These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#521 - 2013-09-11 19:16:45 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Can the current CSM members be banned for impersonating effective representatives?
Wait, what ?
Aahhhh i get it !

Ban them for being representatives in the first place !
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#522 - 2013-09-11 19:16:55 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them.
I am quite sure that public interviews and publicly stating how awesome some of the scams in EvEs history were
definitely counts as endorsing them ...

Like Hilmar said, regarding the EvE Bank heist ... the first big one.
500 people left the game ... 5000 more joined in.


Edit: Just realized it's actually a bad example. My point was that CCP does indeed
endorse scamming and impersonating somebody else is usually a big part of it.
Sorry for mixing things up.


Was the guy pretending to be someone else but himself?

Was he pretending to be part of an organisation beside the one he actually was a member of?
Echo Echoplex
#523 - 2013-09-11 19:18:18 UTC
...does this mean I can't name my trading alt MintChribba? ;-(

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#524 - 2013-09-11 19:18:49 UTC
i am CCP Hilmar

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider
Copypasta
Lottie Spider Hive
#525 - 2013-09-11 19:19:29 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective.


The Threadnaught never happened. There is no such thing as a Threadnaught. Mass complaints have never yielded anything in the history of EVE-O.

--noted Baghdad Bob impersonator Ali Aras
Scutters Solette
Doomheim
#526 - 2013-09-11 19:20:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.

Except CCP have literally endorsed this behaviour in the past, whether they say they enforced it as a rule or not. You've drunk their koolaid pretty hard if you believe what you're saying here.


Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them.


They endorsed it with their butterfly effect video. Which should now be banned for advertising impersonation as a legit gameplay method.
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#527 - 2013-09-11 19:21:14 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are...The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement.

And, therein, lies the continued problems that haven't been adequately addressed:

  • Continued ambiguity of language
  • Inconsistent language between the previously quoted character name clauses and the changed clause
  • Non-codification of the clarification into the actual document to remove ambiguity of enforcement

The misunderstanding of previous enforcement isn't the issue, and never has been. The new language of the ToS is about as muddy as a rainforest swamp and needs to be clarified for proper enforcement. Otherwise, its exceptionally broad and effectively "bans" a large number or previously sanctioned meta-game elements, regardless of whether GMs actually enforce the policy (which they should).

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Doris Dents
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#528 - 2013-09-11 19:22:02 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Can the current CSM members be banned for impersonating effective representatives?

Haven't seen that even attempted.
Rena Senn
Halal Gunnery
#529 - 2013-09-11 19:22:53 UTC
Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:
i am CCP Hilmar

I am CCP Hilmar and so is my wife.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#530 - 2013-09-11 19:24:32 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

its just me but I don't consider identifying myself as myself when on an alt something "blatantly out there"

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#531 - 2013-09-11 19:27:11 UTC
Copypasta wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective.

The Threadnaught never happened. There is no such thing as a Threadnaught. Mass complaints have never yielded anything in the history of EVE-O.

--noted Baghdad Bob impersonator Ali Aras

Petitioning

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 ?
thee lous3
Tech III Bone Cancer
#532 - 2013-09-11 19:27:58 UTC  |  Edited by: thee lous3
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/j7lQn2G.png


I have begun to profiteer on the back of your now tarnished name, with real world goods - Reddit karma.
I've finally found a way to be internet-rich, and reddit-cool.

http://i.imgur.com/3kJ5jjr.png
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#533 - 2013-09-11 19:28:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lykouleon wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are...The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement.

And, therein, lies the continued problems that haven't been adequately addressed:

  • Continued ambiguity of language
  • Inconsistent language between the previously quoted character name clauses and the changed clause
  • Non-codification of the clarification into the actual document to remove ambiguity of enforcement

The misunderstanding of previous enforcement isn't the issue, and never has been. The new language of the ToS is about as muddy as a rainforest swamp and needs to be clarified for proper enforcement. Otherwise, its exceptionally broad and effectively "bans" a large number or previously sanctioned meta-game elements, regardless of whether GMs actually enforce the policy (which they should).

…also, there's the fundamental question of, if there was an easy leap of logic in terms of allowances that the previous language allowed for and which the players therefore followed, why was this logic invalid to begin with?

What is the problem that needs to be solved? Was claiming to be a GFS recruiter when you were in TEST really a problem? Was there any actual disjunct between the logic and the enforcement? Or did the the enforcement actually comply with the supposedly incorrect logic?

