These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#841 - 2013-09-12 01:48:02 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Is there any reason to believe that they're going to go off the deep end now? Or would it be more reasonable to think that they will reserve the ban-hammer for extreme cases?

Oh I'm not going to pretend CCP will start to ban me if I go around and tell people I'm in fact GSF Logistics Director Kismeteer/PL Chief Angry Person Grath Telkin/Trustworthy Third Party Darknesss. But scamming requires people to be liberal with the truth, and since scamming people with more money than sense has a long tradition in EVE, I'm against any rule change that will curb this. (Especially since checking with Kismeteer/Grath/Darknesss if I'm really him is as trivial as sending an evemail and waiting for the reply.)

Also the GM-provided interpretation saying that you can fall foul of the impersonation rule on your own character is pretty bad.

Why would someone even give that.

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 ?
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#842 - 2013-09-12 01:48:07 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:


Well ... I've had many extended "breaks" from EVE so I'm not familiar with the incident with the blink winners. But I think you just made my argument for me? Not sure what's happening here....

You mean your argument how this not-a-change in policy will not get enforced by the sensible GM's and scamming is still allowed? Despite the fact scammers have been affected and at least one perfectly legitimate scam is off the table now?


Sid Hudgens wrote:
Regarding the Bio:

Wow, I forgot I even had one. I really need to update that. The whole Goons=Bob thing was, I admit, already tired when I put it in there ... but with the new rental empire and everything the goonies have really owned that one and rode it into the ground. I don't, however, think that I'll be banned because someone thinks I'm using that bio to impersonate goons. If I was banned for that you guys would then have some real ammo for your argument.


No we would not. Because discussion of moderation is forbidden. Also, because case-by-case basis means it depends on the GM and the mood he is in. Today you might get off without even a warning, tomorrow they might issue a one week ban for the exact same situation because that is what they deem an appropriate response at the time.

As I said before a newbie can get scammed, petition, be told it's not against the rules. Then repeat the scam himself and get punished for it.

Speaking of renting Delve. You realize it's against ToS for [CONDI] to rent [PBLRD] sov space now right? Since the character has no discernible in-game-mechanic affiliation with the alliance that holds the space he is misrepresenting himself (despite having a director alt in the sov holding alliance, because that is not verifiable in game as per CCP).

I would also like to hear your opinion why anything in your bio SHOULD be under any kind of petition scrutiny short of you trying to impersonate a CCP Employee or spewing racial slurs and linking to offensive or sexually explicit material.

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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#843 - 2013-09-12 02:16:13 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Speaking of renting Delve. You realize it's against ToS for [CONDI] to rent [PBLRD] sov space now right? Since the character has no discernible in-game-mechanic affiliation with the alliance that holds the space he is misrepresenting himself (despite having a director alt in the sov holding alliance, because that is not verifiable in game as per CCP).

NCdot, you hear that? Better start petitioning

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 ?
Le Creed
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#844 - 2013-09-12 02:17:04 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:


No we would not. Because discussion of moderation is forbidden.


This is a pretty draconian policy that I just learned about today. How are we as players supposed to verify that the moderation team isn't abusing their powers and the Rules/TOS/EULA is being accurately applied to violations.

Sounds like something you would hear about in the Soviet Union, not discussing why your neighbor was imprisoned by the state.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#845 - 2013-09-12 02:18:44 UTC
Le Creed wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:


No we would not. Because discussion of moderation is forbidden.


This is a pretty draconian policy that I just learned about today. How are we as players supposed to verify that the moderation team isn't abusing their powers and the Rules/TOS/EULA is being accurately applied to violations.

Sounds like something you would hear about in the Soviet Union, not discussing why your neighbor was imprisoned by the state.

You aren't supposed to know. They just disappear

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 ?
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#846 - 2013-09-12 02:26:17 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:

You mean your argument how this not-a-change in policy will not get enforced by the sensible GM's and scamming is still allowed? Despite the fact scammers have been affected and at least one perfectly legitimate scam is off the table now?


I would just like to point out that the use of the phrase "perfectly legitimate scam" really underscores for me how EVE is a very interesting and somewhat bizarre ... "place."

Georgina Parmala wrote:


No we would not. Because discussion of moderation is forbidden. Also, because case-by-case basis means it depends on the GM and the mood he is in. Today you might get off without even a warning, tomorrow they might issue a one week ban for the exact same situation because that is what they deem an appropriate response at the time.

As I said before a newbie can get scammed, petition, be told it's not against the rules. Then repeat the scam himself and get punished for it.

Speaking of renting Delve. You realize it's against ToS for [CONDI] to rent [PBLRD] sov space now right? Since the character has no discernible in-game-mechanic affiliation with the alliance that holds the space he is misrepresenting himself (despite having a director alt in the sov holding alliance, because that is not verifiable in game as per CCP).

I would also like to hear your opinion why anything in your bio SHOULD be under any kind of petition scrutiny short of you trying to impersonate a CCP Employee or spewing racial slurs and linking to offensive or sexually explicit material.


I'm not sure I would say it "should" be under petition scrutiny ... but I don't really have a problem with the fact that it is.

My argument here isn't really about whether or not the TOS language needed to be updated, or if scamming should or should not be curtailed in any way. My argument is that 99% (arbitrary statistic) of the people who have taken to the forums to argue about it are doing so in an idiotic fashion.

CCP has made a change to their TOS language and then they have come out and said that this change is really just a re-wording of a policy that has always been in effect and nobody was going nut over until just now when the language change brought attention to it. Everyone then rushes to the forums to claim that they are obviously lying and that they're now going to start banning everyone who's ever run a scam in EVE and they is falling, etc.

I don't see what CCPs motivation would be to lie to us or misrepresent what they are doing with the TOS. If they updated the TOS with the intent to ban all scammers I think the obvious outcome is that people get upset and unsub.

If the updated the TOS with the intent to ban all scammers and then come out and lie to everyone about their intentions ... followed by banning all scammers then I think even more people will get upset and unsub.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but I just don't see what the upside here is for CCP if they intend to ban everyone for scamming. I think it's much more likely that they wanted to more clearly state that they can and will take action against players for impersonation scams much like they can take action against players for foul or abusive language. I fail to see why everyone has made the leap to all scams = ban-hammer.

I am certain that whatever legal beagles exist at CCP are advising them to keep this kind of language in the TOS as broad as possible in order to give CCP and their GMs the maximum amount of discretion. You have to remember that the TOS is meant to be interpreted by human beings. They are not programming the TOS into the concord AI and giving concord the ability to ban you based of a long series of regular expressions. If CCP would wanted to explicitly spell out each and every possible situation and how it should be handled they would need a large team of lawyers to produce a several thousand page document which we would all have to hire our own lawyers to help us understand. That's not what the TOS is for.

In any case I'm more than willing to take anecdotal evidence into account to show that there is cause for concern here and that CCP is trying to change the nature of the game and to massively curtail scamming. But I'm just not seeing it. All I'm seeing is a lot of convoluted hypothetical situations that everyone seems to assume will result in massive amounts of bans.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#847 - 2013-09-12 02:26:36 UTC
They were not desired in eve online anyway, who cares if they stop appearing

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 ?
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#848 - 2013-09-12 02:30:11 UTC
BTW ... I can fully admit that my arguments are idiotic as well. I am, after all, arguing about some kind of spaceship legal mumbo jumbo on the internet. I just get the urge to wade into one of these debates every once in a while. :)

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#849 - 2013-09-12 03:02:04 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
I am certain that whatever legal beagles exist at CCP are advising them to keep this kind of language in the TOS as broad as possible in order to give CCP and their GMs the maximum amount of discretion. You have to remember that the TOS is meant to be interpreted by human beings. They are not programming the TOS into the concord AI and giving concord the ability to ban you based of a long series of regular expressions. If CCP would wanted to explicitly spell out each and every possible situation and how it should be handled they would need a large team of lawyers to produce a several thousand page document which we would all have to hire our own lawyers to help us understand. That's not what the TOS is for.

In any case I'm more than willing to take anecdotal evidence into account to show that there is cause for concern here and that CCP is trying to change the nature of the game and to massively curtail scamming. But I'm just not seeing it. All I'm seeing is a lot of convoluted hypothetical situations that everyone seems to assume will result in massive amounts of bans.



The TOS exists to inform the players of the rules of the game they are playing. If the TOS is worded such that the players cannot find out what the actual rules are, or even what direction they lie in, the TOS has utterly failed in its purpose.

In the real world (in common law jurisdictions, at least, and common law appears to be the behind-the-scenes model here), specific questions are handled by extensive, public case law. That's how the US has a Constitution that you can carry in your underwear's opening as a present for the TSA while still being able to find out what each of those short sections means in practice.

In EVE, we've been told (now twice) "Oh don't worry, we're not going to enforce chunks of the TOS (until we decide to) so you should feel free to break those chunks while you play (though we won't tell you what direction the edges are)."
It's not just about the threat of being banned,
Why should we have to break the stated rules of the game to play in a way CCP says is "OK"?


Oh, and CCP started enforcing the "no saying that you're someone's alt" rule several months ago, so it's not hypothetical. And GM Karidor just posted that "saying you're your own alt" is against the rules and will be enforced in the same way, so that isn't either.

"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
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#850 - 2013-09-12 03:05:53 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Is there any reason to believe that they're going to go off the deep end now? Or would it be more reasonable to think that they will reserve the ban-hammer for extreme cases?

Oh I'm not going to pretend CCP will start to ban me if I go around and tell people I'm in fact GSF Logistics Director Kismeteer/PL Chief Angry Person Grath Telkin/Trustworthy Third Party Darknesss. But scamming requires people to be liberal with the truth, and since scamming people with more money than sense has a long tradition in EVE, I'm against any rule change that will curb this. (Especially since checking with Kismeteer/Grath/Darknesss if I'm really him is as trivial as sending an evemail and waiting for the reply.)

Also the GM-provided interpretation saying that you can fall foul of the impersonation rule on your own character is pretty bad.

Why would someone even give that.


Banned for impersonating myself? I always thought playing EVE was a bit like a bad relationship before, but this is scary. I just want a game that will let me be me :(
greiton starfire
Accidentally Hardcore
#851 - 2013-09-12 03:16:47 UTC
It is not an argument of gm's will now suddenly start enforcing the policy with bans. it's that down the road they are working to do that.

it is kind of like how they tackled botting. first they clearly defined what a bot is and then they slowly start punishing players. first a warning, then short suspensions, and eventually full account bans for as little as 2 offenses.

I in no way support botters. but this was a very effective program which reduced botting numbers drastically. and it appears that it is being employed against scamming and metagaming.

even if they are not working for it now, as someone else pointed out all it takes is a new senior gm who decides to enforce the letter of the law, which as it stands covers most aspects of metagame deception and many legitimate activities, most notably logistics.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#852 - 2013-09-12 03:21:35 UTC
greiton starfire wrote:
It is not an argument of gm's will now suddenly start enforcing the policy with bans. it's that down the road they are working to do that.

it is kind of like how they tackled botting. first they clearly defined what a bot is and then they slowly start punishing players. first a warning, then short suspensions, and eventually full account bans for as little as 2 offenses.

I in no way support botters. but this was a very effective program which reduced botting numbers drastically. and it appears that it is being employed against scamming and metagaming.

even if they are not working for it now, as someone else pointed out all it takes is a new senior gm who decides to enforce the letter of the law, which as it stands covers most aspects of metagame deception and many legitimate activities, most notably logistics.

What a great direction for eve online

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 ?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#853 - 2013-09-12 03:23:42 UTC
Why would I go to the great lengths involved in some of the greatest heists, upsets, coups, and underdog comeback victories that define this game if I don't even know whether or not it will all be reversed the following day according to some ill-conceived and irregularly-enforced rule? The vast majority of the player-driven story that supplies the flavor to all the mechanical actions that take place in the game is based on the freedom to deceive, and now they have both changed the written rules regarding deception and declared that their enforcement will be irregular and impenetrable.

"This doesn't affect me solo-grinding my levels fours in hisec..."

So then why the **** are you even posting about it?

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#854 - 2013-09-12 03:27:52 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Why would I go to the great lengths involved in some of the greatest heists, upsets, coups, and underdog comeback victories that define this game if I don't even know whether or not it will all be reversed the following day according to some ill-conceived and irregularly-enforced rule? The vast majority of the player-driven story that supplies the flavor to all the mechanical actions that take place in the game is based on the freedom to deceive, and now they have both changed the written rules regarding deception and declared that their enforcement will be irregular and impenetrable.

"This doesn't affect me solo-grinding my levels fours in hisec..."

So then why the **** are you even posting about it?

Because they are TOS compliant, unlike scammers, spies, etc etc

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 ?
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#855 - 2013-09-12 03:34:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Sid Hudgens wrote:

CCP has made a change to their TOS language and then they have come out and said that this change is really just a re-wording of a policy that has always been in effect and nobody was going nut over until just now when the language change brought attention to it. Everyone then rushes to the forums to claim that they are obviously lying and that they're now going to start banning everyone who's ever run a scam in EVE and they is falling, etc.


