These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Terms of Service CSM Feedback Thread

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andracin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2013-09-14 03:15:53 UTC
+1 to Mynnna's proposal

If asked how many people joined because of the out-of game publicity generated by things like the GHSC heist or any of the recent thefts, Im willing to bet more subscriptions were brought in by scams than driven from the game by them.

CCP as a whole needs to quit cloaking in self-inflicted ambiguity. In a game like EVE making rules that are enforced or not enforced based on the personal interpretation of one GM who may have missed his morning coffee is damaging and takes both CCP, the CSM and the player base's time away from other game issues that could actually use looking at. I think this one issue has been at the heart of more threadnaughts and player riots than anything else. Scammers walk the fine lines of legality so when the line turns into a blur you should have seen this forum riot coming without a $70 monocle.
Jaxom Silpheed
State War Academy
Caldari State
#142 - 2013-09-14 03:19:31 UTC
Been through this topic, and would like to give a summary of what I see here. The issue is not scamming in particular, but using a game mechanic to pretend to be somebody you are not.

First things, impersonating or claiming to be CCP, GMs, etc should be bannable. As mentioned, these are meant to be trustworthy people.


The actual act of scamming should be left alone. Claiming to be an alt, or representing a corp/alliance is fine - as long as a fake name similar to the entity is not used. This is where things get a little trickier, because it includes Corps and Alliances.
CCP could, if they wanted, create an automated name checker that validates the name of the character/corp/alliance by checking it against an existing database. If it is too similar to an existing name (say 66% match), it gets rejected, or have something like 'unverified' added after the name, until petitioned to be cleared. This way a character could still be created and, if need be, verified by the name it is trying to imitate.

Obviously these are just initial, unpolished thoughts here. There is likely to be a better method, but it's the name stealing/imitating that needs addressing, rather than the actual scamming.

Scamming is a part of EVE. It should stay.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#143 - 2013-09-14 03:37:46 UTC
mynnna wrote:
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."


This, precisely. Keep it simple.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#144 - 2013-09-14 04:23:30 UTC
I don't really care a whole lot tbh. the change protects some stupid people, but hey if they are really that stupid I guess it increases the comedy value for the game over all, so I can't really be angry with the rule. So I guess overall I am not in favor of the new addition, but if it sticks, well it really shouldn't ever effect me.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2013-09-14 04:40:14 UTC
Couple of things.

1) After the wording is done (or redone) it should be given to the GMs with a list of 'edge cases' to see if the GM team understands the intent of the changes and will enforce them in the way that the law was meant to be read. Language has ambiguities so a check process is just good QA work and common practice

b) Mynnna seems to have the best attempt at rewording so far. So could YOU all come up with edge cases that might go either way for a litmus test?

iii) I chat with a guy who says he is Mynnnas alt . . . I contact Mynnna to see if it is on the up and up (it isn't) BUT Mynnna thinks it would be hilarious to see me fall for a scam and tells me yes, that is an alt of his. Who gets banned, the false alt, Mynnna or both?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#146 - 2013-09-14 06:02:33 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
iii) I chat with a guy who says he is Mynnnas alt . . . I contact Mynnna to see if it is on the up and up (it isn't) BUT Mynnna thinks it would be hilarious to see me fall for a scam and tells me yes, that is an alt of his. Who gets banned, the false alt, Mynnna or both?

m


Nobody, because since when has EVE been a game where you get banned for lying?
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#147 - 2013-09-14 06:03:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Action
oh... right..... "this policy isn't new"

edit: all smarminess aside, it could be said that the impersonator of Mynnna should be the one who gets banned... but it still leaves an absolutely rotten taste in my mouth to be banning someone for *saying or otherwise falsely claiming* that they are X person instead of *impersonating* them.


im·per·son·at·ed, im·per·son·at·ing, im·per·son·ates
1. To assume the character or appearance of, especially fraudulently: impersonate a police officer.
2. To imitate the appearance, voice, or manner of; mimic: an entertainer who impersonates celebrities.
3. Archaic To embody; personify.


These would all denote things which would be much more exploitative than a random Jita alt saying that they're The Mittani or whoever else, such as the aforementioned examples of UI manipulation, corp copying, etc etc.

Having said that, we're already going in circles because these same arguments and counter-arguments continue to be brought up, and nobody is agreeing on anything.


Ugh..... why are we even having this conversation?
Clavin
Coiled Spring Inc
Goonswarm Federation
#148 - 2013-09-14 06:06:09 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Couple of things.

1) After the wording is done (or redone) it should be given to the GMs with a list of 'edge cases' to see if the GM team understands the intent of the changes and will enforce them in the way that the law was meant to be read. Language has ambiguities so a check process is just good QA work and common practice

b) Mynnna seems to have the best attempt at rewording so far. So could YOU all come up with edge cases that might go either way for a litmus test?

iii) I chat with a guy who says he is Mynnnas alt . . . I contact Mynnna to see if it is on the up and up (it isn't) BUT Mynnna thinks it would be hilarious to see me fall for a scam and tells me yes, that is an alt of his. Who gets banned, the false alt, Mynnna or both?

m


Whilst I realise this doesn't add much, in the case above I would like to see neither banned. If mynnna did decide to go along with the scam, he has just lost all that trust that has been established by the guy getting scammed. There is now evidence of this as you have the logs showing it. Mynnna has just destroyed his reputation with your above example so his main character can now no longer be trusted. One trick pony and all that.

At least that's how I read it.
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#149 - 2013-09-14 06:13:29 UTC
besides, imitation is the most flattering thing that could happen to someone

anyone who has ever had an alt made in their likeness should be very proud of themselves :3
pyronatic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2013-09-14 06:19:00 UTC
Please change the EULA and ToS, So that we can monetize our videos on youtube.com, I recently asked and currently CCP does not permit us to monetize our videos. I like making videos for Eve, It would just be an added benefit if we could make money from our videos to pay our subscriptions.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2013-09-14 06:52:31 UTC
pyronatic wrote:
Please change the EULA and ToS, So that we can monetize our videos on youtube.com, I recently asked and currently CCP does not permit us to monetize our videos. I like making videos for Eve, It would just be an added benefit if we could make money from our videos to pay our subscriptions.

This has **** all to do with the subject at hand.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#152 - 2013-09-14 06:59:02 UTC
You may have missed the part where |Mynnna IS a member of a CCP organization, the CSM

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#153 - 2013-09-14 07:06:08 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
You may have missed the part where |Mynnna IS a member of a CCP organization, the CSM

m


You never once mentioned that. I assumed we were taking the example as though it were in a vacuum, so to speak, where Mynnna would be an average player just like the rest of us.

also please stop signing your posts we can see who you are

d
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#154 - 2013-09-14 07:16:33 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
You may have missed the part where |Mynnna IS a member of a CCP organization, the CSM

m

I'm not so sure that's technically true.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Erik Dalvon
Dalvon's Drones
#155 - 2013-09-14 08:06:09 UTC
The unique selling points of EvE are:

  • Scamming within the game is encouraged and within the Terms of Service
  • Non-consensual PvP exists almost everywhere

Without them in EvE, there's better games to play. And that's from a carebear who never plans to scam for profit and flies from PvP. So the policy indeed needs to change.

Mynnna suggestions seem broadly fine with the observations:

  • Do not use words like "organisation" or "group" - use game-defined terms (corporation, alliance, etc.)
  • Need wording making it clear scams must not extend outside of the "Magic Circle" of the game, including that they must not extend to account passwords, nor to the real-life player, if not already clear
  • Make it against the ToS to repeatedly petition against scam types you have been informed are legitimate (or some other way to make it clear to the scammed that it is them that are at fault)

AndromacheDarkstar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#156 - 2013-09-14 08:13:58 UTC
The only thing that should be considered an offence is impersonating a GM or a member of CCP. Everything else is in the spirit of the game and has been its selling point for so long it is a disaster to change it.

We should all be encouraged to use our brains instead, eve has systems built in to avoid scams such as the contract system. Just do more to teach new players about them instead of punishing your older player base.

And thank you CCP for listening.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2013-09-14 08:14:25 UTC
Ali Aras has it on the bottom of page 1.


The ToS should work to stop people from using/exploiting/impersonating, [Insert other negative/undesirable action] CCP, its volunteer assistants, and any other professional staff associated with the production, maintenance, moderating(insert Professional purpose) of the game.

It should also work to protect players from exploitation of similar characters, such as the aforementioned l and I, to account for technology based limitations, and from misleading attacks on players identities through similar names.



IN a perfect world:


Quoting for organization wrote:
It should NOT create an environment that encourages petitioning every 'wrong' to get someone banned because the player in question didn't check their sources, contacts, etc before doing business.


It should NOT limit the flexibility of the information trade within Eve allowed by carelessness, for example someone making a KenraiIae(capital I) and asking my corp mates for information, which they give cause they didn't bother to check corp to see if I was in corp chat while asking for the info(or any other such carelessness). It SHOULD protect, for instance me, from having someone make a KenraiIae (capital I) and then going around calling everyone obscenities, etc, in local.


^In a perfect world.




Since this isn't a perfect world:

More organizing wrote:
I completely understand the reason for the disallowing similar characters, and appreciate the effort. However, the ToS should NOT, for example, provide grounds for me to be banned if I up and decided to try and convince someone I'm a rental agent for [Insert large Null entity] and they believe me and give me all kinds of isk with no 'real' guarantee, even though I don't have ties to [Insert large Null entity]. My two cents anyway.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#158 - 2013-09-14 08:57:19 UTC
mynnna wrote:
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."


+1

Myna hit the nail on the head. It's the best of the rest.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Cedric deBouilard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2013-09-14 09:53:57 UTC
mynnna wrote:
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."


mynnna nails it so good, i can't think of anything to add to it.
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
Kvitravn.
#160 - 2013-09-14 10:17:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Mike Azariah wrote:
You may have missed the part where |Mynnna IS a member of a CCP organization, the CSM
Mynnna wrote:
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.

Maybe change it like this?

"You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer in their official capacity. You may not impersonate or present yourself or your corporation or alliance by imitation of their name"

That also catches another possible case. A lot of devs play Eve on other accounts/characters. So if I would impersonate some lowsec solo pvp character of CCP Rise, I assume that would be illegal under Mynnna's terms without the above addition.
Regarding the CSM this addition means, as long as normal ingame matters are concerned, like Supercapital trades or whatsnot, you may impersonate them, but not when it comes to their CSM-related duties.