EVE General Discussion

And how is this supposed to be done if we go with CCP's example of both characters being on the same account?

If a goon scammer claims to be The Mittani's alt then the real Mittani will generally be happy to confirm that claim via evemail (and gets a cut of the scam's proceeds in return).

Yes, how dare Eve have Scammers. And how dare Eve open up morale options in a sandbox game. And how dare there be penalties for being naive, lazy, or ignorant. And how dare I look good because of the morale choices available to me, those should be banned too.

And let's ban options now as well.

Holy cow, you put a 100MN AB on your Tengu, that was never intended, therefore we're going to ban that too, cuz it misrepresents the Tengu's abilities.

You put Lazors on your Rifter? How dare you! You are banned also for misrepresenting the Minmatar race.

Role-playing an escaped Minmatar slave? How dare you represent a slave when you are an aging, bald white American who lives with his parents! Ban for you as well!

I don't care what the GM's say. impersonation and lying have been the cornerstone of all the major player driven content in the last 2 years i've been playing. im not even talking about just the big nulsec stuff. when i was a highsec pubbie fighting in 15-20 man wars, misrepresentation and impersonation played a part on all sides of the fights. I know It wasn't against the rules because we petitioned at least one nasty case and were told so by the gm's.

This is a sweeping change with many unforeseen consequences as everybody continues to tell you. If you intend to follow the letter of the law the majority of scams, spying, and even many honest practices can be found in violation of the rule. if you do not follow the rules to the letter why the f*** even write them or clarify them like this. calling it a grey area and refusing to draw the line opens you up to problems of favoritism by gm's, players being upset by unequal punishment for the same crimes, and players not knowing what's allowed and what is not.

In the past players understood the rules to be

no player may impersonate a member of ccp in any way shape or form. players, corps, and alliances may not name themselves after trademarked entities, to avoid legal disputes despite the fact that the trademark does not extend to an in game player made entity. lying and scamming other players is allowed and encouraged. having to think for yourself and know what is going on is part of eve and all players are expected to investigate deals using in game tools.

Frank sends his regards.

HEY GUYS! I JUST IMPERSONATED MY ALT AND TRADED MY MAIN SAYING I WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT SOME LOOT TO JITA FOR MYSELF...

I MADE THE FOOLISH MISTAKE OF BELIEVING MYSELF AND NOW I HAVE ALL MY PHAT LOOT INSTEAD OF ME :'(

should I have used a courier contract? I'm pretty pissed off with myself for scamming me, I think myself should be banned but I don't believe I should be.

How do I legal?

Bad decision CCP, letting GMs interpret policy like this. What happened to playing the villain, being a spy, pirate or thief?

I can't believe that you would wittingly remove these roles from the game. So why would you let a GM say as much? How about we hear from the actual game developers about their vision for the game and whether they truly intend to completely change the fundamental principles of eve 10 years in. Why do you think there is such a huge response to this?

Insanity like this, I really did not expect from a company that saw the incarna debacle.

They put out a trailer where the guy scammed his way into an alliance and stole everything.

CCP have also congratulated people for scamming heaps of stuff. Scamming is one of the cornerstones of this game and has been for the entire time its been live.

At least you wouldn't be banned for impersonating one!

That has to be the most fucktarded rule I have ever seen in gaming… and I've played EA games.


But ok, if you're going to go with the boneheaded idea that claiming to be yourself is a bannable offence (and yes you really are doing this so trying to dodge it will only make us laugh at your inability to understand what you've written), can you at least make sure to make the rule double-sided: make it so that lying about who other people are is also a ban-worthy offence under the same rule. After all, they, too, are misrepresenting who's behind a character. Surely, this must be against the same rule by the same standard?

This is why GMs should enforce policy and not make policy.