These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-09-10 19:30:42 UTC
Intent as in regards to scamming, awoxing (both allowed) or defamation of character (not allowed).

For instance...

I recruit you to join Red Tsunami and get you to contract your stuff to me, move it all, and pod you back home and do not allow you in corp. (Allowed).

I recruit you to join E-Uni or promise to "fastrack" you into that corp for a sum of isk, a ship, whatever, when clearly I have no affiliation of E-Uni. (Not allowed by the words in GM's post). E-Uni obviously not being known to scam their potential members into their corp.

I pretend to be an alt of Chribba's.... now this, I am not sure. Here's the reason.

1.- Chribba is Chribba. Period. "There can be only one".
2.- "I work on Chribba's behalf to help this transaction along and to go smoothly since it is outside his timezone" should be ok as it is just a scam and only a scam. Con man stuff "let me sell you a bridge".

It's all weird and shady when you have a world full of thieves and justified crime and then tell people you cannot do anything criminal unless you follow this presented regiment to trick people.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-09-10 19:31:38 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:


As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a player’s actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.

One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.



So does this mean that it's only being applied to direct impersonation (me saying that I am Chribba), and it is perfectly fine for me to lie about association (saying that I am friends with Chribba)?


Or are you saying this is only in regards to NPC entities (I would assume that ISD etc would fall under that bracket)?



I think we need a clarification of the clarification. We can make do with the same thread though ;)
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#23 - 2013-09-10 19:31:39 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
If I apply to an NC. corp claiming to be Vince Draken's cyno alt, am accepted, then go on a wild Awoxing spree, then again by the newly presented wording I've breached the TOS.

Is this your intention?


That actually is illegal under the current TOS, and has had stuff reversed.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#24 - 2013-09-10 19:31:51 UTC
The legal department is probably coaching this response. CCP is not going to say exactly what you want to hear.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-09-10 19:33:10 UTC
Haargoth Agamar initially joined IGNE on his alt by misrepresenting himself to be a newbie, setting off a chain of events which led to the downfall of one of the most famous and powerful alliances in Eve and generating publicity for CCP across the world's media.

If a similar situation arose today, would the infiltrator be banned?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#26 - 2013-09-10 19:33:32 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
If I apply to an NC. corp claiming to be Vince Draken's cyno alt, am accepted, then go on a wild Awoxing spree, then again by the newly presented wording I've breached the TOS.

Is this your intention?

It's my understanding that this was already (recently) banned by TOS or impersonation policy somewhere.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
GM Grimmi
Game Master Retirement Home
#27 - 2013-09-10 19:34:41 UTC
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.
Crestor Markham
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2013-09-10 19:35:55 UTC
"One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case."

That is a concern, and you have not done the first thing to alleviate that concern. What have you done to make it clear?

What it sounds like you're saying is "don't worry we haven't changed anything; it was always illegal but most people didn't realize it. Now you all know."
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#29 - 2013-09-10 19:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Seriously here, you guys are the ones who are going to be inundated with multiple new classes of petitions for actions you have not historically punished but which your new wording suggests are at least potentially actionable.

This is an extremely unprofessional response, and you are only hurting yourselves by not sitting down and just doing your job properly. If nothing has changed with reference to enforcement, then at the very least roll back the wording to its previous unproblematic version. By your own statements here, that would be the most logical course of action. Why make a clarification that represents a worse explanation than that which it was originally meant to clarify?

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2013-09-10 19:37:23 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.



So recruitment scams are okay then, regardless if you're part of that coalition or not? Confirm or deny?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Crestor Markham
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2013-09-10 19:37:23 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


If that's the case, then the new language is more confusing than ever, because it makes scams that have been going for years sound illegal, even though apparently they're not?

I think most people would agree that the new language makes it sound like the policy is changing. If it's not changing, the new TOS language should be altered to make that clear.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#32 - 2013-09-10 19:38:20 UTC
Crestor Markham wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


If that's the case, then the new language is more confusing than ever, because it makes scams that have been going for years sound illegal, even though apparently they're not?

I think most people would agree that the new language makes it sound like the policy is changing. If it's not changing, the new TOS language should be altered to make that clear.


Precisely.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2013-09-10 19:41:01 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


We certainly understand that these things will be taken on a case by case basis by experienced GMs, but this whole thing is leaving us without any idea where the line might be. As a veteran bad guy and supporter of this game and the rules of it, I need at least a ballpark idea. Like a hint.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Crestor Markham
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2013-09-10 19:45:36 UTC
In other news I'm petitioning anybody who dares call themself a reasonable person.
Crestor Markham
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2013-09-10 19:50:06 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


If you can't at least give us some clear examples of your own choosing (setting aside weird edge cases cooked up by eve players), then the rule surely seems to be impossible to execute and the GMs just playing it by ear, doesn't it?

You say it's being enforced as it's always been, but I have literally no knowledge of any scam for which someone has been banned, and I am unaware of any way to get that knowledge. I have nothing to go by but the language in the TOS, which you're telling us does not mean what it looks like it means to me. Without examples to clarify I am honestly totally at sea as to what's allowed.
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-09-10 19:50:28 UTC
jesus there is a lot of butthurt in this thread. Can we not bring up the plethora of cases to which this is normally applied to which is clearly what they are referencing instead of bringing up fringe cases where the rule has never been applied?

For example: Someone wants to apply to SniggWaffe and they find a corp on the recruitment threads called SniggWaffe. (notice the dot) in an alliance WAFFELS. (misspelled) that was made to misdirect pilots and scam for recruitment.

Previously this would result in a name change for both the corp and the alliance which are clearly impersonating the real deal. Now it would be a ban. I really don’t get all the rage about this. You couldn't do it before, you still can’t. They simply changed the punishment. And knowing the GMs the punishment is probably relatively light

I has all the eve inactivity
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#37 - 2013-09-10 19:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
GM Grimmi wrote:
As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a player’s actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.


I'm not a scammer, but that last phrase... um, your marketing department is running ads exhorting people to "Be the Villain." Malicious activity employing trickery is villainous.

Also, how do you benevolently roleplay Sansha?

I think you need to revisit those adjectives, "benevolent" and "malicious." They do not say what (I hope) you're trying to say.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Andrea Griffin
#38 - 2013-09-10 19:54:48 UTC
I'd just like to add two isk and note that I am as confused as I was yesterday. The clarification didn't really seem to help me.

I understand that I am not the brightest person in the world and that legal language is sometimes purposefully vague or obtuse, but better clarification would be nice. Handling things on a "case by case basis" doesn't really help clarify what types of gameplay are no longer allowed.

Perhaps some examples on what is allowed and what is not allowed could be helpful to us.

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-09-10 19:56:12 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


We certainly understand that these things will be taken on a case by case basis by experienced GMs, but this whole thing is leaving us without any idea where the line might be. As a veteran bad guy and supporter of this game and the rules of it, I need at least a ballpark idea. Like a hint.


Well clearly impersonation is bad. Like that time a certain scammer claimed affiliation with you to gain credibility and you allegedly decided to actually make it a thing when you found out, getting a piece of the action. Apparently that's all wrong and the scammer should just be banhammered. Mumble grumble actions consequences mumble sandbox.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#40 - 2013-09-10 19:56:14 UTC
Laurici wrote:
So can you pretend to be a recruitment officer for goons to scam people? That's a lot of text to say pretty much nothing new.

Sometimes, expressing simple idea can be hard.

Question:
Does this mean that role-playing, say, the Docking Manager at Jita 4-4 CNP for the purposes of entertainment is OK? But that doing the same for purposes of income or scamming would not be? Do I have that right?