These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Terms of Service CSM Feedback Thread

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Madlof Chev
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#181 - 2013-09-14 15:31:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Madlof Chev
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
Madlof Chev wrote:


The key point about this thread is that CCP are going to draw from it for ideas, so if you're spraying awful ideas out of your arse at 300mph you'd better be careful because some of them might stick.

The boiling frog analogy is fine if you're not also saying from the other side of your mouth "god you know what let's just skip boiling the frog and serve it for dinner while its legs are still twitching from the taser we used to fry it alive"

what you're essentially advocating is skipping the ~slow process~ of changing the game and going right to stabbing it through the heart with a ****-encrusted dagger


Yeah, basically that's what I want to provoke - goons and pandemic legion should have some xp with that, no (especially the dagger part)?!

I think that the boiling frog approach is more dangerous exactly because we all will spend our energy at different points of the debate and slowly move on to other games, instead of one violent reaction that they will feel in revenue too and might actually make them take back the changes.


So your position is "I want to ruin the game so we can have a fight over it" instead of, god, I don't know, trying to save the game by nipping this in the bud in the first place?

Sorry that I didn't jump on the delusion express to cloud cuckoo land this morning but I'd rather this game didn't suck down an entire concrete mixer full of **** before getting better.
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#182 - 2013-09-14 15:42:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
Madlof Chev wrote:


Sorry that I didn't jump on the delusion express to cloud cuckoo land this morning but I'd rather this game didn't suck down an entire concrete mixer full of **** before getting better.


When has your approach ever worked out in EVE. Ever. Just saying. Better 2 weeks of bloody noses and then back to blowing up spaceships. And now back to ideas - pm me if u want to slug it out.



And to clarify why all those changes invite such violent reactions (if CCP really reads this and thinks about it):

EVE takes up a lot of time. It caters to a playerbase that has to work and has not soo much freetime at hand. Those that still play do have enough money for subscriptions but not so much time as they had during university or edu. So a hobby really has to be something they like to do, something that is fun and they enjoy and relaxes them. For most of the eve-players this is the unforgiving playstyle of the EVEverse. If you mess with that you also mess with the fun-factor, the relaxation and the enjoyment they get out of it. And this is why I want to make them incorporate both playstyles... for all I care space-farm-players can have their super-safe-high sec space. As long as a lawless space also exists.
Madlof Chev
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#183 - 2013-09-14 15:52:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Madlof Chev
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
Madlof Chev wrote:


Sorry that I didn't jump on the delusion express to cloud cuckoo land this morning but I'd rather this game didn't suck down an entire concrete mixer full of **** before getting better.


When has your approach ever worked out in EVE. Ever. Just saying. Better 2 weeks of bloody noses and then back to blowing up spaceships. And now back to ideas - pm me if u want to slug it out.



And to clarify why all those changes invite such violent reactions (if CCP really reads this and thinks about it):

EVE takes up a lot of time. It caters to a playerbase that has to work and has not soo much freetime at hand. Those that still play do have enough money for subscriptions but not so much time as they had during university or edu. So a hobby really has to be something they like to do, something that is fun and they enjoy and relaxes them. For most of the eve-players this is the unforgiving playstyle of the EVEverse. If you mess with that you also mess with the fun-factor, the relaxation and the enjoyment they get out of it. And this is why I want to make them incorporate both playstyles... for all I care space-farm-players can have their super-safe-high sec space. As long as a lawless space also exists.


You appear to be on the ball like a dead seal so let me explain to you:

My hope is that we don't ever get to a position where CCP pushes an Incarna-esque **** out onto this game ever again.

What you're saying is to let them go ahead and do that so we can have another riot and sit there with a useless game for 6-12 months while CCP collectively take a dump in their pants at all the unsubs and try to fix it as quick as they can.

Guess which option hurts the game more?


On a separate note, non-consensual PVP is pretty much a cornerstone of what makes EVE EVE and letting people sit in a walled, WoW level themepark garden literally kills the underpinnings of this game. everyone effects (and can effect) everyone else, in positive or negative ways. Take that away and you might as well just kill the game where it stands and replace it with Hello Kitty Online.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2013-09-14 15:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
Dirk Action wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
If we're going along the 'official capacity' thing, I think it's OK to say "sure we can use The Mittani as a third party, he's leadership of the biggest coalition in the game"

But if you don't want people misrepresenting CSM in an official capacity, then saying "sure we can use The Mittani, he's part of the CSM so he's trustworthy" is not OK

You're suggesting that
a) the CSM can't lie in game (misrepresenting the CCP volunteer organisation) and
b) Mittani had specifically agreed as a CSM to the trade beforehand (misrepresenting a CSM, a CCP volunteer)

If the scammer had said that The Mittani had agreed to third-party a trade without mentioning Mittani was CSM, the scammer is misrepresenting 'The Mittani, EVE Player' not 'The Mittani, Chairman' which I think is perfectly fine in EVE


this is dumb, because it takes the choice The Mittani has in what he wants to do (does he want to scam them? does he want to be a legitimate third party?) away and puts it in the hands of the scammer, who may not even know what the rules are.

If he inadvertently mentions that The Mittani is on the CSM, well shіt now if Mittens does anything BUT follow through on the legitimate third party option he would be punished. That isn't ok.

This seems the fault of the scammer, not the CSM member. I don't know the rules about CSM members themselves choosing to lie about the role of the CSM ingame. But if the CSM member was not instructing the scammer or did not also say they couldn't lie because they were on the CSM, they are not at fault regardless of the rule. In any case, if the CSM lie was made, I think the money and goods would be returned by a GM to the original owners and they'll have to find a different third party.

You say the whole lot was in the hands of the scammer, but that's going to be the case because I was talking about the situations of misrepresenting a player vs. misrepresenting a CSM. Both of which are done without authorisation from the character concerned.

If the scammer was running the scam without asking Mittani first, and did not say the CSM lie, it's a legit scam despite misrepresentation of Mittani.
If the scammer was running the scam without asking Mittani first, and did say the CSM lie, it's misrepresentation of CSM and an exploit. The Mittani is obviously innocent (even if he had accepted the money) unless he also says the CSM lie. The scammer is at fault and the money returned.

(e: or rather, the examples are legit scam/exploit in my opinion)

I think the only cases where The Mittani would have been at fault would be if The Mittani told the scammer the CSM lie, The Mittani instructed the scammer to use the CSM lie or if The Mittani repeated the CSM lie. As I said, though, that would turn into a case of The Mittani misrepresenting (?) the CSM which would be a different set of rules or punishments (I don't even know if it's against the rules) that aren't really related to the discussion
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#185 - 2013-09-14 15:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
@Madlof Chev: It is already done. And imo it reflects a policy decision for the next years [to open up eve to new and more casual playersegments - Just my opinion, we just don't have any official info]. The question is, if we will be playing [the same unforgiving] eve in 2 years or not, not if our little posts can prevent something that IS ALREADY IN FORCE [like changes in ToS]. Please pm me if u really want to continue this and don't spam the thread !!!] [edited to make it easier to understand for the above mentioned player]

This is also why I advocate an extension of the EVEverse with regions that even more than the high-low-0 division reflect these policy decisions without killing one of the existing playstyles [as this change of the ToS without further clarification clearly does - because when there is no clear info on what is allowed and there are vague terms used that might or might not apply one might be reluctant to do this].
Madlof Chev
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#186 - 2013-09-14 16:00:04 UTC
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
@Madlof Chev: It is already done. And imo it reflects a policy decision for the next years. The question is only if we will be playing eve in 2 years or not, not if our little posts can prevent something that IS ALREADY IN FORCE.

This is also why I advocate an extension of the EVEverse with regions that even more than the high-low-0 division reflect these policy decisions without killing one of the existing playstyles.


okay i didn't realise i was talking to a conspiracy nutter so i'm done with responding to you
zen zubon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2013-09-14 16:05:37 UTC
Goon's leadership starts a renter program. People don't believe them because of recruitment scams. Goon's leadership want people to trust them so they want their members to stop recruitment scams. So CCP dose what they want overnight changing the EULA so it stops... yeah I'm done with this game...
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#188 - 2013-09-14 16:11:30 UTC
zen zubon wrote:
Goon's leadership starts a renter program. People don't believe them because of recruitment scams. Goon's leadership want people to trust them so they want their members to stop recruitment scams. So CCP dose what they want overnight changing the EULA so it stops... yeah I'm done with this game...

i see
Madlof Chev
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#189 - 2013-09-14 16:13:28 UTC
zen zubon wrote:
Goon's leadership starts a renter program. People don't believe them because of recruitment scams. Goon's leadership want people to trust them so they want their members to stop recruitment scams. So CCP dose what they want overnight changing the EULA so it stops... yeah I'm done with this game...


god it's like page 10 is the rise of the nutters or something
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#190 - 2013-09-14 16:18:57 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
If the scammer was running the scam without asking Mittani first, and did not say the CSM lie, it's a legit scam despite misrepresentation of Mittani.
If the scammer was running the scam without asking Mittani first, and did say the CSM lie, it's misrepresentation of CSM and an exploit. The Mittani is obviously innocent (even if he had accepted the money) unless he also says the CSM lie. The scammer is at fault and the money returned.

