These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GM clarification on rewording of the Terms of Service

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2013-09-11 15:53:40 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Of course you are always yourself but since you are yourself, it should be easy to prove it so that noone can say you were impersonating someone else. If the deal pass through without you proving that you are yourself, it will stillpass after you proved to be yourself.


Well I don't even think pretending to be Chribba or The Mittani should be actionable, since it's trivial to ask the man himself if Sirane Elrek of GoonWaffe is an alt of him, but I'm pretty sure that horse has bolted.

But going so far as to require people to (without being asked) prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they are in fact who they claim they are, just because some scam victim is too lazy to do the most trivial of checking, is stupid and should not be a thing in EVE Online. This is just going to be abused as a get-out-of-scam-free card by people who just lost a bunch of money.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2013-09-11 15:54:02 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If I try to scam by pretending to be Weaselior's alt, the deal might go through even tho I am not his alt. My lack of power to prove I am his alt will posibly be my downfall if I get petitionned over this scam.


What if you slip Weaslior a bunch of ISK to pretend that you are his alt? Why is that a transaction the GMs should be involved in?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#323 - 2013-09-11 15:55:17 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Andski wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Their stance will probably end up being "Work your ass off to prove who you are if you are to benefit from some dealings".


Right, but you see, the traditional route is to prove to the other party that I am who I say I am and that I can follow through with a transaction. The consequence of failing to do so has also traditionally been a deal that falls through, not a ******* ban


You will either have to count on the other side not petitionning or managing the deals without any lies on who you are. If you prove to be the alt of andski and the deal goes through, it will most likely not be accitionnable because you never impersonated someone you were not. If you pretend to be Weaselior's alt and the deal pass through, you will still be in danger yes because you cannot prove you are his alt.

Now on the important silly point to all scammers : WATCH OUT for reverse scamming attempt. If your mark is too easy, it might be a scam to get you banned afterward.

Is this the new scamming? Where you aim to get the sucker banned?


1- Ask random goon to be admited in Waffe
2- Make sure he make some **** up. (Like if he is a director or not)
3- Get scammed out of a 500 mill deposit.
4- Petition the scam.

Warning, you might get counter petitionned if you pretended to be a newbie. Well I think you can. Are you impersonating someone/something if you attempt to make people belive you are a cute newbie?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#324 - 2013-09-11 15:56:53 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Of course you are always yourself but since you are yourself, it should be easy to prove it so that noone can say you were impersonating someone else. If the deal pass through without you proving that you are yourself, it will stillpass after you proved to be yourself.


Well I don't even think pretending to be Chribba or The Mittani should be actionable, since it's trivial to ask the man himself if Sirane Elrek of GoonWaffe is an alt of him, but I'm pretty sure that horse has bolted.

But going so far as to require people to (without being asked) prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they are in fact who they claim they are, just because some scam victim is too lazy to do the most trivial of checking, is stupid and should not be a thing in EVE Online. This is just going to be abused as a get-out-of-scam-free card by people who just lost a bunch of money.


If you can defend yourself after getting petitionned, you might be able to forgot proving who you are during the initial dealing but I do not know how they deal with such cases so I would go on the safer side.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#325 - 2013-09-11 15:59:38 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If you can defend yourself after getting petitionned, you might be able to forgot proving who you are during the initial dealing but I do not know how they deal with such cases so I would go on the safer side.

I don't really see the value in debating what perticular hoops to jump through to protect yourself against this insane interpretation because just the fact that a GM declared you can be banned for impersonating yourself means you can't rely on "reason" or "facts" in these case-by-case decisions. Just because you jump through all these hoops doesn't mean much when it turns out that you missed the invisible hoop.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#326 - 2013-09-11 15:59:40 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If I try to scam by pretending to be Weaselior's alt, the deal might go through even tho I am not his alt. My lack of power to prove I am his alt will posibly be my downfall if I get petitionned over this scam.


What if you slip Weaslior a bunch of ISK to pretend that you are his alt? Why is that a transaction the GMs should be involved in?


I don't know if CCP will dig after you provide a made up proof so I would NOT consider it safe. That of course is only my view on it. If anyone quote this **** after getting banned or not, I will point and laugh.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#327 - 2013-09-11 16:00:37 UTC
so a roamer in lowsec can be banned for naming their ship "Another Dude In Locals' Thorax" to try and sneak up on someone?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#328 - 2013-09-11 16:03:35 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If you can defend yourself after getting petitionned, you might be able to forgot proving who you are during the initial dealing but I do not know how they deal with such cases so I would go on the safer side.

I don't really see the value in debating what perticular hoops to jump through to protect yourself against this insane interpretation because just the fact that a GM declared you can be banned for impersonating yourself means you can't rely on "reason" or "facts" in these case-by-case decisions. Just because you jump through all these hoops doesn't mean much when it turns out that you missed the invisible hoop.


Yes and that is why the TOS update does change the game. Unless we get some report of them already dealing with case in that way. Then it's the same as before except you have more chance of getting petionned.

They could prove there were no real change in dealing by providing an example case where impersonating someone not being a CCP official and still getting banned. THen we would know it was a policy before and it was a judgement call before like it will be now except we know they won't do that because they are not willing to provide the deatails of those cases.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#329 - 2013-09-11 16:06:10 UTC
My take on this "clarification" - people that have been scammed/AWOX'd over the years have not been filing enough petitions!! What we have all believed to be valid EVE sandbox play has been in violation the whole time. We conned ourselves. lol
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#330 - 2013-09-11 16:07:00 UTC
I think it's time to pick mining back up.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#331 - 2013-09-11 16:08:04 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
My take on this "clarification" - people that have been scammed/AWOX'd over the years have not been filing enough petitions!! What we have all believed to be valid EVE sandbox play has been in violation the whole time. We conned ourselves. lol


This might be partially true. Did anyone from CCP ever provide a clear text saying scamming was legal or was it always the player refering to past case of not getting banned saying it's legal because X, Y and Z pulled it off before?
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#332 - 2013-09-11 16:10:09 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
My take on this "clarification" - people that have been scammed/AWOX'd over the years have not been filing enough petitions!! What we have all believed to be valid EVE sandbox play has been in violation the whole time. We conned ourselves. lol

Yeah, I'm going to have to form the Official Goonswarm Space Lawyer squad, where we fight our enemies by getting exceedingly high and then petitioning our enemies for anything that we can come up with.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#333 - 2013-09-11 16:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
GM Karidor wrote:
[...]Where does Customer Support draw the line for impersonation?
As much as we'd love to be able to draw a clear line, it is quite impossible. Impersonation can take various forms, and each with endless subtleties involved. While most cases luckily (for us GMs, that is) tend to be rather clear, being the most obvious form of impersonation by taking up a similar character name from another player for malicious purposes, more and more players are attempting much more subtle attempts.
What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.

So you're saying the tools CCP created so that players can perform verification on an account level are not good enough to perform the action of verification on the account level? What in the actual **** kind of nonsense is this?

I mean, this besides the fact that if I convo player a) and say "Hi, I am Chribba's alt please give me money for some reason" and the person says "Prove it, message me from Chribba" and I say "lol cant bro because reasons" then player a is now protected via the TOS?

This is pretty hilariously stupid, and you are struggling ITT because there's no position you can take on the new TOS which isn't "it's changed to enforce more situations" and you're simply replying with "no its the same despite all these reasons that its new".

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Kaeda Maxwell
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#334 - 2013-09-11 16:10:16 UTC
Seems I'm in the Austria-Hungary described by Franz Kafka, where I can be put on 'trial' for an allegedly committed offence, but the legislating power won't tell my what that offence is, nor what the law allegedly broken actually states or applies to.

Grand job, you managed to seriously add to the sense of a callous and pitiless universe that you market EVE as. Random justice delivered by untouchable all powerful legislators. Roll
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#335 - 2013-09-11 16:10:30 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
My take on this "clarification" - people that have been scammed/AWOX'd over the years have not been filing enough petitions!! What we have all believed to be valid EVE sandbox play has been in violation the whole time. We conned ourselves. lol


Apparently that's literally what they'd have us believe.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#336 - 2013-09-11 16:12:21 UTC
The good news about this new "correctly claiming your alt is related to your main gets you banned" rule is that sussing out where the line is just got easier.

No longer do you need to actually scam or get scammed to perform tests. Just roll up a host of trial accounts and start lying to yourself like a mythomanic schizophrenic. You'll then, quite naturally, have to petition yourself for representing yourself as an alt of yourself, and through that find out what forms of representation are banned.


I believe this sums up my opinion on the reasonableness of this new massive change in the TOS.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#337 - 2013-09-11 16:14:17 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
KIller Wabbit wrote:
My take on this "clarification" - people that have been scammed/AWOX'd over the years have not been filing enough petitions!! What we have all believed to be valid EVE sandbox play has been in violation the whole time. We conned ourselves. lol

Yeah, I'm going to have to form the Official Goonswarm Space Lawyer squad, where we fight our enemies by getting exceedingly high and then petitioning our enemies for anything that we can come up with.



It's the new meta!

=(

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#338 - 2013-09-11 16:15:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Vol Arm'OOO
The funny part about all of this is that for many of us it was the meta game that brought us to eve in the first place. I never heard of eve until I read something in the news about these guys (Guiding Hand?) infiltrating a corp, stealing all of its isk and then killing off its CEO. It was that story that brought me to eve and i'm sure there was more then a little impersonation, scamming and lying going on there. And once people actually find eve IMO its certainly not the actual eve game play that keeps them here. Push approach, push orbit - shoot red x, move on to next x - is not exactly exciting game play. Rather its the meta game that makes eve compelling. Without the meta game, eve is boring to its core.

I know that ccp has been on the path of making this game "more accessible" in their eyes - e.g. eliminating can flipping, telling you how to fit and fly your ship by giving it defined roles, dumbing down scanning, etc... Each of these changes have been relatively small steps in and of themselves, but in aggregate they show CCP's distrust of the sandbox. Yet despite everything, the meta game remained unchanged, and was still a draw for eve. Now they are changing it all up. Its a shame really. But nothing lasts for ever.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#339 - 2013-09-11 16:19:17 UTC
I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym got banned.
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#340 - 2013-09-11 16:20:37 UTC
There is any easy solution to this, I guess.

If you think someone is impersonating another group, petition it. If they're petitioning an NPC, petition it. If they're impersonating a possible alt, petition it.

We can just put it on the GMs to decide what is legit or not rather than relying on the players.

Oh, and before you accept a business deal, make sure to petition them so that you're sure it's a legit deal.