These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Lying About Identity No Longer Allowed Under EULA

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-09-09 22:59:55 UTC
CCP Guard wrote:


I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.



What this says, for those who still need clarification, is that the policy hasn't changed, the wording has.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
VonPunisher
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2013-09-09 23:02:33 UTC
Well Scamming has been part of Eve since day one. I for one think it's a ****** way of playing the game but it is legit considering you are out witting another player. Since GREED is the main factor of most scams it serves you right for handing over hard earned ISK thinking some stooge is going to give you many times over the amount in return. ( or whatever the scam )

Since CCP has really done NOTHING in the past about scams then it's kind of silly to do something now about one type of scam. Hey CCP how about ending all of them!!! I am for one tired of seeing the same old ones taking up text space on the local channels.

It seems someone has got one by CCP or someone of influence in the game. This appears to be a "butt-hurt" response to the issue. It also seems to be a GM dilemma of how to actually be fair and bring some sort of impartial justice to the game.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-09-09 23:04:57 UTC
VonPunisher wrote:
Well Scamming has been part of Eve since day one. I for one think it's a ****** way of playing the game but it is legit considering you are out witting another player. Since GREED is the main factor of most scams it serves you right for handing over hard earned ISK thinking some stooge is going to give you many times over the amount in return. ( or whatever the scam )

Since CCP has really done NOTHING in the past about scams then it's kind of silly to do something now about one type of scam. Hey CCP how about ending all of them!!! I am for one tired of seeing the same old ones taking up text space on the local channels.

It seems someone has got one by CCP or someone of influence in the game. This appears to be a "butt-hurt" response to the issue. It also seems to be a GM dilemma of how to actually be fair and bring some sort of impartial justice to the game.


See, I've been reading through all the locked threads trying to figure out what all the fuss is, and I keep seeing this thing about CCP doing something about scamming, but I'm confused, how does being prohibited from imitating CCP staff, their intellectual property (ie NPCs) and other players prohibit scamming?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2013-09-09 23:06:01 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
CCP Guard wrote:


I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.



What this says, for those who still need clarification, is that the policy hasn't changed, the wording has.

There's two issues: first, the wording matters (if it's unclear someone's going to wind up banned by a newbie GM reading the rules and not realizing they actually are intended to mean far less, and it will directly lead to increased petitions from players reading the rules and not realizing they actually mean less). Second, the GM clarification introduced a new rule I don't believe I've ever seen and don't believe is a case of spoofing someone's identity, so that's worrying.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#45 - 2013-09-09 23:08:11 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
CCP Guard wrote:


I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.



What this says, for those who still need clarification, is that the policy hasn't changed, the wording has.



And the award goes to...

Its funny how people who scam people in this game are able to use several scams which sometimes involve not reading something properly.
Yet they can't read a simple update on a eula or tos, however they choose to cry on the forums just like some of the ones they scammed.

Nothing has changed, it has been made more clear now do what everyone else does when there is a change to this game, learn to live with it or just stop playing.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#46 - 2013-09-09 23:08:38 UTC
Referring to the 'New Order' thing referenced earlier I read that somewhat differently.

In that claiming to own a Permit is not claiming to be part of the New Order, nor claiming to represent them in any way. If the New Order claims to include all those people, that's the New Orders claim. Not the Miners.
While claiming to be part of a Coalition is pretending to be part of a group falsely.

The New Order Permit claim is really the same as 'I have a Gnosis for sale, see my Gneiss contract'. Very different kettle of fish scam.
Lady Areola Fappington
#47 - 2013-09-09 23:09:53 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
VonPunisher wrote:
Well Scamming has been part of Eve since day one. I for one think it's a ****** way of playing the game but it is legit considering you are out witting another player. Since GREED is the main factor of most scams it serves you right for handing over hard earned ISK thinking some stooge is going to give you many times over the amount in return. ( or whatever the scam )

Since CCP has really done NOTHING in the past about scams then it's kind of silly to do something now about one type of scam. Hey CCP how about ending all of them!!! I am for one tired of seeing the same old ones taking up text space on the local channels.

It seems someone has got one by CCP or someone of influence in the game. This appears to be a "butt-hurt" response to the issue. It also seems to be a GM dilemma of how to actually be fair and bring some sort of impartial justice to the game.


See, I've been reading through all the locked threads trying to figure out what all the fuss is, and I keep seeing this thing about CCP doing something about scamming, but I'm confused, how does being prohibited from imitating CCP staff, their intellectual property (ie NPCs) and other players prohibit scamming?



Here's my easy example for you. PLease let me know if it's unclear, I'll try to word it better.

Under the old rules, it was perfectly legal for me, a non CFC member, to sit in Jita and say "Hey, I'm the alt of a recruiter in Goonswarm. If you want in, pay me ISK"

Today, under the given ToS change, that move is now a rules violation, under impersonating a group of players, specifically, the CFC.


The problem is, "Group of players" is a very vague term, that can be defined different ways. In a discussion had earlier, we had ISDs on the help channel disagreeing with each other, on if a coalition of alliances consisted of a "group of people" covered in this clause.


Hope that helped.

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
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-09-09 23:10:18 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
CCP Guard wrote:


I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.



What this says, for those who still need clarification, is that the policy hasn't changed, the wording has.

There's two issues: first, the wording matters (if it's unclear someone's going to wind up banned by a newbie GM reading the rules and not realizing they actually are intended to mean far less, and it will directly lead to increased petitions from players reading the rules and not realizing they actually mean less). Second, the GM clarification introduced a new rule I don't believe I've ever seen and don't believe is a case of spoofing someone's identity, so that's worrying.


I don't seem to be having as much trouble understanding it, but perhaps those that are should just wait patiently for that clarity that Guard said would come before panicking. In the meantime, petition any action taken by GMs you feel doesn't suit the wording of the policy, and carry on business as usual. If the clarity doesn't come as stated, then make a point of it.

I dunno, maybe I just don't have a problem here because a) I've never imitated anyone, b) never intend to and c) if it has anything to do with the policy, never have and never will scam anyone.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2013-09-09 23:12:52 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
VonPunisher wrote:
Well Scamming has been part of Eve since day one. I for one think it's a ****** way of playing the game but it is legit considering you are out witting another player. Since GREED is the main factor of most scams it serves you right for handing over hard earned ISK thinking some stooge is going to give you many times over the amount in return. ( or whatever the scam )

Since CCP has really done NOTHING in the past about scams then it's kind of silly to do something now about one type of scam. Hey CCP how about ending all of them!!! I am for one tired of seeing the same old ones taking up text space on the local channels.

It seems someone has got one by CCP or someone of influence in the game. This appears to be a "butt-hurt" response to the issue. It also seems to be a GM dilemma of how to actually be fair and bring some sort of impartial justice to the game.


See, I've been reading through all the locked threads trying to figure out what all the fuss is, and I keep seeing this thing about CCP doing something about scamming, but I'm confused, how does being prohibited from imitating CCP staff, their intellectual property (ie NPCs) and other players prohibit scamming?



Here's my easy example for you. PLease let me know if it's unclear, I'll try to word it better.

Under the old rules, it was perfectly legal for me, a non CFC member, to sit in Jita and say "Hey, I'm the alt of a recruiter in Goonswarm. If you want in, pay me ISK"

Today, under the given ToS change, that move is now a rules violation, under impersonating a group of players, specifically, the CFC.


The problem is, "Group of players" is a very vague term, that can be defined different ways. In a discussion had earlier, we had ISDs on the help channel disagreeing with each other, on if a coalition of alliances consisted of a "group of people" covered in this clause.


Hope that helped.


That makes sense. But it's also not my problem, so I won't bother with further involvement in this discussion. Just really trying to figure out what all the fuss was.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2013-09-09 23:13:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Aryth
Daisai wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
CCP Guard wrote:


I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.



What this says, for those who still need clarification, is that the policy hasn't changed, the wording has.



And the award goes to...

Its funny how people who scam people in this game are able to use several scams which sometimes involve not reading something properly.
Yet they can't read a simple update on a eula or tos, however they choose to cry on the forums just like some of the ones they scammed.

Nothing has changed, it has been made more clear now do what everyone else does when there is a change to this game, learn to live with it or just stop playing.


You clearly haven't seen the followup ISD comments elsewhere. I will quote them here so all available information is in one therad. This is not meant as an attack, just information dump as to the confusion this is generating.

Quote:
Posted by Comor Dunathis:
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


So now we have a grey area where even entities don't have clearly defined boundaries for impersonation. This gets very messy indeed.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2013-09-09 23:13:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Remiel Pollard wrote:

I don't seem to be having as much trouble understanding it, but perhaps those that are should just wait patiently for that clarity that Guard said would come before panicking. In the meantime, petition any action taken by GMs you feel doesn't suit the wording of the policy, and carry on business as usual. If the clarity doesn't come as stated, then make a point of it.

I dunno, maybe I just don't have a problem here because a) I've never imitated anyone, b) never intend to and c) if it has anything to do with the policy, never have and never will scam anyone.

I started a thread laying out my concerns and asking for clarification, and I'm continuing doing exactly that. Nobody was impatient about a response: people were (before Guard's post) concerned there would be no response. I'm laying out my specific concerns so those can be taken into account in this response.

I also don't think it matters how you interpret it, or I think it was meant, because as written it's very broad and people will interpret it the way I said they will and act accordingly and that will cause problems.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Lady Areola Fappington
#52 - 2013-09-09 23:13:52 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Referring to the 'New Order' thing referenced earlier I read that somewhat differently.

In that claiming to own a Permit is not claiming to be part of the New Order, nor claiming to represent them in any way. If the New Order claims to include all those people, that's the New Orders claim. Not the Miners.
While claiming to be part of a Coalition is pretending to be part of a group falsely.

The New Order Permit claim is really the same as 'I have a Gnosis for sale, see my Gneiss contract'. Very different kettle of fish scam.



Close. The argument made was, a person falsely claiming to have a permit was impersonating the group of people known as "miners who have legit permits".

Technically it'd be a ToS violation.

And now you see why the wording used doesn't work. Thankfully, CCP Guard is on the case, and we should be able to get this thing worked out well for all parties.

Fingers, toes, and mining lasers crossed.

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
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2013-09-09 23:17:41 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

I don't seem to be having as much trouble understanding it, but perhaps those that are should just wait patiently for that clarity that Guard said would come before panicking. In the meantime, petition any action taken by GMs you feel doesn't suit the wording of the policy, and carry on business as usual. If the clarity doesn't come as stated, then make a point of it.

I dunno, maybe I just don't have a problem here because a) I've never imitated anyone, b) never intend to and c) if it has anything to do with the policy, never have and never will scam anyone.

I started a thread laying out my concerns and asking for clarification, and I'm continuing doing exactly that. Nobody was impatient about a response: people were (before Guard's post) concerned there would be no response. I'm laying out my specific concerns so those can be taken into account in this response.

I also don't think it matters how you interpret it, or I think it was meant, because as written it's very broad and people will interpret it the way I said they will and act accordingly and that will cause problems.


So... it doesn't matter how I interpreted it, even though I interpreted it differently to the way you said people would, because... everyone's going to interpret it the way you said they would?

Do you understand what's wrong with that?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2013-09-09 23:19:30 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

I don't seem to be having as much trouble understanding it, but perhaps those that are should just wait patiently for that clarity that Guard said would come before panicking. In the meantime, petition any action taken by GMs you feel doesn't suit the wording of the policy, and carry on business as usual. If the clarity doesn't come as stated, then make a point of it.

I dunno, maybe I just don't have a problem here because a) I've never imitated anyone, b) never intend to and c) if it has anything to do with the policy, never have and never will scam anyone.

I started a thread laying out my concerns and asking for clarification, and I'm continuing doing exactly that. Nobody was impatient about a response: people were (before Guard's post) concerned there would be no response. I'm laying out my specific concerns so those can be taken into account in this response.

I also don't think it matters how you interpret it, or I think it was meant, because as written it's very broad and people will interpret it the way I said they will and act accordingly and that will cause problems.


So... it doesn't matter how I interpreted it, even though I interpreted it differently to the way you said people would, because... everyone's going to interpret it the way you said they would?

Do you understand what's wrong with that?


Do you understand even ISD interpreted it in the way he said they would?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#55 - 2013-09-09 23:32:29 UTC
So let's go with this
How many people are taking up courses in logic, speaking, and other similar fields in order to choke lawyers with how worded their scams will be?

I'm adding an asterisk to all mine, how about you?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-09-09 23:36:09 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:

I don't seem to be having as much trouble understanding it, but perhaps those that are should just wait patiently for that clarity that Guard said would come before panicking. In the meantime, petition any action taken by GMs you feel doesn't suit the wording of the policy, and carry on business as usual. If the clarity doesn't come as stated, then make a point of it.

I dunno, maybe I just don't have a problem here because a) I've never imitated anyone, b) never intend to and c) if it has anything to do with the policy, never have and never will scam anyone.

I started a thread laying out my concerns and asking for clarification, and I'm continuing doing exactly that. Nobody was impatient about a response: people were (before Guard's post) concerned there would be no response. I'm laying out my specific concerns so those can be taken into account in this response.

I also don't think it matters how you interpret it, or I think it was meant, because as written it's very broad and people will interpret it the way I said they will and act accordingly and that will cause problems.


So... it doesn't matter how I interpreted it, even though I interpreted it differently to the way you said people would, because... everyone's going to interpret it the way you said they would?

Do you understand what's wrong with that?

That isn't what he said. He said people would, and they have, interpret it as he feared. He didn't say ALL people would though, which is what your statement hinges upon. The problem still remains that there are different interpretations by different people regarding the meaning of the rule which can and likely will lead to inconsistency in enforcement of the EULA. It's also problematic as it makes commonly used actions, considered within the EULA prior, seem to fall outside of it with a strict interpretation, which ISD has already provided.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#57 - 2013-09-09 23:44:36 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
I started a thread laying out my concerns and asking for clarification, and I'm continuing doing exactly that. Nobody was impatient about a response: people were (before Guard's post) concerned there would be no response. I'm laying out my specific concerns so those can be taken into account in this response.

I also don't think it matters how you interpret it, or I think it was meant, because as written it's very broad and people will interpret it the way I said they will and act accordingly and that will cause problems.


So... it doesn't matter how I interpreted it, even though I interpreted it differently to the way you said people would, because... everyone's going to interpret it the way you said they would?

Do you understand what's wrong with that?


He didn't say everyone would interpret it. He said that "[some] people will interpret..." and happens to have evidence showing that that class of "[some] people" includes ISDs, who should be reasonably well versed on the subject of CCP's policies.


This policy "clarification" is easily interpreted as turning just about any lie in EVE into a TOS violation. Why? Because that's what the policy says on its face.

The Pizza situation does make an appropriate policy somewhat difficult to write, because it seems to stop short of actually impersonating anybody*, but I think in the name of keeping the EVE Wiki as a source of "quality" information, a simple ban on making fake edits to the Wiki would be the best way to do it.

*It's hard to say that saying "call X to confirm my story" is an attempt to impersonate X. It's a bluff, hoping that the mark doesn't actually try to call X.

"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
Shade Millith
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#58 - 2013-09-09 23:52:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
CCP Guard wrote:
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?



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


The problem is that this is too broadly worded. All players in a corp are representing their group of people by their actions and words. It's why corps often have some form of 'Rules of conduct'. Simply by wearing their corp name is you representing them, their interests, and their morals. By legalese-ing it, it's now a TOS violation for -


* All Spying (To Spy you falsely present yourself as a member of the corp)
* AWOXing (To AWOX you falsely present yourself as a member of the target's corp)
* Joining a corp to steal from it (Same as spying and AWOX)
* Several Scams ("I represent Goons, and I want to sell you space")


The new TOS line needs to say that it applies to using your character name to falsely represent another player or group.


EDIT: Someone mentioned that in the actions of the character in this official trailer would go against the new TOS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGplrpWvz0I

Please fix this.
Xzi Shihari
Shadow Legion X
Seriously Suspicious
#59 - 2013-09-10 00:13:23 UTC
Yeah I hope this doesn't turn into some WOW style gameplay. They slowly take away your rights so the game becomes more friendly, "fair," and appealing to 12 year olds.


What happened to the game I started playing that had no limits?
Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#60 - 2013-09-10 00:16:58 UTC
CCP Guard wrote:
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?




Oh CCP Guard, how can I stay mad with you around?