(e: or rather, the examples are legit scam/exploit in my opinion)

I think the only cases where The Mittani would have been at fault would be if The Mittani told the scammer the CSM lie, The Mittani instructed the scammer to use the CSM lie or if The Mittani repeated the CSM lie. As I said, though, that would turn into a case of The Mittani misrepresenting (?) the CSM which would be a different set of rules or punishments (I don't even know if it's against the rules) that aren't really related to the discussion


I still vehemently disagree with putting the CSM - who have no real power and just the ear of CCP - up on an elevated pedestal from the rest of us in the game, that, if by doing so, takes away from legitimate gameplay that would be available to them otherwise.

The CSM are paying players first and CCP voices of reason second, why should they not be allowed to do what every other player in the game can? And on the flipside, why shouldn't anyone else be able to lie about being a member of CSMX, *when the election results are easily verifiable by official posts by CCP which you would find with a quick Google search*?

What this boils down to is, again, an attempt to protect the stupid from their own stupidity. That is against the nature of EVE, and as such it cannot be an aspect of the Terms of Service.
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#191 - 2013-09-14 16:20:58 UTC
zen zubon wrote:
Goon's leadership starts a renter program. People don't believe them because of recruitment scams. Goon's leadership want people to trust them so they want their members to stop recruitment scams. So CCP dose what they want overnight changing the EULA so it stops... yeah I'm done with this game...


lol
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2013-09-14 16:24:05 UTC
Firstly: Mynna was on the money with his post, a few tweaks and it is fair and balanced update to the ToS. The questions that must flow from this pants on head soaked in petrol and set on fire ******** clusterfornicate was how did a unique gameplay element destroying change to the ToS make it into the live game so easily? Did the GM's not realise the horror of this? Were the Devs asleep at the wheel? The CSM sidelined? Did a clueless junior lawyer get hired to write this up or was it a recent hire trying to make their mark on the game? I do not play eve for the terrible PVE or the PVP. Like a great many others I play for the drama, the stories, the legends and the lore. This change can to easily be used to crush a huge part of this cold, harsh world which many of us enjoy because it is cold, harsh, uncaring, vicious, cut throat, mean, cruel and soul crushingly heartless. Recently I told friends elsewhere on a forum the story of eve. Many enjoyed the story, the drama, a few gave the game a try. Their interest was sparked by Eve and the unique, hard and cold sandbox. Kill this iteration of the sandbox at your peril.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Scotty-The Docking Manager
Prima Poussinus
#193 - 2013-09-14 16:25:07 UTC
Accept the fact that I'm alive CCP !

Scotty. At your service.
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#194 - 2013-09-14 16:29:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
Miner Hottie wrote:
Firstly: Mynna was on the money with his post, a few tweaks and it is fair and balanced update to the ToS. The questions that must flow from this pants on head soaked in petrol and set on fire ******** clusterfornicate was how did a unique gameplay element destroying change to the ToS make it into the live game so easily? Did the GM's not realise the horror of this? Were the Devs asleep at the wheel? The CSM sidelined? Did a clueless junior lawyer get hired to write this up or was it a recent hire trying to make their mark on the game? I do not play eve for the terrible PVE or the PVP. Like a great many others I play for the drama, the stories, the legends and the lore. This change can to easily be used to crush a huge part of this cold, harsh world which many of us enjoy because it is cold, harsh, uncaring, vicious, cut throat, mean, cruel and soul crushingly heartless. Recently I told friends elsewhere on a forum the story of eve. Many enjoyed the story, the drama, a few gave the game a try. Their interest was sparked by Eve and the unique, hard and cold sandbox. Kill this iteration of the sandbox at your peril.


lol. the drama is all in this thread. But to sum it up, I think the Tos will not go away. And we just don't know what was the reason until we get definitive information which we lack - so we can speculate and you got all the drama u ever wanted.

