These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dextrust
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#681 - 2013-09-11 21:36:52 UTC
Anyone up for shooting some monuments?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#682 - 2013-09-11 21:37:03 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Yes, let's give everyone a nice grr goons distraction.

If you try to sell burn jita "avoid gank" passes though you might be banned

What about selling hot dogs to spectators?

I glanced at that and initially read it as sell hot drops to spectators.

If I sell someone a spectator ticket to a hot drop, but don't actually have access to a bridging ship, does that mean they can report me for falsely representing myself as a member of the hotdropper player group?

Well if they don't leave highsec, then...

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
#683 - 2013-09-11 21:37:33 UTC
Dextrust wrote:
Anyone up for shooting some monuments?

Sorry busy shooting stuff in Delve

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 ?

Dextrust
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#684 - 2013-09-11 21:38:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Dextrust
Dextrust wrote:
Anyone up for shooting some monuments?

Whoops, I didn't mean to post that with an alt. But I don't think I'm allowed to take credit for this post with my main now, since there is no in-game way to verify that.

Wait, can I get banned for saying that Dex is an alt when, according to CCP, that is impossible to confirm? I'm so confused.

Please don't petition me.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#685 - 2013-09-11 21:39:05 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:

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


Contrary to the CSM's close held belief of self-importance - rioting in Jita (and the many other forms of in-game and (most importantly) out-of-CCP-control internet actions, ultimately leading to adverse publicity, is much, much more effective than the CSM.

Payer's! Um excuse me, Players - we're done here. Go forth!





Petrus Justinianus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#686 - 2013-09-11 21:39:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrus Justinianus
Murk Paradox wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Ganque wrote:
Pyth2 wrote:
So if someone is asking pyth2 here a question related to goonwaffe and I respond with pyth3, a neutral jita alt am I impersonating myself and misrepresenting my corp/alliance?

This policy is ******* dumb and stinks of GM Butthurt & GM Publord trying to change the game to reflect how they think it should be changed. **** this ****, lets burn Jita.

I see what you're saying, So just to be clear do goonswarm recruit outside the SA forums?

GoonSwarm does, but the Goons do not, except in the cases when they let people in anyway.


We have a sponsorship system. Similar, but far more strict than other alliances vouching system. Aka, anything that befalls your sponsoree can befall you too.



Can I get sponsored? I promise not to be a PL alt...


Don't worry, even if he IS a PL alt CCP will ban him and reimburse anything he awoxs!
Copypasta
Lottie Spider Hive
#687 - 2013-09-11 21:43:17 UTC
We have like ten corps full of spies anyway.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#688 - 2013-09-11 21:44:14 UTC
I just want to add my voice to the demands that the policy forbidding to falsely claim affiliation needs to go.

I don't care at all if this policy has secretly or not-so-secretly existed for 3 days, 1 year or 5 years. Players clearly assumed this policy didn't exist till a couple days ago. It goes against everything the Eve universe stands for and it needs to go.

If you want to ban direct impersonation (by falsely claiming to be some specific person), that's ok with me. I don't think it's necessary either, but it's alright. But falsely claiming affiliation is not direct impersonation and it needs to be allowed by the ToS. Making an exception about falsely claiming to be affiliated with CCP, GMs or ISD is alright too, but anything else should be allowed (including claiming affiliation with NPC entities).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#689 - 2013-09-11 21:44:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aryth wrote:
We have a sponsorship system. Similar, but far more strict than other alliances vouching system. Aka, anything that befalls your sponsoree can befall you too.

The point is more that, between the 6 goon alliances and the 21 goon corps (according to dotlan), who is (mis)representing or impersonating what, and what are the “actual” requirements for joining these goons…? And what do I mean by “these goons”?

Also, after the flood of impersonation petition has drowned the GM staff, which of the above will be crowned the actual goons and on what grounds (and by whom, since the GMs will all have had strong urges to trip over the edge of a volcano at that point)?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#690 - 2013-09-11 21:45:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
I've just realised, Goons want to ruin the pubbies game, CCP want to ruin the whole damn game. Goons, you're being outclassed.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#691 - 2013-09-11 21:46:02 UTC
Dextrust wrote:
Dextrust wrote:
Anyone up for shooting some monuments?

Whoops, I didn't mean to post that with an alt. But I don't think I'm allowed to take credit for this post with my main now, since there is no in-game way to verify that.

Wait, can I get banned for saying that Dex is an alt when, according to CCP, that is impossible to confirm? I'm so confused.

