These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Literally Space Moses
Perkone
Caldari State
#1121 - 2013-09-13 03:43:24 UTC
Well, guess there's no reason to make an alt, like I was planning on doing.

#T2013

Crimson Gauntlet
Six Gun Sound
#1122 - 2013-09-13 03:52:42 UTC
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
Number of times my posts have come in after the dev/mod locked the thread:  1
Bustin Jieber
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1123 - 2013-09-13 03:59:35 UTC
Don't ban me, CCP!
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#1124 - 2013-09-13 04:05:49 UTC
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.
Jan Muutaras
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1125 - 2013-09-13 04:07:22 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.


The situation wouldn't exist in the first place if you hadn't reinterpreted the "already existing rule."

The lying, cheating and paranoia is one of the hallmarks of what makes EVE different from other games, and the reason why I (like thousands of other players) was drawn to it in the first place.

If you search for "EVE Online big stories" , the number one result on google is this piece EVE Evolved: Top ten ganks, scam, heist events , If you do away with recruitment and rental scamming you're going to lose a large portion of your publicity.

Simply put, If you make it against the rules to lie to people about who you are, you're killing an integral characteristic of EVE that sets it apart from every other MMO.
Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1126 - 2013-09-13 04:11:05 UTC
Crimson Gauntlet wrote:
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

That...

you're pretty good

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Syman Saissore
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1127 - 2013-09-13 04:14:29 UTC
I have no idea what CCP is thinking any more...
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#1128 - 2013-09-13 04:17:35 UTC
Syman Saissore wrote:
I have no idea what CCP is thinking any more...

They probably want to make eve more casual friendly. An idea that has only helped every single mmo on the market ever. Roll
Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1129 - 2013-09-13 04:19:37 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Syman Saissore wrote:
I have no idea what CCP is thinking any more...

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

Hm. I see.

So James 315 was right

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1130 - 2013-09-13 04:20:29 UTC
Syman Saissore wrote:
I have no idea what CCP is thinking any more...


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.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise

Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#1131 - 2013-09-13 04:22:45 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Milton Middleson wrote:

What if Abdiel Kavash directly confirms that Phill McScammer (his alt) is in fact his alt (e.g. starting a private conversation with the mark using his main and saying "Phill McScammer is my alt")? Does that still qualify as impersonation?


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.


Because then you are literally saying you cannot conduct business on an alt with hazarding a TOS violation.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#1132 - 2013-09-13 04:28:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
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.]

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1133 - 2013-09-13 04:37:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria
Dersen Lowery wrote:
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.

This is the new addition which balances risk and reward. The petition mechanism, useable anywhere, even in highsec.

Sure, petitioning isn't without risk, but the reward is the best type of punishment for the badguy - banning by a GM. And clearly player skill is involved in making sure you get the other guy in trouble and not yourself.

I wouldn't call it griefing, as the whole mechanic revolves around getting -a- GM who will push butan and make someone disappear. The GMs are infalliable, but you can of course "try again" by knowing about escalation mechanisms which give you additional chances of getting someone who will push the butan.

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1134 - 2013-09-13 04:40:51 UTC
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,

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1135 - 2013-09-13 04:48:47 UTC
Ironically, there is a character called

Alavarian Overseer, which is older (I think) than
Alavaria Fera, which is again older than
Alavaria

The first of those is definitely not me. I can't say much about the second.

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Shiva Makoto
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1136 - 2013-09-13 04:50:54 UTC
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.
Petrus Justinianus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#1137 - 2013-09-13 04:55:24 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Syman Saissore wrote:
I have no idea what CCP is thinking any more...


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.



seriously, i kinda feel bad for the GM's in this thread. they obviously did not write the new version of the TOS (they probably had some input but they definitely don't have the authority to make these decisions) but seriously can we get a dev to step in and give an official response to these changes. no offence to the GM's but you are only enforcing these policies, i'm not mad at you guys, but i would like to have words with the author of these changes.
Casanunda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1138 - 2013-09-13 04:56:36 UTC
Shiva Makoto wrote:
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.

The fact that I am not a gazillionaire Gallente aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle.

Seras VictoriaX
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1139 - 2013-09-13 04:59:29 UTC
Alavaria Fera 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.




Too bad, that's how harsh eve is.



EXACTLY. Unless this is now WORLD OF EVE-CRAFT. In which case i should just -6 subs right now.
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1140 - 2013-09-13 05:05:17 UTC
Petrus Justinianus wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Syman Saissore wrote:
I have no idea what CCP is thinking any more...


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.



seriously, i kinda feel bad for the GM's in this thread. they obviously did not write the new version of the TOS (they probably had some input but they definitely don't have the authority to make these decisions) but seriously can we get a dev to step in and give an official response to these changes. no offence to the GM's but you are only enforcing these policies, i'm not mad at you guys, but i would like to have words with the author of these changes.


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.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise