These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#1041 - 2013-09-12 23:56:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Orakkus wrote:
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:

I totally see everything that this change in the TOS is, and fully comprehend what has changed. I also have read all reactions of CSM/CCP employees (not just GM's), and i hold a mirror to you sir.


All the rest of your arguement is fine and your choice, as is your reliance on the arbitrary decisions of human beings. Just like you, I have read what CCP Devs, GMs, and the CSM have written, and coupled with the seven years I've played the game, watching the changes, good and bad. The developers and GMs who have come and gone. I well know that viewpoints are easily corruptable, even in those looking to do the right thing. I've seen how improperly worded rules impact innocent people, and how properly worded rules increase enjoyment.

So go ahead, keep that mirror up on me. Just make sure you turn it on yourself from time to time.



The issue is that these "infractions" will always be handled case by case, and as such by their very nature will be "arbitrary decisions" as you state. I do not believe any amount of precise wording in the TOS, EULA, naming Policy will change that fact.

I have seen people be corrupted, GM's and even dev's doing things they should not have. And the matters have always been resolved, maybe not in a way everyone agrees with. but that is CCP's perogative, it is their house and we play by their rules.

It even states in the policy that they might just change their mind at any time.

In the end, i don't see this massive shift in policy. And if by any happenstance i get banned for representing myself with my alt i will tip my hat to you good sir.


[edit for no double posting]

Varius Xeral wrote:
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
In all respect to the GM's, they don't make the policy, only execute it. and the 'discussion' between CCP and CSM does not stop at the GM gate. Your failure to understand this or inform yourself on these matters is telling.


The GM team said they were speaking directly to the CSM on the matter, and then they posted that their following post-consultation decision was the final word. There is no reason to expect that any other process is currently underway.


Again, the GM's can't do anything about the policy (wording or otherwise) only interpret it, and execute on it in the best of their ability. the fact that the GM's have said no more on this does absolutely not invalidate the CSM post about discussing it. The CSM have been in contact with CCP, not just the GM's but also the Devs (they just got back from the iceland meeting). And it is very likely they would discus it with the dev's in charge of these matters.

Communication on these things (meetings and connections) and how the CSM works has been very open. therefor i do not share your conclusion that this will be the last word ever on the subject. even with a statement made to that effect by a GM (again with all respect).
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#1042 - 2013-09-13 00:08:03 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
The issue is that these "infractions" will always be handled case by case, and as such by their very nature will be "arbitrary decisions" as you state. I do not believe any amount of precise wording in the TOS, EULA, naming Policy will change that fact.



So you'd be a-OK with a line in the TOS that says "Doing missions is against the rules" with an accompanying GM post that says "Only some parts of doing missions are against the rules and we'll handle violations on a case by case basis, but we won't give you any hints about what's allowed or not."
How would that affect your mission running activities? It's now technically against the rules, but at some point, without any warning, you might be breaking the part of that rule that's going to be enforced.


Scamming is legal in EVE.
Lying to people used to be legal in EVE.
The people who do these things do not automatically also want to break the rules of EVE. Not just because they might be punished, but because they don't like cheating at games.


This overly broad rule means that a whole host of activities that were legitimate gameplay celebrated by CCP are now against the rules. Whether CCP enforces those rules or not is irrelevant. Why should people engaging in (what should be*) legitimate gameplay be forced to break the rules of the game to do so?


*or else why wouldn't CCP enforce the rules banning it

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1043 - 2013-09-13 00:11:46 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
The CSM have been in contact with CCP, not just the GM's but also the Devs (they just got back from the iceland meeting). And it is very likely they would discus it with the dev's in charge of these matters.


You have no idea whether this is true or not, nor the nature of these discussions if they are taking place. All we know is that in their official capacities, the CSM was speaking directly with the GM team, who then said the decisions was final.

Stop talking out your ass.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

LTHenrich Lehmann
David Waylen Industries
#1044 - 2013-09-13 00:12:29 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.


This, listening, taking note, not just sitting out is what I was hoping for.

Now keep calm folks don't all rush at once. We cannot expect instant yes we can do yadda yadda in the next 5 minutes.

