These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#1101 - 2013-09-13 02:54:21 UTC
Are any of the 32 Saumel Jacksons, 38 Justin Biebers, 45 Lady Gagas, and the 76 Madonnas violating the new ToS?

One of them has to be doing something wrong.

YK
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1102 - 2013-09-13 02:55:29 UTC
What about all the people with NPC names in their corp or character names? Obviously they need to be banned.

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

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1103 - 2013-09-13 02:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
GM Karidor wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Your character Phill McScammer impersonated Abdiel Kavash, the same way as Joe McScammer did, thus gets it from us the same way if reported. From our point of view, as well as from a victims, there is no technical difference between those two cases of a character impersonating another.


Except that Phill never claimed to be anything he wasn't. Phill didn't claim to be the character Abdiel Kavash, he claimed to be an alt of Abdiel Kavash - which he was. At no point Phill told a lie. Does "impersonation" cover "truthfully stating the nature of a character"?

Thanks for the communication, I never actually expected a GM reply.


Both characters Phil and Joe used the name Abdiel Kavash to give of the impression they were somehow related to him. The cases are effectively identical.

Yes, with Phil the actual statement of him being an alt is true, but the actual act of the character using the name of Abdiel Kavash does not differ in any capacity at all.


I thought about this a little harder.

Let's say that I simply state "I am a recruiter for Paladin Order".

I use the name of an EVE corporation Paladin Order to give off the impression that I am somehow related to Paladin Order. Are you saying that whether or not the actual statement of me being a recruiter is true, the actual act of me using the name of Paladin Order does not differ from the previous examples?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1104 - 2013-09-13 03:00:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Fix Lag wrote:
What about all the people with NPC names in their corp or character names? Obviously they need to be banned.


Only if they do something "malicious", which in a a game about lawless immortal space warriors means "telling a fib", of course subject to the whims of the GM escalation lottery and the astrological position of Saturn.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1105 - 2013-09-13 03:01:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
If we're in the middle of some internal CCP turf war right now, can somebody tell us?

I cannot fathom what is going on at CCP right now that results in this current state of affairs. Where is the CSM? Where are the CCP community reps? Where is someone who can even acknowledge that they understand the issues that have caused such concern within the community?

At this point the changes are a distant second in my mind compared to what seems to be a complete institutional failure within a company with regards to its internal processes. This whole situation is incomprehensible.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Aneda Gudrun
Falcon Heavy Industries
#1106 - 2013-09-13 03:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Aneda Gudrun
Remember when spys were reporting naughty links in fleet chat to get people banned? That was funny, sort of.


Now when a spy asks in corp chat "who's your alt" and gets a bunch of friendly replies, they take that to the petition bank and use this new flavor of TOS interpretation to go on a banning spree.

It's clear that scamming is not the pivotal variable in this, but impersonation of any kind, even legit, honest admission that two characters are both operated by the same human being.

You guys see how this is a bad idea, yes? Eve is full of litigious OCD ass-hats that will ruin your good intentions. Ruin them like a prom dress.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#1107 - 2013-09-13 03:04:34 UTC
If I was a player with multiple accounts, how am I supposed to say that another character is an alt of mine without breaking the EULA through impersonation or communicating with third party software?
Alavaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1108 - 2013-09-13 03:06:11 UTC
Aneda Gudrun wrote:
Remember when spys were reporting naughty links in fleet chat to get people banned? That was funny, sort of.


Now when a spy asks in corp chat "who's your alt" and gets a bunch of friendly replies, they take that to the petition bank and use this new flavor of TOS interpretation to go on a banning spree.

It's clear that scamming is not the pivotal variable in this, but impersonation of any kind, even legit, honest admission that two characters are both operated by the same human being.

You guys see how this is a bad idea, yes? Eve is full of litigious OCD ass-hats that will ruin your good intentions. Ruin them like a prom dress.

Just like a dress?

Oh by the way, my main is out of sub, but I can't tell you which character that is...

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Le Creed
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1109 - 2013-09-13 03:06:16 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
If I was a player with multiple accounts, how am I supposed to say that another character is an alt of mine without breaking the EULA through impersonation or communicating with third party software?

From the looks of it, you don't.

Hope that helps.
greiton starfire
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1110 - 2013-09-13 03:07:55 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
If I was a player with multiple accounts, how am I supposed to say that another character is an alt of mine without breaking the EULA through impersonation or communicating with third party software?


Yes this exactly!!!!
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#1111 - 2013-09-13 03:08:12 UTC
Welp,
Alavaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1112 - 2013-09-13 03:08:49 UTC
Le Creed wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
If I was a player with multiple accounts, how am I supposed to say that another character is an alt of mine without breaking the EULA through impersonation or communicating with third party software?

From the looks of it, you don't.

Hope that helps.

Pretty much what I was thinking.

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#1113 - 2013-09-13 03:10:43 UTC
Alavaria wrote:
Le Creed wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
If I was a player with multiple accounts, how am I supposed to say that another character is an alt of mine without breaking the EULA through impersonation or communicating with third party software?

From the looks of it, you don't.

Hope that helps.

Pretty much what I was thinking.



I wonder how much their subscriber count is going to drop when people let their alts lapse... and how much every kind of production, mining and leadership that requires alts will get ****** over?
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1114 - 2013-09-13 03:11:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
GM Karidor wrote:


Why would you even bother with the alt in that situation? You can just do whatever you need to do with Abdiel Kavash then. The character Phil technically still impersonates Abdiel.


The reason people are focusing on this edge case is that it is (the most obvious place) where your policy fails, logically speaking.

If you say that when someone 'impersonates' his own alt, it still is enforced because alts aren't considered to be 'real' ingame, then when someone says that some other pilot is his alt, it shouldn't be impersonation at all, because 'alt' has no meaning,as we just heard from your own mouth. (of course this circles back and invalidates the first case of impersonation as well) Trying to say that 'alt' constitutes impersonation despite not having ingame meaning is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm aware that you can cite selections from the EULA, the TOS, and the naming policy for each situation, picking the correct document to achieve your desired result; but having your cake in the EULA and eating it in the TOS, while giving it to your friend in the naming policy, doesn't make this flawed logic acceptable, it just makes it multitudinous.

Then you compound this situation by saying that it's ok, you'll only enforce it when someone is employing 'malicious trickery'. So now the situation is that you're using formally flawed logic, but only when it suits you, to accomplish the real goal of having an unwritten rule against malicious trickery. This isn't any kind of EVE that I recognize.

I'm not one of the people who thinks CCP owes me to skew EVE towards the kind of game that I want to play. I just am asking for clarity. If you're going to make rules against malicious trickery, just make rules against it. Don't make a bunch of contradictory, confusing rules and only enforce them against malicious tricksters, hoping that unwritten rules will create less pushback. It's not true, it won't create less pushback, and it's disrespectful--and that's the message you've given in this thread so far.
Alavaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1115 - 2013-09-13 03:13:44 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Then you compound this situation by saying that it's ok, you'll only enforce it when someone is employing 'malicious trickery'. So now the situation is that you're using formally flawed logic, but only when it suits you, to accomplish the real goal of having an unwritten rule against malicious trickery. This isn't any kind of EVE that I recognize.

If you're going to make rules against malicious trickery, just make rules against it. Don't make a bunch of contradictory, confusing rules and only enforce them against malicious tricksters, hoping that unwritten rules will create less pushback. It's not true, it won't create less pushback, and it's disrespectful--and that's the message you've given in this thread so far.

Disrespectful of scammers

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Aneda Gudrun
Falcon Heavy Industries
#1116 - 2013-09-13 03:14:59 UTC
Alavaria wrote:
Oh by the way, my main is out of sub, but I can't tell you which character that is...


Please don't. Our mains might or might not be apart of the same entity and I'd hate for either to get banned for discussing such matters in a CCP hosted platform.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1117 - 2013-09-13 03:16:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
I'm not one of the people who thinks CCP owes me to skew EVE towards the kind of game that I want to play. I just am asking for clarity. If you're going to make rules against malicious trickery, just make rules against it. Don't make a bunch of contradictory, confusing rules and only enforce them against malicious tricksters, hoping that unwritten rules will create less pushback. It's not true, it won't create less pushback, and it's disrespectful--and that's the message you've given in this thread so far.


Absolutely. Clarity and consistency is all we can ask for. Beyond that, it's CCP's game to ruin if they want; just ruin it on purpose instead of by accident because you can't understand the implications of your own changes.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

greiton starfire
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1118 - 2013-09-13 03:18:39 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:

I'm not one of the people who thinks CCP owes me to skew EVE towards the kind of game that I want to play. I just am asking for clarity. If you're going to make rules against malicious trickery, just make rules against it. Don't make a bunch of contradictory, confusing rules and only enforce them against malicious tricksters, hoping that unwritten rules will create less pushback. It's not true, it won't create less pushback, and it's disrespectful--and that's the message you've given in this thread so far.


Seriously, if you don't want scamming and deceit make rules against it and lose the subs already. don't shoehorn policy in saying its to protect person A, when all you really want to do is punish person B.
motgus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1119 - 2013-09-13 03:21:08 UTC

I don't understand why CCP is still defending this policy. It's terrible any everyone knows it. Is this World of Warcraft now? Will there be policies against defamation and jaywalking next?

I don't understand why the bleeding heart GMs have taken over everything. Suckers are suckers. Impersonating someone (outside of CCP) isn't some magical trick that makes people lose their free will. If scamers can't impersonate people they will find another idea and suckers will continue to shell out their money for idiotic scams.
Aneda Gudrun
Falcon Heavy Industries
#1120 - 2013-09-13 03:36:38 UTC
Just to play devil's advocate here: What if only the impersonated party could file petition.


Dude-Bro gets scammed and goes to the GMs: "Scammer McGee, representing Honest-Joes-Super-Swap hurt my isks!"
GMs say: Only the impersonated party may file petitions in this use-case.

Then it's up to the entity of Honest Joe to either file that petition or not.

This does still hurt people that are actually lying about who they are representing... Makes me wonder if Guiding Hand Social club style activities could happen in this new order. Given the level of alt play and deception required.