Everything about this still sounds like the rule was wrong, not the language. The solution is to change the rule to match the wording, because then both are correct, and not to change the wording to match the rule, thus making both wrong in terms of the gameplay it creates removes.
thee lous3
Tech III Bone Cancer
#534 - 2013-09-11 19:28:48 UTC
Doublepostmybad.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#535 - 2013-09-11 19:28:52 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

its just me but I don't consider identifying myself as myself when on an alt something "blatantly out there"

But the TOS has been clarified, and clearly has always considered it as such

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 ?
Zane Lowe
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#536 - 2013-09-11 19:29:13 UTC
Quote:
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 if I'm reading this right, that means it's now a bannable offense to have an alt? What the **** is going on CCP? Why is telling a corpmate "this is my alt" against the EULA?
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#537 - 2013-09-11 19:29:33 UTC
Copypasta wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective.


The Threadnaught never happened. There is no such thing as a Threadnaught. Mass complaints have never yielded anything in the history of EVE-O.

--noted Baghdad Bob impersonator Ali Aras



We've always been at war with Eastasia
JEFFRAIDER
THIGH GUYS
#538 - 2013-09-11 19:30:43 UTC
hey ccp should hire me to clarify stuff for them

i can be v. specific if i want to :)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#539 - 2013-09-11 19:31:01 UTC
Doris Dents wrote:
Vatek wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Heimdallofasgard wrote:
HEY GUYS! I JUST IMPERSONATED MY ALT AND TRADED MY MAIN SAYING I WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT SOME LOOT TO JITA FOR MYSELF...

I MADE THE FOOLISH MISTAKE OF BELIEVING MYSELF AND NOW I HAVE ALL MY PHAT LOOT INSTEAD OF ME :'(

should I have used a courier contract? I'm pretty pissed off with myself for scamming me, I think myself should be banned but I don't believe I should be.

How do I legal?

I like bashing this stupidity as much as the next guy, but lets have some common sense for a minute.

The clarifying post clearly clarified that the person in impersonation is defined as a character. A opposed to the player behind it, or an arbitrary entity such as an account.

Lets say Solstice Project makes an alt. [ISMETA] wardecs a corporation. He approaches the corporation with the alt and says "I'm Solstice project's alt, give me 100 mil and I drop the dec". They pay up and contact Solstice about the transaction. He says no, that's not my alt you got scammed.

What the nice GM is saying is that it does not matter that the alt is in fact the same player, or even on the same account as the main character. He falsely spoke on behalf of the main with malicious intent. So the alt gets a name change and a time out.


Okay, let's talk common sense. Why should that be punishable?


Because CCP has been scamming us all these years. Apparently EVE was never meant to be a cold dark universe but a happy fun land where the lazy and dumb are protected from the consequences of their easily avoided carelessness.



E, A, Sports.

It's in the game.

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.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#540 - 2013-09-11 19:31:59 UTC
Vatek wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Heimdallofasgard wrote:
HEY GUYS! I JUST IMPERSONATED MY ALT AND TRADED MY MAIN SAYING I WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT SOME LOOT TO JITA FOR MYSELF...

I MADE THE FOOLISH MISTAKE OF BELIEVING MYSELF AND NOW I HAVE ALL MY PHAT LOOT INSTEAD OF ME :'(

should I have used a courier contract? I'm pretty pissed off with myself for scamming me, I think myself should be banned but I don't believe I should be.

How do I legal?

I like bashing this stupidity as much as the next guy, but lets have some common sense for a minute.

The clarifying post clearly clarified that the person in impersonation is defined as a character. A opposed to the player behind it, or an arbitrary entity such as an account.

Lets say Solstice Project makes an alt. [ISMETA] wardecs a corporation. He approaches the corporation with the alt and says "I'm Solstice project's alt, give me 100 mil and I drop the dec". They pay up and contact Solstice about the transaction. He says no, that's not my alt you got scammed.

What the nice GM is saying is that it does not matter that the alt is in fact the same player, or even on the same account as the main character. He falsely spoke on behalf of the main with malicious intent. So the alt gets a name change and a time out.


Okay, let's talk common sense. Why should that be punishable and why should CCP protect people from their own stupidity?

Never said it should be, that's pants-on-head ******** in the context of EvE. But lets not make ourselves look like idiots and dilute valid arguments with hurr durr banned for scamming myself.

If impersonation is to be against the TOS as above, it has to apply to the above scenario equally. That doesn't mean I agree impersonation of a regular player entity should be anything for GM's to meddle with (as opposed to impersonation of CCP/ISD/scamming someone's login credentials and selling him on the character bazaar).

Players taking such in-game actions should be given in-game tools to enact in-game consequences on "bad people" creating the content this game thrives on. Not told to run to mommy before they even enter the sandbox.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38