Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Eve Online alliance leader banned after threatening to cut off betrayer's hands (pcgamer.com)
100 points by bkohlmann 5 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 72 comments



Classic gigX.. Not the first time he's got a "permanent" ban for making real life threats..

More background story is available here: http://evenews24.com/2017/09/12/breaking-news-co2-loses-cont...

EN24 is a dedicated EVE news website run by hobby "journalists", so don't expect much in the way of quality writing.


It's a game. Isn't betraying people just part of the game? Problem is by the time someone is successful in Eve Online it's more than just a game to them.


It's not just part of the game, it's a top-billing feature. The whole concept of EVE is like a libertarian paradise: anyone can do anything to anybody else at any time, the only consequences are what individuals in the community think they should be (plus AI police in the noob areas).

Heck, pretending to play along with someone, and then turning traitor and killing them was in one of the first game trailers.


> anyone can do anything to anybody else at any time

That isn't libertarianism at all. Libertarianism is you can do whatever you want, provided you do not employ force or fraud against others. There's more to it than that, but that's the core idea. Another way to say the core idea is people have inalienable rights - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.


I think you're describing small-l libertarianism which is a very vague and general theory with many, many offshoots that are so opposed to each other they are unrecognizable as coming from the same ideology (libertarian socialists, the US Libertarian party). Small-l libertarianism is such a weak and universally likeable platitude it practically means nothing at all. It's like being "pro-freedom" or "anti-fascism".

I think GP meant Libertarianism (like the US Libertarian party, more of an AnCap style ideology) which is pretty much only focused on markets and property rights (i.e. protecting the rich) and its calling cards are ignoring any kind of positive rights theory (the proper saying was life, liberty, property -- all negative. Pursuit of happiness, a positive aspirational right, was added when people realized it actually had to work in real life), lack of an account of historical economics and ignoring any kind of coercion or force except explicit physical force (the least common and most ineffective type of coercion found in modern society). It fundamentally opposes any kind of right to "pursuit of happiness" (or happiness at all) for anyone not wealthy and its ideal world is exactly the structure of Eve -- markets govern all, there are no limits on the power of the few rich who own the universe while the poor beg for scraps and generally die. Except Eve is far gentler -- there are no police to assault you if you trespass in the territory of one of the ultrawealthy and take their property, they have to protect it themselves, and death is not permanent.


Libertarian economics is free market economics, and a fundamental principle of that is property rights. Free market economies are the only economies that have lifted the poor en masse out of poverty, and such economies have large middle classes that very, very much depend on property rights.


Libertarian economics is the most radical extremist free market economics that has ever been imagined and has never been implemented and never will be implemented.

Every modern and nearly every recent historical society has been a mixed economy. The only reason the middle class exists is because it was fought for, hard, by explicitly anti-Libertarian structures (new deal style reforms and make-work projects, welfare, healthcare, unions, minimum wages, worker protections, tarrifs, GI bill, universities, very high taxes on the rich and very high corporate taxes, publicly owned infrastructure, bailouts) fighting against or protecting free markets from themselves when they inevitably crash and burn and destroy themselves and the societies around them. Without these protections free markets would annihilate the entire middle class in a heartbeat for the sake of "efficiency" as is their nature (the middle class are by definition not the owners of capital so their concerns are not considered by a capitalist economic structure), a process that is occurring albeit more slowly in the US as we speak. Markets are very powerful engines for generating efficiency, so they are good at building economic engines (through exploitation, of course) while ignoring any and all other concerns or consequences. They are a paperclip maximizer. Not entirely useless tools, but horrifyingly murderous and dangerous ones that have a tenancy to seize power with disastrous results wherever they go.


The United States, excluding the antebellum southern states, was pretty much a free market economy up until around 1914 or so.

Of course it wasn't 100%, but it was a good approximation of one. Far from destroying the middle class, it created the middle class in America. Scores of millions of impoverished immigrants arrived on the shores, and moved up into the middle class.

The income tax on the rich came later.

I've heard it claimed that the middle class was created by the New Deal, but that is not very supportable. Just look at paintings and photographs of towns and cities from the previous century. Looks like middle class to me.

If you like, take a tour of the town of Gettysburg. It's been well preserved, with quite a lot of the same structures still there from the Civil War. They look like middle class homes to me. Have a visit and tell me what you think.


