These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#981 - 2013-09-12 20:49:18 UTC
Cierra Royce wrote:


But renaming a Vindicator 'Serpentis Admiral', in order to befuddle the weak minded or gain just a split seconds advantage due to confusion would be clearly covered by the new wording. The problem is the new wording severely limits deception and deceptive practices when used to gain an advantage, in other words everything great about eve.

Almost everything from the forum brags to the carefully constructed interceptor guides contain elements of deceit designed to sway or trick those unwilling to think for themselves, and now they are to be partly shielded from the consequences retroactively by virtue of petitions, no more fail, try again, fail better. No, now it will be fail, petition, ban the naughty space person that hurt you, get stuff back. Roll



I agree and this is where we begin to run the risk of dumbing-down the game. Why should I be banned if a buyer doesn't have the brainpower to click on the little blue "?" to verify an item's true identity & value.

I was hunting for sick loot, but all I could get my hands on were 50 corpses[:|]..............[:=d]
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#982 - 2013-09-12 21:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcolm Shinhwa
Welcome to page 50 intrepid reader! Really with all the closed threads from when ToSgate blew up this is probably page 100+.

The story so far:

CCP revised the ToS to declare impersonation of anyone, any corp, any alliance, or any group of players to be off limits. They then went on a forum thread banning spree to attempt to quash dissent to a change in what has been valid game play since the first scammer offered to get someone into BoB for 50mil isk. CCP then clarified, and clarified again, then clarified for a third time until everything was as clear as mud.

Scammers don't know what scams are and aren't allowed and rubes have no idea what losses to petition. You are also allowed to associate yourself or your corp to NPC entities for role play purposes so long as you don't hurt anyone's feelings. Hurt feelings are right out.

And at no time has CCP responded to one of the very first questions asked about the new policy (which they claim is not new at all) : why do ISDs in help channel say that the CFC is a group you are not allowed to impersonate, but the New Order is offered no such protection?

Edit: I forgot that based on GM clarifying statement, it is against the ToS for your alt to claim to represent your main.

[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]."
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#983 - 2013-09-12 21:14:08 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
And at no time has CCP responded to one of the very first questions asked about the new policy (which they claim is not new at all) : why do ISDs in help channel say that the CFC is a group you are not allowed to impersonate, but the New Order is offered no such protection?

There is no New Order

The New Order's highsec dream is over

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 ?
Echo Echoplex
#984 - 2013-09-12 21:14:57 UTC
The horse is dying!

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
FightingMoose
Chroma Corp
#985 - 2013-09-12 21:19:08 UTC
Has anybody started compiling a list of what is and isn't being allowed? Not the wording of the TOS, but whether or not impersonating your alt/pretending to be a recruitment officer/etc is leading to warnings or bans? Seems like that's going to be our only chance at some real clarity on this issue since the GMs have said their piece.

Proud owner of an Ibis.
LTHenrich Lehmann
Runners of Kessel
#986 - 2013-09-12 21:20:52 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
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.


Although I agree with you that just because I say something that does not mean it is true, I will even conceed the point that, just because a representative of CCP (or anyone else in the world for that matter) says something, also does not necesarily make it true either, but, when the naming policy states: (see quote below),
Additionally a link to the date from some months ago indicating when this change took place is also presented, therefore this is sufficient evidence for me to believe that the CCP representative is in fact telling the truth.
I can therefore comment with confidence that my information is in fact based on truth backed up with evidence from the date of the announcement change.

GM Karidor wrote:


Let me first point a few other places where impersonation is mentioned within our policy, and which have not changed alongside this ToS change:

The Naming Policy has some rather obvious points in this regard:


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.



Granted, this particular version is also only 3 months old at this point, but you can find the exact changes made to the naming policy at the time, together with the reasoning, in the according announcement about this change


If evidence of dates and documents are not sufficient to satisfy your requirement for proof of truth from myself and or CCP representatives, then neither I, nor anyone else, will be in a position to either reason with, nor assist you to see the validity of the claim to the point you raised here: see below

Sirane Elrek wrote:
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.


I also believe there are comments within this thread that show this has indeed been inforced before based on this rule.

I hope this in some small way is sufficient to help stem this knee jerk reaction that is prevalent right now.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#987 - 2013-09-12 21:27:05 UTC
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:
Cierra Royce wrote:


But renaming a Vindicator 'Serpentis Admiral', in order to befuddle the weak minded or gain just a split seconds advantage due to confusion would be clearly covered by the new wording. The problem is the new wording severely limits deception and deceptive practices when used to gain an advantage, in other words everything great about eve.

Almost everything from the forum brags to the carefully constructed interceptor guides contain elements of deceit designed to sway or trick those unwilling to think for themselves, and now they are to be partly shielded from the consequences retroactively by virtue of petitions, no more fail, try again, fail better. No, now it will be fail, petition, ban the naughty space person that hurt you, get stuff back. Roll

I agree and this is where we begin to run the risk of dumbing-down the game. Why should I be banned if a buyer doesn't have the brainpower to click on the little blue "?" to verify an item's true identity & value.

Because he had the brainpower to petition you.

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 ?
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#988 - 2013-09-12 21:31:39 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
Welcome to page 50 intrepid reader! Really with all the closed threads from when ToSgate blew up this is probably page 100+.

The story so far:

CCP revised the ToS to declare impersonation of anyone, any corp, any alliance, or any group of players to be off limits. They then went on a forum thread banning spree to attempt to quash dissent to a change in what has been valid game play since the first scammer offered to get someone into BoB for 50mil isk. CCP then clarified, and clarified again, then clarified for a third time until everything was as clear as mud.

Scammers don't know what scams are and aren't allowed and rubes have no idea what losses to petition. You are also allowed to associate yourself or your corp to NPC entities for role play purposes so long as you don't hurt anyone's feelings. Hurt feelings are right out.

And at no time has CCP responded to one of the very first questions asked about the new policy (which they claim is not new at all) : why do ISDs in help channel say that the CFC is a group you are not allowed to impersonate, but the New Order is offered no such protection?



The rules have not changed, the only thing that has changed is that the 'victims' of disallowed scams/exploits have now been informed when they can petition these. Even as far back as 2004 people who created characters named after famous Eve characters have been politely slapped with a glove by CCP.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#989 - 2013-09-12 21:34:10 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:

I agree and this is where we begin to run the risk of dumbing-down the game. Why should I be banned if a buyer doesn't have the brainpower to click on the little blue "?" to verify an item's true identity & value.

Because he had the brainpower to petition you.

No no, because he had the brain power to determine you had malicious intent. He then "fell for the scam" deliberately so as to petition-grief another player.

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
#990 - 2013-09-12 21:34:59 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:

The rules have not changed, the only thing that has changed is that the 'victims' of disallowed scams/exploits have now been informed when they can petition these. Even as far back as 2004 people who created characters named after famous Eve characters have been politely slapped with a glove by CCP.


That has nothing to do with the ToS change. And you can check today's post on MinerBumping to see how consistently even that naming policy is followed.

[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]."
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#991 - 2013-09-12 21:40:29 UTC
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:

The rules have not changed, the only thing that has changed is that the 'victims' of disallowed scams/exploits have now been informed when they can petition these. Even as far back as 2004 people who created characters named after famous Eve characters have been politely slapped with a glove by CCP.


That has nothing to do with the ToS change. And you can check today's post on MinerBumping to see how consistently even that naming policy is followed.



Actually the TOS update:

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.

Has always been documented in the naming Policy:

Quote:
2. IN-GAME NAMES

Note: This list is not all-inclusive. Other names may be deemed inappropriate at a GM’s discretion.

a. Valid player character names:
Must be at least 4 characters.
Cannot exceed 24 characters.
May contain the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and single quotation. (Corporation names may also include minus and dot characters.)
Space or single quotation characters are not allowed as the first or last character in a name.
Must be unique.

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.
Reflect, glorify or emulate any real-world group or organization, terrorist society, criminal elements, discriminating organizations or their leaders and figureheads. This includes the use of names of real-world military, political or religious groups.
Be obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, offensive, hurtful, harmful, promote drugs, profane, anti-gay, and ethnically, racially or sexually offensive or impart any real-world hostility toward a specific nationality, race or religion.
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.


So from my point of view this has always been the case and has only been given a more prominent place in the TOS.
Sam Alkawe
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#992 - 2013-09-12 21:40:39 UTC
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Sirane Elrek wrote:
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.


I also believe there are comments within this thread that show this has indeed been inforced before based on this rule.

I hope this in some small way is sufficient to help stem this knee jerk reaction that is prevalent right now.


Yes, apparently the rule was enforced. Yes, the rule did exist. And sure, people apparently didn't know about it, so turns out a clarification was needed. That does not in any way imply that the current new TOS is rather far-reaching, clarifications by ccp staff demostrated problematic usages* (because really, saying that you can get banned for claiming a character is an alt of another is rather silly) of the TOS. And of course, that doesn't mean that we have to be happy about it (although we do have to accept it if we are to continue playing).

I do agree we need to exaggerate less and focus less on extreme cases that will cause a ****storm if they are ever enforced** when discussing the issue.


*(and maybe even a bit of thoughtlessness before posting)

**like ship-naming, or getting people banned for claiming you have an alt, or some other silly cases that only silly people would consider a violation
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#993 - 2013-09-12 21:43:06 UTC
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Additionally a link to the date from some months ago indicating when this change took place is also presented, therefore this is sufficient evidence for me to believe that the CCP representative is in fact telling the truth.
I can therefore comment with confidence that my information is in fact based on truth backed up with evidence from the date of the announcement change.

Right. Using the name of another player ("to falsely represent his or her identity", aka impersonation) is out. What you are quoting there is the naming policy, however; as such it only governs what names you are allowed to use.
This new policy goes much farther than that: you are now no longer allowed to misrepresent your affiliation with specific groups, i.e. I can no longer claim I'm a member of TEST's recruitment team or part of James315's cabal of miner bumping (whatever their name is). There hasn't been a rule before that this is not allowed, barring some very specific exceptions (CCP and CCP-affiliated groups). As such this is in fact a new rule, because names aren't even on the agenda here.
Cierra Royce
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#994 - 2013-09-12 21:44:04 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:


The rules have not changed, the only thing that has changed is that the 'victims' of disallowed scams/exploits have now been informed when they can petition these. Even as far back as 2004 people who created characters named after famous Eve characters have been politely slapped with a glove by CCP.


Except they have.

Naming a ship after a rat is now a potentially bannable offence, same with parody corp, alliance or character names. I presume parodical intent alone would be enough to force renames or apply bans should it be the whim of a GM to apply the rules on a given day (probably a Monday).
LTHenrich Lehmann
Runners of Kessel
#995 - 2013-09-12 21:51:10 UTC
Sam Alkawe wrote:
And of course, that doesn't mean that we have to be happy about it (although we do have to accept it if we are to continue playing).

I do agree we need to exaggerate less and focus less on extreme cases that will cause a ****storm if they are ever enforced** when discussing the issue.


*(and maybe even a bit of thoughtlessness before posting)

**like ship-naming, or getting people banned for claiming you have an alt, or some other silly cases that only silly people would consider a violation



Thanks for the positive dialog, I accept that the community may not be happy and that is fine, we each enjoy the game with our own play styles, I simply hope that with sensible thoughtful discussion the reality of where we are now, and where it goes in the weeks ahead, depending on CSM discussions with CCP, player feedback etc, will be a place where we can all continue to enjoy the game we all like so much.

I am hoping that others like myself can have a little patience to see what the reality is as it becomes clearer.

o/
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#996 - 2013-09-12 21:57:00 UTC
Cierra Royce wrote:
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:


The rules have not changed, the only thing that has changed is that the 'victims' of disallowed scams/exploits have now been informed when they can petition these. Even as far back as 2004 people who created characters named after famous Eve characters have been politely slapped with a glove by CCP.


