These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anslo
Scope Works
#1461 - 2013-09-13 17:46:57 UTC
Banning to make way for the new influx of Madden 20xx (where x is any number). BRING ON THE HIGH TURN OVER!

Edit: Achievement Unlocked: L33t Spaece Page Sniper

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1462 - 2013-09-13 17:48:21 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
Djan Sarpati wrote:

As for CSMs, pretty certain Mynna was dead against the changes and said so in a locked thread.


Well this makes me feel a little better then, that it just didn't get push through without thought from the CSM. So, from the list of CSMs, I thus get:

Ali Aras - Did not think the changes were an issue
Ripard Teg - Was concerned about the wording (as per his blog)
Mynnna - Disagreed with the changes
Malcanis - Not sure if they were an issue

That being said, it still seems to me that the full weight of these changes were either overlooked, or how it was worded was something that CCP could easily fix later.



Funny thing is that if they post, they represent CSM as an entity, and cannot use an alt to post as that player.

It's almost like the TOS is worded so vaguely that not even the CSM can talk to their constituents.

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.
LTHenrich Lehmann
Runners of Kessel
#1463 - 2013-09-13 17:49:07 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
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.


Based on your response here it seems you completely missunderstood my point.

My point is that, any post, in any thread, that does nothing to help arrive at a resolution to any problem not just this TOS, where that post takes a quotation from another person or information from another source out of context with the purpose of making an invalid point or in order to insult a person or group of people or to generally cause further bad feelings, etc, then that contributes nothing of value.

There is already a request to keep the dialog civil which as far as I am concerned is just plain good manners and should not need requesting, but hey that is just me I guess.

The rest of the post was simply to point out that the (in this case) GM that responded to multiple player requests for clarification, which the GM attempted to do, deserves the respect (one would hope) for doing so, knowing that in all likelyhood the reception from the players would be, shall we say potentially unfriendly and contentious. Therefore despite this fact the GM did their best to assist.

Whether or not, in your opinion, the GM did a sufficiently good job at understanding, explaining or any other preconceived idea which you may have, about what a GM should or should not do, is irrelavant. We are all here to enjoy the game and we are at the end of the day people with feelings, therefore to show a little common courtesy and respect whether or not we get what we want or expect is surely not a lot to ask.

I was in no way interested in debating the points of this thread further as I did that much earlier, therefore my points were only in connection with the civility factor.

I hope this clears up the point sufficiently.

I look forward to any continuing constructive civil debate and the eventual responses from CCP et al, hopefully at that time we will know better where things stand.
LTHenrich Lehmann
Runners of Kessel
#1464 - 2013-09-13 17:56:55 UTC
Eram Fidard wrote:
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.


Thanks for pointing this out I guess the written word does not always reflect the intention of the writer when read by someone else.

Therefore based on this I apologise for missinterpreting your intent. Blink
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1465 - 2013-09-13 18:02:23 UTC
Full disclosure: I'm still a "carebear" (that could care less..lol)

So, while I should do my usual thing like mission, salvage and maybe mine the next time I login, this TOS change makes me feel like buying a few megas & disco bomb ALL the noob stations over the weekend.

Let's see how friendly EVE feels after THAT!!!Twisted

I was hunting for sick loot, but all I could get my hands on were 50 corpses[:|]..............[:=d]
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1466 - 2013-09-13 18:03:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
the written word does not always reflect the intention of the writer when read by someone else. Blink


Now that is gospel.


Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:
Full disclosure: I'm still a "carebear" (that could care less..lol)

So, while I should do my usual thing like mission, salvage and maybe mine the next time I login, this TOS change makes me feel like buying a few megas & disco bomb ALL the noob stations over the weekend.

Let's see how friendly EVE feels after THAT!!!Twisted


And that is something that can, has, and probably always should get you a warning then a ban.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1467 - 2013-09-13 18:08:43 UTC
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
My point is that, any post, in any thread, that does nothing to help arrive at a resolution to any problem not just this TOS, where that post takes a quotation from another person or information from another source out of context with the purpose of making an invalid point or in order to insult a person or group of people or to generally cause further bad feelings, etc, then that contributes nothing of value.
Who was misrepresented or what was taken out of context?

Quote:
which the GM attempted to do, deserves the respect (one would hope) for doing so, knowing that in all likelyhood the reception from the players would be, shall we say potentially unfriendly and contentious. Therefore despite this fact the GM did their best to assist.
Credit for owning up to leaving excrements all over the game concept?

Quote:
I was in no way interested in debating the points of this thread further as I did that much earlier, therefore my points were only in connection with the civility factor.

I hope this clears up the point sufficiently.

I look forward to any continuing constructive civil debate and the eventual responses from CCP et al, hopefully at that time we will know better where things stand.
It would be nice if they hadn't lied with the "no changes, only rewording" approach, I agree.
However we do know where it stands. GM Karidor gave us a final word and clarified to say what you saw.
Anslo
Scope Works
#1468 - 2013-09-13 18:12:56 UTC
So I did a thing here.

If you agree with it, sound off.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#1469 - 2013-09-13 18:15:38 UTC
Could we make a new zone in the game where all scamming is banned? Also remove suicide ganking and wardecs. Maybe we could somehow incorporate this with Incarana? like going down on to planets. We could make new missions with level 4 quest givers.


The funny thing is, by posting this in the same thread as 'you can be banned for telling the truth' it isn't even the dumbest post.
Lionel Joeseph
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1470 - 2013-09-13 18:16:45 UTC
So let me get this straight. It is against the ToS to impersonate anyone including myself (which mind you is impossible by definition) So literally if I say that I'm my own alt this would be impersonation? That's completely impossible they know that right.

The dictionary defines impersonation as im·per·son·ate transitive verb \im-ˈpər-sə-ˌnāt\
: to pretend to be (another person)

Do they not see the paradox?
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#1471 - 2013-09-13 18:28:31 UTC
Lionel Joeseph wrote:
So let me get this straight. It is against the ToS to impersonate anyone including myself (which mind you is impossible by definition) So literally if I say that I'm my own alt this would be impersonation? That's completely impossible they know that right.

The dictionary defines impersonation as im·per·son·ate transitive verb \im-ˈpər-sə-ˌnāt\
: to pretend to be (another person)

Do they not see the paradox?


If your alt is on the same account, possibly. If not, there are no means (perhaps unless you use something like a common email address, to which you'll have to point out during investigation) -to determine if you own that alt.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#1472 - 2013-09-13 18:31:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Isis Dea
Alphea Abbra wrote:
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
My point is that, any post, in any thread, that does nothing to help arrive at a resolution to any problem not just this TOS, where that post takes a quotation from another person or information from another source out of context with the purpose of making an invalid point or in order to insult a person or group of people or to generally cause further bad feelings, etc, then that contributes nothing of value.
Who was misrepresented or what was taken out of context?

Quote:
which the GM attempted to do, deserves the respect (one would hope) for doing so, knowing that in all likelyhood the reception from the players would be, shall we say potentially unfriendly and contentious. Therefore despite this fact the GM did their best to assist.
Credit for owning up to leaving excrements all over the game concept?

Quote:
I was in no way interested in debating the points of this thread further as I did that much earlier, therefore my points were only in connection with the civility factor.

I hope this clears up the point sufficiently.

I look forward to any continuing constructive civil debate and the eventual responses from CCP et al, hopefully at that time we will know better where things stand.
It would be nice if they hadn't lied with the "no changes, only rewording" approach, I agree.
However we do know where it stands. GM Karidor gave us a final word and clarified to say what you saw.


...which very much can be taken as "everything has indeed changed" (if not implying CCP hasn't done their job and/or players have been allowed to get away with so much to the point that it has become woven into the spirit of the game and the wording should mirror that).

Less they get accused for playing favorites.

Curious, CCP, how should we contact internal affairs in the future? Petition?

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1473 - 2013-09-13 18:32:03 UTC
The number of people who have read the CCP posts, completely failed to comprehend them, come up with some hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the rules being discussed and then decided they know that they will be insta-banned for it ... even if there is no petition ... it astounds me.

Seriously folks ... you're not getting it. Try to calm yourself. Go back. Read the CCP posts again. Skip the wild hysteria posts by other players who are just making up complete fiction. Try to understand.

There are actual issues here that need to be discussed. This crazy "let's make up stories about all my accounts getting banned that have nothing to do with impersonation scams" crap is not helpful. If you think this is a legit concern then you have failed to comprehend the rules.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1474 - 2013-09-13 18:35:37 UTC
Lionel Joeseph wrote:
So let me get this straight. It is against the ToS to impersonate anyone including myself (which mind you is impossible by definition) So literally if I say that I'm my own alt this would be impersonation? That's completely impossible they know that right.

The dictionary defines impersonation as im·per·son·ate transitive verb \im-ˈpər-sə-ˌnāt\
: to pretend to be (another person)

Do they not see the paradox?


It only matters if you do it to scam someone. When scamming other players ... one character cannot impersonate another character (or the player behind that character) even if they are, in fact, the same player. If they treated it differently because you own both characters then I can use the petition system to confirm who your alts are.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
LTHenrich Lehmann
Runners of Kessel
#1475 - 2013-09-13 18:38:15 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
My point is that, any post, in any thread, that does nothing to help arrive at a resolution to any problem not just this TOS, where that post takes a quotation from another person or information from another source out of context with the purpose of making an invalid point or in order to insult a person or group of people or to generally cause further bad feelings, etc, then that contributes nothing of value.
Who was misrepresented or what was taken out of context?

I took this as an example of isolation/context

Player: Can I be banned for telling the truth?

GM Karidor: Yes.

assuming it was to justify this, which I read literally and as deliberately contentious.
(note since that post I have responded to the provided clarification with an apology and acceptance that I took the wrong meaning in this case).

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


Quote:
which the GM attempted to do, deserves the respect (one would hope) for doing so, knowing that in all likelyhood the reception from the players would be, shall we say potentially unfriendly and contentious. Therefore despite this fact the GM did their best to assist.
Credit for owning up to leaving excrements all over the game concept?

Any sensible response to this would be pointless.

Quote:
I was in no way interested in debating the points of this thread further as I did that much earlier, therefore my points were only in connection with the civility factor.

I hope this clears up the point sufficiently.

I look forward to any continuing constructive civil debate and the eventual responses from CCP et al, hopefully at that time we will know better where things stand.
It would be nice if they hadn't lied with the "no changes, only rewording" approach, I agree.
However we do know where it stands. GM Karidor gave us a final word and clarified to say what you saw.


Someone else before you already pointed out that the final word was given and that there would likely be no further updates from a GM etc, that was right before the Senior GM pointed out that he was watching the thread discussion and taking note, this was followed by the attempts to answer the concerns of the people that were posting at the time, this lead to some people actually thanking him for the updates that he was able to give.

So for some of us, there is hope, that although no new information on the subject was available at that time, progress might still be made and that CCP will update us when they are ready and maybe the members of the CSM, Malcanis already stated I believe (might be wrong What?) may be able to put a constructive set of points in debate to CCP in the hopes that something might be achieved.

I am of course not in a position to know any details, but that does not stop me hoping that he and the others are indeed able to do that despite the final, final, final, final word.
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#1476 - 2013-09-13 18:38:44 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
The number of people who have read the CCP posts, completely failed to comprehend them, come up with some hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the rules being discussed and then decided they know that they will be insta-banned for it ... even if there is no petition ... it astounds me.

Seriously folks ... you're not getting it. Try to calm yourself. Go back. Read the CCP posts again. Skip the wild hysteria posts by other players who are just making up complete fiction. Try to understand.

There are actual issues here that need to be discussed. This crazy "let's make up stories about all my accounts getting banned that have nothing to do with impersonation scams" crap is not helpful. If you think this is a legit concern then you have failed to comprehend the rules.


If these in fact have been the rules, then the game has moved on in lack of enforcing them and it has become the spirit of the game. If that's the case, for sake of their playerbase, the rules need to be changed to support that.

We've gotten by with 10 years of this, it's written in history of EVE and even a selling point. Sure it is among the reasons EVE might not make as much as say, WoW or League of Legends, but if I wanted to play either of those titles I'd already be there.

Space is dark. I'm here because it evolved that way and shaped us all (including CCP) along the way. Kids don't play here, adults do. People come here to play, they grow up in the process. Don't change that; don't cater to the kids, change the wording.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Random MarketAlt
The Collective for Spaceforum Menergy
#1477 - 2013-09-13 18:43:12 UTC
How does Chribba still have a good reputation despite thousands of impersonation scams?

Oh wait, this is CCP where we make decisions based on whims because actual research is just... effort.
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1478 - 2013-09-13 18:55:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Sid Hudgens
Isis Dea wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
The number of people who have read the CCP posts, completely failed to comprehend them, come up with some hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with the rules being discussed and then decided they know that they will be insta-banned for it ... even if there is no petition ... it astounds me.

Seriously folks ... you're not getting it. Try to calm yourself. Go back. Read the CCP posts again. Skip the wild hysteria posts by other players who are just making up complete fiction. Try to understand.

There are actual issues here that need to be discussed. This crazy "let's make up stories about all my accounts getting banned that have nothing to do with impersonation scams" crap is not helpful. If you think this is a legit concern then you have failed to comprehend the rules.


If these in fact have been the rules, then the game has moved on in lack of enforcing them and it has become the spirit of the game. If that's the case, for sake of their playerbase, the rules need to be changed to support that.

We've gotten by with 10 years of this, it's written in history of EVE and even a selling point. Sure it is among the reasons EVE might not make as much as say, WoW or League of Legends, but if I wanted to play either of those titles I'd already be there.

Space is dark. I'm here because it evolved that way and shaped us all (including CCP) along the way. Kids don't play here, adults do. People come here to play, they grow up in the process. Don't change that; don't cater to the kids, change the wording.


EDIT: oops I meant to say I don't think scamming should be against the rules ... not that I do think ... typing is hard and all
I don't think that scamming should be against the rules. I really don't. Only a subset of scams are affected by this TOS change.

I think there is merit to having rules against impersonation. I think impersonating CCP is something most people can agree should be against the rules. As you move further to impersonation of other players I think things get murkier and CCP has done the easy thing here and just said that all impersonation is against the rules and then left it up to GM discretion to sort out the rest. If players want to be able to impersonate other players I think that is a legit concern and should be addressed.

I think that adding language about "representing groups" is the biggest and most urgent issue as that language is very unclear. Getting that language sorted out is my top priority as a player.

The "alt" thing is just a total CF of people not wanting to understand what CCP is saying so that they can make hysterical forum posts. It does make sense. I was a little confused by it at first too ... but it was later clarified by the GM and I get it now. I wrote several post last night trying to explain it in different ways so that others can understand it and we can move on. The alt thing is simply an odd by product of impersonation being against the rules and GMs not being able to do anything that reveals player account information (including who their alts are.) If player impersonation were not against the rules then this situation would go away as well.

So I think we should focus on two things, in this order of importance:

1. What does the new language about representing groups mean? Why was it put in? Should it be removed?
2. Should player impersonation be against the rules or not?

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Din Chao
#1479 - 2013-09-13 19:00:08 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Lionel Joeseph wrote:
So let me get this straight. It is against the ToS to impersonate anyone including myself (which mind you is impossible by definition) So literally if I say that I'm my own alt this would be impersonation? That's completely impossible they know that right.

The dictionary defines impersonation as im·per·son·ate transitive verb \im-ˈpər-sə-ˌnāt\
: to pretend to be (another person)

Do they not see the paradox?


It only matters if you do it to scam someone. When scamming other players ... one character cannot impersonate another character (or the player behind that character) even if they are, in fact, the same player. If they treated it differently because you own both characters then I can use the petition system to confirm who your alts are.

This was encouraged in the past, even popularized by CCP as some of the biggest stories in the game. Remember BOB being disbanded? If the rules were then as have been "clarified" in this thread, BOB would still be around.
bp920091
Black Aces
Goonswarm Federation
#1480 - 2013-09-13 19:14:37 UTC
Im a long time player, and i have to say, i make the majority of my income from scams, scams that would now be illegal under the "Clarified" terms of service.


Are any of them hacking the game? no.

Are any of them from me impersonating a CCP/GM/ISD (or anyone associated with CCP)? no.

Is the fault of the scam falling 100% with the person being scammed? yes.


This is not a clarification, this is a change. Admit it CCP, we're not 12 year olds playing COD.

Even if this was somehow how things have always been (and has just never been enforced, and was against all the free publicity that you have used to great effect), the community does not want these changes.

Eve is meant to be cold and dark. The punishment for claiming that you are someone else is that person hunting you down and taking the value that they suspect that they deserve off your exploded ship (or stolen assets, trust, or any other thing of value).


I hardly post on the forums, but this action has dragged me out of my lurking to say this "These 'Changes' are ridiculous, reset said changes back to what they were before"


If you are concerned about people modifying the wiki to pull off a scam, how does this sound "Any player who modifies the wiki to assist in a scam is able to be banned for their actions?"

Solves all the problems that the incident in question involved, and the playerbase is once again pacified.

Fix it, or else im sure not going to keep my cyno accounts subbed...