EVE General Discussion

I have been stating for I don't know how many posts now that the "group of players" part of that is the big problem here. Not the alts. This is a problem. It needs clarification and probably removal from the TOS. I would like other to join me in my concern that this part is new, troubling, and in dire need of clarification. That is the part that is going to have a large impact on EVE ... not the fringe case alt nonsense.

There are a few players in this thread, who get our intentions with the impersonation policy that is in place. Chanina pretty much already nailed it on page 44 (Link), Sir Hudgens understands the reasons behind it, even though he disagrees on the policy itself, to name just a few.

Understand this: As those policies we're outlining here have been in place and enforced when we actually got a report for a rather long time (speaking from my several years of being an EVE GM), reverting the ToS change, or the naming policy change for that matter, would effectively change nothing about the policy itself (yes, I'm saying it again). I can completely relate if you disagree with that policy, but that's pretty much a whole other discussion to be had independently of the actual ToS changes and as I said previously, it is more than apparent that there is an interest in discussing this further and we will continue to take this matter on with the CSM in order to try and come to a solution regarding the policy itself. Until then:

Is scamming involving impersonation an automatic ban?
No. If it is happening we may have a word with you (as in: a warning). It is exceedingly rare that someone is banned outright. Please do remember that in any case you may always request a review of a warning or a ban applied against your accounts.

Should players be allowed to scam by impersonating other players?
As mentioned above, this is another discussion to be had, and which we are happy to continue with the CSM. Customer Support stance on this question is at this time as it has been for the past years, a pretty clear "No, but we're not proactively hunting down anyone". As time passes and more tools become available to make informed decisions (as in being able to verify things yourself without having to involve any other player via EVE Mail or other external tools), we will review that stance and eventually change it. Unfortunately, so far the opportunity unfortunately has not come along for us to comfortably change this stance.

Have we banned Scamming?
No, our stance has not changed at all. I remember having to act on various impersonation scam cases over the years since I started as a GM more than 6 years ago. We have been enforcing it in the past (when it was reported) via various different rulings that now have been collected into one. "Enforcing" usually meaning, as outlined above, having a word with you in form of a warning in which we lay out our reasons as well as which points of EULA, ToS or other policies are the grounds for the warning, which you of course may appeal by bringing your own arguments to the table.

Again, we are now very aware that there is a disagreement about this long standing policy about impersonation among our players, and if anything the change of the ToS has brought this to light very clearly. We will get together with the CSM to find out how things regarding the policy itself need to change exactly before other changes to the according contentious points are being made.

Yet Goons used both of these mechanics to take over the strongest alliance in the game. I have logs of people who submitted petitions back during this time and were kicked away from CCP with statements that it was perfectly fine what Goons did.

CCP even made articles about it, with the usual 'welcome to eve' spew.

These rules have NOT been enforced, quite the opposite. And to enforce them now hints favoritism to what is presently the largest alliance in EVE...

Was in the middle of making this statement in another topic (before it got locked):




Yet Goons used both of these mechanics to take over the strongest alliance in the game. I have logs of people who submitted petitions back during this time and were kicked away from CCP with statements that it was perfectly fine what Goons did.

CCP even made articles about it, with the usual 'welcome to eve' spew.

These rules have NOT been enforced, quite the opposite. And to enforce them now hints favoritism to what is presently the largest alliance in EVE...

I am much more concerned with the new language that prohibits representing groups. This is a problem for a lot of eve institutions like the good old recruitment scam. It also causes problem for groups like ... I dunno ... goons who are setting up alt corps and such to run their new rental empire.

Yes.

Issues like how these rules, as stated, are here to protect the entity of the person being impersonated.

So I, an NPC corp member, Goon recruitment scam a player. The rules against me impersonating a GSF recruiter are there to protect GFS and stop me from tarnishing their good name (lol). When contacted by the mark, GSF can petition me for tarnishing their reputation.

How this is actually being applied, is the mark petitions that I did not, in fact, get them into GSF and took their money. It does not even matter if I am a pubbie or an alt of The Mittani himself, the result is the same. The verdict is the mark gets his stuff back and I suffer account action*.

Do you not realize how pants-on-head that is in the EvE universe? It's literally GM's responding to a "I'm stupid, please fix" support ticket with "OK".


*Lets drop the whole warning vs ban discussion while we are at it. All that varies is the size of the bat. The operative statement is that punishment against the account for breaching ToS is enacted.

It's a very annoying problem meta-game wise, if I claim right here or in game to be a goon alt, and my corp and its members affiliated with the goons and encourage someone to engage in some form of behaviour, hand me 500m isk for a vaporous promise to get them into the promised land of Goonwaffe for example, that in the zero sum world of eve results in that person becoming butthurt and feeling all litigious they will 'ticket' me, to use the new parlance, and my fate will be in the hands of a GM.

A GM whose intention is to decide were my actions malicious, and as in most player versus player interactions in eve, there will be a certain level of deception aimed at increasing my advantage in some way to the marked disadvantage of the buttehurted petitioner.

I simply can't see that a GM will look at such actions and think they don't fall under the malicious category, because of course they are malicious actions, and prior to this 'clarified rewording' has always been perfectly fine as long as you didn't step over certain red lines by Impersonating a GM/DEV/ISD (or engaging in some form of exploit or using a cloned character name Chrlbba etc).

This is even true if I am not lying in anyway and am actually a goon alt with all the backing of the GS_Scams brigade, because I cannot identify my alt as a goon due to the newly added misinterpretation of relationship 'statutes' which would pretty much guarantee a reversal of the end result of my labours, and probably a warning or a ban for good measure.

Understand this: As those policies we're outlining here have been in place and enforced when we actually got a report for a rather long time (speaking from my several years of being an EVE GM), reverting the ToS change, or the naming policy change for that matter, would effectively change nothing about the policy itself (yes, I'm saying it again). I can completely relate if you disagree with that policy, but that's pretty much a whole other discussion to be had independently of the actual ToS changes and as I said previously, it is more than apparent that there is an interest in discussing this further and we will continue to take this matter on with the CSM in order to try and come to a solution regarding the policy itself. Until then: