EVE General Discussion

Apparently you read none of the GM's clarifications

Everything is always your fault!

My interpretation is as follows:

CCP no longer want (has never wanted! We were always at war with Eastasia!) anyone in EVE Online to ever scam someone via claiming to be, work with, or represent someone else.

If someone is scammed like this, they petition and CCP must do an audit of the characters involved to see if there was any misrepresentation

If there was any misrepresentation, the person should be banned because scamming people via misrepresentation is disallowed. If there wasn't, then the person should not be banned.

As a result, the outcome of the petition leaks data regarding what other characters/accounts a player owns. CCP see this as a Bad Thing™ and they are right.

Rather than admit it is a result of an initially flawed idea - that is, punishing people for misrepresenting who they are - they come up with ludicrous policies to try and patch over the huge issues, such as saying you are not allowed to factually state who your other characters are.

Actually, NO!

CCP will not tell You what and even if any action was taken against the guy that scammed You, although it is easy to check if the guy was not banned (he still is online) You may never be sure if he was banned (maybe he is just offline)

As you say, they wont tell you "ok we banned this rude dude", and I imagine in most cases it wouldn't be an immediate ban anyway - rather a warning - but regardless, if your scammed isk/ships/whatever were not reimbursed it would prove the scam was an "acceptable" one - ie all the characters involved were owned by one person

You are a pillock. The fact that you can't say your character is your own is the problem. It's not just about the scams but about the entire concept of forcing players to have a meta'd level of trust instead of established trust. The fact that you cannot just claim another character, but relationship to an NPC entity, Corp, or alliance is the problem. This ruins RP for the people who actually do that as they can no longer claim to be part of whatever entity they RP as (Mordus Angels being an example of this). Another example is psychological warfare against enemies, you can no longer claim to be part of XXX alliance just to cause distrust of XXX alliance. If I blow up some mining frigate and I say "XXX Sends his regards" XXX may be less trusted and more hated by that person and their friends.

Thank you for letting us again say things like "I'll log in my Leadership V alt now" or "Jim, can you please login your Rorqual alt".

As an aside, your example above isn't great: you can generally infer the number of SP from toon age, which errs on side of being low (i.e. not all old toons have high SP, but all high SP toons are old). You can infer relative dangerousness by looking at someone's killboard.

Honestly, you guys could have kept this very simple.

"The Eveopedia is now protected in the same manner as Recruitment Channels and the Newbie Systems." and possibly "You may not impersonate yourself as a member of the ISD or the CSM."

Find a general definition of a Scam for EVE that isn't equivalent to "a deal that one party regrets." If you can't, do understand that any and all business dealing are against the rules.



Nothing in your quoted section mentions "scamming."

And what's the difference between "benevolent" impersonation and "malicious" impersonation?

now you are reading something that isn't there.

sure. a deal that goes sour can be considered (by the victim) as a scam. but no one has outlawed scams, so if you want to pull that "moving to 0.0" trope, no one's stopping you (but really, you should get some better material).

you are implying that all scams, and really, all business, requires impersonation (remember? that's what this thread is about. not the legality of scamming). that is very clearly untrue. i run a perfectly good business in real life without ever having had to impersonate myself even once!




no, but a rudimentary command of the english language tells me that a "scam" is a malicious attempt to cheat another person. if i scam someone, i'm performing a malicious act against that person - which is allowed.

if in the service of that scam, i have to resort to impersonating someone or some organisation that i am not, then my impersonation is likewise, malicious.

if instead, i claim to be an alt of RubyPorto, and give out billions of isk in jita... FOR REAL, it can be argued that my impersonation was benevolent. however, because i impersonated you, i'm STILL liable to be banned, because by being a generally all round nice guy to a couple of newbies, i've ruined your hard earned reputation for being an all-star douche. for that, i could very well be banned.

remember. this thread is about IMPERSONATION, not SCAMMING. the sections i quoted do not reference scams specifically because its NOT about scams. it's about impersonation (third time now).

impersonation is wrong. it's bad. don't do it.

scamming is ethically bankrupt. it's bad. but do it if you must. just don't pretend to be someone else when you do.

nah uh. numerous clarifications already made above. pretending to be another player = violation.

as in my illustration, which you seem to have taken offense to, even if i pretend to be another player to give away prancing unicorns that vomit rainbows for no reason other than to bask unicorn vomit, that would be a violation.

so in your example, pretending to be chribba and being a stand up guy the whole time is NOT legal. though it's likely that such a benevolent impersonation may not be discovered, or reported.



you keep coming back to this idea that all deals require impersonation, which is a classic straw man fallacy. it is possible to do business, even shady business, without impersonation.

the TOS, old or new, doesn't outlaw deals nor scams. it only prohibits impersonation.

also, you cannot impersonate yourself (here i'm ignoring Karidor's terrible attempts at explaning the concept in favour of Grimmi's much clearer clarification).

this is as clear as i can be. further attempts to use these same fallacies as the basis of an argument will be taken as a indication of mental retardation.



that would depend. when you were taught, did he or she explain what you did wrong that led to the capture of the queen? did he or she continue your education, giving you fair and ample opportunities to grow and eventually compete on even footing?

or did he or she snicker and make inane comments about delicious tears and never show up again?

evaluating intent is a long-game.

with regard to your other complaint, i didn't go to jita, pretend to be you, nor give out isk, so it follows that anything i said after was hypothetical.

and it was necessary to use you as an example. you weren't getting the point, even 81 pages after the fact. unfortunately, my attempt to make it relatable obviously wasn't enough to overcome whatever logic block you've got going on.



not if you don't violate TOS by impersonating anyone.



now you're intentionally being thick.