These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

GM Team Update Bans Most Scamming

First post First post First post
Author
Blawrf McTaggart
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2013-09-09 17:42:05 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.


how is saying that i'm working for chribba impersonation of chribba? that's silly
Comor Dunathis
Ex Alis Angeli
#82 - 2013-09-09 17:42:14 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.


So tell me, how does this affect my question? Is the CFC favored over the New Order, or does ISD not act as a representative of CCP? Because this clearly form-response does nothing to address the issues in this thread.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#83 - 2013-09-09 17:42:34 UTC
See! Told you all!

GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.

This still begs the question though, where do the limits lie? Why do bigger corporations and corporation with out of game services like Eve-Radio get protected more than the lowly peons.
I know the answer, would just be good to see CCP admit it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#84 - 2013-09-09 17:42:41 UTC
Myriad Blaze wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
So I noticed there was a small update to the EVE terms of service, noted here: http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/eve-online-terms-of-service-update-1/

No comment thread was provided. This new "update" adds this:

Quote:
You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.


This effectively bans most scamming and appears to be entirely unwarranted and an intrusion into the sandbox, made without comment or justification. Of course, this may be poorly worded and intended to address a specific problem, in which case I think a discussion of the subject would produce a much better result - after all, this will be cited by every scamee in a petition and if it doesn't mean what it says, some new GM will quickly make a mistake. As written, one of our members who scams someone with the time-honored recruitment scam will get petitioned when someone says that he wasn't authorized to represent Goonswarm.

If it does mean what it says - the GM team has decided to ban most scamming ("why yes, I'm a representative of NC. and can rent you Scalding Pass, pay no attention to the part of the game that tells you I'm in Goonwaffe") I'd like an explanation as to why such a massive intrusion into one of the core features of EVE was warranted. I mean, if you actually get scammed by someone claiming to represent one of the EVE [b]NPC Corporations[/u] you deserve everything that's coming to you.

This appears to be the GM team simply giving in to the masses of people who just spam unjustified petitions. I don't want to get ahead of the facts without a GM or CCP response, but this clearly warrants one.


Come on, where's your creativity. As a member of GoonWaffe this is the perfect opportunity to sell people permits to scam in your name (because if they have your permit they are not technically 'falsely' presenting themselves as your representative - and a representative is not necessarily the guy who is allowed to add someone to the corp).
.
.
.
And then threaten to withdraw that permit and petion them unless they give you 80% of their earnings. Twisted

That's perfect.

We do need more money for the coalition

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 ?

Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-09-09 17:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sipphakta en Gravonere
Nothing to see here, please move along. Oceania has always been at war with eastasia.
Lady Areola Fappington
#86 - 2013-09-09 17:43:10 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.



OK, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by quoting the new clause in the TOS.

Just answer me this one question. What is a "group of players" as defined by CCP?

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#87 - 2013-09-09 17:43:36 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.

Thanks for clarifying. Would you like to join Goonwaffe?

Literally BoB with GMs in the alliance eh


Well we lost our Devs but a GM will be a suitable replacement until we get more Devs..

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#88 - 2013-09-09 17:43:45 UTC
Comor Dunathis wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.


So tell me, how does this affect my question? Is the CFC favored over the New Order, or does ISD not act as a representative of CCP? Because this clearly form-response does nothing to address the issues in this thread.

I guess the miners win because the New Order isn't legitimate.

That means informing a miner you are ganking them for non-compliance of the Code will get you banned, as there is no New Order which you can be an enforcer of.

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 ?

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2013-09-09 17:43:48 UTC
Comor Dunathis wrote:
I was told in help chat by ISD Arooga and ISD FlowingSpice that only official groups can be impersonated, though it wasn't clear what official groups were. I had answers saying that the CFC was an official group, but the new order was not. The only difference I can see is that CFC is a nullsec power bloc, whereas the new order is a highsec bloc.

I was told that recruitment scams were fine, but that people impersonating permit-holding miners were not against the TOS.

When I questioned them on this further, here's what followed:

Comor Dunathis > so basically, what i'm getting out of this is that player-made groups that surpass alliance/corp boundaries are not official groups
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis That sounds about right. yes.
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis To answer your question, groups, such as the CFC, as you asked, are included in the ToS change.So no. Don't do it.
Comor Dunathis > thanks. so everyone without a permit that claims to have one is now violating the TOS. gotcha.
ISD Arooga > Comor Dunathis not really

Perhaps CCP would like to enlighten me as to the diffference between the CFC and the New Order, since last I checked, they were both groups of players. Why is impersonating the CFC a violation of the TOS, but impersonating one of the New Order's subgroups not a violation of it?



I'd say the part on your char sheet that shows your alliance is an indication.

Take CODE Logistics for instance. They are a group.

Being an "agent" of New Order is not.. since that's a meta group, not a mechanic group.

Think of the server.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#90 - 2013-09-09 17:44:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.


The TOS update does not include these clarifications, and I can absolutely assure you that you will be deluged with petitions for false representation of authority. Even if you're only getting at what you say above, you've worded it poorly and are creating more work for yourself, and creating future inappropriate bans when a new GM reads the policy and figures it means what it says.

But more importantly your argument is wrong: you are not banning misrepresenting your identity. You are banning misrepresenting your authority. If I tell the world ProGodLegend has authorized me to rent out whatever worthless regions he currently occupies, I'm not misrepresenting my identity. I'm not misrepresenting my affiliations. I'm baldly lying in a way that's easy to verify and not pretending to be another person in the game. This isn't an extension of a policy banning misrepresenting your identity, it's creating a new, bad, policy.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#91 - 2013-09-09 17:44:47 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.


The TOS update does not include these clarifications, and I can absolutely assure you that you will be deluged with petitions for false representation of authority. That's what's at issue here: you are not banning misrepresenting your identity[b]. You are banning misrepresenting your [b]authority. If I tell the world ProGodLegend has authorized me to rent out whatever worthless regions he currently occupies, I'm not misrepresenting my identity. I'm not misrepresenting my affiliations. I'm baldly lying in a way that's easy to verify and not pretending to be another person in the game.

You're also banned

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 ?

Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#92 - 2013-09-09 17:45:48 UTC
Well, that's all well and good, but this old policy focuses specifically on using character names to impersonate.

Meanwhile the 'interpretation' by ISD is that impersonating an entity regardless of naming conventions is a bannable offence.

So, that necessarily implies that anyone impersonating anyone for any reason using any manner may be banned.

Which includes spies, thieves, roleplayers, and on the whole, a giant chunk of the playerbase. Hell, anyone named "Lord ____" should be up for a ban, unless they are confirmed as actual lords by CCP.

Obviously, this is completely ******* ridiculous, but after all, that's why this thread has devolved so far. So what are the actual rules?

Will you get banned for any/all attempts at any kind of impersonation? Because that seems like you will need a new customer service wing.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#93 - 2013-09-09 17:46:05 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Nothing to see here, please move along. Eurasia has always been at war with eastasia.

N3 exists to destroy GSF

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 ?

Lady Areola Fappington
#94 - 2013-09-09 17:46:33 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Comor Dunathis wrote:
I was told in help chat by ISD Arooga and ISD FlowingSpice that only official groups can be impersonated, though it wasn't clear what official groups were. I had answers saying that the CFC was an official group, but the new order was not. The only difference I can see is that CFC is a nullsec power bloc, whereas the new order is a highsec bloc.

I was told that recruitment scams were fine, but that people impersonating permit-holding miners were not against the TOS.

When I questioned them on this further, here's what followed:

Comor Dunathis > so basically, what i'm getting out of this is that player-made groups that surpass alliance/corp boundaries are not official groups
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis That sounds about right. yes.
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis To answer your question, groups, such as the CFC, as you asked, are included in the ToS change.So no. Don't do it.
Comor Dunathis > thanks. so everyone without a permit that claims to have one is now violating the TOS. gotcha.
ISD Arooga > Comor Dunathis not really

Perhaps CCP would like to enlighten me as to the diffference between the CFC and the New Order, since last I checked, they were both groups of players. Why is impersonating the CFC a violation of the TOS, but impersonating one of the New Order's subgroups not a violation of it?



I'd say the part on your char sheet that shows your alliance is an indication.

Take CODE Logistics for instance. They are a group.

Being an "agent" of New Order is not.. since that's a meta group, not a mechanic group.

Think of the server.


By this definition, every coalition in the game doesn't exist. We've already been told the CFC counts as a "group".

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide

Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#95 - 2013-09-09 17:46:55 UTC
Eram Fidard wrote:
Well, that's all well and good, but this old policy focuses specifically on using character names to impersonate.

Meanwhile the 'interpretation' by ISD is that impersonating an entity regardless of naming conventions is a bannable offence.

So, that necessarily implies that anyone impersonating anyone for any reason using any manner may be banned.

Which includes spies, thieves, roleplayers, and on the whole, a giant chunk of the playerbase. Hell, anyone named "Lord ____" should be up for a ban, unless they are confirmed as actual lords by CCP.

Obviously, this is completely ******* ridiculous, but after all, that's why this thread has devolved so far. So what are the actual rules?

Will you get banned for any/all attempts at any kind of impersonation? Because that seems like you will need a new customer service wing.

Does the GM feel like banning you for being a bad person when they get that 100th petition a day and it happens to be from the person you

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 ?

Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#96 - 2013-09-09 17:47:27 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Comor Dunathis wrote:
I was told in help chat by ISD Arooga and ISD FlowingSpice that only official groups can be impersonated, though it wasn't clear what official groups were. I had answers saying that the CFC was an official group, but the new order was not. The only difference I can see is that CFC is a nullsec power bloc, whereas the new order is a highsec bloc.

I was told that recruitment scams were fine, but that people impersonating permit-holding miners were not against the TOS.

When I questioned them on this further, here's what followed:

Comor Dunathis > so basically, what i'm getting out of this is that player-made groups that surpass alliance/corp boundaries are not official groups
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis That sounds about right. yes.
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis To answer your question, groups, such as the CFC, as you asked, are included in the ToS change.So no. Don't do it.
Comor Dunathis > thanks. so everyone without a permit that claims to have one is now violating the TOS. gotcha.
ISD Arooga > Comor Dunathis not really

Perhaps CCP would like to enlighten me as to the diffference between the CFC and the New Order, since last I checked, they were both groups of players. Why is impersonating the CFC a violation of the TOS, but impersonating one of the New Order's subgroups not a violation of it?



I'd say the part on your char sheet that shows your alliance is an indication.

Take CODE Logistics for instance. They are a group.

Being an "agent" of New Order is not.. since that's a meta group, not a mechanic group.

Think of the server.


By this definition, every coalition in the game doesn't exist. We've already been told the CFC counts as a "group".

Maybe it's all... arbitrary.

Quick, find a GM that likes the New Order

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 ?

Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-09-09 17:47:38 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

I'd say the part on your char sheet that shows your alliance is an indication.

Take CODE Logistics for instance. They are a group.

Being an "agent" of New Order is not.. since that's a meta group, not a mechanic group.

Think of the server.


Then I guess no one is in CFC. I'm sure they'll be surprised to hear that.

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#98 - 2013-09-09 17:47:56 UTC
I also see no reason why entrepreneurial npc alts with no affiliation with goonwaffe shouldn't be permitted to recruit scam people into goonwaffe.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#99 - 2013-09-09 17:48:12 UTC
I'm locking this thread as our GM team has responded. This does not change any rules that were previously in place and the discussion of this issue has already devolved into flaming and attacks on people.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents