These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2013-09-14 17:39:38 UTC
To be honest that's not even really an edge case. Either it is an alt, in which case it should be fine anyway, and if it isn't then it should be fine, since claiming to be an alt is allowed, lying is allowed, and scamming is allowed. No rules would have been broken.
Echo Echoplex
#202 - 2013-09-14 17:53:54 UTC
Theon Severasse wrote:
To be honest that's not even really an edge case. Either it is an alt, in which case it should be fine anyway, and if it isn't then it should be fine, since claiming to be an alt is allowed, lying is allowed, and scamming is allowed. No rules would have been broken.


Well, that's how it seems to me, except for the complication being that we're saying it's up to everyone to do their own authenticating, which is what makes the scams allowable, and in that particular case there's no way to do that. When random GMs respond to random cases like this it could prove problematic.

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#203 - 2013-09-14 18:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
Echo Echoplex wrote:
When random GMs respond to random cases like this it could prove problematic.


I think this insecurity is at the heart of the problem. Atm if I wanted to do some roleplay it is just not clear what is allowed and what might be a problem. Will hopefully be cleared up in the next days... I mean the ToS should reflect the advocated playerstyle to avoid exactly those problems not add to them...
Madlof Chev
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#204 - 2013-09-14 18:08:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Madlof Chev
Simply put:


- ToS should never be so vague / open to interpretation that different GMs have different interpretations of what the ToS actually means

- There should be far more transparency regarding GMs - at the moment, with the inability to discuss GM decisions / publish correspondence / whatever, it's impossible to know what the established precedent is wrt certain portions of the EULA/ToS and as such it's impossible to plan your behavior around what is "not okay" or "okay" depending on who you get.

This minefield of self-censorship because a slipup here or there could mean a ban suffocates the game and its playerbase.
Gavinvin1337
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#205 - 2013-09-14 18:18:38 UTC
Dirk Action wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Dirk Action wrote:
I still vehemently disagree with putting the CSM - who have no real power and just the ear of CCP - up on an elevated pedestal from the rest of us in the game, that, if by doing so, takes away from legitimate gameplay that would be available to them otherwise.

The CSM are paying players first and CCP voices of reason second, why should they not be allowed to do what every other player in the game can? And on the flipside, why shouldn't anyone else be able to lie about being a member of CSMX, *when the election results are easily verifiable by official posts by CCP which you would find with a quick Google search*?

What this boils down to is, again, an attempt to protect the stupid from their own stupidity. That is against the nature of EVE, and as such it cannot be an aspect of the Terms of Service.

I don't want to take away from gameplay either. I think it's fine for a character on the CSM to scam or for players to misrepresent a character on the CSM as long as their position on the CSM isn't part of the scam or misrepresentation.

The only reason for someone to lie about being on the CSM (whatever the CSM does) is to lie about being sanctioned by CCP. That should not be tolerated, ever.


Why shouldn't the CSM be allowed to bring up the fact that they're on the CSM in order to win a scam? If the exchange goes "I am on the CSM, you can trust me" then that's 100% fine in my mind.

If they said "I am on the CSM and if you give me everything you own I will pass a message on to CCP/do my best to push X Y or Z change," THEN there is a problem.


Mittens has scammed using his CSM title before, nothing happened to him.
http://eve-search.com/thread/32005-1/page/1

/endarguement
BitRusher
Temporal Paradox
#206 - 2013-09-14 18:20:46 UTC  |  Edited by: BitRusher
Lets say in a fringe case, I impersonate myself with a alt named Bit Rusher (with a space). I then use this alt to scam people that trust BitRusher. Is it still impersonation when it is me and I'm entirely truthful about being the same character while on my alt? If its not Impersonation is the similar misleading name then allowed ?

I feel like the wording of 2b could be cleaned up to make this more definitive. You can't pretend to be yourself so without the Impersonation of another character the clause of similar misleading names doesn't apply to these scams, even though it would the space in the alts name fooling them in the scam.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#207 - 2013-09-14 18:47:49 UTC
I've only read the first page, but the TOS should include the fact that scams can and will happen, and to encourage verifying the identity of the pilot you are interacting with.

And forbidding the ability to mimic or impersonate a member of CSM or any other server side supported entity (Concord, GM, DEVs etc) of course, but to actually make it specific so other npc entities such as Viziam, Gallente Federation etc are not to be considered a violation as to support the roleplayers.

Also, include examples, and make sure they are known as examples.

"ex. Good afternoon capsuleer! This is GM Noiamnot and you need to pay 500mil isk..." would be bad.

"ex. I am Murk Paradox, and you are found to be in violation of my holy Empress's domain as I am her trusted servant. You may pay me 500mil isk or risk your ship and or pod as collateral for your transgressions!" would be okay.

This way the GM team(s) who are responsbilie for answering petitions would know, as well as have a lighter workload, in regards to people asking questions concerning what is allowed and what is not.

Using name games "I am an alt of Chribba, pay me" is fine since anyone can say "no".

But point is, it is much better to have these rules going forward, as opposed to looking back after the fact.

Sell a mining permit, sell a "moon", margin scam, isk double, all of those. Buyer Beware.

Using CCP staff, using out of game resources (wiki, faked api sites, etc) are BAD.

This game allows criminality in-game, keep it in-game. Player versus Player.

Let the staff do their job.

As long as you are CLEAR about it, the rules will be followed.

The second you use a grey area or wiggle room.. you're screwed.

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.
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2013-09-14 18:48:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Theon Severasse
Echo Echoplex wrote:
Theon Severasse wrote:
To be honest that's not even really an edge case. Either it is an alt, in which case it should be fine anyway, and if it isn't then it should be fine, since claiming to be an alt is allowed, lying is allowed, and scamming is allowed. No rules would have been broken.


Well, that's how it seems to me, except for the complication being that we're saying it's up to everyone to do their own authenticating, which is what makes the scams allowable, and in that particular case there's no way to do that. When random GMs respond to random cases like this it could prove problematic.



Well yes. But just because it is up to the mark to check whether the scammer is who is says he is, doesn't mean that a third party can't either be in on it (maybe being paid off), or simply wants to be an *******.

In my opinion as long as the scammer isn't trying to mislead the mark into believing that they are the third party's character (through changes in the names letting), then it should be perfectly OK to do.



EDIT: I think the thing with this, is that you can't make a rule that says that if the person you are claiming to be says that you are them that you then have to go through with what you were going to do. That would just be silly.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#209 - 2013-09-14 18:59:42 UTC
Laventhros Ormus wrote:
Simply put, don't allow this 'rule' to be used on the victim's side.

If someone gets scammed, then it is their fault for not validating information.

However if you find out someone is using your reputation/name wrongly, then perhaps you have a case.

I'd still prefer to toss out this 'rule' in the first place, if the above situation is hard to 'differentiate'.



I don't even like the name violation... because seriously, eve is a big bad world full of miscreants. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery (and trickery).

I do not care if Chribba used the Chribba name since 2003. If the name generator allows it, I should have Chribbba or Chriba.

Using alternate letters in place of (like cap i and lower L for instance) could be petitioned for a name chance because of abuse...

But a lack or addition of letters should be allowed to remain. Darth, Daarth, Darrth, Dartth etc.

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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2013-09-14 19:11:12 UTC
Isis Dea wrote:
Guys, if it's discovered someone is using your name against your will, simply ask them to stop. Or skip that part and go straight into petitioning them from harassment.

CCP can change the character's name or open dialogue with them negotiating a new name (and profession).

PLEASE DO NOT infringe on players right to infiltration/scam, as this will damage the sandbox of the game. (Your present recommendation comes dangerously close to doing exact that.)



Oh and also, as a side note, as Eve being "evil" and bad" as we all know and love...

EVERYONE has a right to be a victim. It might not seem like it, but it is an important factor to acknowledge.

You know, risk.

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.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#211 - 2013-09-14 19:11:43 UTC
Gavinvin1337 wrote:
Dirk Action wrote:
Why shouldn't the CSM be allowed to bring up the fact that they're on the CSM in order to win a scam? If the exchange goes "I am on the CSM, you can trust me" then that's 100% fine in my mind.

If they said "I am on the CSM and if you give me everything you own I will pass a message on to CCP/do my best to push X Y or Z change," THEN there is a problem.


Mittens has scammed using his CSM title before, nothing happened to him.
http://eve-search.com/thread/32005-1/page/1

/endarguement

yes congratulations you have identified why we were using the mittani as an example

Dirk. Ultimately I don't know about the rules of what CSM can say about their position, and it's outside the scope of what I was talking about in the first place. But another person cannot be allowed to misrepresent a CSM because CSM are a volunteer of CCP. It doesn't matter what the CSM actually does, if this person is attempting to use 'CSM' to make it sound like whatever they're saying is CCP sanctioned, they're misrepresenting CCP. Here's my first post on the topic for reference.

Benny Ohu wrote:
If we're going along the 'official capacity' thing, I think it's OK to say "sure we can use The Mittani as a third party, he's leadership of the biggest coalition in the game"

But if you don't want people misrepresenting CSM in an official capacity, then saying "sure we can use The Mittani, he's part of the CSM so he's trustworthy" is not OK

You're suggesting that
a) the CSM can't lie in game (misrepresenting the CCP volunteer organisation) and
b) Mittani had specifically agreed as a CSM to the trade beforehand (misrepresenting a CSM, a CCP volunteer)

If the scammer had said that The Mittani had agreed to third-party a trade without mentioning Mittani was CSM, the scammer is misrepresenting 'The Mittani, EVE Player' not 'The Mittani, Chairman' which I think is perfectly fine in EVE
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#212 - 2013-09-14 19:27:54 UTC
Well it looks like we made it about 6 pages before the trolls and internet tough-guys found the thread. It's a shame as it was going well. But 6 pages of reasoned discussion on the EVE forums is pretty good I guess.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Lady Areola Fappington
#213 - 2013-09-14 19:37:32 UTC
CCP, it's honestly pretty simple. Prohibit using the name system to mislead people (example: Chrlbba). Prohibit any use of CCP, ISD, and GM imitation for scamming people. Leave everything else alone.

As for CSM, I can see very specifically prohibiting active CSM from scamming, using their CSM status. This doesn't mean banning CSM from scamming at all, just using that CSM status as a tool to gain confidence. Now, if a mark incorrectly assumes "CSM=trustworthy", well that's their own idiocy.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#214 - 2013-09-14 19:40:11 UTC
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Can we at least have clarification on this section:

GM Karidor wrote:


... What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.




I have two characters whom I consider to be "dual mains," and I use them interchangeably, as an extension of myself as I exist in New Eden. If I need to shoot something, I use my PvP char. If I want to build something, I use the Industry character. I don't and never have hidden that these two characters are one and the same player, and have, in the past, brought my PvP char into an asteroid belt to shoot some annoying rats for my Industry char's mining group.

From the way that the ToS is now reading and, apparently, being applied, doing this would be against the rules, unless I acted as if my PvP char were simply "good friends" with the Industrial char, and had been called in to assist.

Alternatively, I've made ships previously from my PvP char, and when corpies or mates were in need, would freely (or cheaply) give frigs and other ships and mods to them using the industrial char.

From how the ToS now reads, any spy in the corp could see this and report one or both of my chars for impersonating each other, and I would get in trouble for being in violation of the ToS.

I understand that the ToS are to be applied to impersonations in a case-by-case basis, and that a case such as mine theoretically should not trigger any violations under the ToS. I would ask you, though, to understand that I am from the States, and have seen far too many laws set down initially with good intentions, only to be stretched to an illogical extreme down the road.

Maybe the current GM and Devs will never apply the rule to a case such as mine, but how do we know that, in the future, new GM and Devs won't read them that way?

Please, give us some clarity regarding alts, at the very least. I have two mains, and they are who I am in New Eden. I shouldn't have to pretend to be two separate people just to run two characters.



For reasons of transparency, your Pilota is Pilota, and your Pilotb is Pilotb.

You as a player, are a player, not a pilot.

Doesn't matter if you are playing as pilota or pilotb, since they are in fact individuals as the GAME is concerned.

tl;dr You are not both pilots. Think of it as having 2 pairs of shoes; sneakers and loafers. You put them on for different needs, but both pairs belong to you. Just because you choose to wear one of each at the same time does not change that fact.

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.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#215 - 2013-09-14 20:00:16 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Can we at least have clarification on this section:

GM Karidor wrote:


... What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.




I have two characters whom I consider to be "dual mains," and I use them interchangeably, as an extension of myself as I exist in New Eden. If I need to shoot something, I use my PvP char. If I want to build something, I use the Industry character. I don't and never have hidden that these two characters are one and the same player, and have, in the past, brought my PvP char into an asteroid belt to shoot some annoying rats for my Industry char's mining group.

From the way that the ToS is now reading and, apparently, being applied, doing this would be against the rules, unless I acted as if my PvP char were simply "good friends" with the Industrial char, and had been called in to assist.

Alternatively, I've made ships previously from my PvP char, and when corpies or mates were in need, would freely (or cheaply) give frigs and other ships and mods to them using the industrial char.

From how the ToS now reads, any spy in the corp could see this and report one or both of my chars for impersonating each other, and I would get in trouble for being in violation of the ToS.

I understand that the ToS are to be applied to impersonations in a case-by-case basis, and that a case such as mine theoretically should not trigger any violations under the ToS. I would ask you, though, to understand that I am from the States, and have seen far too many laws set down initially with good intentions, only to be stretched to an illogical extreme down the road.

Maybe the current GM and Devs will never apply the rule to a case such as mine, but how do we know that, in the future, new GM and Devs won't read them that way?

Please, give us some clarity regarding alts, at the very least. I have two mains, and they are who I am in New Eden. I shouldn't have to pretend to be two separate people just to run two characters.



For reasons of transparency, your Pilota is Pilota, and your Pilotb is Pilotb.

You as a player, are a player, not a pilot.

Doesn't matter if you are playing as pilota or pilotb, since they are in fact individuals as the GAME is concerned.

tl;dr You are not both pilots. Think of it as having 2 pairs of shoes; sneakers and loafers. You put them on for different needs, but both pairs belong to you. Just because you choose to wear one of each at the same time does not change that fact.


The real crux of the matter there (as I've come to understand it) and why the rules as currently written have to be read that way, is that if they weren't - if there were some sort of exception for alts - then GMs would be put in the position of potentially confirming or denying that two characters are, in fact, alts. For a great many very good reasons, they don't want to be doing this.

As written right now, if a PilotB says, "I am PilotA, PilotA is trustworthy, therefore you can trust me" and then scams PilotC, PilotC could petition PilotB, as PilotB is misrepresenting himself by using PilotA's name.

If there were an exception in the rules for alts, then the result here is the GM says "Ok we will investigate this", finds that PilotA and PilotB are in fact the same person, and does nothing. PilotC then sees PilotB flying around a couple weeks later and can reasonably conclude that PilotA and PilotB are the same person.

The correct solution to this in my mind, of course, is not to carry out blanket enforcement of the rule even against alts, but to alter the rule as I laid out back on page one.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#216 - 2013-09-14 20:03:44 UTC
Just to elaborate on the name post I made... the reason I do not mind pilot names being similiar is I see "name holding" being a viable way to make ingame money (I've done it before in other games) when a really cool movie, or character gets released, and there's those who would emulate said hero/villain by creating a character with their name.

Like Michael Jackson. Or Madonna.

Why I do not see it as a problem, is because many of these names are created for such notoriety and well, they got what they wanted, just not in the form they chose.

Things like The Mlttani is just poor imitation to be honest and even a bio check absolves any one of any confusion.. and still if unclear... well, you probably do not need to know anyways.

But to reiterate, trying to pull off the fact you're a GM is bad. GMs, Devs, etc are "above the law" in regards to the game's sandbox and should be respected as such.

Players, npc corps, Concord etc... well... that's the "case by case basis" we should experience.

Granted if you try to pull yourself off as Concord selling security status it would be PLAUSIBLE to get a warning from a GM.

But the fact you tried should be celebrated.

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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#217 - 2013-09-14 20:07:45 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Can we at least have clarification on this section:

GM Karidor wrote:


... What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.




I have two characters whom I consider to be "dual mains," and I use them interchangeably, as an extension of myself as I exist in New Eden. If I need to shoot something, I use my PvP char. If I want to build something, I use the Industry character. I don't and never have hidden that these two characters are one and the same player, and have, in the past, brought my PvP char into an asteroid belt to shoot some annoying rats for my Industry char's mining group.

