These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#61 - 2013-09-10 20:20:52 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 hate to use my personal life as the building blocks of a response here, but I've got nothing better at the moment.

I spent most of this morning debating just how big a truck you can drive though most of the ambiguous language in 18 USC 1030. In comparison, after looking at the changes to the TOS, I'm left wondering if I could drive the Titanic through it or just a Ticonderoga.

If you've got a list of circular "if-buts" that you can't actually articulate, you're doing something very wrong when it comes to handling cases of impersonation under the TOS. There should be clear lines as to what is and isn't a violation. IE: explicitly state that representing an NPC faction for the purposes of role-playing on behalf of the NPC faction does not constitute a violation of the TOS. State that representing yourself as a another player in a fashion that closely mimics the party being impersonated is a violation of the TOS. Heck, write a page on the Evelopedia with explicit cases of Yes/No under the clause and then have the TOS redirect interested parties to the Evelopedia page. But please, don't try and get away with saying "everything is the same as it was" when you've made a number of formerly "not-bannable" situations puzzlingly close to being bannable with the change in language.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword

Lady Areola Fappington
#62 - 2013-09-10 20:21:14 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.


For some reason, I've got this feeling we've had this sort of discussion with CCP......

Oh yeah! Cache Scraping! It's against EULA, but we have no intention of enforcing it, so everything is the same as it was before. Unless we change our minds.

That didn't work too well either, CCP.

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

Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-09-10 20:22:32 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.

But only if you have good intentions. If you go 65.01 with bad intentions you get the electric chair. Intentions to be determined by GM who may or may not had his morning coffee on a day that may or may not be monday.

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

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#64 - 2013-09-10 20:23:12 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
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?

Exactly so.
Have a space-like.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2013-09-10 20:25:10 UTC
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



I was under the impression you couldn't scam on the forums anyways. (Or is that just the pilot bazaar?).

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.

Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-09-10 20:26:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.


If you want to nit-pick its more like "we previously gave the impression that the speed limit was 65 and enforced it as such but that wasn't ever actually the limit at all. We're still not telling you what the limit actually is and will judge whether you're going too fast on a case-by-case basis!"

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

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-09-10 20:26:47 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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



I was under the impression you couldn't scam on the forums anyways. (Or is that just the pilot bazaar?).


Just the character bazaar.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2013-09-10 20:27:39 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.

But only if you have good intentions. If you go 65.01 with bad intentions you get the electric chair. Intentions to be determined by GM who may or may not had his morning coffee on a day that may or may not be monday.


The law technically is crystal clear. How you may or not overpass it is left blank so they can say all day that you only have to follow the rules that have been the same as before and you will never get caught for following the rules or you can try your luck like many people did before and go over the rule. The results will vary so it's a risk.

If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...
Seras VictoriaX
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-09-10 20:29:53 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 the rules are not easily understandable / explainable in a clear concise manner then how can you expect anyone to follow them?

It seems like a large corner stone of what makes eve different from other games (allowed scamming) is now a random dice roll of if you will get banned or not.


I remember seeing a official eve trailer that said "Be the Villain" Is that no longer allowed?




Also can you please update the rules on this page as well so its clear?
http://community.eveonline.com/support/knowledge-base/article.aspx?articleId=34


Quote:
Make sure that the person you are doing business with is who he says he is.
EVE-Online has a unique naming policy, making it impossible for more than one player to have the same name. However, names may be very similar, and it is a good idea to be 100% certain that the party you are dealing with is the real thing. Also, never believe someone who says he is an alternate character of someone you know but doesn't offer any proper proof.


That should be changed to "Report the person for impersonation, and make sure they get banned" If i understand correctly?

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#70 - 2013-09-10 20:29:55 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...

True, and an intersting point.

Perhaps we're a buncha rules carebears?
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-09-10 20:30:48 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...

EvE Hardmode engaged - Permadeath enabled

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

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#72 - 2013-09-10 20:31:03 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.


If you want to nit-pick its more like "we previously gave the impression that the speed limit was 65 and enforced it as such but that wasn't ever actually the limit at all. We're still not telling you what the limit actually is and will judge whether you're going too fast on a case-by-case basis!"


No, they are still telling you the limit is 65 (you cannot impersonate people) but we will arbitrate over any impersonation on a case by case basis. The rules is still the same but the wording give them a bit more muscle in case you go over the rule.

Note : I truly understand why you guys see this as a change but in reality, the official rule didn't change. They only give themselves more firepower in case you choose to not follow it.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#73 - 2013-09-10 20:31:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
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".

yea, either that or just rewrite the rules so that they make some ******* sense. that way, you do not need space legal insurance.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#74 - 2013-09-10 20:31:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
Let me tell a little story about the recruitment channel.

For as long as I can remember, the recruitment channel had a "no scamming" rule. This rule was correctly interpreted by the GMs for its purpose of preventing the recruitment channel from becoming jita local. Then one day something happened, people started getting warnings/bans for scamming. Someone who was in the recruitment channel and got scammed petitioned it along with the recruitment channel rules. The GM had decided that the rule meant that being in the recruitment channel made it illegal to scam him. Suddenly a single GM had effectively banned recruitment scamming through creative reinterpretation of a badly worded rule.

Eventually they were reversed and the wording of the rule was rewritten to its actual intention. The moral of the story is that broadly worded rules will be enforced based on what they say, not how they were intended.
Orakkus
Southern Cross Monopoly
Flying Dangerous
#75 - 2013-09-10 20:31:37 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.


How about you guys just walk back to the previous revision.. the one that didn't cause the uproar and do a complete rethink on this. You guys at CCP have a ton of goodwill and respect points for turning the company around after the Incarna fiasco. Don't waste them here. You are probably going to need as much as you can get when you take another look at expanding incarna or any thing else gameplay wise.

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

Laurici
British Petroleum Industrial
#76 - 2013-09-10 20:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Laurici
Inb4 threadnaught in... 3...2...1...

Well done CCP. *slow clap*

How long before a post that says "we're reading all the responses and will get back to you soon" oh wait Guard already did that and we got this response. Can we get a Viking to give a proper response; one that isn't "we're not talking about this and you can't make us".
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2013-09-10 20:33:44 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...

EvE Hardmode engaged - Permadeath enabled


As stupid as it sounds, to me it is just that yeah.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#78 - 2013-09-10 20:37:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I truly understand why you guys see this as a change but in reality, the official rule didn't change.


But the wording in the TOS has changed & for all intents & purposes it's the TOS that GM's will refer to when they need to make a decision. Newbie GM is going to make a decision based on the wording of the TOS, not the intent of the scammer. The GM team really needs to clarify this properly.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2013-09-10 20:37:24 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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



I was under the impression you couldn't scam on the forums anyways. (Or is that just the pilot bazaar?).


Just the character bazaar.



Ah fair enough, thanks.

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.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2013-09-10 20:38:17 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.


Then why is there a need for a change? Surely if there's no change, there's no need for a rules change.


More importantly, previously you stated this was not allowed:

Quote:
Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.


As far as I'm aware, this was not previously banned. It's not impersonating anyone. It's not falsely claiming to be another identifiable EVE player. I would have confidently told anyone in our alliance this was allowed. I see no reason it should not be allowed. As a result, I'm really not confident in "trust us, we'll interpret it correctly and there's no changebut can't tell you how" because you've just suddenly declared that lying about the authority you have is actually lying about your identity.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.