Look at the bright side

When you apply to AWOX a miner corp on a dedicated catalyst pilot, you can legally claim to be a member of the Miner player group. Every character starts with the ability to use the mining laser on a rookie ship, making everyone a member. Furthermore, when they ask you about any other characters you may have, you cannot acknowledge their existence. Not without breaching ToS, as that would not be verifiable in game.

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

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#692 - 2013-09-11 21:46:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Also, after the flood of impersonation petition has drowned the GM staff, which of the above will be crowned the actual goons and on what grounds (and by whom, since the GMs will all have had strong urges to trip over the edge of a volcano at that point)?


PL are the True Goons.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#693 - 2013-09-11 21:46:58 UTC
At least come out and say that you are trying to ban scams that have been legal for years. If that it is in fact NOT your intention (which I don't think anyone believes at this point), then maybe try posting a clarification that actually clarifies something.

This is BS and not what Eve is about.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#694 - 2013-09-11 21:53:01 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Dextrust wrote:
Anyone up for shooting some monuments?

Sorry busy shooting stuff in Delve


So... what exactly is the difference between a Sov Structure and a monument?

"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

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#695 - 2013-09-11 21:53:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Just for a bit of clarity:

True or not, the claim that the ToS change merely restates existing policy is irrelevant:

1) Nobody knew the policy was even in force, because;

2) Hardly anyone ever petitioned it, because;

3) It seems so blatantly against the nature of EVE to petition something like this.

Furthermore, the evidence we have that it was the existing policy comes from petitions by people who didn't even bother to check with their corpmates to see if the applicant was really an alt of theirs, and in the above-linked case, someone who actually complained that someone was fraudulently claiming authority they didn't have in order to con them. Horrors! Con men never do that!

It doesn't matter if this was the policy in place. It's a dumb policy. It wasn't clear before because even the majority of victims thought it was a dumb policy, or it would have occurred to them to take advantage of it.

It does not need to be clarified. It needs to be revoked.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#696 - 2013-09-11 21:53:59 UTC
So if I get this right under the new "old" rules:

If 2 players get recruitment scammed for membership to an alliance, the 1st by a member and the 2nd by a non-member, the 2nd can potentially be reimbursed even though the recruiter not being affiliated with the alliance was easier to view in game which should have been a greater cause for concern than the recruiter the 1st dealt with?
Draleth
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#697 - 2013-09-11 21:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Draleth
I'm a software developer. I see a solution to this clusterfsck of a thread which will completely nullify all complaints here.

Lock this thread with an explanation that it's being rolled back for review, then:

git reset --soft HEAD^
# Re-think, re-word, and discuss with the CNM.
git commit -c ORIG_HEAD

Profit!

(Edited to add: no, those commands aren't a joke about heads being soft. Those are actual source code management commands.)
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#698 - 2013-09-11 22:01:03 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Yes, let's give everyone a nice grr goons distraction.

If you try to sell burn jita "avoid gank" passes though you might be banned

What about selling hot dogs to spectators?

I glanced at that and initially read it as sell hot drops to spectators.

If I sell someone a spectator ticket to a hot drop, but don't actually have access to a bridging ship, does that mean they can report me for falsely representing myself as a member of the hotdropper player group?

Well if they don't leave highsec, then...

Now you're making me want to find an idiot in high sec, get him in a covert T3 and bridge him into a gank (as a target). Sadly I'm still a ways off from my Redeemer. Even then, it would work far better with a Sin.

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

Petrus Justinianus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#699 - 2013-09-11 22:01:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrus Justinianus
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So if I get this right under the new "old" rules:

If 2 players get recruitment scammed for membership to an alliance, the 1st by a member and the 2nd by a non-member, the 2nd can potentially be reimbursed even though the recruiter not being affiliated with the alliance was easier to view in game which should have been a greater cause for concern than the recruiter the 1st dealt with?



nope they both get reimbursed! because unless they were being scammed by an official recruiter of the entity, the "recruiter" was misrepresenting himself as a representative of the entity.

RIP in peace scamming in eve.

Edit: but this all depends on the GM's mood that day, and how they want to interpret the TOS.
Echo Echoplex
#700 - 2013-09-11 22:04:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Echo Echoplex
All larfs aside, I don't even know this game well yet and even I can foresee a veritable Vesuvius of tickets submitted due to the fuzziness of this TOS.

If the EULA can't be reworded or applied more succinctly than "case-by-case" on such a fundamental game mechanic as this one, then I'm picturing people being pulled from every department to handle the insane flurry of nonstop petitions which, being "case-by-case" will each take up-what?- at least 10-30 minutes apiece to handle and relay? And be coming in at the rate of maybe a kazillion an hour? Petitioning would become the new meta.

This is already the hardest game to master. Now I have to try to master the EULA too?

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton