EVE General Discussion

hey so you know the random name generator when you create a character, right?

if I press it enough I get a name that is similar to some other pubbie bootlicker. can I now be petitioned? can I petition them? will the GMs get mad at me because I sent in a petition based on their new worthless rules?




I'm on page 22 and counting so sorry if this shіtstorm has already been resolved, but damn man

Actually, this is not my biggest problem with the policy. I'm enough of a roleplayer that the different characters on this account actually are different characters, and it would be perfectly reasonable to have, e.g., a straight-shooting mission-running character and a scammer and a suicide ganker character on the same account, for the simple reason that I want to explore several different paths in EVE at the same time without giving my mission-runner a -10 security status. In that case, it truly wouldn't matter that the characters were on the same account. That's completely meta, i.e., it's irrelevant in game, so I'm cool with that.

Where I take issue is with the idea that the person scammed can file a petition--whether against an alt or a completely different player--and have a case under the EULA. "Malevolent intent" as a EULA violation has jaw-dropping implications for the game.



This is not a good idea, just FYI. The GMs' decisions will not improve the more they're flooded with frivolous claims, and their disposition toward you will probably not improve either. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can whack you for wasting their time.

This would be like a failed gank.

A success requires you to skillfully convince the GM that the other guy is a bad guy, such that they get in trouble.


If you are going to be bad at the petitioning style of gameplay, you will suffer. I can't say much except it is important for such players to "learn to petition".

Under the new rules can a multiboxer who names all his characters in a predictable manner be banned for impersonating himself as soon as I see them in local? How about all the old goon characters that go by the VCBee ### naming scheme who were actual members of the goons being played by different people. Are all of them bannable as well?

And finally does this mean GM renamed characters can be banned for impersonating each other by default? I've never spoken with either Gallente Citizen 827473904500 or Gallente Citizen 827473904580, but just their names alone look like a pretty bad case of impersonation to me.

lol



for christ's sake Mittens where are you

save us from this complacent representative

hey do you know what the mittani did when he realized ccp didn't care about the wellbeing of its playerbase and the words of the elected representatives?

he incited a riot

I bet ccp is happy he isn't doing that now

Well, there was that one hire, if you recall.

i'm listening to death grips and i'm feeling very mc ride

"sit in the dark and ponder how i'm fit to make the bottom fall through the floor"

I will admit I was a little confused by the alt thing at first, but after the latest explanation it seems pretty clear to me why this is necessary. Most of you are so wrapped around the axle at this point you can't see it ... or you're just ******* dense, I'm not sure which.

The reason the case where someone is lying about being an alt and someone is telling the truth about being an alt is treated the same way is to keep people from using the petitioning system as an intel tool to find out who people's alts are. The GMs, in this case have to treat each CHARACTER as a separate entity ... in order to not reveal that they are linked to the same PLAYER. This actually helps you scammers keep the identity of your alts secret.

Those of you who are making up stupid examples of getting banned for responding in the wrong alt's chat window and other such nonsense seem to think that there is a massive room of people watching all player communication and looking for someone to say they're an alt so they can be ban-hammered. That is obviously not how things work. Someone has to petition you first, and then a GM has to review the petition and determine that you were trying to impersonate someone with malicious intent (to scam them.) Any petitions that are that obviously stupid are going to be rejected as obviously stupid. (And hopefully a form letter indicating "Your petition has been rejected for being stupid." will be sent to the petitioner.)

So can some of you please try to get past the whole "alt" thing...?

Putting the alt thing aside you're all probably still upset about the fact that you can be petitioned for impersonating someone...

The additional explanation of how this is the same as previous policy mostly tracks for me as well. The previous policy was buried in the naming policy but has been moved to the TOS for clarity. Some of you are reading this as CCP making scams against the TOS. I don't see how you're getting there. This does make scams that are based on impersonating other players against the TOS ... as it was previously against the naming policy as the GM clarified. I don't see this as making scams against the TOS at all. It simply means you can't design your scams around impersonating another player. (So, don't be lazy. If you want to be a scammer or a spy, put some effort into it, ffs.)

If it is "wrong" or against EVE culture for impersonation-based scams to be against the rules is certainly something worthy of debate. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. People who put some more thought into their scams and other nefarious plots than "Hey, I'm Joe's alt" will still be scamming happily away for years to come. But hey, I get it ... effort, and all. Perhaps this is something that should be discussed without all of the rampant stupidity that has been in this thread.

There is one area that is still quite murky in my opinion and that is the impersonation or representation of "groups." In the context of EVE, "groups" is going to be hard to define. (BTW if you really think selling a raven as an RNI would be misrepresenting yourself as part of the group of "RNI owners" then you're the most pedantic tool I've seen in a while.) Obviously if groups not defined within the game mechanics are taken into consideration then the rule becomes almost meaningless right off the bat. Not being able to represent yourself as being part of a group that is defined by game mechanics ... just seems silly, really. This part is still a cause for concern for me unless someone can explain it further in a way that makes some sense.