These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Jita Park Speakers Corner

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Terms of Service CSM Feedback Thread

First post First post First post
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#301 - 2013-09-17 22:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dograzor
A couple thoughts on the ToS as feedback for CCP:

The first part I wholeheartedly agree on, as players we have no business impersonating CCP or ISD's. I don't want to touch that.

The second part, it is somewhat tricky. As a whole, I would say no, but this sentence combines many elements. For instance:

Impersonating players - I interpret that as impersonating unique individuals
Impersonating a group of players - this can be interpreted as corporations and alliances, but also social based groups that have no clear membership such as e.g. bombers bar, incursion running groups, etc.
Impersonating characters or NPC enitites - this could mean factions such as Amarr, Gallente or Sansha, Guristas etc.

The problem lies with the fact that each of the above groups have huge differences on its own.

For example, the rule that you cannot impersonate or represent NPC groups can be interpreted that role playing is not allowed, e.g. no pirates impersonating Guristas, or faction warfare groups representing one of the four factions. Not even to mention CVA representing the Amarr Empire in Provi and Ushra'Khan representing the Minmatar Empire.

I know it sounds far fetched, but if you literally interpret the ToS it does forbid the above. And for those who have been in New Eden for a long time, role playing has been a huge backbone driving New Eden.

Now for impersonating groups of players, this slides to a more grey area, as many EVE capsuleers are aware of the old school "join Goonswarm" scams etc. I personally have nothing against these scams, but opinions might differ here. Still, my belief is that not allowing people to imitate or falsely represent a group of players creates the possibility to severely limit metagaming, and metagaming is the driving force behind Eve Online fame.

Impersonating a unique individual is something I frown upon. This might be a case where I would say that CCP involvement would be desired as it harms one specific person and not a social construct that represents players.

My feedback to CCP would be to scrap their addendum as a whole or be very, very specific in rewriting it while keeping an eye on not hurting the sandbox.
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2013-09-17 22:16:38 UTC
I've waited to make my own response to this thread until I could get some context from more involved players, including articles on TMC and Jester's Trek. While I always take such sources with a grain of salt, I was linked to this thread: by the articles.

My response? Absolute bewilderment. Utter Hatred. WHAT THE ACTUAL ****.

But, to be constructive, the TOS should make it a punishable offense to impersonate an EVE Online official (employee/volunteer) or interfere with official EVE Online media with the intention of personal profit, etc. with the punishment decided on a case by case basis.

The impersonation of a character by imitating their name (Chr1bba) should be a punishable offense with the punishment BE LIMITED TO RENAMING.

Impersonation in other manners, such as claiming to be someone's alt, should be expressly ALLOWED (as this is and always has been part of the very fabric of EVE culture).

Just my two cents,
Die Hard Carebears
#303 - 2013-09-18 00:38:48 UTC
The ToS update is insane and makes completely no sense. There you have my feedback.

I am Aylleen, and I approve this message.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#304 - 2013-09-18 01:37:02 UTC
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.

So are trading alts. And more or less, industrial magnates too. Heck, for that matter, so are Alliance leaders, who have no real reason or motive to take the field themselves.

So lots of things are like that.

The fact of the matter is that players don't need any more actions to take against scammers except for "Stop being stupid". But that's an answer that might hurt precious little feelings, hence all the whining about scams that almost constantly clogs GD.

The only action that would need to be taken is against those who abuse the UI with names like Chrlbba or The Mlttani, or other stupid crap like that. That's about the only thing I would in good conscience (yes, I do have one) legitimately call impersonation.

As for the rest of it, whatever happened to HTFU? Whatever happened to learning from mistakes, instead of crying to GMs to reimburse your loss and ban the mean, nasty people who tricked you?

Whatever happened to being an adult?

"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.

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#305 - 2013-09-18 03:55:38 UTC
Gorgoth24 wrote:
The impersonation of a character by imitating their name (Chr1bba) should be a punishable offense with the punishment BE LIMITED TO RENAMING.

There needs to be actual disincentive to start breaking the rules
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
yay, the news has finally been escalated to mittens private little blog...

Nah, the news was on TMC on the ninth of this month. That link is an opinion article.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#306 - 2013-09-18 06:03:39 UTC
I stopped paying attention for a second. Have they actually changed anything back, or did they just lock us into a corner so our dissatisfaction wouldn't be noticed until the next time they nerf my friends and peers?
#307 - 2013-09-18 06:12:52 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I stopped paying attention for a second. Have they actually changed anything back, or did they just lock us into a corner so our dissatisfaction wouldn't be noticed until the next time they nerf my friends and peers?

Do you really have to ask?

"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
#308 - 2013-09-18 09:07:41 UTC  |  Edited by: xBumper Baby
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

'defualt'; 'Tend to skim'; 'assume'

All failures on the part of the scammed and difficult to sympathise with. Just as foolish and easily avoidable as 'afk' and 'autopilot'.

