These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Draleth
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#481 - 2013-09-11 18:49:10 UTC
Seems I'm joining this somewhat late, however two points stand out to me.

On one hand, that as a player with numerous alts, primarily divided for reasons of security, that if I am caught currently logged into one of my alts and an alliance diplomatic situation arrises which requires my attention, that by responding in my alt I may be reported for falsely representing Draleth, that is, myself.

Awesome.

On the other hand, that someone may message one of my alts, most of whom I openly admit control over (within the alliance Draleth and Takirah Nosha are effectively the same person), and if asked "are you Draleth" I would have to outright lie to protect my account from report.

Even more awesome. Mandatory deception.

On the gripping hand most laws IRL (until the last 10 years or so, *cough*) are reviewed for practicality and reasonableness. Is it enforceable? Will it create an unreasonable burden on enforcement (that'd be the GMs, here). Does it actually solve the problem it aims to solve, without creating too high a rate of false positives or collateral damage?

This particular change, going from "mildly ambiguous, but still allowing of general operation of day-to-day business" to "so broad as to be pointless and actively stifling daily operations of players" fails this test of reasonableness. I can't imagine what the GM support queues are going to look like once griefers start using this policy change as a weapon.

Good luck with that.
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#482 - 2013-09-11 18:49:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Heimdallofasgard wrote:
HEY GUYS! I JUST IMPERSONATED MY ALT AND TRADED MY MAIN SAYING I WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT SOME LOOT TO JITA FOR MYSELF...

I MADE THE FOOLISH MISTAKE OF BELIEVING MYSELF AND NOW I HAVE ALL MY PHAT LOOT INSTEAD OF ME :'(

should I have used a courier contract? I'm pretty pissed off with myself for scamming me, I think myself should be banned but I don't believe I should be.

How do I legal?

I like bashing this stupidity as much as the next guy, but lets have some common sense for a minute.

The clarifying post clearly clarified that the person in impersonation is defined as a character. A opposed to the player behind it, or an arbitrary entity such as an account.

Lets say Solstice Project makes an alt. [ISMETA] wardecs a corporation. He approaches the corporation with the alt and says "I'm Solstice project's alt, give me 100 mil and I drop the dec". They pay up and contact Solstice about the transaction. He says no, that's not my alt you got scammed.

What the nice GM is saying is that it does not matter that the alt is in fact the same player, or even on the same account as the main character. He falsely spoke on behalf of the main with malicious intent. So the alt gets a name change and a time out.


Okay, let's talk common sense. Why should that be punishable and why should CCP protect people from their own stupidity?
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#483 - 2013-09-11 18:52:13 UTC
Can we get a clarification of the clarification of the clarification of the changes to the TOS?

A lot of what the GM's have said are, in essence, just muddying the waters.

What was the issue that was seen with "You may not impersonate an employee of CCP or a member of CCP Sponsored groups." with a list on the wiki of CCP Sponsored groups (ex. ISD).?

What GM Karidor said is this update/change says is that if I'm on my alt and something pops up and I need to verify I'm actually Hendrick Tallardar, I am now breaking the TOS and can get banned. Even if its on the same account, its ban worthy. This completely destroys the renter alliance gameplay that the CFC, N3 & PL have all ended up having to work towards due to changes in the games economy. Those characters claiming to be members of the leasing alliance are now liable for bans.

How did that not cross someones mind? Or did it and the GM team are just opting to not worry about those sort of things, which means their wording of the new change to the TOS is, in essence, is useless and shouldn't have been added anyway.
Amenio
Planetfall Inc.
#484 - 2013-09-11 18:52:46 UTC
Scamming sounds more interesting now, if you manage to scam the target then you might get more money in your wallet or a ban. Doesn't sounds like a bad way to win EVE, maybe I'll try out scamming now.
Doris Dents
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#485 - 2013-09-11 18:54:50 UTC
Vatek wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Heimdallofasgard wrote:
HEY GUYS! I JUST IMPERSONATED MY ALT AND TRADED MY MAIN SAYING I WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT SOME LOOT TO JITA FOR MYSELF...

I MADE THE FOOLISH MISTAKE OF BELIEVING MYSELF AND NOW I HAVE ALL MY PHAT LOOT INSTEAD OF ME :'(

should I have used a courier contract? I'm pretty pissed off with myself for scamming me, I think myself should be banned but I don't believe I should be.

