These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#241 - 2013-09-16 05:37:07 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
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).

Who doesn't love nice expansive rulesets that can be used to catch tons and tons of unexpected situations

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.
NinjaTurtle
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#242 - 2013-09-16 07:52:20 UTC  |  Edited by: NinjaTurtle
Unbanning Chris Bailey would probably be a good start lol. I also think its super cute when CCP treats ISD like actual human beings, that must be a refreshing change for the volunteers.

Also please ban "Large Collidable Object" he told me he was a piece of mission scenery.
BitRusher
Temporal Paradox
#243 - 2013-09-16 09:24:46 UTC  |  Edited by: BitRusher
Dolan I heard you on the SCL yesterday and I was a little surprised that the Tos was even talked about. CCP needs to understand that its fine to ban all catch scrapping then take no action is ok because there is no 3rd party being wronged. This Tos change to scamming is different because there is a 3rd party that will demand the protections stated in the Tos. Their will be no room for CCP to be flexible with this as their was with catch scrapping so it is important to be very clear for both the players to understand what to expect.

As for editing the wiki that was done. I think CCP was impersonated in that scam under the old and new Tos. This Tos change is completely unnecessary and bad for the game. Looking at the Edits made to Cribba's Page both the top and bottom banner does not constitute impersonation imo, they seem like very carefully written sentences that give false information about the status of the page. The forged lock that says "locked by CCP" yeah that's direct impersonation.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#244 - 2013-09-16 13:05:20 UTC
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
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*


I can definitely appreciate playing the Devil's Advocate (I do that all the time arguing the literal word on these forums and get called troll for it constantly even though they aren't my true beliefs; it's a matter of learning).

The one thing I do have in agreeance with quite a few posts on, and would like to reiterate, is that a TOS should in no UNCERTAIN terms tell you what you can and cannot do.

It's a contract.

A simple "we reserve the right..." is more than enough to give the serverside justification for their actions without having to build that mentality into every single rule.

The TOS not only protects serverside, it protects clientside, that's the point.

Applying ambiguity lavishly on every line does not enforce that approach.

You can simply say "You cannot do this" and after put a line "we reserve the right to ban..." and cover both bases by allowing yourself (as serverside) enough power to be in control while still making sure your clients have enough information to not break the rules while still doing what they want.

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
#245 - 2013-09-16 13:32:15 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
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.



Since scamming is legal, I don't think it matters what the named character is doing. His name is either allowed or it isn't. Scamming is just as legal as mining. To say ChrLbba can keep his name but not scam is like saying ChrLbba can keep his name but not mine. Or run missions. Or research, etc.


Corp names and Player names should not be in the same bracket in my opinion.

Black Legion and Black Legion. is like the Arkansas Indians and Minnesota Indians. The dot is only to differentiate the 2. Because they are different.

In regards to your name, I used to have a name in old diablo times called "wounded townsman" and never got flak for it. People have named themselves "Player1" or "PlayerOne" etc for many years and you should not be able to be petitioned in my opinion.

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
#246 - 2013-09-16 13:48:38 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
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.



But that's different because if you do not buy the item (already have it for instance) and then sell it when the "buyer" doesn't have the funds in his wallet, you don't lose any money and still retain the item.

The "scam" with margin trading is the overpriced item that's being sold, which is perfectly legal and a separate transaction.

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.
ChironV
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#247 - 2013-09-16 14:03:11 UTC
Whatever they do with the TOS it fairly irrelevant. The scammers will find a way around it.

What really needs to happen is that CCP needs to make a statement to all new users that scamming is fully accepted in Eve Online and that CCP will not interfere. New Players need to know the ground rules up front.

I invited 6 friends to try Eve, I was very up front and said that since there are no rules, scammers and infiltrators are everywhere so be aware. Two were badly scammed and the rest were disappointed with how the game was full of con-artists and grifters.

This is pretty much the new player shock at the game. It has put off many people but has also given it an elite status as one of the hardest games available.

So do we neuter the game and attract many more paying players or keep the elite niche status? Thats up to CCP.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#248 - 2013-09-16 14:50:51 UTC
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.



Technically the fully fitted t3 scam is bad because the skill books have a "fitted" status if I remember correctly.

Otherwise yea... selling a "gnosis" with gneiss and a few rigs is perfectly fine.

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.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#249 - 2013-09-16 15:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Pleased to see that the CSM got it in one.

Just a couple of things: To answer Mike Azariah's question, the "I'm mynnna's alt!" scam rests on mynnna's sterling reputation for honesty and integrity. ;-) If he wants to undermine his freshly acquired reputation for LOLs and mislead you by confirming that the scammer is his alt, when it isn't, that's his choice, and it comes with consequences. As funny as he may think it would be, it would not help him or his rentlord alt in their new roles.

By far the best solution to the problem of ambiguities caused by the UI is to eliminate the ambiguities. Fix the font so that no two letters are alike. Fix the contract description to distinguish between modules fitted to a ship and cargo within. The more senseless[1] ambiguity you get out of the interface, the better the game is and the less makework you create for the GMs.

[1] not all ambiguity is senseless, of course.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#250 - 2013-09-16 15:48:14 UTC
Can we get a red or blue update on this topic? I think we have some semblance of consensus among the players, at least.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#251 - 2013-09-16 15:55:57 UTC
http://themittani.com/features/scam-changed-tos?page=0%2C1


Very interesting read in regards to this current issue.

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.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#252 - 2013-09-16 17:34:23 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
[quote=Ali Aras]
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).


On the one hand, I want to say this should be limited to font abuse and using a character named Chribbo should be ok. Furthermore, it should be petition-able by the character being impersonated for slander, not by a potential victim who lost stuff. That right there takes care of the "GM confirming alt" issue.

On the other hand... We are talking about creating - for all intents and purposes - a disposable Character for this specific scam. I almost feel like this takes meta-gaming too far and borders on the likes of recycling a gank alt for security status (in this case, recycling a scam alt for new name similarities). That makes me think any character name impersonations with malicious intent should be a no-no (as opposed to creating corps/alliances following the previous paragraph, since those can be freely created and closed with legal in-game means.)

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#253 - 2013-09-16 18:19:04 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Georgina Parmala wrote:
That makes me think any character name impersonations with malicious intent should be a no-no (as opposed to creating corps/alliances following the previous paragraph, since those can be freely created and closed with legal in-game means.)


And that puts us right back into having GMs arbitrate what the definition of a "scam" is in EVE.

In EVE, what differentiates a "scam" from "a legitimate deal that one party regrets"? ("I know it when I see it" is not a sufficient distinguishing factor.)


Either character name-based impersonations (Chirbba, Chribbo, Zeppo, Groucho, etc) should be against the rules, full stop, or they should be allowed, full stop. Trying to draw a line through the middle here is, I think, too problematic.

"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
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#254 - 2013-09-16 18:41:18 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
That makes me think any character name impersonations with malicious intent should be a no-no (as opposed to creating corps/alliances following the previous paragraph, since those can be freely created and closed with legal in-game means.)


And that puts us right back into having GMs arbitrate what the definition of a "scam" is in EVE.

In EVE, what differentiates a "scam" from "a legitimate deal that one party regrets"? ("I know it when I see it" is not a sufficient distinguishing factor.)


Either character name-based impersonations (Chirbba, Chribbo, Zeppo, Groucho, etc) should be against the rules, full stop, or they should be allowed, full stop. Trying to draw a line through the middle here is, I think, too problematic.

In EvE, "a legitimate deal that one party regrets" is about as solid a definition of a scam as it gets. The only thing thing that varies is the level of profit and butt hurt. Whether the best con is the one with the biggest pay day, or the one where the mark never realized he was taken, is a matter of opinion.

Luckily, this is all fairly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Impersonation does not need to concern itself with randomfool654 who unwittingly gave away his super. The victim is the character being impersonated via slander and stealing the isk they would have legitimately made off the deal. Note further that if I create a Chribba impersonation and carry out the deal, keeping his usual fee I am still impersonating him to his detriment and in violation of ToS/Naming policy. In both cases, it should also be the person getting impersonated (the real victim of said impersonation) who has the rights to petition the Naming/ToS breach - not the person who got their stuff taken away. The mark should only be petitioning falsely claimed CCP affiliation, if any.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#255 - 2013-09-16 18:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Georgina Parmala wrote:
That makes me think any character name impersonations with malicious intent should be a no-no (as opposed to creating corps/alliances following the previous paragraph, since those can be freely created and closed with legal in-game means.)



This is what you should mean to say.

When speaking of rules, you want to be as straightforward and concise as possible.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#256 - 2013-09-16 18:47:46 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Luckily, this is all fairly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Impersonation does not need to concern itself with randomfool654 who unwittingly gave away his super. The victim is the character being impersonated via slander and stealing the isk they would have legitimately made off the deal. Note further that if I create a Chribba impersonation and carry out the deal, keeping his usual fee I am still impersonating him to his detriment and in violation of ToS/Naming policy. In both cases, it should also be the person getting impersonated (the real victim of said impersonation) who has the rights to petition the Naming/ToS breach - not the person who got their stuff taken away. The mark should only be petitioning falsely claimed CCP affiliation, if any.


I must have missed that part of your suggestion. That's totally reasonable, and matches existing trademark law pretty well (you have to actually keep an eye out for people horning in on your trademark to keep it protected).

The only problem I see is that a reasonable result of Chribba petitioning his impersonator is only renaming the character. What's to stop the same guy behind the computer from opening up an endless series of Chrlbbas and Chribbos, swamping the real Chribba's ability to actually play? I mean, with the responsibility for petitioning loaded onto the impersonatee, it will be assumed that not petitioning to get a name change implies guilt, so the honest brokers will be forced to keep on top of it.

"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
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#257 - 2013-09-16 18:50:00 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Either character name-based impersonations (Chirbba, Chribbo, Zeppo, Groucho, etc) should be against the rules, full stop, or they should be allowed, full stop. Trying to draw a line through the middle here is, I think, too problematic.

Character impersonation should be against the rules, full stop, because of what making them "ok" implies.

If it's ok if they're not too close, that means I make a character treading the line and ride it as long as it works. Once the character is burned, biomass it and create a new one to continue making business deals people regret. This smells too much like sec status recycling of gank alts and I feel goes too far to be allowable.

It's the making corporations with similar names that I feel should not be restricted beyond font abuse, since the corp can be dissolved and reformed under a new name. It also provides a shady employment history for the mark to investigate.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#258 - 2013-09-16 18:52:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Georgina Parmala wrote:

In EvE, "a legitimate deal that one party regrets" is about as solid a definition of a scam as it gets. The only thing thing that varies is the level of profit and butt hurt. Whether the best con is the one with the biggest pay day, or the one where the mark never realized he was taken, is a matter of opinion.

Luckily, this is all fairly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Impersonation does not need to concern itself with randomfool654 who unwittingly gave away his super. The victim is the character being impersonated via slander and stealing the isk they would have legitimately made off the deal. Note further that if I create a Chribba impersonation and carry out the deal, keeping his usual fee I am still impersonating him to his detriment and in violation of ToS/Naming policy. In both cases, it should also be the person getting impersonated (the real victim of said impersonation) who has the rights to petition the Naming/ToS breach - not the person who got their stuff taken away. The mark should only be petitioning falsely claimed CCP affiliation, if any.



A "scam" is where someone does not get what they paid for. "a legitimate deal that one party regrets" is not a scam through definition of the word "legitimate".

What Ruby is speaking of, is when someone suffers buyer's remorse and claiming "scam" to get the seller in trouble illegitimately.

In Eve, we do not have Lemon Laws or Cool Off periods.


EDIT- In regard to the victim being the one impersonated, that is indeed true, but most of the time it's the "buyer" who suffers and is angry more than the one who was impersonated (if that person even KNEW of the event).

And because of that, it makes it nigh impossible to chase those types of identity thieves because the naming policy, the tos, and the name generator allows it because at the end of the day, the name isn't even "yours" anyways.

So the tos and np needs to be VERY clear on who is responsible for what.

Eve is exceptionally good at letting the capsuleer know he is responsible for his own fate (or her).

When it's kept in game, that is not an asset owned by a player, regardless of history, time, effort, or reputation.

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.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#259 - 2013-09-16 18:54:32 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
That makes me think any character name impersonations with malicious intent should be a no-no (as opposed to creating corps/alliances following the previous paragraph, since those can be freely created and closed with legal in-game means.)



This is what you should mean to say.

When speaking of rules, you want to be as straightforward and concise as possible.

The name association needs to be tied to malicious intent towards the character being impersonated. Otherwise we're back to "have your alt banned, because his name impersonates your main" with no logic behind it.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#260 - 2013-09-16 18:59:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

A "scam" is where someone does not get what they paid for. "a legitimate deal that one party regrets" is not a scam through definition of the word "legitimate".

Tell that to the guy who legitimately bought a carpo mining laser upgrade for 300 mil on the open market, see what he says.

A scam doesn't mean you take the money and run without handing over the item. It simply means the end result of the trade leaves the mark at a financial disadvantage.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38