Jita Park Speakers Corner

I see a lot of posts about the scamming side of the ToS change; while I don't scam much myself I feel strongly for my scamming space-bros and support any improvement to the ToS with regards to that.

Myself, I care more about the RPing side of the argument, specifically this bit:

Fortunately I have here an actual, petitioned use case for your collective consideration:

A few weeks ago I decced a corp and sent their CEO the following mail:


This got petitioned and I was asked to not represent myself as "CONCORD-approved" as that might imply some sort of CCP approval or favouritism on CCP's part towards me; or as having been sicced on their a$$es by the CEP.

I can see the CONCORD bit and have no problem with no longer claiming an affiliation with them in the future. But the rest of it?

See, I don't RP much. In fact, the above mail is the most RPing I've engaged in in over six years of playing. I don't browse the Something Something Summit forum and don't post in New Caldari local that Tibus Heth is the answer. So I don't know what the specific rules are, if any, concerning RPing but what I wrote seems perfectly fine to me. I just don't see how anyone signing up to an MMO "RP" G can honestly believe that some NPC corp would actually send a player after them to give them grief.

But then maybe I'm all totally wrong and just don't understand how roleplaying really works because I never engage in it; in which case I'd be happy for someone to enlighten me on the error of my ways.

Hahaha you backpedaled rather quickly there didn't you?

This is magic, I don't get how these two are different. But they are. Amazing.

SOOOOO basicly, CCP warning you is CONCORD politely telling you that you about to get waxed... And that's very catering to the lore.

Before beginning, a quick little recap on my personal views for EVE, its cold atmosphere and rough learning curve:

EVE teaches more than it caters at times, reminding everyone that space is cold and that there are people you cannot trust at a glance. With wars going on in the background, giant conflicts, and people scourging to make an extra buck, this nature is entirely warranted and rather than baby people from it, EVE builds onto it.

While I'm sure any victim of a scam/hostile-takeover/spy act hates the initial experience, those who actually brave the experience emerge far more vigilant in more fields than those simply related to it. And while many might throw up a white flag and join the venture in becoming a fellow scammer, that is a market like Jita local that eventually will earn you more block lists then clients in time.

There is a reason EVE's playerbase is more mature compared to other MMO crowds, attractive of the higher age groups, and catering to the cunning and intelligent while hunting the gullible.

In a sense, EVE grows you up. Quickly too, if you aim to survive.

A fool and his money is soon parted. Should he learn that in Jita local, dueling in a one's prized Navy Raven, or taking a dreadnought to lowsec for the first time.

A corporation that relies on a corporate hanger to survive, made up of untrustable members with no backup plans for spies/infiltrators, will also suffer the same fate.

The question you, CCP/CSM, SHOULD be asking is do you try to change this nature, or do you build onto it? For EVE is our escape, a VR platform with emphasis on the R(eality), even if it is the cold truth.

There's plenty of other MMOs out there where you can find your escape in more defended means yet as a player for 9 years ongoing, I leave those MMOs after a month to three months because their player base is fully of the cute & cuddly, the kids and the gullible, and I come back to the cold world of EVE breathing the fine brisk air and remembering what a good unshackled game feels like.

/ENDRANT

WHAT IMHO SHOULD HAPPEN: (the goodies)
- Modifying the wiki should be a bannable offense. (Nobody touches the sacred lore tiddlybits!)
- Impersonating a CCP/GM/ISD member should be a bannable offense. (I think we all can agree here.)
- Impersonating a figure of CONCORD should be a bannable offense. (The Jove would not tolerate that shrubbery, and if there's someone who would assassinate players it would be CONCORD in defense of their name and place in the grand assembly.)
- ToS should not include anything else for impersonations.
- In the tutorial OR on the website, one of the ventures presented within the advertised professions should be SCAMMER, even providing examples and a link to (contributable) wiki page of known scams, so as to expose more people to the nature of the game.
- Posts in HIGHSEC local channels should have more cooldown between posts based on number of people present in system. (For purposes of cutting down spammers and encouraging ingame mails for random offers, to which one can use CSPA to regulate that. [There already is a post in the Assembly Hall about this.])
- If there's a Block List limit, increase it.

... this will solve issues of scammers and local spammers, or simply make players aware of them.

- Making a corporation spawns a tutorial session which can be easily closed offering only recommendations for players looking to set up their corporation. Corporate infiltrators AND spies would be primarily featured, as new CEOs tend to dive into recruitment channels and spam ads then cry when they get infiltrated.

