These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2013-09-10 20:40:10 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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...



My curiosity comes from the fact that it says "the same rule as before..."

What rule? Scams are either legal or they aren't. Scams are all tricks, lies, cons, subversive tactics in order to get someone to give something to you under false pretenses.

Now those false pretenses, or rather not "now" but ALWAYS, are against the rules of the game?

Begone with your sorcery wizard!

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.

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#82 - 2013-09-10 20:40:11 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
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.


Excellent post. This is how I feel as well.

This game is revolutionary in how it depends on player input and feedback. Every time the effort is spent to really understand and respond to what the players are saying, the game gets better; and, of course, the opposite when the old "we know best, trust us" attitude comes creeping back.

Stop, think, do your jobs properly, and solve this problem like it should be solved. Learn your own institutional history, as we have been through this so many times before, and the best course of action has always been to listen to what the community is trying to tell you, not to try and side-step the issue through condescending and blatantly transparent corporate jargon.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#83 - 2013-09-10 20:42:28 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.

So if your GMs are experienced why was dee snider and barracuda unjustifiably banned for reasons that wern't even in the EULA?
Flash news at 11

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2013-09-10 20:44:28 UTC
Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:
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.

So if your GMs are experienced why was dee snider and barracuda unjustifiably banned for reasons that wern't even in the EULA?
Flash news at 11



They weren't an old retired rockstar or a meat eating fish, respectively?

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.

Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#85 - 2013-09-10 20:45:38 UTC
Weaselior wrote:

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.


Lets say I'm trying to sell a moon I do not actually own as a scam.

I am NOT impersonating a director of whatever corporation owns the tower anchored at that moon. I am merely lying about it being mine to sell.

To my understanding:
I'm not impersonating anyone under the old rules and it's fine.
Under the letter of the new rules I appear to be misrepresenting the player group who actually does own the moon and it's not ok.

Nothing changed how?

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

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#86 - 2013-09-10 20:53:04 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

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.


Lets say I'm trying to sell a moon I do not actually own as a scam.

I am NOT impersonating a director of whatever corporation owns the tower anchored at that moon. I am merely lying about it being mine to sell.

To my understanding:
I'm not impersonating anyone under the old rules and it's fine.
Under the letter of the new rules I appear to be misrepresenting the player group who actually does own the moon and it's not ok.

Nothing changed how?

Something changed based on what GM Grimmi said in the example. And a fair amount of the time your scamee will read what Grimmi wrote or the TOS, and petition that you falsely represented that you were a representative of that corp based on thinking that actually means what it says instead of being officially meaningless.

The change in the wording of the TOS was massive and there was no basis for adding the bolded section here:

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


Claiming you're Goonwaffe by registering the corporation Goomwaffe is one thing. Claiming you're The Mittani's Space Lawyer (go ahead and ask!) and are authorized to negotiate on his behalf is another so just send all that isk to my wallet and I'll move you into Deklein tomorrow. The TOS above bans the first. Until now, it didn't ban the second.

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

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#87 - 2013-09-10 20:55:46 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

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.


Lets say I'm trying to sell a moon I do not actually own as a scam.

I am NOT impersonating a director of whatever corporation owns the tower anchored at that moon. I am merely lying about it being mine to sell.

To my understanding:
I'm not impersonating anyone under the old rules and it's fine.
Under the letter of the new rules I appear to be misrepresenting the player group who actually does own the moon and it's not ok.

Nothing changed how?


For all we know, they might have handled some case like that with a bad/warning except we have no ruling available because the EULA clearly state they do not need to give the information of any ruling to anyone but the person getting the ruling done over himself. The system of justice is not the same as in let's say Canada where I can read ruling done in case of other people. They will be able to hide themselves like that because their very own law allows them to. If they say the policy was applied like it is written now and always had to make a judgement call, we are all toast and will have to deal with the new wording.
Jassmin Joy
Pulling The Plug
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#88 - 2013-09-10 20:55:55 UTC
It's amazing it took your team, and ccp literally all day/night to come up with something, which explains nothing.
I'm getting real tired of this CCP, You've been slowly heading back to pre-incarna ccp and this is a prime example.

Get your **** together.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2013-09-10 20:56:10 UTC
These replies have cleared up nothing other than to make this other magical "trust us" grey area like cache scraping is. Having one was bad enough, now we have another that is as clear as mud.

You already have a 'we can ban for any reason clause' there is hardly a reason to spell out anything by the same line of reasoning as is being used. All this does is serve to further confuse everyone as to any specifics around impersonation.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2013-09-10 20:56:16 UTC
I'm Murk Paradox and I can sell any moon in the game to you. Contact me for details. This cannot be a scam since I am in fact representing myself and not under false pretenses (I really am me!) since that would be a TOS violation.

Let me sell you a moon!*





*The above is an example of a perfectly acceptable scam because of the wording as opposed to the inferred intent.

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.

Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2013-09-10 20:57:20 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Arbitrary is a legal word for "unfair",

TIL arbitration is literally unfairness.

.

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#92 - 2013-09-10 20:58:54 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Utterly pointless hand-waving; might as well have not posted anything.

The new wording does not at all reflect past policy with reference to representing yourself as a member of a group. Come back and try again when you've actually addressed the community's concerns.


How would you know when the ongoings in petitions are not released to outside parties?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#93 - 2013-09-10 20:59:28 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm Murk Paradox and I can sell any moon in the game to you. Contact me for details. This cannot be a scam since I am in fact representing myself and not under false pretenses (I really am me!) since that would be a TOS violation.

Let me sell you a moon!*





*The above is an example of a perfectly acceptable scam because of the wording as opposed to the inferred intent.


This is most likely what the scams will have to look like to pass the judgement.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#94 - 2013-09-10 21:01:01 UTC
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Utterly pointless hand-waving; might as well have not posted anything.

The new wording does not at all reflect past policy with reference to representing yourself as a member of a group. Come back and try again when you've actually addressed the community's concerns.


How would you know when the ongoings in petitions are not released to outside parties?


There is this place where a lot of us post about EVE outside of EVE where we can freely discuss such things.

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
#95 - 2013-09-10 21:02:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm Murk Paradox and I can sell any moon in the game to you. Contact me for details. This cannot be a scam since I am in fact representing myself and not under false pretenses (I really am me!) since that would be a TOS violation.

Let me sell you a moon!*





*The above is an example of a perfectly acceptable scam because of the wording as opposed to the inferred intent.


This is most likely what the scams will have to look like to pass the judgement.



Yea it's terrible.

Another one would be

Hi! I'm Murk, and thank you for contacting me in regards to your desire to join (enter corp name here) Corporation! If you allow me to present you to your intended new home, I can, for the small deposit of 500 million isk, facilitate the transfer of your goods to your new destination! I can, also with your permission, contact the designated corp and help get you settled in! Please contact me or list your name and intended corp you wish to app to in the description of your isk deposit! Thank you and have a successful life in your new home!


just, terrible.

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.

Ganque
Ganque's Squad
#96 - 2013-09-10 21:03:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganque
Weaselior wrote:


The change in the wording of the TOS was massive and there was no basis for adding the bolded section here:

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


Claiming you're Goonwaffe by registering the corporation Goomwaffe is one thing. Claiming you're The Mittani's Space Lawyer (go ahead and ask!) and are authorized to negotiate on his behalf is another so just send all that isk to my wallet and I'll move you into Deklein tomorrow. The TOS above bans the first. Until now, it didn't ban the second.


:applause:

It just makes no sense to ban player interaction of this kind, if I claim to be Mittani's lawyer to steal Weasilor's example ( and I am, check with him, I can get you a system in CFC held space for the low price of 2bn Isk per month, exclusivity guaranteed ) anyone can easily check this by asking mittens, if you don't check, well there are consequences to that. This is normal gameplay for eve.

Revoke these unwanted changes now :ccp:
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#97 - 2013-09-10 21:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
What I got from this is;

  • CCP altered the ToS to make it even more ambiguous.
  • We, the players, made our concerns about the alterations abundantly clear.
  • CCP said they'd look at our concerns.
  • CCP decided to ignore our concerns and fob us off.

Do I have that about right?
Smacks of the initial CCP response to our concerns about Incarna tbh, ignore it and hope it'll go away. That worked out well for them last time.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Lady Areola Fappington
#98 - 2013-09-10 21:06:02 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm Murk Paradox and I can sell any moon in the game to you. Contact me for details. This cannot be a scam since I am in fact representing myself and not under false pretenses (I really am me!) since that would be a TOS violation.

Let me sell you a moon!*





*The above is an example of a perfectly acceptable scam because of the wording as opposed to the inferred intent.



I think I see a TOS violation, Murk.

You are "falsely representing or impersonating a person" (those words are there in the clause) who can actually sell.is willing to sell those moons.

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

DisBeyotch
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2013-09-10 21:06:26 UTC
I can't help but feel that a big part of this problem revolves around the fact that TOS violations of this nature don't have a clearly defined penalty.

How many people out there that participate in the emergent game-play (i.e. scamming) would be less concerned with this if we knew without any doubt that the first violation would not result in a permaban?

Bots (that are detected/reported) get multiple opportunities to clean their acts up, but CCP GM's have already set the precedence that they are ready willing and able to issue permabans to accounts that are reported for these sorts of violations.

So in the specific instance of impersonation, which one could argue is an established, cherished, and oft times celebrated tradition in Eve Online, this TOS violation is treated more severely than botting.

If the rules aren't clearly defined, which I think we can all agree they are not, they we need some assurance from the GM team that they will not issue permabans to first time offending parties. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
Saila Sarai
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#100 - 2013-09-10 21:10:35 UTC
The issue is that rules that are neither clear nor has the public the option of checking on precedents thereby getting an understanding how rules are interpreted. Which means nothing less that the GMs get a Get out of jail free card, regardless how they act.

Now, it is understandable that GMs won't talk in public about individual cases. That however makes having clear rules with a limit of how wriggle room a GM has necessary.

The only consequence of this whole disaster is that the only way to protect your account is not to scam at all. Which is ironically the same like in the cache scraping fiasco a couple of months ago. It might work out for CCP in the end but its certainly not a best practice situation. Also you really don't really want to make the ruling on whether to ban an account or not on how good the candidate is in skirting the edge of the rules.

I'm not gonna say i'm cancelling my accounts, ofc i won't. But like others i echo the feeling that ccp is slowly back on pre incarna mode and that's pretty sad. Moreover with this ruling the trend to limit the sandbox and to police players where it isn't necessary continues.