Except they have.

Naming a ship after a rat is now a potentially bannable offence, same with parody corp, alliance or character names. I presume parodical intent alone would be enough to force renames or apply bans should it be the whim of a GM to apply the rules on a given day (probably a Monday).



Always have been the case though, as we are "guests" of CCP in their home. thay can ban either of us for absolutely nothing and noone of us can do anything about it. As from a real life law perspective they have the right to refuse their service to anyone for any reason.

CCP does not need this TOS to ban me, and they don't have to explain why. It would be pretty unprofessional if they did and it probably would upset people, hence the rules (policies).

CCP have in the past always looked at these cases on a case by case basis, and with no case the same no amount of exact wording will hold up in all situations. And oh how the player base loves to find loopholes. Exact wording is a problem for the exact reasons that vague wording is, only the current wording does not have the issue of not covering some unforseen wrongdoing.

It feels to me like CCP would people to play the game, and not out of context or "meta" ergo: scamming in game is allowed and using out of game methods is frowned upon.

Just like the WIKI editing debacle that sparked this whole change in the first place.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#997 - 2013-09-12 21:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Thanks for the positive dialog, I accept that the community may not be happy and that is fine, we each enjoy the game with our own play styles, I simply hope that with sensible thoughtful discussion the reality of where we are now, and where it goes in the weeks ahead, depending on CSM discussions with CCP, player feedback etc, will be a place where we can all continue to enjoy the game we all like so much.

I am hoping that others like myself can have a little patience to see what the reality is as it becomes clearer.

o/



Unfortunately CCP has established a long precedent for itself of shutting the door on any dissent, reasonable or not, only to finally cave and apologize profusely on bended knee after having been hit over the head repeatedly by actions which are the exact opposite of reasoned discourse. Therefore, while I agree with you generally, in the specific case of CCP it's actually more productive to stamp your feet, hold you breath, and start feeding stories to video game media outlets.

That said, if someone were to step up and clearly lay out in point form the outstanding issues, that would go a long way toward establishing the coherence of our collective grievances. That, in turn, said, I am personally too lazy generally, and have furthermore recently developed a growing lethargy toward CCP's perennial bumbling and directionlessness.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#998 - 2013-09-12 21:58:37 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
It feels to me like CCP would people to play the game, and not out of context or "meta" ergo: scamming in game is allowed and using out of game methods is frowned upon.

In fact, the new meta is petitioning people.

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
#999 - 2013-09-12 21:59:35 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:

Actually the TOS update:

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.

Has always been documented in the naming Policy:

Quote:
2. IN-GAME NAMES

Note: This list is not all-inclusive. Other names may be deemed inappropriate at a GM’s discretion.

a. Valid player character names:
Must be at least 4 characters.
Cannot exceed 24 characters.
May contain the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and single quotation. (Corporation names may also include minus and dot characters.)
Space or single quotation characters are not allowed as the first or last character in a name.
Must be unique.

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.
Reflect, glorify or emulate any real-world group or organization, terrorist society, criminal elements, discriminating organizations or their leaders and figureheads. This includes the use of names of real-world military, political or religious groups.
Be obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, offensive, hurtful, harmful, promote drugs, profane, anti-gay, and ethnically, racially or sexually offensive or impart any real-world hostility toward a specific nationality, race or religion.
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.


So from my point of view this has always been the case and has only been given a more prominent place in the TOS.

Please show me where the naming policy previously documented the bolded underlined new (but not new) part of the ToS.

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
#1000 - 2013-09-12 22:01:48 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
It feels to me like CCP would people to play the game, and not out of context or "meta" ergo: scamming in game is allowed and using out of game methods is frowned upon.


Except your impression of what you think CCP will do is meaningless to the rest of us. Without clear rules and consistent application of those rules, people will just stop those relevant activities for fear of being banned and/or having their efforts reversed.

It's great that you have faith, the rest of us don't, nor do we care that you do.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal