These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#461 - 2016-10-13 19:39:09 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.



Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing.

I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%.

I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way.

That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board')

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#462 - 2016-10-13 19:41:48 UTC
Nomistrav wrote:
Having been on the CPM for Dust 514, I know that a lot of backend considerations are made that are never revealed to the public. I know that it's important not to jump the gun with assumptions and try to read between the lines. I try not to make assumptions without facts, and I don't take baseless accusations lightly.

That being said, I'm not going to lie, a cursory look at these new EULA changes cropping up after The Imperium gets roflstomped and The Mittani makes a complaint - even going so far as to use "the children" as an appeal to emotion - reeks of suspicion. Flashbacks to the War Dec Alliance changes, actually.

EDIT: Lemme clarify something - I try not to get wrapped up in the whole "Goon-illuminati" thing too much, because the very notion is, frankly, laughable. But it does seem that CCP makes a lot of changes after something happens to them. Maybe they're a bit more vocal about it, maybe their notoriety grants them a bit more attention; I dunno, I won't speculate. I just think it's interesting - beyond reasonable coincidence - that IWantISK, which has been around as early as 2013, is now getting this sort of controversy so soon after the events mentioned above.
Yet it's entirely possible to read between the lines and come to an entirely different conclusion. We all know IWI had an influence in the war but now that the bulk of it is over we see CCP take action. Given that there was prior trouble with IWI I have no issue believing there was actionable evidence found before things came to where they are for imperium. Yet only after the dust largely settled does this get acted on.

This is NOT the first time IWI had trouble, if it were I could see your line of thinking. But it isn't. And the timing is such that it occurred after the evicting forces have inevitably dissolved into their own political squabbles, independent of IWI funding and direction.

You can argue retaliation, but then it's on you to prove that they were not involved in RMT because regardless of where the accusation came from, if it's proven true it's actionable, and if it's common in a single space of activity like 3rd party gambling, cutting it off becomes a consideration (more than that, cutting off legitimate betting sites not related to the conflict weakens the argument of goon influence rather than strengthen it unless you further subscribe to a more global anti-goon conspiracy from all the major gambling players).
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#463 - 2016-10-13 19:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.



Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing.

I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%.

I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way.

That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board')



These are not "weird spaces". That is exactly one reason why CCP says you don't own your in game Stuff™. Also why it has no value. It also avoids legal problems regarding scamming and even blowing up ships. And it sets aside banking regulations too.

It may sound absurd to you (and in some sense I agree) but we are talking the U.S. Government here which has done absurd things quite often.

FYI

The IRS on virtual economies and incomes.

Quote:
Tax Consequences of Virtual World Transactions

Online games create computer-generated settings for multiple users to interact as characters called avatars. These avatars frequently exchange goods and services in both the real and virtual worlds. Cyber-economic activities in the online world may have tax consequences that real world avatar counterparts need to consider.

The IRS has provided guidance on the tax treatment of bartering, gambling, business and hobby income - issues that are similar to activities in online gaming worlds.

In general, you can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. If you receive more income from the virtual world than you spend, you may be required to report the gain as taxable income. IRS guidance also applies when you spend more in a virtual world than you receive, you generally cannot claim a loss on an income tax return.

In addition, the IRS issued guidance on the tax consequences of various activities that apply to Internet-based activities and online businesses. This guidance can help answer questions about the tax consequences of your online virtual world activities.

More guidance related to Online Auctions and Bartering is available on IRS.gov.

"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
Cara Forelli
State War Academy
Caldari State
#464 - 2016-10-13 19:54:30 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.

I'm not 100% sure about you...let's get that ban rolling.

Want to talk? Join my channel in game: House Forelli

Titan's Lament
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#465 - 2016-10-13 19:59:21 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.



Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing.

I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%.

I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way.

That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board')


Okay, so...what is my birthday?

Serious question.

"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
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#466 - 2016-10-13 20:12:24 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of.


So why punish them?


Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved.




So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that?

Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere.

So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules.

You know, like a normal sane person would do.

EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here.


The issue remains though that if someone has a gambling problem, lose a few billion ISK in poker, they drop Real money to buy plex, cash in the plex for ISK and continue to play poker.
That is the problem that is now being axed with preventative measures such as this new EULA, and imo it is for the better.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#467 - 2016-10-13 20:16:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Cara Forelli wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.

I'm not 100% sure about you...let's get that ban rolling.

Is he running a gambling site? I mean sure we could just ban everyone on potential or address a specific activity prone to it while acknowledging that some innocents get shut down.

Also the players in Eve bet aren't being banned from eve so there's not a shred of parity there to begin with.

@Grath:

At no time did making anything against the EULA make people stop doing it. But when one activity which is within the EULA is used to hide another which isn't within the rules of the EULA, banning the former removes a means of hiding the latter. And finding someone running a gambling site is likely easier that investigating a gambling operation for hidden RMT so here we are.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#468 - 2016-10-13 20:19:22 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of.


So why punish them?


Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved.




So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that?

Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere.

So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules.

You know, like a normal sane person would do.

EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here.


The issue remains though that if someone has a gambling problem, lose a few billion ISK in poker, they drop Real money to buy plex, cash in the plex for ISK and continue to play poker.
That is the problem that is now being axed with preventative measures such as this new EULA, and imo it is for the better.


This doesn't fix that, people will still gamble, prohibition doesn't work.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#469 - 2016-10-13 20:20:59 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.



Yea, I'm 100% sure Bam would never and has never engaged in RMT to the point that he goes above and beyond contact CCP at the slightest thing.

I'm not 100% on EOH but im at about 99%.

I mean we're getting into weird spaces here right, like what if the IRS says that the isk you earned is taxable income because it can be equated to a plex in some weird strange way.

That sounds absurd, about as absurd as thinking removing gambling houses from eve somehow eliminates gambling. If the sites are honest and open with the game company at all times, and run above board, I see no reason for them not to exist as its all CCPs property if it doesn't leave the game (violating this would negate the whole 'above board')


Okay, so...what is my birthday?

Serious question.

Doesn't matter:
Teckos Pech wrote:


These are not "weird spaces". That is exactly one reason why CCP says you don't own your in game Stuff™. Also why it has no value.

You're not really gambling, everything in use is actually CCP's.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#470 - 2016-10-13 20:30:41 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

You're not really gambling, everything in use is actually CCP's.



I'm sure Valve has similar terminology in their ToS, and I am sure EA did with FIFA '16. It hasn't kept the regulators away.

So, yeah it sucks that there is some collateral damage with more reputable groups and a big source of isk funding for events and media is going away. But it's either that or risk CCP getting sued into bankruptcy. For all it's flaws I'll take a diminished Eve over no Eve any day.
Ruddger
Vande-lay Industries
#471 - 2016-10-13 20:32:34 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Eve Bet didn't break any rules that we know of.


So why punish them?


Because gambling with virtual game currencies while legal become dubious when RL currencies become involved.




So, no RMTing then, why make a new rule for that?

Look any legit site was operating within the law because there was no conversion to real money, it was all just 0's and 1's somewhere.

So you ban and destroy the sites that break the law and you leave the sites alone that operate within the rules.

You know, like a normal sane person would do.

EDIT: Like honestly, does it not feel really damn dumb that EOH poker takes a hit in this? Its been here since here was here.


The issue remains though that if someone has a gambling problem, lose a few billion ISK in poker, they drop Real money to buy plex, cash in the plex for ISK and continue to play poker.
That is the problem that is now being axed with preventative measures such as this new EULA, and imo it is for the better.



How is that different from someone that has a problem buying plexes and then losing them on jita undock over and over cause they want to buy their skill at the game? and they spend thousands on plex for bling... how is it any different? EVE IS A GAMBLE
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#472 - 2016-10-13 20:38:49 UTC
Ruddger wrote:
How is that different from someone that has a problem buying plexes and then losing them on jita undock over and over cause they want to buy their skill at the game? and they spend thousands on plex for bling... how is it any different? EVE IS A GAMBLE
It's different because CCP hasn't at any time ruled out giving you a service for money even if consuming that product isn't in your best financial interest. Combine that with the fact that paying into a game of chance and unwise use of a paid product aren't the same thing.

One explicitly pays into a chance based outcome with no guarantee of any return, the other you have a guaranteed return (the PLEX) but no control by the seller over whether you chose to set it on fire or allow someone else to do so once you've relinquished it's monetary value by redeeming it in game.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#473 - 2016-10-13 21:19:29 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:


This doesn't fix that, people will still gamble, prohibition doesn't work.



Its the question of legality, thats what it is, CCP needs to protect its interests and can not be seen openly supporting a gambling scheme.

So quit being hard up about it, or stupid take your pick
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#474 - 2016-10-13 21:30:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nomistrav wrote:
Having been on the CPM for Dust 514, I know that a lot of backend considerations are made that are never revealed to the public. I know that it's important not to jump the gun with assumptions and try to read between the lines. I try not to make assumptions without facts, and I don't take baseless accusations lightly.

That being said, I'm not going to lie, a cursory look at these new EULA changes cropping up after The Imperium gets roflstomped and The Mittani makes a complaint - even going so far as to use "the children" as an appeal to emotion - reeks of suspicion. Flashbacks to the War Dec Alliance changes, actually.

EDIT: Lemme clarify something - I try not to get wrapped up in the whole "Goon-illuminati" thing too much, because the very notion is, frankly, laughable. But it does seem that CCP makes a lot of changes after something happens to them. Maybe they're a bit more vocal about it, maybe their notoriety grants them a bit more attention; I dunno, I won't speculate. I just think it's interesting - beyond reasonable coincidence - that IWantISK, which has been around as early as 2013, is now getting this sort of controversy so soon after the events mentioned above.
Yet it's entirely possible to read between the lines and come to an entirely different conclusion. We all know IWI had an influence in the war but now that the bulk of it is over we see CCP take action. Given that there was prior trouble with IWI I have no issue believing there was actionable evidence found before things came to where they are for imperium. Yet only after the dust largely settled does this get acted on.

This is NOT the first time IWI had trouble, if it were I could see your line of thinking. But it isn't. And the timing is such that it occurred after the evicting forces have inevitably dissolved into their own political squabbles, independent of IWI funding and direction.

You can argue retaliation, but then it's on you to prove that they were not involved in RMT because regardless of where the accusation came from, if it's proven true it's actionable, and if it's common in a single space of activity like 3rd party gambling, cutting it off becomes a consideration (more than that, cutting off legitimate betting sites not related to the conflict weakens the argument of goon influence rather than strengthen it unless you further subscribe to a more global anti-goon conspiracy from all the major gambling players).


I suppose that's a fair point. I didn't know about IWI's previous affairs. Do you have links to the specific events so I don't get trash from google?

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#475 - 2016-10-13 21:57:03 UTC
Nomistrav wrote:
I suppose that's a fair point. I didn't know about IWI's previous affairs. Do you have links to the specific events so I don't get trash from google?
No official source since CCP doesn't really talk about such things outside of major events/policy changes like this. Not sure who would be considered best reporting source on it but Nosy Gamer has a few articles on past affairs.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#476 - 2016-10-13 22:09:47 UTC
CCP can't devote resources to monitoring gambling sites without diverting attention from other activities to maintain the integrity of the game. If a multibillion dollar company like Valve finds it easier to kill it altogether, CCP most likely has no other option.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#477 - 2016-10-13 22:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Andski wrote:
CCP can't devote resources to monitoring gambling sites without diverting attention from other activities to maintain the integrity of the game. If a multibillion dollar company like Valve finds it easier to kill it altogether, CCP most likely has no other option.


And this is a fair point too that I have made, basically one of opportunity costs.

Not to mention if CCP does end up dealing with State and/or the Federal government in the U.S. even less resources devoted to the game.

"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
Lucas Quaan
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#478 - 2016-10-13 23:02:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.

With that logic we should probably remove all rats and anomalies from space too.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#479 - 2016-10-13 23:10:16 UTC
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.

With that logic we should probably remove all rats and anomalies from space too.


I wouldn't be so quick to call for this -- those rats and anomalies are going to be the bread and butter of your alliance from now on.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#480 - 2016-10-13 23:21:15 UTC
Actually, I misspoke -- I suppose you could mine, also. Sucking crok is a noble endeavor. Don't knock it 'til you try it.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.