How do I legal?

I like bashing this stupidity as much as the next guy, but lets have some common sense for a minute.

The clarifying post clearly clarified that the person in impersonation is defined as a character. A opposed to the player behind it, or an arbitrary entity such as an account.

Lets say Solstice Project makes an alt. [ISMETA] wardecs a corporation. He approaches the corporation with the alt and says "I'm Solstice project's alt, give me 100 mil and I drop the dec". They pay up and contact Solstice about the transaction. He says no, that's not my alt you got scammed.

What the nice GM is saying is that it does not matter that the alt is in fact the same player, or even on the same account as the main character. He falsely spoke on behalf of the main with malicious intent. So the alt gets a name change and a time out.


Okay, let's talk common sense. Why should that be punishable?


Because CCP has been scamming us all these years. Apparently EVE was never meant to be a cold dark universe but a happy fun land where the lazy and dumb are protected from the consequences of their easily avoided carelessness.
Bayushi Tamago
Sect of the Crimson Eisa
#486 - 2013-09-11 18:56:03 UTC
So, firstly, we need an actual dev to come in here and legitimately explain what the hell is going on. While the GMs enforce, I dearly hope that they were not the ones who came up with this new wording for the ToS.

If the problem is stemming from too many petitions about similarily named characters scamming, perhaps it would be a good idea to limit similarily named entity creation (ie SOMER BLINK. CHR1BBA etc) in the first place?
If it's stemming from the GMs getting sick of people petitioning what, until now, have been completely in-game legal confidence tricks, then you either need some new GMs or perhaps need to stop catering to the players who would probably drop sub after having someone insult them by mining the same asteroid as them.

As it stands, it does sound like someone got into some good drugs and is working on killing EVE and turning it into spacewow, now with more transport goodness. Eve shouldn't be handing out cookies.

I don't want to even log in for fear I will be banned for playing multiple characters at once because I refuse to accept this new interpretation of the ToS.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#487 - 2013-09-11 18:56:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Random Majere wrote:
And I though high sec miners were cry babies!!

Cultural change hurts !!

This change is along the lines of removing every asteroid from the game.

Clarification is badly needed. Again...

We should probably stop using that word. It looks like CCP's English-to-GM:ese translation software has confused “clarification” with “vast senseless expansion”.


No, the problem is they expect to vast endless expand this to death and any potential changes to the actual wording of the TOS are not on the table.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#488 - 2013-09-11 18:56:30 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Heimdallofasgard wrote:
HEY GUYS! I JUST IMPERSONATED MY ALT AND TRADED MY MAIN SAYING I WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT SOME LOOT TO JITA FOR MYSELF...

I MADE THE FOOLISH MISTAKE OF BELIEVING MYSELF AND NOW I HAVE ALL MY PHAT LOOT INSTEAD OF ME :'(

should I have used a courier contract? I'm pretty pissed off with myself for scamming me, I think myself should be banned but I don't believe I should be.

How do I legal?

I like bashing this stupidity as much as the next guy, but lets have some common sense for a minute.

The clarifying post clearly clarified that the person in impersonation is defined as a character. A opposed to the player behind it, or an arbitrary entity such as an account.

Lets say Solstice Project makes an alt. [ISMETA] wardecs a corporation. He approaches the corporation with the alt and says "I'm Solstice project's alt, give me 100 mil and I drop the dec". They pay up and contact Solstice about the transaction. He says no, that's not my alt you got scammed.

What the nice GM is saying is that it does not matter that the alt is in fact the same player, or even on the same account as the main character. He falsely spoke on behalf of the main with malicious intent. So the alt gets a name change and a time out.

<3 :)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#489 - 2013-09-11 18:57:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Attention all Citizens and Pirates and Sov holders!

If you have a problem with someone impersonating you and do not want to go through the petition process, then hire me to act on your behalf!

For the small fee of 50,000,000.00 isk I will do all your paperwork for you. All you need is a note/evemail with the offending party'a name and if you consent to me working on your behalf, I will make sure it all gets filed!

Contact me for more details. Do not let those pesky miscreants tarnish your good name!

*This service does not guarantee results as the GM may or may not, on a case by case basis, decide if the offense is against the TOS, or within the rules given since they reserve the right to not clarify the rules to which we are allowed to play by and might even decide it's funny, or treat that account as invalid and ban the offending party. I cannot guarantee those results because that would be impersonating an employee of CCP and that would not do. This is only permission on your behalf with proof given by the fee transfered that I would do the typing on your behalf with your express permission.*(Disclaimer)




Holy hell the now needed disclaimer is longer than the ad!

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.

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#490 - 2013-09-11 18:59:24 UTC
I want the CEO to speak up, please.
Everything else isn't actually appropriate anymore.
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#491 - 2013-09-11 19:01:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
Bayushi Tamago wrote:
If the problem is stemming from too many petitions about similarily named characters scamming, perhaps it would be a good idea to limit similarily named entity creation (ie SOMER BLINK. CHR1BBA etc) in the first place?
If it's stemming from the GMs getting sick of people petitioning what, until now, have been completely in-game legal confidence tricks, then you either need some new GMs or perhaps need to stop catering to the players who would probably drop sub after having someone insult them by mining the same asteroid as them.


The section of the TOS governing character names has a rule for this already.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#492 - 2013-09-11 19:01:05 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Attention all Citizens and Pirates and Sov holders!

If you have a problem with someone impersonating you and do not want to go through the petition process, then hire me to act on your behalf!

For the small fee of 50,000,000.00 isk I will do all your paperwork for you. All you need is a note/evemail with the offending party'a name and if you consent to me working on your behalf, I will make sure it all gets filed!

Contact me for more details. Do not let those pesky miscreants tarnish your good name!

*This service does not guarantee results as the GM may or may not, on a case by case basis, decide if the offense is against the TOS, or within the rules given since they reserve the right to not clarify the rules to which we are allowed to play by and might even decide it's funny, or treat that account as invalid and ban the offending party. I cannot guarantee those results because that would be impersonating an employee of CCP and that would not do. This is only permission on your behalf with proof given by the fee transfered that I would do the typing on your behalf with your express permission.*(Disclaimer)




Holy hell the now needed disclaimer is longer than the ad!


I don't think Waffles has any W-2s, you'll need to fill out a 1099-MISC form.
BlinkyThing
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#493 - 2013-09-11 19:01:18 UTC
Is this that guy from EA that did this? I bet this was that EA guy.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#494 - 2013-09-11 19:01:20 UTC
So turned out that under this rule I could get everyone who takes part in a baltec fleet that is not me banned.

I can ban all of the CFC. Please place your offers of payment (bribes)
internecionX
EVE Engineering Corporation
#495 - 2013-09-11 19:04:36 UTC
This has gotten insane at this point.

Does every horrible thing CCP does require a burn jita to get clear feedback? I thought this was what the CSM was for.
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#496 - 2013-09-11 19:04:45 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

Neithra Drakon
Perkone
Caldari State
#497 - 2013-09-11 19:05:08 UTC
The sheer amount of TIME being splurged around by CCP in the making of a coherent response addressing the community's concern is bloody daunting.

What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds, a parasite asks, 'Where's my share?' A man creates, a parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents, a parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...'  -AR

Bootleg Whammers
Zero Fun Allowed
#498 - 2013-09-11 19:05:41 UTC
Capqu wrote:
hi im chribba's alt open for 3rd party services


WTS titan, can u hlp plz ?
Ganque
Ganque's Squad
#499 - 2013-09-11 19:05:57 UTC
Damn me for saying this, but we need a Space Lawyer here, Babatunde B. Babatunde where are you man, help us!

Oh yeah, I'm also Blawf McTaggart and so is my wife.
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#500 - 2013-09-11 19:06:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
Ali Aras wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.


Why should recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot not be okay? Misrepresenting yourself is a huge part of the metagame when it comes to scamming and espionage.

I am honestly shocked that a member of the CSM can read a sentence that says "a player can be actioned by GMs for claiming that they are their own alt even if it's true" and NOT see what a gigantic can of worms this is. The new section of the TOS that reads "You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity." is absolutely not consistent with previous policy and should never have been added to the TOS.

Edit: by the way, as a CSM member you're supposed to be speaking on behalf of the interests OF THE PLAYERS, not acting as a mouthpiece supporting CCP's terrible decisions.