Shoutout to CUOP for becoming the new dirk

Glad you turned into piracy :slight_smile:

I had same situation :slight_smile:

At least it isn’t anything very valuable. I wonder if like myself, they will give it back if you go say hi, be friendly and ask about motive and ask for it back nicely.

hum fair, maybe turning into dirk is a bit derogative for you, sorry about that!

Oh, that’s not piracy.
He and his friend/cousin apparently started to grab random contracts from everyone, COUP, Anti COUP, neutrals.

Why? Because apparently the boycott of COUP crashed his company.
So he is upset and started grabbing contracts from everyone.

its fine guys, CUOP is about the message ermm I mean supply or maybe money this week not sure

I mean maybe @dev would like to look into it but perma stealing contract is not griefing IIRC?

This player had left GDP and CUOP prior to engaging in this behaviour.

It sucks, and we don’t support engaging in this behaviour.

This is a direct result of the them being on the receiving end of a pretty toxic community reaction to CUOP. When confronted, the most vocal agents in anticuop expressed the idea that “chats are part of ingame mechanics, and abusive language and personal harassment tactics are fair game.”

This falls under the banner of “using ingame mechanics” too. So if you’ve been affected, mad, suck it up.

It appears that the same players who expressed the validity of using chats to abuse people are now suddenly calling for peace and decrying this behaviour. Hypocrites. Its just been a convenient excuse for them to be an ass to other players.

In reality, and eye-for-an-eye leaves the whole world blind. I’ve done my best to speak up about the toxic reaction and that has only been met with more toxicity. The community, and you specifically, mad, need to take a moment to consider the implication of your actions and your language.

If toxic chat is an acceptable avenue to take, then this being a reaction, is also acceptable.

If this is not acceptable, then toxic chat is also not acceptable.

Toxic chat will lead to far more harm within the community than any usage of actual ingame mechanics.

1 Like

Don’t start with a toxic set of planned action if you don’t want a toxic community

you are the root of all the toxicity

He woudnt have quit and fucked ppl over if it wasnt for you
No CUOP toxicity if it wasnt for you
No angry mob rolling around if it wasnt for you

Stop blaming others :slight_smile:

1 Like

Are you confirming that you believe toxic chat is a justified response to utilising an ingame mechanic in a manner that was part of the intended design?

I’d like to remind all that both GDP and non-GDP people have been targetted. It seems to have been entirely triggered by the economic retaliations due to GDP’s economic actions. It also seems to more be inline with GDP-SF rivalry than anything copper related. There’s also been little suggestion any rhetoric actually had a considerable impact into the direct cause.

Lets just keep some perspective.

1 Like

not what I said but ok, believe what you wish

Was a lot of fun to see GDP trying to screw over the game again, glad you got the word that people won’t let you do this :slight_smile: maybe you can try something a little less shitty next time :wink:

1 Like

It’s interesting to see how you both respond.

Prdgi, you are the agressor in this conflict. You are the one who put all the shit together to attack other people. Do not expect to be seen as an hero.

You’re monotonous answer and accusation need to stop. Time to let it go my friend

We definitely started the conflict with CUOP. We used an untested ingame mechanic in a manner intended by the original design. We kept our actions entirely isolated to this.

We’ve never denied doing that. None of us are concerned with appearing as a hero.

There is a lack of ingame capacity to respond to such a usage in a timely manner. Economic embargo is an entirely acceptable response. Having tested this mechanic, that fact is now entirely clear to everyone. PrUn cannot be released without this being addressed.

Where I continue to raise an issue is with the justification of toxic behaviour in response to CUOP. It is repetitive precisely because those engaging in that behaviour appear to feel they are justified.

Bobemor sings a different tune in this thread, maybe they are starting to understand that toxic behaviour is not acceptable.

You like to sidestep the issue. Are you willing to state that you do not support toxic chat and harassment tactics?


And yet you fail to provide any hard proof of said toxic behavior.
Please post hard proof.

Yes Mad called out to drive you, just you, from the game.

The way it looks from the outside is that Miguel could not handle the embargo, that according to you is all ok.
But which you did not think would happen.
This in turn puts his reaction to the embargo on you recruiting him and not preparing him for what might happen due to CUOP.

It was a real bad idea to drag new players into your plan. You should really have anticipated the reaction and pick people that would not suffer as much economical from this.

Slomes nor I had anything to do with any side, yet Miguel burned bridges with us.
There are others affected as well who were just on the sideline not doing anything or commenting.

Really this aftermath is on CUOP or whoever planned this.


I would really like to see where I’ve displayed toxic behaviour to be honest, its been frequently implied but I’ve seen no evidence. I have regularly and repeatedly highlighted GDP have been aggressive and that this is negative for the universe, as well as discussing what I see as the motivations behind these aggressive actions. I don’t see how this is toxic behaviour, especially when GDP’s own announcement state they wish to see a response coordinated to their aggressive behaviour.

I’ve also made clear efforts to not just talk of moving forward but to actively work towards that. The community is clearly going to take some time to heal but I’d like to see it heal with no one left out. I do not see furiously blaming non-GDP members for toxic behaviour leading to a quitting when it has become blatently obvious that:

  1. no one has quit
  2. toxic behaviour was not involved
  3. any actions were most likely the result of widely agreed and accept gameplay mechanics (embargoing)

This to me makes it seem grossly unfair, and rather damaging to any attempts at moving forward to try and labour the point that Non-GDP members ‘made someone quit’. Especially at the complete disregard of the numbers of Non-GDP players who were genuinely close to quitting due directly to the GDP attack but chose not to.
This prioritisation and neglection of peoples’ feelings and the definiting of what feelings are legitimate or not, is to me toxic and isn’t going to help the community going forward and I feel needs to stop now.

