EVE General Discussion

Where does it prohibit that? This thread is about TOS item 8, which doesn't include the language "in-game entity", but only "NPC entity". A raven is certainly not an "NPC entity".

The quote you linked prohibits nothing, but merely defines what an 'ingame name' is. Try again.

So is a contract, so further claiming the item to be something it is not in the contract name is a second violation.

It's part of the "clarification" by GM Karidor as posted on page 12 of this thread, while it is part of the naming policy and not Article 8, the fact that a GM used it in their "clarification" and that it refers to impersonation, as covered by Article 8, makes it relevant.

I'll quote it in full, just for you, because you obviously couldn't be bothered to actually read what was linked in the quote.


Bold emphasis is mine, otherwise the quote is as presented by GM Karidor

I'll repeat myself in full, just for you, because you obviously couldn't be bothered to read what I said. Nothing in there prohibits naming a ship after a different ship.

I disagree with both Tyberius Franklin and Nathalie LaPorte, but I'm not arguing the toss, because the wording is so ambiguous that it's open to wildly differing interpretations of what it actually means, which is kind of the point.

Like I said, I'm not arguing about it. Right or wrong, that was my interpretation.

edit for clarities sake - I also stated "broadly interpreted" and that it was a part of the naming policy covering impersonation, as referred to by Article 8

The passage quoted relevant to this doesn't seem ambiguous to me. Realistically this demonstrates that the idea of a completely clear EULA and TOS is impossible with more than a few, similarly minded individuals reading it.

That aside, the reason I'm here is that the most recent additions, of which the quoted is not a part, is 1) Not to be interpreted as written, 2) Represents an unacknowledged effective change in policy as the rules were unclear and thus largely unpetitioned and consequentially unenforced 3) Uses poorly defined terms, and as a result 4) makes the new rules unclear without intentionally breaking them to find the bounds.

That's a different reasoning than stated by Jonah Gravenstein but doesn't fall as an absolute truth either as naming my Raven as a RNI doesn't preclude that I don't own an RNI, and thus, while deceiving you about the nature of that particular ship, doesn't mean I am not a navy raven owner.

But renaming a Vindicator 'Serpentis Admiral', in order to befuddle the weak minded or gain just a split seconds advantage due to confusion would be clearly covered by the new wording. The problem is the new wording severely limits deception and deceptive practices when used to gain an advantage, in other words everything great about eve.

Almost everything from the forum brags to the carefully constructed interceptor guides contain elements of deceit designed to sway or trick those unwilling to think for themselves, and now they are to be partly shielded from the consequences retroactively by virtue of petitions, no more fail, try again, fail better. No, now it will be fail, petition, ban the naughty space person that hurt you, get stuff back.