These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#501 - 2013-09-11 19:07:43 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.


So basicly they were right saying the policy didn't change and it's buisness as ususal for them but the scammee have more chance of finding he was cheated using an actionnable offense and not a legit scam?
Bootleg Whammers
Zero Fun Allowed
#502 - 2013-09-11 19:07:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Bootleg Whammers
Ali Aras wrote:

However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective.


Where else would you like Eve online players to post if not on the eve online forums ? Roll
SAJUK NIGARRA
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#503 - 2013-09-11 19:07:53 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
stuff



Why are you impersonating Hans ? Petitioned.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#504 - 2013-09-11 19:08:13 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.

So basically, we just wait for you to get back to us and say "yeah, get bent" ?

Ok.

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 ?

greiton starfire
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#505 - 2013-09-11 19:08:39 UTC
oh thank goodness the ccp yes man on the csm commented ok everyone there is no issue lets all go home now and not be angry at ccp anymore. /sarcasm
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#506 - 2013-09-11 19:10:01 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.

Except CCP have literally endorsed this behaviour in the past, whether they say they enforced it as a rule or not. You've drunk their koolaid pretty hard if you believe what you're saying here.

"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,

Bootleg Whammers
Zero Fun Allowed
#507 - 2013-09-11 19:10:03 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.

So basically, we just wait for you to get back to us and say "yeah, get bent" ?

Ok.


m8 thats standard policy in the the flow chart that all follow after waiting two weeks to read the petition you sent in.
Larg Kellein
Bacon Appreciation Society
#508 - 2013-09-11 19:10:18 UTC
Well, it *had* been a while since CCP decided that its own foot was a suitable place to store spent ammunition...
I'm impersonating Jack's complete lack of surprise.

I've never scammed anyone in this game, but that it was allowed, even encouraged by the developers is one of the top items of my list of things that brought me here. If this Sonyfication of CCP continues, it'll be high on my list of reasons for leaving.
Rena Senn
Halal Gunnery
#509 - 2013-09-11 19:12:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Rena Senn
baltec1 wrote:
So turned out that under this rule I could get everyone who takes part in a baltec fleet that is not me banned.

I can ban all of the CFC. Please place your offers of payment (bribes)


As baltec fleets are ad hoc player organizations and you are but one pilot, once you get everyone else banned you would be misrepresenting yourself as an in-game organization and get yourself banned.

Edit: Looks like I just broke Article 8 by misrepresenting myself as a speaker for Adhocracy Incorporated.

:welp:
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#510 - 2013-09-11 19:12:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Fix Lag
Ali Aras wrote:
I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.


You should go peddle your posturing bullshit in Jita local. You'd get more success there.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.

Catlos JeminJees
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#511 - 2013-09-11 19:12:16 UTC
This policy Change seems to go completly against what eve is about. HTFU. Geez you even made a music video about it
internecionX
EVE Engineering Corporation
#512 - 2013-09-11 19:12:18 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:

However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.


Aka nothing will get done and CCP will hope this all blows away.

Pretty much every single "news worthy" story about eve-online breaks this rule.

Also that guy who lost the revenant should petition.....

Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#513 - 2013-09-11 19:12:21 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.


Posting in a thread is not rioting. Stop being ridiculous.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise

Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#514 - 2013-09-11 19:12:57 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.

Except CCP have literally endorsed this behaviour in the past, whether they say they enforced it as a rule or not. You've drunk their koolaid pretty hard if you believe what you're saying here.


Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#515 - 2013-09-11 19:13:12 UTC
When do we reach the point when people start shooting the statue ?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#516 - 2013-09-11 19:13:47 UTC
We are well aware that the GM team is now clear on what they think they mean, the incredulity and frustration stems from the content of what they think they mean.

The hilarious part is that they don't seem to grasp that we are really looking out for their best interests here. They are the ones who are going to suffer most from this catastrophe, as we just get to watch from the sidelines roasting marshmallows while they attempt to police a 180 shift in the game's basic policy.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#517 - 2013-09-11 19:14:13 UTC
Rena Senn wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So turned out that under this rule I could get everyone who takes part in a baltec fleet that is not me banned.

I can ban all of the CFC. Please place your offers of payment (bribes)


As baltec fleets are ad hoc player organizations and you are but one pilot, once you get everyone else banned you would be misrepresenting yourself as an in-game organization and get yourself banned.


Literally the entire CFC.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#518 - 2013-09-11 19:14:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ali Aras wrote:
On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.

If that's the case, then I just restate my previous post:

The problem here was never one of clarification, but of a bad rule. What's needed is a rules change to match what was thought to be the actual rule. People have been using the most blatantly obvious “recruiting while not part of”-style scams for yonks, and the only thing that seems to have resulted so far is lots of laughter when it turned out that the guy not in corp/alliance X was not actually going to hook you up with corp/alliance X.

If such a rule change takes longer (for some absurd reason), then fine, but that's the beauty of policy: you can actually start employing it before it has been put on paper and made official, as this whole circus has shown.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#519 - 2013-09-11 19:14:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them.
I am quite sure that public interviews and publicly stating how awesome some of the scams in EvEs history were
definitely counts as endorsing them ...

Like Hilmar said, regarding the EvE Bank heist ... the first big one.
500 people left the game ... 5000 more joined in.


Edit: Just realized it's actually a bad example. My point was that CCP does indeed
endorse scamming and impersonating somebody else is usually a big part of it.
Sorry for mixing things up.
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#520 - 2013-09-11 19:15:45 UTC
Can the current CSM members be banned for impersonating effective representatives?

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise