronted?
The root question here is how much responsibility do players need to take to protect themselves against the psychological warfare of the game. If a person goes into a hockey game with no physical padding whatsoever, the arena owner can put rules in place to stop them from getting on the ice. If a person goes in with no psychological padding whatsoever, it's impossible to tell that they are putting themselves at risk.
The business reality is that there are always two messages being sent out in a game like this: "this is a harsh and unforgiving gang warefare sim" and "this is a safe place to spend your time and escape your day to day life". Add to this an extremely polarizing leader of player community who only represents one half of that message and it is almost inevitable that there will be a PR meltdown where the two messages collide and there is a massive metagame reaction.
Perhaps it is a sign that the politics of Eve's community has evolved into more than just a game - it's real politics now, with all the good and bad that entails.
or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts ....
if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem
going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem.
so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples.
what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said.
i have to ask ... are you drunk?
Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.
They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.
All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it. You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.
To your example , yes its ok. Becuase your are not in control of anothers actions. (Wow the first person in this thread to attempt a stright answer, might you be spining sir?).
Now i do not mind EVE taking action, however, it should be of approprate nature. Like sorry braw, no more fan fest speeches for you. That is logical.
So what are the facts agian?
Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says? Correct?
Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?
Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.
If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship. If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong. Which bit of that is causing you trouble?
All of it , or what?
Why do you feel that way?
Situation 1, "If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship." - and someone kills themself , thats ok ?
Situation 2 "If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong." and if they kill themself , thats not ok?
1 - You have acted on someone stating i am going to kill myself if you. You WILLINGLY CHOOSE TO TAKE THAT ACTION, if you BELIEVED that person you just gave them reason to kill themself. - Outcome: they are dead you evaulated your action agianst the possbility of suicide and took that risk.
2- Already have decieding this individual is lieing (otherwise they are dead, because they killed themselves), you encourgae others to make that person pay for using the threat of suicde to save their digital ship. - Outcome: They were lieing, or using a half truth to threaten you and well they are not going to kill themselves (NOTE THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT OCCURED) , or they killed themself because of the increased level of stress and harasment acting on pre-existing plan and desire to kill oneself.
You have to see the hypocrisy here. Its ok to kill the ship and have them kill themself, but not ok to encourage others to kill the ship and have them kill THEMSELF (caps just so you get the point of who is killing who).
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
It's funny how even the Mittani admits what he did was wrong and yet people here keep trying to justify it, i wonder why they just dont let the story die rather than endlessly post about how a man who admitted he did something wrong did nothing wrong.
I'm not seeing the 'nothing wrong'.
What is upsetting is not actually getting the story right by the various news sites as PER THIS ARTICLE.
You did read the article right?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I think the ultimate problem is that this man Alex Gianturco, never had an opprtunity in life to properly socialize as a human being with fellow human beings.
This behavior is alarming from a high school sophomore but not totally unexpected. When this behavior originates from a 33 year old adult, I find myself at a loss for words.
I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.
The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.
True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on. There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it. His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.
What temper tantrum? The only communications I've seen from the Mittani on this issue have been to admit his own error take responsibility for it and take actions to compensate the offended party.
Comments
Ecoces how could you be so incensitive, didn't you read, he was told to kill himself. We have to make sure he doesn't. I mean who knows maybe that statement made him want too.
Ecoces are you saying that you don't want him to get help? What?
Ecoces are you ignorning his situation , he said he was told to kill himself. And you want to ignore that?
(Maybe i am reading, maybe your ability to read subtext is lacking.
See, if guy 1 can threaten to kill himself as a way to attempt to save his ship and guy 2 says tuff and for that i am going to encourage others to pod you also, so go ahead. And this all leads to guy 2 being a bad bad boy. Then, ignoring people told to kill themsleves without making sure they are ok, is as bad as guy 2. You as bad as guy 2. If this is the logic we are applying. He encouraged it your turning a blind eye to it [if your going to hold guy 2 resposible for guy 1's actions, then saving someone encouraged to kill themselves would also be our resposibility]).
(I know its not simple, but this isn't about what you want, or how you feel, its about right and wrongs, and a person's duty to society, i guess).
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
or we can cut out all the bullshit analogies and go on facts ....
if the guy told Mittiani that he was going to kill himself because of Mittanis actions and did so ... no problem
going to a public forum and telling those in attendance that they may be able to get this guy to kill himself ... Problem.
so can we please stop the "if a space money said he was sent from god and spoke to your next door neighbor but you didn't believe him and he said he was going to kill himself because of that that is ok?" examples.
what i said first are the only two "examples" that actually matter in this equation everything else you're spewing is just nonsense because you really don't have an answer for what i said.
i have to ask ... are you drunk?
Calling this dude "a legend" is over doing it a bit. I have been playing EVE since 2006, and never even heard of the guy until all he started popping up in the news. You can play EVE and be ENTIRELY independant of all this nonsense.
I am actually pretty happy with this site's coverage of this issue. The article confuses 'The Wiz' and 'The W' as they are two different chars but otherwise spot on.
After the coverage fiasco and various websites showing their true colors, I think I'll stick with IGN/MMORPG and Gamespot.
Yes, IGN! At the very least, they do not lie to get page views like Eurogamer/Massively etc.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Woot
1. Troll down glad to see this game company is more serious than gamers first with Exile clan constantly griefing and pushing people around in Fallen Earth.
2. Still currently subscribed still playing, havent had one issue of Drama, or griefing myself in EVE online I am glad of that.
PVP in eve is absolutely fine its part of the game, however there is a point when things to way too far and it becomes Harassment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvo08_uYjHI This is the video of GoonSwarm btw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbYNLmtAMAw&feature=related The Short Version Cyber Stalking.
Now your guilty as Alex. His real mistake is he assumed the guys he was talking to in-game was talking BS, and wanted to just save his ship (which is partly true, but this individual was also unblanced and sucidal).
Now your assuming alex did "anything in the hope that it gets someone to kill the self" . What factual bases do you conclude this on? About the same level that Alex thought that guy was actually suicidal.
How do you defend your statements? If anything its pretty clear alex didn't think the individual was going to kill himself, and thought he was being a Bixxh (Here is the kicker he didn't). Nope didn't kill themsleves, didn't even really mind it it was "hurtful" Rofl, ahaha hurtful. Your allowed to be hurtful. There is my point. Its acceptable, maybe not desireable, but acceptable to be hurtful. Well unless you live in a place that requires you to be resposible for others actions and never be hurtful. PS can i have your dog now, if not ill be hurt.
But yeah you want blood i get it, i get it. Its just not acceptable when its suicde or when a person is "hurt"? So are you ready to give me your dog yet? You are not resposible for others actions. (More so, alex and goon really didn't do much to this guy, did that seem to slip the naritive some how?) Like i said please stick to reality.
Your not really addressing any logical or moral arguement i have made only bypassing them making new statements or claiming i having read (not why, only that i didn't).
For good measure, did you even read any of my posts?
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Now your guilty as Alex. His real mistake is he assumed the guys he was talking to in-game was talking BS, and wanted to just save his ship (which is partly true, but this individual was also unblanced and sucidal).
Now your assuming alex did "anything in the hope that it gets someone to kill the self" . What factual bases do you conclude this on? About the same level that Alex thought that guy was actually suicidal.
How do you defend your statements? If anything its pretty clear alex didn't think the individual was going to kill himself, and thought he was being a Bixxh (Here is the kicker he didn't). Nope didn't kill themsleves, didn't even really mind it it was "hurtful" Rofl, ahaha hurtful. Your allowed to be hurtful. There is my point. Its acceptable, maybe not desireable, but acceptable to be hurtful. Well unless you live in a place that requires you to be resposible for others actions and never be hurtful. PS can i have your dog now, if not ill be hurt.
But yeah you want blood i get it, i get it. Its just not acceptable when its suicde or when a person is "hurt"? So are you ready to give me your dog yet? You are not resposible for others actions. (More so, alex and goon really didn't do much to this guy, did that seem to slip the naritive some how?) Like i said please stick to reality.
Your not really addressing any logical or moral arguement i have made only bypassing them making new statements or claiming i having read (not why, only that i didn't).
For good measure, did you even read any of my posts?
I tried but they were mostly incoherent ramblingsOnce again INTENT.
You are making a huge assumption that I don't think is supported by any evidence., That assumption being that Alex really thought the guy was serious about offing himself.
I think it's perfectly clear that Alex did not in fact believe that the threat was serious (it wasn't BTW).
The idea of alchohol not being an excuse in a setting is a legal conciet to prevent people from using it to get away with intentional criminal activity. Driving under the influence is illegal because it's that alchohol impair judgement and reaction time and as such one is expected to take precautions (while still sober) to avoid being in a situation where one would end up operating a vehicle while drunk. This is because an automobile is effectively a deadly weapon.
But you know what? even the legal system recognizes that there is a difference between driving under the influence and killing someone as a result vs killing someone intentionally while sober. That's why the charge is Manslaughter rather than murder. Because context and circumstances provide mitigating and exacerbating factors.
The guy who goes out and kills 3 kids as a result of driving while drunk is not treated the same legally as one who picks up a revolver and goes out and shoots 3 kids to death.
It's the difference between stupid and evil.
If Alex were the sociopath people are claiming he is and he really believed that The Wis was sincere in his threat and really wanted to see the guy kill himself don't you think he's shown sufficient intellegence so far in his years of play to avoid pushing the issue in such a public place as the alliance pannel at Fan Fest? An event that was being recorded and streamed to all his many many in game enemies who where waiting for the slightest misstep to pounce on?
Get real. It is glaringly obvious that Alex did not believe The Wis, that he thought the guy was full of it and the ill advised drunken call to spam him was not in fact intended to make the guy kill himself.
I believe the person to blame for this person's suicide rests solely on the person who commited suicide.
The fact that it was over in game items only reinforces that. And assuming that this was the only problem in this persons life in naive.
I didn't see anything in the article that was overtly kissing Mittani's arse. I saw alot of community reflection which may not appease to your own prejudices but that doesn't mean he's kissing Mittani's ass.
------------
Additionally, Mittani was in no way an Eve Online legend however, he was and still is a legend within the greater Goonion. The Eve Online Legend title would typically be held for entities (corps/alliances) or massive scandals; only one case of a single person who could be labeled a legend would be Chirbba and that's it.
What COULD have happened...
"Yes your honor, just because I stood on a company sponsored platform and encouraged the crowd to harrass a player in game who had previously warned me he was suicidal, hoping that he would in deed comit suicide, I feel at no point responsible for him taking his own life or for the actions of those that listened and did harrass him."
Wrong is wrong and if you can't see that...seek help.
Once again INTENT.
You are making a huge assumption that I don't think is supported by any evidence., That assumption being that Alex really thought the guy was serious about offing himself.
I think it's perfectly clear that Alex did not in fact believe that the threat was serious (it wasn't BTW).
The idea of alchohol not being an excuse in a setting is a legal conciet to prevent people from using it to get away with intentional criminal activity. Driving under the influence is illegal because it's that alchohol impair judgement and reaction time and as such one is expected to take precautions (while still sober) to avoid being in a situation where one would end up operating a vehicle while drunk. This is because an automobile is effectively a deadly weapon.
But you know what? even the legal system recognizes that there is a difference between driving under the influence and killing someone as a result vs killing someone intentionally while sober. That's why the charge is Manslaughter rather than murder. Because context and circumstances provide mitigating and exacerbating factors.
The guy who goes out and kills 3 kids as a result of driving while drunk is not treated the same legally as one who picks up a revolver and goes out and shoots 3 kids to death.
It's the difference between stupid and evil.
If Alex were the sociopath people are claiming he is and he really believed that The Wis was sincere in his threat and really wanted to see the guy kill himself don't you think he's shown sufficient intellegence so far in his years of play to avoid pushing the issue in such a public place as the alliance pannel at Fan Fest? An event that was being recorded and streamed to all his many many in game enemies who where waiting for the slightest misstep to pounce on?
Get real. It is glaringly obvious that Alex did not believe The Wis, that he thought the guy was full of it and the ill advised drunken call to spam him was not in fact intended to make the guy kill himself.
Good job he called it right then.People take eve to serious.
True but that does not mean you roll up to a suicidal person and egg him on. There are certain things that aren't socially accepted, he appeared to have stepped over the line and got punished for it. His temper tantrum after receiving his punishment should give you a pretty good idea of the calibre of his character and moral judgement.
Some people aren't interested in logic or what's intuitively obvious. They want blood, and it seems no resolution short of physical harm or total ostracism will satisfy them.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Considering the fact the news reports outright lied about the things he apparently did, I'd be mad too.
If a news report came up to say 'JPNZ called John Smith to do bad thing' when the truth was 'JPNZ called Batman do bad thing', wouldn't I be upset?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I wouldn't even call the people described in this article as "gamers".....
Gaming is all about sharing a MUTUALY ENJOYED shared activity. It's about EVERYONE having fun. Not about beating up on somebody else (whether the game is PvP or PvE focused). In baseball you may defeat the other Team 15-0 but at the end of the game, you walk over and shake the other teams hands and say "Better luck next time, you guys just had an off day...happens to everyone." Things that are on the field, stay on the field....and the second it starts to be about something happening off the field, is the time to stop.
If I encountered someone in a game....any game, where what I was doing was making them feel miserable in real life, the very first thing I would do would be... /Whisper "OOC: Hey, are you ok with this? I thought we were just playing, but you seem to be getting upset for real?"
If they were getting upset, I'd stop the activity immediately. If I thought they would be ok and were just having a bad day, I'd just walk away. If not, I'd stop playing...talk to them...and if they really were that depressed maybe see if I could get them some RL help. If that means I lose the game.....big frickin deal....it's just a game, I'm an adult.
The fact that we are even DEBATING about what the right thing to do here is or shaving hairs about the situation just points out exactly how low some elements of this hobby have sunk.
Do you folks even know what GAMING is about.... It's about playing FAIR and EVERYONE enjoying the time we spend together.
Griefing has absolutely no part in gaming. Wanting people to have miserable experiences while playing is the absolute anthisis of what games and gaming is supposed to be about. Anyone that is interested in doing that has no business even calling himself a gamer. Period.
Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.
They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.
All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it. You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.
To your example , yes its ok. Becuase your are not in control of anothers actions. (Wow the first person in this thread to attempt a stright answer, might you be spining sir?).
Now i do not mind EVE taking action, however, it should be of approprate nature. Like sorry braw, no more fan fest speeches for you. That is logical.
So what are the facts agian?
Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says? Correct?
Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?
Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.
Answer that. The guy is not dead from everything i know /read about it.
Because this is not part of the narative you know its a witch hunt. But dead or not doesn't change the actions of Alex (It goes both ways, and I am fair enough and in touch with reality enough to admit that).
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Fact one, the individual was was "targeted" didn't really care, it was "hurtful" Lots of things in games are hurtful, more so in EVE.
They didn't kill themselves, maybe alex called his bluff or not , how knows, doesn't it matter? No, because the fact is its not his job to care. If someone playing a game threatens you with suicide to save their ship , they desirve it. I would call that BS everyday. That person has no right to threaten you with their life. A point i attepmted to convay via examples. All correct mind you.
All the examples matter for a simple reason , they are all the same act. Thats the point of them. See you guys want to some how limit the implications of your manufactured rage. But you cannot because I am calling you on it. You cannot have it boths ways, either the action is wrong or its not, the medium doesn't matter.
To your example , yes its ok. Becuase your are not in control of anothers actions. (Wow the first person in this thread to attempt a stright answer, might you be spining sir?).
