These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1201 - 2013-09-13 07:24:01 UTC
Crimson Gauntlet wrote:
Quote:
I do not see any reason why you could not conduct non-scam business on your alts or conduct scams that don't involve impersonating any other character on whatever character you want.


Mostly because, as he has been trying to explain to you, a "scam" is defined by the victim. It's actually a business transaction that one party (typically immediately) regrets. It also tends to be avoidable by the victim. The combination results in a ton of hurt feelings.

And, if you have been playing this game long enough, you should know that "victims" in this game tend to be a bunch of butthurt crybabies.

So, as I tried to tell you, people are concerned about the ability of butthurt crybabies who should have known better anyway to get people banned for something that was previously as close to being a sanctioned activity as it's possible to be.



None of this matters if the scam was not conducted by impersonating another character. That is the only situation where the petition has any merit. The point I have been trying to make is that scams by impersonation are not, and have not been allowed. If you think they should be allowed then I am ok with that but it has nothing to do with the recent TOS change.

(And as I have stated before the addition of the language about representing groups is a whole other issue that is troubling and certainly needs much more clarification.)

I think most everyone has gotten totally confused by the whole alt thing and I am trying to explain how it makes perfect sense so that we can focus on what I believe are the real issues here. They are (as I see them):

1. Should players be allowed to scam by impersonating other players? (And this should be discussed in the context that impersonation what not allowed either before or after the TOS wording change.)

2. We need clarification and discussion regarding the new language about "groups."

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Mildew Wolf
#1202 - 2013-09-13 07:24:50 UTC
So maybe make some enemy.. Make throw away alt.. Scam someone while claiming to be enemy's alt.. Maybe send some isk to enemy for realism.. Enemy banned?
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1203 - 2013-09-13 07:26:20 UTC
I'm logged in and shooting at the statue. You should do the same. This change is so fucking dumb.
Bob FromMarketing
Space Marketing Department
#1204 - 2013-09-13 07:26:43 UTC
Mildew Wolf wrote:
So maybe make some enemy.. Make throw away alt.. Scam someone while claiming to be enemy's alt.. Maybe send some isk to enemy for realism.. Enemy banned?


I like you
Athena Machina
Akadeimia Keipouron SVK
Apocalypse Now.
#1205 - 2013-09-13 07:27:14 UTC
Has anyone from CCP clarified as to why these changes are being made? What is the prime reason behind them?
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1206 - 2013-09-13 07:27:28 UTC
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
As someone who trades characters, and a huge amount at that, we're talking around 120 characters in the last 10 months, I usually have a handfull of accounts with multiple characters and the need to still contact people. I put across sales offers linking eveboards, rightfully claiming that I own said pilots but I just don't want to or am unable to log out and back in to advertise a skillsheet.

This new rule means that my lack of wanting to re-log (which is a ridiculous task in itself holy **** GG CCP UI design) will get me banned an average of thirteen times in one day.


Thank you CCP, for making my life even more liveable.



No.

It would only get you banned if you were running a SCAM. And last I checked you weren't allowed to scam when trading characters anyway. So this results in absolutely no change for you. None. You couldn't scam character trades before, and you still can't. Impersonation doesn't even come into it.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1207 - 2013-09-13 07:30:07 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:

Therein lies a fundamental flaw in policy.
The only real way to resolve it is either to make impersonating or claiming to represent other characters or groups, even ones you own, against the rules, or it would be to make impersonating or claiming to represent other characters or groups fine and allowed as long as it's within legitimate game mechanics.


CCP has already clarified that impersonating or claiming to represent other characters WAS and IS against the rules.

Groups is new ... and I dunno what they're doing there.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Bob FromMarketing
Space Marketing Department
#1208 - 2013-09-13 07:30:48 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
As someone who trades characters, and a huge amount at that, we're talking around 120 characters in the last 10 months, I usually have a handfull of accounts with multiple characters and the need to still contact people. I put across sales offers linking eveboards, rightfully claiming that I own said pilots but I just don't want to or am unable to log out and back in to advertise a skillsheet.

This new rule means that my lack of wanting to re-log (which is a ridiculous task in itself holy **** GG CCP UI design) will get me banned an average of thirteen times in one day.


Thank you CCP, for making my life even more liveable.



No.

It would only get you banned if you were running a SCAM. And last I checked you weren't allowed to scam when trading characters anyway. So this results in absolutely no change for you. None. You couldn't scam character trades before, and you still can't. Impersonation doesn't even come into it.


Of course, but when DumbPubbie2455 randomly suspects me advertising a skillsheet for an alt I own as a scam and freaks the **** out, who's going to be banhammered?
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1209 - 2013-09-13 07:31:46 UTC
Mildew Wolf wrote:
So maybe make some enemy.. Make throw away alt.. Scam someone while claiming to be enemy's alt.. Maybe send some isk to enemy for realism.. Enemy banned?


Really?

If your enemy wasn't impersonating anyone ... why would they be banned?

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Crimson Gauntlet
Six Gun Sound
#1210 - 2013-09-13 07:31:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimson Gauntlet
Mildew Wolf wrote:
So maybe make some enemy.. Make throw away alt.. Scam someone while claiming to be enemy's alt.. Maybe send some isk to enemy for realism.. Enemy banned?


This is part of the problem as I see it. Especially since you can just flat out activate trial accounts with PLEX. (which means, even CCP has no idea who is behind the computer doing this. Public library IP addresses ftw)

I know plenty of people who would think it's totally worth 500mil to get somebody else banned.

Quote:
2. We need clarification and discussion regarding the new language about "groups."


Agreed, except...

"clarification" my arse. We need a bloody list of "yes" and "no" as to what constitutes a group under this ruling. Are newbies a group? If so, does that mean 30 day old or less characters, or accounts?

Are coalitions a group? They aren't in game...

And that's the major problem I have with it. Precisely because it so incredibly unclear about so many possibilities, you can reasonably use it to describe bannable activities all over the place.

So people are tiptoing on glass here, because just from the way this is written WE DON'T KNOW what you might be banned for if some GM somewhere, somewhen decides to interpret this as written.

Which is why it MUST be changed or reverted until it can be re-written to be less opaque than eggnogg.
Number of times my posts have come in after the dev/mod locked the thread:  1
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1211 - 2013-09-13 07:33:48 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
CCP has already clarified that impersonating or claiming to represent other characters WAS and IS against the rules.


You mean "totally claimed it was always this way when in fact they just decided it wasn't this week." Go clarify yourself.
Crimson Gauntlet
Six Gun Sound
#1212 - 2013-09-13 07:34:53 UTC
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
As someone who trades characters, and a huge amount at that, we're talking around 120 characters in the last 10 months, I usually have a handfull of accounts with multiple characters and the need to still contact people. I put across sales offers linking eveboards, rightfully claiming that I own said pilots but I just don't want to or am unable to log out and back in to advertise a skillsheet.

This new rule means that my lack of wanting to re-log (which is a ridiculous task in itself holy **** GG CCP UI design) will get me banned an average of thirteen times in one day.


Thank you CCP, for making my life even more liveable.



No.

It would only get you banned if you were running a SCAM. And last I checked you weren't allowed to scam when trading characters anyway. So this results in absolutely no change for you. None. You couldn't scam character trades before, and you still can't. Impersonation doesn't even come into it.


Of course, but when DumbPubbie2455 randomly suspects me advertising a skillsheet for an alt I own as a scam and freaks the **** out, who's going to be banhammered?


Seeing as they are so touchy with account transfers anyway?

You. And everything on your credit card, if previous issues are any indicator.
Number of times my posts have come in after the dev/mod locked the thread:  1
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1213 - 2013-09-13 07:34:58 UTC
Bob FromMarketing wrote:


Of course, but when DumbPubbie2455 randomly suspects me advertising a skillsheet for an alt I own as a scam and freaks the **** out, who's going to be banhammered?



Nobody. If you're not running a scam then the GMs will see that and nothing will happen to you.

Even if you were allowed to impersonate people to scam ... DumbPubbie2455 can suspect you and petition you ... and if you are scamming character trades, you get punished. (Banned, maybe, I dunno.)

This changes nothing for you. In your transactions as a character trader you are not allowed to scam. Period. With alts, without alts, impersonating someone, whatever ... not allowed.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1214 - 2013-09-13 07:38:48 UTC
Mildew Wolf wrote:
So maybe make some enemy.. Make throw away alt.. Scam someone while claiming to be enemy's alt.. Maybe send some isk to enemy for realism.. Enemy banned?

No, because CCP can see in a snap that you are the scammer. Not them. And that you are different people.
Even the most basic of tools (The IP) can tell them this. Let alone the more complex tools that actually get used.
So the only person banned in this case is you. And possibly your other accounts also if CCP can backtrack 100% which accounts you actually own other than the throw away alt.
Random other guy you tried to frame on the other hand, will be completely fine.
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1215 - 2013-09-13 07:40:09 UTC
This is the dumbest, most un-sandbox, hamfisted reworking of the TOS I have ever witnessed and at it's very core goes against just about everything most of us love about EVE.

We can now be punished for telling the truth in EVE just as quick as we could for altering EVEWiki Pages to scam idiots who don't deserve to have supers out of having supers. If you (read: CCP and possible other ignorant players) have an issue with scamming why did you make the PvE content in this game the most soul crushingly boring thing you can do in EVE?

This whole situation seems extremely mishandled, banning people before policy change is also pretty weak- for a game that gets most of its new players based on the more nefarious deeds in this games ongoings, it almost seems like you guys don't want to make any more money.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1216 - 2013-09-13 07:41:13 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Except that a GM is unlikely to confirm the identity of a scammers main. Somewhere in this thread I'm fairly sure we were told, by a CCP representative, that they can't verify alts and mains because there is no ingame way to do so (actually there is, but a GM said that there isn't, so I'm actually lying here Roll )

edit - the exact text
GM Karidor wrote:
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.


Yes, that is actually my entire point! If a GM treated the "I'm Joe's alt" scam differently because that character really is Joe's alt then he is essentially confirming the identity of the scammer's main.

I would be willing to bet that GMs are constrained by CCP policy to never confirm if one character is an alt of another and therefore have no choice but to treat each character as an "independent entity" in order to avoid confirming that information.
You appear to have missed the point, while making your point... pointception?

Quote:
It's not an insane manner. It's probably the only manner in which they can enforce it. If they enforce it any other way and someone like Chribba decides he wants to make an alt and run scams ... then I can get it confirmed, by a GM that the alt is his and ruin his main's reputation. In an EVE universe where impersonating other characters is not allowed, this manner of enforcement actually protects THE SCAMMER.


Maybe I wasn't clear, before the ToS was clarified, under the old methods of enforcement, GMs were not going to give you the identity of a scammers main. Therefore the previous enforcement method offered exactly the same protection to a scammers main. The main has gained no additional protections, the scammer now runs the risk of falling afoul of the ToS, the meta game is now technically illegal.

The only people that have gained anything are victims, usually of their own stupidity and laziness. Everybody else just got told "off is the general direction in which you should proceed while thrusting your hips in a parody of fornication"

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1217 - 2013-09-13 07:41:31 UTC
Crimson Gauntlet wrote:


Agreed, except...

"clarification" my arse. We need a bloody list of "yes" and "no" as to what constitutes a group under this ruling. Are newbies a group? If so, does that mean 30 day old or less characters, or accounts?

Are coalitions a group? They aren't in game...

And that's the major problem I have with it. Precisely because it so incredibly unclear about so many possibilities, you can reasonably use it to describe bannable activities all over the place.

So people are tiptoing on glass here, because just from the way this is written WE DON'T KNOW what you might be banned for if some GM somewhere, somewhen decides to interpret this as written.

Which is why it MUST be changed or reverted until it can be re-written to be less opaque than eggnogg.


I couldn't possibly agree with you more about the group thing. I have read every post in this thread (and many others) and I still don't know what the group stuff means. And I totally agree that is a big problem.

I would just like a few more people to wrap their heads around the fact that the "alt" thing is necessary as long as impersonation is against the rules. That way we focus the conversation down to the real issues of the group language and the broader question of whether impersonating characters should be allowed. This hysteria about the alts is just distracting from the real issues.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Crimson Gauntlet
Six Gun Sound
#1218 - 2013-09-13 07:44:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimson Gauntlet
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Mildew Wolf wrote:
So maybe make some enemy.. Make throw away alt.. Scam someone while claiming to be enemy's alt.. Maybe send some isk to enemy for realism.. Enemy banned?

No, because CCP can see in a snap that you are the scammer. Not them. And that you are different people.
Even the most basic of tools (The IP) can tell them this. Let alone the more complex tools that actually get used.
So the only person banned in this case is you. And possibly your other accounts also if CCP can backtrack 100% which accounts you actually own other than the throw away alt.
Random other guy you tried to frame on the other hand, will be completely fine.


Wow, you did not think that through.

I even posted the solution for you.

You use a public library's IP address. This will work even with the crappy computers at a PL, because you can run Eve on a potato.

Then you just use a Plex to activate a trial account, scam on behalf of your intended victim, and poof, they go away, and all you are out is a Plex. (hell, you can probably even do it on just a trial account, to be honest)

Untraceable. This will become the new meta in place of the recruitment scam.
Number of times my posts have come in after the dev/mod locked the thread:  1
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1219 - 2013-09-13 07:46:01 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Maybe I wasn't clear, before the ToS was clarified, under the old methods of enforcement, GMs were not going to give you the identity of a scammers main. Therefore the previous enforcement method offered exactly the same protection to a scammers main. The main has gained no additional protections, the scammer now runs the risk of falling afoul of the ToS, the meta game is now technically illegal.

The only people that have gained anything are victims, usually of their own stupidity and laziness. Everybody else just got told "off is the general direction in which you should proceed while thrusting your hips in a parody of fornication"


Ok, I see where we've gone wrong here. You are operating under the belief that it was not against the rules to impersonate another character before the TOS change.

CCP has provided sufficient evidence to show me that such scams were not allowed prior to the TOS change. They were forbidden by language in the naming policy. I have no problem believing that the GMs have not changed anything regarding enforcement against impersonation scams and that they were taking action against them when petitioned both before and after the TOS change.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Crimson Gauntlet
Six Gun Sound
#1220 - 2013-09-13 07:47:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimson Gauntlet
Quote:
Ok, I see where we've gone wrong here. You are operating under the belief that it was not against the rules to impersonate another character before the TOS change.

CCP has provided sufficient evidence to show me that such scams were not allowed prior to the TOS change. They were forbidden by language in the naming policy.


You are correct only in a technical sense.

Thing is, the precedent that had previously been set was the exact opposite, and CYA is in full swing.

Which is why people are worried that this does not just signify a clarification, but a policy and adjudication change. Which it probably does, sadly.
Number of times my posts have come in after the dev/mod locked the thread:  1