These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 clarification on rewording of the Terms of Service

First post First post First post
Author
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#241 - 2013-09-11 13:06:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
So this means that the "damsel in distress" could be banned,
but you won't touch her,
as she isn't doing anything wrong.


Yes?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#242 - 2013-09-11 13:06:50 UTC
Ok, first off, thanks for the effort. Obviously somebody sat down and put a bit of thought into this response.

However, you do realize that this is a massive change in effective policy, whether you were policing it properly before or not? You have just massively altered the nature of effective espionage in this game. The fact that you meant it to be one way all along does in no way change the fact that it, in effect, was not. This isn't just a matter of "scamming", but limits a huge range of deceptions that are currently the bread and butter of the metagame.

Not to speak for everyone, but my guess is that most people thought the earlier posts were "unclear" because we couldn't believe that you would introduce such a massive change in effective policy in the context of "well, this is actually what we meant all along, everyone has just been playing a absolutely crucial and defining aspect of this game improperly, by policy standards, all along".

Frankly, it's farcical, and demonstrates a frightening disconnect between the existing gameplay and those purported to "police" it.

Again, thanks for at least trying this time, though the outcome is more troubling than when I merely thought you were bumbling around with language instead of with the very foundational and defining aspects of the game.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#243 - 2013-09-11 13:11:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Vol Arm'OOO
GM Karidor wrote:
[...]

What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.



So does this mean that the next time we tackle someone and they wrongfully claim to be the blue alt of a corpmate that we can petition to have that person banned? And if we accidentally let them go, can we have their ship and pod ritually destroyed by Concord as compensation for the impersonation? I would like to suggest that this ritual destruction take place at high noon Iceland time at the undock in Jita.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.

Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
#244 - 2013-09-11 13:14:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
GM Karidor wrote:
Standings between entities are usually not taken into consideration, as those are being used in wildly differentiating contexts. Generally speaking, if you're claiming to act on behalf of a player run in-game entity, you should be a member of said entity.

So as CFC, N3, Proviblock, New Order, Bombers Bar etc. are no in-game entities (they are not represented as entities within the game mechanics), there is no way to validate representation w.r.t those and thus there can be no rule violation, right?
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#245 - 2013-09-11 13:23:57 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Standings between entities are usually not taken into consideration, as those are being used in wildly differentiating contexts. Generally speaking, if you're claiming to act on behalf of a player run in-game entity, you should be a member of said entity.

So as CFC, N3, Proviblock, New Order, Bombers Bar etc. are no in-game entities (they are not represented as entities within the game mechanics), there is no way to validate representation w.r.t those and thus there can be no rule violation, right?


or Chribba, which would seem to be the trigger for this.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2013-09-11 13:28:51 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:

What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.


So if I have an alt called Yeeep and I go around telling people I'm an alt of Yeep I could get banned for impersonating Yeep (which is myself).

Or does this work the other way? Say I have an alt called nothing like Yeep and someone asks me if I'm an alt of Yeep. If I say no do I get banned (for impersonating not Yeep while actually beeing Yeep)?
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#247 - 2013-09-11 13:38:08 UTC
so going off what you said surely the guys impersonating chribba and other 3rd parties. Should of just had the items removed and temporary banned? since its not a extreme case and it was out of game.

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider

SAJUK NIGARRA
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#248 - 2013-09-11 13:45:18 UTC  |  Edited by: SAJUK NIGARRA
GM Karidor wrote:


This was changed from: "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer." only. The highlighted bit is, from what I understand, the only part that is worded slightly differently from the other two places, but in our interpretation also falls into "falsely represent his or her identity", and always has.




Your interpretation ? The TOS are a legally binding document for both parties involved, the fact that you think it should be applied in some broader interpretation that you dreamt, only goes to prove that CCP continues it's pattern of disregarding not only customers, but also legally binding documents.



GM Karidor wrote:


The post will be as detailed as we're willing to go with the matter of the ToS change, and as such it will be "the final word" on this change



Since this is the final word and these are the new terms of service for the forseeable future, I see no other option than to unsubscribe in order to avoid beeing forced to adhere to them.

This is deffinitely not the service I agreed to start paying for ( neither from a customer support perspective, or from a gameplay one), hence I have no more need for it, nor do I want to pay for a service which can be suspended on a whim .

Best regards.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#249 - 2013-09-11 13:49:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
GM Karidor wrote:
A small warning and Disclaimer:
The post will be long (ca. 1.5 posts total), there won't be a TL;DR. Don't expect specific examples being addressed in all detail, this will not happen no matter how much you ask. I will address some things in a general manner, trying to get the general idea across on how such cases are viewed by us. The post will be as detailed as we're willing to go with the matter of the ToS change, and as such it will be "the final word" on this change. The CSM did not have much time to review the final version itself, but discussion on the matter had been ongoing for a bit already (since before my post yesterday). And without further ado, here we go:...

Maybe you should have consulted the CSM in the first place, and not posted this, or any of the other clarifications until they had been reviewed, in depth, by the CSM.

It doesn't matter how you paint it, the new wording of the ToS is game changing with regards to the metagame. It also gives the impression that you're trying to protect the stupid, from themselves, which goes against the ethos of Eve, and in all honesty smacks of WoWification.

Personally it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there's an unforeseen consequence coming CCPs way soon™.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

E Wan
The Positron
Old Sch00l
#250 - 2013-09-11 13:50:41 UTC
Why destroying the beauty of this games aspect that is based on a real life?

I real life you can represent your self as police or plumber even though you are not. Isn't that what CIA is doing on daily bases? Why this is sanctionable by CCP? Who is sanction this in real life?

Many alliances have been destroyed, many corps robbed, many courses of New Eden history has been driven by this action and you are revoking it now? What is the point in this? You guys are satisfied on the how the EVE universe politics and structure is now and you want to preserve it!?

Everyone who is not smart enough or does not put enough effort to investigate credibility or faithfulness of someones states should be scammed, destroyed and what ever is in bounds of possibilities in EVE.

It's simple.

If there is a petition or anything that I can do to revoke this rule of ToS please let me know.
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#251 - 2013-09-11 13:58:49 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


well, there seems to be an issue if you don't change how you handle it, but have changed the TOS. The TOS is the agreement with the player and I guess CCP is kinda bound by TOS to the players. So, if the terms in TOS have changed it might just be possible that your handling of such cases is no longer inside TOS.
(I've never read them, but guess it kinda makes sense for CCP to act according to TOS to mitigate potential risks)
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#252 - 2013-09-11 13:58:59 UTC
Lei Merdeau wrote:
Sephira Galamore wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Standings between entities are usually not taken into consideration, as those are being used in wildly differentiating contexts. Generally speaking, if you're claiming to act on behalf of a player run in-game entity, you should be a member of said entity.

So as CFC, N3, Proviblock, New Order, Bombers Bar etc. are no in-game entities (they are not represented as entities within the game mechanics), there is no way to validate representation w.r.t those and thus there can be no rule violation, right?


or Chribba, which would seem to be the trigger for this.

I'm a trigger for this? That's news to me. What happened?

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#253 - 2013-09-11 13:59:33 UTC
Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming. To claim there are no ingame tools to verify someones identity is hilariously false. This happens daily and I just had to do it with Chribba. It is called EVEMAIL or logging in and saying, yes, this is my representative. Just because victims are too stupid to think "hey maybe I should verify this guy" doesn't mean there are no tools.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#254 - 2013-09-11 14:07:08 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
[...]

Where does Customer Support draw the line for impersonation?
As much as we'd love to be able to draw a clear line, it is quite impossible.


Well, that's it for now. I hope this rather lengthy post clears up some of the confusion that this ToS change brought about.


The problem here is you haven't even drawn a fuzzy line, you've created a mile long swath of fuzziness that players have no clear understanding of what may get ruled on and how.

With only your word that things will be fair, the real headache is going to come the first time you rule that player X from X corp actions are fine, but rule against player Y from Y corp. The community is going to scream favoritism! And as long as there is so much fuzziness in the rules, and the details of each case are kept so secrete they will rightly do so since for the players the only defining difference they will be able to see in the cases is the corps involved. Get ready for a lot of locked threads you brought on yourselves!
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#255 - 2013-09-11 14:10:56 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming.


I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Antony E Stark
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#256 - 2013-09-11 14:11:12 UTC
To ask CCP the question bluntly and directly.... "Can I pretend to be a Goon and scam people out of their ISK (or variations there of)?". There, I said it.

It's a simple question and simple motive - I would want to con someone out of their ISK and keep it after lying to them.

I do not think this warrants a case-by-case investigation, deliberation and decision. In more serious matters (threats, RL identity, RL information, etc) I think it certainly does require investigation and insight into the intent.

At the moment I can't help but think that CCP have left the ball in the air in order to interpret it as and when, and by whom, and however the GM is feeling on that day. I think it would be constructive to say "XYZ is permitted, ABC is banned, anything in between or that we have not encountered will be by case".

What I believe players are asking for is clarification of what in-game scams are allowed, and which are not. How far is too far?

Nobody wants a ban, but people make an "honest living" out of scams, bring down enemies, spread disinformation, set up traps, break morale, manipulate the market and many many others.

TLDR - Please provide some clarification of where the red line and ban hammer come into play.
Lady Areola Fappington
#257 - 2013-09-11 14:11:17 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming. To claim there are no ingame tools to verify someones identity is hilariously false. This happens daily and I just had to do it with Chribba. It is called EVEMAIL or logging in and saying, yes, this is my representative. Just because victims are too stupid to think "hey maybe I should verify this guy" doesn't mean there are no tools.




Requesting confirmation, are you Aryth, of Goonwaffe, Goonswarm Federation, or are you a meat popsicle?

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

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#258 - 2013-09-11 14:11:24 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
is anxiously awaiting the clarification to the clarification of the clarifying of the ToS whose plain reading suggests lying will get you permabanned.



*in a game where lying is encouraged.

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.

Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2013-09-11 14:14:09 UTC
Chribba wrote:
Lei Merdeau wrote:
Sephira Galamore wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Standings between entities are usually not taken into consideration, as those are being used in wildly differentiating contexts. Generally speaking, if you're claiming to act on behalf of a player run in-game entity, you should be a member of said entity.

So as CFC, N3, Proviblock, New Order, Bombers Bar etc. are no in-game entities (they are not represented as entities within the game mechanics), there is no way to validate representation w.r.t those and thus there can be no rule violation, right?


or Chribba, which would seem to be the trigger for this.

I'm a trigger for this? That's news to me. What happened?


Apparently some people pretended to be your alts so they could steal some supers.


Although the quote above yours doesn't really make sense seeing as you are an in-game entity :P




My question would be if on an alt, I put in a blind application to a corp and put "alt" as the reason, does that count as misrepresentation? I wouldn't be lying by saying that it's an alt, and I'm not specifying whose alt I am (which seems to be the problem).
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#260 - 2013-09-11 14:16:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
GM Karidor wrote:
What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.


I read "we may take punitive action against you if you represent another one of your own characters via another character."

You can't be serious. So if I allow this account to lapse because I do not intend to use it for a while, I literally cannot handle any in-game business through another character without risking a potential ban? Stop trying to claim that this is not a policy change, because it clearly is, and it's a really bad one.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar