These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1021 - 2013-09-12 23:02:26 UTC
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Some progress might be in the making as we speak, but maybe they don't want to rush and mess up so taking the time to try to get out something that suits the situation. I know, I know. But one can hope right? What?Smile


That was before the supposed "final word on the matter" posted 2 days ago.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

James Fnord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1022 - 2013-09-12 23:02:37 UTC
We've had several dozen pages of what the worst case scenario is of these changes. The lack of CSM or Dev response is only making that worse.

Best case scenario, the new ToS change only applies to the naming of characters and nothing else. And I really hope that's the case.

But I'm going to remain cynical until we get a proper response.
LTHenrich Lehmann
David Waylen Industries
#1023 - 2013-09-12 23:03:19 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
If that fails then at least we can point out that it was tried first.


Again generally correct, except it appears the CSM is being quashed by NDA or something, as they are nowhere to be found.

There was that one who said we were "ineffectually rioting" as well as being idiots for not just accepting it


What, who, where. Oh lord, well I'm trying. Ugh
LTHenrich Lehmann
David Waylen Industries
#1024 - 2013-09-12 23:12:10 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Some progress might be in the making as we speak, but maybe they don't want to rush and mess up so taking the time to try to get out something that suits the situation. I know, I know. But one can hope right? What?Smile


That was before the supposed "final word on the matter" posted 2 days ago.


Ok well I might have to give you that one but, stupid optimist alert, I can't help but hope they can see a little something more at least would help. /desperately waits for CCP to save me from firepit. Shocked

U know I know they are listening right, I mean they are aren't they?
GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#1025 - 2013-09-12 23:15:38 UTC
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.

However, I think it's a good time to remind you of the locations of this policy, as well as the time they have been there in their current form:

1. EULA, for 1.5 years:
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.
...


2. ToS, changed very recently (the point which all this is about):
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.
...


3. Naming Policy, having been changed some 3 months (see change announcement):
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.


GM Karidor | Senior Game Master

Jon Matick
WeebleCORP
#1026 - 2013-09-12 23:21:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Jon Matick
GM Karidor wrote:
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.

However, I think it's a good time to remind you of the locations of this policy, as well as the time they have been there in their current form:

1. EULA, for 1.5 years:
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.
...


2. ToS, changed very recently (the point which all this is about):
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.
...


3. Naming Policy, having been changed some 3 months (see change announcement):
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.




There is a VERY big difference between account sharing and saying to someone in game 'oh yeah, i'm totally person X's alt, how can i scam you today?'
though apparently not anymore under the new wording...

frankly this is another case of really bad PR where a simple clarification is all that is needed to sort it out.
basically, if i claim to be someone's alt in game, will I get banned?

My Blog:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1027 - 2013-09-12 23:21:30 UTC
Can you at least confirm we won't be banned/warned for claiming to be our own alts?
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#1028 - 2013-09-12 23:22:48 UTC
Orakkus wrote:

Except for the fact that there has already been an instance where the GMs wrongly penalized a Goon Recruitment corp since the new TOS took place. In fact, you just need to look at the beginning of this thread to see how GMs could get it wrong, with no ability for the player to avoid the ban. GM Grimmi could not for the life of himself say a straight sentence, whereas GM Karidor was able to clearly articulate what had changed. That shows a difference in understanding. However, both of them were absolutely wrong in saying that this was "not really a change." Going from banning names to banning actions that caused the success of Eve Online is a giant difference, and yet they don't seem to be able to fathom that.


Unfortunate, i hope that issue with the Goon recruitment Corp got resolved, i totally agree that any vague wording might cause confusion. However the actions of individual GM's does not a policy make.

Orakkus wrote:

As I mentioned, yeah it already happened, so you with us now?


Not really, i still do not believe that CCP intends to "change the game", CCP Guard has effectively said that in one of the locked threads by stating "it is not a change in policy, but a clarification of existing rules"
Your interpretation of the TOS is as worthless as mine, but statements from CCP employees on this forum have shown the opposite of what you claim.

Orakkus wrote:

Um, actually, you are wrong there as well. See, when countries like the United States, or Great Britian develop trade agreements, in those agreements are the legal ways for a wronged party to find restitution. At our small financial level, we are very, very unlikely to use them as they are prohibitively expensive, however, they are there and it is legally enforcable.


We have jurisprudence on this matter in my country where companies had EULA's (even native ones) and laid claims. All of them have failed and have been in the news. i think i am safe for the moment.

Orakkus wrote:

First off, the GM does not have a good reputation, which unfortunately they've had a real difficult time trying to change. They are the ones who will be applying this new TOS in the game world and are already having problems getting things right. As far as the CSM goes, we are still waiting for something more than just a "hmm.. this might be bad." response, and it looks like either the CSM has locked itself down or CCP has gagged them. Either way, the lack of dialog is making the issue more of a problem.


Yes, although my dealings with the GM's have always been positive. And the "reputation" of the people who have "authority' over you is always a double standard, good for the people positively effected and bad for those negatively effected. Reading badposts on the forums or kugu/whatever dos not a reputation make. Vocal minority and people venting and all that.

Orakkus wrote:

And I hate to say, but I don't think you fully comprehend the gravity of the change. The reason Eve Online didn't die off was because it was a place where you could REALLY do what you wanted, including scam, lie, cheat, steel, etc and it was considered, even praised as part of the gameplay by CCP. With all honesty, likely that feature is what made Eve Online successful. These events, spy networks, and double-crosses have reached the ears of mainstream media and have drawn in new players because it was so different from the "hold your hand" mottos of the rest of the MMOs out there. When I say that this could kill Eve Online, it is because it very well could.


I totally see everything that this change in the TOS is, and fully comprehend what has changed. I also have read all reactions of CSM/CCP employees (not just GM's), and i hold a mirror to you sir.
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1029 - 2013-09-12 23:22:49 UTC
Also the first one says that we can't obtain or use the character names of anybody else in game.


I am no longer sure how I should talk to anybody.
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#1030 - 2013-09-12 23:29:22 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Some progress might be in the making as we speak, but maybe they don't want to rush and mess up so taking the time to try to get out something that suits the situation. I know, I know. But one can hope right? What?Smile


That was before the supposed "final word on the matter" posted 2 days ago.



If you actually read said post, you would understand that this is a process that will take up some time (as stated by Ari) and it is unlikely anything 'new' will pop up until the internal discussion has been had.

Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1031 - 2013-09-12 23:31:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sirane Elrek
GM Karidor wrote:
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.

However, I think it's a good time to remind you of the locations of this policy, as well as the time they have been there in their current form:

[snip]


Other than the recently changed ToS, none of the quotes you posted say anything about misrepresentation of affiliation. According to the EULA section you quoted, as well as the part of the Naming Policy, I would be completely fine going around and telling people I'm an official spokesperson for The Mittani, because that doesn't affect my identity at all (I'm still Sirane Elrek). The ToS however say I cannot do that (since I may not falsely present to be his representative). Do you understand why I feel this is a change in policy?
LTHenrich Lehmann
David Waylen Industries
#1032 - 2013-09-12 23:32:48 UTC  |  Edited by: LTHenrich Lehmann
GM Karidor wrote:
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.


This, listening, taking note, not just sitting out is what I was hoping for.

Now keep calm folks don't all rush at once. We cannot expect instant yes we can do yadda yadda in the next 5 minutes.

Ok so now you have your chance to show your real, not knee jerk concerns, don't waste the opportunity with whining and complaining.

Real uncluttered details would be of most use to get any progress if that becomes possible.

Good luck with making clear understandable points that can be worked with Blink
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1033 - 2013-09-12 23:33:02 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Some progress might be in the making as we speak, but maybe they don't want to rush and mess up so taking the time to try to get out something that suits the situation. I know, I know. But one can hope right? What?Smile


That was before the supposed "final word on the matter" posted 2 days ago.



If you actually read said post, you would understand that this is a process that will take up some time (as stated by Ari) and it is unlikely anything 'new' will pop up until the internal discussion has been had.



Except a post by a GM after the post you are referencing said it was the final word on the matter, so the failure to understand is yours.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#1034 - 2013-09-12 23:36:53 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.

Since few people are going to say it, thank you for keeping up with us.

I'm still holding out hope that we'll soon get some Dev responses in here as well, not just GM(s).

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

Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Mellivora Nulla Irrumabo
#1035 - 2013-09-12 23:37:29 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
Some progress might be in the making as we speak, but maybe they don't want to rush and mess up so taking the time to try to get out something that suits the situation. I know, I know. But one can hope right? What?Smile


That was before the supposed "final word on the matter" posted 2 days ago.



If you actually read said post, you would understand that this is a process that will take up some time (as stated by Ari) and it is unlikely anything 'new' will pop up until the internal discussion has been had.



Except a post by a GM after the post you are referencing said it was the final word on the matter, so the failure to understand is yours.



In all respect to the GM's, they don't make the policy, only execute it. and the 'discussion' between CCP and CSM does not stop at the GM gate. Your failure to understand this or inform yourself on these matters is telling.
James Fnord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1036 - 2013-09-12 23:40:52 UTC  |  Edited by: James Fnord
Karidor, as much as we appreciate the input of the GM team, what really needs to happen is a response from one of the people responsible for writing the documents concerned, as opposed to the people who enforce them.

As a real world analogy, we're asking for the politicians, not the police force.

EDIT: There seems to be a fair amount of anger directed against the GM team at the moment. Which I understand, a large number of people are affected by this issue. But it isn't getting us any closer to a solution. I'd like to advise everyone concerned to take a step back, take a deep breath, and then we can continue this with cooler heads.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1037 - 2013-09-12 23:41:32 UTC
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.


This, listening, taking note, not just sitting out is what I was hoping for.

Now keep calm folks don't all rush at once. We cannot expect instant yes we can do yadda yadda in the next 5 minutes.

Ok so now you have your chance to show your real, not knee jerk concerns, don't waste the opportunity with whining and complaining.

Real uncluttered details would be of most use to get any progress if that becomes possible.

Good luck with making clear understanderble points that can be worked with Blink


Except the GM team's inability to understand the clear issues with this change was the problem in the first place. Frankly, the GM team's involvement at this point is utterly meaningless.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Orakkus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1038 - 2013-09-12 23:42:39 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:

I totally see everything that this change in the TOS is, and fully comprehend what has changed. I also have read all reactions of CSM/CCP employees (not just GM's), and i hold a mirror to you sir.


All the rest of your arguement is fine and your choice, as is your reliance on the arbitrary decisions of human beings. Just like you, I have read what CCP Devs, GMs, and the CSM have written, and coupled with the seven years I've played the game, watching the changes, good and bad. The developers and GMs who have come and gone. I well know that viewpoints are easily corruptable, even in those looking to do the right thing. I've seen how improperly worded rules impact innocent people, and how properly worded rules increase enjoyment.

So go ahead, keep that mirror up on me. Just make sure you turn it on yourself from time to time.

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

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1039 - 2013-09-12 23:44:21 UTC
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:
In all respect to the GM's, they don't make the policy, only execute it. and the 'discussion' between CCP and CSM does not stop at the GM gate. Your failure to understand this or inform yourself on these matters is telling.


The GM team said they were speaking directly to the CSM on the matter, and then they posted that their following post-consultation decision was the final word. There is no reason to expect that any other process is currently underway.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Shade Millith
xHELLonEARTHx
Simple Farmers
#1040 - 2013-09-12 23:47:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
GM Karidor wrote:

1. EULA, for 1.5 years:
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 nameof anyone else.
...


2. ToS, changed very recently (the point which all this is about):
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.
...


3. Naming Policy, having been changed some 3 months (see change announcement):
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.





Every link there, except for the new change, is specifically talking about the using of the name of the character to trick people.

The new one includes simply making the claim to be another person.


Before, it was against the TOS to -
XXXXXXXXOX - "Hey, I'm XXXXXXXXXX"
But legal to say -
GDKCIXMADI - "Hey, I'm XXXXXXXXXX"

But your NEW line in the TOS now say's it's against the TOS to do both. This supposed 'clarification of a rule that's been there for ages' actually adds new things that are against the TOS. It's changing what people can do ingame in a major way when it comes to scamming. That's why people are up in arms.

This is a significant shift away from EVE Online's harsh world.

Do you not understand this?

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

mentions it's reach is limited to using the NAME of a character to trick people. It doesn't.