These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
LTHenrich Lehmann
Runners of Kessel
#921 - 2013-09-12 15:49:28 UTC  |  Edited by: LTHenrich Lehmann
Chanina wrote:
And where is the problem now?

You want to rob someone blind? Don't impersonate a good friend of that one, become one your self. Needs a bit more effort and the result is equal or greater.

You want to scam? No problem, just don't claim your scam is secured by trusted person XYZ.

You want to get your spy into a corp? Don't just send this stupid "cyno alt of xxx". Do it RIGHT, get your character applied with some decent effort.

You want to role play? For my holiness empress Sarum, I will purge you from this system. No problem.
My empress gave me the order and authority to purge you. Wrong, that order wasn't given, its an NPC after all.

So again, what is the problem? You are screaming because you can't spam the apply button with your want-to-be-cyno-alt?

.


Considering that if the above is indeed correct then a lot of the complaining (not all) is not an issue.

As for the TOS change, CCP have already stated that this is exactly as intended, this is the same as per the previous rules (though maybe not well understood) therefore this is not new, however what this now does is allow the players that have been subjected to 'the rule breaking/bending' that has occured up until now, to better understand what they can or cannot petition regarding said impersonation activities.

So if you have been able to do things outside the rules (albeit with or without knowing it) in the past, be grateful that you have been able to get away with that activity and profiting etc (by breaking the already existing rules) for so long.

As the hard core players (now crying in their milk) in the cold harsh universe of EVE would say, screaming it with glee at the top of their lungs, to care bears if it was their game play that was adversely affected by perceived rule changes (which remember this is not) adapt or .... well you know the rest right.

So come on folks, show the bears that you can do what you berate them to do at every opportunity.

Adapt and enjoy the game.

Ok, so as this issue is so unpopular I know you won't like what I have to say so do your best /flame on. Blink
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#922 - 2013-09-12 15:51:15 UTC
Guys I got scammed by my alt, should I petition?
I feel like my left hand was misrepresenting my right.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#923 - 2013-09-12 15:58:32 UTC
I was part of the initial flood of locked forum threads when 19 of 25 threads on GD page 1 were padlocked, but I've held off on posting in the threadnaught. I'm always hesitant to do so, because at 47 pages with no CCP or any meaningful CSM response, anything I say will be lost in the chorus of discontent. But as another day passes the situation is only festering.

Seriously, the changes are stupid.

Not 'Oh, I mad," stupid, but stupid in that the TOS changes demonstrate an actual lack of intelligence on the part of the author. The wording is SO broad and SO against EVE's history that CCP could not have possibly expected to escape some sort of backlash. The new TOS sets a terrible precent in terms of limiting the sandbox, and anyone who doesn't think so either doesn't know this game, or simply can't read. Just think about all of the monumental moments in EVE's history that could now be interpreted to be against the TOS and thus bannable. Events like the fall of BoB or the EVE Bank scandal will exist strictly in the past now that any sort of loss to subterfuge or deception can just be petitioned. Bearing in mind that they are changing their game universe on a fundamental level, CCP should have had a response prepared as soon as the first draft of the TOS changes hit somebody's desk.

If CCP's only response is silence, and especially if this is only the beginning of several similarly draconian changes, I will find it very difficult to resub my accounts when the time comes.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#924 - 2013-09-12 16:06:40 UTC
**** son I can't bring my alt into corp now because I can't just be like "I'm James Amril-Kesh's alt" because GM Karidor says my corp has no way of verifying that it's me.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#925 - 2013-09-12 16:10:55 UTC
Kojaxe LeAppljaxe wrote:
It's simple, to summarize the ToS: Player stupidity is a bannable offense.

Is GM stupidity bannable too?


unsubscribing imminent.

You got it all wrong. You need to re-read the ToS.

Taking advantage of the stupidity of other players is a bannable offense.

Next we'll see people petitioning that they sold a Vindicator to a 0.01 ISK buy order and get their ship back along with a ban for the malicious scammer who posted the order.

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
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#926 - 2013-09-12 16:15:18 UTC
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
As for the TOS change, CCP have already stated that this is exactly as intended, this is the same as per the previous rules (though maybe not well understood) therefore this is not new, however what this now does is allow the players that have been subjected to 'the rule breaking/bending' that has occured up until now, to better understand what they can or cannot petition regarding said impersonation activities.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Hell, just because CCP says so doesn't make it true either. Unless of course you mean there's a bunch of rules that nobody knew about because they've never been stated anywhere, and also haven't been enforced. At which point there's not much of a rule left.
Djan Sarpati
Ganque's Squad
#927 - 2013-09-12 16:15:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Djan Sarpati
Berendas wrote:
I was part of the initial flood of locked forum threads when 19 of 25 threads on GD page 1 were padlocked, but I've held off on posting in the threadnaught. I'm always hesitant to do so, because at 47 pages with no CCP or any meaningful CSM response, anything I say will be lost in the chorus of discontent. But as another day passes the situation is only festering.

