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.
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.
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.
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.
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?