Obviously, they felt they needed to add the verbiage to protect themselves for implementing policy which could result in termination of service that has not been contractually binding. The only thing allowing them to do it up to this point without it being part of the contract is a lack of will to litigate by those customers who have been prevented or banned for such activity. That's it.

Yes, this is a game. But, more importantly, you have 2 parties and a contract. The contract is a culmination of the EULA and the TOS. It defines what services CCP is contractually bound to provide and what the client's responsibilities are and what would put the client in breach of the contract.

Now they've added the verbiage, which gives CCP carte blanche to ban anyone for any impersonation or representation, real, perceived and otherwise. That they've specifically targeted this type of behavior in game means they plan to enforce it. As currently written, the player have absolutely no recourse.

While you may argue that the TOS already has clauses to ban you for anything, and it's true, such over-reaching clauses that are ill-defined are open to widely varying interpretation that complicates defense in litigation. The new TOS verbiage as it pertains to impersonation and misrepresentation is very specific, it specifically prohibits impersonation and misrepresentation.

What everyone in this thread is arguing is that it is overly-broad in the context of existing and established game play.

BTW, the TOS and EULA do not specifically ban botting although what is permitted is rather limited. It even goes to great lengths to define what is and isn't allow. It's very well defined. And yet, we have verbiage pertaining to misrepresentation and impersonation that suddenly CCP can't be arsed to define allowed and disallowed conduct. It's rather unsettling. And if this example as I've stated in this paragraph is any indication it is that CCP intends to enforce it, broadly, unfairly and at their whim.

Don't ban me, bro!
Kojaxe LeAppljaxe
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#856 - 2013-09-12 03:36:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kojaxe LeAppljaxe
It's simple, to summarize the ToS: Player stupidity is a bannable offense.

Is GM stupidity bannable too?


unsubscribing imminent.
Hawelt
Warpspeed Shipping Inc.
#857 - 2013-09-12 03:37:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Hawelt
Sid Hudgens wrote:

You have to remember that the TOS is meant to be interpreted by human beings.


That goes both ways. The customers have to interpret the rules just as much as the representatives of CCP.

Few people here will believe that they'll actually intend to act much differently in the near future when enforcing the rules.
The thing that really rubs people the wrong way is how ludicrous certain aspects of that clarification are worded. Has anyone actually read the 'clarification' without getting more confused about the situation ?
Did it inspire your confidence in the GMs having the same understanding of what is acceptable behaviour as the community ?

What did those people responsible think as they composed the paragraph which seemingly defines the concept of the 'person' thats the object of some impersonification to refer specifically to an ingame character and not the customer who is a real person ?
The idea that different characters belong to the same person are somehow entirely different entities goes against the eve culture where almost everyone seems to have atleast a secondary account.


Being vague is one thing that doesnt worry people when they have enough trust and a sense of mutual understanding.

For me this clarification only reinforced that some of the GMs seem to have some quite unusual understanding of aspects like the alt/secondary account meta of eve while also being so vague that you have to rely on faith.


TL;DR;
They managed to confuse by saying stuff that clashes with the 'eve culture' while also relying on our faith that they'll act in our best interest
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#858 - 2013-09-12 03:42:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Sid Hudgens
*emphasis mine
Mr Kidd wrote:


While you may argue that the TOS already has clauses to ban you for anything, and it's true, such over-reaching clauses that are ill-defined are open to widely varying interpretation that complicates defense in litigation. The new TOS verbiage as it pertains to impersonation and misrepresentation is very specific, it specifically prohibits impersonation and misrepresentation.

What everyone in this thread is arguing is that it is overly-broad in the context of existing and established game play.



Wait, hold on ... is it very specific ... or overly-broad? You lost me there...

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Sol Kal'orr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#859 - 2013-09-12 03:46:12 UTC
Kojaxe LeAppljaxe wrote:
It's simple, to summarize the ToS:

Player stupidity is a bannable offense.

GM stupidity is a bannable offense.

imaright?

unsubscribing imminent.

Not quite, it's more like:

Metagaming is a bannable offense.

Player stupidity can be petitioned to get your stuff back.
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#860 - 2013-09-12 03:46:22 UTC
Hawelt wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:

You have to remember that the TOS is meant to be interpreted by human beings.


That goes both ways. The customers have to interpret the rules just as much as the representatives of CCP.


The thing that really rubs people the wrong way is how ludicrious certain aspects of that clarification are worded.



How specific would you want to be with hundreds of internet spaceship nerds ready and waiting to dissect every word you write? Personally I would want to have my response carefully drafted by the legal department and then approved by multiple levels of management.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."