These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
FightingMoose
Chroma Corp
#381 - 2013-09-25 20:07:52 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
The latest Wicked Princess/Black Legion titan kill (where an alt spy turned off a POS protecting a titan) is precisely the kind of action that could now be petitioned and perhaps reversed under these new rules, given the results of the GM escalation lottery.


(Citation needed).

I'm with you guys about keeping impersonation scams alive, but I don't see any evidence that there was any kind of impersonation going on in this situation.

Proud owner of an Ibis.
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#382 - 2013-09-25 20:14:53 UTC
+1 to getting a Dev and CSM response to this issue as it currently stands as of this day.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#383 - 2013-09-26 00:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
When it comes to the rules given in the EULA and the TOS I feel that CCP should:

Say what you do.
Do what you say.

That is, no more selective enforcement, no more "hidden" rules. If CCP wants to allow exceptions to a rule, things that they will not enforce, than that should be detailed in the TOS or the EULA. If there is a rule that is enforced, then that rule should be in one of those two documents. Always.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#384 - 2013-09-26 03:49:51 UTC
FightingMoose wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
The latest Wicked Princess/Black Legion titan kill (where an alt spy turned off a POS protecting a titan) is precisely the kind of action that could now be petitioned and perhaps reversed under these new rules, given the results of the GM escalation lottery.

(Citation needed).

I'm with you guys about keeping impersonation scams alive, but I don't see any evidence that there was any kind of impersonation going on in this situation.

It's not like they've shared any GM correspondence about it, clearly nothing is going on

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#385 - 2013-09-26 16:24:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Quote:

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.


http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/terms-of-service-history-and-clarification/

This seems to forbid renaming cheap items and selling them as a more expensive item. Such as renaming a Raven "Raven Navy Issue" and selling it in the trade window. It uses a "player-nameable item" (the Raven) to impersonate an "NPC type" (Caldari Navy). It is also "malicious" and done "for the purpose of misleading other players". So effectively this kills one of the oldest, simplest, well-known scams in Eve's history.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
newdok
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#386 - 2013-09-26 21:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: newdok
This is just my personal opinion, but...

I'm strongly opposed to the rule making (false) claims of being a character's alt a violation. EVE is a harsh universe characterized by a great difficulty in building trust. This is contrasted by the value placed on such trust in-game precisely because it is so hard to earn, which is part of what I believe makes EVE such a compelling experience.

The scope of claiming to be a character's alt is such a minor claim that player would feel protected by something that would be hard for customer service to prosecute. I believe this would cause more harm by perhaps giving players a false sense of security in interactions. I believe that learning that blind trust is very dangerous is a very important thing to learn as early as possible in EVE.

Further, while I can't say I know what others think about this issue I've believed for a long time that the only case in which you should trust someone as really being someone else's alt is if you hear from the main character themselves. I feel like this clarification of the rules is counterproductive because it undermines the lack of accountability that makes EVE such a vibrant, cut-throat community; While its always painful when it happens, much of the most interesting drama happens because players don't feel constrained by "morals" in-game. Further, I doubt most people would trust claims by an unknown character that they are someone trusted's alt without some kind of verification - either information only known to a trusted group or confirmation from that character's main. I believe that this is how things should be.

To clarify, I also believe that *ANY* impersonation of CCP staff or volunteers in their official capacities should be disallowed, but even their claiming to be a ccp alt or whatever would be such a fantastic claim that I doubt anyone would believe it without proof. That being said, it would still be bad because for the small percentage that might believe such a claim, it could spoil the reputation of EVE, so I think that should be strongly disallowed.
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#387 - 2013-09-27 19:43:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
+1 on GM and DEVs clearing up this mess now and for all ;) now they should have time for that... after the winter expansion presentation is over.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#388 - 2013-09-27 21:03:04 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
New policy for all corps who want GMs to reverse the effects (and ban the perpetrator) of any and all AWOX and theft attempts:

1) Perform your interviews on voice comms (So there are no logs of you telling them step 2)
2) Require that all applications include the words "I am [CEO]'s alt"
3) ????
4) Instant GM Safety net!


In the alternative, if you want to AWOX or Steal:
1) Include the words "I am [CEO]'s alt" in your application
2) ????
3) Claim that the CEO insisted (on Voice Comms) that you include those words to take advantage of this rule.

"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
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#389 - 2013-09-28 14:38:15 UTC
CCP needs to get out of the slander / libel enforcement business. I understand that their intentions are good. However, it's not practical to enforce, nor is it good for the community as a whole. The logic used as justification for enforcement (it's impossible to "get back at" scammers who tarnish someone's good name) can be used to justify the prohibition of ALL scams. This would be a very bad move for Eve Online.

CCP, as much as you LOVE Chribba and LOVE Somer Blink, you need to step back and consider that these entities have managed to build trust in the community WITHOUT your help. People have impersonated them and "invoked their name" to run many many scams and yet, their reputations are still intact. THEY DO NOT NEED YOUR HELP in the form of unenforceable rules or special gifts. They are doing just fine. Stop trying to protect them like some kind of nanny state WOW wannabe.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Beness
Vojtech Fekete
#390 - 2013-10-02 21:27:07 UTC
Not-quite-so-daily bump.

A scam is a "confidence game or other fraudulent scheme". Wikipedia redirects "scam" to "confidence trick", which describes the 6 common steps to scamming.

Sure, claiming to be an alt is a lazy foundation step. But it's similarly lazy for a mark to not verify such a claim with the supposed main - whether it be through in-game (chat, eve-mail, main's bio) or game-supported (API, eve-voice or other voice comms) methods.

If CCP insists on protecting marks from scams in the case that a lazy scammer lied to them about their identity, it's a pretty short path to the outright banning of both scamming and lying - which leads to super-exciting headlines like "I woke up one morning and just wanted to try being bad".

Snore.

Talk about eliminating your market differentiation.
Princess Bride
SharkNado
#391 - 2013-10-03 01:24:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Ali Aras wrote:
Posting publicly what I'll be saying in private as well:

My thoughts are more along the lines of no. #2, thoughtful objections to the TOS itself. I like mynnna's wording, and here's where I'm coming from on it:

The TOS on impersonation should (1) prohibit players pretending to be CCP or people connected to CCP, and (2) it should prohibit players from using UI tricks to make their characters too difficult to distinguish from another character.

That's it. Players lying and pretending to be other players or organizations or representatives of those organizations should be completely allowed. After all, if I am pretending to be someone else or someone else's representative, my mark can check in with the original as long as I'm not violating point no. 2 above. If I am, then *that's* the TOS violation that protects the player.

People with good reputations can protect them by petitioning any clones who're scamming and by reminding their customers to triple-check before doing business with them. Access to a character in order to edit a bio or send a mail can verify that you're working with the right person. Someone wants to broker supercaps on their alts? Great, they list their names in their main's bio. Someone wants to rent out all of Vale? Great, they list the approved rental officers in the corp description or a bio or something.

Similarly, if someone apps to my corp with the text 'June Ting's Cyno Alt' and I don't check with June to see whether they're actually who they say they are, I'm liable for anything that happens afterwards. It's no different from accepting an app from someone who says they're a total carebear who wants to come to mining ops without checking their API to see what they *do* at said mining ops. Sure, it's a lazy way to awox, but margin trading is a lazy way to scam and *that* still works. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.


^^This. Frankly, that's how the game has been played for years. Why not just codify the working system as above. I hope to see the CSM encouraging CCP to do it right.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#392 - 2013-10-05 02:53:37 UTC
Princess Bride wrote:
CCP needs to get out of the slander / libel enforcement business. I understand that their intentions are good. However, it's not practical to enforce, nor is it good for the community as a whole. The logic used as justification for enforcement (it's impossible to "get back at" scammers who tarnish someone's good name) can be used to justify the prohibition of ALL scams. This would be a very bad move for Eve Online.

CCP, as much as you LOVE Chribba and LOVE Somer Blink, you need to step back and consider that these entities have managed to build trust in the community WITHOUT your help. People have impersonated them and "invoked their name" to run many many scams and yet, their reputations are still intact. THEY DO NOT NEED YOUR HELP in the form of unenforceable rules or special gifts. They are doing just fine. Stop trying to protect them like some kind of nanny state WOW wannabe.

somer blink, 100% honest, ccp verified

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#393 - 2013-10-05 21:19:25 UTC
So, no update on this yet? Fairly disappointing. I'd almost be tempted to draw the unkind conclusion that the SOMER Blink thing was a sufficient distraction to my fellow players that this issue has been forgotten already.

"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.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#394 - 2013-10-06 07:16:06 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'd almost be tempted to draw the unkind conclusion that the SOMER Blink thing was a sufficient distraction to my fellow players that this issue has been forgotten already.
It's not forgotten, but what more is there to talk about? The players already reached consensus. It's now for CCP and CSM to act on it.
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#395 - 2013-10-06 19:32:48 UTC
Rob Crowley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'd almost be tempted to draw the unkind conclusion that the SOMER Blink thing was a sufficient distraction to my fellow players that this issue has been forgotten already.
It's not forgotten, but what more is there to talk about? The players already reached consensus. It's now for CCP and CSM to act on it.


Would also love to see some reaction besides silence :)
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#396 - 2013-10-08 12:50:00 UTC
Boys, I think we've been ****** on this one.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#397 - 2013-10-09 21:21:22 UTC
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
Rob Crowley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I'd almost be tempted to draw the unkind conclusion that the SOMER Blink thing was a sufficient distraction to my fellow players that this issue has been forgotten already.
It's not forgotten, but what more is there to talk about? The players already reached consensus. It's now for CCP and CSM to act on it.


Would also love to see some reaction besides silence :)


Pretty much this.

Just sitting around and allowing the issue to quitely fade into the background of the other gaffes accomplishes nothing.

"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.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#398 - 2013-10-09 21:54:25 UTC
We're paid shills who support CCP 100%; why are you asking us about this?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#399 - 2013-10-09 23:21:28 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
We're paid shills who support CCP 100%; why are you asking us about this?


I don't think you're shills. I don't thing CCP is using you effectively for the CSM's stated purpose, but that's another issue.

Mind seeing if you can get them to give some sort of public indication that their plan isn't the tried and true "keep quiet about it until everybody forgets"?

"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
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#400 - 2013-10-10 17:48:53 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