These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Blawrf McTaggart
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#601 - 2013-09-11 20:10:36 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Can the current CSM members be banned for impersonating effective representatives?



hahahahahahaha
muhadin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#602 - 2013-09-11 20:10:51 UTC  |  Edited by: muhadin
Ali Aras wrote:
contrary to popular belief, large public outcry is largely ineffective in getting anything done.


I dunno, jita riots worked pretty well.

"Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love"

Bayushi Tamago
Sect of the Crimson Eisa
#603 - 2013-09-11 20:11:05 UTC
Vatek wrote:
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.


I was merely trying to establish what caused the change in the first place - that they felt the need to alter the ToS implies that they feel the naming conventions aren't sufficient to lessen their petition queue

Also, under the new ToS wording, Goonswarm could probably petition to have the karttoon fiasco reversed (thus regaining the old corp, alliance and potentially assets) as he was impersonating the role of goonfleet ceo with a malicious intent, no?

Seriously though, this needs to be addressed properly by a dev of high rank in the company, if not Hilmar at this point because, frankly, if people haven't shut up about it yet, the jita monument is probably going to get shot because of inaction on ccp's part.
While, I appreciate Ali trying to help, it's doing quite the opposite because it's nothing official, and is only fueling the outrage caused by the lack of transparency on the part of GMs and the utter lack of communication on part of the devs.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#604 - 2013-09-11 20:12:23 UTC
muhadin wrote:
That feel when you get banned with an alt because you said your main was your main and scammed someone with the alt.



OMG just thought of something...

So, you want to recycle that -10 alt but it's a bannable offense eh...?

(note: "bannable" gets flagged by spell check wtf)

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.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#605 - 2013-09-11 20:14:02 UTC
Bayushi Tamago wrote:
I was merely trying to establish what caused the change in the first place - that they felt the need to alter the ToS implies that they feel the naming conventions aren't sufficient to lessen their petition queue

Now there's even more reason to petition

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
#606 - 2013-09-11 20:15:06 UTC
muhadin wrote:
Hi can i get a loan from someone? My main character is Mordeth Aridhol please message me on there to get your money back.



Wrong game... Wheel of Time is that way ---->

(But I see your point)

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.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#607 - 2013-09-11 20:16:02 UTC
Bayushi Tamago wrote:
Vatek wrote:
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.


I was merely trying to establish what caused the change in the first place - that they felt the need to alter the ToS implies that they feel the naming conventions aren't sufficient to lessen their petition queue

Also, under the new ToS wording, Goonswarm could probably petition to have the karttoon fiasco reversed (thus regaining the old corp, alliance and potentially assets) as he was impersonating the role of goonfleet ceo with a malicious intent, no?

Seriously though, this needs to be addressed properly by a dev of high rank in the company, if not Hilmar at this point because, frankly, if people haven't shut up about it yet, the jita monument is probably going to get shot because of inaction on ccp's part.
While, I appreciate Ali trying to help, it's doing quite the opposite because it's nothing official, and is only fueling the outrage caused by the lack of transparency on the part of GMs and the utter lack of communication on part of the devs.



Re emergence of BoB?

Oh wait...

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.

Azzurian
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#608 - 2013-09-11 20:17:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Azzurian
Let me see if I have this correct. Under the NEW AND CHANGED interpretation of this rule, it is now impossible to claim to be someone else. EVEN THOUGH you can actually just ask the person or check to be sure through API verification.


So if I was trying to "spy" on an enemy alliance and applied to their Alliance claiming to be someones "market alt" or "cyno alt" I could now have my spy character perma banned by the rules? I am curious, because in my going on 6 years in eve, never once was this questioned or even reported and now its a bannable offence?


I, along with 99% of those who play the meta game in 0.0 would love an explanation here of this rule!

Oh and since im posting with an alt. And not taking the time to log in my main dabigredboat, does this mean ill get banned for posting as dabigredboat since I am too lazy to swap accounts?
Orakkus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#609 - 2013-09-11 20:17:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Orakkus
First off, thank you Ali Aras for responding. I have a feeling you will be getting a lot of flak from players because of this. I apologize if what you read in the following makes you upset, but it is not directed to you or any of the CSM personally. However, I do have something to say on it..

Ali Aras wrote:

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.


Yes, he was very clear. However, you are also missing the point. Major aspects of gameplay revolve around what this new change is now banning. Gameplay that made Eve seperate from the likes of other MMOs. It is also gameplay that was bragged about, in places like the BBC and major gaming news sites. All of them quoting the braggings of CCP. And now, suddenly, they are banned. ARE BANNED!

Ali Aras wrote:

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.


Okay, I get that some players were confused. But many of those players came to Eve Online because of the belief that Eve was a dark place to play, a place where you weren't coddled and you were actually challenged and that players, all sorts of players, made the content of the game. Wouldn't it have been better for them to change the other guidelines to match what has been allowed for years and years?

If what GM Karidor talked to the CSM about is exactly what he posted on this forum, then the entire CSM dropped the ball. It also means that I can't really be upset at GM Grimmi (other than the fact that he needs to learn how to talk clearly), or any other the other CCP personnel involved because they DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. They asked you. And YOU as a group failed miserably to catch this. This isn't little. This is F'ing huge. This is no less than one of the most critical game elements in Eve Online and it would be fair to say that this game element is a major part of the game success! It very likely may even have been the CRUCIAL reason for the game's success.

Ali Aras wrote:

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.


I didn't realize that removing a single sentence from one paragraph on a new delivered policy that generated widespread and instant anger the day it was released would take "longer". How about this. How about they return the old policy immediately, then before a stunt like this is pulled again, they again check with the CSM and their new "enlighened" understanding and make sure that the added sentence (or anything like it) is never added again.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander

Gavin Bridgeburner
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#610 - 2013-09-11 20:18:05 UTC
I would like to state my disagreement with this situation and hope that this issue can be given further consideration by CCP.
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#611 - 2013-09-11 20:18:31 UTC
Would the real DBRB please bark bark bark
Azzurian
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#612 - 2013-09-11 20:19:32 UTC
Quote:
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.


This is the quote im referring too in my post above!
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#613 - 2013-09-11 20:20:45 UTC
Azzurian wrote:
Oh and since im posting with an alt. And not taking the time to log in my main dabigredboat, does this mean ill get banned for posting as dabigredboat since I am too lazy to swap accounts?

You can verify this by telling us a story

:colbert:

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 ?

internecionX
EVE Engineering Corporation
#614 - 2013-09-11 20:21:33 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:

contrary to popular belief, large public outcry is largely ineffective in getting anything done.


Completely untrue and you (should) know it. Its not even a matter of my opinion vs yours on the matter.

Just take a look at the entire history of eve online. You can tell me that all the posts regarding this change from GM's and CCP would of been posted if no one complained? Hahahaha good luck trying to prove that.



If no one posted a thread complaining about the TOS are you saying we would of gotten the exact same updates from the GM's and CCP Guard ?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3595059#post3595059

Yes, he would of posted that if no one said anything on the forums.... /eyeroll


So to recap, not only is Large public outcry (revolt and rebellion) effective in getting things done, its sometimes (as in this case) the _only_ tool we even have to work with.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#615 - 2013-09-11 20:23:22 UTC
We're at 31 pages, can we get a new expanded "clarification" in a new thread and lock this one, tia

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
#616 - 2013-09-11 20:23:32 UTC
I move we don't use the API anymore period.

I mean, if it's "illegal" to be anyone other than yourself... there's no reason to prove otherwise right?

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.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#617 - 2013-09-11 20:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Does this mean that I, and my alts, can petition Goons for impersonating a group that's good/bad at Eve?
Can I also petition a certain poster, who like the idea of arenas, for impersonating somebody who has a clue?

As I said just after the final GM clarification of the clarification of the clarification of the totally not changed ToS, this smacks of Wowification.

The statues in Jita and Amarr are looking good, they may well get some ♥ laser love ♥ if CCP don't sort this godawful mess out.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Saila Sarai
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#618 - 2013-09-11 20:25:47 UTC
Maybe, just maybe, have a competent lawyer look over your TOS as well...you know you can't just put everything in there that you think is beneficial for you. Because the TOS is, like people said, a legal document. You certainly don't want one of the banhammered people have your TOS torn apart by a court of law.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#619 - 2013-09-11 20:27:45 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Does this mean that I, and my alts, can petition Goons for impersonating a group that's good/bad at Eve?
Can I also petition a certain poster, who like the idea of arenas, for impersonating somebody who has a clue?

As I said just after the final GM clarification of the clarification of the clarification of the totally not changed ToS, this smacks of Wowification.

The statues in Jita and Amarr are looking good, they may well get some ♥ laser love ♥ if CCP don't sort this godawful mess out.

Haha, like anyone cares about you evil scammers

Take that statue and ram a clarification up its

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
GoonWaffe
#620 - 2013-09-11 20:29:23 UTC
Saila Sarai wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, have a competent lawyer look over your TOS as well...you know you can't just put everything in there that you think is beneficial for you. Because the TOS is, like people said, a legal document. You certainly don't want one of the banhammered people have your TOS torn apart by a court of law.

Oh, goonswarm has lawyers who are probably looking for the best way to legaltroll this

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 ?