These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#141 - 2013-09-10 22:01:04 UTC
Laurici wrote:
Care to make a more meaningful contribution after the GMs response than "Poetic, you're wrong"?


You appear to be confusing the CSM with CCP employees. Even if they wanted to make a more meaningful contribution, it isn't up to them what the rules are. CCP needs to step in and actually clarify things.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#142 - 2013-09-10 22:06:06 UTC
"You may not create a character for the purpose of stealing the name and likeness of another player, or non-player entity. Inaccurate claims of identity are otherwise permitted."

Wouldn't that work a little better, and provide a clearer guideline for what is and isn't allowed?
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#143 - 2013-09-10 22:06:07 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
IF that's the only indication of a preset "yes you can" or "no you can't", can we get a link or a citation as to what happened? (I want to discern details out of what can normally happen in Eve everyday versus getting banned =/)

Comments sections of various eve news websites will be illuminating, as well as 3rd party forums.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#144 - 2013-09-10 22:06:19 UTC
To be fair this kind of dumb **** is expected from a company who thinks showing favouritism is the same as Vouching for someone and bans people for it

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#145 - 2013-09-10 22:07:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Evelgrivion wrote:
"You may not create a character for the purpose of stealing the name and likeness of another player, or non-player entity. Inaccurate claims of identity are otherwise permitted."

Wouldn't that work a little better, and provide a clearer guideline for what is and isn't allowed?

That would be a good wording of the old rule. Unfortunately, the new rule (which we're meant to pretend is the old rule) wouldn't be covered within that. Specifically, in some cases inaccurate claims of identity are now bannable.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Laurici
C5 Flight
Fraternity.
#146 - 2013-09-10 22:07:34 UTC
Two step wrote:
Laurici wrote:
Care to make a more meaningful contribution after the GMs response than "Poetic, you're wrong"?


You appear to be confusing the CSM with CCP employees. Even if they wanted to make a more meaningful contribution, it isn't up to them what the rules are. CCP needs to step in and actually clarify things.


Totally agree. But I would much rather he'd said "I'm pursuing this" than "hurf blurf, poetic you be butt hurt" (although Poe is wrong)
Venkall
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#147 - 2013-09-10 22:07:41 UTC
It's not that hard to make up a bunch of test cases, and then declare YES or NO to them.

The only case in which that wouldn't work is if different entities are to be treated differently (ie. 10-person corp VS 10000-person alliance).


Can we have an actual answer (from a Dev ?), and not just a bunch of paragraphs from a GM that have a bunch of words but say nothing?
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#148 - 2013-09-10 22:07:43 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

The situation described was never illegal, unless the person named their character in such a way to pose as an alt. For instance, real alts name is leo (lowercase L) and the faker named a character as Ieo (uppercase i). This was covered in the NAMING POLICY and was bannable.

The act of just stating that you're an alt of someone (with no naming violations) was not against the TOS previously.

False. Here's the news item, and here's a TMC article containing a convo in which a serial awoxer gets warned for pretending to be people's alts. He's not changing his name, just putting "Ali Aras's alt" in the application text and stupid people clicked "invite to corp".

N.B, nowhere in this post in the previous have I shared any opinion on the policy itself. I'm just making sure everyone's working from the actual facts here.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#149 - 2013-09-10 22:11:47 UTC
Laurici wrote:
Two step wrote:
Laurici wrote:
Care to make a more meaningful contribution after the GMs response than "Poetic, you're wrong"?


You appear to be confusing the CSM with CCP employees. Even if they wanted to make a more meaningful contribution, it isn't up to them what the rules are. CCP needs to step in and actually clarify things.


Totally agree. But I would much rather he'd said "I'm pursuing this" than "hurf blurf, poetic you be butt hurt" (although Poe is wrong)



"I'm pursuing this."


Roll

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Laurici
C5 Flight
Fraternity.
#150 - 2013-09-10 22:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Laurici
Ali Aras wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

The situation described was never illegal, unless the person named their character in such a way to pose as an alt. For instance, real alts name is leo (lowercase L) and the faker named a character as Ieo (uppercase i). This was covered in the NAMING POLICY and was bannable.

The act of just stating that you're an alt of someone (with no naming violations) was not against the TOS previously.

