These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#1281 - 2013-09-13 12:01:25 UTC
how do i get to the timeless isle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Inspector Gair
Sergalbuttes
#1282 - 2013-09-13 12:02:00 UTC
Posting to convey my annoyance and consternation at this decision. I find the metagame and drama within eve to be both compelling and entertaining. It rewards those who consider carefully the validity of an individual's statements; who carefully go about their business and those who ensure that they engage in concise logical process.

I am concerned and angry at these changes, and I would humbly request CSM representatives and CCP to reconsider the value of this change, particularly, whether the change will inform "better" game play, and whose interests it serves.

Inspector Gair.
Echo Echoplex
#1283 - 2013-09-13 12:03:41 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:


I say bad freak luck to the veteran whiners in this thread


I'm a tender pink newbie who's never scammed and if this "rewording" really will restrict the ability of players to try to scam anyone, including me, in the ways that made this game intriguing to me in the first place then they can have it. And no, no one can have my stuff. I'll just throw it all at the monument. After all, Burn Jita's how I learned about Eve in the first place.

I respect your view of it but it isn't all bittervets who don't want this.

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1284 - 2013-09-13 12:09:37 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I think scammers represent a very small % of the player base, the majority of them are absolutely annoying (just go to Jita for a minute or two) but I imagine they have a significant impact on both old and new players retention rate, especially the new players scammed out of ISK and deciding to leave rather than stay around.


Fun fact: The scammers that advertise in Jita local are unaffected by this change.


Exactly. This change leaves the mindless "ONE FOR THE PRICE OF TWO! BUY BUY BUY!" scams untouched while eliminating the entertaining, intelligent scams reliant on social engineering.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Sol Kal'orr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1285 - 2013-09-13 12:16:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Sol Kal'orr
Working out if he is who he says he is is my job, not the GMs.
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#1286 - 2013-09-13 12:19:35 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Your character Phill McScammer impersonated Abdiel Kavash, the same way as Joe McScammer did, thus gets it from us the same way if reported. From our point of view, as well as from a victims, there is no technical difference between those two cases of a character impersonating another.


Except that Phill never claimed to be anything he wasn't. Phill didn't claim to be the character Abdiel Kavash, he claimed to be an alt of Abdiel Kavash - which he was. At no point Phill told a lie. Does "impersonation" cover "truthfully stating the nature of a character"?

Thanks for the communication, I never actually expected a GM reply.


Both characters Phil and Joe used the name Abdiel Kavash to give of the impression they were somehow related to him. The cases are effectively identical.

Yes, with Phil the actual statement of him being an alt is true, but the actual act of the character using the name of Abdiel Kavash does not differ in any capacity at all.

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.


So scamming is now forbidden.
Pathetic

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1287 - 2013-09-13 12:23:11 UTC
Sol Kal'orr wrote:
Working out if he is who he says he is is my game, not the GMs.


FYP

(Assuming that FYPing isn't now a bannable act of false impersonation)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1288 - 2013-09-13 12:24:06 UTC
If is is, then it was nice knowing you all Cry

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1289 - 2013-09-13 12:26:20 UTC
Echo Echoplex wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:


I say bad freak luck to the veteran whiners in this thread


I'm a tender pink newbie who's never scammed and if this "rewording" really will restrict the ability of players to try to scam anyone, including me, in the ways that made this game intriguing to me in the first place then they can have it. And no, no one can have my stuff. I'll just throw it all at the monument. After all, Burn Jita's how I learned about Eve in the first place.

I respect your view of it but it isn't all bittervets who don't want this.

you go girl!

I should buy an Ishtar.
Echo Echoplex
#1290 - 2013-09-13 12:30:49 UTC
Haha...I just started making this my own LAGL thread (selectively). i'm up to page 6 I think.

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
greiton starfire
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1291 - 2013-09-13 12:30:50 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:


Non-scam business conducted on alts = OK (why would they even be petitioned? and if petitioned and non-scam why punished?)



because deals go awry. people realize they didn't get enough isk, or some new factor plays in and they leave dissatisfied. In this situation you now have a deal where 1 player is angry and the other is not. it is the same end result as a scam, but the original intention was not one. if angry guy petitions, now somehow the other guy must prove benign intent and that thing naturally went awry. this is a huge liability placed on alts.
thee lous3
Tech III Bone Cancer
#1292 - 2013-09-13 12:31:16 UTC  |  Edited by: thee lous3
This is going to reach through some past pages a little, but I feel I have a few points to make.

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?


I don't think the GM's understand how little I (we?) would care if I was impersonated. If somebody is clever enough to figure out an angle to awox or steal using my main's, or an alt's name - I would applaud them. I would consider how they pulled it off, and I would ensure it didn't happen again. Myself. Because I'm a grown ass man and that's why I play eve.

Malcanis wrote:
Ominaeon wrote:
I for one applaud this move. EVE has been a cold, dark place for a long time, and it's nice to see the GMs and devs beginning to understand that protecting their playerbase from "griefers" is in their best interests. Nullsec isn't relevant in this[...]ng here to run missions in high sec full time just for the social aspect of it!

Truly a good move by CCP. Scamming wasn't fun for anyone, and protecting the playerbase is what EVE is all about.



9/10 nicely executed


You have no idea how much it warms my heart to see a CSM who gets it.
Malcanis, could you please inform us whether the majority of the CSM agrees or disagrees with the policy change?


Infinity Ziona wrote:
I feel this is a good change and I hope CCP continues to improve the experiences of both new and older players by continuing along this line.

I think scammers represent a very small % of the player base, the majority of them are absolutely annoying (just go to Jita for a minute or two) but I imagine they have a significant impact on both old and new players retention rate, especially the new players scammed out of ISK and deciding to leave rather than stay around.

Just go watch Star Citizen advert on Youtube and its easy to imagine that new subscribers would choose that over EvE if they heard about the things rich veteran players get away with doing to newer players here in EvE. I wouldn't come here if I had to start again and had to risk everything being scammed, blown up in a suicide attack or the many other ways that veteran players discourage new players from continuing to subscribe.

I say bad freak luck to the veteran whiners in this thread, if you want to hurt people in game, put some guns on a ship and attack them (not safely by suiciding) but go out to null sec, low sec or wh space and attack them.


If that's the way you feel, then yes, you should wonder off and play Star Citizen. You've clearly been playing the wrong game to begin with. The reality of the game, in so far as the word reality can be used, is that it is a tough place.

If you are one to bemoan the profiteering of others as the result of your own laziness, you do not deserve the things you lost, and you do not deserve sympathy. I would sympathise with someone who lost their assets whilst knowingly taking a risk, and handling it with maturity, but not the likes of you. Whether this loss comes in the form of a freighter gank, or the acceptance of a capsuleer in to your corp, the risk is essentially the same. Every new entity in a corporation is a new variable, trusted or not, that can go wrong. Changing the ToS to make the distinction between the two is a move in the opposite direction to the ethos of eve, as understood by the majority of players.
HTFU.

This next bit is important. I got my start in eve by being a noobie (still am I guess), scamming older players than myself. Had it gone the other way I would have felt no animosity towards an old player for scamming me. Everybody is equal in eve, regardless of SP. Anyone can be killed, robbed, tricked.

Malcanis wrote:
Scamming is actually one of the great levellers between old and new players; few scams require much in the way of skillpoints, and many don't take much ISK either.

Like most such attempts to obtain special treatment by arbitrary interdiction of player interaction, this change favours the rich players at the expense of the poor.
Concurssi Mellenar
Doomheim
#1293 - 2013-09-13 12:33:39 UTC
I would also like to voice my dislike towards this rule change, or as CCP insists on calling it, this "rewording".

He who controls the veld, controls the universe.
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1294 - 2013-09-13 12:34:53 UTC
I guess under these new rules BoB would never have disbanded, seeing as the director who nearly had his alt recruitment scammed by a goon would never have been able to reveal that he had a director level alt.
greiton starfire
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1295 - 2013-09-13 12:37:20 UTC
Hey Malcanis, nice to see another csm guy add their voice. is ccp ignoring you guys on this too or something. it's been 4 days since a dev popped in on the issue and that was to say wait one day. we waited 3 now we are pissed when do we get that response?
Soylent Jade
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1296 - 2013-09-13 12:38:11 UTC
Babatunde B Babatunde goes missing, and all hell breaks loose.

Making hisec better...one Catalyst at a time

minerbumping.com
space chikun
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1297 - 2013-09-13 12:38:12 UTC
arabella blood wrote:
Anyone has a date on when are we shooting the Jita monument again?


If we weren't doing a VR memorial roam this weekend..
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1298 - 2013-09-13 12:38:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Thorn Galen
I say we burn Jita.

Again.

I dislike scammers, but making it illegal is taking away a big part of the "rea life" danger and excitement inherent in EVE.
Impersonation should be related to "Your name is the same or almost identical to that name there, so we are going to change your name to something different."

Not this new ruling. Not like this.
It sucks excitement and danger out of EVE. It takes away another section of people who enjoy playing the scam games.
It's just going to allow careless suckers to continue their ignorant EVE existence.

Burn Jita.
Remember Incarna, 21st June 2011.
Are we not all meant to learn from historic events ?

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1299 - 2013-09-13 12:38:39 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
To counter the notion that we're just sitting this out... I'm still watching this thread and trying to follow the discussion, but so far I don't have any more (or rather anything new or different) to say on the matter itself.

However, I think it's a good time to remind you of the locations of this policy, as well as the time they have been there in their current form:

1. EULA, for 1.5 years:
Quote:
B. Passwords and Names
...
You will be assigned a login name and a character name during the registration and character creation process. You may not allow anyone to use your login name or character name to access the System or play EVE. No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity. You may not obtain, attempt to obtain, use or attempt to use the login name or character name of anyone else.
...


2. ToS, changed very recently (the point which all this is about):
Quote:
...
8. You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
...


3. Naming Policy, having been changed some 3 months (see change announcement):
Quote:
...
2. IN-GAME NAMES
...
b. In-game names may not:
Impersonate or parody any employee or representative of EVE Online, CCP, Customer Support personnel or volunteers.
Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.
...
In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.

c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.


I think you're misunderstanding the problems we have at this point in time.
It's no longer about a desire for further clarification, since it only gets worse each time you guys clarify what you mean.

What I want, and what it seems most posters want, is actually to strike these TOS changes. We don't want their draconian garbage further clarified, since it by now is obvious that you can get alts banned for acting like you're the same person on both characters, or any action that could make EVE hit gaming news (Not to mention mainstream news).
I don't want any more clarifications on these things. I want them erased.

Personally, whatever clarification you might want, I don't want any share of it, because you have already made it clear enough that no clarification will enable you to defend your TOS changes.
It's literally indefensible to me. Nothing but a deletion will change that.

I don't think I'm the only one, and I hope for you guys' job security that it gets through to you.
space chikun
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1300 - 2013-09-13 12:42:34 UTC
Never thought I'd "like" a nulli post.