EVE General Discussion

So, let's talk about libel.

Since it now (because, clearly, it never was acted on before) against the ToS to "impersonate" someone yourself, is it also actionable to libel (knowingly or otherwise) someone as being an alt of a widely hated figure in the EVE universe?

Example:

This character is a suicide ganker. Several times since his creation earlier this week, I have been accused of being an alt of James 315. This character is not, he is not only distinct and separate, but the holders of the account are not the same person (which should be the same thing, but clearly is not anymore).

So, seeing as James 315 is a widely disreputable figure among a significant subset of the EVE population, can I report the 2 dozen or so people who have accused me of this (which is the literal definition of misrepresentation applied outward), as it could be argued to be damaging to my reputation?

For a further example, suppose someone accuses Random Goon #419 of being an alt of The Mittani. The Mittani is the single most widely hated individual in EVE and some of the smaller northeastern states. Is an accusation intended to be damaging to the reputation of Random Goon #419 a violation, as it is deliberately misrepresenting this character as something he is not?

And, if the answer is that I can, in fact, petition this as an act of libel, can I do it for someone accusing me of being one of my own alts? Because if the alt and the player are separate now... the two should be interchangable. :P

So.......we've reached the point where someone can be banned for responding to something directed at themselves using their own alt.

Hmmmmmm......

Hrrrrmmmmm.......


Care to pass the dope? I wish to partake in whatever you swell dudes are having.

That...

you're pretty good

They probably want to make eve more casual friendly. An idea that has only helped every single mmo on the market ever.

I guess it's good that the GM dude has been back in the thread but it would be great to hear from an actual adult at CCP.

First, thanks GM Karidor for sticking around and answering questions. You've been quite helpful.

Let me put the situation this way: You say this is a formalization of existing policy, and in the narrowest sense you're correct. However, the policy is relatively new, and it was introduced piecemeal over the course of a year or so into several relatively obscure policy documents. Because it is enforced reactively, in response to petitions, this meant that in practice nothing really changed: If the policy change had had the hoped for effect, CCP wouldn't have rewritten it and folded it into the EULA. Right? So people carried on as they had been for the previous 8 1/2 years, give or take.

It's a change now, in practice, after TMC picked up and publicized a significant application of the policy against a safari character, and after its public and (increasingly) prominent inclusion in the much more prominent EULA. It will still be enforced reactively, but now the number of people who know about it will be significantly larger--especially if the guys who hang out in NPC corps and tell newbies horror stories about how every gate out of high sec is camped by a thousand instalocking blap dreads get wind of this, and include it in their sage advice.

Worst of all, if you're doing this for the newbies, I'm afraid that you'll run afoul of (CSM!) Malcanis' Law: new players will get excited about "Be[ing] the Villain," sign up, attempt villainy in some newbyish way, and get petitioned either by overly earnest bears or by cackling griefers who have read the EULA forward and backward, and survived enough petitions to have some idea of what they can get away with. That's in addition to impoverishing the game by taking out the previously unprosecuted villainy that, even to those of us who don't scam, has always part of the fabric of EVE.

... alternatively, you could pull your ad campaign and run a new one exhorting people to "Be the Hero." That's never been done before. You'll be pioneers!

[EDIT: I want to call out this post a ways back as offering constructive alternatives. This change doesn't get rid of scamming, it gets rid of a lot of popular methods to pull off scams.]

I do look forward to the new Special Interest Group (SIG), the Goonswarm Legal Department.

Run by leonard j crabs, I think (? I don't know who he is an "alt" of), it will advise us on the best ways to get badguys banned,

I think this is my first post but i have to give my 2 isk to this. Someone please tell me if i got this right:

So if anybody is stupid enough to not take the time and ask if McScammer is really my alt McScammer gets banned because some scrub was too stupid/lazy to ask?
And even if he asks and i tell him McScammer is my alt, McScammer gets banned for impersonating me by being my legit alt?

If this is true i'll petition any alt who tells me he is the alt of xy.

Please someone tell me that i got it all wrong, anything else is pretty stupid and in my opinion the opposite of what eve stands for.
I can understand that it shouldn't be allowed to name your account The Mitlani, but telling someone that you are the goon rent empire guy should be ok, because the other guy can simply ask someone official from the goons.
Don't make stupid rules for stupid people.

As I understand it, yep you're right.

This post may or may not have been brought to you by an alt.

I'm not so sure. We've had other instances of GMs trying to change game policies on their own (the no scamming in the recruitment channel was a highlight) and this kind of feels like another one. That's why it would be helpful for someone a little higher up in the food chain to comment in the thread.