... this will solve infiltrators, all while preserving the present spirit of the game, or simply make players aware of it.

- CCP reserves the right to reach out and change a player name if deemed inappropriate or if requiring its use for CCP purposes. If requiring its use, CCP will strive to work with you to help pick a new name but only if you work with them. Failure to do so will result in your name being added numbers to the end of it and CCP reacquiring the name.

... this will solve players locking down characters within CCP's lore (for in-character interactions and ingame lore events), as well as any time CCP needs a name or needs to reserve one.

- Another video, similar to EVE: Casualty, promoting awareness and opportunity within the scamming/infiltration mechanics, yet also the price.

... sure, alts can provide shelter for your scamming/infiltrating ventures, but just because you have tons of ISK doesn't mean your problems are solved; life goes on and you've made so many enemies in the process. Is it worth it?



Let's define what has been the nature of this amazing universe and lets build onto it.





(Also trying to save the extra hours GMs would have to put in solving petitions resulting from these ToS changes. As more people become aware of what rights they have (this event will certainly enlighten them), events like what happened with BoB will be called more into question. And such events proved balance to the game enough for CCP to endorse it. History is sure to repeat itself, do you want to allow such balancing actions or condemn them in the future?)

EDIT: Tacked on the CONCORD bit.

CCP didn't warn me, they asked me, politely, to stop doing stuff. And you missed the entire point of my post, how does that work?

There's one thing that hasn't really come up but is very important regarding this whole issue.

Who the GM team is accountable to, and how did they come to the decision that a change in the EULA was necessary? The action of changing the EULA could drastically change the way the game is played, was there any developer input? A change could be perceived to be worse or more drastic than it is by the playerbase, would it have been a good idea to consult the CSM if changing something held close to many players' hearts? In general, what is the process behind changing the EULA and who is involved in it?

It seems to me that this whole incident could have been prevented had the GM team asked someone about the impact of their changes from multiple angles before they implemented them.

My personal feeling on what such a revision should look like is as follows.

• Expand section 2B of the naming policy to include player names and names of player organizations. Change the relevant sections of the EULA & TOS to mirror this.
• Nuke section 2C of the naming policy from orbit, & remove the clauses that mirror it from the EULA and the TOS.

These changes would continue to forbid impersonation through similar names (abusing I vs l to fool and confuse and so forth), but allow more meta styles of impersonation as have been brought up as examples countless times in the past few days, such as claiming to be a representative of another player or player group, claiming to be another player, and so on.


In more elaborate terms, Section 2B of the naming policy would add a clause something like this after the second bullet point:

• Impersonate or parody another character's name or player corporation or alliance for the purpose of misleading other players.

Section 2C would be removed.

Section 8 of the ToS would then read something like "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or present yourself or your corporation or alliance by imitation of their name"; the language may be a bit clunky, but you get the idea.

And finally, the line in section B of the EULA which currently reads "No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity." would change to something similar to the TOS, for example "No player may impersonate or parody the name of another character, corporation or alliance for the purpose of misleading other players."

While i think that Mynna's proposal is generally a good compromise i personally would prefer a more hands off approach. In the end you can always verify stuff by checking the combination of corp and pilot as well as corp history. You can furthermore like already pointed out in the previous threads get actually in contact with the original to verify that. I personally never take a person into corp that claims to be an alt that i don't know without crosschecking via coms or corpchat. At least the latter is a medium that every corp has and that doesn't require any outside tools.

Therefore my proposal without actually formulating a legal clause at this point would limit violations to ToS to impersonation of CCP representatives (including volunteers) and to scamming in regards of charity events (plex for good etc). The only extension that should be considered are sources like the wiki that are actually hosted by CCP, because that at that point people really have to dig deep to discern between official information and a scam.
At no point however should scam attempts where a scammer tries to impersonate another person by solely using persuasion and tools that are provided by the game even come under scrutiny by the GMs.

The advantage of this hands off approach is twofold. First of all it puts no player into the mercy of debatable ToS interpretations - and lets be honest: even if the GM department really tried hard, they'd make those interpretations - its just the way of human nature. Secondly it is in the spirit of the sandbox where everything is possible and those who don't tread carefully will fall.

Thirdly one could speculate that this might also decrease the workload of the GMs, but ofc that is something an outsider can only guess about.