These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kheeria
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1341 - 2013-09-13 14:03:18 UTC
So, if we all impersonate someone we all get ourselves banned and CCP loses tons of money.
SquirlRuler Cadelanne
Guilliman Initiative
#1342 - 2013-09-13 14:05:24 UTC  |  Edited by: SquirlRuler Cadelanne
Malcanis wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.

you are implying that there are no other ways to protect yourself other than blowing someone up, which is not true. trust is an asset like any other and if you are not able or not willing to protect the trust people place in you, you probably do not deserve it to begin with.


More to the point: since when was "But this makes people mad" sufficient reason to limit player freedom?


QFT

Eve players are sustained on the tears!

Slipping steadily into madness; now that is the only place to be free.
Lexmana
#1343 - 2013-09-13 14:13:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
More to the point: since when was "But this makes people mad" sufficient reason to limit player freedom?

I thought it used to be one of EVE/CCPs biggest selling points.
X ATM092
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#1344 - 2013-09-13 14:15:02 UTC  |  Edited by: X ATM092
What if someone impersonates a role by deceiving those around them. For example I ask a member of TEST called SpyMcAlt "is SpyMcAlt your main or are you actually someone else?". Would he be impersonating SpyMcAlt if he answered "yes" when in fact he is not SpyMcAlt but the alt of some other character. His main would be impersonating the invented persona of SpyMcAlt for malicious purposes.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1345 - 2013-09-13 14:15:52 UTC
Kheeria wrote:
So, if we all impersonate someone we all get ourselves banned and CCP loses tons of money.

Kheeria wrote:
So, if we all impersonate someone we all get ourselves banned and CCP loses tons of money.


At this stage I'm much prefer to make a coherent and well-argued case that these changes are not a good idea, and demonstrate why it is to the benefit of the game in general not to have the GMs be put in a position where they're increasingly expected to nursemaid players.

Frankly, these changes, the way they've been surreptitiously introduced and the shady, emotive "Won't somebody please think of the children, I mean noobs!!!!" arguments that have been used to justify them are extremely disappointing.

I'm certainly not at the "Who wants my stuff" stage, but if we can't get these bad, destructive changes reversed, it will leave me loving EVE a lot less.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Slaktoffer
Virtual Progression
#1346 - 2013-09-13 14:16:31 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.

you are implying that there are no other ways to protect yourself other than blowing someone up, which is not true. trust is an asset like any other and if you are not able or not willing to protect the trust people place in you, you probably do not deserve it to begin with.


More to the point: since when was "But this makes people mad" sufficient reason to limit player freedom?


Generally speaking, making people mad has been a huge content creator in this game for 10 years and counting. It even has at least one subforum of its own on this site. What the actual ****, CCP.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1347 - 2013-09-13 14:17:01 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
More to the point: since when was "But this makes people mad" sufficient reason to limit player freedom?

I thought it used to be one of EVE/CCPs biggest selling points.


I'd be interested to see any data that shows that people flock to EVE for the incredible, absorbing PvE.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1348 - 2013-09-13 14:20:35 UTC
Slaktoffer wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.

you are implying that there are no other ways to protect yourself other than blowing someone up, which is not true. trust is an asset like any other and if you are not able or not willing to protect the trust people place in you, you probably do not deserve it to begin with.


More to the point: since when was "But this makes people mad" sufficient reason to limit player freedom?


Generally speaking, making people mad has been a huge content creator in this game for 10 years and counting. It even has at least one subforum of its own on this site. What the actual ****, CCP.

u look like a cat

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#1349 - 2013-09-13 14:21:15 UTC
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
First brutally honest feedback. I'll word it as politely as possible without sacrificing honesty.

This is the biggest knife in the heart of EVE's gameplay and culture of 'spies and deception are everywhere' since the Incarna debacle. I have no confidence in the ability of the people behind this change to understand EVE, let alone implement reasonable policies or rules.

It appears that any deceptive behaviour at all that involves a declaration that "X is my alt" or "I am working in conjunction with X" is against the rules, and by extension, and outsourcing of core activities of a corporation, alliance or 'entity' now has CCP enforcing the honesty of such dealings.

For instance, under the new rules Goonswarm Federation retain the CCP endorsed right to scam people interested in renting space from them. However, in the unlikely situation that Goonswarm were to appoint me (a non-member of the alliance) as a third party to act on their behalf in rental deals, I would not be allowed to scam and and deliberate scamming by me of renters would be an account-ban offence. (A similar situation would occur if I were to collude with a 'renter' that intended to not pay but instead use their 'rented space' as a staging ground to attack GSF interests).