It's prosperity was based on the extreme exploitation of the weakest member of its society.


Unregulated markets inevitably lead to corruption, oligarchy, and health hazards to humans.

It's more profitable to operate when there's no expense or regulation associated with negligence and malice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle#Federal_response

  The Jungle is a 1906 novel written by the American 
  journalist and novelist Upton Sinclair (1878–1968). 
  Sinclair wrote the novel to portray the harsh conditions 
  and exploited lives of immigrants in the United States in 
  Chicago and similar industrialized cities. Perhaps his 
  main goal in exposing the meat industry and working 
  conditions was to advance Socialism in the United 
  States. However, most readers were more concerned with 
  his exposure of health violations and unsanitary practices 
  in the American meatpacking industry during the early 20th 
  century, greatly contributing to a public outcry which led 
  to reforms including the Meat Inspection Act. 

  The book depicts working class poverty, the lack of social 
  supports, harsh and unpleasant living and working 
  conditions, and a hopelessness among many workers. These 
  elements are contrasted with the deeply rooted corruption 
  of people in power. A review by the writer Jack London 
  called it "the Uncle Tom's Cabin of wage slavery."


The Jungle is a novel - fiction written for the purpose of propaganda, and Upton Sinclair admitted as such. You need better sources.

Besides, selling water colored yellow and calling it "orange juice" is fraud, and is not condoned by libertarianism. Similarly, selling poison and labeling it "milk" is both force and fraud and will get you facing murder charges under any libertarian government.


The Jungle is a piece of historical fiction that was accurate while remaining fictional, was of course designed to make a point (as all meaningful writing is) and captures an era and expresses in a clear way the inevitable plight of non-wealthy people subjected to capitalism. To dismiss it in this way is to dismiss all of history itself, which is simply accurate stories about people's lives. To not read it is to plug your ears and shout "I can't hear you" about what it's like to be poor or working class under the brutal regime of unfettered free markets and the problems and horrible abuse these people face. But hey, I wouldn't want to complicate my clean and pure political ideology which is completely coincidentally directly in service of my own personal pocketbook and power with a modicum of understanding about the lives of others less fortunate, would I?

Your examples sure are clean. But the real world is dirty. What exactly is "juice?" Are you, a Libertarian, proposing that the government spend years and millions of dollars creating a U.S. official definition of "juice" for labeling purposes? What happens when inevitably companies skirt the line?

And sure if I sell you poison on purpose knowing it's poison wanting to kill you that's murder. What if I'm a company that produces milk but I cut corners and possibly some number of milk products happen to be poisonous, though I never try to poison anything? What if I build cars and realize they will explode and kill people but figure I'll make more money selling them and dealing with the deaths than a recall? What if I use my vast power and wealth to systematically suppress all knowledge about how dangerous my products are and market them as safe and "doctor-approved", watching my smoking customers die thousand after thousand? What if I sell investments I know are bad, but I lie and fake ratings for them and sell them as high-quality, defrauding people by the millions? What if I extort an entire state by manipulating its energy supply? What if I poison rivers, drinking water, give communities cancer, lie about emission test results and poison the air, create children's toys with lead all because it's more efficient? All of these examples I cited have happened, recently, in our currently non-Libertarian society, and are nearly identical to your example and nobody was charged with murder. Libertarians support fewer regulations, less oversight, more market freedom -- the freedom to do all of the above with even more impunity than they do now.


> The Jungle is a piece of historical fiction that was accurate while remaining fictional

If a historian says that The Jungle is factual, then he should be able to cite facts and would not need to cite a novel. It's really poor scholarship to cite a novel as a factual source. There's no way to tell what parts of it are factual and what are "artistic license". The book has neither footnotes nor references.

I own probably close to a thousand history books, and no, history books are not written as novels. They do tend to tell a story, and they sometimes have an agenda, but they all have footnotes and references where there facts came from, and they make it possible for the reader to distinguish the verifiable facts from the historian's opinion.

> Are you, a Libertarian, proposing that the government spend years and millions of dollars creating a U.S. official definition of "juice" for labeling purposes?

The government does now. I don't see a problem with it, nor anything unlibertarian about it.

> What happens when inevitably companies skirt the line?

They get charged with fraud.

> What if I'm a company that produces milk but I cut corners and possibly some number of milk products happen to be poisonous, though I never try to poison anything?

That's called negligent homicide. There's nothing libertarian about condoning negligent homicide. No libertarian suggests that nobody will commit crimes under a free market.

And so on for your other examples.

> the freedom to do all of the above with even more impunity than they do now.

I'm afraid you've been misinformed.

To give an example of regulations that libertarians would oppose - rent control.

If you want to impugn capitalism, may I suggest "The Robber Barons" by Josephson. Josephson seems to share your viewpoint, and he wrote an actual history book of capitalism of the period, complete with an index, sources, quotations, footnotes, all the good stuff. I have complaints with his conclusions, and I think he cherry-picked his facts to fit his viewpoint, but you'd be on much more solid ground than with Sinclair.


Just in case you were wondering, my father was an actual historian, and I inherited his book collection. I seem to have inherited his interests as well, and I constantly buy more history books. Just picked up a pretty cool one on LBJ.


Yup, I think the poster conflated libertarians with anarcho-captialism (much closer to Eve and how he described it). Happens all the time and american libertarians aren't exactly blameless for the reputation given their fringe.


There are nutburgers of every political persuasion. If you're interested in more sensible libertarians, check out the writings of Harold Brown or Milton Friedman.


As a philosophy, Libertarianism concerns itself only with the extent of The State's intervention into human affairs. The question of whether or not The State should prevent you from employing force or fraud against another person is itself subject to debate and therefore cannot be what Libertarianism is about or necessarily be a "core idea." The core idea of Libertarianism is that everyone should just be left alone.


> The question of whether or not The State should prevent you from employing force or fraud against another person is itself subject to debate

I mean, if you deny the government's role in enforcing contracts and property rights, then you're not really talking about libertarianism anymore, you've just got good old-fashioned anarchy.


That's true, but that's not what I meant. The philosophical maxim of minimal state intervention does not speak to the ways or circumstances in which the state is permitted to intervene. Accordingly, the subjective nature of one's preferred intervention level cannot itself be a definition of Libertarianism, only a flavor.


Having a police force, civil and criminal court system, and justice dept. works for libertarianism.


It's entirely possible to be a libertarian who doesn't believe in civil courts. Arguably, it's possible to not believe in having a police force or justice department, either. Any amount of government is sufficient for libertarianism to exist. What the government is allowed to do and under what circumstances and in what ways depends wholly upon which libertarian you ask.


You can say the same thing about democrats, republicans, conservatives, socialists, etc. None of them are uniform in their beliefs.

For the sake of debate I suggest sticking to what the official libertarian party platform says.


So what happens when someone employs force or fraud against someone else (in a hypothetical libertarian paradise)?


They would be charged with a crime.


By the state? How does the state enforce it? Who pays?


Wait, what? Mostly only anarcho-capitalists think along those lines. Libertarianism is a huge spectrum and is the polar opposite of authoritarianism.

Taxes are necessary for a functioning, modern, society. Libertarian socialists exist, for example.


Libertarians don't want no government at all, they just want the minimal amount of government necessary to enforce their platform. The people people pay for it, likely in similar ways to how they pay now.


Yes, or in some versions of libertopia you simply pay for what you use. Need a contract? Pay a contract tax stamp that pays for the courts to adjudicate the contract as necessary. Need to drive on a road? Pay a toll to drive on the possibly privately run roads (in any of the various ways that driving tolls can be collected).

This approach obviously has some problems to be overcome, but the idea that people are currently made to pay for things they don't need or don't use just because a majority of their neighbors want them to has problems too, like fairness.


Sure, I get that. (For the record, I'm not a libertarian.) Just saying that other versions aren't quite as extreme as the one you suggest.


The purpose of government is to protect peoples' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


That's not an answer to the question. What happens? Break it down, step by step.


1. The police arrest them.

2. They're tried by a jury of their peers.

3. If found guilty, they are punished and/or imprisoned.


It seems that getting a libertarian to explain the fundamental differences between libertarianism and ordinary western-liberal-ish democracy is like squeezing a balloon. You get the same feeling from listening to the candidates of the official US libertarian party. Of course, that hardly makes it unique in politics.


I am not a libertarian, but it's a pretty simple philosophy. There would still be government, police, courts, jails, and taxes. It's not anarchy.