Ok so now you have your chance to show your real, not knee jerk concerns, don't waste the opportunity with whining and complaining.

Real uncluttered details would be of most use to get any progress if that becomes possible.

Good luck with making clear understanderble points that can be worked with Blink


Except the GM team's inability to understand the clear issues with this change was the problem in the first place. Frankly, the GM team's involvement at this point is utterly meaningless.


You know at the end of the day communication is a two way street, you say the GM team can't understand etc etc, well ok that may or may not be true I don't personally feel in a position to make that judgement, but if you and everyone else now knows we are being listened to in this thread and it's discussion, surely if you have some constructive points to make then now would be the best time to make them, then if anyone, Players, GMs, CSMs, CCP or maybe even you does not understand absolutely everything that has happened and what it is / was based upon that got us here to this point, then nothing is going to fix it (assumption made that it needs fixing) unless you / we / us bother to communicate. ShockedBlink

Just because previously communication and tryiing to work with CCP feels like it hasn't worked in the past that does not mean it won't this or at sometime and if a Senior GM is watching and we are all watching you can bet some devs will at some point be watching and yaknow.
Worth a try right? Cool
GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#1045 - 2013-09-13 00:13:44 UTC  |  Edited by: GM Karidor
Jon Matick wrote:


There is a VERY big difference between account sharing and saying to someone in game 'oh yeah, i'm totally person X's alt, how can i scam you today?'
though apparently not anymore under the new wording...

frankly this is another case of really bad PR where a simple clarification is all that is needed to sort it out.
basically, if i claim to be someone's alt in game, will I get banned?


Let me quote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general:

Quote:

...
No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity.
...


The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.

To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.

Your alts claiming to be alts of your main and doing nothing wrong otherwise would as such only get you in trouble in case of extreme schizophrenia and you reporting your own alt from your main, in which case I would likely just facepalm over here if I were to get that report.

Now, when there's malicios intent is involved, we're kind of back to the "self impersonation" thing that I wrote about earlier. I realize that this needs some more... clarification, so I'll grace that one with some more detail because of the confusion that specific bit has been causing (which, for that bit, is honestly completely my own fault):

Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money.
Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.

I am certain that everyone can agree that this is a primary and obvious case of impersonation, which has always resulted in B getting a rename, warning and his gains (if any) reversed as soon as he's been brought to our attention by player A or a victim. All well and good, right?

B will always get that treatment. Yes. Even if A is on the same account. And that is what I wanted to refer to when saying "yes, you actually can impersonate yourself". It's an edge case.

I am aware that this is not the only thing and that discussion will be ongoing about the rest of the points, both here as well as with the CSM, but I will slink back into the shadows and continue to watch this thread. Also, I would like to thank to keep it relatively civil despite the agitation this is obviously causing.

GM Karidor | Senior Game Master

Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#1046 - 2013-09-13 00:14:30 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
The CSM have been in contact with CCP, not just the GM's but also the Devs (they just got back from the iceland meeting). And it is very likely they would discus it with the dev's in charge of these matters.


You have no idea whether this is true or not, nor the nature of these discussions if they are taking place. All we know is that in their official capacities, the CSM was speaking directly with the GM team, who then said the decisions was final.

Stop talking out your ass.



Thanks for proving my point, you sir need an intelligence implant. i hear they are on sale in Jita. Good day.
Sam Alkawe
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1047 - 2013-09-13 00:18:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Sam Alkawe
GM: The issue here is that I think that people understand impersonating and lying about your affiliation to be completely different things (and some people seem to be okay with lying about being a recruiter for another corp/alliance, but why would you trust anybody outside said corp/alliance is beyond me). I believe that if I say that I'm a diplomat for RandomCorp300 I should not in the risk of being banned/warned, since it is rather trivial to verify whether I'm a diplomat or not (or should be, if said entity is doing their job right). But then again you can also interpret as me saying I'm RandomCorp300. I disagree on that. I'm just giving one example.

EDIT: Let alone the fact that you can check if you are X by sending them an evemail to confirm, or convo them. It isn't that hard to verify if somebody is who they say they are, or at least get more suspicious.
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1048 - 2013-09-13 00:20:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Miner Hottie
GM Karidor wrote:
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.

