These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2013-09-10 21:14:17 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm Murk Paradox and I can sell any moon in the game to you. Contact me for details. This cannot be a scam since I am in fact representing myself and not under false pretenses (I really am me!) since that would be a TOS violation.

Let me sell you a moon!*





*The above is an example of a perfectly acceptable scam because of the wording as opposed to the inferred intent.



I think I see a TOS violation, Murk.

You are "falsely representing or impersonating a person" (those words are there in the clause) who can actually sell.is willing to sell those moons.



That's not true. I am representing myself, and I can gladly accept isk. I cannot, unfortunately, sell the sov space that moon resides in (sov isn't in question) nor does a moon be possessed by anyone (only the tower in place) as it is a celestial in the game.

And since I gave myself permission, I am not using any false pretenses!

(You cannot actually a sell a moon just fyi)

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#102 - 2013-09-10 21:15:06 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


Then why is there a need for a change? Surely if there's no change, there's no need for a rules change.


More importantly, previously you stated this was not allowed:

Quote:
Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.


As far as I'm aware, this was not previously banned. It's not impersonating anyone. It's not falsely claiming to be another identifiable EVE player. I would have confidently told anyone in our alliance this was allowed. I see no reason it should not be allowed. As a result, I'm really not confident in "trust us, we'll interpret it correctly and there's no changebut can't tell you how" because you've just suddenly declared that lying about the authority you have is actually lying about your identity.


It's almost like you're showing an example, here, of GMs not knowing the rules they're trying to apply to show why a GM saying "we will know how to apply the rules" is still an issue and this thread/OP does nothing to alleviate these concerns.

The new wording means the exact scenario here, can and will happen:

1) I scam someone in a manner which could be actionable under the new, very wide ruling. I get petitioned, nothing happens.
2) I scam someone in a manner which could be actionable under the new, very wide ruling. I get petitioned, nothing happens.
3) I scam someone in a manner which could be actionable under the new, very wide ruling. I get petitioned, nothing happens.
4) I scam someone in a manner which could be actionable under the new, very wide ruling. I get petitioned, I get banned.

Under the letter of CCP's rules this is consistent with policy, because it's a case-by-case analysis. GMs will then hide behind the letter of the (newly broadened) rules to show they've done nothing wrong. If you've ever put in a petition to CCP about issues with rules, you might be nodding your head right about now.

Oh, and I can't warn people that scenario 4), though something apt to be considered legit, got me banned, because the rules don't let me discuss it.

I'm not even really against this change, it's just another mess CCP has gotten itself into which can only make me laugh at how woefully awful their internal procedures are, even after 10 years of trying to get it right.

How do I do the emoticon of the ccp guy hitting himself on the head with a hammer over and over on Eve O?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Dave Stark
#103 - 2013-09-10 21:16:10 UTC
came expecting clarification; left even more confused.

so, what is and isn't allowed now in comparison to before? the GMs say all is the same but the ToS change clearly contradicts that.

could we get a GM and a ToS that agree with each other?
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2013-09-10 21:16:46 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm Murk Paradox and I can sell any moon in the game to you. Contact me for details. This cannot be a scam since I am in fact representing myself and not under false pretenses (I really am me!) since that would be a TOS violation.

Let me sell you a moon!*

*The above is an example of a perfectly acceptable scam because of the wording as opposed to the inferred intent.



I think I see a TOS violation, Murk.

You are "falsely representing or impersonating a person" (those words are there in the clause) who can actually sell.is willing to sell those moons.


Technically since "fake" organizations like coalitions are considered a protected group of players, moon owners could or could not also be considered such a group. Depending on how the particular GM who reviews the particular case feels, since none of this is clearly defined.

And when it comes down to it, the sell offer is misrepresenting the group of players "moon owners" with malicious intent of new owners showing up at their doorstep.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2013-09-10 21:19:45 UTC
Let me make this example as clear as I can.

Illegal Before:

Saying you are the mittani or making a char name or other such methods to impersonate him.

Illegal Now:

Saying you are the mittani OR saying you are a goon director.

The latter was not illegal before, yet now is, and they claim nothing has changed when the wording clearly has to encompass that.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#106 - 2013-09-10 21:21:28 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
That's not true. I am representing myself, and I can gladly accept isk. I cannot, unfortunately, sell the sov space that moon resides in (sov isn't in question) nor does a moon be possessed by anyone (only the tower in place) as it is a celestial in the game.

