These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Lying About Identity No Longer Allowed Under EULA

First post First post First post
Author
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-09-09 21:28:58 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
edit: apparently this is now the "civil discussion about a bad idea thread"

[Edit: Forum moderation discussion removed, CCP Phantom]
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#2 - 2013-09-09 21:35:53 UTC
And your point is what, they should ban making new threads instead of just locking them

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-09-09 21:37:26 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
And your point is what, they should ban making new threads instead of just locking them


Never stop (the) posting
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2013-09-09 21:37:49 UTC
A 'discussion thread' is precisely what was needed in this circumstance. Unfortunately I don't think CCP policy gives the ISD much leeway in terms of moderation. Bad policy, it would have indeed been much better to have one threadnaught on eve-o than 20 locked threads and hordes of angry players posting on other sites instead.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#5 - 2013-09-09 21:41:01 UTC
Congratulations! You may discuss the ToS changes in here so long as you do it civilly, and without attacking CCP, ISD or each other. Thank you.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-09-09 21:41:29 UTC
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
Congratulations! You may discuss the ToS changes in here so long as you do it civilly, and without attacking CCP, ISD or each other. Thank you.



I am....pleasantly surprised.
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-09-09 21:47:00 UTC
Well this is awkward. I don't really have anything left to say after posting in the 20 other locked threads. Shocked

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#8 - 2013-09-09 21:47:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Thank you ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Smile

I think there needs to be some clarification on what defines a group of players. Groups in Eve can be player corps, alliances, coalitions and informal cooperatives of individuals in different corps, alliances etc working towards a common goal.

Prime example:

Goonwaffe is a corporation, which is supported by existing game mechanisms; it is in the Goonswarm Federation alliance, also supported by existing mechanisms; furthermore it is also a member of the CFC, a coalition of alliances and corps. Coalitions are as far as I know a purely player created entity with no supporting mechanisms, much as alliances were prior to the Exodus expansion. Are they all groups? Or is a group solely defined by what the existing game mechanisms support?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Eram Fidard
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2013-09-09 21:55:54 UTC
wind < sails

Onto topic. Is 'represent' the wrong wording to use?

I think it's this wording specifically that has led to the vagueness. I think the intention is to remove 'impersonation' ie. saying you are a specific person or entity. But that leaves the question of impersonation of a specific role. It can't possibly be CCP's intention to remove the ability to impersonate a role, since that would go against their entire game philosophy, previously mentioned trailers, and would remove certain 'player jobs' from the sandbox.

So, should it be 'legal' to impersonate a role within your character, without impersonating another character or organisation?

Is it even possible to 'legislate' this kind of behaviour? Where is the line drawn?

Is it ok to (for instance) impersonate the recruiter for an alliance? A corp? A non-affiliated squad? As long as you are not impersonating the character but the role is it ok?

How about representing your organisation as something it is not? Surely a corp whose description says "pvp, pve, wormholes, nullsec, lowsec, missions" but who actually only run missions would not face a ban for misrepresenting themselves?

But what about a corp whose purpose is to defraud it's members? Where is the line between a group with stated high goals they never actually achieve (and perhaps they choose to rob their members later) and a group deliberately created to rob it's members based on false promises?

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-09-09 21:59:29 UTC
Reposting some thoughts from a previous thread.

The gist of the clarification seeking is that the previous rules allowed for quite a wide range of scamming. Some of the notable examples that I have ran into.

Guys running around ice/mining belts selling mining permits on our behalf. Guys taking that initiative with scam and running with it should be encouraged and not stifled. They were not related to us at all.

People selling r64s they did not own. This one was popular for a short while as you could often line up a kill as well.

Rental space scams (we don't allow this internally any longer). You can scam/sell space you don't even control! People fall for this constantly.

There is no reason a person should be associated with a given mega entity (CFC/N3/etc) to be allowed to scam in a way that represents them. There are checks and balances for this now in game that people can use. These are just a few of the many scams I have ran across that this kills.


Everyone understands that using tricks like lower case letters or zeros in a name to impersonate someone else is across the line. What should not be across the line is the wide collection of scams out there that utilize the general publics lack of nullsec or mechanics knowledge to get over.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
#11 - 2013-09-09 22:01:16 UTC
I, for one, am opposed to this change.

But I have a question. Can I impersonate one of my alts?

Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2013-09-09 22:01:23 UTC
repostin:

Quote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.



The TOS update does not include these clarifications, and I can absolutely assure you that you will be deluged with petitions for false representation of authority. Even if you're only getting at what you say above, you've worded it poorly and are creating more work for yourself, and creating future inappropriate bans when a new GM reads the policy and figures it means what it says.

But more importantly your argument is wrong: you are not banning misrepresenting your identity. You are banning misrepresenting your authority. If I tell the world ProGodLegend has authorized me to rent out whatever worthless regions he currently occupies, I'm not misrepresenting my identity. I'm not misrepresenting my affiliations. I'm baldly lying in a way that's easy to verify and not pretending to be another person in the game. This isn't an extension of a policy banning misrepresenting your identity, it's creating a new, bad, policy.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Lady Areola Fappington
#13 - 2013-09-09 22:02:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Areola Fappington
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
Congratulations! You may discuss the ToS changes in here so long as you do it civilly, and without attacking CCP, ISD or each other. Thank you.


Appreciate it Dorrim, not having a voice is really frustrating.

Really, the key flaw in this update/clarification/whathaveyou is the term "groups of players". How is CCP going to define a group of players? Two people is a group of players. A coalition is a group of players. The New Order is a group of players. Furries are a group of players...... In the end, how are you going to designate who is the "official" recognized group, and who is misrepresenting themselves?

I'll give a hypothetical example. I am a member of the Something Awful forums, commonly known as "Goons". I create a corp, and give it the name, say "EVE Goons Inc." I now proceed to run around EVE, merrily scamming folks with "Hey dude, I can get you into Goons, 10mil ISK."

I'm not lying, or misrepresenting myself as anyone. I'm a Goon. I have a Goon corp. I can recruit people into my Goon corp. What happens when Joe Pubbie sends in a support ticket with "Wagh, Lady Fapp scammed me, she said she could get me into Goons then stole my ISK. Total violation of misrepresenting herself as a group of players!"


Second Example. I'm a standard line member of a corp. I scam a dude with "I can totally get you in my corp, gimmee some ISK". According to the rule I'm misrepresenting myself as a person, or group of people who can recruit someone into a corp.

Third example. I'm a Furry. I create the corp OhhMurr Consolidated. We're the official furry corp, with rules against piracy. I see another furry out pirating. Since I'm the official Furry (group of players) rep, can I report this person for misrepresenting furries as evil pirates?

Fourth and final, and this isn't even outlandish. I'm a girl gamer. I create a male avatar, and represent myself as male in order to keep the creepy stalkers away. Technically, I'm misrepresenting myself as male (a group of players), and breaking ToS.

I understand the need to keep rules vague, in order to prevent people from tapdancing to the line. In this case, your wording honestly is way too vauge. It has a chilling effect on the metagame we all know and love.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide

Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#14 - 2013-09-09 22:05:39 UTC
Why does the TOS now directly say that impersonating an NPC group is against the TOS?

What will happen to groups like Mordus Angels and CVA who say they work for the pirate and empire factions Mordus and Amarr respectively? Are they going to be required to change their Role-Playing schtic immediately?

Why is it now against the rules to say 'I work with The Mittani' when only the 'I am The Mittani' was actionable before? This is a major policy shift.

Can I petition people for saying they'll double my isk because they are not actually in the isk doubling group?

How does a person like Mr Omni 'prove' that he represents a rental alliance for goonwaffe when he's in another alliance? He's as a listed contact in the alliance info, is that enough?

Why did it take so long to address the issue of getting a discussion item for a news announcement, which traditionally announced at the same time?
Just Lilly
#15 - 2013-09-09 22:12:23 UTC
Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?

What did I miss?
Powered by Nvidia GTX 690
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2013-09-09 22:16:16 UTC
Just Lilly wrote:
Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?

What did I miss?


The new Terms of Service bans any form of impersonation. Even of mega coalitions. Even more disturbing there seem to be highly subjective rules of who qualifies. Making it even more of a mess.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2013-09-09 22:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Just Lilly wrote:
Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?

What did I miss?


http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/eve-online-terms-of-service-update-1/

A not-entirely clearly worded update to the TOS, which Grimmi later claimed was not a change at all, but which on the face of it rules a great deal of previously permitted scamming and metagaming activity illegal.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2013-09-09 22:20:53 UTC
Reposting from the locked thread that started it all...

Comor Dunathis wrote:
I was told in help chat by ISD Arooga and ISD FlowingSpice that only official groups can be impersonated, though it wasn't clear what official groups were. I had answers saying that the CFC was an official group, but the new order was not. The only difference I can see is that CFC is a nullsec power bloc, whereas the new order is a highsec bloc.

I was told that recruitment scams were fine, but that people impersonating permit-holding miners were not against the TOS.

When I questioned them on this further, here's what followed:

Comor Dunathis > so basically, what i'm getting out of this is that player-made groups that surpass alliance/corp boundaries are not official groups
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis That sounds about right. yes.
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis To answer your question, groups, such as the CFC, as you asked, are included in the ToS change.So no. Don't do it.
Comor Dunathis > thanks. so everyone without a permit that claims to have one is now violating the TOS. gotcha.
ISD Arooga > Comor Dunathis not really

Perhaps CCP would like to enlighten me as to the diffference between the CFC and the New Order, since last I checked, they were both groups of players. Why is impersonating the CFC a violation of the TOS, but impersonating one of the New Order's subgroups not a violation of it?

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."

Lyell Wolf
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-09-09 22:22:01 UTC
Just Lilly wrote:
Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?

What did I miss?


Hell if I know tbh. I think the EULA was "reclarified" after a big issue with people falsely representing alliances to scam them. If that's the case, my opinion is mixed and I don't have enough information on it's effects on EVE to make a solid stance on the matter.

If someone would be so kind as to clarify the ordeal it would be much appreciated. The piles of locked threads is giving me the suspicion that the facts passing around are not being properly compiled in this remaining thread.
Just Lilly
#20 - 2013-09-09 22:23:16 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Just Lilly wrote:
Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?

What did I miss?


http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/eve-online-terms-of-service-update-1/

A not-entirely clearly worded update to the TOS, which Grimmi later claimed was not a change at all, but which on the face of it rules a great deal of previously permitted scamming and metagaming activity illegal.



Wooh yeah, did a little reading up on the forums and found quite a few locked threads on the subject.
Powered by Nvidia GTX 690
123Next pageLast page