However, I think it's a good time to remind you of the locations of this policy, as well as the time they have been there in their current form:

1. EULA, for 1.5 years:
Quote:
B. Passwords and Names
...
You will be assigned a login name and a character name during the registration and character creation process. You may not allow anyone to use your login name or character name to access the System or play EVE. No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity. You may not obtain, attempt to obtain, use or attempt to use the login name or character name of anyone else.
...


2. ToS, changed very recently (the point which all this is about):
Quote:
...
8. You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
...


3. Naming Policy, having been changed some 3 months (see change announcement):
Quote:
...
2. IN-GAME NAMES
...
b. In-game names may not:
Impersonate or parody any employee or representative of EVE Online, CCP, Customer Support personnel or volunteers.
Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.
...
In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.

c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.




TOS are still as useless as **** (mammary glands) on a bull, feathers on a fish and the pope in a whore (den of iniquity) house (ok, given the history of some popes maybe that is not a good analogy). "Group of players" is an excessively broad term that is open to subjective interpretation and misunderstanding and your team has already shown that they cannot properly apply this rule with this goon rental thread as an example.

Fix the wording of the ToS or just admit you got it wrong. Do not try to turn Eve into a carebear paradise.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Jon Matick
WeebleCORP
#1049 - 2013-09-13 00:26:15 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Jon Matick wrote:


There is a VERY big difference between account sharing and saying to someone in game 'oh yeah, i'm totally person X's alt, how can i scam you today?'
though apparently not anymore under the new wording...

frankly this is another case of really bad PR where a simple clarification is all that is needed to sort it out.
basically, if i claim to be someone's alt in game, will I get banned?


Let me quote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general:

Quote:

...
No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity.
...


The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.

To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.

Your alts claiming to be alts of your main and doing nothing wrong otherwise would as such only get you in trouble in case of extreme schizophrenia and you reporting your own alt from your main, in which case I would likely just facepalm over here if I were to get that report.

Now, when there's malicios intent is involved, we're kind of back to the "self impersonation" thing that I wrote about earlier. I realize that this needs some more... clarification, so I'll grace that one with some more detail because of the confusion that specific bit has been causing (which, for that bit, is honestly completely my own fault):

Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money.
Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.

I am certain that everyone can agree that this is a primary and obvious case of impersonation, which has always resulted in B getting a rename, warning and his gains (if any) reversed as soon as he's been brought to our attention by player A or a victim. All well and good, right?

B will always get that treatment. Yes. Even if A is on the same account. And that is what I wanted to refer to when saying "yes, you actually can impersonate yourself". It's an edge case.

I am aware that this is not the only thing and that discussion will be ongoing about the rest of the points, both here as well as with the CSM, but I will slink back into the shadows and continue to watch this thread. Also, I would like to thank to keep it relatively civil despite the agitation this is obviously causing.

Thank you for a straight answer.
Personally I was not aware such a rule existed in eve and find it fairly unbelievable but i guess that's an issue for a different time...

My Blog:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Isis Dea
Vixxen Inc.
#1050 - 2013-09-13 00:29:08 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:


Actually the TOS update:

You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.



Quote:
2. IN-GAME NAMES

Note: This list is not all-inclusive. Other names may be deemed inappropriate at a GM’s discretion.

a. Valid player character names:
Must be at least 4 characters.
Cannot exceed 24 characters.
May contain the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and single quotation. (Corporation names may also include minus and dot characters.)
Space or single quotation characters are not allowed as the first or last character in a name.
Must be unique.

b. In-game names may not:
Impersonate or parody any employee or representative of EVE Online, CCP, Customer Support personnel or volunteers.
Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.
Reflect, glorify or emulate any real-world group or organization, terrorist society, criminal elements, discriminating organizations or their leaders and figureheads. This includes the use of names of real-world military, political or religious groups.
Be obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, offensive, hurtful, harmful, promote drugs, profane, anti-gay, and ethnically, racially or sexually offensive or impart any real-world hostility toward a specific nationality, race or religion.
In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.

