These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Laurici
British Petroleum Industrial
#41 - 2013-09-10 19:56:23 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.


If you don't tell us what "the law" is, how the hell are we supossed to follow it?!

May as well change the ToS to "we'll do what we want, when we want, and there's nothing you can do about it"
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-09-10 19:58:55 UTC
No.

This has to stop.

What this thread needs, is a GM who can express himself in a more detailed fashion !


Who's the community favourite ?



Thank you.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-09-10 19:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Karl Planck wrote:
jesus there is a lot of butthurt in this thread. Can we not bring up the plethora of cases to which this is normally applied to which is clearly what they are referencing instead of bringing up fringe cases where the rule has never been applied?

For example: Someone wants to apply to SniggWaffe and they find a corp on the recruitment threads called SniggWaffe. (notice the dot) in an alliance WAFFELS. (misspelled) that was made to misdirect pilots and scam for recruitment.

Previously this would result in a name change for both the corp and the alliance which are clearly impersonating the real deal. Now it would be a ban. I really don’t get all the rage about this. You couldn't do it before, you still can’t. They simply changed the punishment. And knowing the GMs the punishment is probably relatively light
These cases were referring to aren't fringe. They're common. They aren't perpetrated using intentionally deceptive naming in most cases.

See the example earlier in this thread:
Ali Aras wrote:
...
If I, Ali Aras, member of Valkyries of Night and Of Sound Mind, represent myself as a CFC rental agent (a title I do not hold in a coalition I am not a member of), is this a violation of the TOS as changed and impersonation policies as historically implemented?
This is what people are looking for clarification of. Your example is in no way a clarification or explanation of what people are actually asking.

We're also trying to help them help themselves not get inundated by requests with varying interpretations of the rule.
Lady Areola Fappington
#44 - 2013-09-10 19:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Areola Fappington
GM Grimmi, you say scamming today is just the same as it was a year ago. Here is three examples of how this new rewording makes three very common scams against ToS, via layperson interpretation.

Margin Trade Scam: Scammer is falsely representing themselves, via the market, as someone who can cover their buy order

"Carbon" / "Charon" scam: Scammer is falsely representing themselves as someone in possession of a Charon they will sell.

Wormhole Ownership scam: Scammer is falsely representing themselves as the occupier of a wormhole they can sell.


What I'm getting at here, is basically every EVE scam out there requires some degree of false representation.

We aren't trying to push the limits, devise creative ways to break ToS, or anything like that. We are just seeking clarification on a very vague policy that reads one way, while we are being told something different.

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

Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2013-09-10 20:00:42 UTC
Laurici wrote:
May as well change the ToS to "we'll do what we want, when we want, and there's nothing you can do about it"


That clause is in there already Blink
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#46 - 2013-09-10 20:01:42 UTC
Laurici wrote:
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.


If you don't tell us what "the law" is, how the hell are we supossed to follow it?!

May as well change the ToS to "we'll do what we want, when we want, and there's nothing you can do about it"


+1

A rule is not a rule until you tell people what it is and are willing to set some precedents.

Saying "on a case by case basis" means nothing more than "arbitrary judgement based on whether the GM is in a good mood or not".


Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2013-09-10 20:05:44 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.

I am literally astonished that it has taken your team all day to come up with a clarification statement that clarifies nothing whatsoever.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#48 - 2013-09-10 20:06:24 UTC
Laurici wrote:
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.


If you don't tell us what "the law" is, how the hell are we supossed to follow it?!

This is a long-established tradition of CCP's. Nothing new there.

Quote:
[May as well change the ToS to "we'll do what we want, when we want, and there's nothing you can do about it"
Yup. It's their game, they can do precisely that - no need to even tell us so.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#49 - 2013-09-10 20:06:26 UTC
This whole thing is prone to piecemeal tactics like nothing else.

Bad. Really bad. I wish you wouldn't do this CCP.

Remove standings and insurance.

Xurr
Wasted Potential.
IT'S ONLY PIXELS
#50 - 2013-09-10 20:09:30 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.


Uh, yes, you can go into specifics.

You refuse to which is the problem.
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2013-09-10 20:10:23 UTC
What we have here is the traffic cops saying "if you drive too fast along this road we reserve the right to confiscate your car and fine you, but we're not going to tell you what the speed limit is. That will be decided on a case by case basis, but don't worry, all decisions are made by experienced traffic cops!"

If you can't see for yourself why this is hopelessly inadequate I really don't know what to tell you.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#52 - 2013-09-10 20:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Karl Planck wrote:
jesus there is a lot of butthurt in this thread. Can we not bring up the plethora of cases to which this is normally applied to which is clearly what they are referencing instead of bringing up fringe cases where the rule has never been applied?

For example: Someone wants to apply to SniggWaffe and they find a corp on the recruitment threads called SniggWaffe. (notice the dot) in an alliance WAFFELS. (misspelled) that was made to misdirect pilots and scam for recruitment.

Previously this would result in a name change for both the corp and the alliance which are clearly impersonating the real deal. Now it would be a ban. I really don’t get all the rage about this. You couldn't do it before, you still can’t. They simply changed the punishment. And knowing the GMs the punishment is probably relatively light



(Disclaimer: while I bath in scammer tears, this is an issue that might affect the player base negatively, and we have a community here to think about).


You see what's being asked for here is known as "precedent".

When I legally openly carry a loaded gun in public, and cops show up, half of the documents I shove at them are precedents in case law where the police felt it was safe for their careers to take sides with whoever made a complaint and found out otherwise in court. I do the same at warrantless checkpoints when I refuse to let them search my vehicle.

So what I think the rage/butthurt is about is a lack of "case precedent".

Without precedent, then each case to be "decided on" individually, as the GM post implies, may end up seeming arbitrary. Arbitrary is a legal word for "unfair", meaning that one person is at risk of getting banned while another is not FOR THE SAME ACTIONS.

And God help us if the person not being banned has some kind of ties or connection with CCP or a large alliance said to have some ties with CSMs or CCP.

The tears will flow like rivers of pure hate and rage. CCP Falcon will have to don a robe and beard and build an ark for all of the new players (bitter vets can walk on water or PLEX their own arks, what with all those SP).


So I think what is sorely needed in this case is precedent to be known. There needs to be some public knowledge of outcomes of past cases to guide us towards justice in future cases. We need to be able to cite these cases like "No way could I be banned for that because in CCP vs. Captain Butthead back in 2012 it was ruled that the defendant did in fact not violate the rules and I am doing the same thing".

Yeah I know this would be a lot to ask. We have an ISD of volunteers, perhaps there are legal eagles playing the game who could be part of a new division of ISD to handle this sort of thing?

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#53 - 2013-09-10 20:11:43 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
Laurici wrote:
So can you pretend to be a recruitment officer for goons to scam people? That's a lot of text to say pretty much nothing new.

Sometimes, expressing simple idea can be hard.

Question:
Does this mean that role-playing, say, the Docking Manager at Jita 4-4 CNP for the purposes of entertainment is OK? But that doing the same for purposes of income or scamming would not be? Do I have that right?


Lets run with the most common scam example:

So recruitment scamming a new player with the benevolent intention of teaching them a valuable lesson is ok.
But recruitment scamming a new player with the malicious intention of taking everything they own and making them quit the game is not.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every goon have the possibility to sponsor people into the corp? Thereby making every goon a recruitment officer by extension? They're just a recruitment officer lying to someone? No impersonation involved?

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

Tron 3K
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-09-10 20:12:23 UTC
In the end the GM just told you all that you lost at EVE. Find a new game!
Kumail Nanjiani
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2013-09-10 20:12:34 UTC
ITT: more butt hurt elitist tears being shed, and i love it.

popcorn.gif

Catwearingsmartiestubes
Doomheim
#56 - 2013-09-10 20:13:17 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
What we have here is the traffic cops saying "if you drive too fast along this road we reserve the right to confiscate your car and fine you, but we're not going to tell you what the speed limit is. That will be decided on a case by case basis, but don't worry, all decisions are made by experienced traffic cops!"

If you can't see for yourself why this is hopelessly inadequate I really don't know what to tell you.


Well ****, time to go buy a bunch of donuts to bribe CCP with.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2013-09-10 20:15:57 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
What we have here is the traffic cops saying "if you drive too fast along this road we reserve the right to confiscate your car and fine you, but we're not going to tell you what the speed limit is. That will be decided on a case by case basis, but don't worry, all decisions are made by experienced traffic cops!"

If you can't see for yourself why this is hopelessly inadequate I really don't know what to tell you.


No. What they are saying right now is the spped limit is 65 but we have been letting people go as fast as they want before and will continue to do so as long as we jugde it's ok but don't count on it.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#58 - 2013-09-10 20:16:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Plastic Psycho
Xurr wrote:
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.


Uh, yes, you can go into specifics.

You refuse to which is the problem.
I can see why they decline - Trying to get specific absent real-world cases means they expose themselves to endless nit-picking and lawyering.

Which you KNOW we'd do.
Which I'd still like to have a chance to take a crack at - if only to define the edges of what's permissible or not.
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#59 - 2013-09-10 20:18:58 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every goon have the possibility to sponsor people into the corp? Thereby making every goon a recruitment officer by extension? They're just a recruitment officer lying to someone? No impersonation involved?


They've already stated that it's okay to scam representing your own corp. It's representing other "groups" that is the problem.

Case in point: Goonwaffe recently started a renter empire that lives out in null sec. Due to our tumultuous history with scamming (oops), this was met with a bit of skepticism. Now, can a Goonwaffe main sell renter space in this other alliance? How can we prove he is 'authorized' to represent the group? He's in the alliance information as a valid sales people. I would say more what happened next, but that's moderation discussion, which is verbotten, but you can guess.

So what is the proper way to 'prove' that you are a valid representative of the 'group'? There is no 'CFC' alliance, but there are lot of people who can claim to represent us.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2013-09-10 20:20:45 UTC
Kismeteer wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every goon have the possibility to sponsor people into the corp? Thereby making every goon a recruitment officer by extension? They're just a recruitment officer lying to someone? No impersonation involved?


They've already stated that it's okay to scam representing your own corp. It's representing other "groups" that is the problem.

Case in point: Goonwaffe recently started a renter empire that lives out in null sec. Due to our tumultuous history with scamming (oops), this was met with a bit of skepticism. Now, can a Goonwaffe main sell renter space in this other alliance? How can we prove he is 'authorized' to represent the group? He's in the alliance information as a valid sales people. I would say more what happened next, but that's moderation discussion, which is verbotten, but you can guess.

So what is the proper way to 'prove' that you are a valid representative of the 'group'? There is no 'CFC' alliance, but there are lot of people who can claim to represent us.


It's the new risk/reward or EvE.