These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#221 - 2013-09-14 21:52:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
Murk Paradox wrote:


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


no worries, I can give and take - but really appreciate your tone.

It's definitely a worst case scenario and a bit over the top because there just is not enough information. But by playing devil's advocate and spinning the stuff further perhaps we will get some definitive answers fast that show that I just misunderstood (Edit: see Dolan's/Karidor's post).

But it really is a question of what CCP wants to do with this game. It's great as it is and does not need much change in my opinion. But if you want to open to new player segments (e.g. casual gamer) you might want to add/change stuff.

Vague clauses in legal documents encourage self-censorship with regard to in-game content (good and bad player actions alike) and will be misinterpreted the more you try to micromanage and change parts of them for the sake of individual cases - that has never been good for the overall document. So there should be a clear division between ccp vs player in contrast to player vs player interaction - and change for the second group should be introduced in the game and not through external legal documents (sry it's just RL speaking here ;) )


  • Concerning player vs player interaction why not just add a warning (that one can disable) that there are very similar characters similar to what I get when I try to link chars?
  • Or warnings that link to external sources where I can check players... that would perhaps even add to the game and provide a new way besides kms to get rankings (based upon trust)... sort of like an intelligence database or whatever.



*ok it's late - don't take all of this too serious*
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#222 - 2013-09-14 23:14:20 UTC
Does this have anything to do with character tracking by linking accounts with the same email address together?

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Madlof Chev
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#223 - 2013-09-14 23:29:08 UTC
The awful thing is talking about "no in-game way to verify"

Even for the vaunted ChrLbba, i can type "Chribba" into a text box, highlight it, right click and autolink character name and compare the bios.

It's what, seven keypresses and a few mouse clicks? If you can't be bothered to do that you're asking to be taken like a fresh prison inmate.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#224 - 2013-09-15 00:08:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Murk Paradox wrote:
[quote=Laventhros Ormus]

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.


I agree - however I don't even see the I/l issue as a problem as long as the character wasn't used for scamming.

Eve is an old game, many names have been taken and if someone joins the game and finds his desired character name to be taken, the first logical step would be to use a slight aberration of that name that comes as close as possible to the desired name.

Someone naming himself 'the mIttani' might just be some new player just registering being into ancient assyrian history, not knowing who the mittani actually is.

Yes - it's not likely, but in dubio pro reo.

What about all the 'dot'-corps? Could Black Legion. get banned/forced to change their name because Goju TheFacelessLord (founder of the proper Black Legion back in July 2003) claims they're impersonating his corp?


Another case: Let's assume I kill someone in highsec space, the person is angry at the loss and petitions me for impersonating a celestial, claiming he didn't know he could shoot back and assumed he'd get concorded if he did. Considering the arbitrariness I've encountered when it comes to staff decisions and it gets into the wrong persons hands I could get banned for someone claiming he is a moron.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#225 - 2013-09-15 01:06:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The only thing that should be forbidden as far as "impersonation" or "misrepresentation" of other players goes is the naming clause - naming an alt Chribbbba or The M1ttani and then using the alt in a scam where you claim to be the original character shouldn't be allowed, but simply saying "hey I'm Scatim Helicon and I'm the alt/business partner of Trusted Third Party Service Provider, please hand over your supercap and/or ISK" is so trivially verifiable that I'm embarrassed that you think you need to outlaw it to protect the foolish and gullible from themselves.


I generally agree, but then again the old "Charon / Carbon" contract scam is similar in that it relies on players' inability to read properly. Should those be banned too?

Personally I don't see why any form of impersonation-based scamming should be prohibited with the exception of representing yourself as a representative of CCP or its official programs / entities.

Scams reliant on clever "imitation-naming" of characters should be avoidable due to the game using legible fonts that allow users to distinguish between characters.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2013-09-15 01:48:52 UTC
Agreed. I don't really think it should be necessary to ban imitation of the Chribba/Chrlbba/ChrIbba type. That's also pretty trivially easy to verify.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#227 - 2013-09-15 02:27:44 UTC
The more you consider these rules, both the old and the new, the less reasonable and enforceable they seem. I had supported the old name impersonation and alt impersonation rules because they did not seem "excessively" restrictive. However, upon actually considering them, and given that everything is more or less on the table now, even these original rules seem ill-placed and ill-considered.

The simplest solution is to revert to the rules about impersonating people in an official capacity in any way and just drop everything else, which never should have been in there in the first place, and which have never been clearly and consistently interpreted or enforced.

Finally, there should never be some division between something that is a violation if done "maliciously" compared to something that is otherwise alright to do. You should not be able to impersonate a GM even if you're flying around showering ISK on people. The purpose of the action should have no bearing on its adherence to the rules, given that it is otherwise not breaking the rules. The attempt to set this GM capacity to distinguish motives needs to be squashed here and now, as all actions within the game that do not otherwise break the rules are equally valid, whether that is saving princesses or stealing candy from babies. Just the fact that a GM had a distinction in his mind where "scamming" was an action that necessitated a different set of rules is extremely troubling, and demonstrates a critical failure in the GM training process for this game, where the defining feature in the rules is the blind eye turned to actions that are usually violations of the rules in most other games.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#228 - 2013-09-15 04:27:05 UTC
Quote:
Just the fact that a GM had a distinction in his mind where "scamming" was an action that necessitated a different set of rules is extremely troubling, and demonstrates a critical failure in the GM training process for this game


Consider for a moment that this probably goes higher than just the GMs. Part of the reason I have been so up in arms over this (despite making sparing use if at all of the type of lying this bans), is that it seems as though it is indicative of a fundamental policy shift in CCP, and in the way they think the game should be played.

Games aren't ruined all at once. They are ruined a little bit at a time, and in such small ways that no one notices. They sure looked disappointed that we noticed this one. Hence the "it's always been this way... for 3 months" lie they spouted at us. Sorry, not buying that one. Sneaking changes in the ToS like thieves in the night isn't a good way to do business.

And that is what a lot of people are mad about, not just me.

Stuff like this is what led to Incarna. Ignoring your playerbase for some greed focused nonsense. Whether it's microtransactions or ignoring your loyal long time players to try and court the casual crowd (which, imo, is much worse than MTs, casuals one-and-all can go straight to hell for ruining some of my favorite games).

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#229 - 2013-09-15 05:26:45 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Agreed. I don't really think it should be necessary to ban imitation of the Chribba/Chrlbba/ChrIbba type. That's also pretty trivially easy to verify.

The issue with this is when you feel that verification is unnecessary -- after all, if Chrlbba is advertising his services in Amarr local, indistinguishable from "that guy you heard about who does third party trades", you're not going to necessarily go through any additional verification steps-- he looks and sounds exactly like what he's selling himself to be. Obviously, if you're looking for a supercapital broker, you won't find Chrlbba, or he won't be much of a threat, but in the case where *he* approaches *you*? While Chribba's reputation isn't the GM's to manage, this kind of scam takes advantage of quirks of the game client itself, and thus is an appropriate area for intervention IMO.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#230 - 2013-09-15 05:55:26 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Agreed. I don't really think it should be necessary to ban imitation of the Chribba/Chrlbba/ChrIbba type. That's also pretty trivially easy to verify.

The issue with this is when you feel that verification is unnecessary -- after all, if Chrlbba is advertising his services in Amarr local, indistinguishable from "that guy you heard about who does third party trades", you're not going to necessarily go through any additional verification steps-- he looks and sounds exactly like what he's selling himself to be. Obviously, if you're looking for a supercapital broker, you won't find Chrlbba, or he won't be much of a threat, but in the case where *he* approaches *you*? While Chribba's reputation isn't the GM's to manage, this kind of scam takes advantage of quirks of the game client itself, and thus is an appropriate area for intervention IMO.

The same could be said of a lot of scams. Margin trade scams come to mind right away.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#231 - 2013-09-15 06:02:49 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ali Aras wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Agreed. I don't really think it should be necessary to ban imitation of the Chribba/Chrlbba/ChrIbba type. That's also pretty trivially easy to verify.

The issue with this is when you feel that verification is unnecessary -- after all, if Chrlbba is advertising his services in Amarr local, indistinguishable from "that guy you heard about who does third party trades", you're not going to necessarily go through any additional verification steps-- he looks and sounds exactly like what he's selling himself to be. Obviously, if you're looking for a supercapital broker, you won't find Chrlbba, or he won't be much of a threat, but in the case where *he* approaches *you*? While Chribba's reputation isn't the GM's to manage, this kind of scam takes advantage of quirks of the game client itself, and thus is an appropriate area for intervention IMO.


This, I think is another one of those places where there are two similar issues that need to be untangled.

There are naming similarities based on font similarities:

Chribba vs Chrlbba

and there are naming similarities based on typos (or whatever):

Chribba vs Chriba


I think font similarities are pretty clear cut, and I think that scams based on your mark not being able to see the difference between a tittle and the top of a line. I think banning them is reasonable.

Typo/whatever similarities are less clearly identifiable (i.e. how close is too close), and I'm not all that sure where I stand on it (though it's been against the rules for a long time, so I'm not that bothered by it remaining against the rules).

There are, however, problems in enforcing either ban, since CCP shouldn't get into the business of determining what the difference between a "scam" and a "legitimate" business deal is, so the rule can't be predicated on any sort of "malicious use" doctrine, and I don't think you should be penalized by CCP for wanting to name alts something similar to your main (though I think this is more an issue with the second category of similarity).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#232 - 2013-09-15 06:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ali Aras
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

The same could be said of a lot of scams. Margin trade scams come to mind right away.

Other than Margin Trading, I can't think of any that are similarly challenging to detect and rely on quirks of the client. Margin Trading bothers me for that reason, but at least serves a useful purpose elsewhere; if there's a "fix" for margin trading scams that doesn't involve nerfing the skill to oblivion, I'd love to hear it. The nearest thing I can think of (although I suspect it's technically infeasible) would be to grey out orders which are un-fulfillable. At that point a margin-traded order is distinguishable from a regular one and if someone fails to ask "why is it grey?" then well, they got what was coming to them.

edit:
RubyPorto wrote:

There are, however, problems in enforcing either ban, since CCP shouldn't get into the business of determining what the difference between a "scam" and a "legitimate" business deal is, so the rule can't be predicated on any sort of "malicious use" doctrine, and I don't think you should be penalized by CCP for wanting to name alts something similar to your main (though I think this is more an issue with the second category of similarity).

yeah, this gets into how GMs enforce things. AFAIK, GMs don't seek out rule violators, they only act in response to petitions. So, as long as you're *not* using name proximity for impersonation scams, you'll be totally fine.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#233 - 2013-09-15 06:13:55 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Ali Aras wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

The same could be said of a lot of scams. Margin trade scams come to mind right away.

Other than Margin Trading, I can't think of any that are similarly challenging to detect and rely on quirks of the client. Margin Trading bothers me for that reason, but at least serves a useful purpose elsewhere; if there's a "fix" for margin trading scams that doesn't involve nerfing the skill to oblivion, I'd love to hear it. The nearest thing I can think of (although I suspect it's technically infeasible) would be to grey out orders which are un-fulfillable. At that point a margin-traded order is distinguishable from a regular one and if someone fails to ask "why is it grey?" then well, they got what was coming to them.

There's also the Carbon/Charon scam, the "fully fitted Hulk" contract that contains everything except the actual ship itself, contracts for selling bulk ore/minerals at 10 times their unit cost (hard to distinguish because counting zeros with no separators can be difficult), the "1m isk Navy Slicer" scam (several contracts are created selling faction frigates for 1 million isk and one for 1 billion isk, and the quickly completed 1m isk contracts appear to make the 1b isk contract legitimate and highly desirable), and the "fully fitted T3" contract that contains subsystem skillbooks instead of the actual subsystems.

You make a good point, but I still maintain that any scam should be legal as long as a player has some option available to them for determining the legitimacy of a transaction, whether they may usually think it necessary to do so or not.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#234 - 2013-09-15 06:22:14 UTC
All of those other scams require people to skim and not read, they don't rely on client tricks themselves. That's my distinction, basically. I agree with your last, but would insert "reasonable" in there-- some "reasonable" option available to them etc.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#235 - 2013-09-15 06:33:29 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
There are, however, problems in enforcing either ban, since CCP shouldn't get into the business of determining what the difference between a "scam" and a "legitimate" business deal is, so the rule can't be predicated on any sort of "malicious use" doctrine, and I don't think you should be penalized by CCP for wanting to name alts something similar to your main (though I think this is more an issue with the second category of similarity).

yeah, this gets into how GMs enforce things. AFAIK, GMs don't seek out rule violators, they only act in response to petitions. So, as long as you're *not* using name proximity for impersonation scams, you'll be totally fine.


So what's a useful definition of a Scam in EVE that clearly distinguishes it from "a business deal that one party regrets."

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#236 - 2013-09-15 06:35:57 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ali Aras wrote:
All of those other scams require people to skim and not read, they don't rely on client tricks themselves. That's my distinction, basically. I agree with your last, but would insert "reasonable" in there-- some "reasonable" option available to them etc.


Confusing Chribba and Chribba requires you to only skim rather than read.
Falling for a margin scam requires you to only skim (the order list) rather than read (the market info).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#237 - 2013-09-15 12:28:03 UTC
Margin trading scams depend on the mark not being familiar with the value of the items they're buying, which means that they don't know what the item they're buying is needed for. Trading should have its risks.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#238 - 2013-09-15 16:12:55 UTC
I think if someone has a name that is one or two characters off from Chribba ... and then they are running scams where they are pretending to be Chribba ... we can pretty safely assume that wasn't a typo.

Margin trading should have it's own feedback thread. Blink

So offtopic:
Makes no sense to me that whoever in the EVE universe runs these markets (NPCs if you're a roleplayer, CCP if you're not) just allows total BS orders on the market without some kind of penalty. I think a level of margin trading skill should be removed for every order that can't be filled.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
#239 - 2013-09-15 22:10:32 UTC
Impersonating, claiming any relation to or affiliation with CCP, GMs, ISD, etc should definitely be bannable. Impersonating another player via the name (i for l etc) should also be bannable.

However, if I contact a ceo or director and say 'Hey I'm the alt of the guy doing alliance reimbursements, could you let me in corp and give me roles etc' That should in no way be bannable should I happen to immediately take everything I can grab and then kill everyone in corp if they do that.

The reason is pretty simple, eve players are not CCP, Gms, ISD, etc. They are eve players and have no reason to be protected from eachother should one of them lie. Saying 'I am chribbas alt so you can trust me' and scamming a super away from someone should be fine as long as you dont use a character named 'Chribba Veldspur' or something to imitate him.

Similarily saying 'hey let me in im averagejoes alt' and then awoxing or stealing should be fine. If you dont bother to ask for confirmation and they dont do something like alter the wiki or convo you on a character named 'avaragejoe' then there should be no reason at all for any action.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#240 - 2013-09-15 22:40:25 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
[quote=James Amril-Kesh]
The issue with this is when you feel that verification is unnecessary



If you feel that verification is unnecessary in eve online, it's you having issues, not the game or TOS.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)