So from my point of view this has always been the case and has only been given a more prominent place in the TOS.


You missed the main heading, which references that the rules written only pertain to in-game names. The new TOS isn't being limited to in-game names. What the change to the TOS does is extend those penalties to in-game actions as well, some of which are very popular, and is part of the dynamic of the success of Eve Online.

Suppose you want to spy on a mining fleet in high-sec using a NPC-corp alt. Because you are "falsely presenting yourself as a representative of an NPC Entity" while you are REALLY a representative of a ganking corp trying to gank that mining fleet, you can now be banned. Coincidentally, due to new rules about "rookie" players, if you shoot and destroy that NPC alt knowing (but not having proof) that he is spying on you, he can also petition you, and you could be punished as well.

Let's try another angle: Suppose you don't like Goons, if you try to get a spy into their corp and you are successful at getting recruited, at that point, because of the new TOS, you are "falsely presenting yourself" as a representative of that corp because in reality, you are a representative of an opposing corporation.

Let's talk about this angle too: Suppose you have a dirty, rotten CEO who denies you payment for minerals, services, etc. that you provided to the corp, and he agreed to pay you for. You wait and regain the trust of that CEO and he gives you access to the corp hanger. In revenge, you take everything and leave the corp. Guess what? Because you did that, the CEO now has proof that you were "falsely presenting yourself" as a member of his corp, and he could have you banned.

How about this angle: Suppose you and your buddy decide to direct sell some ships to some of your friends in corp without going through the market. Since you and your buddy are on at different times, you accidentally get the amount of ships you have for sale mixed up and accidentally oversell your stock. One of the buyers, who really wanted those ships, thinks you were being dishonest with him, and decides that you were really a spy trying to take advantage of him. He could have you banned because "you falsely presented yourself as a representative of an in-game entity."

Let's take this one step further: Suppose you and your buddies in your PC corporation are really into roleplay, and you decide to pretend to be an envoy for the Gallente President. And in your hubris you tell in local how you will fight for the great President of the such and such NPC corp. Yep, due to the wording listed in the TOS, someone who saw you acting that way in local could get you banned.

So, yeah.. things have changed alot.


+1

This.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...

Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1051 - 2013-09-13 00:35:39 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Jon Matick wrote:


There is a VERY big difference between account sharing and saying to someone in game 'oh yeah, i'm totally person X's alt, how can i scam you today?'
though apparently not anymore under the new wording...

frankly this is another case of really bad PR where a simple clarification is all that is needed to sort it out.
basically, if i claim to be someone's alt in game, will I get banned?


Let me quote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general:

Quote:

...
No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity.
...


The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.

To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.

Your alts claiming to be alts of your main and doing nothing wrong otherwise would as such only get you in trouble in case of extreme schizophrenia and you reporting your own alt from your main, in which case I would likely just facepalm over here if I were to get that report.

Now, when there's malicios intent is involved, we're kind of back to the "self impersonation" thing that I wrote about earlier. I realize that this needs some more... clarification, so I'll grace that one with some more detail because of the confusion that specific bit has been causing (which, for that bit, is honestly completely my own fault):

Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money.
Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.

I am certain that everyone can agree that this is a primary and obvious case of impersonation, which has always resulted in B getting a rename, warning and his gains (if any) reversed as soon as he's been brought to our attention by player A or a victim. All well and good, right?

B will always get that treatment. Yes. Even if A is on the same account. And that is what I wanted to refer to when saying "yes, you actually can impersonate yourself". It's an edge case.

I am aware that this is not the only thing and that discussion will be ongoing about the rest of the points, both here as well as with the CSM, but I will slink back into the shadows and continue to watch this thread. Also, I would like to thank to keep it relatively civil despite the agitation this is obviously causing.


So, if Olli's alt were named Humbaby, and he claimed to be Olli's alt to faciliate a scam, and actually was Olli's alt on the same account, you're saying that would be allowed? Because before we all thought that was fine, but your last post made that sound like it would be bannable, and now you've muddied the waters and I don't know anymore.