Particularly relevant to sovereign nullsec is that one of the major vectors for inserting spies into hostile entities, applying to multiple corps saying "I am XYZ's alt", fishing for one that is not vigilant enough to API verify this information, is no longer legal.

What you should be doing is the following:

- Ban names that are deceptively close to existing character, corporation or alliance names. GM discretion applies when it's unclear (Currln Trading is clearly deceptively close to Currin Trading; while 'Avengers of the South' would not be deceptively close to 'Southern Avengers')
- Ban deceptive conduct carried out on CCP hosted websites other than the official EVE forums
- Change the font so that capital 'o' and 'zero' look more different ingame than the presently do. Likewise for capital 'i' and lower case 'l'.
- Remove all reference to 'entities'. The game client recognises corporations and alliances. It doesn't recognise coalitions, the New Order or other such 'entities'.
- Explicitly allow players to lie about their affiliation to in-game corporations and alliances and to other characters, as long as they do not do so in ways that 'trick' the in-game methods for checking this information. Disallowed would be misuse of CCP websites and any form of API falsification. (Providing information and saying 'this is what my API says' should be fine; altering what the API actually says should be a banhammer).



Absolutely spot on.

What the **** is going on ccp, why are you doing all this. Absolutely none of this needed fixing and there are much more pressing issues to address


+1

This. Please explain, CCP. Also, how does one reach out to internal affairs?

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Cierra Royce
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1350 - 2013-09-13 14:22:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
More to the point: since when was "But this makes people mad" sufficient reason to limit player freedom?

I thought it used to be one of EVE/CCPs biggest selling points.


I'd be interested to see any data that shows that people flock to EVE for the incredible, absorbing PvE.



You don't remember that promo clip showing how dozens of new accounts per day were signing up to mine the ice fields of high sec, with detailed statistics from the good doctor showing how nice behaviour and mining were a great boon to the whole game?

Neither do I.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1351 - 2013-09-13 14:27:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Aryth
Glad to see some of the more...edge cases were discussed and addressed.

I don't have much issue with many of the examples being discussed here. The one we (goons) have been most interested in is the representation of entities. We feel this is the only new change to the TOS and was highly disturbing as we can cite so many examples that were permitted in the past.

Let me use my personal favorite example and see if the GMs can give some insight into how it would be handled today. (This example happens and I think it is hilarious)

Goons run an ice interdiction. We sell mining permits to miners (this is just a scam) saying we won't shoot them. However, lets for the purposes of this example say we would honor them.


Another player not related to Goons, or any goon corp starts selling permits claiming they are a Goon. He convinces some miner to pay him for a mining permit.

Would this unaffiliated player have action taken against them (it appears so in the new TOS, and if so what action? Just a warning at first?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Sarah Harpoon
Lootbox Kaboom Inc
#1352 - 2013-09-13 14:29:01 UTC
X ATM092 wrote:
What if someone impersonates a role by deceiving those around them. For example I ask a member of TEST called SpyMcAlt "is SpyMcAlt your main or are you actually someone else?". Would he be impersonating SpyMcAlt if he answered "yes" when in fact he is not SpyMcAlt but the alt of some other character. His main would be impersonating the invented persona of SpyMcAlt for malicious purposes.


yeah this is legit an issue, I call this alt my main every day
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1353 - 2013-09-13 14:29:10 UTC
I like the references to Somer Blink being "popular" because I can claim ignorance since SOMER BLINK is technically 3rd party as there is no way ingame to gamble with my funds other than sending isk to a corporation (which is no different than any other corporation).


(Yes, I'm still on page 30something playing catchup after just ONE DAY).

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.
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#1354 - 2013-09-13 14:29:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Isis Dea
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
First brutally honest feedback. I'll word it as politely as possible without sacrificing honesty.

This is the biggest knife in the heart of EVE's gameplay and culture of 'spies and deception are everywhere' since the Incarna debacle. I have no confidence in the ability of the people behind this change to understand EVE, let alone implement reasonable policies or rules.

It appears that any deceptive behaviour at all that involves a declaration that "X is my alt" or "I am working in conjunction with X" is against the rules, and by extension, and outsourcing of core activities of a corporation, alliance or 'entity' now has CCP enforcing the honesty of such dealings.

For instance, under the new rules Goonswarm Federation retain the CCP endorsed right to scam people interested in renting space from them. However, in the unlikely situation that Goonswarm were to appoint me (a non-member of the alliance) as a third party to act on their behalf in rental deals, I would not be allowed to scam and and deliberate scamming by me of renters would be an account-ban offence. (A similar situation would occur if I were to collude with a 'renter' that intended to not pay but instead use their 'rented space' as a staging ground to attack GSF interests).

