These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Clarification of Forum Rule 31.

First post
Author
Ultim8Evil
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-09-17 20:49:23 UTC
This is a serious question, not a troll post.

Rule 31 of the forum states:

"31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties."

Does this mean that, for example, Identifying CCP Rise as Kil2 of Solo PvP YouTube fame (despite this being common knowledge) is technically against the rule?

Follow me on Twitter for literally no good reason @TheUltim8Evil

Dradis Aulmais
Serious Non-stop Espionage and Kidnapping
#2 - 2015-09-17 21:01:09 UTC
Ultim8Evil wrote:
This is a serious question, not a troll post.

Rule 31 of the forum states:

"31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties."

Does this mean that, for example, Identifying CCP Rise as Kil2 of Solo PvP YouTube fame (despite this being common knowledge) is technically against the rule?


To get an answer it would have been better to open a support ticket. But you didn't so I reported this for breaking rule 31

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#3 - 2015-09-17 21:01:10 UTC
Ultim8Evil wrote:


Does this mean that, for example, Identifying CCP Rise as Kil2 of Solo PvP YouTube fame (despite this being common knowledge) is technically against the rule?


Good question. In General Discussion, of all places.

I'd be interested in a clarification on this as well.

Mr Epeen Cool
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#4 - 2015-09-17 21:01:12 UTC
I think a petition might be your best option Cap'n.

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Paranoid Loyd
#5 - 2015-09-17 21:02:38 UTC
Discussing the rules is against the rules.Straight

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Marsha Mallow
#6 - 2015-09-17 21:12:24 UTC
If devs tell people openly who they were ingame as players it's not an issue. Their choice. They might not have a choice depending on how recognisable they were as players, which is awkward.

If players cyberstalk developers to out their original ingame character, chances are they'll go the whole hog and dox them. And chances are there's an ugly agenda underlying it.

Ironic considering the worst dev/player public crucifixion by the mob was because Mintchip was allowed to recycle her ingame name. Maybe a lesson learned?

It's not an unreasonable policy to protect your staff from slavering nerdragers. That's sort of the point adopting a new title, it's supposed to demonstrate the break from their original allegiances and activities.

It's not unreasonable to protect players from other nerds using ingame identities. This is a role playing game.

Doxxing is being treated with increasing intolerance online, and rightly so.

Or do you want Real ID across the board?

Roll

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#7 - 2015-09-17 21:45:28 UTC
File a petition.

Closed. Big smile

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department