When I call myself, as an alt, "not a PL guy" and I am in "nothing to do with pandemic legion at all corp" I am representing myself. If I then try to sell someone PL space by saying "I AM TOTES LEGIT SALES MAN FOR PL BRO JUST ASK ANYONE LOL!" I am falsely representing an organization (now against the rules) despite the fact I am being myself.

Hopefully it's clear why the new rules can theoretically be used to ban many, many scam types no matter who you say you are.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-09-10 21:22:27 UTC
Aryth wrote:
saying you are a goon director.


RIP recruitment scam, although I guess we could just give everyone a director title.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2013-09-10 21:23:11 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace.

Except the rules changed yesterday ... and we would like to know how these new rules will be interpreted in a variety of situations that were legal the day before.
FullFrontal
State War Academy
Caldari State
#109 - 2013-09-10 21:27:14 UTC  |  Edited by: FullFrontal
mynnna wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
Grimmi, thanks for posting. Just to clarify, because I think this was the crux of a lot of the remaining confusion yesterday:

If I, Ali Aras, member of Valkyries of Night and Of Sound Mind, represent myself as a CFC rental agent (a title I do not hold in a coalition I am not a member of), is this a violation of the TOS as changed and impersonation policies as historically implemented?


Confirming that this was in fact at the center of yesterday's confusion/ire. Players feel this sort of thing was allowed in the past, and that if you can convince someone you're a member of a group you clearly are not (such as in Ali's example), you and they both deserve everything coming to you. They're concerned that what is now coming to them is a ban, that you're forbidding sandboxy play in the form of lying, smooth talking and cleverness (as opposed to outright impersonation like naming yourself "CHRlBBA") and you've done little to address that concern.


I am glad you think so - unfortunately that is not how the GM's have been handling live cases. Based on what has happened to actual players recently, implying/smoothtalking/inferring, but not directly stating or name = Perma Ban. No exceptions. Whoever has the final decision on EULA/TOS policy in this regards is a complete joke. It's more like a kid making up rules to his own game with no basis or reason behind it. Make up your minds and try to enforce it as black and white as possible. Leaving this grey pretty much ruins what EVE has been up until now.

Aryth wrote:
Let me make this example as clear as I can.

Illegal Before:

Saying you are the mittani or making a char name or other such methods to impersonate him.

Illegal Now:

Saying you are the mittani OR saying you are a goon director.

The latter was not illegal before, yet now is, and they claim nothing has changed when the wording clearly has to encompass that.


Also illegal now is inferring that the mittani, or goon directors are aware of your actions or has/have sanctioned your actions. Inference is literally the same thing now. CCP has already acted on this.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
What I got from this is;

  • CCP altered the ToS to make it even more ambiguous.
  • We, the players, made our concerns about the alterations abundantly clear.
  • CCP said they'd look at our concerns.
  • CCP decided to ignore our concerns and fob us off.

Do I have that about right?
Smacks of the initial CCP response to our concerns about Incarna tbh, ignore it and hope it'll go away. That worked out well for them last time.


And that is exactly how they handled one of the prime cases that led this this new EULA change.

"We swear we read what you sent to us, but we don't really care because your actions have emotionally hurt one of our web developers, please leave our wiki alone, enjoy never playing eve again even though you have not broken any listed rules."

As usual - GM's making up rules ex post facto.

Face it capsuleer's. CCP can ban you whenver they want for whatever they want, and there isn't jack you can do about.
asdasdada dadadadsada
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2013-09-10 21:29:08 UTC
SOUNDWAVE IS GONE FOR 1 MINUTE AND ITS ALL GOING TO HELL.

WE'RE GOING TO STATE A NEW RULE, BUT WE CANT GO INTO SPECIFICS SO ENJOY YOUR BAN WHEN IT COMES BECAUSE WE DIDNT CLEARLY OUTLINE WHAT WE ACTUALLY MEANT.

CPP REPRESENTATIVE
ASDASDADA DADADADSADA
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#111 - 2013-09-10 21:30:56 UTC
n1 ccp

gg no re
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#112 - 2013-09-10 21:31:03 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Aryth wrote:
saying you are a goon director.


RIP recruitment scam, although I guess we could just give everyone a director title.


Hi Mallak,

As a long standing member, I can sponsor you into [STI] for a 500 mil application fee. My sponsorship guarantees your application will be accepted. A director will review your application within 24 hours.



