These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

ToS, GM Stonewalling, a Colder CCP: A Call for Dialogue

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Anslo
Scope Works
#1 - 2013-09-13 17:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
So I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet but hey, why not.

I saw that the CSM is looking into the recent debacle of ToS 'changes' and the every changing attitude and direction of Eve to a less risky and more 'safe' style of game. If possible, could the CSM give us updates in this or another thread as they come in? Specifically, I'd like (if possible) any updates regarding meetings/dialogue with CCP. Most importantly, I'd like to know if there is a LACK of dialogue or simply regurgitating legal language by CCP to CSM requests. I think that would be a rather telling sign of things to come.

Also, this isn't a complaint or demand about the CSM and saying they're not doing enough or something. Just an idea/post/thing because clearly this issue isn't going to be dropping anytime soon. So, why not have a place for it outside GD with more focused purpose outside of trolling GD style.

Good idea? Bad idea?...

EDIT: If it's just me feeling this way, feel free to flame away. I'm just testing the waters to get opinions on this beyond the ToS problem.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#2 - 2013-09-13 18:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Anslo wrote:
I saw that the CSM is looking into the recent debacle of ToS 'changes' and the every changing attitude and direction of Eve to a less risky and more 'safe' style of game..


This has been going on for several years of CSM, why would they start now? Clearly CSM have no power to turn Eve away from its direction of WoW in space, even when we managed to get mostly nullsec pilots elected who I'm sure oppose this direction.
Anslo
Scope Works
#3 - 2013-09-13 18:18:45 UTC
I don't know. It just seemed to me like a bunch of crap happened one after the other so...I made this thread. Like I said, if this is just a phase that happens that 10-year vets have seen before, let me know. I've been here only since '07 so I might not be seeing the trends others are vOv.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#4 - 2013-09-13 18:20:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Isis Dea
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Anslo wrote:
I saw that the CSM is looking into the recent debacle of ToS 'changes' and the every changing attitude and direction of Eve to a less risky and more 'safe' style of game..


This has been going on for several years of CSM, why would they start now? Clearly CSM have no power to turn Eve away from its direction of WoW in space, even when we managed to get mostly nullsec pilots elected who I'm sure oppose this direction.


People are beginning to really hear about it and see the effects of it.

Most of them aren't happy.


+1 for what was promised with transparency after Incarna.

I've never run for CSM, but if our current CSM can't push for the values of what EVE is within its strong mature (even cold) playerbase, I think it's worth a second look as to who is representing us.

Please push these issues.

Nine years of staying faithful (2004 player), please don't change the spirit of this game and your company now...

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2013-09-13 18:22:31 UTC
I too Support a call for dialogue. I feel this TOS is first small stone, setting the groundwork toward a direction that could potentially and fundamentally change EVE for the worse. Further, I believe that the Dialogue on this matter should extend beyond forum posts and should include voice/video casts and that the player base must receive direct answers, not those clouded with ambiguity and legal jargon.

I was hunting for sick loot, but all I could get my hands on were 50 corpses[:|]..............[:=d]
Anslo
Scope Works
#6 - 2013-09-13 18:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Also is the CSM allowed to update us on this kind of thing live? Just curious....hope not :S

Also also, IF enough people post in this thread voicing concerns like mine, can we get a CSM statement or plan to address this? A call for CCP to talk to them? Something??

EDIT: RE: Post Above Mine.
Same concern here. IF a video response series happened, would the dev's be able to actually speak their own mind and such, or would a team of lawyers, IA, and the EA dude be off camera forcing them to spit out canned responses?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#7 - 2013-09-13 18:46:30 UTC
+1 from another upset player. The ToS changes don't in any way impact my own play style, but I am vehemently against anything that limits the sandbox.

Additionally, can the CSM let us, the very concerned players, know if there is anything more proactive we can do to voice our concern to CCP? Obviously the chorus of forum dissent has made them aware, but I'm hopeful that there's more we can do beyond posting in a largely ignored sticky thread.
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#8 - 2013-09-13 18:49:21 UTC
Would love to have the number to Internal Affairs...

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
Clavin
Coiled Spring Inc
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2013-09-13 19:00:20 UTC
I think at this point, even just having the CSM or CCP give us an update like "we will have an official response for you by X date" then at least we would know its actually being looked at seriously rather than a, if we don't look at it then it can't hurt us, type of mentality.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#10 - 2013-09-13 19:04:15 UTC
I would just like to clarify my post, I do hate the fact that this game is slowly being ruined by the need to cater to the casual crowd. Resent developments have been another big step in that direction for sure, however it is not a new phenomenon.

War dec nerfs (repeatedly)
Concord Buffs
Mining barge buffs
The safety weapons lock
Suicide insurance nerf

The list goes on with very little movement in the opposite direction. If the CSM had the power to stop any of those past changes I'm sure they would, which must lead us to the conclusion that they do not have the power.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-09-13 19:04:15 UTC
I support a call for clarity.
I support a call for transparency.

I'll go even farther, supporting a call to make the ToS as clear as water.
I can understand some rules having a level of openness, but this must be more the exception than the rule.

[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
bp920091
Black Aces
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2013-09-13 19:23:27 UTC
Simply put, stonewalling is damaging to the community.

A clarification about the reasons why said changes needs to be made. Even if the eve community does not agree with them, there is so much ambiguity in said terms that they could apply to virtually any group.

Nobody, well, at least not many people, are suggesting that impersonating a CCP employee, GM, or ISD should be allowed. It has always been that way.

Keeping quiet doesnt fix the problem, it never has in EVE.

Perhaps it does in other MMOs, where the playerbase is not as vocal, and communication comes down as an absolute law, but given the sheer amount of publicity that CCP has gained from certain scams, which would now be bannable, an explanation, if not a complete rewording is needed.

Your move CCP, and keep in mind that no response would most likely mean a LOT of alt accounts being unsubbed...
Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#13 - 2013-09-13 19:37:39 UTC
bp920091 wrote:
Your move CCP, and keep in mind that no response would most likely mean a LOT of alt accounts being unsubbed...


My accounts are on a 3-month subscription cycle, and their renewal is pretty well in doubt at this point.
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#14 - 2013-09-13 19:57:56 UTC
Berendas wrote:
bp920091 wrote:
Your move CCP, and keep in mind that no response would most likely mean a LOT of alt accounts being unsubbed...


My accounts are on a 3-month subscription cycle, and their renewal is pretty well in doubt at this point.


+1
In the same boat.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-09-13 20:34:34 UTC
Berendas wrote:
My accounts are on a 3-month subscription cycle, and their renewal is pretty well in doubt at this point.


My alt runs out in six days unless I PLEX it. Why should I if I can get banned for saying I'm me but on that alt?
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#16 - 2013-09-13 20:39:34 UTC
Berendas wrote:
bp920091 wrote:
Your move CCP, and keep in mind that no response would most likely mean a LOT of alt accounts being unsubbed...


My accounts are on a 3-month subscription cycle, and their renewal is pretty well in doubt at this point.


I was going to make 20 new suicide ganking accounts when my new PC is put together, but I probably won't do that now.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-09-14 00:09:45 UTC
Are we talking to CCP about the TOS?

of course we are.

Can I tell you what we are saying and what is being said back to us?

Of course NOT. any discussions in our backroom channels are nda'd to death but if you look to the active threads you will see that people like Mynnna and Ali are strongly involved in the discussion trying to find a common ground, talking and listening to you. Do you think that is only on the public side?

Give us time, between the time differential and the fact that we are going into a weekend, give US TIME. I am not saying drop the subject, if it is something you feel passionate about let us know what you think. Just don't expect instantaneous response time.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Scooter McCabe
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2013-09-15 23:14:11 UTC
All that happened with this scam is a guy did his homework and made everyone look like an idiot in the process. With precision and guile he undermined CCP's dependence on Chribba, Darkness, Grendel and Rene De'Labou to preform a function they were just to lazy to code into the game. Can't say I'm all to impressed with ISD's performace of managing Evelopdia either. Its analogous to the fat lazy TSA security agent, asleep on the job, and lets a gun or drugs get onto a plane. So yes if you literally can't log onto a Wiki and check the edit history and have enough common sense to know something isn't right then no one should trust you. It's not like Evelopedia is kept up to date or accurate to begin with as evidenced by the fact many player organizations keep their own Wiki's as a source of real knowledge on the game.

I can understand feeling duped or even embarrassed at having one guy work over an entire paid company and its volunteers to run riot in a environment of increasing complacency and incompetence. What I refuse to understand, because it requires accepting a few fallacies, is retro actively punishing someone to cover up said complacency and incompetence. The person stupid enough to fall for a glorified shell game shouldn't be rewarded with GM intervention. Let the fool pay for his foolishness, let the clever man profit.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#19 - 2013-09-16 11:19:29 UTC
Scooter McCabe wrote:
All that happened with this scam is a guy did his homework and made everyone look like an idiot in the process. With precision and guile he undermined CCP's dependence on Chribba, Darkness, Grendel and Rene De'Labou to preform a function they were just to lazy to code into the game. Can't say I'm all to impressed with ISD's performace of managing Evelopdia either. Its analogous to the fat lazy TSA security agent, asleep on the job, and lets a gun or drugs get onto a plane. So yes if you literally can't log onto a Wiki and check the edit history and have enough common sense to know something isn't right then no one should trust you. It's not like Evelopedia is kept up to date or accurate to begin with as evidenced by the fact many player organizations keep their own Wiki's as a source of real knowledge on the game.

I can understand feeling duped or even embarrassed at having one guy work over an entire paid company and its volunteers to run riot in a environment of increasing complacency and incompetence. What I refuse to understand, because it requires accepting a few fallacies, is retro actively punishing someone to cover up said complacency and incompetence. The person stupid enough to fall for a glorified shell game shouldn't be rewarded with GM intervention. Let the fool pay for his foolishness, let the clever man profit.


So would you have been fine with it if CCP had simply said 'bravo you got us that time, congratulations to you, but anyone who does this in the future will cop a ban' and had worded the ToS change accordingly?

My personal opinion is that because it involved evelopedia, which after all is a CCP administered site through the ISD, they want to make it crystal clear that mucking about with CCP stuff in the cause of scamming is definetely out of order. Doesnt change the fact the communication has been pretty crappy but im willing to let the CSM work that out because thats one of the things we elected them to do.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Scooter McCabe
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2013-09-16 19:23:28 UTC
Darek Castigatus wrote:

So would you have been fine with it if CCP had simply said 'bravo you got us that time, congratulations to you, but anyone who does this in the future will cop a ban' and had worded the ToS change accordingly?


The correct and mature response would have been for CCP to allow the scam to stand, announce that the ToS needed to be reworked if this is really that big a deal, and carried on. The new wording of the ToS leaves something to be desired, and I am sure the CSM and CCP are working on that in joint effort to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

One of the things this highlights and I think is important is the implicit endorsement of certain players who engage in facilitating 3rd party transactions. In CCP's own reasoning the Wiki and the articles therein give the appearance of an endorsement by CCP. So having pages for players like Chribba is a de facto endorsement by CCP of one player over others who might be involved n 3rd party transactions. Let's say someone wants to "be the next Chribba," how much harder will it be for them to break into the 3rd party market? Some player will say:

I wonder who I should use for a 3rd party, oh look, Evelopedia says I should use Chribba since it lists him as a trusted third party.

If I am wrong why is it the only people that get requested to do third party transactions are the ones that just happened to be listed in Evelopedia? I'm no industrialist by any means but I think its crap that a monopoly is held by certain people over certain transactions in the game.
12Next page