Particularly relevant to sovereign nullsec is that one of the major vectors for inserting spies into hostile entities, applying to multiple corps saying "I am XYZ's alt", fishing for one that is not vigilant enough to API verify this information, is no longer legal.

What you should be doing is the following:

- Ban names that are deceptively close to existing character, corporation or alliance names. GM discretion applies when it's unclear (Currln Trading is clearly deceptively close to Currin Trading; while 'Avengers of the South' would not be deceptively close to 'Southern Avengers')
- Ban deceptive conduct carried out on CCP hosted websites other than the official EVE forums
- Change the font so that capital 'o' and 'zero' look more different ingame than the presently do. Likewise for capital 'i' and lower case 'l'.
- Remove all reference to 'entities'. The game client recognises corporations and alliances. It doesn't recognise coalitions, the New Order or other such 'entities'.
- Explicitly allow players to lie about their affiliation to in-game corporations and alliances and to other characters, as long as they do not do so in ways that 'trick' the in-game methods for checking this information. Disallowed would be misuse of CCP websites and any form of API falsification. (Providing information and saying 'this is what my API says' should be fine; altering what the API actually says should be a banhammer).



Absolutely spot on.

What the **** is going on ccp, why are you doing all this. Absolutely none of this needed fixing and there are much more pressing issues to address


+1

This. Please explain, CCP.

Good at EVE wrote:
And yes, we will petition anyone claiming to be either of us.

Sarah Harpoon wrote:
I'm good at eve, just look at my killboard.


Amen. Lots of win. But seriously, CCP, please don't let the veterans down. This doesn't make a lick of sense in EVE (maybe in other MMOs).

Also, how does one reach out to internal affairs?

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1355 - 2013-09-13 14:29:48 UTC
Aryth wrote:

Let me use my personal favorite example and see if the GMs can give some insight into how it would be handled today. (This example happens and I think it is hilarious)

Goons run an ice interdiction. We sell mining permits to miners (this is just a scam) saying we won't shoot them.

How very disreputable of you, I approve.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1356 - 2013-09-13 14:29:57 UTC
Would the famous GHSC gank (ca. 2005) be permitted under this new TOS?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#1357 - 2013-09-13 14:31:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Isis Dea
[double post, sry]

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#1358 - 2013-09-13 14:34:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Isis Dea
Moreso, what about the whole concept behind EVE:Casualty? D:

Ominaeon wrote:
I for one applaud this move. EVE has been a cold, dark place for a long time, and it's nice to see the GMs and devs beginning to understand that protecting their playerbase from "griefers" is in their best interests. Nullsec isn't relevant in this game anymore (thanks to the CFC) and so the focus must shift to those in high sec that earn an honest living through mining and mission running. "Scamming" and "multiboxing" hurt the online playerbase and the economy and must be rigidly policed to avoid driving the high-sec core of EVE away from the game and into the arms of an (admittedly) superior game like FFXIV.

These safeguards will allow CCP to begin the transition that all major MMOs of the last decade have taken towards a friendlier, less dangerous atmosphere that fosters good will and FUN (read:PvE) for all. Personally, I might actually consider deactivating my WoW account (lvl 90 Pandaren XD) and coming here to run missions in high sec full time just for the social aspect of it!

Truly a good move by CCP. Scamming wasn't fun for anyone, and protecting the playerbase is what EVE is all about.


+1

Epic sarcasm is epic.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1359 - 2013-09-13 14:37:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Can we petition CCPs legal department for impersonating

  • people who know what they're doing?
  • people who actually play Eve?


**This is a tongue in cheek post, I'm assuming that it was a legal department that altered the wording of Article 8, and not someone rolling their face across the keyboard, although they're not mutually exclusive**

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1360 - 2013-09-13 14:37:59 UTC
If CCP would simply come out and say "We will only enforce the TOS change and it's associated rules solely upon request/petition of the impersonated party, and none other, " I am sure the great majority of the intelligent and mature player base would be satisfied and the game would continue unchanged.

If on the other hand, this is an attempt to bring the game into a more mainstream mass marked, as I posted before, it will have long term consequences.

As an aside, dumbing-down a game to make it more friendly in preparation for a prospective conversion to a F2P model will have the same result. This game has the single unique market attraction of being the only playable and enjoyable dark, hard and cold MMO universe, who's content and economy is almost completely player driven. It should stay that way!

I was hunting for sick loot, but all I could get my hands on were 50 corpses[:|]..............[:=d]