Libertarianism is much easier to explain than modern American or European democracy. I don't think that makes it better, but it probably makes it more appealing.


The two can coexist side by side.

A moderate libertarian might simply be someone who wants lower taxes, less regulations, and the government to stay out of people's personal lives.

Nothing about those policies or viewpoints directly contradicts a normal western democracy.


You can find moderate liberal socialists saying the same thing, at which point it is time to put aside the idealistic rhetoric and do the hard work of talking about pragmatic trade-offs.


While that's the official libertarian rhetoric, from experience talking to people who identify as libertarian, they're less about life and the pursuit of happiness, and more about liberty and the protection of property rights.


It's pretty hard to pursue happiness when you have no liberty and no property rights.


There are plenty of ways to pursue happiness with little emphasis on liberty and property rights. Check out buddhism, for example, which is big on finding happiness with what you've got.

Private property is not a prerequisite for happiness (and certainly not to the degree that libertarians talk about it). For example, Americans are happy that the government prevents strangers from walking across their lands. Northern Europeans are happy that they have Right to Roam, allowing them to cross private lands as long as they don't damage them.


You're free to become a buddhist if you want. Telling others their prescribed avenues of pursuing happiness is not freedom.


You were prescribing me an avenue of pursuing happiness when you said property rights were required. This kind of hypocrisy is rife throughout libertarianism.

If anything, by showing you additional ways to be happy, I was increasing the options available to you.


> You were prescribing me an avenue of pursuing happiness when you said property rights were required.

Not at all. I'm not telling anybody how to be happy. But I observe that most (nearly all) people need property rights to pursue the sorts of happiness they want.

Even buddhists need property rights. After all, where would they get their temple from? Who would pay to maintain it? Who would feed them? Etc.

Your right to cross other peoples' property is a property right, too.


> Not at all. I'm not telling anybody how to be happy.

Well, you were. You said it's hard to be pursue happiness without property rights.

Anyway, you're conflating two aspects of property rights. First, the mere concept of property rights: property exists, people use it in some manner, therefore some sort of access right is involved. Second, the actual private ownership and enforcement of property. I've never seen a libertarian argue in favour of Right to Roam over private property (or any other kind of public access right). It's a simplistic philosophy wherein the right to private property trumps any concern other than the right to be free in action - it has no answers when dealing with real-world issues like scarcity of common goods such as water supplies.

To be more specific then, when I say that libertarianism is overly interested in property rights, I don't mean the merest hint of humans interacting with property. I mean that too much of their central philosophy is based around control of private property and enforcement thereof.


> I've never seen a libertarian argue in favour of Right to Roam over private property (or any other kind of public access right).

Much of private property has easements on it for various purposes. Some of these are created by the landowner and sold, some are created by the government for various purposes using the power of Eminent Domain. I've seen easements for the purpose of a public trail. I don't see any particularly unlibertarian thing about it, though the government does abuse Eminent Domain from time to time.

Property rights do tend to be complicated, that's why there are lawyers that specialize in it.

One of my neighbors didn't read the title report on his house before he bought it, and discovered to his chagrin that the property behind him had an easement across his property for a driveway to access that lot when it got developed. Oops. It pays to read the title report.


I own a lot right now that grants me an easement for access to it. The easement was established by the original developer that laid out the roads and property lines for the whole subdivision.

This easement crosses a corner of a neighbor's lot. The neighbor asked me to sell the easement back to him or enter into a contract with him that I wouldn't use it. He wanted to put his driveway there. I refused because part of the value in my purchase of the lot is the access that the easement grants to me and the neighbor wasn't willing to pay what I considered it to be worth.

My neighbor went ahead and put a very nice driveway, stone wall and garden over my easement; if I ever decide to build on my lot I expect there might be some hard feelings when the bulldozer arrives.


> You said it's hard to be pursue happiness without property rights.

You can parse my language however you want, but let's cut to the chase. There's a commune in America you can join, where you won't own anything, you share with every other member. The average length of time members stay is about a year and a half. Evidently, they didn't find happiness there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Wind_Community

And just to be clear, libertarianism means you're free to form communes if you want. You just are not allowed to force people to join, nor are you allowed to prevent anyone from leaving. You can choose the property-right-less lifestyle if you like. Isn't freedom great?


The analogy I always used when I was playing is that of a big prison yard. The strong take from the weak. The weak band together for protection.

And you don't want to get caught out by yourself.


I think you mean anarchism.


> It's a game. Isn't betraying people just part of the game?

As someone who doesn't play the game I've sure gotten a lot of phishing emails for it, and an uninterested corporate response to boot.


I was there; AMA.

I'm in Test Alliance Please Ignore. I was sitting on coms when this all went down - The Judge stole everything not nailed down, flipped the citadel to Goonswarm, and everything went to hell.

Some background: TEST and Co2 have been best friends for about a year and a half, until recently, when (there's some one-sided propaganda in this statement) the Co2 leadership (really just GigX) decided that having friends wasn't as good as shooting everyone. So, Co2 and TEST reset standings to neutral or hostile, and commenced fighting.

Goonswarm and TEST have been, at various times over the past 10 years, best friends, bitter enemies, and - where we are now - sort of "frenemies", where we are not friendly, and we shoot each other, but we also don't invade each other's space, and we're more likely to fight together against common enemies in big fights.

So... back to last night...

TEST quickly organized a fleet of space-haulers to bring them Test Cultures (an in-game item that we jokingly have claimed as our own - http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=2319 ), and tell them that, while we didn't like GigX, we had no problem with most of the Co2 line members and they were welcome to evacuate their assets safely with our help.

(times in pacific)

  (8:44:29 PM) pleaseignore.com: 
  Situation developing:
  
  The Judge stabbed GigX in the back. The 68FT Keepstar now belongs to Goonswarm. Many fortizars across Impass 
  belong to Test. This is a huge blow to Circle-of-Two and we hope their line members can see the writing 
  on the wall for this war now. 
  
  For now, we are running an aid flotilla, in part for the memes, but in part to sincerely extend the 
  olive branch to the line members of Co2 who remember when we were good friends. Feel free to join the 
  flotilla and bring a hauler with Test cultures to 68FT. We want to offer them our support, for the shit 
  they don't want to asset safety, because we aren't total shitheads. (I'm speaking for other people 
  because I'm totally a shithead)
  
  The war isn't over, but we just got a huge boost. Be ready to burn GigX's sov. Be ready to fleet up and 
   finish off our front, so we can help the allies who have been showing up for us. 
  
  #### SENT BY Farmstink to All online test @ 2017-09-12 03:44:29 EVE Time ####
Goonswarm, though, hates Co2, and wanted to come and screw with them, now that they owned the big space citadel where all of Co2's assets are. Well, TEST thought that would be funny, too, so I and another titan pilot created a chain of warp-bridges to help Goonswarm get to the Co2 main system as quickly as possible, so that they could play with their food.

  (8:53:30 PM) pleaseignore.com: 
  Also, this is kind of a fantasy moment for goons right now. We will be bluing them temporarily and 
  allowing them safe passage through our space while they play with their new food for the next 
  week or so. 
  
  #### SENT BY Dran Arcana to All online test/allies @ 2017-09-12 03:53:30 EVE Time ####
At one point, we thought that GigX had managed to disband the alliance entirely - which would have dropped all of Co2's sovereignty and left their space wide-open for the taking... which would have been a long night of work for us.

  (10:31:48 PM) pleaseignore.com: 
  GIGX DISBANDED CO2
  
  WOT
  
  #### SENT BY Lomgrim to All online test/allies @ 2017-09-12 05:31:48 EVE Time ####
  (10:32:17 PM) pleaseignore.com: 
  Time to toast boys. Get in fleet 1 mumble, now. Impass is free for the taking and we're fucking taking it.  
  
  #### SENT BY Xiaodown to All online test @ 2017-09-12 05:32:17 EVE Time ####
But that was a rumor - info was coming fast and loose for a while there. What ended up happening was just that The Judge was twitch streaming Co2 Alliance Chat, and when GigX got on, he made real-life threats against The Judge. Which, I mean, the rule is leave it all in-game; shooty-shooty-lasers at people in game, but have a beer at fanfest. Anyway, his twitch stream is here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/174199105 but it's long and boring if you don't play eve. I don't know what timestamp the GigX threat is made, but here are some screenshots: https://i.imgur.com/2vhedbl.png (Baekkel is an alt of GigX), and https://i.imgur.com/g966goh.png

Once everything calmed down, the "Talking in Stations" podcast had all the involved people online and did a long podcast about it: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/174164252 - and WHILE GigX, The Judge, and a bunch of notables in Eve were online, GigX announced that he had been permabanned: https://clips.twitch.tv/AdorableAmorphousHedgehogCopyThis

So, that's how it went down. Just sayin. Sorry for all the Eve Jargon.


>So, that's how it went down. Just sayin. Sorry for all the Eve Jargon.

Thanks for the report from the field. All the jargon takes me back to my days in TEST.


Dreddit is recruiting, if you want to come back! https://dredditisrecruiting.com/


And lose my last bit of productivity?!

Tempting...


Don't do it.


I don't understand the giving up of the Keepstar to Goonswarm. Was it not The Judge's intention to take over CO2, but just to screw it over as best he could?


Im not personally aware of who the The Judge is, but I'm assuming they were a high level director in CO2. The only way you could take over a Corp is to start a vote to elect a new CEO, and the to elect a new alliance leader you'd have the get the majority of CEOs to change their vote for lead corporation. Since there is no way for The Judge to the over CO2, the best thing they could do is take everything that isn't nailed down. There is no way The Judge would have the time to unanchored the keepstar and get a freighter there to safely extract it, so the only possible thing left was to meme CO2 and give ownership over to The Imperium.


Those screenshots seem more like ranting and coarse language to me than an actual thread.


He ... has a history. Plus, I mean, trying to get out-of-game details like address/name is a big no-no in Eve (and should be in any internet game).

Leave it in game.


> Whoever know his real name, home address and other details msg me

This is a real threat par excellence


It's Game of Thrones - in SPAAAACE!


I've never played Eve Online, but I love reading about it.


Given the amount of role play involved in games like EVE, it must be fairly hard to make the call between "real-life death threat" and role playing a character.

In this case, the asking for real-life address seals it, but I'd imagine a whole lot of borderline threats have to be evaluated by GMs.


Where are you finding role play in Eve? There is none I've found after hundreds of hours of play.


The entire game is role play. You're not actually piloting a ship. You're not actually part of an alliance. In a sense, there is nothing to betray outside of the role play.

Of course, I understand what you're really describing. It's just amusing that you and I don't imagine normal behavior to be role play, and can conceive of a meeting wherein people bring their Eve personas together in a simulated star system and agree that these characters will then engage in a recursive level of role play.


Nah, there's no role-play.

The difference is between "Ok nerds, log in your eve clients, get on mumble, and undock and press F1 to shoot this guy. Someone pull up the map on Dotlan so we can see where we're going. Someone ping me on Jabber when you found the hostiles." vs. "Capsuleers, please board your spaceships, and prepare to undock and fire your weapons. Gallente pilots, break off formation and assist the Logistics wing!"


> It's just amusing that you and I don't imagine normal behavior to be role play, and can conceive of a meeting wherein people bring their Eve personas together in a simulated star system and agree that these characters will then engage in a recursive level of role play.

Say that to my face in nullsec.


> Say that to my face in nullsec.

From a RP point of view I find that amusing, from a RL point of view it's troubling.


TBH I was always lowsec trash.


Is an alliance any less "real" just because it's main focus is in a video game? Real money is involved, so there IS something to betray outside of the game. People have walked off with 4 digit figures before


It's certainly something you have to seek out in any game. Just like somebody can sit in Eve's highsec playing missions, someone playing a traditional role-playing game like Skyrim can play it as a loot simulator (fun too).

Eve and its player base encourage RP but don't force it on you. Joining Alliances is usually the easiest way. Political strife and territorial expansion is a really ripe field for emergent stories and personalities.


> fairly hard to make the call

No, it is trivially easy to make the call when someone threatens harm to another player in real life.

You are right that nobody complains when pilots threaten each other in-character; everyone understands that the capsuleer characters are cutthroat and might try to intimidate each other. This is good fun, well within the spirit of the game. We're all just playing space pirates.

The problems arise when you say another player's going to be missing his hands. It's very clear here that this was the context, since it followed "whoever know[s] his real name, home address and other details [message] me." For an admin of a game, a situation this clear doesn't even take much thought - it's a straightforward reason to ban someone.


And so the old tale of the internet tough guy repeats itself. Again.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: