Assembly Hall

Classice troll behaviour is to pick a question close to the subject matter and flog it to death, that is my experience with you and I make no apologies for calling you out on it in those threads. But seeing as you asked reasonable questions I will give you the respect of a reply.

Of course people will try and will get around it, but that is why you need a perma ban threat, not for scamming to make sure you understand that. This is also where we differ, where is it play to use another account with no link at all to your real main and yet use that account to assist the policy and direction and even wallet of your main, that is not play, its using the structural mechanics to enable you to easily infiltrate and then execute.

You like many assume that CCP fully endorses scamming, I actually doubt that, you noticed that certain key CCP personal have moved on and both were pro scamming, one in particular did that to make ISK when he played and nothing else. Also I think it was because it was just too difficult to control, that being said I have no issue with scamming, my issue is simply that the structure of accounts makes it impossible to protect yourself, and that recruitment is a complete lottery. On the other side this makes scamming ultra easy and hardly a challenge. Keep thinking I am against scamming, but in my view if someone does it because they get fed up of the CEO, cool, if someone plays as a scammer, cool, but here is the rub, they have to play entirely as a scammer. You say that CCP would not go down the route of banning people for this, well I have become aware of CCP being rather quick to ban people recently without any real explanation.

If you had read my suggestion, you would note that I had a tick box option for the player whether to allow this information to be gathered by the API, and that the tick box status would be reported as part of the API, this gives a player the option not to give this data, but I like many others would not accept that person.

I make no leap of faith that the unified accounts developed this way is what CCP wants to do, I hope it is something they will do.

I don't hate scamming, it might surprise you to know that I read C&P a lot and I have laughed my head off at Psychotic Monk, note that he is doing it with that toon (of course he uses the account issue to do it too), but I like it when he uses his main, the fun part was that he actually joined a corp in Pirate Nation when we were in Delve couple years back whose CEO was really bad at security, and when we saw him in this corp we just cracked up, damn if people are not able to check someone like that they deserve it.

Back to the Troll part, it is obvious to me that you did not read what I put up, if you really want to discuss things like this then read the subject matter and digest before posting, otherwise I think you are trolling because trolls just focus on one thing, like you don't like scamming and flog it to death and come up with comments ignoring what was said in the original post, which is what you have done.

"but CCP may deem this information private. Or give the option to make it so."

My suggestion inlcuded that option, go back and read it!

My point regarding that information, was about unified account management. I could have made this clearer, but with your current attitude I'm not sure it would have made a difference.
I'm saying they may look upon this information to be private, as in not even include it in the API database. Or give you an option if you wish it to be. This would mean even if you had that part of the API checked, it still might not show the info you are after.

You're vision of how CCP view scamming and how they would alter unified accounts to match that vision, isn't something I remotely recognise. You could of course point to posts/articles that back this view you think CCP has, in order to substantiate this stance. But I doubt you will tbh. I have a feeling that what CCP deem as improving the game, is a far cry from your ideals.

I understood what you were saying there and I repeat it, if the player wishes to keep his characters private then he can chose not to tick the box that enables this check, but the information will be flagged as not showing all accounts. That will work for me, some naive fools may still recruit him, but I won't. So this gives the CEO's of corps what so many want, the ability to assess people for multiple accounts. You may not think that this does not give me the information that I am after, but I would be very happy with that.

Of course you don't recognise it, but it really depends what you want to do in game, if your entire game is based on sitting next to a gate in Rancer setting off smart bombs then you are hardly going to worry about corporate recruitment are you? Again I am not knocking that as a style of play, hell I find low sec much more dangerous then 0.0 and I know people who actually know your corp well and respect them. But if you are not able to at least see this issue and think through the impacts of it, then there really is no point in engaging with me, because at the end of the day you are adding nothing to the debate apart from your feelings.

I have seen a couple of things that make me believe that CCP is starting to realise this is an issue, one of which was a certain developer who was very pro scamming and only did that as a player move on, followed by the TOS clarification, I have also heard of some people getting bans which was very interesting indeed. If you fail to recognise those signs as showing a particular stance by CCP then that is not my issue.

Of course when one puts forward ideas it is often to ones own benefit, I want to see more alliances getting stuck in to 0.0 and take space and I seriously believe that this is something that will help make that possible, I am not ignoring the other issues, but I feel this one is just as important as Super blobs. Anyway if CCP does not make this change then they still have a broken game, this is what a friend said to me when I discussed this issue, its says it all:



Thank you for giving the thread another bump!

Your habit of spinning vast palaces of conspiracy from the most evanescent threads of gossamer thin fact are what qualify you as a loon. Your insistence on making something that by your own account hasn't even affected you into some kind of moral issue make you a hurtte butter.

No complements are implied in stating implicit facts.

No you don't understand it at all. I mean not a part of the API database at all. The same way that your account name, payment details, address etc isn't a part of that database.

This would mean the following:

IF CCP allowed us the option of showing, we would have:

• Person A has 4 accounts, but decides in the account management section he wishes this to remain personal information.
When person A gives his full API, it will only show the one account and the up to 3 characters on it.


• Person B has 4 accounts, but he decides in the account management section he wishes to divulge this information.
When person B gives his full API, it will show all the linked accounts and each and every character on them.

If CCP deemed it personal, we would have:

• All accounts would show 3 characters only.

In other words, it would be of no use to you at all.

I have been involved in recruitment in the past and I agree it's not easy. But then that's one of the reasons I love Eve. Many of it's aspects are not easy, but that doesn't entitle me to certain personal account information.

As far as your evidence regarding CCPs stance on scamming is concerned, was that it? It was circumstantial at best tbh.
Devs, well they come and go. ToS wording, well yes it changes and gets clarified, always has always will. Maybe you could point to the change and why it's changes CCPs stance on scamming?

As far as these bans you mention are concerned, context and evidence is required.

So no still not seeing it, as you haven't provided much in the way of proof to alter that.

I know that's not what you are suggesting, but I'm suggesting that may be the case. I'm saying you may think you're entitled to know this info, but CCP may think otherwise.

In your view, which may not be CCP's. Which is my point.

Oh and that thread was about someone impersonating someone else. Which as far as I'm aware, has always been taboo. In fact, it's not the first time someone has tried to impersonate the big C and come foul of CCP's wrath.
Not only that, but he also edited wiki pages to show incorrect information. So I can fully understand why CCP updated their ToS, to clarify their stance on such matters and banned his ass.

But that doesn't help you make your case.

So to recap:

The issue is that there are a number of players who play eve for a totally different game... its not about spaceships for them... but the meta game of stealing stuff and ruining corps and causing havoc for others. They are very destructive in terms of the game in my opinion, making the development of a corp or alliance very difficult because you can be sure to have one of these in your corp or alliance, they will spy, organise hot drops and clean you out, militarily you have no chance, because they have greater numbers and huge capital fleets, you on the other hand are not even safe shooting a POCO in secret, there is no secret unless you keep it so small and then your firepower is not enough. This is the impact on the game at a strateguic level.

So I suggested a way to reduce this impact, unfied accounts with a ban penalty for trying to get around this, of course the question is whether CCP would be able to do this.

I have one member of the CSM reply, Malcanis and his reply is revealing, he talks about thousands of accounts being banned until he realises what a whooper he made and tries to bluster around it. Think abou it, he is a 0.0 player who moves within the circle of players that control 0.0, he owes his position on the CSM to those people voting him as an alternative, he is active on the Eve forums and external Eve forums. Everything he says is to nerf HS and push people to 0.0. And here he details the scale of it unintentionally.



My feeling was that there was a significant number of old players who were scamming behind multiple accounts, thousands of accounts in fact, and I am grateful to Malcannis for confirming to me what I suspected, even though that was not what he intended.

As for his comment about being butt hurt, of course I am, it is only just recently I worked out the scale of this issue and its impact and its right up there with Super cap blobs and the sov system. Anyway no point in flogging this to death, so back to playing watching and waiting, the fun part is that the Initiaive are now in my operational area, so I can shoot some of Malcanis's scrubs, yay!!!

So your concept is trust the player to play as the individual character, rather naive and trusting isn't it? But in truth that person can be handled by refusing to allow that data to be included in the API character search, so no issue and the CEO gets the ability to see that he does in fact run other accounts and has the choice to say, nah, too much of a security risk.

As for:



Actually I made a full argument about it in this thread, and those that don't like it are either pirates or 0.0 people who of course won't like it for obvious reasons, and you cannot look at these forums as giving any real backing or not, because the forums are heavily slanted towards the two player types I just mentioned, those that would most probably agree with my suggestion don't tend to post on Eve forums because they see no point in it, having had multiple "where on the doll did that nasty man touch you" type comments, proves nothing...

The argument you made is basically with your self, you can sit there rocking back forth swearing you are Tinkerbell. But it does not prove out the argument that it is valid.

Ezslider, sticks and stones, the only argument I was having with my self was whether to continue to play Eve and also how I would play based on this issue, my original plan was of course to go for Sov, but now I have decided to have some fun with the assets I had built up, it is a great long term game and is hard, except for Corp thieves and infiltrators (its too easy for them), I tend to like to play hard games, but if the game involves a structural weakness that makes it too hard and you have no way to deal with it in game then that is akin to head butting a wall or trying the same thing again and again expecting a different result. I play for a challenge, not to be a patsy for some inadequate who can only succeed by meta gaming, therefore the high level strategic game is toast for me and its now just blast in small ships for small gang combat. I have to say I wish I had worked this out earlier, but as I have a highly skilled character focussed on sub caps I did not waste effort training something big and shiny to have that meta gamed by certain people, I am not too impacted.

Thanks for all the fish, but this is my last post on this thread, I said what I needed to say, and if people have a vested interest in not seeing this or don't get it then more fool them.