EVE General Discussion

Which does nothing if people abide by the rules, and as every case is examined and no 'mass banning' has ever happened via the petition system this is unlikely to occur now.

I don't think potentially getting yourself a ban by abusing the petition system is a good 'meta' at all to be honest (CCP might accuse you of DDoSing the support system if you mass petition illegitimately).

So i would advise against such an action.



It is called experience, CCP have done nothing to offend/hurt me in any way, and several statements have been made by CCP Staff the CSM is following up on it as well. The fact that you now keep stomping your feet is only for posture and serves no actual purpose.

These rules as stated are applied on a case by case basis and will never be consistent due to that fact, if you can't live with that fact you are free to unsubscribe as documented in the EULA. Furthermore my 'faith' is based on the logic that CCP is not in the business of banning all their subscribers, only the bad ones. If you are a bad subscriber you have all the right in the world to be afraid this might actually affect you.

'HTFU' and 'Can i have your Stuff?' and all that,

Somehow more terrifying than being evil

You missed the main heading, which references that the rules written only pertain to in-game names. The new TOS isn't being limited to in-game names. What the change to the TOS does is extend those penalties to in-game actions as well, some of which are very popular, and is part of the dynamic of the success of Eve Online.

Suppose you want to spy on a mining fleet in high-sec using a NPC-corp alt. Because you are "falsely presenting yourself as a representative of an NPC Entity" while you are REALLY a representative of a ganking corp trying to gank that mining fleet, you can now be banned. Coincidentally, due to new rules about "rookie" players, if you shoot and destroy that NPC alt knowing (but not having proof) that he is spying on you, he can also petition you, and you could be punished as well.

Let's try another angle: Suppose you don't like Goons, if you try to get a spy into their corp and you are successful at getting recruited, at that point, because of the new TOS, you are "falsely presenting yourself" as a representative of that corp because in reality, you are a representative of an opposing corporation.

Let's talk about this angle too: Suppose you have a dirty, rotten CEO who denies you payment for minerals, services, etc. that you provided to the corp, and he agreed to pay you for. You wait and regain the trust of that CEO and he gives you access to the corp hanger. In revenge, you take everything and leave the corp. Guess what? Because you did that, the CEO now has proof that you were "falsely presenting yourself" as a member of his corp, and he could have you banned.

How about this angle: Suppose you and your buddy decide to direct sell some ships to some of your friends in corp without going through the market. Since you and your buddy are on at different times, you accidentally get the amount of ships you have for sale mixed up and accidentally oversell your stock. One of the buyers, who really wanted those ships, thinks you were being dishonest with him, and decides that you were really a spy trying to take advantage of him. He could have you banned because "you falsely presented yourself as a representative of an in-game entity."

Let's take this one step further: Suppose you and your buddies in your PC corporation are really into roleplay, and you decide to pretend to be an envoy for the Gallente President. And in your hubris you tell in local how you will fight for the great President of the such and such NPC corp. Yep, due to the wording listed in the TOS, someone who saw you acting that way in local could get you banned.

So, yeah.. things have changed alot.

I like the way you think

Not even in the same ball park.

What the naming policy said is I am not allowed to create corporations like SOMER Bonus Blink to facilitate impersonation scams.

The new policy means I cannot assign a contract named "Bonus" from "Timmy's Industrial corp" to a Blink winner because I am misrepresenting myself as being magically affiliated with Blink.

Whilst I take your point that a lot of people feel the CCP track record is not great, the least we can do is give the CSM folks some time to make a case on our behalf, then at least we can work from their feedback as to whether they feel there is any sign that CCP will consider further input/change to this issue. After all if we don't even give them a chance at doing what you yourself said above, who better to be given the opportunity to 'step up' in cases exactly like this, I am sure the CSM of which one or more is from goons right, can make a case.

If that fails then at least we can point out that it was tried first.
I know if someone as a customer of mine approaches me with a problem in real life in an aggressive manner and they expect me to fix the issue for them, it is not until the calmness of the discussion sets in, that the real issue can be understood and dealt with, if that is able to happen.

Again generally correct, except it appears the CSM is being quashed by NDA or something, as they are nowhere to be found.

There was that one who said we were "ineffectually rioting" as well as being idiots for not just accepting it

I stand by my description.

Except for the fact that there has already been an instance where the GMs wrongly penalized a Goon Recruitment corp since the new TOS took place. In fact, you just need to look at the beginning of this thread to see how GMs could get it wrong, with no ability for the player to avoid the ban. GM Grimmi could not for the life of himself say a straight sentence, whereas GM Karidor was able to clearly articulate what had changed. That shows a difference in understanding. However, both of them were absolutely wrong in saying that this was "not really a change." Going from banning names to banning actions that caused the success of Eve Online is a giant difference, and yet they don't seem to be able to fathom that.


As I mentioned, yeah it already happened, so you with us now?



Um, actually, you are wrong there as well. See, when countries like the United States, or Great Britian develop trade agreements, in those agreements are the legal ways for a wronged party to find restitution. At our small financial level, we are very, very unlikely to use them as they are prohibitively expensive, however, they are there and it is legally enforcable.



First off, the GM does not have a good reputation, which unfortunately they've had a real difficult time trying to change. They are the ones who will be applying this new TOS in the game world and are already having problems getting things right. As far as the CSM goes, we are still waiting for something more than just a "hmm.. this might be bad." response, and it looks like either the CSM has locked itself down or CCP has gagged them. Either way, the lack of dialog is making the issue more of a problem.

And I hate to say, but I don't think you fully comprehend the gravity of the change. The reason Eve Online didn't die off was because it was a place where you could REALLY do what you wanted, including scam, lie, cheat, steel, etc and it was considered, even praised as part of the gameplay by CCP. With all honesty, likely that feature is what made Eve Online successful. These events, spy networks, and double-crosses have reached the ears of mainstream media and have drawn in new players because it was so different from the "hold your hand" mottos of the rest of the MMOs out there. When I say that this could kill Eve Online, it is because it very well could.