These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
greiton starfire
Accidentally Hardcore
#1081 - 2013-09-13 01:50:27 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:


Why would you even bother with the alt in that situation? You can just do whatever you need to do with Abdiel Kavash then. The character Phil technically still impersonates Abdiel.



It is an example of a foreseeable situation. In the last 2 years i have been amazed about the situations and ways alts are used and could never hope to say how they will be used in the future. this rule directly impacts their use whether you can foresee how or not. are they protected if verified by the main or not, because by your wording thus far they are not.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1082 - 2013-09-13 01:58:36 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
...explanations of alt restrictions...

Your input here is appreciated. It touched on rules i didn't know existed and for what it's worth don't think are necessary or beneficial, but was at least clearer.

There is still, however, a large degree of ambiguity regarding what counts as a "group of players" in the relevant section since this seems to extend beyond game defined groups, but doesn't encompass all player defined groups. If you could please help here or poke someone who could clarify a bit it would be nice.
greiton starfire
Accidentally Hardcore
#1083 - 2013-09-13 02:00:36 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
...explanations of alt restrictions...

Your input here is appreciated. It touched on rules i didn't know existed and for what it's worth don't think are necessary or beneficial, but was at least clearer.

There is still, however, a large degree of ambiguity regarding what counts as a "group of players" in the relevant section since this seems to extend beyond game defined groups, but doesn't encompass all player defined groups. If you could please help here or poke someone who could clarify a bit it would be nice.


Sorry he doesn't seem to like any hard questions or anything other than, "If A claims to be B..."
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1084 - 2013-09-13 02:01:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.


Joe was indeed impersonating Abdiel, as he was claiming to be somebody he wasn't. That is definitely a breach of TOS policy (both the old one as clarified by yourself and the new one).

Phill merely stated exactly what he was, an alt of Abdiel. He was not trying to pretend to be anybody else.



If "claiming to be an alt of someone (you are an alt of) in order to scam" is bannable, does the same apply to "claiming to be a recruiter of a corporation (of which you are) in order to scam"? Is it "using the name of the corporation to impersonate its recruiters" (even though you are one of them)?
Orosono
Peacock Interstellar Trucking
#1085 - 2013-09-13 02:02:05 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.

This is true, and absolutely how it should be. I was so hopeful CCP had learned their lesson about screwing with the great parts of the game; it seems I was overly optimistic.
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#1086 - 2013-09-13 02:04:05 UTC
Orosono wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.

This is true, and absolutely how it should be. I was so hopeful CCP had learned their lesson about screwing with the great parts of the game; it seems I was overly optimistic.


Exactly. If someone manages to convince you to part with something that's yours, then you need to be more careful. That's always how it's been, that's what makes Eve great.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1087 - 2013-09-13 02:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.


Joe was indeed impersonating Abdiel, as he was claiming to be somebody he wasn't. That is definitely a preach of TOS policy (both the old one as clarified by yourself and the new one).

Phill merely stated exactly what he was, an alt of Abdiel. He was not trying to pretend to be anybody else.



If "claiming to be an alt of someone (you are an alt of) in order to scam" is bannable, does the same apply to "claiming to be a recruiter of a corporation (of which you are) in order to scam"?

It could be the case that they want to avoid any act which allows for the potential identification of alts from their actions. Going back to the example where actually being an alt is treated differently:

The scammed player petitions Joe
- Gets reimbursed. Does business Abdiel as normal.
the scammed player petitions Phill
- No reimbursement > Scamee knows Phill = Abdiel thus both are labelled as scammers > Abdiel burns 2 characters since he was effectively outed by GM actions

Which demonstrates why the overreaching use, rather than simply naming, seems like a bad rule.
greiton starfire
Accidentally Hardcore
#1088 - 2013-09-13 02:10:56 UTC
New hard question. is this rule to protect those who have been imposted or those who have been scammed. who has the right to petition. if it is to protect the imposted, for groups who has the right to petition, the ceo, any line member, etc.
Le Creed
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1089 - 2013-09-13 02:20:47 UTC
It's pretty clear we as players don't want this TOS/EULA change so why continue to force it upon us?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1090 - 2013-09-13 02:23:10 UTC
Le Creed wrote:
It's pretty clear we as players don't want this TOS/EULA change so why continue to force it upon us?

Your resistances only makes their TOS harder

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
#1091 - 2013-09-13 02:23:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Le Creed wrote:
It's pretty clear we as players don't want this TOS/EULA change so why continue to force it upon us?


To protect a literal handful of "special players" whose "specialness" is a direct product of their success at creating cooperative bonds in a game where cooperation is inherently risky and difficult, thereby eliminating the underlying challenge that made their current achievements so special in the first place.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#1092 - 2013-09-13 02:24:17 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

It could be the case that they want to avoid any act which allows for the potential identification of alts from their actions. Going back to the example where actually being an alt is treated differently:

The scammed player petitions Joe
- Gets reimbursed. Does business Abdiel as normal.
the scammed player petitions Phill
- No reimbursement > Scamee knows Phill = Abdiel thus both are labelled as scammers > Abdiel burns 2 characters since he was effectively outed by GM actions

Which demonstrates why the overreaching use, rather than simply naming, seems like a bad rule.


Bingo. That is one of the other reasons that both situations are handled identically.

GM Karidor | Senior Game Master
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1093 - 2013-09-13 02:24:21 UTC
Orosono wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.

This is true, and absolutely how it should be. I was so hopeful CCP had learned their lesson about screwing with the great parts of the game; it seems I was overly optimistic.

Too bad, that's how harsh eve is.

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
#1094 - 2013-09-13 02:28:57 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Orosono wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.

This is true, and absolutely how it should be. I was so hopeful CCP had learned their lesson about screwing with the great parts of the game; it seems I was overly optimistic.

Too bad, that's how harsh eve is.


To put it as that song from CCP goes: HTFU.
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#1095 - 2013-09-13 02:35:30 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

It could be the case that they want to avoid any act which allows for the potential identification of alts from their actions. Going back to the example where actually being an alt is treated differently:

The scammed player petitions Joe
- Gets reimbursed. Does business Abdiel as normal.
the scammed player petitions Phill
- No reimbursement > Scamee knows Phill = Abdiel thus both are labelled as scammers > Abdiel burns 2 characters since he was effectively outed by GM actions

Which demonstrates why the overreaching use, rather than simply naming, seems like a bad rule.


Bingo. That is one of the other reasons that both situations are handled identically.


He's saying it's a bad rule, and you ignore that and just say you handle it this way deliberately?

In fact, if we go by the rules as they have always been understood by the player base, neither situation would lead to reimbursement, and therefore nobody would be any the wiser either way.
GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#1096 - 2013-09-13 02:36:12 UTC
Last reply from me, before I really go back to watching mode for the thread (well, some sleep as well).

greiton starfire wrote:
New hard question. is this rule to protect those who have been imposted or those who have been scammed. who has the right to petition. if it is to protect the imposted, for groups who has the right to petition, the ceo, any line member, etc.


Mostly this is in place for the ones that have been impersonated, though directly affected victims may of course report that as well.

And while kind of unrelated on the issue of the thread itself, as for player run entities, the CEO/Directors (of the executor corporation) would be considered spokespersons for their respective entities, as is usually the case when those entities are directly affected as a whole. This is mainly to try and prevent larger player bodies to flood the ticket system with identical tickets. If none of those are online at the time to create a needed ticket for a report, it can of course be another member of the entity bringing an issue to our attention, but flooding the ticket system will usually result in closing the multiple tickets with a request to chose one person with the authority to deal with the matter to continue with.

GM Karidor | Senior Game Master
Istyn
Freight Club
#1097 - 2013-09-13 02:38:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Istyn
While the claim that 'this is how the rules have always been' is rather suspect (it is the second or third one relating to a major TOS change and resulting player backlash in a few months), if it is actually true then you must surely recognise that the GMs previous incompetence with regards to enforcing the rule in the past, to the point that this has been regarded as a core component of eve for 10 years and apparently even Devs were unaware as it was in their marketing materials and such acts have been celebrated at fanfests, was actually regarded as competence by the player base.

Now you've just unfortunately made yourself look incompetent twice, along with the entire CCP marketing department and many developers.

Edit: Damn, 2 minutes late for a reply :(
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1098 - 2013-09-13 02:39:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
So, given the above, is it possible to legitimately conduct any kind of business through alts? A whole plethora of in-game tasks simply requires more than one character, from research and manufacturing to POS management to renting out space. Taken to the extreme, an alt shopping in Jita for my main who is in 0.0 - the alt is still acting on behalf of the main character. Is this impersonation as defined by the TOS? (Yes, in practice there is nobody who would be compelled to write such a petition, but I prefer not to breach the TOS, whether there are witnesses or no.)

