Shoutout to CUOP for becoming the new dirk

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?

2 Likes

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.

3 Likes

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

Again


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

I appreciate the time you’ve put into collating this. I think to some extent it is a helpful collection that provides some context.

I don’t think me responding to each point in turn will be helpful or productive in the slightest. I also see no benefit to be gained from anyone doing a similar version for GDP actions. I do think there is a fair dosage of poor-quoting, quite a few are taken without context or i would not agree highlight the same point as suggested (I personally don’t see anything wrong with what I’ve said). However, I do not deny there is certainly some less than ideal behaviour highlighted. But it is very apparent that we are dealing with feelings, which by nature are very subjective and the whole process of making some objective point is devaluing. I think all these feelings are valid. People have clearly been hurt, and are continuing to feel hurt.

To this end;
It is valid that GDP members felt they’d been treated unfairly and personally. It is also valid that non-GDP members felt they’d been treated unfairly and personally. It is valid that non-GDP members felt the universe and community were targeted.

I would like to see a peaceful and progressive solution going forward, I feel I’ve made that clear.

1 Like

I have no qualms about people using game mechanics. If I’m the target of ongoing trade embargo, I do not care. I personally would not use game mechanics to target an individual to remove them from the game. In some cases, it could be argued that usage of in-game mechanics contribute to a case being made for harassment. If a corp made it their mission to take all of my LM posts (thereby locking me out using the LM at all ), that could be considered as harassment. Its a grey area, but a case could be made quite strong where there is a public statement of intent, and the actions are isolated to affecting the victim. I’m not saying this is what has happened here. Again, I don’t care if people respond via in-game mechanics.

No, I understood the context in which your statement was made. If the stated goal of “driving Prdgi from the game” was not publicly available, their behaviour in chat would still be available for everyone to see. The statement of this goal provides a public framework for explaining their behaviour and confirms with their own words that they are specifically targeting an individual via out-of-game methods.

This part could have been more clear, yes. As far as I know, this is the first major test of the moderation/enforcement of community guidelines. This is also why I am being so vocal as the outcome of all this will set the precedent for defining behaviour that we as a community feels is acceptable.

Yes, I agree.

You’ve missed my point entirely here. This is not about responses via in-game mechanics. This is entirely about social reactions.

Imagine we are all playing a board game. If I make a play that is within game mechanics, is verbally assaulting me justified? Is name calling? Is threatening to prevent me attending board-game nights justified? Is threatening to be so hostile at each board-game night that I would not want to attend justified? Is making me sit in the corner on the other side of the room justified?

I don’t think it is. Its what is happening here.

Bob, you are right, but there is more to it. We are responsible for our actions and reactions. Feelings are fine, but how we react and respond to them is very important. There is a very clear distinction between the actions of CUOP and anti-cuop. I’m not aware of any instances where CUOP members have been calling to harass other players, or to attempt to make people leave the game, or to call names, or defame others.

And what have you done about it? Have you seen it and ignored it? Are you complicit?

Do it. Show me where I have been abusive towards people. Show me that our actions are equivalent. Show me where I have tried to drive people from the game.

Don’t try to palm this off as “everyone does it”.

You’ve made that clear in your last few posts. I also want a peaceful solution going forward. What I don’t understand is how this sentiment fits in with the remainder of your posts during this time.

I feel that you have consistently sought to concoct some “higher meaning” conspiracy out of CUOP. Is it not good enough that we would want to test a mechanic? Must there be some over-arching evil conspiracy to control shipbuilding? There would be far better ways to control shipbuilding if that is what we were going for, and they are certainly far more covert.

Instead, you have persisted in pushing the narrative that we are attempting to assert control over the galaxy. Your words are civil, but the ideas you are spreading are certainly not helpful in building a peaceful resolution.

Excuse me. How was my quote even remotely attacking you, prdgi?

CUOPs STATED intent was to test what would happen if someone came in with intent to hold planets hostage via taxes. You guys keep saying it’s a test.

Well you tested it, and people responded by punching back.

How on earth is anyone surprised by that? My quote even said that the personal attacks crossed the line at times!!! I was defending you!

Please reconsider whether I was part of the verbal attacks and whether emotions may have made you read that quote differently.

1 Like

You’re right. I had intended to separate the two components of your quote, but was under time constraints and forgot to do so.

Where the quote was placed was to reference where you said being ostracised was appropriate.

You did state that the reaction had crossed lines at points.

I sincerely apologise for getting those two mixed up together. I’ll fix it when I’m next on my pc.

Edit: I’ve removed it entirely. I’d rather not provide a misleading representation of your argument.

Afraid of displaying the full quote @Prdgi? Because if you had done the readers could see I was civilly explaining to you how your actions (personally, collectively) were harmful and caused players to leave the game. I explained that you and several CUOP members deciding what was and wasn’t acceptable responses to their advantage was pissing people off (e.g. making out its OK to steal a month’s worth of output but not to take shipments in response). I ended by civilly pointing out that by your continued gaslighting of the community you will cause continued animosity towards yourself. Not in any way a threat, but an observation.

Instead of understanding, much less accepting, my points made in good faith, you chose to misrepresent them as an attempt to isolate you. That is exactly the toxic behaviour that is pissing me off.

2 Likes

Let’s quote the relevant portion of your post then.

Utilising ingame mechanics in a manner intended by the design is harmful for the community?

Tex is correct, bullies do try to manipulate the narrative to make themselves appear blameless or justified. In fact everyone does this to varying degrees. Noone is truly impartial.

Bullying is defined as


bully1
/ˈbʊli/
verb
gerund or present participle: bullying
seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).


We cleared CUOP with the devs prior to implementation to ensure everything was above board. No individual or group was selected as a target.

Now, if you twist the definition a little you may be able to apply it to cuop in the context of coercion. We did seek to provoke an in-game response utilising ingame mechanics.

On the other hand, some players in anticuop have sought to isolate CUOP members from the community. Social isolation causes vulnerability. This is then further exploited by some anticuop members with defamation (undue harm to reputation), threats of ongoing isolation and harm (intimidation), and “it will all stop if you flip, you’ll be a hero” (coercion).

I’m sorry that you have bitter experience with bullying. I also have experienced bullying growing up. It is something that should never happen.

Much appreciated- players such as yourself always have had (and still have) my respect.

My ostracized word choice was probably not the best - but I mean it to be in how players respond my singling out the CUOP players and not running their shipping routes and publicly drawing attention to the “evil” of the activity (thus, isolating them from the community). There really is no other way to respond and it’s quite natural to fight back against a perceived attack. That’s probably where the reactions have gotten so… all over the board.

Sorry this has been such an ordeal for some of you and devolved to personal insults and pettiness.

To everyone here who has strong emotions - let’s all remember that many of the players here are also major reasons this game has been so good. I see a lot of names in this thread that have been active and beneficial in the community. On both sides. Don’t forget that over a single incident.

1 Like

@McCowen in your mind, ignoring execution, do you believe there is any possibility that CUOP is a genuine attempt at testing a specific scenario?

Of course, but that doesn’t justify it, the relishing in it, the execution or the outcome.

1 Like

Given my prior contribution to building the community and my current involvement in community building, do you believe there is any possibility that CUOP is a genuine, good-faith attempt at testing a specific scenario with potential to make PrUn better by ensuring the community has the tools required defend against such a scenario should it arise again?

Is there any possibly that that is the extent of CUOP. More specifically, do you believe that there is any possibility that CUOP are not seeking control of the the galaxy or long term impacts on CUO production?

So you bully some one take thier shit and they gotta ask you nicely for it back man thats some contradiction there

1 Like