I’m going to assume that you @Gladi099 are requesting evidence in good faith. I’m also going to assume that you have not been keeping up with what has been going on.

At the beginning of the conflict, Tex said in the PrUn general discord “yes, I am suggesting the community drive Prdgi from the game”:

This is coming from the “public spokesperson” for ICUOA (anitcuop)

I can only assume that this call to drive me from the game has some influence behind it. This is clearly calling for harassment and bullying.

Next up, we have madnewmy with some insults in YO-312e chat.

We also have intent to pirate from Tex

coupled with public statements claiming not to have performed any piracy

in combination with character assassination from Houston

This indicates that they are indeed following up on the call to “drive Prdgi from the game”.

Stepping through the remainder of the narrative, we have further threats of out-of-mechanics harrassment

I am the toxicity in the community?

This is an attempt to isolate me from the community

Responses formulated within the context of game mechanics are absolutely ok. Reframing the narrative to ignore toxic communication is not ok.

Toxic communication, character assassination, harassment etc… is necessary? Also reframing the narrative to paint GDP/myself as actively attacking the community rather than testing ingame mechanics.

More attempts at isolating me from the community

Hopping threads now into “CUOP - Mid-term update”

“You deserve it, look what you made me do”

Threats of ongoing harassment


Other players recognise toxic behaviour

Obviously not a tongue-in-cheek roleplay given all the above

Again, blaming me for other player’s toxic behaviour.

In addition to all of this, bobemor feels confused as to why I have stated that they contribute to the toxicity. Bobemor has continually attempted to build strawmen and use them to assassinate CUOP. “They’re trying to control shipbuilding” etc…

This is clearly defamation.

Houston knows our plans better than we do? False-representation? Libel?

All of CUOP are being targeted.

Are we seriously being likened to nazis?

I’ve seen messages calling me “cruel and vindictive” by bobemor. I’ve seen messages saying all of CUOP should be vaporised.

Do I need to go on @Gladi099? Is this enough for you to say, “we don’t want that behaviour here”? Do you want to sit back and say “Well it needs more context…”? That is simply a defence tactic to attempt to shift blame onto the victim.

Note: This post and the post directly below by gladi were written roughly in tandem. I had posted in multiple edits due to accidentally posting portions. Gosh-danged ctrl+enter.

Thank you for responding.

Yes I did not follow this whole “thing” closely.

So your comment

is only in relation to yourself, not Miguels reaction?

I have to agree that it should not be the goal to drive anyone from a game.
Yet I have to wonder, would it have come to light if he just continued to embargo, pirate, block you and steal the population from you wherever possible. These are all clearly game mechanics that can make a player’s live very uncomfortable up to the point where he leaves.

You are only able to call this out because it was announced.
The target was you.

I think I remember correctly when your “group” called out that the Anti-Cartel Group behaved toxic to multiple members of your Group.

Mads response in Chat is, looking at it alone, overstepping the line. I have to agree.
This poses the question, do we look at these things in-context or out-of-context?

I have worked Customer Support for PlayStation for a long time and there is quite the amount of cases where friends used offensive language in good faith with each other causing accounts to be suspended/banned because of a half assed report meant as a joke.

On the pirating topic, well it is apparently a game mechanic.
Admitting or denying the fact that it’s been done goes with it.

This starts to turn into a “he did, she did” situation.
Both parties should either agree to stop it, atleast publicly.
Or someone has to put a stop to it. (bye bye dev time)

1 Like

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I will make no justification for Miguals reaction.

With that said, you have stated that piracy is

As Migual has not been flaming in the chats (to my knowledge), their behaviour appears to be limited to utilisation of in-game mechanics.

I can assure you that this is not a similar case. It is abundantly clear that this has risen above the level of good-faith banter.

In context? As in a player group utilises an untested mechanic in a manner intended by the original design and is then met with out-of-mechanic toxicity and calls for harassment? What more context do you need for that? Is abusive language wrong? Is it being toxic?

Is targeting individual players for removal from the game healthy for a community?

Public harassment is somehow better than private harassment?

No way. I’ve invested way too much into building this community to stand by and watch it fall into the grips of toxicity.

Nice taking my points out of context from each other.

The passage you quote was clearly related to more text and you quote it out-of-context.
I referenced the ingame actions including piracy.
And the fact that only because it was announced why and to what goal they are used, you now question them.
If the goal of their usage had not been announced would their usage matter as much?
Again I reference the clear ingame mechanics of boycott, embargo, piracy, steal workforce (yeah thats a game mechanic :frowning: )

Again, out-of-context. I was clearly referencing your proof of Mads Chat message.
Further, I should have made this more clear, sorry, was this meant as a general question on the topic of moderation/enforcement of Community Guidelines.

You complain about your words being turned around and you do it yourself so clearly.

Next time you test something look at it from all angles and don’t complain about any ingame reactions.
Or goals people set publicly.

Action causes Reaction.

Yes, abusive language in any channels is a no-go and should be handled accordingly.

Final comment:

Causing someone to leave the game is a risk of the game.
It can not be avoided.

The CX by its nature could be considered toxic because hey, someone selling material X cheaper than me, maybe even for a loss, makes me quit the game.

Winning an election against someone could cause the other party to leave the game because of it.

So whats the difference to embargo, boycott, piracy and all the other game mechanics?

There is no difference.

1 Like