Seriously, the changes are stupid.

Not 'Oh, I mad," stupid, but stupid in that the TOS changes demonstrate an actual lack of intelligence on the part of the author. The wording is SO broad and SO against EVE's history that CCP could not have possibly expected to escape some sort of backlash. The new TOS sets a terrible precent in terms of limiting the sandbox, and anyone who doesn't think so either doesn't know this game, or simply can't read. Just think about all of the monumental moments in EVE's history that could now be interpreted to be against the TOS and thus bannable. Events like the fall of BoB or the EVE Bank scandal will exist strictly in the past now that any sort of loss to subterfuge or deception can just be petitioned. Bearing in mind that they are changing their game universe on a fundamental level, CCP should have had a response prepared as soon as the first draft of the TOS changes hit somebody's desk.

If CCP's only response is silence, and especially if this is only the beginning of several similarly draconian changes, I will find it very difficult to resub my accounts when the time comes.


Can't disagree with much of that, I was mildly amused at first with the no impersonating NPCs schtick, but it is an extreme and stupid change, it will hammer rp'ers who choose to play anything other than straight laced goody two shoes and even run the risk of nailing them also if someone 'interprets' their motives to be askew in a way that the new TOS overlords don't approve of.
The rulings made by GMs will be capricious and arbitrary and as discussing the content of such exchanges is forbidden, the actual results of such moderation will be mostly hidden, like a soft turd just under the top layer of sand in the sandbox awaiting the unwary to step in, that we are now told was always there we just imagined it wasn't.

It seems like such a small change that's of course denied being any kind of change but in reality it is a massive betrayal of the entire ethos of eve and its community coming ex cathedra from the GM team, it really cannot stand or we will lose our sandbox with no where else to go.

As for CSMs, pretty certain Mynna was dead against the changes and said so in a locked thread.

Daughter of the illustrious Salvador Sarpati, I can sell you standings with Serpentis fighters for 500m isk (or a half hour chat with Cierra on Vent)
Luis Graca
#928 - 2013-09-12 16:32:21 UTC
I guess the winter expansion is gonna be something like

"New eden is a warm and soft place" Sad
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#929 - 2013-09-12 16:38:47 UTC
Sol Kal'orr wrote:
I just received an eve-mail informing me of a new courier service. If the person who sent it doesn't represent this new service can I petition him?

If yes, fix this.

There is no reason to concern yourself any longer with the legitimacy of such claims. You can simply file a petition and all will be answered. Furthermore, feel free to take advantage of the offer. Should it prove illegitimate a GM will simply restore your goods to you.

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
None ofthe Above
#930 - 2013-09-12 16:43:08 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
As much as I think much of the response here has verged on the hysterical (some of it hysterically funny), I do think there is cause for concern here.

I don't want to see people getting slack about being smart because they can always petition, nor do I want to see any entrapment scenarios with GM Bannings being sought to "get revenge" or whatever.

Selective enforcement of overly broad rules can cause these problems.

I do understand that much of what has been discussed has been "illegal" for quite some time and rarely enforced. I can recall a number of scams reported of late, where I've wondered if someone was going to be banned under the impersonation rules.

This idea that you can be banned for impersonating yourself is fairly mind boggling, but I remembered a report in Gevlon's Blog that might be worth looking at for this:

http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-worst-scammer-ever.html

Mumble08 "impersonates" Test Diplo Mumble07. Here, he screwed up and actually did confirm that they were the same person. Got fired as a Test diplo for it. I don't think anyone back in the day would have actually thought if he'd pulled it all off, it would be a violation of TOS. If it had been a different player, then yes actually it could be a problem since you have not been allowed to pull the similar name scam for quite some time.

I can sympathize with GM staff and CSM members, in some ways this does look like a tempest in a teacup with typical player overreaction, but I would urge to tread lightly here and deliberate carefully. It is a pretty important area of EVE and the right guidelines and precedents are very critical.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#931 - 2013-09-12 16:48:32 UTC
Luis Graca wrote:
I guess the winter expansion is gonna be something like

"New eden is a warm and soft place" Sad

It's a slow and steady process. The winter expansion will be more like Northrend: Chasing Bears

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
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#932 - 2013-09-12 17:05:59 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Sol Kal'orr wrote:
I just received an eve-mail informing me of a new courier service. If the person who sent it doesn't represent this new service can I petition him?

If yes, fix this.

There is no reason to concern yourself any longer with the legitimacy of such claims. You can simply file a petition and all will be answered. Furthermore, feel free to take advantage of the offer. Should it prove illegitimate a GM will simply restore your goods to you.


Or maybe they won't. Its judged on a case-by-case basis and that cuts both ways. Neither the scoundrels nor the rubes can know what the rules are and both are likely to be boned by the GM's daily reinterpretation of those rules.

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."
Jack Chapman
I'm in Space
#933 - 2013-09-12 17:06:23 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:


OLD

Quote:
...
2. IN-GAME NAMES
...
b. In-game names may not:
Impersonate or parody any employee or representative of EVE Online, CCP, Customer Support personnel or volunteers.
Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.
...
In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.

c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.


Quote:
B. Passwords and Names
...
You will be assigned a login name and a character name during the registration and character creation process. You may not allow anyone to use your login name or character name to access the System or play EVE. No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity. You may not obtain, attempt to obtain, use or attempt to use the login name or character name of anyone else.
...


Quote:
...
8. You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer.


NEW

Quote:
...
8. You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
...


So, from the perspective of Customer Support, nothing regarding the actual policy and its enforcement has changed at all, we merely updated the ToS to include the things that have been said in other documents carrying pretty much the same weight as the ToS.


Yeah, right, there is absolutely no difference at all between rules about names and rules about behaviour.

And nothing was changed at all!

Like someone else said so fittingly before:

Ociania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

I am not even a scammer or trying to impersonate people, but **** like this really makes me want to quit...

btw, since it is really easy to miss GM posts since you cant skip to them like devposts, the stuff i quoted is on page 12
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#934 - 2013-09-12 17:08:31 UTC
Djan Sarpati wrote:

As for CSMs, pretty certain Mynna was dead against the changes and said so in a locked thread.


Well this makes me feel a little better then, that it just didn't get push through without thought from the CSM. So, from the list of CSMs, I thus get:

Ali Aras - Did not think the changes were an issue
Ripard Teg - Was concerned about the wording (as per his blog)
Mynnna - Disagreed with the changes
Malcanis - Not sure if they were an issue

That being said, it still seems to me that the full weight of these changes were either overlooked, or how it was worded was something that CCP could easily fix later.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#935 - 2013-09-12 17:22:38 UTC
I'd love to see a Dev comment in this thread sometime soon.

(Not being negative or virulent, I'd actually like to see a Dev come in here and, at least, acknowledge that the company is still discussing/reviewing/watching this)

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#936 - 2013-09-12 17:27:02 UTC
Well, since I can now be banned for 'misrepresenting' myself whilst playing on either of my alt accounts, they have gone from a useful tool to an unacceptable liability.

As such, I've unsubscribed them to be on the safe side.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Isis Dea
Society of Adrift Hope
#937 - 2013-09-12 17:27:24 UTC
Lykouleon wrote:
I'd love to see a Dev comment in this thread sometime soon.

(Not being negative or virulent, I'd actually like to see a Dev come in here and, at least, acknowledge that the company is still discussing/reviewing/watching this)


+1

On the verge of quitting myself after 9 years of constant play, this is NOT eve.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...
waferzankko
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#938 - 2013-09-12 17:34:50 UTC
how about a little check box next to the name of non npc's that says this person is not a npc.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#939 - 2013-09-12 17:40:34 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Sol Kal'orr wrote:
I just received an eve-mail informing me of a new courier service. If the person who sent it doesn't represent this new service can I petition him?

If yes, fix this.

There is no reason to concern yourself any longer with the legitimacy of such claims. You can simply file a petition and all will be answered. Furthermore, feel free to take advantage of the offer. Should it prove illegitimate a GM will simply restore your goods to you.


Or maybe they won't. Its judged on a case-by-case basis and that cuts both ways. Neither the scoundrels nor the rubes can know what the rules are and both are likely to be boned by the GM's daily reinterpretation of those rules.

But the rules clearly state that if I give a freighter load of veldspar to this fine fellow and he is not in fact representing who he says he does, he is in breach of the stated ToS.

How can they NOT enforce it?

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
michael chasseur
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#940 - 2013-09-12 17:42:47 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
CCP has already responded several times. The last GM statement called it "the final word." Unless something new happens, I'm not expecting any further statement.



Your "final word" has your customer base furiously upset about it and that's a good way to leave it?


pls QQ moar gewns