False. Here's the news item, and here's a TMC article containing a convo in which a serial awoxer gets warned for pretending to be people's alts. He's not changing his name, just putting "Ali Aras's alt" in the application text and stupid people clicked "invite to corp".

N.B, nowhere in this post in the previous have I shared any opinion on the policy itself. I'm just making sure everyone's working from the actual facts here.


Still waiting for "I'll be talking to CCP's Falcon, Dolan or Guard about this" from a CSM member after Grimmi's last post.

Edit: goddam mynna... Not I look like a **** poster...
Dave Stark
#151 - 2013-09-10 22:13:14 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
"You may not create a character for the purpose of stealing the name and likeness of another player, or non-player entity. Inaccurate claims of identity are otherwise permitted."

Wouldn't that work a little better, and provide a clearer guideline for what is and isn't allowed?


so if i make a character called chribbba and use him as a trade alt for a week, then impersonate him thereafter it's fine because that wasn't the purpose of the character as it's purpose was to flip items in jita?
James Arget
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#152 - 2013-09-10 22:13:17 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Laurici wrote:
Two step wrote:
Laurici wrote:
Care to make a more meaningful contribution after the GMs response than "Poetic, you're wrong"?


You appear to be confusing the CSM with CCP employees. Even if they wanted to make a more meaningful contribution, it isn't up to them what the rules are. CCP needs to step in and actually clarify things.


Totally agree. But I would much rather he'd said "I'm pursuing this" than "hurf blurf, poetic you be butt hurt" (although Poe is wrong)



"I'm pursuing this."


Roll

Oh, yeah, me too. What they said. I'm bad at posting.

CSM 8 Representative

http://csm8.org
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#153 - 2013-09-10 22:13:20 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
Here's the news item...


Well now everything makes sense. That article is dated 10-06-2013, so it's from the future. We'll just have to wait until October to find out what happens!

YK
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#154 - 2013-09-10 22:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
"You may not create a character for the purpose of stealing the name and likeness of another player, or non-player entity. Inaccurate claims of identity are otherwise permitted."

Wouldn't that work a little better, and provide a clearer guideline for what is and isn't allowed?

That would be a good wording of the old rule. Unfortunately, the new rule (which we're meant to pretend is the old rule) wouldn't be covered within that. Specifically, in some cases inaccurate claims of identity are now bannable.


If that's the case, that is bad form, CCP; shame on you. Such a policy is far too discretionary to enforce with any consistency. Game Master actions should reflect clear judgement and keep everyone playing under the same set of rules. Policies should not exist to selectively punish players when CCP decides they've become annoying.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#155 - 2013-09-10 22:16:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
Not to be a complete wang, but wouldn't the new terms of service mean the NCdot is in the running for GM loving? I mean, they made the alliance name explicitly the same as the Northern Coalition many moons ago. While we're on this track, wouldn't Mittens and the current Goonswarm alliance be in the same boat, since they named a new alliance (many moons ago) a near identical name to their former alliance after the whole Delve paying the rent thing?

The list could go on for pages really. Misrepresenting yourself in Eve is a huge part of what makes Eve... Eve.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2013-09-10 22:16:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Yonis Kador wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
Here's the news item...


Well now everything makes sense. That article is dated 10-06-2013, so it's from the future. We'll just have to wait until October to find out what happens!

YK

DD.MM.YYYY format. Same as all the other articles there. That is from June 10th.
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#157 - 2013-09-10 22:17:05 UTC
if u want a good read CCP go here and go to caycay's post

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#158 - 2013-09-10 22:19:59 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
Here's the news item...


Well now everything makes sense. That article is dated 10-06-2013, so it's from the future. We'll just have to wait until October to find out what happens!

YK

DD.MM.YYYY format. Same as all the other articles there. That is from June 10th.



Sorry bout that. Just trying to bring some levity to the drama. I was under the impression this rule change was implemented this week and read the link with that in mind. My bad.

YK
Echo Echoplex
#159 - 2013-09-10 22:23:24 UTC
Too much for this new capsuleer to sort out. Make wording stronker!

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#160 - 2013-09-10 22:24:53 UTC
I think CCP should just forbid lying, cos lying is bad mkay.

also mister GM guy your posts are garbage you should stop posting bro