These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#301 - 2013-09-11 15:25:45 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
From CCP's point, it's probably "If you can't provide a proof that you are the alt of X, how do you expect other people to find if you really are his alt?

by evemailing his main, just like any sane person would think was the proper way to verify


Read Andski's example that I quoted. Can a lapsed account reply to EVEMAIL?



This is the assumption of "alt" being on a different account.

This is false.

An alt (if you use that word) is one of the additional character slots on the same account.

A second account is a second account and has nothing to do with the first account.

Therefore, if you are an alt of a main, you have the same amount of access to evemail accountwide.

So no, you could not reply to the evemail, because you could not log into the game or the forums or have any other way of knowing there was an evemail (unless 3rd party comms like ts3/vent/mumble.


If the alt is on the same account, then you can do the legwork yourself. Their stance will probably end up being "Work your ass off to prove who you are if you are to benefit from some dealings".

Again, I fully agree that it changes the game because the ball changed side on who should do some of the job. The hit on scamming buisness will be small or large mostly depending on how much of the scammee read the rules insetad of just quitting/dealing with it.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#302 - 2013-09-11 15:27:43 UTC
Sam Alkawe wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
From CCP's point, it's probably "If you can't provide a proof that you are the alt of X, how do you expect other people to find if you really are his alt?

by evemailing his main, just like any sane person would think was the proper way to verify


Read Andski's example that I quoted. Can a lapsed account reply to EVEMAIL?



This is the assumption of "alt" being on a different account.

This is false.

An alt (if you use that word) is one of the additional character slots on the same account.

A second account is a second account and has nothing to do with the first account.

Therefore, if you are an alt of a main, you have the same amount of access to evemail accountwide.

So no, you could not reply to the evemail, because you could not log into the game or the forums or have any other way of knowing there was an evemail (unless 3rd party comms like ts3/vent/mumble.


Couldn't you use EVEGate or, hell, even EVEMon to know that you got an EVEmail?


You can probably know that you recived one but it's a whole other deal to reply it to confirm it was not sent to some random joe schmo.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#303 - 2013-09-11 15:27:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Fury
GM Karidor wrote: wrote:

3 pages of stuff to clarify a paragraph.


Since when did GMs start making TOS and policy decisions/changes? Do the GMs now own & manage the TOS?

I foresee a lot more petitions tickets in CCPs future, and a lot of rage-quit posts because of increased inconsistent enforcement of vague rules.

Question: Will GMs be using this thread (specifically your official GM response), for clarity when making these kinds of judgement calls, or, will they just use the TOS? If the latter, then you need to get some lawyers to rework the TOS to make it completely unambiguous, unless your intention is for it to be ambiguous.


/the EA disease has infected CCP, and methinks these are the first symptoms.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#304 - 2013-09-11 15:28:22 UTC
Sam Alkawe wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
From CCP's point, it's probably "If you can't provide a proof that you are the alt of X, how do you expect other people to find if you really are his alt?

by evemailing his main, just like any sane person would think was the proper way to verify


Read Andski's example that I quoted. Can a lapsed account reply to EVEMAIL?



This is the assumption of "alt" being on a different account.

This is false.

An alt (if you use that word) is one of the additional character slots on the same account.

A second account is a second account and has nothing to do with the first account.

Therefore, if you are an alt of a main, you have the same amount of access to evemail accountwide.

So no, you could not reply to the evemail, because you could not log into the game or the forums or have any other way of knowing there was an evemail (unless 3rd party comms like ts3/vent/mumble.


Couldn't you use EVEGate or, hell, even EVEMon to know that you got an EVEmail?



Would that be a 3rd party comm? And do they scrape from deactivated accounts?

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.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#305 - 2013-09-11 15:28:27 UTC
"you insufficiently proved you were an alt of yourself and you are now banned. as you are a bad, TOS breaking person, we banned all of your accounts including your main that you were impersonating"

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Mark Artreides
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#306 - 2013-09-11 15:29:55 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
[...]

Where does Customer Support draw the line for impersonation?
As much as we'd love to be able to draw a clear line, it is quite impossible. Impersonation can take various forms, and each with endless subtleties involved. While most cases luckily (for us GMs, that is) tend to be rather clear, being the most obvious form of impersonation by taking up a similar character name from another player for malicious purposes, more and more players are attempting much more subtle attempts.
What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.

In summary, with the exception of the most obvious Character impersonations, each impersonation report will usually have to be decided on a case by case basis, taking all things and contexts that we can reliably verify into account. Standings between entities are usually not taken into consideration, as those are being used in wildly differentiating contexts. Generally speaking, if you're claiming to act on behalf of a player run in-game entity, you should be a member of said entity. Acting with a character on behalf of another entity (NPC or player run) that the character is not a member of can, and will, be interpreted as impersonation within our policies in cases of conflict, even if the player eventually has a member alt. Again, this comes down to the fact that there are no in game possibilities of verification.


But think of the Roleplayers!?
Impersonating NPC entities not being permitted has always been part of the impersonation policies. However, it is entirely possible to declare support for NPC entities without the need of claiming that you act "on their behalf or order". It should be noted that outside of events, NPC entities will not usually acknowledge the support of any player run entities.

So, will I be banned now?
Impersonation violations very rarely result in a ban if there have not been any previous warnings. Bans regarding impersonation so far usually have been the result of repeat offense or very extreme cases. A name change is a standard part of the procedure, as is a warning, the removal (and return) of assets gained through the violation can happen as well, depending on the nature of the case.


Well, that's it for now. I hope this rather lengthy post clears up some of the confusion that this ToS change brought about.


I am not sure how to put it politely, but are you serious? It is just so plain re-tar-ded words can not begin to describe.
Just because CCP does not provide you with any tools, which I don't believe, it doesn't mean you can just shove it all into the shoes of the player.

If somebody has an alt on his main character, he is NOT impersonating ANYBODY. Go look up the legal meaning of impersonation and the jurisprudence behind it. Also, please tell me how you can be bloody serious about somebody impersonating himself? Holy **** I can't even begin to warp my mind about that.

Secondly, it can be very easily verified on YOUR side. IP adress can be checked, billing account information, log-in sessions not ever overlapping, list goes on. There is a certain minimum effort you have to put into this before you are banning a paying customer on (false) assumptions.

I also don't believe you don't have the tools for it. Look at what data is pulled what a titan account is hacked or stolen. How does CCP ban entire botnetworks hmm? If you mean YOU can not do it, that means YOU have to escalate it to a CCP employee and let him look into it.

I am also very curious if any CCP legal department employee looked at your text before you posted it. I strongly advice you to do so next time. Or just anyone at all. Impersonating yourself.... :cripes:
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#307 - 2013-09-11 15:30:12 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Their stance will probably end up being "Work your ass off to prove who you are if you are to benefit from some dealings".


Right, but you see, the traditional route is to prove to the other party that I am who I say I am and that I can follow through with a transaction. The consequence of failing to do so has also traditionally been a deal that falls through, not a ******* ban

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#308 - 2013-09-11 15:32:34 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
"you insufficiently proved you were an alt of yourself and you are now banned. as you are a bad, TOS breaking person, we banned all of your accounts including your main that you were impersonating"


I know it's stupid but thats the only way I can see to be safe in doing buisness. Their policies it to not hunt down people and this is not said to have changed so as long as you are not reported, you will be ok. If you get reported, then having proved who you were will be important.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#309 - 2013-09-11 15:35:47 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
"you insufficiently proved you were an alt of yourself and you are now banned. as you are a bad, TOS breaking person, we banned all of your accounts including your main that you were impersonating"


I know it's stupid but thats the only way I can see to be safe in doing buisness. Their policies it to not hunt down people and this is not said to have changed so as long as you are not reported, you will be ok. If you get reported, then having proved who you were will be important.

to be honest the only way I see to be safe doing business is to reiterate how utterly insane the GM policies have become until someone sanity checks them and reverses this

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2013-09-11 15:37:26 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I know it's stupid but thats the only way I can see to be safe in doing buisness. Their policies it to not hunt down people and this is not said to have changed so as long as you are not reported, you will be ok. If you get reported, then having proved who you were will be important.

if I get reported I'm still me and thus can't be impersonating myself in any sane meaning of the word, regardless of whether I've proven that or not
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#311 - 2013-09-11 15:39:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
"you insufficiently proved you were an alt of yourself and you are now banned. as you are a bad, TOS breaking person, we banned all of your accounts including your main that you were impersonating"


I know it's stupid but thats the only way I can see to be safe in doing buisness. Their policies it to not hunt down people and this is not said to have changed so as long as you are not reported, you will be ok. If you get reported, then having proved who you were will be important.


Except: who's going to be doing the reporting? Dispassionate people with an understanding and respect for EVE's culture and history?

Not only does this encourage RAEG at being tricked, it could backfire as a way to grief people who just aren't quite clever enough.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#312 - 2013-09-11 15:41:14 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Their stance will probably end up being "Work your ass off to prove who you are if you are to benefit from some dealings".


Right, but you see, the traditional route is to prove to the other party that I am who I say I am and that I can follow through with a transaction. The consequence of failing to do so has also traditionally been a deal that falls through, not a ******* ban


You will either have to count on the other side not petitionning or managing the deals without any lies on who you are. If you prove to be the alt of andski and the deal goes through, it will most likely not be accitionnable because you never impersonated someone you were not. If you pretend to be Weaselior's alt and the deal pass through, you will still be in danger yes because you cannot prove you are his alt.

Now on the important silly point to all scammers : WATCH OUT for reverse scamming attempt. If your mark is too easy, it might be a scam to get you banned afterward.
Lord Valian
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2013-09-11 15:42:35 UTC
I don't know if its been said yet, but it is worth to be said again;

This sounds completely ********. I didn't know CCP was an American company?
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#314 - 2013-09-11 15:43:04 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
You will either have to count on the other side not petitionning or managing the deals without any lies on who you are. If you prove to be the alt of andski and the deal goes through, it will most likely not be accitionnable because you never impersonated someone you were not. If you pretend to be Weaselior's alt and the deal pass through, you will still be in danger yes because you cannot prove you are his alt.

it's not a lie if andski is using his alt to scam, says he's actually andski and his mark just is too lazy to actually check that
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#315 - 2013-09-11 15:44:19 UTC
If Retirement Fund Admin, the CEO of the GSF executor corp, claims to be Mittens, any person that isn't completely incapable of functioning in everyday life would likely conclude "yes, this guy is Mittens" assuming that they're aware that Mittens is the leader of GSF, a fact that isn't exactly secret in this game

That anybody would possibly suggest that people in similar situations need to prove who they are, under threat of punitive action against their accounts, is beyond belief

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#316 - 2013-09-11 15:44:54 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I know it's stupid but thats the only way I can see to be safe in doing buisness. Their policies it to not hunt down people and this is not said to have changed so as long as you are not reported, you will be ok. If you get reported, then having proved who you were will be important.

if I get reported I'm still me and thus can't be impersonating myself in any sane meaning of the word, regardless of whether I've proven that or not


Of course you are always yourself but since you are yourself, it should be easy to prove it so that noone can say you were impersonating someone else. If the deal pass through without you proving that you are yourself, it will stillpass after you proved to be yourself.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#317 - 2013-09-11 15:48:09 UTC
Andski wrote:
If Retirement Fund Admin, the CEO of the GSF executor corp, claims to be Mittens, any person that isn't completely incapable of functioning in everyday life would likely conclude "yes, this guy is Mittens" assuming that they're aware that Mittens is the leader of GSF, a fact that isn't exactly secret in this game

That anybody would possibly suggest that people in similar situations need to prove who they are, under threat of punitive action against their accounts, is beyond belief

What happens if Retirement Fund Admin was banned?

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
#318 - 2013-09-11 15:49:02 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Andski wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Their stance will probably end up being "Work your ass off to prove who you are if you are to benefit from some dealings".


Right, but you see, the traditional route is to prove to the other party that I am who I say I am and that I can follow through with a transaction. The consequence of failing to do so has also traditionally been a deal that falls through, not a ******* ban


You will either have to count on the other side not petitionning or managing the deals without any lies on who you are. If you prove to be the alt of andski and the deal goes through, it will most likely not be accitionnable because you never impersonated someone you were not. If you pretend to be Weaselior's alt and the deal pass through, you will still be in danger yes because you cannot prove you are his alt.

Now on the important silly point to all scammers : WATCH OUT for reverse scamming attempt. If your mark is too easy, it might be a scam to get you banned afterward.

Is this the new scamming? Where you aim to get the sucker banned?

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
#319 - 2013-09-11 15:50:39 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
"you insufficiently proved you were an alt of yourself and you are now banned. as you are a bad, TOS breaking person, we banned all of your accounts including your main that you were impersonating"


I know it's stupid but thats the only way I can see to be safe in doing buisness. Their policies it to not hunt down people and this is not said to have changed so as long as you are not reported, you will be ok. If you get reported, then having proved who you were will be important.


Except: who's going to be doing the reporting? Dispassionate people with an understanding and respect for EVE's culture and history?

Not only does this encourage RAEG at being tricked, it could backfire as a way to grief people who just aren't quite clever enough.

Could backfire? It seems people who lose out always want to petition unless they've done so before and been laughed at.

Now they might as well always try, you might get your stuff back and get the bad guy banned.

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 ?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#320 - 2013-09-11 15:52:20 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
You will either have to count on the other side not petitionning or managing the deals without any lies on who you are. If you prove to be the alt of andski and the deal goes through, it will most likely not be accitionnable because you never impersonated someone you were not. If you pretend to be Weaselior's alt and the deal pass through, you will still be in danger yes because you cannot prove you are his alt.

it's not a lie if andski is using his alt to scam, says he's actually andski and his mark just is too lazy to actually check that


If Andski use an alt to scam someone by pretenting to be Andski's alt, there is nothing that blocks him from proving that he is indeed himself. The scam will pass through anyway because the mark put enough trust in an alt pretending to be Andski so he will trust an alt with a proof that he is indeed Andski.

If I try to scam by pretending to be Weaselior's alt, the deal might go through even tho I am not his alt. My lack of power to prove I am his alt will posibly be my downfall if I get petitionned over this scam.

Andski could use his main to pull off the scam if the player is not willing to do the deal and still pull off the scam. I cannot re-log on Weaselior to pull it off. Andski can make himself safe as long as he was not making **** up.