These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension

First post First post
Author
Elenahina
No.Mercy
Triumvirate.
#301 - 2016-10-12 22:27:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Elenahina
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Ruddger
Vande-lay Industries
#302 - 2016-10-12 22:31:11 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams



As ccp has used the word... they are. You and ccp are first and second party. Anyone else is third party. According to the new eula even internal corp hosted pvp tournaments would be now bannable if they have a buy in.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#303 - 2016-10-12 22:32:48 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Good afternoon capsuleers!

Today we're here to announce some changes to the EVE Online EULA that are coming with the launch of EVE Online: Ascension.

You can read all about them in this Dev Blog, which includes a handy red-lined version of the new EULA that will come into effect on Tuesday, November 8th, 2016.


Updates & Clarifications:

The 90 day clause:

Our policy on inactive accounts has not changed, we have simply shortened the notice period from six months to three months due to a potentially higher volume of account creation.


Not going to read through all this to see if anybody had called you guys out on it but here:

So to be clear, after years of free publicity as these sites sponsored places like EN24, CZ, alllllllll the podcasts that got you attention on twitch and gaming sites, after they carry your tournament this year for the first bit and do an arguably better job than you yourself have this year, after all that, you're just going to take a heaving dump on their chest and outright shut them down because of .........

What a great way to thank your playerbase for its years of service keeping your company afloat.


So your own media is sparse, who do you suggest pays the writers that generate interest in your game now? Who pays the streamers that give newer players a glimpse of a game they might get hooked on?

Your community held you up when you were down, and your response to that is to purposely gut everything that currently generates content from the player base.


EDIT: Not to mention, prohibition has literally never worked, people will still gamble.


so you were getting paid real money by people who were using gambling sites then? you do know that you can put ads on your stream to make money for yourself, and you can also as for direct donations in isk. or oh idk, write because you like eve and not give a crap about getting money? which is what people did before they joined up with RMT operations

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

Lyra Everstar
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#304 - 2016-10-12 22:33:16 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


How do you figure that?

The ISK doubler is a third party, even if it's a scam it's still encouraging gambling, especially if the ISK doubler sometimes pays out.

From the EULA, it's no different to me running a lottery, which is definately gambling.
FOl2TY8
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2016-10-12 22:37:45 UTC
Lyra Everstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


How do you figure that?

The ISK doubler is a third party, even if it's a scam it's still encouraging gambling, especially if the ISK doubler sometimes pays out.

From the EULA, it's no different to me running a lottery, which is definately gambling.


No
Lyra Everstar
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#306 - 2016-10-12 22:38:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyra Everstar
Ruddger wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams



As ccp has used the word... they are. You and ccp are first and second party. Anyone else is third party. According to the new eula even internal corp hosted pvp tournaments would be now bannable if they have a buy in.

Nope, that would be a game of skill, therefore not gambling.

edit: FOI2TY8 please give your reasons.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#307 - 2016-10-12 22:43:13 UTC
Ruddger wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams



As ccp has used the word... they are. You and ccp are first and second party. Anyone else is third party. According to the new eula even internal corp hosted pvp tournaments would be now bannable if they have a buy in.


Hahahahaha

No.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Takamori Saig0
Paranoia Overload
New Jovian Collective
#308 - 2016-10-12 22:47:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Takamori Saig0
With regard to Alpha accounts, its clear from the wording that you are not allowed to play more than one alpha account at a time.

I think from the wording that it is ok to play an alpha account at the same time as any number of Omega accounts, which would make sense as you are paying for those, but I dont think the wording is explicit on this. So, is it ok to use an Alpha account to assist your omega accounts, using them at the same time ? Eg, an Alpha hauler alt helping your Omega miner toons ?
Lyra Everstar
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#309 - 2016-10-12 22:49:42 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ruddger wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams



As ccp has used the word... they are. You and ccp are first and second party. Anyone else is third party. According to the new eula even internal corp hosted pvp tournaments would be now bannable if they have a buy in.


Hahahahaha

No.

I'm serious, ISK doublers are encouraging people to engage in a game of chance, the only change might be if CCP banned ISK doublers from paying out ISK to lure more suckers in, turning it from a lottery into a 'donation', but the current system where they do sometimes pay out (unless they argued it wasn't based on chance, but only on a purely predator/prey decision to see how much they could scam off someone, which might lead to someone trying to create a 'legit' lottery), it'd lead to the absurd situation of having a fake lottery is fine, but a real one is not.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#310 - 2016-10-12 22:53:04 UTC
Lyra Everstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ruddger wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams



As ccp has used the word... they are. You and ccp are first and second party. Anyone else is third party. According to the new eula even internal corp hosted pvp tournaments would be now bannable if they have a buy in.


Hahahahaha

No.

I'm serious, ISK doublers are encouraging people to engage in a game of chance, the only change might be if CCP banned ISK doublers from paying out ISK to lure more suckers in, turning it from a lottery into a 'donation', but the current system where they do sometimes pay out (unless they argued it wasn't based on chance, but only on a purely predator/prey decision to see how much they could scam off someone, which might lead to someone trying to create a 'legit' lottery), it'd lead to the absurd situation of having a fake lottery is fine, but a real one is not.


Fake lotteries that reference the API were smacked down by CCP some time ago.
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#311 - 2016-10-12 22:55:20 UTC
Takamori Saig0 wrote:
With regard to Alpha accounts, its clear from the wording that you are not allowed to play more than one alpha account at a time.

I think from the wording that it is ok to play an alpha account at the same time as any number of Omega accounts, which would make sense as you are paying for those, but I dont think the wording is explicit on this. So, is it ok to use an Alpha account to assist your omega accounts, using them at the same time ? Eg, an Alpha hauler alt helping your Omega miner toons ?


You should read the Dev Blog regarding the CSM and Clone State round up. From that blog:

"Simultaneous Logon for Alphas:

The CSM’s number one focus for Clone States matched the biggest concern from general player feedback: simultaneous Alpha clone logon must be limited. We agree and so we are planning to implement restrictions that keep any Alpha account from passing character select if another EVE client is already active. This will be true even if the other client is Omega. Bypassing these restrictions will also be a breach of the EULA and may lead to penalties and punishments and all that nasty stuff that our security team does if they catch you being bad."

So the changes to the EULA pertain to this design by providing a contractual agreement to cover CCP's posterior region.
Ruddger
Vande-lay Industries
#312 - 2016-10-12 22:55:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruddger
Lyra Everstar wrote:
Ruddger wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams



As ccp has used the word... they are. You and ccp are first and second party. Anyone else is third party. According to the new eula even internal corp hosted pvp tournaments would be now bannable if they have a buy in.

Nope, that would be a game of skill, therefore not gambling.

edit: FOI2TY8 please give your reasons.



Ahem... Like POKER?!?! Are you using ECM modules in the pvp tournament? Cause then it's a game of chance. Are you using a random number generator to pick seeds and the tournament schedule? Now it's a game of chance....
Lyra Everstar
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#313 - 2016-10-12 22:58:21 UTC
Ruddger wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
Ruddger wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams



As ccp has used the word... they are. You and ccp are first and second party. Anyone else is third party. According to the new eula even internal corp hosted pvp tournaments would be now bannable if they have a buy in.

Nope, that would be a game of skill, therefore not gambling.

edit: FOI2TY8 please give your reasons.



Ahem... Like POKER?!?!

PvP in eve is not a game of chance from what I understand. I don't pvp, so I don't know specifically...
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#314 - 2016-10-12 23:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Lyra Everstar wrote:
I'm serious, ISK doublers are encouraging people to engage in a game of chance
Nope, it's a scam; a game of chance would require that there was a possibility, no matter how remote, of winning; there isn't.

Quote:
the only change might be if CCP banned ISK doublers from paying out ISK to lure more suckers in, turning it from a lottery into a 'donation', but the current system where they do sometimes pay out (unless they argued it wasn't based on chance, but only on a purely predator/prey decision to see how much they could scam off someone, which might lead to someone trying to create a 'legit' lottery),
The payout isn't based on chance, it's a lure.

Quote:
it'd lead to the absurd situation of having a fake lottery is fine, but a real one is not.
If you're dumb enough or greedy enough to fall for an isk doubling scam it's not a lottery, it's a certainty that you're going to lose some isk.

On topic.
Given the current climate with regards to gambling in both the UK and the US I don't see how CCP had any choice in the matter. With the CS-GO ruling and the prosecution of 2 UK youtubers for promoting lotteries without a licence, regardless of the fact that it was with an item that, IIRC, was not officially exchangeable for RL currency, I think it was a wise move to preempt the potential for a legal problem.

I'm a little disappointed that I can't run an alpha and an omega simultaneously, I had plans for that, involving potential for giggles and mayhem, if it had been allowed. Cry

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#315 - 2016-10-12 23:03:08 UTC
Lyra Everstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


How do you figure that?

The ISK doubler is a third party, even if it's a scam it's still encouraging gambling, especially if the ISK doubler sometimes pays out.

From the EULA, it's no different to me running a lottery, which is definately gambling.

Swing and a Miss.
I did chuckle though so have some forum candy.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#316 - 2016-10-12 23:07:19 UTC
Ruddger wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
Ruddger wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
The one good thing about this change is it bans isk doublers.


I was unaware they were third parties. I mean let's be honest. Those are scams



As ccp has used the word... they are. You and ccp are first and second party. Anyone else is third party. According to the new eula even internal corp hosted pvp tournaments would be now bannable if they have a buy in.

Nope, that would be a game of skill, therefore not gambling.

edit: FOI2TY8 please give your reasons.



Ahem... Like POKER?!?! Are you using ECM modules in the pvp tournament? Cause then it's a game of chance. Are you using a random number generator to pick seeds and the tournament schedule? Now it's a game of chance....

You're right about [<------this------>] far away from me having to come find you and test your knowledge of specific mechanics.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#317 - 2016-10-12 23:16:55 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
You're right about [<------this------>] far away from me having to come find you and test your knowledge of specific mechanics.
I looked at his alliance name and expected to see that UAE was the executor, alas 'twas not to be.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

FOl2TY8
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2016-10-12 23:18:02 UTC
Lyra Everstar wrote:


edit: FOI2TY8 please give your reasons.


someday scamming my be banned in eve but until then, no
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#319 - 2016-10-12 23:19:55 UTC
Lyra Everstar wrote:
I'm serious, ISK doublers are encouraging people to engage in a game of chance, the only change might be if CCP banned ISK doublers from paying out ISK to lure more suckers in, turning it from a lottery into a 'donation', but the current system where they do sometimes pay out (unless they argued it wasn't based on chance, but only on a purely predator/prey decision to see how much they could scam off someone, which might lead to someone trying to create a 'legit' lottery), it'd lead to the absurd situation of having a fake lottery is fine, but a real one is not.

No, isk doublers are not invoking a game of chance. They're either 1) An exercise in poor trust or 2) Seeking to deny payouts on technicalities. Neither of those is a chance based game or a game in itself at all.

A game of chance would involve actual chance as opposed to being subject to the whims of a single party.
Lyra Everstar
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#320 - 2016-10-12 23:21:11 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Lyra Everstar wrote:
I'm serious, ISK doublers are encouraging people to engage in a game of chance
Nope, it's a scam; a game of chance would require that there was a possibility, no matter how remote, of winning; there isn't.

Quote:
the only change might be if CCP banned ISK doublers from paying out ISK to lure more suckers in, turning it from a lottery into a 'donation', but the current system where they do sometimes pay out (unless they argued it wasn't based on chance, but only on a purely predator/prey decision to see how much they could scam off someone, which might lead to someone trying to create a 'legit' lottery),
The payout isn't based on chance, it's a lure.

Quote:
it'd lead to the absurd situation of having a fake lottery is fine, but a real one is not.
If you're dumb enough or greedy enough to fall for an isk doubling scam it's not a lottery, it's a certainty that you're going to lose some isk.

On topic.
Given the current climate with regards to gambling in both the UK and the US I don't see how CCP had any choice in the matter. With the CS-GO ruling and the prosecution of 2 UK youtubers for promoting lotteries without a licence, regardless of the fact that it was with an item that, IIRC, was not officially exchangeable for RL currency, I think it was a wise move to preempt the potential for a legal problem.

I'm a little disappointed that I can't run an alpha and an omega simultaneously, I had plans for that if it had been allowed. Cry



Ok, I'll answer all your points in order
1. Even if it is a lure, you're still sending off money with a chance of getting some back even if the odds are stacked against you, or even if the scammer is just feeling generous, if they ban all games of chance, they have to ban anything that appears to violate the EULA e.g. if I started spamming Jita offering DDOS services, I would get banned, even if I was only scamming people.

2. see above point.

3. I think it was partly due to the outsized influence that gambling sites were having on the economy....

@Ralph King-Griffin, can you imagine the outcry if CCP actually banned someone on the grounds that there was no skill in PVP, and it was therefore a game of chance?