These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Terms of Service History and Clarification Dev Blog

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#41 - 2013-09-26 12:59:17 UTC
Laendra wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
And how exactly do these changes stop TQ "before it ends up like the chinese server"?

Scamming and impersonation are destabilising, and are in fact one of the few ways that individuals and small groups can effectively combat large powerful ones.
Emphasis mine

WHOA, what the ****? How the hell did you get into the CSM? Scamming has ALWAYS been a part of EVE. CCP has dumbed it down tremendously over the years, but it has never, ever, been against the rules to trade someone an assembled Omen and tell them that it was actually an Apocalypse(, et.al.)

Feel free to resign your position on the CSM and quit EVE...

WoW is => that way

How about you take a step back, take a couple deep breaths and then try reading what Malcanis wrote with a bit of reading comprehension? Protip: destabilisation is not negative, especially in the context of this example.
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#42 - 2013-09-26 15:49:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Quote:
On June 10th, 2013 we made a few updates to the policy, the name of it was changed to "EVE Online Naming Policy" and we updated the policy to clarify that it included other names than character names. For this purpose the following parts were added/clarified:

b. In- game names may not:

* Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.

* In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.


So, if I name a Raven "Raven Navy Issue" and try to sell it as such in a trade window, I am in violation of the naming policy? Not only that, but if I have done this in the past, I was in violation of the TOS, because "it's always been this way?" That's one of the oldest, well-known, cliche' scams in Eve, and it's always been against the rules to do it apparently. Wow.

So anyone who has ever fallen for a renaming scam in a trade window has a valid petition issue? Shocked

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#43 - 2013-09-30 18:48:26 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ranger 1 wrote:
People hate it when CCP says "We will enforce this rule using our own discretion according to the circumstances"... mainly because it closes loopholes that they otherwise could take advantage of. Smile



If you run a corp, do the following to render your corp immune to AWOXing and theft:
1) Do interviews over voice
2) Require every new member to include the phrase "[CEO]'s Alt" in their IG application
3) ????
4) GMs ban them and fix the damage they caused because CCP is in the corp security business now.

If you want to AWOX or steal:
1) Include the phrase "[CEO]'s alt in your IG application
2) AWOX or Steal
3) ????
4) Claim that the recruiter told you to include the phrase to abuse this ruling.


From the perspective of the GMs who don't have access to TS/Mumble/EVE Voice logs (since most people don't record all their voice comms), the two situations are identical. So either CCP is providing corporations with magical GM-based security tools, or they can't enforce the rule at all (and so shouldn't have it on the books).

Let's see you close that loophole by broadening the rule further.


Rules aren't publicized for the benefit of the enforcers, they're publicized to provide those covered by them with the tools to follow them. Overbroad rules create confusion, not loopholes, and even if well written rules created loopholes, CCP has TOS sections 25 and 26 that cover everything.

"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
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#44 - 2013-10-01 15:46:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
From the conclusion of the blog:

"After hearing the feedback and concerns of our players, we have decided to take a deeper look at what we should and should not be enforcing."

This entire notion is misguided, and this is the root of the player concern. That being that it is acceptable for the ToS/EULA to prohibit certain behaviors, yet for those behaviors to continually perceived as acceptable and thus practiced due to a lack of enforcement (or merely differences in enforcement policies). Our accounts and characters are very important and very valuable to us, and we rightly take exception when see an avenue by which we might be wrongfully deprived of them. Furthermore, GM communication is confidential, while the ToS/EULA is explicit. Thus CCP cannot excuse poorly worded, ambiguous, or flatly incorrect language in the ToS/EULA due to a more nuanced understanding supposedly being in the less-well defined enforcement guidelines. Regarding this the history of the ToS/EULA is wholly irrelevant.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#45 - 2013-10-10 17:47:23 UTC
Although it’s been pretty quiet lately, we just wanted to let you all know that we haven’t forgotten about this matter. Customer Support is now working with Game Design to prepare material for discussion with the CSM, where this is going to be one of our main discussion points in the coming months. We have received lots of ideas and input on this that we will take into consideration and we look forwards to meeting up with the CSM and coming to a satisfactory resolution.

CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls
token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
#46 - 2013-10-17 15:26:44 UTC
Just out of curiosity... in a game that promotes creative heists and such, why is pretending to be someone else against the rules?

It doesn't seem very consistent with the setting.
Previous page123