These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anslo
Scope Works
#1361 - 2013-09-13 14:39:30 UTC
OK can someone explain to me why all the mad? The ToS always had that bit about impersonation. I think they only care about Dev Actors for live events or GM/CCP xxxx whatever. Why would they randomly start banning someone named 'Teh Mitanni' for using the name to scam people?...

Yes this is probably a stupid question, but I want to see if I can get a concise, non-mad answer.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#1362 - 2013-09-13 14:42:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
Shade Millith wrote:


Also, I question that "it always has". Goons and others claiming to be Goons have been publicly making big heists of money from the foolish, and I've never heard a single thing from the GMs about this. No nothing.

I can bet that we're going to see a massive clamp down on these activities.


I'm going to say it again. This is just sad. This is just GM hand-holding to protect the foolish and gullible. Not what I signed up to EVE for.


Because I'm a bit hungover and grumpy, lets have some fun.

They are not doing this to protect the foolish or gullible. Sure the foolish or gullible are getting protected by this, but it's the big and powerful who are the real beneficiaries and probably the real reason for the changes. Just put on the tinfoil and think about it for a sec. A small change in the wording of the TOS suddenly outlaws all renter scams that are done in another entities name and have been going on for years, precisely as all the large 0.0 power blocks move to a renter arrangement for income. Hmmmmmmmm.

Now i'm taking the tinfoil off and going to have some tea and Aleeve and hope this headache goes away.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1363 - 2013-09-13 14:44:38 UTC
space chikun wrote:
Never thought I'd "like" a nulli post.
Don't worry, you can shoot me and get even.

Just make sure it's the two correct characters, lest one of us should get banned for some impersonation attempt!

Besides, S2N people are good poasters. Also toasters and poachers.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1364 - 2013-09-13 14:46:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
I think at this point it's safe to assume that CCP has in fact deliberately changed the fundamental principles of their game.

It's not practical for me to withhold judgement on this any longer. CCP you are irrevocably changing your game for the worse.

Going silent, with the last official communication being the "final word" that now, apparently saying who my alts are is a bannable offence? You have to be ******* kidding me here.

Whatever happened to restoring the faith of the community? Whatever happened to the giant letter of apology last year (edit: holy crap it's been two years) that promised to not roll out game-breaking changes without player/csm/community representation?

I assume that letter was written in good faith at the time, I guess it's just not relevant to you any longer. Well, I'm pissed off.

You provided this promise, this vision of a universe. Remember atmospheric flight demos? Whatever happened to that CCP? The CCP that actually had a coherent vision of what their game was going to be...

...It seems now to have turned into "GMs Online" where the people who have to sort whining petitions all day are magically the same ones who get to direct game-changing policy.

Bad idea.

Bad ******* idea.

How long do you think we are going to keep arguing for the universe we have supported until we just say "**** it, they're not listening, I'll support a game where the developers don't just pretend to listen to player feedback". I'm just about there, but my problem is I still believe you. I honestly do believe this is not where you intend to take the game. It just doesn't make any sense to create an entire universe based around a principle, then to abandon that principle entirely, for whatever reason.

The cold, dark EVE, and those players responsible for making it that way, are the sole reason for your outstanding success with eve. Kick that out of the game and what do you have? A sub-par chaos ball simulation with a bunch of silly UIs tacked on top.

Please see reason, already.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

Lexmana
#1365 - 2013-09-13 14:47:07 UTC
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:
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!

Can you imagine the number of petitions? nd this time it is the playbear that cites the TOS and not the GM pointing towards "A cold harsh universe" and HTFU. If TOS remains at current state I expect every victim of a scam/heist to submit a petition with chat logs attached. EVE will never be the same.

digi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1366 - 2013-09-13 14:48:18 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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.


Many of us are eagerly watching Star Citizen due to changes like this and the fact that CCP is literally bleeding their talent to Riot, Sony and others. Like you, I'm not at the giving-stuff-stage but this latest thing makes me wonder why I play this game and pay for the number of accounts that I do.

I play for a sandbox and a metagame. Space is only a beautiful backdrop. CCP has always claimed to embrace the metagame so I would like to think that this mess will eventually be reinterpreted to be more in line with the vision and the original business ideals.



Lexmana
#1367 - 2013-09-13 14:49:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Anslo wrote:
OK can someone explain to me why all the mad? The ToS always had that bit about impersonation. I think they only care about Dev Actors for live events or GM/CCP xxxx whatever. Why would they randomly start banning someone named 'Teh Mitanni' for using the name to scam people?...

Yes this is probably a stupid question, but I want to see if I can get a concise, non-mad answer.


See GM response beloW:

GM Karidor wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:


Help me understand this then:

I, Abdiel Kavash, run a legit 3rd party business. Over the years I gain the trust of hundreds and a multibillion empire.

CASE 1: A new character, Joe McScammer, completely unaffiliated with me, decides to make some extra money. Joe McScammer convoes a customer of AbdielCorp and claims to be an alt of Abdiel Kavash. The poor mark falls for it and gives Joe McScammer ISK thinking he's sending it to Abdiel Kavash.

In this case, Joe McScammer is guilty of "[using] the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity", and if petitioned by the unsatisfied customer is prone to getting banned.


CASE 2: I decide that I want to make some extra money off my past customers, without necessarily having to provide any extra services. I create a new character, Phill McScammer, on my account. I then go talk to a past customer of AbdielCorp and I claim that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash. Customer falls for it, sends me their money and never sees it again.

Since different characters are treated as separate entities, is this judged the same as case 1? Is Phill McScammer prone to getting banned for impersonating Abdiel Kavash? I.e. can I get banned for claiming that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash?


I suppose you have read my example, so you can answer that yourself as it is pretty much the same thing with different names.

Abdiel Kavash wrote:

Can I be banned for telling the truth?


Your character Phill McScammer impersonated Abdiel Kavash, the same way as Joe McScammer did, thus gets it from us the same way if reported. From our point of view, as well as from a victims, there is no technical difference between those two cases of a character impersonating another.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1368 - 2013-09-13 14:51:14 UTC
Anslo wrote:
OK can someone explain to me why all the mad? The ToS always had that bit about impersonation. I think they only care about Dev Actors for live events or GM/CCP xxxx whatever. Why would they randomly start banning someone named 'Teh Mitanni' for using the name to scam people?...

Yes this is probably a stupid question, but I want to see if I can get a concise, non-mad answer.
That exact name? Probably, since it's a clear impersonation.
My two biggest problems are that a) they can ban people for admitting alts, even if they won't (then why have the rule in place?) and b) many of the scams, stories etc. that define EVE are now against the TOS and will get reversed. Moreover, to that last point, since the GM staff clarified that this change is not a change but simply a rewording, in other words the rule has always been like that, those pranks, scams, stories, changes, politics, metagames etc. etc. etc. would have been against the TOS if reported!

I don't see it as an enormous problem to ban making your name too visually alike (i and l, O and 0, stuff like that). I don't see a reason for a change if they just continue to say that people can try to fool you, but I don't see that change as problematic in itself.
This however is much more than that which makes me a sad panda (WHOOPS DID I MISREPRESENT MY SPECIES THERE?!?).
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1369 - 2013-09-13 14:51:28 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:
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!

Can you imagine the number of petitions? nd this time it is the playbear that cites the TOS and not the GM pointing towards "A cold harsh universe" and HTFU. If TOS remains at current state I expect every victim of a scam/heist to submit a petition with chat logs attached. EVE will never be the same.




Which is why I said "impersonated party" not "victim."

I Agree, It would be most ideal to revert the TOS back to its original state, but in order to do so, I think some in-game server crushing rage would be needed, not just forum posting.

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

Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1370 - 2013-09-13 14:52:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
Player: Can I be banned for telling the truth?

GM Karidor: Yes.

^^ And this here is exactly why GMs should not be allowed to dictate policy.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

Clavin
Coiled Spring Inc
Goonswarm Federation
#1371 - 2013-09-13 14:54:54 UTC
I'm curious, is this change in the ToS still being looked at or are we now at the definitive "this is how it is, get used to it" stage?

I'm genuinely curious if I should bother looking at this thread anymore or reside myself to playing carebears in space?
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1372 - 2013-09-13 14:54:57 UTC
Step 1. Fire all GMs who have never played EVE (and biomass their characters and erase any trace of them ingame/on forums).
Step 2. All GMs must have 2 years of EVE history where they have scammed, pirated, carebeared, etc. etc.
Step 3. Rejoice in rules THAT ACTUALLY MAKE ******* SENSE.

Anslo
Scope Works
#1373 - 2013-09-13 14:57:04 UTC
Wow so it's actually making scams harder? I mean, I'm not pro-scamming but...hell it's a part of Eve. Espionage, under handed tactics etc...

Did that EA talking head tell you people to do this, CCP? Cause yeah, you might get more subscribers in the short run...who will quickly get bored. Oh but the vets wi-no they won't. They'll be long gone.

Dude, seriously.

Wat.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1374 - 2013-09-13 14:57:31 UTC
The GM interpretations I have seen thus far are appalling. Please, we want this escalated to someone more senior to reconsider this.

The change to not being able to impersonate groups or NPCs is a new change, and will only lead to abuse.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1375 - 2013-09-13 14:57:48 UTC
Clavin wrote:
I'm curious, is this change in the ToS still being looked at or are we now at the definitive "this is how it is, get used to it" stage?

I'm genuinely curious if I should bother looking at this thread anymore or reside myself to playing carebears in space?



According to GM Karidor, the final word has been said on the subject.

I guess GMs have a higher level of responsibility now at CCP, dictating the direction of the game...I thought that was the job of the Dev Team.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1376 - 2013-09-13 14:58:37 UTC
Clavin wrote:
I'm curious, is this change in the ToS still being looked at or are we now at the definitive "this is how it is, get used to it" stage?

I'm genuinely curious if I should bother looking at this thread anymore or reside myself to playing carebears in space?
We have been told that the GM Karidor version of the clarification is the final word.
That he clarified the clarification again later must have been a mistake.

I know that they can back down on that promise, I sure hope they do, but we've been told that the rule has always been there and the clarifications we have got are the ones we'll have to settle for.
Anslo
Scope Works
#1377 - 2013-09-13 15:01:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Maybe that's why Zulu and Soundwave peaced out.

EDIT: Dammit Lex, wai u steal mah post.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Lexmana
#1378 - 2013-09-13 15:02:52 UTC
Since I have been away for some time can anyone tell me if this has anything to do with Soundwave leaving CCP?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1379 - 2013-09-13 15:05:57 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Since I have been away for some time can anyone tell me if this has anything to do with Soundwave leaving CCP?


If he caught wind of it beforehand, it certainly wouldn't have encouraged him to stay.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1380 - 2013-09-13 15:06:31 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Since I have been away for some time can anyone tell me if this has anything to do with Soundwave leaving CCP?


In my opinion they are unrelated. However, Soundwave was the most vocal and visible proponent of the dystopian and ruthless sandbox. Him leaving is definitely not a good thing for the future of EVE.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.