These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#881 - 2013-09-12 08:13:26 UTC
Jaxo Enaka wrote:
Thank you GM's. Perfectly clear and understandable.

And to qoute all the "hardcore", very much enjoying the "tears" they are shedding. All you hardcore, please, keep them coming, never stop. bwahhhh bwahhhh

Please enlighten us.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#882 - 2013-09-12 08:29:59 UTC
Still not banned.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Lady Areola Fappington
#883 - 2013-09-12 08:32:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Areola Fappington
You know, us gankers scammers and wardeccers should really step up our game. Rather than venting on the forums, we should be coming up with ways to get those poor innocent newbies to break the newly clarified ToS, getting the poor, pristine dears PERMABANNED from Eve. I mean, that's totally what we'd do, right?


Wait, you're saying it's the other way around, the innocent bears are trying to ToS twist the "clarification" into banning perfectly legit activities? Surely you jest!


Quote:

Had about half a dozen people try the "represent another group" crap on me, claiming that the New Order falsely represents itself as being offical CCP laws, etc, etc.



Amazing, how rabid 'bears consider out of game responses to in-game actions. Yes, account actions are out of game, as in not using a gameplay mechanic to accomplish goals. It's almost like the line between fantasy and reality is blurred.

See CCP, it's already happening. You are going to get massive petition blizzard, as people attempt to metagame their enemies into bans. Since it's all "case by case", you can just keep re petitioning until you finally get a GM whose "case" agrees with your goal.

And we're the crazy ones for following the Saviour of Highsec...

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
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#884 - 2013-09-12 09:54:21 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:

Impersonating NPC entities not being permitted has always been part of the impersonation policies. However, it is entirely possible to declare support for NPC entities without the need of claiming that you act "on their behalf or order".


I guess what irritates me about this situation is that I have no intention of scamming or impersonating anyone (though I support scams as a legitimate form of dystopian pgc) and my game still violates the ToS as currently written.

Quote:
You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.


I mean, I'm Yonis Kador. In my bio, it reads, cousin of Uriam Kador. My corp, KADORCORP [K-DOR], hq is in Kador Prime (naturally) and most of Yonis's game occurs in Kador Region. Everything about this character revolves around Kador Family, an Amarr npc corporation. I'm not even really into role-playing. But I named several of my characters after npcs because I thought it was good for pgc.

Last week, I wasn't in violation of the ToS.

But this week, if anyone leaves my corp, (for any reason) they can file a petition claiming that I "presented myself to be a representative of Kador Family" and depending on the GM and his/her interpretation of the ToS, my account could possibly be banned. (The evidence would be overwhelming.) It's great that we have assurances that this change to the ToS isn't meant to ban guys like me. (It really is. And I trust it's sincere.) That, however, does nothing to change the fact that every day when I log in now, this character, and several others that I have spent years maintaining, potentially violate the changed ToS.

When a wording change to the ToS snares someone like me, you guys have cast too wide a net. Comeon.


YK

(P.S. I also can't believe that I posted ~24 hrs ago on pg. 7. Over 600 posts in a day? I need time off just to read today's posts! What did I miss?)
Lady Areola Fappington
#885 - 2013-09-12 10:51:01 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:

Impersonating NPC entities not being permitted has always been part of the impersonation policies. However, it is entirely possible to declare support for NPC entities without the need of claiming that you act "on their behalf or order".


I guess what irritates me about this situation is that I have no intention of scamming or impersonating anyone (though I support scams as a legitimate form of dystopian pgc) and my game still violates the ToS as currently written.

Quote:
You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.


I mean, I'm Yonis Kador. In my bio, it reads, cousin of Uriam Kador. My corp, KADORCORP [K-DOR], hq is in Kador Prime (naturally) and most of Yonis's game occurs in Kador Region. Everything about this character revolves around Kador Family, an Amarr npc corporation. I'm not even really into role-playing. But I named several of my characters after npcs because I thought it was good for pgc.

Last week, I wasn't in violation of the ToS.

But this week, if anyone leaves my corp, (for any reason) they can file a petition claiming that I "presented myself to be a representative of Kador Family" and depending on the GM and his/her interpretation of the ToS, my account could possibly be banned. (The evidence would be overwhelming.) It's great that we have assurances that this change to the ToS isn't meant to ban guys like me. (It really is. And I trust it's sincere.) That, however, does nothing to change the fact that every day when I log in now, this character, and several others that I have spent years maintaining, potentially violate the changed ToS.

When a wording change to the ToS snares someone like me, you guys have cast too wide a net. Come on.


YK

(P.S. I also can't believe that I posted ~24 hrs ago on pg. 7. Over 600 posts in a day? I need time off just to read today's posts! What did I miss?)