Now i do not mind EVE taking action, however, it should be of approprate nature. Like sorry braw, no more fan fest speeches for you. That is logical.
So what are the facts agian?
Guy 1 threatens self inflicted bodily harm if Guy 2 doesn't do what he says? Correct?
Guy 2 goes to a fan meeting and says check this guy out look how he attempted to get out of the destruction of his ship, lets all destory his in game stuff and given him a reason to kill himself? Correct?
Yeah i have no issue with guy 2 calling out guy 1's threat, with his own. Mental issues or not.
If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship. If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong. Which bit of that is causing you trouble?He does sound like an immature wierdo that cares more about destroying others ego and confidence in order to inflate his own below average self esteem. But isn't that what Goon Squad has always been about? Scamming, ganking, belittling, condescention, etc. I suppose they act that way in order to get that rush that you feel when you have a sense of power.
This was video game trash talk. There was no one threatening him at his workplace. There was no one sending him hate mail. There was no one calling his phone or talking to his friends or relatives. Thinking that someone is going to act on their, "I'm going to commit suicide," prattle in a video game is assinine.
The blame of the suicide still rests solely with the person that commited the act. People are and always have been evil pricks to each other. In videogames or otherwise. But to blame this guy for the suicide is more dark and twisted than blaming the person actually responsible for the suicide. The person that did it.
This article started really well with a good summary of the complexity of the situation and the author had a valid observation to make at the end about the complex motives of the community reaction. But without the over-reaction of the polarized community and media, would the original issue have actually been confronted?
The root question here is how much responsibility do players need to take to protect themselves against the psychological warfare of the game. If a person goes into a hockey game with no physical padding whatsoever, the arena owner can put rules in place to stop them from getting on the ice. If a person goes in with no psychological padding whatsoever, it's impossible to tell that they are putting themselves at risk.
The business reality is that there are always two messages being sent out in a game like this: "this is a harsh and unforgiving gang warefare sim" and "this is a safe place to spend your time and escape your day to day life". Add to this an extremely polarizing leader of player community who only represents one half of that message and it is almost inevitable that there will be a PR meltdown where the two messages collide and there is a massive metagame reaction.
Perhaps it is a sign that the politics of Eve's community has evolved into more than just a game - it's real politics now, with all the good and bad that entails.
All of it , or what?
Why do you feel that way?
Situation 1, "If someone says they will kill themself if I blow up their ship it is not wrong to blow up their ship." - and someone kills themself , thats ok ?
Situation 2 "If I then go to a public event and announce on video that if you want to get that individual to kill himself then you should all blow his ship up in game then that is wrong." and if they kill themself , thats not ok?
1 - You have acted on someone stating i am going to kill myself if you. You WILLINGLY CHOOSE TO TAKE THAT ACTION, if you BELIEVED that person you just gave them reason to kill themself. - Outcome: they are dead you evaulated your action agianst the possbility of suicide and took that risk.
2- Already have decieding this individual is lieing (otherwise they are dead, because they killed themselves), you encourgae others to make that person pay for using the threat of suicde to save their digital ship. - Outcome: They were lieing, or using a half truth to threaten you and well they are not going to kill themselves (NOTE THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT OCCURED) , or they killed themself because of the increased level of stress and harasment acting on pre-existing plan and desire to kill oneself.
You have to see the hypocrisy here. Its ok to kill the ship and have them kill themself, but not ok to encourage others to kill the ship and have them kill THEMSELF (caps just so you get the point of who is killing who).
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
I'm not seeing the 'nothing wrong'.
What is upsetting is not actually getting the story right by the various news sites as PER THIS ARTICLE.
You did read the article right?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I think the ultimate problem is that this man Alex Gianturco, never had an opprtunity in life to properly socialize as a human being with fellow human beings.
This behavior is alarming from a high school sophomore but not totally unexpected. When this behavior originates from a 33 year old adult, I find myself at a loss for words.
What temper tantrum? The only communications I've seen from the Mittani on this issue have been to admit his own error take responsibility for it and take actions to compensate the offended party.