These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#641 - 2013-09-11 20:52:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.

Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to make such a judgement?

Don't ban me, bro!

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#642 - 2013-09-11 20:54:37 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming.


I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity.

GMs don't create policy like this.

This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance.

No, I would sort of expect this was GMs making policy for a long time without really consulting anyone and they make a slow drift into crazyland that's not seen by anyone else, because appeals simply go to the GM team and they can't be discussed on the forums.


The GMs don't change/update major documents without the producer being aware of it. Or the producer having directed that change in the first place.
Blawrf McTaggart
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#643 - 2013-09-11 20:55:08 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming.


I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity.

GMs don't create policy like this.

This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance.

No, I would sort of expect this was GMs making policy for a long time without really consulting anyone and they make a slow drift into crazyland that's not seen by anyone else, because appeals simply go to the GM team and they can't be discussed on the forums.


The GMs don't change/update major documents without the producer being aware of it. Or the producer having directed that change in the first place.


you have more space likes than me

this can not stand
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#644 - 2013-09-11 20:55:18 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.

Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to much such a judgement?

Not just impersonation, but misrepresentation. It's far far broader than impersonation alone.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#645 - 2013-09-11 20:55:24 UTC
Quick, someone go to LoL and ask Soundwave!

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.

Evelgrivion
Origin.
WE FORM V0LTA
#646 - 2013-09-11 20:56:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
I don't appreciate the amount of space these clarifications have left open for interpretation

Which behaviors are you trying to stop with this ToS change, CCP? With the information we have available, we can only assume your new policies exist to forbid all forms of contract scamming that misconstrue one item for another, and any claim, true or false, that you are an alternate account of another player.
Sara Leone
Freelancer Union
Unaffiliated
#647 - 2013-09-11 20:58:05 UTC
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:


The GMs don't change/update major documents without the producer being aware of it. Or the producer having directed that change in the first place.


you have more space likes than me

this can not stand

I tossed you a like Blawrf, the fight back starts here!
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#648 - 2013-09-11 20:58:37 UTC
The most disappointing part is that I thought we had got beyond the now formulaic beating over the head necessary to get major issues addressed. It's almost funny how dispassionate this "riot" is, as we all merely go through the now nauseatingly familiar motions until heads are removed from buttes... but instead it's just sad.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#649 - 2013-09-11 20:58:51 UTC
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:
you have more space likes than me

this can not stand


I bet you'd have a lot of spacelikes if you represented yourself as the spokesperson for the EVE furry community.

You wouldn't even get banned for impersonation since it's not false!
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#650 - 2013-09-11 21:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Mr Kidd wrote:
So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.

Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to much such a judgement?





In a game built on mistrust and distrust and all those negative forms of not trusting... I too would find it hard to swallow that an obscure answer to a TOS claim falls into the "trust" category...

In a weird I hope tl;dr version...

Don't trust anyone.

The game you once knew was ripe with scams.

Now it's illegal to pretend you are someone you aren't.

Scams are still legal (wtf).

GMs will not clarify their position, although the policy has not changed (wait what?).

GMs judge on a case by case basis.

The GMs request you trust them to make that call.

Again, I never got any answer concerning those links that are "api verified" that isk doublers link you (I know they are scams, I mean, are they bannable?) and are we to believe the only scams that would be legal, are margin trade scams?

Everything else is done by false representation!


EDIT- and for the love of all things explosive, please add "bannable" to the spellcheck list!

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.

Red Crown
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#651 - 2013-09-11 21:04:09 UTC
New form of AWOXing: Ask one of your corpmates if they're on their alt. If they reply "Yes, my main is XXX", report them and have them banned.
Danelaan
System lords Collective
#652 - 2013-09-11 21:04:10 UTC
I'm not sure if it's useful to answer there. I haven't been playing (a lot) for long, but that character is still a few years old and I've been playing on and off. That game, EvE Online, is very special and very different from the others.

But why has he been alive from so long, and why is he so famous? Yes, famous compared to infamous, because when major media refer to WoW or other MMORPG, that's usually in bad terms, to express addiction or make any (stupid) cliché about how gaming makes you a bad person. It's not the case with EvE. EvE is seen with some kind of admiration because it' really is something else. Hell, it's even one of the few games in the MoMA, in New York. There have been news about the big fight in Fountain recently, and about the Jita thingy one or two years back.

And why is that? Because it's really a different game and scams, impersonations, spying and all that stuff is part of what makes the game special. I mean, why would you shoot yourself in the feet by simply endangering the very attraction you have over any other game. It's not the exciting gameplay that keeps us playing EvE, it's the fact that we're really playing with and against other players, and not just by pew-pewing at them.


The whole matter is strange, to be honest. Why be afraid of someone claiming is something is not? Lying is part of the game. And the whole "claiming to be someone else" is stupid beyond anything. I'm a guy, behind my computer. I'm not Danelaan, nor any of my other characters. They are exactly that: characters that I impersonate. It's okay to impersonate a character but it's not okay then to impersonate a character? Can a character lie? I don't think so. The player lies. And the player can lie nonetheless. The example taken before in this thread was someone verifying if the alt was really the alt of the character he claimed to be an alt of. But so what? Even if I'm the alt of [X] who wardec'd [Y Corporation], I can take the money and still keep the wardec alive. Is that also bannable? I say it's part of the game.

The true problem is:

Yes it's true, scamming is maybe too easy. In the real world, when you fraud and cheat and scam, there are repercussions. The problem is, right there, you're offering out-of-the-game repercussions for a problem that happens in the game.
Do you want to have a "police" against scammers? Then make it in-game for ****'s sake. Give rights to volunteers to become the representative of Concord when it comes to the fight against scam. Make them electable (oh, I already see scammers voting for someone who will let them do their stuff; but isn't that part of it too? Corruption?) and have them build cases. Make sure, with the means that they have, that this is indeed a scam that was given to them. In which case they would be banned from Empire Space on the whole account or I don't know, have to pay a tremendous fee, whatever.



I'm pulling that out of nowhere. I haven't even thought about that more than five seconds so there are probably blatant flaws or better ways to do it. But the idea is that: the game is praised for being a world in itself. Forget that change that goes clearly against that: make things that happen in game stay in game and give a way to punish scammers in-game. Stuff, drama in game, life within the game, spying, infiltration of corps, treasons, that's what make that game great. Don't waste that, please. Not when I'm at last taking the time to play it more actively.
Pyth2
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#653 - 2013-09-11 21:05:03 UTC
So if someone is asking pyth2 here a question related to goonwaffe and I respond with pyth3, a neutral jita alt am I impersonating myself and misrepresenting my corp/alliance?

This policy is ******* dumb and stinks of GM Butthurt & GM Publord trying to change the game to reflect how they think it should be changed. **** this ****, lets burn Jita.
Copypasta
Lottie Spider Hive
#654 - 2013-09-11 21:05:34 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.

Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to make such a judgement?


Hell, just the idea of CCP GMs asking us to trust them is patently ridiculous. Their track record would make CIA blush.
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#655 - 2013-09-11 21:08:10 UTC
Copypasta wrote:
Hell, just the idea of CCP GMs asking us to trust them is patently ridiculous. Their track record would make CIA blush.


Goonswarm is the CIA, didn't you hear?

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.

Solstice Project's Alt
Doomheim
#656 - 2013-09-11 21:13:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project's Alt
Okay, so what's the deal now ?


(omg this is great, i have to run the tutorial missions so i can bash CCP ^_^)

Buy Solstice Project for PLEX4GOOD ! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=301266 (this alt-character will get deleted once the sale is done, on 6th of december)

Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#657 - 2013-09-11 21:13:26 UTC
What if I give someone permission to represent me then lie to the GMs about it?
What if I give someone permission to misrepresent me?
Solstice Project's Alt
Doomheim
#658 - 2013-09-11 21:14:18 UTC
Yeep wrote:
What if I give someone permission to represent me then lie to the GMs about it?
What if I give someone permission to misrepresent me?
I hearby misrepresent you,
*without* your permission !

HA ! IN YOUR FACE !

Buy Solstice Project for PLEX4GOOD ! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=301266 (this alt-character will get deleted once the sale is done, on 6th of december)

Ganque
Ganque's Squad
#659 - 2013-09-11 21:14:43 UTC
Pyth2 wrote:
So if someone is asking pyth2 here a question related to goonwaffe and I respond with pyth3, a neutral jita alt am I impersonating myself and misrepresenting my corp/alliance?

This policy is ******* dumb and stinks of GM Butthurt & GM Publord trying to change the game to reflect how they think it should be changed. **** this ****, lets burn Jita.


I see what you're saying, So just to be clear do goonswarm recruit outside the SA forums?
Ivan Krividus
Titan A.I
Escape Velocity.
#660 - 2013-09-11 21:16:01 UTC
Copypasta wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.

Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to make such a judgement?


Hell, just the idea of CCP GMs asking us to trust them is patently ridiculous. Their track record would make CIA blush.

Don't worry, if the GMs lie to us its against TOS,