These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#541 - 2013-09-11 19:32:53 UTC
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Attention all Citizens and Pirates and Sov holders!

If you have a problem with someone impersonating you and do not want to go through the petition process, then hire me to act on your behalf!

For the small fee of 50,000,000.00 isk I will do all your paperwork for you. All you need is a note/evemail with the offending party'a name and if you consent to me working on your behalf, I will make sure it all gets filed!

Contact me for more details. Do not let those pesky miscreants tarnish your good name!

*This service does not guarantee results as the GM may or may not, on a case by case basis, decide if the offense is against the TOS, or within the rules given since they reserve the right to not clarify the rules to which we are allowed to play by and might even decide it's funny, or treat that account as invalid and ban the offending party. I cannot guarantee those results because that would be impersonating an employee of CCP and that would not do. This is only permission on your behalf with proof given by the fee transfered that I would do the typing on your behalf with your express permission.*(Disclaimer)




Holy hell the now needed disclaimer is longer than the ad!


I don't think Waffles has any W-2s, you'll need to fill out a 1099-MISC form.



I can do that! I think I also have some I-9's available too!

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.
Ganque
Ganque's Squad
#542 - 2013-09-11 19:33:59 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"


It's quite reasonable, Cierra Royce in my corp is my alt and I will sell anyone in this thread a half hour of fun voice chat about eve and related topics with her, (which is me and I can tell you such during the conversation), for only 500m (FIVE HUNDRED MILLION) Isk per person.

Though on a serious note, have 12 accounts, characters in several corps and a couple of alliances, if I choose to say I am ganque whilst logged on another char for purposes tricky and malicious, why is that wrong? I don't think we need more clarification, we need the resignation of the person or persons responsible for his new wording, it ain't eve.
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#543 - 2013-09-11 19:34:23 UTC
Vatek wrote:

Edit: by the way, as a CSM member you're supposed to be speaking on behalf of the interests OF THE PLAYERS, not acting as a mouthpiece supporting CCP's terrible decisions.


Ali Aras wrote:

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.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#544 - 2013-09-11 19:35:17 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.

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.



You mean after a 3 hour long direct conversation about it it's clear now?

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.
Cierra Royce
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#545 - 2013-09-11 19:38:32 UTC
Ganque wrote:
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"


It's quite reasonable, Cierra Royce in my corp is my alt and I will sell anyone in this thread a half hour of fun voice chat about eve and related topics with her, (which is me and I can tell you such during the conversation), for only 500m (FIVE HUNDRED MILLION) Isk per person.

Though on a serious note, have 12 accounts, characters in several corps and a couple of alliances, if I choose to say I am ganque whilst logged on another char for purposes tricky and malicious, why is that wrong? I don't think we need more clarification, we need the resignation of the person or persons responsible for his new wording, it ain't eve.


Actually you are my alt, and 500million for half an hour? ************ please.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#546 - 2013-09-11 19:38:33 UTC
Rhes 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.


Posting in a thread is not rioting. Stop being ridiculous.



Confirmed. I've not been called a troll once.

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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#547 - 2013-09-11 19:38:41 UTC
Georgina Parmala 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 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.

Can you not open a petition in game?

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 ?
Vatek
Rents Due Crew
#548 - 2013-09-11 19:38:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
Ali Aras wrote:
Vatek wrote:

Edit: by the way, as a CSM member you're supposed to be speaking on behalf of the interests OF THE PLAYERS, not acting as a mouthpiece supporting CCP's terrible decisions.


Ali Aras wrote:

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.


So we should just not discuss it at all and trust the CSM to read our minds? I wasn't aware that using a forum intended for discussion about the game to discuss the game was "ineffective rioting". Last I heard, rioting worked pretty well to reverse the Incarna trainwreck!

Brushing us off with "okay we're gonna yap with CCP about this and release a crappy devblog 2 months from now that doesn't actually address anything" sucks.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#549 - 2013-09-11 19:43:48 UTC
Vatek wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
Vatek wrote:

Edit: by the way, as a CSM member you're supposed to be speaking on behalf of the interests OF THE PLAYERS, not acting as a mouthpiece supporting CCP's terrible decisions.


Ali Aras wrote:

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.


So we should just not discuss it at all and trust the CSM to read our minds? I wasn't aware that using a forum intended for discussion about the game to discuss the game was "ineffective rioting".

Shut up and leave our gods to decide how much they want to punish us for being bad people

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 ?
Copypasta
Lottie Spider Hive
#550 - 2013-09-11 19:44:12 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
Vatek wrote:

Edit: by the way, as a CSM member you're supposed to be speaking on behalf of the interests OF THE PLAYERS, not acting as a mouthpiece supporting CCP's terrible decisions.


Ali Aras wrote:

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.


Are you taking PR lessons from PGI?
Djan Sarpati
Ganque's Squad
#551 - 2013-09-11 19:45:15 UTC
Cierra Royce wrote:
Ganque wrote:
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"


It's quite reasonable, Cierra Royce in my corp is my alt and I will sell anyone in this thread a half hour of fun voice chat about eve and related topics with her, (which is me and I can tell you such during the conversation), for only 500m (FIVE HUNDRED MILLION) Isk per person.

Though on a serious note, have 12 accounts, characters in several corps and a couple of alliances, if I choose to say I am ganque whilst logged on another char for purposes tricky and malicious, why is that wrong? I don't think we need more clarification, we need the resignation of the person or persons responsible for his new wording, it ain't eve.


Actually you are my alt, and 500million for half an hour? ************ please.


You're infact both my alts, and 500m is fine, send me the Isk, I'll arrange the convo.

A more serious issue, I share a surname with infamous Serpentis boss Salvator Sarpati, and I have once or twice insinuated I might be his daughter thus implying a relationship with an NPC and NPC entity, guys dont try to soften the blow, under those new rules I'm ****** aren't I?

Daughter of the illustrious Salvador Sarpati, I can sell you standings with Serpentis fighters for 500m isk (or a half hour chat with Cierra on Vent)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#552 - 2013-09-11 19:45:41 UTC
Basically they will "stay the course" over your face.

Leadership we can believe in: CSM2013

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 ?
Catlos JeminJees
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#553 - 2013-09-11 19:45:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rena Senn wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So turned out that under this rule I could get everyone who takes part in a baltec fleet that is not me banned.

I can ban all of the CFC. Please place your offers of payment (bribes)


As baltec fleets are ad hoc player organizations and you are but one pilot, once you get everyone else banned you would be misrepresenting yourself as an in-game organization and get yourself banned.


Literally the entire CFC.



Do i get banned for making that baltec Video? geez i better move
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#554 - 2013-09-11 19:46:26 UTC
Zane Lowe wrote:
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?



The first rule of Sidekick is you do not speak of Sidekick.

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.
Catlos JeminJees
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#555 - 2013-09-11 19:46:53 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
Vatek wrote:

Edit: by the way, as a CSM member you're supposed to be speaking on behalf of the interests OF THE PLAYERS, not acting as a mouthpiece supporting CCP's terrible decisions.


Ali Aras wrote:

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.



Empty Quoting is not an answer
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#556 - 2013-09-11 19:46:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Ali Aras wrote:
Vatek wrote:

Edit: by the way, as a CSM member you're supposed to be speaking on behalf of the interests OF THE PLAYERS, not acting as a mouthpiece supporting CCP's terrible decisions.


Ali Aras wrote:

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.


The threadnaught is the best way for CCP and the game.
If people start pushing it into the game, (they can and will, if need arises!)
then **** get's real(ly bad).

Venting in a thread definitely is the best first step for all parties involved.
SAJUK NIGARRA
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#557 - 2013-09-11 19:47:36 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:

It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are


You must be some genious, for the rest of us it's still very unclear. You has the smarts, we b dumb. what can I say.


Ali Aras wrote:

while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy


Wasn't it pretty clear a sentence ago ? Now it's fuzzy ? Make up your mind.


Ali Aras wrote:

I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.


Well, obviously from this threadnaught the rest of us aren't so content as you. And tbfh, your job as CSM is to help CCP make us content, not to tell us what makes you content. I don't think any of us care if you are content or not


Ali Aras wrote:

players were confused.


Ok we established you're the smart one, but really, are you calling us dumb now ? That's just mean. And confusing.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#558 - 2013-09-11 19:47:44 UTC
Cierra Royce wrote:
500million for half an hour?

Sounds so wrong

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 ?
SAJUK NIGARRA
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#559 - 2013-09-11 19:47:44 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:

this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness


I assume in your wording the Hiroshima bomb had some side effects. Calling this some unhapiness is like calling the Titanic a boating accident. Again I am slightly confused.


Ali Aras wrote:

I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.


Is that stuff on your nose chocolate ?
Sam Alkawe
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#560 - 2013-09-11 19:49:00 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; 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.


Well sure, it's good to know that as long as I don't try to scam I won't be banned.

Ali Aras wrote:
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.



Okay. Cool. There is a leap of logic there. There is also a bit of stupidity involved from whoever is scammed by the second case, since I believe you can check that a) the character is not in such alliance, and if need be: b) you can ask, if an alt is mentioned, or hell just check with appropriate GSF authorities whether or not somebody can do what they are doing.

I mean, come on.TEST alliance mentions in their description to beware of scams. Because they know it happens, because it's part of the game. And most alliances mention who the diplomatic contacts are so it's not like you can't ask.

Ali Aras wrote:
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.


Yes. Please, do insist on a change of policy. One of the reasons EVE appealed to many of us is that it's a cold, dark place where you are not paranoid because there is somebody out there to get you. And scams like the one you mentioned are part of it. Besides, considering what was posted by official parties in this thread, the very fact that you can get banned for impersonating your own alt is plain bravo sierra. So not only do I disagree with the policy, I think it's silly.