Also, will players who made similar names for their alts, not knowing that the impersonation policy applied to themselves, be eligible for free renames?
Vhaine Vhindiscar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1052 - 2013-09-13 00:35:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Vhaine Vhindiscar
Still no clarifications of the clarification? How about a re-write. Did anyone able to revise this leave for Riot?
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1053 - 2013-09-13 00:36:23 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Jon Matick wrote:


There is a VERY big difference between account sharing and saying to someone in game 'oh yeah, i'm totally person X's alt, how can i scam you today?'
though apparently not anymore under the new wording...

frankly this is another case of really bad PR where a simple clarification is all that is needed to sort it out.
basically, if i claim to be someone's alt in game, will I get banned?


Let me quote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general:

Quote:

...
No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity.
...


The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.

To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.

Your alts claiming to be alts of your main and doing nothing wrong otherwise would as such only get you in trouble in case of extreme schizophrenia and you reporting your own alt from your main, in which case I would likely just facepalm over here if I were to get that report.

Now, when there's malicios intent is involved, we're kind of back to the "self impersonation" thing that I wrote about earlier. I realize that this needs some more... clarification, so I'll grace that one with some more detail because of the confusion that specific bit has been causing (which, for that bit, is honestly completely my own fault):

Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money.
Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.

I am certain that everyone can agree that this is a primary and obvious case of impersonation, which has always resulted in B getting a rename, warning and his gains (if any) reversed as soon as he's been brought to our attention by player A or a victim. All well and good, right?

B will always get that treatment. Yes. Even if A is on the same account. And that is what I wanted to refer to when saying "yes, you actually can impersonate yourself". It's an edge case.

I am aware that this is not the only thing and that discussion will be ongoing about the rest of the points, both here as well as with the CSM, but I will slink back into the shadows and continue to watch this thread. Also, I would like to thank to keep it relatively civil despite the agitation this is obviously causing.




OK well that's something then, thank you for clearing that (and actually making it clear Blink).



Now all you need to do is all people to claim to represent other people/organizations and we actually will be back to where we (believed) we were a week ago.
Shade Millith
xHELLonEARTHx
Simple Farmers
#1054 - 2013-09-13 00:55:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
GM Karidor wrote:
The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.

To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.


Great, I'm actually more upset now.

Often, when solo PVPing, I change my ship name to display it as another person's ship to confuse people using D scan. So now I'm going against the TOS as well?


Also, I question that "it always has". Goons and others claiming to be Goons have been publicly making big heists of money from the foolish, and I've never heard a single thing from the GMs about this. No nothing.

I can bet that we're going to see a massive clamp down on these activities.


I'm going to say it again. This is just sad. This is just GM hand-holding to protect the foolish and gullible. Not what I signed up to EVE for.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#1055 - 2013-09-13 00:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
GM Karidor wrote:
Let me wuote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general:

Quote:

...
No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity.
...


The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.


If that's so, why the hell was that rules change (3 months ago) buried in the Naming Policy section (i.e. the Policy regarding Naming things)?

Oh, and no matter how much you try to convince us that we have always been at war with EASTASIA, it is a change. Using other people's names in chats being against the rules is new.

Quote:
To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.



Quote:
Your alts claiming to be alts of your main and doing nothing wrong otherwise would as such only get you in trouble in case of extreme schizophrenia and you reporting your own alt from your main, in which case I would likely just facepalm over here if I were to get that report.

Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money.
Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.


Nobody has any problem with the parts relating to naming characters/corps/alliances with names similar to other characters/corps/alliances. Scams based on bad typeface and pixely screens are bad.


Some of the issues that I see are as follows (mind you, I'm going by the publicly available information, since that's all the players have to work with, and thus must follow if they don't want to cheat*):

The true statement "Pipa Porto is my alt" is now against the rules. That you're promising not to enforce that part of the rule is dandy, but doesn't change the fact that it's a ludicrous rule, and regardless of enforcement policy those who wish not to cheat will be obliged to follow it.

Using the statement (true or false) "BobBoberino is my alt" in the course of a scam is against the rules. Why in the world would this spectacularly easy to verify statement be against the rules?
Why was the the rules change instituting the ban on lying about who you are buried in the Policy on Naming?
Your claim earlier that there aren't in game methods to determine the affiliation between two characters is, frankly, bizarre, as the "Send Message" feature accomplishes the determination easily.

Using the statement (true or false) "I am a member of the CFC" is now against the rules. As the group of players known as "the CFC" has no in-game member list, and per your example of claiming to be your own alt being against the rules because it "cannot" be verified, all claims of Coalition or other non-Alliance/Corp group membership are against the rules.



*Unless you're telling us that we shouldn't follow EVE's EULA, TOS, and Policies?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#1056 - 2013-09-13 00:56:15 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:


So, if Olli's alt were named Humbaby, and he claimed to be Olli's alt to faciliate a scam, and actually was Olli's alt on the same account, you're saying that would be allowed? Because before we all thought that was fine, but your last post made that sound like it would be bannable, and now you've muddied the waters and I don't know anymore.


The example I gave is clear enough to cover that, the short answer is "No, not allowed". If you were under the impression that this was permitted, you were going off on incorrect assumptions.

Nathalie LaPorte wrote:

Also, will players who made similar names for their alts, not knowing that the impersonation policy applied to themselves, be eligible for free renames?


No, just having the name without reports of malicious activity will do nothing. As for reporting yourself (the only thing you could do in that case without malicious activity of the accounts), I think I covered that well enough, too.

GM Karidor | Senior Game Master

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1057 - 2013-09-13 01:01:45 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money.
Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.

I am certain that everyone can agree that this is a primary and obvious case of impersonation, which has always resulted in B getting a rename, warning and his gains (if any) reversed as soon as he's been brought to our attention by player A or a victim. All well and good, right?

B will always get that treatment. Yes. Even if A is on the same account. And that is what I wanted to refer to when saying "yes, you actually can impersonate yourself". It's an edge case.


Help me understand this then:

I, Abdiel Kavash, run a legit 3rd party business. Over the years I gain the trust of hundreds and a multibillion empire.

CASE 1: A new character, Joe McScammer, completely unaffiliated with me, decides to make some extra money. Joe McScammer convoes a customer of AbdielCorp and claims to be an alt of Abdiel Kavash. The poor mark falls for it and gives Joe McScammer ISK thinking he's sending it to Abdiel Kavash.

In this case, Joe McScammer is guilty of "[using] the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity", and if petitioned by the unsatisfied customer is prone to getting banned.


CASE 2: I decide that I want to make some extra money off my past customers, without necessarily having to provide any extra services. I create a new character, Phill McScammer, on my account. I then go talk to a past customer of AbdielCorp and I claim that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash. Customer falls for it, sends me their money and never sees it again.

Since different characters are treated as separate entities, is this judged the same as case 1? Is Phill McScammer prone to getting banned for impersonating Abdiel Kavash? I.e. can I get banned for claiming that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash?

Can I be banned for telling the truth?
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1058 - 2013-09-13 01:06:44 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Jon Matick wrote:


There is a VERY big difference between account sharing and saying to someone in game 'oh yeah, i'm totally person X's alt, how can i scam you today?'
though apparently not anymore under the new wording...

frankly this is another case of really bad PR where a simple clarification is all that is needed to sort it out.
basically, if i claim to be someone's alt in game, will I get banned?


Let me quote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general:

Quote:

...
No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity.
...


The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.

To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.

Your alts claiming to be alts of your main and doing nothing wrong otherwise would as such only get you in trouble in case of extreme schizophrenia and you reporting your own alt from your main, in which case I would likely just facepalm over here if I were to get that report.

Now, when there's malicios intent is involved, we're kind of back to the "self impersonation" thing that I wrote about earlier. I realize that this needs some more... clarification, so I'll grace that one with some more detail because of the confusion that specific bit has been causing (which, for that bit, is honestly completely my own fault):

Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money.
Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.

I am certain that everyone can agree that this is a primary and obvious case of impersonation, which has always resulted in B getting a rename, warning and his gains (if any) reversed as soon as he's been brought to our attention by player A or a victim. All well and good, right?

B will always get that treatment. Yes. Even if A is on the same account. And that is what I wanted to refer to when saying "yes, you actually can impersonate yourself". It's an edge case.

I am aware that this is not the only thing and that discussion will be ongoing about the rest of the points, both here as well as with the CSM, but I will slink back into the shadows and continue to watch this thread. Also, I would like to thank to keep it relatively civil despite the agitation this is obviously causing.


I literally reported myself for impersonating a member of Goonswarm Federation in this very thread by claiming I was in it and I am still not banned. Either you are not enforcing this rule or the people in charge of enforcing this rule recognize that it's absolutely absurd because all anyone has ever had to do was ask the person who was being named if it was legitimate.

I can claim to be whoever I want to be in-game. It has always been legal in this game. You are saying otherwise, and I assure you that you are entirely wrong whether or not you think you are. No one in here is disputing that impersonating CCP employees or official staff is wrong and a bannable offense, nor is anyone disputing that creating a character with a name that is similar to someone else's and claiming to be them is wrong and a bannable offense. It's the whole "I cannot lie or misrepresent who I am in every other situation" rule that has magically cropped up overnight that you're attempting to shoehorn in as "it's always been this way" that everyone--the players, the press, probably some people working at CCP--thinks is utterly nonsensical.


And you know what else? If you're banning people for impersonating other characters on the same account you'd need to ban them for account sharing because they aren't, according to your logic, the same person.

Yeah. Mmhmm. That's how dumb this is.

Also, I'm Mara Tessidar, a pilot in Goonswarm Federation. Don't believe me? Tough cookies, that's your problem, especially if you give me ISK or items based on that information. But it's certainly not a bannable offense if that is a lie, or at least it wasn't. You're trying to say it is now, and you are wrong.

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

Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#1059 - 2013-09-13 01:08:55 UTC
Fix Lag wrote:
a bunch of really good points


BUT HOW WILL ANYONE EVER VERIFY ANYONE'S IDENTITY

CLEARLY LYING ABOUT WHO YOU ARE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IN THIS GAME AT ALL TIMES
greiton starfire
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1060 - 2013-09-13 01:09:17 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Jon Matick wrote:


There is a VERY big difference between account sharing and saying to someone in game 'oh yeah, i'm totally person X's alt, how can i scam you today?'
though apparently not anymore under the new wording...

frankly this is another case of really bad PR where a simple clarification is all that is needed to sort it out.
basically, if i claim to be someone's alt in game, will I get banned?


Let me quote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general:

Quote:

...
No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity.
...


The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.

To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.

Your alts claiming to be alts of your main and doing nothing wrong otherwise would as such only get you in trouble in case of extreme schizophrenia and you reporting your own alt from your main, in which case I would likely just facepalm over here if I were to get that report.

Now, when there's malicios intent is involved, we're kind of back to the "self impersonation" thing that I wrote about earlier. I realize that this needs some more... clarification, so I'll grace that one with some more detail because of the confusion that specific bit has been causing (which, for that bit, is honestly completely my own fault):

Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money.
Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.

I am certain that everyone can agree that this is a primary and obvious case of impersonation, which has always resulted in B getting a rename, warning and his gains (if any) reversed as soon as he's been brought to our attention by player A or a victim. All well and good, right?

B will always get that treatment. Yes. Even if A is on the same account. And that is what I wanted to refer to when saying "yes, you actually can impersonate yourself". It's an edge case.

I am aware that this is not the only thing and that discussion will be ongoing about the rest of the points, both here as well as with the CSM, but I will slink back into the shadows and continue to watch this thread. Also, I would like to thank to keep it relatively civil despite the agitation this is obviously causing.


much better written than your first attempt thank you. under these new rules are the only ones allowed to do recruitment scams members of said alliance? are coalitions covered by the groups of players clause?

since rental programs are run by alts of players in the owner alliance, would a vengeful person who is denied or kicked out have a case against the people running the alliance, since at some point they most likely will speak on behalf of their other characters? This concerns me the most as it will be the closest to malicious scamming. It will be nearly impossible to ascertain original intent and since they will be using the good name of their recruiting mains they have opened themselves up to all kinds of liability in cases like this. If they are not in danger please use the same clear and coordinated dialogue to let us know just how such cases would be separated and clarified.