A not particularly unusual possibility comes to mind: I have an alt, Brother Kavash, who I sometimes talk through to conduct completely legitimate and well-intended deals with customers. Could a competitor use this knowledge, and petition Brother Kavash for impersonating Abdiel Kavash, in hope of getting the former (and possibly also the latter, if they're on the same account) banned?

My hope is that at least explicit acknowledgement of the alt's status from the main character would mean that I can't be charged with impersonation. If I (as Abdiel Kavash) state that Brother Kavash is my alt and is allowed to act on my behalf, does that mean that any impersonation claim against Brother Kavash will be denied?

If so, how do I need to state this? Obviously, I might not want my full list of alts to be public knowledge. Is mentioning this fact to a GM investigating the case enough? Do I need to make such a declaration public? To what degree - is posting on a closed alliance forum enough (if I run a business for my alliance only)? Or do I, to protect my alts against fraudulent petitions, have to publicly announce them on EVEO forums?
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#1099 - 2013-09-13 02:43:36 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
So, given the above, is it possible to legitimately conduct any kind of business through alts? A whole plethora of in-game tasks simply requires more than one character, from research and manufacturing to POS management to renting out space. Taken to the extreme, an alt shopping in Jita for my main who is in 0.0 - the alt is still acting on behalf of the main character. Is this petitionable behavior? (Yes, in practice there is nobody who would be compelled to write such a petition, but I prefer not to breach the TOS, whether there are witnesses or no.)

A not particularly unusual possibility comes to mind: I have an alt, Brother Kavash, who I sometimes talk through to conduct completely legitimate and well-intended deals with customers. Could a competitor use this knowledge, and petition Brother Kavash for impersonating Abdiel Kavash, in hope of getting the former (and possibly also the latter, if they're on the same account) banned?

My hope is that at least explicit acknowledgement of the alt's status from the main character would mean that I can't be charged with impersonation. If I (as Abdiel Kavash) state that Brother Kavash is my alt and is allowed to act in my behalf, does that mean that any impersonation claim against Brother Kavash will be denied?

If so, how do I need to state this? Obviously, I might not want my full list of alts to be public knowledge. Is mentioning this fact to a GM investigating the case enough? Do I need to make such a declaration public? To what degree - is posting on a closed alliance forum enough (if I run a business for my alliance only)? Or do I, to protect my alts against fraudulent petitions, have to publicly announce them on EVEO forums?


This is exactly the kind of information we need to get if this is actually going to be an enforced rule.

More to the point, there needs to be a clear, public set of rules as to what behaviour of this type with alts is and isn't allowed, or you'll end up with yet another situation where a GM in a bad mood will interpret the rules one way and hand out a ban, while a different GM might have gone "Well that's obviously his alt, so it's fine"
greiton starfire
Accidentally Hardcore
#1100 - 2013-09-13 02:45:52 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Last reply from me, before I really go back to watching mode for the thread (well, some sleep as well).

greiton starfire wrote:
New hard question. is this rule to protect those who have been imposted or those who have been scammed. who has the right to petition. if it is to protect the imposted, for groups who has the right to petition, the ceo, any line member, etc.


Mostly this is in place for the ones that have been impersonated, though directly affected victims may of course report that as well.

And while kind of unrelated on the issue of the thread itself, as for player run entities, the CEO/Directors (of the executor corporation) would be considered spokespersons for their respective entities, as is usually the case when those entities are directly affected as a whole. This is mainly to try and prevent larger player bodies to flood the ticket system with identical tickets. If none of those are online at the time to create a needed ticket for a report, it can of course be another member of the entity bringing an issue to our attention, but flooding the ticket system will usually result in closing the multiple tickets with a request to chose one person with the authority to deal with the matter to continue with.


since it is to protect the impersonated (thank you by the way the word escaped me) can the person who was impersonated go to the defence of the imposter and have a ban removed?

example, Some on impersonating me scams an idiot who cant use the in game eve mail tool. I find it hilarious and say good for you. the one scammed petitions and now scammer is in trouble. can i now go to you and say in this specific case i retroactively grant full permission for use of my likeness to get them out of it? If not how can you say it is there to protect me and not the idiot who cant use the in game tools provided?