Try replacing them with 'alertness'; 'read carefully' and 'think critically'.

Then peeps will be ok.
xBumper Baby
Joss Ackland's Spunky Backpackers
#309 - 2013-09-18 09:10:35 UTC  |  Edited by: xBumper Baby
Isis Dea wrote:
xBumper Baby wrote:
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!?

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

Yes, i knew someone had wrote it somewhere in the thread. You can have my hauler full of strippers etc. Smile
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#310 - 2013-09-18 13:42:05 UTC
Timeline on a resolution CCP?

Vojtech Fekete
#311 - 2013-09-18 16:16:59 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Timeline on a resolution CCP?

Soon (tm).

Oh wait, is that bannable, 'cause I'm mimicking CCP? I hope that no-one feels that I'm impersonating them, by answering a question posed to them with an answer that is typically given by them...

Which is the fundamental issue - the language leaves it up to the wronged party to present the situation to an opaque enforcement body. Optimally, we'd have clear rules that excluded only technical exploits (Chrlbba) and pretending to be CCP. Worse, but tolerable, would be the "existing" enforcement made transparent, such that the community could review and understand precedent.
Rekkr Nordgard
Borderland Militia
Zero Hedge Union
#312 - 2013-09-18 21:51:56 UTC
So what's it been, like 5 days now, since the last CCP response to this? Absolutely LOVE how responsive they're being to the community.


Seriously, how long could it possibly take to undo this idiotic mistake? It certainly didn't take them any time at all to make an integral part of Eve a bannable offense. Hire me and I'll have that ******** sentence out of the ToS before you can say crtl+x, I'll even do it for free.
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#313 - 2013-09-19 04:13:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
I don't scam but I want other people to be able to in whatever manner they choose. Without diverse risks the sandbox loses all meaning.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

State War Academy
Caldari State
#314 - 2013-09-19 05:27:20 UTC
Imho the only one beeing able to file a petition on someone impersonating one of his characters should be the impersonated himself. There should not be any reimbursement for the scammed player as he was too lazy to check and therefore it was his fault. The impersonated char has nothing to do with all of this and can't defend himself as it was already stated most of the scammers almost never come out of the safety of a station.
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#315 - 2013-09-19 11:28:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
The ToS offer us an opportunity to discuss how we optimally want CCP to handle such clever hacks of the system in the future... Now for the ToS situation and how it should have developed: Clever scam involving messing with CCP info ressources triggers the following responses:

  1. CCP publishes the exploit in a big story with player/scammer interviews etc <- THAT'S positive publicity!
  2. If the method is problematic, then the transfer has to be undone (in this case mixing out of game with in-game approaches)
  3. All parties get a pat on the back in the form of a (limited) hauler full with quafe and dancers for finding the exploit/falling victim as a proof of concept
  4. The exploit is fixed in RL (wiki editing tools - proofed stable vs latest versions for example)
  5. ...and in-game through game mechanics
  6. As a LAST step ToS etc are changed to reflect the new situation

If we break down the scammers approach, two situations have to be "clarified" in the new ToS:

* don't use ccp as a cover for your scams
* don't mix official ccp rl ressources with in-game roleplay while ...
* all the other rl ressources that are not ccp controlled are fine to mess with: have fun with the meta game
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#316 - 2013-09-19 14:53:47 UTC
Can we get an answer? something? I would post this here as well, but I feel everything is becoming bannable in an effort to make New Eden a softer place.

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

GM Grimmi
Game Master Retirement Home
#317 - 2013-09-19 15:46:36 UTC
Hello everyone,

I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all.

You cannot impersonate yourself.

Telling others that you’re an alt of a character you own or telling them what other characters you own is not a EULA/TOS violation and will not get you banned.

With the possible exception of using your own alt to mimic your character using spelling trickery in order to trick people into accepting duels with a high skill monster when they thought they were going to duel with puny noob or something like that, and possibly some extreme weird and outlandish edge case we haven’t thought of yet – you cannot impersonate yourself. The example above would not even be self-impersonation as much as it would just be a simple spelling trickery type of deal where it doesn’t really matter who owns the characters in question.

Impersonating yourself does not follow good logic since you are yourself and that is not a violation of any policies we have.

Thanks for reading.

Lead GM Grimmi
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#318 - 2013-09-19 15:56:51 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:

Impersonating yourself does not follow good logic since you are yourself and that is not a violation of any policies we have.

Thanks for reading.

Lead GM Grimmi

thx. 4 posting - that did clear up some misconceptions. cheers, g
Caldari State
#319 - 2013-09-19 15:57:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cindare
It's good to know that the most circular and pedantic consequences of this change have been addressed.

If your fellows would be so kind as to revert the overly ambiguous and patently unnecessary change, that would be most appreciated.
Kais Fiddler
Caldari State
#320 - 2013-09-19 15:58:47 UTC