EVE General Discussion

People are idiots.

It doesn't.

it is like this:

If I go "Hey, I am the alt of Na Und, so you can trust me with this contract/isk/whatever" (and I am not your alt), then that has always been bad.
Now they have clarified to say that if I say "Hey, I am the alt of Rhivre, check my history and fluffiness" and then scam you, I am now treated the same as if someone else used my name to scam.

Basically, using your main as verification of your trustworthiness, allowing you to scam, while leaving your mains reputation untouched "That guy is not my alt", now gets the same as if someone else did it.

No.



Source



People implying otherwise are probably referring to posts by GM Karidor (#1, #2), which examine a complex case. The resolution is questionable to this day. I personally maintain that GM Karidor was mislead by the context of the thread, and that the behavior in question would not get you banned by any competent GM.

But no, just saying "XYZ is my alt" will not get you banned.

I've never said they were illegal, I just said that CCP is poisoning the game with alts, rather than try marketing to new customers.


2/10 for an old troll.

Just play it safe and cancel all alts like I did.

Why - I suspect it might relate to some legal concepts. The might see a risk that unsettled real-world law is moving a certain direction.

Detailed Legal stuff is beyond detailed discussion here. All I am implying that Risk Managment at corporations make decisions on "mights" .. .. "mights" can be costly. Even cases they would certainly win or be dismissed by courts would require time and resources to get them dismissed.

- my vague guess - They are trying hard to distinguish between Player to Player contact on a Meta level and Character to Character in game contact. Obviously it is a very murky line. The farther they can distance themselves from policing interactions between Humans out of game, I'd think the less likely it would be for them to get named in some legal dispute between players .. perhaps two players living in New York or something.. one taking action against the other.

- vague.. even if there is only a 20% element of truth to it, that might be enough for the risk management department.

- habit - risk managment might just want the T.O.S. to get in the habit of moving a certain direction ... sometimes drawing a line farther out prevents mistakes closer to a cusp where it could matter.

--

Separate Issue -

Subjectivity - So many players here seem to think that anything subjective is completely unworkable and inherently unfair.

- Sport referees have been able to make subjective calls for decades in matches where millions of fans and participants getting paid tens of millions care deeply about the results.

Take Football (and though I'm american I'm referring to Football as the rest of the world knows it.. with the round ball)
- it is against the rules for one player vying for a ball to deliberately entangle their feet so as to purposely trip the offender - if it is deemed blatant it may even result in ejection and virtually determining the whole match
Certainly there are hot debates about whether some calls should be made .. whether it was worthy of ejection... for untrained eyes a trip can be very very subtle clip of the back of a cleat.

The alternative, no rules that must be made on subjective calls, would result in injuries to the players as well as more subtle issues about what the game should be..

What the game should be ? yes, that is a fair debate for people to discuss. It is also fair to discuss whether players want subjective rules..

Stating it as a fact .. that anything subjective cannot be applied in a way that could be good for a game, is something I'd take issue with. It is something that has worked in other games that fascinate the world. (others are free to object)

Subjectivity is inherently bad, yeah.

The concept of being banned or given other disciplinary action for something that another player would get away with, entirely based on which GM you manage to whistle up, is pretty unpalatable.

The trick is to give people just enough rope to hang themselves.

Because next time someone files a just-for-spite petition when I awox them, the case might be heard by the GM(s) who just makes things up.

And since they've specifically said they do it subjectively and not by any precedent, the responsible GM's statements mean precisely nothing.

Pretty sure you're fully aware of why I can't and haven't given you specifics. Because it's against the rules to discuss GM actions on the forums.

The specifics I gave, like I said, were that I have had quite a few petitions made against me, and I have a pile of GM warnings. I always try to escalate if I think if I have a chance. Sums up to about a dozen times so far(across 4 accounts), and out of those, I have 1 overturned, and my warning rescinded.

And idk, let's examine if it was unfair.

I once tricked a guy into ejecting from a T2 cruiser, after telling him that I would get CONCORD'ed in highsec if I took it myself. I ejected my noobship, and ran off with his ship.

3 hours later, poof, GM warning.

You tell me.