These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#201 - 2013-09-11 01:40:26 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

It'd probably be a better idea to put those insights into the ToS changes into the ToS itself. You know, to avoid ambiguity.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#202 - 2013-09-11 01:42:42 UTC
CCP really loves their thousand dollar jeans moments :)

Poor CCPs Zulu and Pan :(

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#203 - 2013-09-11 01:46:47 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

I look forward to this. My fingers are crossed that it does a better job of clarifying this issue.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2013-09-11 01:46:52 UTC
Broad and vaguely worded TOS clarified with broad and vaguely worded clarification. Oh yeah, this thread is going places.

The TOS as worded explicitly prohibits impersonation, all forms. Your clarification would seem to suggest, but not define, exceptions. Regardless of your clarification, the TOS hangs over everyone's heads like the sword of Damocles. Perhaps you should change the TOS language to be somewhat more selective and then clarify that. At it stands now, any GM in a bad mood could use the new section to ban anyone they wish. I know there are other Kidd's out there. As written, the TOS could be used to ban me for impersonating them by similarity of name alone. And I doubt if such a ban occurred that the GM would ever point to the clarification, but rather the TOS as that is the legally binding contract and not forum posts.

Don't ban me, bro!
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#205 - 2013-09-11 02:06:50 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.


I certainly hope the "we" referenced above includes whoever creates/owns the TOS, and this isn't just another vague GM interpretation.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#206 - 2013-09-11 02:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.


The concern is the broad wording of the ToS change. There is a difference between making the wording broad enough to cover all possible instances of impersonation, foreseen or unforeseen, that are undesired, and making the wording so broad that essentially all deception that takes place in the game is a crapshoot that may result in a ban. This is the latter. No number of "clarifications" will change that because some forum post will do sweet ****-all if I cite it in a conversation with a GM.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2013-09-11 02:24:34 UTC
is anxiously awaiting the clarification to the clarification of the clarifying of the ToS whose plain reading suggests lying will get you permabanned.

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."
Crestor Markham
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#208 - 2013-09-11 02:37:07 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.


This is a good post.

It was a much better post when CCP Guard made the same one yesterday, before the unhelpful, clarified-nothing post that kicked off this thread.

If this post needs to be made a third time because of another complete failure to clarify/fix the TOS, it will be a crap post.

Let's all promise ourselves and each other that no GMs/CCPs/ISDs will post about this until GM/CCP/lawyers/CSM have figured out both what the TOS should say and how to explain it clearly. Once *all* of them agree that you've got a solution to this problem, then come to the players with it. So far every attempt to clarify has been a step backwards.

mmorpg lol
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#209 - 2013-09-11 03:02:41 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.


Well, it seems the the GM changed, maybe we might get something that isn't counter-productive.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#210 - 2013-09-11 03:31:59 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.


CCP Guard wrote:
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?


Hey, lookee there.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Seras VictoriaX
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2013-09-11 05:29:31 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.



Then you shouldnt of had GM Grimmi start this thread off with a wall of text that said nothing. At this point it really seems like you guys are just stalling for time so that people forget / ignore this.




MotherSammy
Clan Sammy Trade Empire
#212 - 2013-09-11 05:29:48 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?


Actually that has always been a breach. Years back my carebear corp was infiltrated by someone claiming to be an alt of our ceo. He convo'd a director and asked him to accept the application and give him roles. He promptly emptied out wallet and hangars. We considered it to be a combination of "stupid director" and "well played" but one of our members found a clause in the ToS that impersonating a specific player is against the rules. We petitioned it and got 90% of everything back.


So yes, claiming to be an alt of a known character has always been against the rules.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#213 - 2013-09-11 05:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
MotherSammy wrote:
So yes, claiming to be an alt of a known character has always been against the rules.


If it was, that rule had been spectacularly inconsistently applied until very recently. (See: the Freighter AWOXing story, also virtually every AWOX alt ever)

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
DRGaius Baltar
Perkone
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-09-11 07:03:39 UTC
Does this mean Mintchip has been banned with the new TOS changes due to impersonating a CCP employee?
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#215 - 2013-09-11 07:24:32 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.
I'm not trying to sound too bitter, but I heard that before.
And the "something" that was written up was the anti-clarification that is the OP here.

So now that we know, from you, that GM Grimmi was not representing or even misrepresenting CCPs stance on this issue, can we petition him under the new TOS since he portraited himself to be something he wasn't?
Melienia
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
#216 - 2013-09-11 08:04:25 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings pilots,


We would like to address your concerns regarding the update to article 8 of our TOS that was published yesterday. Some basic information on how we deal with issues that come up regarding impersonation is therefore appropriate.

All cases are investigated individually on a case by case basis. If there are complications or difficulties in reaching a solution cases are moved to senior game masters, which happens a lot with the impersonation issues that are reported to us. There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace. For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years. The TOS update reflects the way reported cases of impersonation have been handled by Customer Support for a long time. The rules applied have been buried in our naming policy and EULA but have now been placed in plain view in order to better help players to make decisions on how they interact with one another.

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.


Thank you and fly safe.


Ahem... I'm sorry, didn't you guys get the memo? Eve players don't fall for this type of obfuscating wordplay.

Remember Incarna?

Make with the real clarification now, please.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#217 - 2013-09-11 08:29:43 UTC
Melienia wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings pilots,


We would like to address your concerns regarding the update to article 8 of our TOS that was published yesterday. Some basic information on how we deal with issues that come up regarding impersonation is therefore appropriate.

All cases are investigated individually on a case by case basis. If there are complications or difficulties in reaching a solution cases are moved to senior game masters, which happens a lot with the impersonation issues that are reported to us. There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace. For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years. The TOS update reflects the way reported cases of impersonation have been handled by Customer Support for a long time. The rules applied have been buried in our naming policy and EULA but have now been placed in plain view in order to better help players to make decisions on how they interact with one another.

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.


Ahem... I'm sorry, didn't you guys get the memo? Eve players don't fall for this type of obfuscating wordplay.

Remember Incarna?

Make with the real clarification now, please.

That's what you think.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#218 - 2013-09-11 08:31:05 UTC
So basically, get banned and try to get someone to care about the scammer that got banned under the umbrella of "impersonating".

Sure. After the person disappears I guess there's no real issue, it's just a scammer after all.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#219 - 2013-09-11 08:31:37 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.
I'm not trying to sound too bitter, but I heard that before.
And the "something" that was written up was the anti-clarification that is the OP here.

So now that we know, from you, that GM Grimmi was not representing or even misrepresenting CCPs stance on this issue, can we petition him under the new TOS since he portraited himself to be something he wasn't?

A good point. Let us all report the post.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#220 - 2013-09-11 08:32:52 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
MotherSammy wrote:
So yes, claiming to be an alt of a known character has always been against the rules.

If it was, that rule had been spectacularly inconsistently applied until very recently. (See: the Freighter AWOXing story, also virtually every AWOX alt ever)

Then I guess everyone who gets awoxed from now on knows what to put in their petition.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?