These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#261 - 2013-09-16 18:59:22 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
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.



So I can name an alt ChrLbba if I want to mine rocks all day or manufacture, but not if I want to participate in faction warfare?

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
#262 - 2013-09-16 19:02:20 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
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.



He clicked "buy". I'm not seeing where the trick was.

Did he have a gun to his head, or a blingy ship ransomed if he didn't buy it? Bad choices are not what makes a scam.

I can choose to sell anything at any amount. Just because you bought my gallon of milk at $7 instead of paying $3.98 at the other store does not mean I scammed you. I didn't "trick" you into buying it.

That's the difference. The market is regulated by mechanics and numbers and player control.

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
#263 - 2013-09-16 19:07:00 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

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).


This is where the victim contacts the legitimate person being impersonated and

A) the player feels violated and petitions the actions
B) the player was scamming with his own alt and deals with it as they see fit
C) the player laughs at the foolishness of the victim and posts tears in C&P
D) the player privately contacts the impersonator and demands a cut threatening A

Though I do see the issues with placing lots of burden on the player being impersonated, it removes the burden from GM's having to make arbitrary judgements with regard to account action revealing character affiliations.

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
#264 - 2013-09-16 19:10:10 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

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).


This is where the victim contacts the legitimate person being impersonated and

A) the player feels violated and petitions the actions
B) the player was scamming with his own alt and deals with it as they see fit
C) the player laughs at the foolishness of the victim and posts tears in C&P
D) the player privately contacts the impersonator and demands a cut threatening A

Though I do see the issues with placing lots of burden on the player being impersonated, it removes the burden from GM's having to make arbitrary judgements with regard to account action revealing character affiliations.



This is why the TOS being very clear on who is responsible for what is important.

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
#265 - 2013-09-16 19:11:32 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

He clicked "buy". I'm not seeing where the trick was.
...
That's the difference. The market is regulated by mechanics and numbers and player control.


and player control. As in, it can be manipulated in a confidence scheme to get someone to purchase something far beyond its actual worth. A scam one might say.

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
#266 - 2013-09-16 19:45:15 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
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.


I know I keep flip flopping here, but:

While it gets into annoying situations regarding naming your own alts, I think you're ultimately right that banning all impersonations based on similar naming is the best option.

I think Corps and Alliances should operate under the same naming rules as individuals, whatever those end up being. Why should Chribba get some protection that SOMER Blink does not get (or visa versa)? What about using a corp named Chribba to scam based on Chribba's reputation?

And I think that'll have to mean that people with MiningAlt, Mining4lt, etc will risk getting their names changed by a drive by petitioning. I just don't see a way around it. Having the impersonated person being responsible for all petitions of impersonation is just too large of a potential workload to ask from a player. The GM's can't be arbitrating "well this is a 'scam' so deserves a name change" so they'll just change all the names (and possibly reverse some transactions). They'll have to come up with internal rules (which the CSM should have a hand in) for what determines what 'too close' is, but I don't see a good way around that.

"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

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#267 - 2013-09-16 19:53:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

He clicked "buy". I'm not seeing where the trick was.
...
That's the difference. The market is regulated by mechanics and numbers and player control.


and player control. As in, it can be manipulated in a confidence scheme to get someone to purchase something far beyond its actual worth. A scam one might say.



Here's the thing.

Buyer's remorse is not "scam".

When you see something for 300 million isk and click buy knowing it's 300 million isk, you are not scammed.

When you think you are able to not only buy that item, but turn around and sell it within 2 seconds for a healthy profit, you made a poor investment decision.(in reality although at the time it might have seemed wise!)

You still paid for the item and were able to buy the item. Therefore no scam.

When you get greedy, and burned, you learn a lesson.

You cannot cheat an honest person.

But this is starting to get off topic, so to bring it back on topic...

Why should someone manipulating buy/sell orders be banned?

There's an in game skills called Margin Trading specifically for making sure your escrow requirements are lower than 100% specifically for, and I paraphrase, "riskier investing".

Getting convinced to buy something is not a scam if you paid for it and received it.

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.

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#268 - 2013-09-16 19:58:13 UTC
It's just not enforceable. Better to just use a clear font and include a warning about reading names and contracts, etc exactly.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#269 - 2013-09-16 21:06:54 UTC
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.

Like almost everybody else I fully agree with mynnna. However, I think the proposed wording isn't saying what it's supposed to say. I believe the marked "their name" is meant to reference anybody's character, corp or alliance name. As it is it can only be read to reference CCP's (or volunteer's) name though which makes it redundant with the first sentence.

So I'd propose a slight modification:
"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 another character's or corporation's or alliance's name."
xBumper Baby
Joss Ackland's Spunky Backpackers
#270 - 2013-09-16 21:36:42 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
MiningAlt, Mining4lt


Bah! I wrote an incredibly eloquent and harrumphingly impassioned response to this, but the 'preview' button wiped it!

Here's a crappy rewrite:

'I' looks like 'l' because of the dodgy font in the game. I think peeps should be able to tell toons apart without having to paste and copy names, so some kind of intervention may be in order. Perhaps also with 'O' and '0'.

'4' doesn't look like 'A' unless you went to dafty school. It isn't a problem with the game. It doesn't need fixing. People who can't tell the difference need fixing. If we take those people's complaints at face value and decide that Chribba (or whichever 3rd party) has turned scam artist, that's our fault. Our (lack of) evaluation of others needs fixing. After all, they could be lying to deliberatley trash someone's reputation.

It's not the scammer's fault that the mark is guillible. It's not the 3rd party's fault if we're gullible enough to take the guillible mark's word at face value! It's our responsibility to judge the characters we meet and evaluate our interactions with them appropriately.

If scamming is a serious problem for noob retention, I do like the idea of putting it into the tutorial. Get them to RP a few common scams, then let Aurora scam them! Surely they can't stay mad at Aurora!?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#271 - 2013-09-16 22:01:57 UTC
xBumper Baby wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
MiningAlt, Mining4lt


Bah! I wrote an incredibly eloquent and harrumphingly impassioned response to this, but the 'preview' button wiped it!

Here's a crappy rewrite:

'I' looks like 'l' because of the dodgy font in the game. I think peeps should be able to tell toons apart without having to paste and copy names, so some kind of intervention may be in order. Perhaps also with 'O' and '0'.

'4' doesn't look like 'A' unless you went to dafty school. It isn't a problem with the game. It doesn't need fixing. People who can't tell the difference need fixing. If we take those people's complaints at face value and decide that Chribba (or whichever 3rd party) has turned scam artist, that's our fault. Our (lack of) evaluation of others needs fixing. After all, they could be lying to deliberatley trash someone's reputation.

It's not the scammer's fault that the mark is guillible. It's not the 3rd party's fault if we're gullible enough to take the guillible mark's word at face value! It's our responsibility to judge the characters we meet and evaluate our interactions with them appropriately.

If scamming is a serious problem for noob retention, I do like the idea of putting it into the tutorial. Get them to RP a few common scams, then let Aurora scam them! Surely they can't stay mad at Aurora!?


The point of my post is that "...used to scam..." cannot be anywhere near the rule. It's either against the rule to have similar looking names or not.

Where the line on similarity is is a different issue, and I don't really feel super qualified with that at the moment, so I think the CSM, CCP, and the GM team can come up with some good guidelines for the GMs on where that line is at.
I was using the "A" "4" equivalence because it was easy to work in as an example of someone who's going to feel sad about a blanket ban (i.e. someone who mines and wants all his miners to have near identical names, and ends up getting them changed due to a drive-by petition), and saying that I think that bit of sadness is ok in the interest of having clear cut, clearly enforced, and therefor effective rules in place.

BTW: @CCP, clear rules do things other than invite "rules lawyering" (which can be handled by TOS 25 and 26). They also make it easier for people who want to follow the rules to actually follow them. And that's a good thing.

"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

xBumper Baby
Joss Ackland's Spunky Backpackers
#272 - 2013-09-16 22:26:42 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
The point of my post is that "...used to scam..." cannot be anywhere near the rule.


I totally agree.

RubyPorto wrote:
I was using the "A" "4" equivalence because it was easy to work in as an example of someone who's going to feel sad about a blanket ban (i.e. someone who mines and wants all his miners to have near identical names, and ends up getting them changed due to a drive-by petition), and saying that I think that bit of sadness is ok in the interest of having clear cut, clearly enforced, and therefor effective rules in place.


We definitely do need the rules to be as clear cut as possible. But I really think we need to minimise the 'sadness' bit. If only 'l' and 'I' were acted upon, there'd be a bit of sadness. If we started going into anything like 'A' and '4', 'E' and '3', 'T' and '7' etc. it would be horrendous and unnecessary.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#273 - 2013-09-16 22:45:55 UTC
xBumper Baby wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The point of my post is that "...used to scam..." cannot be anywhere near the rule.


I totally agree.

RubyPorto wrote:
I was using the "A" "4" equivalence because it was easy to work in as an example of someone who's going to feel sad about a blanket ban (i.e. someone who mines and wants all his miners to have near identical names, and ends up getting them changed due to a drive-by petition), and saying that I think that bit of sadness is ok in the interest of having clear cut, clearly enforced, and therefor effective rules in place.


We definitely do need the rules to be as clear cut as possible. But I really think we need to minimise the 'sadness' bit. If only 'l' and 'I' were acted upon, there'd be a bit of sadness. If we started going into anything like 'A' and '4', 'E' and '3', 'T' and '7' etc. it would be horrendous and unnecessary.


Hooray for agreeing right past each other.

"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

Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#274 - 2013-09-16 22:51:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
xBumper Baby wrote:
sry misquoted before the edit

If scamming is a serious problem for noob retention, I do like the idea of putting it into the tutorial. Get them to RP a few common scams, then let Aurora scam them! Surely they can't stay mad at Aurora!?



Actually I think this would be much more fun... let newbies get infos on scams and all the dark and mad stuff through missions with aura. So you can keep the ToS-changes to just the impersonation of CCp employees and let the player vs player relations unchanged (everything goes in eve!!!) while still creating new content. Great idea!
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#275 - 2013-09-16 23:01:40 UTC
^^^ These forums and quotes. Parse them carefully if you're going to edit inside the tags.

"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

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#276 - 2013-09-16 23:26:46 UTC
other forums have rich text editors so it's easy to understand what you're writing Sad
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#277 - 2013-09-16 23:51:22 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
other forums have rich text editors so it's easy to understand what you're writing Sad


Other forums didn't get coded in a Quafe induced haze one Valentine's weekend.

"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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#278 - 2013-09-17 01:44:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Boris Borison wrote:
Repost from the threadnaught:

Impersonating someone, by using an deliberately similar name, has been (quite rightly) against the rules for as long as I remember.

Misrepresenting yourself, by claiming to be someone's alt or claiming to represent another entity, has until now been a normal part of Eve.

If someone claims to be an alt of Chribba, then I'd check with Chribba or check Chribba's bio. If someone claimed to represent Goons and that they could move my stuff into null, then I'd assume it was a scam anyway, especially if they were a member of the swarm.

Misrepresentation is part of Eve, Carbon as a Charon, Ravens as Navy Ravens, awoxing dishonest scumbags as honest reliable pilots, boys as girls, girls as boys.....

Editing the official wiki to pull off a scam was a clever move and I applaud the players ingenuity, but the wiki does need to be factually correct, so plug that loophole and leave us to lie to each other in game and on these forums.

Editing to add: As for the rewording, I'd agree with mynnna's post just below.


Exactly this.

Also remove all references to 'Player Entities'. If the client doesn't consider it an entity (whether we are talking CFC, New Order or any other group) it should be fair game for anyone to impersonate. If someone wants to make an in-game corporation named "New 0rder Miner Gankers", all power to them (but creating "New 0rder Death Dealers" should be off limits, as the client recognises a corporation named "New Order Death Dealers" and that is an obvious impersonation.


Without dishonesty, EVE would be a very dull game. We should not be setting rules as to which forms of dishonesty are OK and which are not, otherwise what is next - will it be a banhammer offence to 'dishonestly' represent yourself as a lone Hyperion lost in lowsec when you are actually bait that can survive a gang of ten for the 45 seconds your fleet needs to get to you? Will it be a banhammer offence to 'dishonestly' represent yourself as a loyal corp member in order to steal everything from the corp wallet?

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#279 - 2013-09-17 01:52:41 UTC
Copied from the other thread:



First brutally honest feedback. I'll word it as politely as possible without sacrificing honesty.

This is the biggest knife in the heart of EVE's gameplay and culture of 'spies and deception are everywhere' since the Incarna debacle. I have no confidence in the ability of the people behind this change to understand EVE, let alone implement reasonable policies or rules.

It appears that any deceptive behaviour at all that involves a declaration that "X is my alt" or "I am working in conjunction with X" is against the rules, and by extension, and outsourcing of core activities of a corporation, alliance or 'entity' now has CCP enforcing the honesty of such dealings.

For instance, under the new rules Goonswarm Federation retain the CCP endorsed right to scam people interested in renting space from them. However, in the unlikely situation that Goonswarm were to appoint me (a non-member of the alliance) as a third party to act on their behalf in rental deals, I would not be allowed to scam and and deliberate scamming by me of renters would be an account-ban offence. (A similar situation would occur if I were to collude with a 'renter' that intended to not pay but instead use their 'rented space' as a staging ground to attack GSF interests).

Particularly relevant to sovereign nullsec is that one of the major vectors for inserting spies into hostile entities, applying to multiple corps saying "I am XYZ's alt", fishing for one that is not vigilant enough to API verify this information, is no longer legal.

What you should be doing is the following:

- Ban names that are deceptively close to existing character, corporation or alliance names. GM discretion applies when it's unclear (Currln Trading is clearly deceptively close to Currin Trading; while 'Avengers of the South' would not be deceptively close to 'Southern Avengers')
- Ban deceptive conduct carried out on CCP hosted websites other than the official EVE forums
- Change the font so that capital 'o' and 'zero' look more different ingame than the presently do. Likewise for capital 'i' and lower case 'l'.
- Remove all reference to 'entities'. The game client recognises corporations and alliances. It doesn't recognise coalitions, the New Order or other such 'entities'.
- Explicitly allow players to lie about their affiliation to in-game corporations and alliances and to other characters, as long as they do not do so in ways that 'trick' the in-game methods for checking this information. Disallowed would be misuse of CCP websites and any form of API falsification. (Providing information and saying 'this is what my API says' should be fine; altering what the API actually says should be a banhammer).

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Echo Echoplex
#280 - 2013-09-17 03:19:48 UTC
xBumper Baby wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
MiningAlt, Mining4lt


Bah! I wrote an incredibly eloquent and harrumphingly impassioned response to this, but the 'preview' button wiped it!

Here's a crappy rewrite:

'I' looks like 'l' because of the dodgy font in the game. I think peeps should be able to tell toons apart without having to paste and copy names, so some kind of intervention may be in order. Perhaps also with 'O' and '0'.

'4' doesn't look like 'A' unless you went to dafty school. It isn't a problem with the game. It doesn't need fixing. People who can't tell the difference need fixing. If we take those people's complaints at face value and decide that Chribba (or whichever 3rd party) has turned scam artist, that's our fault. Our (lack of) evaluation of others needs fixing. After all, they could be lying to deliberatley trash someone's reputation.

It's not the scammer's fault that the mark is guillible. It's not the 3rd party's fault if we're gullible enough to take the guillible mark's word at face value! It's our responsibility to judge the characters we meet and evaluate our interactions with them appropriately.

If scamming is a serious problem for noob retention, I do like the idea of putting it into the tutorial. Get them to RP a few common scams, then let Aurora scam them! Surely they can't stay mad at Aurora!?


You know, I was going to suggest this very thing but wasn't sure. On reflection I think why not? If it clears all this up it might be the easiest way. Make the prize for not falling for it the Trading book.

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton