These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#281 - 2013-09-17 04:03:52 UTC
Rob Crowley wrote:
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."


IANAL, so yeah, my proposed changes probably would need a language pass. Cool

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#282 - 2013-09-17 05:47:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
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.


Quoting this for whatever the latest page of this thread is. It's moronic to start handing out bans and reversing transactions because people are too lazy to read carefully. If your in-game font makes it impossible to distinguish between characters then the answer is to fix the font, not ban people.

Stop adding rules to the sandbox. What's next, banning people who post bad ship fits to the EVE wiki or refunding people who buy the suggested items? If we wanted to play World of Warcraft we'd toss our coin at Blizzard. Don't throw away one of your gameworld's core features because a handful of people got scammed to an unusual degree. Fix the TOS to make sure it's clear that ISD are CCP representatives and call it a day.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#283 - 2013-09-17 06:29:33 UTC
Quote:
RubyPorto wrote:
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.



Liked for "Quafe induced haze".

So, from what I have seen since I last posted here, we haven't really covered a lot of new territory. And no update so far, either.

My question is, would it be possible to get an interim adjudication guide to this nonsense? X is ok, Y is not ok, Z is a grey area, etc?

Because that is my biggest issue with all of this. The sheer, opaque, vagueness of it all. In the 6 months before this ToS change popped up, I could reasonably have been convicted of violating this about a dozen times. And back then, it was a big giant thumbs up.

So, and again I hesitate to use the word, we need "clarification" that is actually clear. Black and white, yes or no. Quit with this discretionary horseshit. Perma bans should not be handed out based on feelings, not once or ever.

"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.

Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#284 - 2013-09-17 06:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
see below. sry
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2013-09-17 06:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
And in-game mechanics could be used for new player names... can't be so hard to implement a similarity check, no?


  • Then just add an Aura tutorial to introduce new players to scams
  • change the tos to better protect CCP employees: "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer." [skip the rest]
  • and if u must - add optional warnings to anything that might get petitioned (Clippy, the new Eve Assistant.... I wonder how that will work out) to be on the safe side [There are 3 Chribbas that have a very similar name... do you really want to accept the contract over 1 b for 1 veldspar from Chr!bba?!] Really, really! Don't petition us, if u click here! ok, your fault!
  • and go drink something with your buddies because you have saved eve again! yay!
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#286 - 2013-09-17 09:47:57 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Rob Crowley wrote:
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."
IANAL, so yeah, my proposed changes probably would need a language pass. Cool

I had some more time to think about some further linguistic refinements, so I now would propose (changes bolded):

"You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer group. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself or your corporation or alliance by imitation of another character's or corporation's or alliance's name."

Reasons:

  • The first edit means ISDs are allowed to present themselves as ISDs. Same for CCP, but I guess they wouldn't care much about getting petitioned. Big smile
  • Second edit is just for linguistic reasons: CCP is a group of people so I think it's grammatically cleaner to formulate the volunteers as a group too.
  • Don't know if the 3rd edit (the second "falsely") actually changes anything legally, but arguably it could allow people to give their own alts similar names. And even if it doesn't do that it doesn't hurt either.
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2013-09-17 09:52:04 UTC
Can a dev weigh in on this, at the very least to let us know that they are reading all this?
Isis Dea
Vixxen Inc.
#288 - 2013-09-17 14:29:38 UTC
Echo Echoplex wrote:
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.


On page 2, I put this amongst a list of recommended changes.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#289 - 2013-09-17 14:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
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!?



Font manipulation is a psychological effect. Humans by default tend to skim over letters and "assume" what they are reading is correct (which is why grammatical errors stand out so vividly).

4 and A are very much similar when reading a wall of text, although when standing alone they are obviously different.

Scams and convincers that utilize those differences exploit that human weakness; it's how they work.

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.

Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#290 - 2013-09-17 15:32:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Yonis Kador
Now that more details have been revealed regarding the scam that precipitated these changes, I guess I've become a tad more forgiving of CCP's overreaction. The scam in question was unprecedented and sure, maybe steps should be taken to prevent that kind of deception from happening again. (It was kind of clever though. It's a wonder, imo, that it didn't happen sooner.) It may well be that CCP feels only an all-encompassing, vaguely-defined impersonation statute can possibly cover every nuanced instance of impersonation in game. But whether impersonation should or should not be legal, whether we should be in the business of banning accounts for their usage of "i"s and "l"s, I continue to disagree in principle to overly-broad, vague language in the ToS.

Such restrictions are impossible to obey as a player, incite players to test boundaries in order to define them, which then demands constant interpretation by the GMs, resulting in uneven enforcement. It's just bad policy. It's the reason this incident (which could/should have passed without much fanfare or notice) became such an issue. (The whole impersonating your own alt response from the GMs didn't help.) At this point, I'm adopting a "wait-and-see" attitude on this issue. Based on their comments, I don't believe CCP intended these changes to represent a paradigm shift in game. They overreacted. Players responded. And now hopefully, with constructive dialogue, the rules can be amended to something more definitive or at least something a little easier to comprehend. (How these changes made it through the QC process at CCP and what such a rule says about the future of EVE are separate discussions imo.)

My personal views on impersonation scams are that in most instances they should be allowed. New players should probably be cut some slack. Especially ESL noobs. No one should be impersonating CCP or ISDs. (But I'm less sure how I feel about claiming to be an alt of a CCP employee or ISD volunteer (or anyone else for that matter.) Who cares? It's just another lie. If someone is dumb enough to believe that - take their ****!) But then again, I don't trust anyone in game fully and until player claims are verified, I just assume folks are trying to scam me. Even the ones I like. And, when I travel to a hub, I admire the dedication it takes to sit there and spam scams as your entire game. How many of those are based on misrepresentation or impersonation? All of them? It's annoying as **** but its become expected dystopian behavior. Spaceship Barbie has been tormenting Amarr for years. I expect to continue seeing her there.

YK
Orakkus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#291 - 2013-09-17 15:45:20 UTC
So I'm checking back on this forum and, like many of the folks, I'm kinda wondering where CCP is at right now on this issue. Are the CSM of one accord (or nearly so) and are the Devs talking to Mynnna and Ali and getting the TOS in order. I think everyone agrees on the major stuff of the TOS, (i.e. name protection for CCP and ISD employees) and I'm in favor of punishment of some visual tricks for scamming (i.e font design issues, not however for "Mynnna" versus "Mynnnna" issues), but I can be reasonable about this too.

So, where is CCP at? Are they going to fix the TOS soon, because we are still under the new "Eve Killer" TOS right now.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#292 - 2013-09-17 16:51:26 UTC
In a game based on meta gaming, it's really hard to say you can't meta 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.

mmorpg lol
The Dark Space Initiative
The Initiative.
#293 - 2013-09-17 17:11:11 UTC
Rob Crowley wrote:


"You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of CCP or of an EVE Online volunteer group. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself or your corporation or alliance by imitation of another character's or corporation's or alliance's name."



Added an of in there to clarify that its representative of the two groups and not representative or a group.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#294 - 2013-09-17 18:23:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Crowley
mmorpg lol wrote:
Rob Crowley wrote:
"You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of CCP or of an EVE Online volunteer group. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself or your corporation or alliance by imitation of another character's or corporation's or alliance's name."

Added an of in there to clarify that its representative of the two groups and not representative or a group.

I believe the second "of" is not correct in this specific case cause the object "CCP or an EVE Online volunteer group" has to match both predicates "impersonate" and "falsely present yourself to be a representative of". If only the second predicate were there then you could have a second "of", but the "of" doesn't fit with "impersonate". I know the second predicate doesn't sound natural without another "of", but I believe that's pretty standard legalese.

Disclaimer: English is not my first language.

Edit: Scratch that, the object is actually "a representative of ..." so the second "of" is alright (though not necessary).
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#295 - 2013-09-17 18:36:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
yay, the news has finally been escalated to mittens private little blog... there are actually some really interesting thoughts there, too. The basic challenge seems to be how to give players more actions against scammers, even if they are sitting in jita stations and are therefore unreachable.

I would say open the damn captains quarters door and you can hunt him down and challenge him to a fistfight but that will not happen I fear.

So what can you do really?

Not a lot. You can definitely put a bounty on the scammer's cold dead clone but that's pretty much it.

So here is the chance to do something new in-game... some clever system to make it fun to get revenge.... but instead you nuke us all with the legal bomb?! I mean, really?

There must be better options than this.

Just so I participate at least with one idea:

How about an information broker NPC much like the locator agent.... you need standings, then you can get intelligence briefings about a char....

Not to put other good websites out of business the briefing could link to battleclinic and the last fits, or whatnot... (just the stuff everybody does to check on a char)...

and again this would be another great AURA beginner mission - just saying ;)

[if this really gets done I want CCp to give all that participated a hauler full of quafe, fireworks and dancers]
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2013-09-17 19:54:04 UTC
Eagerly awaiting a response and (preferably) a roll back of the TOS change. Time to re-sub is counting down.

I was hunting for sick loot, but all I could get my hands on were 50 corpses[:|]..............[:=d]

Volitaire
Gladiators of Rage
Goonswarm Federation
#297 - 2013-09-17 19:54:56 UTC
CCP Dolan wrote:
We will be combing this thread, and asking the CSM to submit their own responses when evaluating whether we should alter the current Terms of Service and, if we decide to change them, how we should do so.

Please be aware that this thread exists solely for constructive feedback. Nonconstructive feedback and trolling will likely result in a ban from the EVE Online Forums, as we are hoping to work together with you all to make sure EVE is the "best" EVE it can be.


Yo boss, I've got a suggestion. How about you not comb this, or other threads related to it, so the outrage of the player base is visible, rather than covering it up lest it risk investors.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#298 - 2013-09-17 20:46:48 UTC
So yeah, James 315's article is pretty good. It's linked above, but just in case CCP's thread-combers missed it: http://themittani.com/features/james-315-responds-new-anti-scamming-rules?page=0%2C2

This duder is totally on the right track with his ultimate conclusions. CCP need to give players the tools to recognize scam attempts (such as readable fonts and market mechanics that don't let you create un-fillable orders). Beyond that it's up to players to feel out situations and see if they're comfortable proceeding with their business. If they're dumb enough to hand all their stuff to someone because they said they were trustworthy, that's their problem, not the GMs'. EVE is a harsh place. Deal with it or get the hell out.
Echo Echoplex
#299 - 2013-09-17 20:53:24 UTC
Isis Dea wrote:
Echo Echoplex wrote:

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.


On page 2, I put this amongst a list of recommended changes.

Ah, thanks, I missed it.




And yes, Devs, please help take the scowl off my avi's face. She wants to be a pretty pony again.

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

Koby Botick
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#300 - 2013-09-17 21:00:59 UTC
Dear CCP.

Please keep the new wording of the rule. The fact that I can now force the banhammer on any roleplayer claiming to be "another character" which is inherently unproofable and thus almost a scam is filling me with glee.

That is all.