This is what we're getting at, right here. It's not "OMG mah scams r gone!" CCP has cast their net so wide that (I'm assuming) this typical highsec, innocent dude is in violation of the ToS. I don't care what reassurances GM anybody comes in and says on a thread in the messageboard, according to the legal contract we agree to in order to log in, this guy is in violation.

What's going to happen when this guy's scenario comes to pass, and he gets reported. Maybe he'll get a GM who remembers this thread, and leaves him be. Maybe he'll get a GM who just started, and hasn't read the whole manual on "Use your best judgement on a case by case basis on if someone is just benevolently RPing"

CCP, if you want to ban scamming of certain types, do it. Don't hide behind a muddled ToS that lets you preserve your "dark cold" advertising schtick.

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
Istyn
Freight Club
#886 - 2013-09-12 11:02:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Istyn
I, too, think it's a good idea to ban huge swathes of the metagame that have previously been celebrated for marketing purposes in trailers, at fanfest, and press releases.

Also, isn't this the third TOS change in a few months that has had the explanation 'we always intended it to be this way'? It's getting a bit hard to believe now.
Sol Kal'orr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#887 - 2013-09-12 11:23:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Sol Kal'orr
Chanina wrote:
*Post suggesting that giving the lazy a get out of jail free card for refusing to do some research improves the game.*

I thought the job of verifying that the guy I am talking to is who says he is was mine? A part of the metagame? The enforcement of this rule means it isn't my job anymore; we don't need to play that part of the game; if someone pretends to be something they are not we can just petition and the player lying to us might get a permaban. This is bad, this hurts the game. Removing the option to impersonate; removing the need to verify; this kills a good game element. All it does is reward the lazy and punish the creative.

And yes, I know technically it was always against the rules but it was (I hope) sensibly ignored back then. If this daft rule is going to being enforced EVE will suffer. Those events that make this game fun -and bring in subs- will result in bans. Please fix this.
Sam Alkawe
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#888 - 2013-09-12 11:39:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Sam Alkawe
Chanina wrote:
And where is the problem now?

You want to rob someone blind? Don't impersonate a good friend of that one, become one your self. Needs a bit more effort and the result is equal or greater.

You want to scam? No problem, just don't claim your scam is secured by trusted person XYZ.

You want to get your spy into a corp? Don't just send this stupid "cyno alt of xxx". Do it RIGHT, get your character applied with some decent effort.

You want to role play? For my holiness empress Sarum, I will purge you from this system. No problem.
My empress gave me the order and authority to purge you. Wrong, that order wasn't given, its an NPC after all.

So again, what is the problem? You are screaming because you can't spam the apply button with your want-to-be-cyno-alt?


In the good old days, people build there reputation up so people trust them. They provided a service, like a Bank for all your isk. And some shiny day, someone decided that his eve company with a huge amount of money is good enough to just leave. He betrayed those who trusted him. He did the work, he got the reward.
And now? People want to get the reward from other peoples work. Trying to use the trust of other known entities to get faster profit without much effort.

IMO the rules are totally fine and help to protect any business, whether it is a good business or an evil one. It is protecting your bad reputation too.


It would be all cool if those business protection rules existed in-game and could not result in a ban. I agree with you that all of those solutions are way better and should be the de facto way to scam. And in the case of big alliances and other large entities/entities with securiy, that is how you do it. What people want to take advantage of is: capsuleers not bothering to check if people are who they say they are. That is it. It really isn't that hard to verify if x or y is who they say they are because you can ask the very entity they are saying they are if x or y are truly that. Besides, I think that recruitment scams where you say you can get people into a corp you don't belong is completely okay because it is so easy to verify (or it turns out that whoever you asked likes to help people scam others, regardless of afiliation).

TL;DR: people want to take advantage of lazyness/stupidity/other characteristics, which under the new TOS (and apparently already under effect under old policy) are now offenses that can be punish by out-of-game mechanisms (reversing, bans, etc).

If only they would implement an in-game mechanic to do that (such as sec status hit [maybe even a flag on the character as untrustworthy? or a rap sheet?] or relationship hit with specific factions).
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#889 - 2013-09-12 11:46:03 UTC
Protecting the stupid encourages stupidity.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#890 - 2013-09-12 11:54:32 UTC
It's funny how the devs can find time to post in other threads, but the one that is going to seriously affect the course of the game is being ignored.
Gavinvin1337
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#891 - 2013-09-12 12:30:34 UTC
Theon Severasse wrote:
It's funny how the devs can find time to post in other threads, but the one that is going to seriously affect the course of the game is being ignored.


Its because they don't have anything positive to say, and don't want the anger in this thread directed towards them.

I 'hope' this matter has been passed up the chain to a producer or executive producer by now and they are preparing a response, but then again this is :CCP: we are talking about.
Sam Alkawe
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#892 - 2013-09-12 12:31:16 UTC
Theon Severasse wrote:
It's funny how the devs can find time to post in other threads, but the one that is going to seriously affect the course of the game is being ignored.


I'm sure by now CCP staff has been told to not uter a word regading this issue. Why would they? Chances are it's only going to throw more fuel to the fire so it seems to me silly to think they are even going to mention they are looking into it or anything. If anything the next thing we are going to hear is a PR statement, if at all. A shame, if you ask me.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#893 - 2013-09-12 13:29:08 UTC
So the newbie system TOS just got clarified with examples. How is this any different?
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#894 - 2013-09-12 13:35:00 UTC
Sam Alkawe wrote:
Theon Severasse wrote:
It's funny how the devs can find time to post in other threads, but the one that is going to seriously affect the course of the game is being ignored.


I'm sure by now CCP staff has been told to not uter a word regading this issue. Why would they? Chances are it's only going to throw more fuel to the fire so it seems to me silly to think they are even going to mention they are looking into it or anything. If anything the next thing we are going to hear is a PR statement, if at all. A shame, if you ask me.

well, who can blame them? the way i see it there are only two valid courses of action:
1. hold their fingers still and hope that the whole thing blows over.
2. change the policy to actually allow "impersonation" scams, thus causing an outcry from the mouth-breathing part of the community.

I should buy an Ishtar.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#895 - 2013-09-12 13:54:00 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Sam Alkawe wrote:
Theon Severasse wrote:
It's funny how the devs can find time to post in other threads, but the one that is going to seriously affect the course of the game is being ignored.


I'm sure by now CCP staff has been told to not uter a word regading this issue. Why would they? Chances are it's only going to throw more fuel to the fire so it seems to me silly to think they are even going to mention they are looking into it or anything. If anything the next thing we are going to hear is a PR statement, if at all. A shame, if you ask me.

well, who can blame them? the way i see it there are only two valid courses of action:
1. hold their fingers still and hope that the whole thing blows over.
2. change the policy to actually allow "impersonation" scams, thus causing an outcry from the mouth-breathing part of the community.


3. Admitting a mistake, apologize and rolling back to the old TOS wording.

4. Using this community response to better reword the TOS.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#896 - 2013-09-12 14:16:44 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
3. Admitting a mistake, apologize and rolling back to the old TOS wording.

too late for that now. they told us repeatedly that "impersonation" is banned in other parts of the legal magic scrolls. the only reason most of us still have their accounts is that the people who are not smart enough to avoid scams are also not smart enough to file a petition.

Quote:
4. Using this community response to better reword the TOS.

which is essentially 2.)

I should buy an Ishtar.
Aran Makor
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#897 - 2013-09-12 14:19:11 UTC


As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a player’s actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.


^From GM Grimmi


I never thought I would agree with Goonswarm but...........what other intention could you ever have for tricking someone in EVE or real life? It's always malicious. "I tricked you because I want you to be a better person"? "I tricked you because my cat died and I am in mourning"?

Duplicitous behavior is inherently malicious. ANY scam is malicious. I will kindly go kill myself if CCP can present one case of a benevolent scam. The closest example I can think of is something like Robin Hood esque type of a scenario, but in that example, someone still go screwed over. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Amarr priceckecker
Doomheim
#898 - 2013-09-12 14:25:44 UTC
How is it bad for existing eve players to trick new players?

Within an hour of starting eve online every new player is tricked by ccp when entering captains quarters.

In case there are devs that don't understand, every new player wants to open the door. You have put into the game a "key to open door" that doesn't even work.

Can I still trick noobs into buying this key?

Or is this trick only to be played by CCP?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#899 - 2013-09-12 14:26:36 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Amazing, how rabid 'bears consider out of game responses to in-game actions. Yes, account actions are out of game, as in not using a gameplay mechanic to accomplish goals. It's almost like the line between fantasy and reality is blurred.

See CCP, it's already happening. You are going to get massive petition blizzard, as people attempt to metagame their enemies into bans. Since it's all "case by case", you can just keep re petitioning until you finally get a GM whose "case" agrees with your goal.

And we're the crazy ones for following the Saviour of Highsec...

Now all I need is someone to pass down the bee collective consciousness that I, personally, have been wronged by someone's tos violation and can now seek redress by means of petition.

For a fairly large set of someones, who all happen to be badguys that are red.

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#900 - 2013-09-12 14:27:56 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
3. Admitting a mistake, apologize and rolling back to the old TOS wording.

too late for that now. they told us repeatedly that "impersonation" is banned in other parts of the legal magic scrolls. the only reason most of us still have their accounts is that the people who are not smart enough to avoid scams are also not smart enough to file a petition.

Well, they should learn then. GM bannings are a very powerful retaliatory tool

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 ?