And with a few changes they would be an understandable addition noone would protest against - it just nees clarification on the player vs player interactions (are scams etc still allowed, which use-cases are definitely allowed, which are def. prohibited).
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#195 - 2013-09-14 16:33:15 UTC
Dirk Action wrote:
I still vehemently disagree with putting the CSM - who have no real power and just the ear of CCP - up on an elevated pedestal from the rest of us in the game, that, if by doing so, takes away from legitimate gameplay that would be available to them otherwise.

The CSM are paying players first and CCP voices of reason second, why should they not be allowed to do what every other player in the game can? And on the flipside, why shouldn't anyone else be able to lie about being a member of CSMX, *when the election results are easily verifiable by official posts by CCP which you would find with a quick Google search*?

What this boils down to is, again, an attempt to protect the stupid from their own stupidity. That is against the nature of EVE, and as such it cannot be an aspect of the Terms of Service.

I don't want to take away from gameplay either. I think it's fine for a character on the CSM to scam or for players to misrepresent a character on the CSM as long as their position on the CSM isn't part of the scam or misrepresentation.

The only reason for someone to lie about being on the CSM (whatever the CSM does) is to lie about being sanctioned by CCP. That should not be tolerated, ever.
Tu Ko
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#196 - 2013-09-14 16:40:10 UTC
Madlof Chev wrote:


The font is terrible? The old font was even worse. You're going to encounter capital I / lowercase l problems with pretty much any font unless you jump in a time machine to 2003 and adopt some kind of serif abomination for your futuristic space game.


I remember and I agree. It still doesn't need a clause in the TOS to be defeated, merely diligence.
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#197 - 2013-09-14 17:02:30 UTC
...well, if it gets too easy and safe we can just plex it like they mostly do on the chinese servers. Big smile
Kat Ayclism
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#198 - 2013-09-14 17:04:00 UTC
So ummm yeah... Mynna nailed it.

First page.

Thread p much over.

(I'm Blurt McAffee)
Echo Echoplex
#199 - 2013-09-14 17:33:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Echo Echoplex
So, if everyone seems to agree that Mynnna's version=best version then edge cases need to be suggested-I think this was an excellent one:

Mike Azariah wrote:
Couple of things.

1) After the wording is done (or redone) it should be given to the GMs with a list of 'edge cases' to see if the GM team understands the intent of the changes and will enforce them in the way that the law was meant to be read. Language has ambiguities so a check process is just good QA work and common practice

b) Mynnna seems to have the best attempt at rewording so far. So could YOU all come up with edge cases that might go either way for a litmus test?

iii) I chat with a guy who says he is Mynnnas alt . . . I contact Mynnna to see if it is on the up and up (it isn't) BUT Mynnna thinks it would be hilarious to see me fall for a scam and tells me yes, that is an alt of his. Who gets banned, the false alt, Mynnna or both?

m


Great example because it's complicated by the fact that Mynna plays into it, but I think neither?
If most think this represents a scenario which should be allowable and is (usually) easily checked via in-game methods*, then the fact that your due diligence was subverted by Mynnna's decision to allow the scam is rendered moot. Mynnna agreed to act as a passive party to an allowable scam, so neither party is bannable.

*Of course the question is down to whether or not this is an allowable mechanic to begin with-what do the rest of you think?

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#200 - 2013-09-14 17:36:12 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Dirk Action wrote:
I still vehemently disagree with putting the CSM - who have no real power and just the ear of CCP - up on an elevated pedestal from the rest of us in the game, that, if by doing so, takes away from legitimate gameplay that would be available to them otherwise.

The CSM are paying players first and CCP voices of reason second, why should they not be allowed to do what every other player in the game can? And on the flipside, why shouldn't anyone else be able to lie about being a member of CSMX, *when the election results are easily verifiable by official posts by CCP which you would find with a quick Google search*?

What this boils down to is, again, an attempt to protect the stupid from their own stupidity. That is against the nature of EVE, and as such it cannot be an aspect of the Terms of Service.

I don't want to take away from gameplay either. I think it's fine for a character on the CSM to scam or for players to misrepresent a character on the CSM as long as their position on the CSM isn't part of the scam or misrepresentation.

The only reason for someone to lie about being on the CSM (whatever the CSM does) is to lie about being sanctioned by CCP. That should not be tolerated, ever.


Why shouldn't the CSM be allowed to bring up the fact that they're on the CSM in order to win a scam? If the exchange goes "I am on the CSM, you can trust me" then that's 100% fine in my mind.

If they said "I am on the CSM and if you give me everything you own I will pass a message on to CCP/do my best to push X Y or Z change," THEN there is a problem.