EVE General Discussion

What about all the people with NPC names in their corp or character names? Obviously they need to be banned.

Only if they do something "malicious", which in a a game about lawless immortal space warriors means "telling a fib", of course subject to the whims of the GM escalation lottery and the astrological position of Saturn.

Remember when spys were reporting naughty links in fleet chat to get people banned? That was funny, sort of.


Now when a spy asks in corp chat "who's your alt" and gets a bunch of friendly replies, they take that to the petition bank and use this new flavor of TOS interpretation to go on a banning spree.

It's clear that scamming is not the pivotal variable in this, but impersonation of any kind, even legit, honest admission that two characters are both operated by the same human being.

You guys see how this is a bad idea, yes? Eve is full of litigious OCD ass-hats that will ruin your good intentions. Ruin them like a prom dress.

Just like a dress?

Oh by the way, my main is out of sub, but I can't tell you which character that is...

Yes this exactly!!!!

Pretty much what I was thinking.

The reason people are focusing on this edge case is that it is (the most obvious place) where your policy fails, logically speaking.

If you say that when someone 'impersonates' his own alt, it still is enforced because alts aren't considered to be 'real' ingame, then when someone says that some other pilot is his alt, it shouldn't be impersonation at all, because 'alt' has no meaning,as we just heard from your own mouth. (of course this circles back and invalidates the first case of impersonation as well) Trying to say that 'alt' constitutes impersonation despite not having ingame meaning is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm aware that you can cite selections from the EULA, the TOS, and the naming policy for each situation, picking the correct document to achieve your desired result; but having your cake in the EULA and eating it in the TOS, while giving it to your friend in the naming policy, doesn't make this flawed logic acceptable, it just makes it multitudinous.

Then you compound this situation by saying that it's ok, you'll only enforce it when someone is employing 'malicious trickery'. So now the situation is that you're using formally flawed logic, but only when it suits you, to accomplish the real goal of having an unwritten rule against malicious trickery. This isn't any kind of EVE that I recognize.

I'm not one of the people who thinks CCP owes me to skew EVE towards the kind of game that I want to play. I just am asking for clarity. If you're going to make rules against malicious trickery, just make rules against it. Don't make a bunch of contradictory, confusing rules and only enforce them against malicious tricksters, hoping that unwritten rules will create less pushback. It's not true, it won't create less pushback, and it's disrespectful--and that's the message you've given in this thread so far.

Please don't. Our mains might or might not be apart of the same entity and I'd hate for either to get banned for discussing such matters in a CCP hosted platform.

Seriously, if you don't want scamming and deceit make rules against it and lose the subs already. don't shoehorn policy in saying its to protect person A, when all you really want to do is punish person B.

Just to play devil's advocate here: What if only the impersonated party could file petition.


Dude-Bro gets scammed and goes to the GMs: "Scammer McGee, representing Honest-Joes-Super-Swap hurt my isks!"
GMs say: Only the impersonated party may file petitions in this use-case.

Then it's up to the entity of Honest Joe to either file that petition or not.

This does still hurt people that are actually lying about who they are representing... Makes me wonder if Guiding Hand Social club style activities could happen in this new order. Given the level of alt play and deception required.