These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
LTHenrich Lehmann
Runners of Kessel
#1421 - 2013-09-13 16:21:39 UTC
Eram Fidard wrote:
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.


This in isolation as you have it should be completly correct depending on what the 'truth' is that is being told as long as that truth incurrs something that is bannable from say e.g. the EULA take your pick of any that apply.

This is why isolation, out of context posts prove nothing, they add no value and contribute nothing constructive to getting a resolution to (insert item under discussion) .

sorry, but really, after so much, players "we need clarification blah blah posts", a GM bothers to try and help understanding of perceived issues etc, at least show some respect to that fact.

I know feelings are running high but this won't help at all. Shocked
Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#1422 - 2013-09-13 16:26:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
thee lous3 wrote:


You have no idea how much it warms my heart to see a CSM who gets it.
Malcanis, could you please inform us whether the majority of the CSM agrees or disagrees with the policy change?


I'm sorry to say that I have had almost no time for my CSM duties in the last 2 weeks, but I can confirm that I'm definitely not the only CSM who is unhappy with the turn this situation has taken.



It's good to hear that the CSM is aware of the gravity of these changes, and I hope you guys are doing all you can to see this through to a solution. However, this isn't just a burden for the CSM to bear, but rather one for every player who enjoys an unrestricted and emergent game universe. Do you have any advice for the rest of us on what we can do to help out? I would hope the common player can do more to participate in this process than posting in a sticky that has only gotten sparse and largely unsatisfactory GM replies.

I tried petitioning for clarification, but it was of course locked with no replies Roll
GENT
The Meta Cartel
#1423 - 2013-09-13 16:28:08 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Milton Middleson wrote:

What if Abdiel Kavash directly confirms that Phill McScammer (his alt) is in fact his alt (e.g. starting a private conversation with the mark using his main and saying "Phill McScammer is my alt")? Does that still qualify as impersonation?


Why would you even bother with the alt in that situation? You can just do whatever you need to do with Abdiel Kavash then. The character Phil technically still impersonates Abdiel.


Impersonate:
To pretend to be (another person) as entertainment or in order to deceive someone.

Pretend:
To speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.

So no. In this case, in no way shape or form, is he impersonating Abdiel. He is Abdiel. He is actually going to lengths to PROVE that, rather than pretend to be someone else.

Watch my stream on twitch for small gang PVP and Exploration content in 0.0
Ed Tekki
Doomheim
#1424 - 2013-09-13 16:29:16 UTC
Gavinvin1337 wrote:
I wouldn't be suprised if this was caused by someone getting recruited to the legal team from another games company. They get tasked to use their experience of gaming TOS's to look over the EVE one and see if there is anything they can fix.

They see the fact that other games have these types of statements in their TOS's and think "Oh look there's a big gaping hole in the TOS, lets fill it." .

I 100% think that whoever made this decision does not know the game or the community very well, as shown by this threadnaught.


It does indeed seem like a rookie mistake. What's worrying is there's been little in the way of comment about trying to bring forth a resolution to resolve the problem, and diffuse the situation.

I appreciate that this has stemmed from an abuse of the Wiki, but rather than a massive upheaval of the rule, they could have just added a line that said "screwing with the wiki to perform a scam will get you banned."
Gavinvin1337
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1425 - 2013-09-13 16:36:51 UTC
Im just going to take the first few storys I find on https://truestories.eveonline.com/ and compare them to the new TOS.

BOB disbanding
https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/976-the-mittani-sends-his-regards-disbanding-band-of-brothers

Haargoth used an alt to get scammed/recruited into goons, then told them he had a director character in BOB, under the new TOS he would be banned.

Guiding Hands Social Club
https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/1025-guiding-hand-social-clubs-uqs-contract-or-the-heist-where-mirial-and-ubiqua-seraph-have-a-bad-day

When the members left the alliances they scammed, they left notes taking credit and stating they were part of the Guiding Hands Social Club, as there is no in game means to prove this, they were misrepresenting themselves and therefore should have been banned.

These are the 1st and 3rd ranked stories on an official eve website, both of which now break the TOS.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1426 - 2013-09-13 16:38:14 UTC
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Eram Fidard wrote:
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.


This in isolation as you have it should be completly correct depending on what the 'truth' is that is being told as long as that truth incurrs something that is bannable from say e.g. the EULA take your pick of any that apply.

This is why isolation, out of context posts prove nothing, they add no value and contribute nothing constructive to getting a resolution to (insert item under discussion) .

sorry, but really, after so much, players "we need clarification blah blah posts", a GM bothers to try and help understanding of perceived issues etc, at least show some respect to that fact.

I know feelings are running high but this won't help at all. Shocked
I have yet to see a GM understand the issue.
The post you quoted was the extreme shorthand if a couple of replies that GM Karidor made. It's short, to the point and correct. You need not do anything else than impersonate your other character to get penalised (Warned, banned, permabanned) if reported.
You don't have to break the EULA, you already broke the TOS which can get you banned.

The truth here refers to saying that he was one of his own alts. The GM did not understand, did not help, and need no respect.
I'll respect CCP staff that actually shows they know what end of the digestive system they're speaking out of.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1427 - 2013-09-13 16:40:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Eram Fidard wrote:
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.


This in isolation as you have it should be completly correct depending on what the 'truth' is that is being told as long as that truth incurrs something that is bannable from say e.g. the EULA take your pick of any that apply.

This is why isolation, out of context posts prove nothing, they add no value and contribute nothing constructive to getting a resolution to (insert item under discussion) .

sorry, but really, after so much, players "we need clarification blah blah posts", a GM bothers to try and help understanding of perceived issues etc, at least show some respect to that fact.

I know feelings are running high but this won't help at all. Shocked


You're right, it was a **** move. I was honestly surprised to see the 'final word' had been 're-re-clarified' by Karidor to even more disastrous interpretation. Still no dev response, though.

I think you interpret my post too literally though. It was a dumbed-down simplification that illustrates the perils of speaking and/or interpreting in broad, vague ways. Not meant as gospel, though I admit it came across a little bitter.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#1428 - 2013-09-13 16:40:27 UTC
Ed Tekki wrote:
Gavinvin1337 wrote:
I wouldn't be suprised if this was caused by someone getting recruited to the legal team from another games company. They get tasked to use their experience of gaming TOS's to look over the EVE one and see if there is anything they can fix.

They see the fact that other games have these types of statements in their TOS's and think "Oh look there's a big gaping hole in the TOS, lets fill it." .

I 100% think that whoever made this decision does not know the game or the community very well, as shown by this threadnaught.


It does indeed seem like a rookie mistake. What's worrying is there's been little in the way of comment about trying to bring forth a resolution to resolve the problem, and diffuse the situation.

I appreciate that this has stemmed from an abuse of the Wiki, but rather than a massive upheaval of the rule, they could have just added a line that said "screwing with the wiki to perform a scam will get you banned."



While this is most likely the case, I still like the tin foil hat idea that this was done to remove the ability to perform renting scams in the name of another so as to protect the integrity of the new 0.0 income stream of renters.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1429 - 2013-09-13 16:43:16 UTC
how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:

"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?

this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#1430 - 2013-09-13 16:44:18 UTC
Gavinvin1337 wrote:
Im just going to take the first few storys I find on https://truestories.eveonline.com/ and compare them to the new TOS.

BOB disbanding
https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/976-the-mittani-sends-his-regards-disbanding-band-of-brothers

Haargoth used an alt to get scammed/recruited into goons, then told them he had a director character in BOB, under the new TOS he would be banned.

Guiding Hands Social Club
https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/1025-guiding-hand-social-clubs-uqs-contract-or-the-heist-where-mirial-and-ubiqua-seraph-have-a-bad-day

When the members left the alliances they scammed, they left notes taking credit and stating they were part of the Guiding Hands Social Club, as there is no in game means to prove this, they were misrepresenting themselves and therefore should have been banned.

These are the 1st and 3rd ranked stories on an official eve website, both of which now break the TOS.



This. These new rules, quite frankly, are idiotic. They make impossible (or rather illegal) much of the intrigue and creative social play that made EVE such a gem.
arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#1431 - 2013-09-13 16:49:05 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:

"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?

this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues.


Prove consent first...

At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.

Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1432 - 2013-09-13 16:55:12 UTC
I am the N3 Coalition

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1433 - 2013-09-13 16:59:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
arabella blood wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:

"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?

this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues.


Prove consent first...

At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/

granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started cleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Ed Tekki
Doomheim
#1434 - 2013-09-13 17:00:20 UTC
Interesting legal fact:

Anyone with an account that pre-dates the ToS change is not yet bound by the new rules, as there has been no new ToS agreement requests when entering the game.
Viribus
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#1435 - 2013-09-13 17:00:36 UTC
Can I petition a unit of Carbon for impersonating a different in-game item?

watch me be a scurb and get owned
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1436 - 2013-09-13 17:01:36 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
arabella blood wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:

"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?

this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues.


Prove consent first...

At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/

granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing.

They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now.

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider
Anslo
Scope Works
#1437 - 2013-09-13 17:05:01 UTC
Is there a way to see if people are unsubbing?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1438 - 2013-09-13 17:05:37 UTC
Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
arabella blood wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:

"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?

this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues.


Prove consent first...

At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/

granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing.

They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now.

doesn't help at all. I mined a rock and all of the sudden I'm banned because some obscure law made it illegal to mine something at some place and a GM just happened to woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

the clearer the law, the less problematic the interpretation is, the easier is to pass judgement.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1439 - 2013-09-13 17:07:29 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
arabella blood wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:

"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?

this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues.


Prove consent first...

At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/

granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing.

They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now.

doesn't help at all. I mined a rock and all of the sudden I'm banned because some obscure law made it illegal to mine something at some place and a GM just happened to woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

the clearer the law, the less problematic the interpretation is, the easier is to pass judgement.

Exactly, The EULA is a joke they just want to be able to ban anyone at anytime so that any problems they run into can just be brushed under the rug.

RIP Eve

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider
arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#1440 - 2013-09-13 17:12:35 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
arabella blood wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:

"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?

this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues.


Prove consent first...

At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/

granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing.

They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now.

doesn't help at all. I mined a rock and all of the sudden I'm banned because some obscure law made it illegal to mine something at some place and a GM just happened to woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

the clearer the law, the less problematic the interpretation is, the easier is to pass judgement.


Actually NO, beeing as i am IRL Lawyer, i promise to you - "the less problematic the interpetetion" does not result in "the easier is to pass judgment"...but that's IRL law stuff and a bit out of place here, despite the TOS beeing a legal thing.

Anyway, my question/seggestoin still stands: what happens when i give "Power of attorney" to some other player?

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.