From the way that the ToS is now reading and, apparently, being applied, doing this would be against the rules, unless I acted as if my PvP char were simply "good friends" with the Industrial char, and had been called in to assist.

Alternatively, I've made ships previously from my PvP char, and when corpies or mates were in need, would freely (or cheaply) give frigs and other ships and mods to them using the industrial char.

From how the ToS now reads, any spy in the corp could see this and report one or both of my chars for impersonating each other, and I would get in trouble for being in violation of the ToS.

I understand that the ToS are to be applied to impersonations in a case-by-case basis, and that a case such as mine theoretically should not trigger any violations under the ToS. I would ask you, though, to understand that I am from the States, and have seen far too many laws set down initially with good intentions, only to be stretched to an illogical extreme down the road.

Maybe the current GM and Devs will never apply the rule to a case such as mine, but how do we know that, in the future, new GM and Devs won't read them that way?

Please, give us some clarity regarding alts, at the very least. I have two mains, and they are who I am in New Eden. I shouldn't have to pretend to be two separate people just to run two characters.



For reasons of transparency, your Pilota is Pilota, and your Pilotb is Pilotb.

You as a player, are a player, not a pilot.

Doesn't matter if you are playing as pilota or pilotb, since they are in fact individuals as the GAME is concerned.

tl;dr You are not both pilots. Think of it as having 2 pairs of shoes; sneakers and loafers. You put them on for different needs, but both pairs belong to you. Just because you choose to wear one of each at the same time does not change that fact.


The real crux of the matter there (as I've come to understand it) and why the rules as currently written have to be read that way, is that if they weren't - if there were some sort of exception for alts - then GMs would be put in the position of potentially confirming or denying that two characters are, in fact, alts. For a great many very good reasons, they don't want to be doing this.

As written right now, if a PilotB says, "I am PilotA, PilotA is trustworthy, therefore you can trust me" and then scams PilotC, PilotC could petition PilotB, as PilotB is misrepresenting himself by using PilotA's name.

If there were an exception in the rules for alts, then the result here is the GM says "Ok we will investigate this", finds that PilotA and PilotB are in fact the same person, and does nothing. PilotC then sees PilotB flying around a couple weeks later and can reasonably conclude that PilotA and PilotB are the same person.

The correct solution to this in my mind, of course, is not to carry out blanket enforcement of the rule even against alts, but to alter the rule as I laid out back on page one.



Yea I don't like the fact that you could petition someone on that basis. Every pilot is different.

(I'm going to use you as an example if you don't mind, if you do, I'll edit it with my apologies.)

If mynnna is an industrial pilot, and mynna is pvp and mynna was trying to scam me with whatever mynnna was selling... then I wouldn't really care which belonged to the CSM because individuals are individuals are individuals. I could simply ask to speak to mynnna regardless of who or what mynna was claiming or belonged to.

That's why paranoia exists and should be a virtue.

The double entendre of being scared of a ban because you may or may not be an alt defeats and takes away from the game.

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.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#218 - 2013-09-14 20:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Murk Paradox wrote:



Yea I don't like the fact that you could petition someone on that basis. Every pilot is different.

(I'm going to use you as an example if you don't mind, if you do, I'll edit it with my apologies.)

If mynnna is an industrial pilot, and mynna is pvp and mynna was trying to scam me with whatever mynnna was selling... then I wouldn't really care which belonged to the CSM because individuals are individuals are individuals. I could simply ask to speak to mynnna regardless of who or what mynna was claiming or belonged to.

That's why paranoia exists and should be a virtue.

The double entendre of being scared of a ban because you may or may not be an alt defeats and takes away from the game.


Right, I agree with you here. PilotC's reaction in my example should to be to ask PilotB to speak to him on his supposed main, PilotA. As the TOS is now written however (which matches how the EULA & naming policy have been written all along), PilotC could petition PilotB.

Obviously that's what we all hope to change.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#219 - 2013-09-14 20:20:52 UTC
Madlof Chev wrote:
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
I would reevaluate what was wanted by changing the ToS. If it is the protection of new players and making the game more attractive by removing the one thing that got EVE into mainstream media worldwide (a world where players have to be smart and can be scammed), then perhaps one would be better served by trying to protect new players through automated game mechanics than messing up the meta game for experienced long term supporters:


Ideas on how to do it in a less-invasive way:


  • Just openly limit the changes to the starter systems and people who are still eligible for the newbie help chat - and make it clear to other players by a badge, a newbie corp or anything. The new changes in the EVE wiki already reflect that - although this change should be better advocated and not done in silence to prevent the next escalation...

  • Limit newbies ability to accept contracts for the first 2-4 weeks and warn them... Please note the difference between warning someone and prohibiting a certain game move. One thing makes the individual player responsible for his in-game fate, the other kills possible game-content in a sandbox-game.

  • Differ better between actions against developers (no impersonation etc) and actions of player vs player (be smart or get used to being scammed)

  • Introduce a new region with harsher rules, e.g. an a.i. region where there is no privacy or protections and the a.i.s are the ultimate arbitrators. This region could have different rules in the game... much like super-casual-safe-high-sec, where you could test drive how "appealing" this is as a new starter region for new players - they could choose the unsafe safe or super safe regions, with difficult, less difficult, windows assistant help options... all without breaking the game fur current users but adding to it.

  • Perhaps think of forking a game that better suits new players, if that is really the new vision for EVE. Something like sim space open only to 12-17y old players. *satire off* :P



In short: do anything to help new players while not breaking the meta-game for your long term loyal playerbase. PLEASE! Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... and much more eloquently put: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3613856#post3613856


god are you actually ******* serious

  • Just openly limit the changes to the starter systems... -

    • so you're essentially saying "squeeze the newbie for the first 30 days or so then let them get thrown to the wolves anyway" - what's the point of even ever protecting them in the first place (hint: there's not one)

  • Limit newbies ability to accept contracts for the first 2-4 weeks and warn them -

    • so you effectively hamstring people's new alt accounts, cut new players out of a chunk of the game, and baby them like little princesses instead of feeding them the congregation of pricks that this game's playerbase actually is - so again, you either teach the new players what they're getting into or they'll just scream and whine after this cutout period ends that the nasty man touched them in every special place they have simultaneously.

  • Introduce a new region with harsher rules, -

    • blow loads of developement resources on a "test drive" of what is essentially a different game right at the core instead of fixing legitimate real issues with the game as it stands instead of catering to some gigantic prissy baby

  • Perhaps think of forking a game that better suits new players -

    • this idea is literally like freebasing fecal matter hope that helps

  • Differ better between actions against developers (no impersonation etc) and actions of player vs player (be smart or get used to being scammed)

    • oh my god there's actually one good idea hidden in your fetid lump of e.coli that's passing off as a post



    I'm not going to be as harsh, but it does lean a bit too much towards reinventing the wheel.

    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.
    Murk Paradox
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #220 - 2013-09-14 20:32:50 UTC
    mynnna wrote:
    Murk Paradox wrote:



    Yea I don't like the fact that you could petition someone on that basis. Every pilot is different.

    (I'm going to use you as an example if you don't mind, if you do, I'll edit it with my apologies.)

    If mynnna is an industrial pilot, and mynna is pvp and mynna was trying to scam me with whatever mynnna was selling... then I wouldn't really care which belonged to the CSM because individuals are individuals are individuals. I could simply ask to speak to mynnna regardless of who or what mynna was claiming or belonged to.

    That's why paranoia exists and should be a virtue.

    The double entendre of being scared of a ban because you may or may not be an alt defeats and takes away from the game.


    Right, I agree with you here. PilotC's reaction in my example should to be to ask PilotB to speak to him on his supposed main, PilotA. As the TOS is now written however (which matches how the EULA & naming policy have been written all along), PilotC could petition PilotB.

    Obviously that's what we all hope to change.



    Yep, I definitely agree with your original post on page 1. As I can understand that broad stroke coverage helps for protection, I think the TOS already covers itself in the fact that CCP reserves the right to do whatever it wants lol.

    But clarity in regards to something you agree to... should not be confusing at all! =(

    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.