Ah hell, now I'm gonna get banned - for misrepresenting a non-existing director of an NPC corp. But that should work fine for the average goon.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#113 - 2013-09-10 21:31:35 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
That's not true. I am representing myself, and I can gladly accept isk. I cannot, unfortunately, sell the sov space that moon resides in (sov isn't in question) nor does a moon be possessed by anyone (only the tower in place) as it is a celestial in the game.

When I call myself, as an alt, "not a PL guy" and I am in "nothing to do with pandemic legion at all corp" I am representing myself. If I then try to sell someone PL space by saying "I AM TOTES LEGIT SALES MAN FOR PL BRO JUST ASK ANYONE LOL!" I am falsely representing an organization (now against the rules) despite the fact I am being myself.

Hopefully it's clear why the new rules can theoretically be used to ban many, many scam types no matter who you say you are.



I intentionally did not claim to be the sov or tower owner for that very reason.

I am NOT saying "I can sell CFC Sov at a discounted rate because The Mittani gave me the go ahead".

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#114 - 2013-09-10 21:35:04 UTC
I'm pretty sure you guys aren't clear on what "clarification" means. If you are going to be taking *very harsh* actions, you need to be *very clear* on where the lines are. People should know *exactly* what is and isn't allowed.

Perhaps next time you want to post something like this, you might consider running it by the CSM first? That seems like it might have saved you a whole lot of trouble.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#115 - 2013-09-10 21:35:29 UTC
CCP where is your Community Rep?!

Wharr??!!

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2013-09-10 21:35:53 UTC
Also, for the low price of 15mil isk, I can allow you into Dodixie through the Vylade gate. For a monthly rate of unlimited access it would be 80mil, and for lifetime a mere 350mil isk. Please contact me for details.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#117 - 2013-09-10 21:36:31 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
That's not true. I am representing myself, and I can gladly accept isk. I cannot, unfortunately, sell the sov space that moon resides in (sov isn't in question) nor does a moon be possessed by anyone (only the tower in place) as it is a celestial in the game.

When I call myself, as an alt, "not a PL guy" and I am in "nothing to do with pandemic legion at all corp" I am representing myself. If I then try to sell someone PL space by saying "I AM TOTES LEGIT SALES MAN FOR PL BRO JUST ASK ANYONE LOL!" I am falsely representing an organization (now against the rules) despite the fact I am being myself.

Hopefully it's clear why the new rules can theoretically be used to ban many, many scam types no matter who you say you are.



I intentionally did not claim to be the sov or tower owner for that very reason.

I am NOT saying "I can sell CFC Sov at a discounted rate because The Mittani gave me the go ahead".

Yes, so you're saying you now have fewer options available to you to scam / metagame with, which is the entire complaint that is being made.

So, you agree?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2013-09-10 21:36:32 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years.


GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


This seems to me to say what I've been saying all along. There's no change to the TOS, just a change to the wording. In other words, if you could do it before, you can still do it now. If you couldn't do it before, you still cannot do it now. That pretty much addresses the issues to me. I don't care either way, though. I'm not trying to scam anyone.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
asdasdada dadadadsada
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#119 - 2013-09-10 21:36:42 UTC
I wonder when all scams will be against the rules and if you say **** in local you get muted...oh wait.

Why don't you just stop wasting every bodies time and implement a word filter and ban market/contract scams so we can all quit the game already and you can keep working on your side projects that have all failed.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#120 - 2013-09-10 21:38:04 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
That's not true. I am representing myself, and I can gladly accept isk. I cannot, unfortunately, sell the sov space that moon resides in (sov isn't in question) nor does a moon be possessed by anyone (only the tower in place) as it is a celestial in the game.

When I call myself, as an alt, "not a PL guy" and I am in "nothing to do with pandemic legion at all corp" I am representing myself. If I then try to sell someone PL space by saying "I AM TOTES LEGIT SALES MAN FOR PL BRO JUST ASK ANYONE LOL!" I am falsely representing an organization (now against the rules) despite the fact I am being myself.

Hopefully it's clear why the new rules can theoretically be used to ban many, many scam types no matter who you say you are.



I intentionally did not claim to be the sov or tower owner for that very reason.

I am NOT saying "I can sell CFC Sov at a discounted rate because The Mittani gave me the go ahead".

Yes, so you're saying you now have fewer options available to you to scam / metagame with, which is the entire complaint that is being made.

So, you agree?



I'm saying you have to be so entirely specific with your wordings because of the new wording to the TOS, it's dumbed down to a redundant level.

Yes, I definitely agree it sucks.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.