These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Isis Dea
Vixxen Inc.
#1481 - 2013-09-13 19:20:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Isis Dea
Din Chao wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Lionel Joeseph wrote:
So let me get this straight. It is against the ToS to impersonate anyone including myself (which mind you is impossible by definition) So literally if I say that I'm my own alt this would be impersonation? That's completely impossible they know that right.

The dictionary defines impersonation as im·per·son·ate transitive verb \im-ˈpər-sə-ˌnāt\
: to pretend to be (another person)

Do they not see the paradox?


It only matters if you do it to scam someone. When scamming other players ... one character cannot impersonate another character (or the player behind that character) even if they are, in fact, the same player. If they treated it differently because you own both characters then I can use the petition system to confirm who your alts are.

This was encouraged in the past, even popularized by CCP as some of the biggest stories in the game. Remember BOB being disbanded? If the rules were then as have been "clarified" in this thread, BOB would still be around.


Man speaks truth.

If they're saying these have in fact been the rules, is that completely admitting they let CFC get away with it on purpose?

Did all the devs switch from BOB to Goons just before the collapse?

Bottom line: that's an ugly can of worms to open.


bp920091 wrote:
If you are concerned about people modifying the wiki to pull off a scam, how does this sound "Any player who modifies the wiki to assist in a scam is able to be banned for their actions?"

Solves all the problems that the incident in question involved, and the playerbase is once again pacified.

Perfect. ^

History has been written, built even, through unsaid law as to alts and gameplay. Stupidity has been farmed within the nature of this game, even amongst the ranks of CCP. Much of this is a selling point for EVE in the first place, kids grow up when they're put behind the controls of a starship.

Want a easy fix? Remove that entire statement from the ToS, leaving only the bit about impersonating CCP (which has been ENTIRELY fair and upheld by the community of EVE).

The rest? Let the players settle that. If you're smart, CCP, like with the video EVE:Casualty, you can actually build off it, including within an extended tutorial of the reality of scamming/alts/etc.

Rather than trying to change the nature of your playerbase into something that it's not.

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...

Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1482 - 2013-09-13 19:30:10 UTC
EVE may be harsh and cold, but the light of the clarified TOS is harsh and burns

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Levarr Burton
The Pinecone Squad
Rote Kapelle
#1483 - 2013-09-13 19:32:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Levarr Burton
I had to log in and come to General Discussion to post in this, so, GM Karidor, you should already feel bad.

Now that I'm here, I have a few questions which I would like clarified:

If I claim that a character I own is NOT my alt ("No, Gallente Citizen 123456 is not owned by the same person who owns Levarr Burton"), could I now be considered to be impersonating a non-existent third party, and therefore be open to punitive measures for impersonating that party which does not exist?

Furthermore, if the intent of the policy is to protect the character being impersonated, why is it not that character's responsibility to initiate the petition process? Why should a 1-day old Science and Trade Institute character be able to open a petition claiming that Gallente Citizen 123456 is impersonating Levarr Burton, which would potentially lead to Levarr Burton or one of his alts being banned? That doesn't protect Levarr Burton at all, and, in terms of other petition policies is akin to allowing Chribba to file a petition and be reimbursed when Levarr Burton loses a carrier due to a server error by claiming without evidence that I had borrowed it from him. The policy, in that case, would be allowing a third party who may or may not have been harmed by the event in question to profit (whether through reimbursement or revenge-by-bans, or enjoying-malicious-chaos-by-bans), while simultaneously providing no benefit or safety to the actual Levarr Burton in question. Levarr Burton should be the only person who gets to claim someone is impersonating Levarr Burton (And if the real LeVar Burton is reading this, I'm sorry, please don't sue); just like Levarr Burton is the only character who may petition when Levarr Burton logs in and has 0 skill points all of a sudden.

The fact of the matter is that there is not only a technical, but also a real practical difference between a person claiming to be them self, and a person claiming to be someone they are not. The fact that you (GM Karidor) are either unable or unwilling to recognize that such a distinction exists is concerning to say the least. It suggests that you and/or the GM Team as a whole lack or refuse to possess the ability to distinguish and act appropriately upon even the more obvious nuances involved in enforcing a policy with any sort of vagaries. This shortfall raises into question the competency of the GM team to properly enforce the rules and policies in place and also has the (apparently realized) potential to turn an otherwise effectively harmless wording clarification into a draconian policy which upends and puts at risk many established gameplay mechanics, conveniences and necessities related to operating alternate characters.

Without further public guidance towards the GM team from CCP, I feel it would be appropriate and fair to the player base to remove all vagaries and nuance from the TOS and EULA, so that the GM team is purely in an enforcement position with no responsibility or privilege of interpretation. If they cannot or will not discern the difference between representing oneself honestly (whether for good or for ill intentions), and oneself being falsely represented by another, then I don't see how they can or should be trusted to make more nuanced decisions.

"They told me they were themselves, and were therefore impersonating the person which they happen to be" should not be grounds for punitive measures, simply because it makes absolutely no sense.
Sam Alkawe
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1484 - 2013-09-13 19:37:18 UTC
I'm satisfied by the clarification: it has indeed clarified the TOS. In fact, it was only the recent answers from GM that did so.

I continue to voice my disagreement with the rules. I also want to mention that if the TOS is to remain, we need a mechanism to provide our alts (and, while we are at it, other people) the ability to use our name for business and scams, like a Power of Attorney? It would be a useful mechanism to have even if current TOS were to be changed.
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1485 - 2013-09-13 19:44:17 UTC
Levarr Burton wrote:
I had to log in and come to General Discussion to post in this, so, GM Karidor, you should already feel bad.

Now that I'm here, I have a few questions which I would like clarified:

If I claim that a character I own is NOT my alt ("No, Gallente Citizen 123456 is not owned by the same person who owns Levarr Burton"), could I now be considered to be impersonating a non-existent third party, and therefore be open to punitive measures for impersonating that party which does not exist?



Does the TOS say that you can't impersonate non-existent 3rd parties? Does it mention impersonation of non-existent 3rd parties anywhere? No. No it does not.

So why would you come in here and try to confuse things more by asking such a bizarre question?


"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1486 - 2013-09-13 19:48:15 UTC
Din Chao wrote:

This was encouraged in the past, even popularized by CCP as some of the biggest stories in the game. Remember BOB being disbanded? If the rules were then as have been "clarified" in this thread, BOB would still be around.



The story of BOB being disbanded it what initially sparked my interest in EVE. Obviously I was not playing the game yet when this happened and it's been a while since I've read any of the accounts of how it was done. Was this accomplished by someone impersonating another player? I thought they turned on of their directors or something like that...

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

Technic
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#1487 - 2013-09-13 19:49:17 UTC
Hello GM's

You have basicly just told everybody in EvE that they can only have 1 account with 1 character on if they want to play.

Say I have 3 accounts, in alliance Im knows as Technic, I then join fleet with my alt "SOMENAME".
I am then asked to scout ahead and I say yeh I can do it on coms, identify myself as Technic, I get asked by FC I don't see you in fleet. "Ahh Im SOMENAME"

If somebody want to they can then report me for impersonating Technic and I get banned.

You inforcing this rule just made you lose 60% of your income due to alot of people have more than one account and you can not be more than one person when in an alliance you have a MAIN and the rest are alts.

So basicly I can now go and say that the leader of some random alliance now is impersonating himself with this "thisalt" and that gets banned.
Chinicata Shihari
Perkone
Caldari State
#1488 - 2013-09-13 19:53:11 UTC
Technic wrote:
Hello GM's

You have basicly just told everybody in EvE that they can only have 1 account with 1 character on if they want to play.

Say I have 3 accounts, in alliance Im knows as Technic, I then join fleet with my alt "SOMENAME".
I am then asked to scout ahead and I say yeh I can do it on coms, identify myself as Technic, I get asked by FC I don't see you in fleet. "Ahh Im SOMENAME"

If somebody want to they can then report me for impersonating Technic and I get banned.

You inforcing this rule just made you lose 60% of your income due to alot of people have more than one account and you can not be more than one person when in an alliance you have a MAIN and the rest are alts.

So basicly I can now go and say that the leader of some random alliance now is impersonating himself with this "thisalt" and that gets banned.

I would like to reiterate this. You are saying we can have 1 account and 1 character now and why is this?

I know someone who has many alts and follows the system of putting 1 after his name. So NAME1, NAME2, NAME3. We know them as the same person 'NAME' but now he can be reported for impersonating himself.
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1489 - 2013-09-13 19:54:41 UTC
Technic wrote:
Hello GM's

You have basicly just told everybody in EvE that they can only have 1 account with 1 character on if they want to play.

Say I have 3 accounts, in alliance Im knows as Technic, I then join fleet with my alt "SOMENAME".
I am then asked to scout ahead and I say yeh I can do it on coms, identify myself as Technic, I get asked by FC I don't see you in fleet. "Ahh Im SOMENAME"

If somebody want to they can then report me for impersonating Technic and I get banned.

You inforcing this rule just made you lose 60% of your income due to alot of people have more than one account and you can not be more than one person when in an alliance you have a MAIN and the rest are alts.

So basicly I can now go and say that the leader of some random alliance now is impersonating himself with this "thisalt" and that gets banned.


The GMs have already stated that some kind of malicious intent would have to be determined in order for them to take action against the petition. So no, you won't be banned for that.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1490 - 2013-09-13 20:05:20 UTC
Chinicata Shihari wrote:
Technic wrote:
Hello GM's

You have basicly just told everybody in EvE that they can only have 1 account with 1 character on if they want to play.

Say I have 3 accounts, in alliance Im knows as Technic, I then join fleet with my alt "SOMENAME".
I am then asked to scout ahead and I say yeh I can do it on coms, identify myself as Technic, I get asked by FC I don't see you in fleet. "Ahh Im SOMENAME"

If somebody want to they can then report me for impersonating Technic and I get banned.

You inforcing this rule just made you lose 60% of your income due to alot of people have more than one account and you can not be more than one person when in an alliance you have a MAIN and the rest are alts.

So basicly I can now go and say that the leader of some random alliance now is impersonating himself with this "thisalt" and that gets banned.

I would like to reiterate this. You are saying we can have 1 account and 1 character now and why is this?


Nobody from CCP is saying anything remotely like this. Only hysterical forum posters who don't understand what CCP has said.

Quote:


I know someone who has many alts and follows the system of putting 1 after his name. So NAME1, NAME2, NAME3. We know them as the same person 'NAME' but now he can be reported for impersonating himself.


You can report someone for any stupid reason you can dream up. It doesn't mean that it will have any sort of result.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

Doris Dents
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1491 - 2013-09-13 20:10:06 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:

The GMs have already stated that some kind of malicious intent would have to be determined in order for them to take action against the petition. So no, you won't be banned for that.


It would be a ridiculous ban even for malicious intent, verifying someone has some claimed authority or that they're a claimed alt is easy as a quick evemail. It says a hell of a lot that CCP claim the rules have always been this way but we just never noticed because victims of such a scam often don't think to petition.

Adding extremely broad rules then saying "hey trust us to apply this sensibly" will absolutely have a chilling effect on the whole metagame because no one is going to risk their whole account often with the best part of a decade's accumulated SP on the whims of a random GM and the sustained whininess of an unfortunate victim be it an individual or a whole alliance avalanching petitions.
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1492 - 2013-09-13 20:14:32 UTC
Sam Alkawe wrote:
I'm satisfied by the clarification: it has indeed clarified the TOS. In fact, it was only the recent answers from GM that did so.

I continue to voice my disagreement with the rules. I also want to mention that if the TOS is to remain, we need a mechanism to provide our alts (and, while we are at it, other people) the ability to use our name for business and scams, like a Power of Attorney? It would be a useful mechanism to have even if current TOS were to be changed.


The power of attorney wouldn't do any good. If impersonation of players/characters is against the rules then the GMs are forced to treat each character as a separate entity to avoid disclosing player account information.

The only way to get rid of the strange alt situation (that only comes up under very specific circumstances, mind you) is to remove the prohibition on impersonating other players/characters. So if you are really concerned that you are going to come up against the specific circumstances where your scammer alt account could potentially be banned then the solution is to convince CCP that impersonating other players/characters should be allowed.

I still see way to many people going on about the alt thing and not nearly enough concern about the "group" language. That part of the TOS is NEW policy and will possibly disrupt quite a few different types of scamming activity as well as cause problems for legitimate business.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#1493 - 2013-09-13 20:16:52 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Sam Alkawe wrote:
I'm satisfied by the clarification: it has indeed clarified the TOS. In fact, it was only the recent answers from GM that did so.

I continue to voice my disagreement with the rules. I also want to mention that if the TOS is to remain, we need a mechanism to provide our alts (and, while we are at it, other people) the ability to use our name for business and scams, like a Power of Attorney? It would be a useful mechanism to have even if current TOS were to be changed.


The power of attorney wouldn't do any good. If impersonation of players/characters is against the rules then the GMs are forced to treat each character as a separate entity to avoid disclosing player account information.

The only way to get rid of the strange alt situation (that only comes up under very specific circumstances, mind you) is to remove the prohibition on impersonating other players/characters. So if you are really concerned that you are going to come up against the specific circumstances where your scammer alt account could potentially be banned then the solution is to convince CCP that impersonating other players/characters should be allowed.

I still see way to many people going on about the alt thing and not nearly enough concern about the "group" language. That part of the TOS is NEW policy and will possibly disrupt quite a few different types of scamming activity as well as cause problems for legitimate business.


I can give a POA to someone scam on my behalf. can't see a reason it's forbidden.

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.

Levarr Burton
The Pinecone Squad
Rote Kapelle
#1494 - 2013-09-13 20:17:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Levarr Burton
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Levarr Burton wrote:
I had to log in and come to General Discussion to post in this, so, GM Karidor, you should already feel bad.

Now that I'm here, I have a few questions which I would like clarified:

If I claim that a character I own is NOT my alt ("No, Gallente Citizen 123456 is not owned by the same person who owns Levarr Burton"), could I now be considered to be impersonating a non-existent third party, and therefore be open to punitive measures for impersonating that party which does not exist?



Does the TOS say that you can't impersonate non-existent 3rd parties? Does it mention impersonation of non-existent 3rd parties anywhere? No. No it does not.

So why would you come in here and try to confuse things more by asking such a bizarre question?




Quote:
You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.


It's not such a bizarre question. If claiming to be associated to an entity (be it a player, group of players or character) is considered impersonation (even if it is true), then it follows that falsely claiming to NOT be associated with a player, group of players or character is also impersonation, even if no third party is explicitly named or implicated as being the (false) actual association.

If that is the view of the GM team, which would be consistent with what GM Karidor has stated, then any spying and meta-gaming (even through 3rd party communication channels) would potentially be bannable.

I am also curious as to the use of the phrase "Malicious intent." Maliciousness is quite subjective. If I am misrepresenting myself in order to provide a benefit to an organization which I sympathize with, it could be argued that I have benevolent intent, as I am defending my friends by weakening members of an entity which is malicious towards them.

If the GM team wants players to believe that there have been no practical changes in how the impersonation rules are to be implemented and enforced, then they need to stop making statements which implicitly or explicitly state the opposite.
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1495 - 2013-09-13 20:19:05 UTC
Doris Dents wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:

The GMs have already stated that some kind of malicious intent would have to be determined in order for them to take action against the petition. So no, you won't be banned for that.


It would be a ridiculous ban even for malicious intent, verifying someone has some claimed authority or that they're a claimed alt is easy as a quick evemail. It says a hell of a lot that CCP claim the rules have always been this way but we just never noticed because victims of such a scam often don't think to petition.

Adding extremely broad rules then saying "hey trust us to apply this sensibly" will absolutely have a chilling effect on the whole metagame because no one is going to risk their whole account often with the best part of a decade's accumulated SP on the whims of a random GM and the sustained whininess of an unfortunate victim be it an individual or a whole alliance avalanching petitions.



I don't have access to all the historical versions of the TOS and naming policy so I have no way of knowing for exactly how long the rules have been this way. CCP has provided (for me, satisfactory) evidence that they were this way prior to this last TOS change.

I am much more concerned with the new language that prohibits representing groups. This is a problem for a lot of eve institutions like the good old recruitment scam. It also causes problem for groups like ... I dunno ... goons who are setting up alt corps and such to run their new rental empire.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1496 - 2013-09-13 20:23:26 UTC
arabella blood wrote:


I can give a POA to someone scam on my behalf. can't see a reason it's forbidden.



I didn't say that giving imaginary POA to your imaginary character in an imaginary universe is forbidden. It's just irrelevant. The GMs have to treat different characters as separate entities or they will be divulging info about player accounts. You are not going to talk the GMs or CCP into divulging player account information in any way. It's not going happen. I suggest you move on to the root issue which is that impersonation is prohibited and ignore this silly alt stuff which is merely a symptom of that.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#1497 - 2013-09-13 20:26:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Agreed with the above two. The issues for me are:

1) the ban against "maliciously" impersonating other characters brings up a lot of weird edge cases while seeking to solve a non-problem;

2) the ban against claiming to represent NPC organizations shuts off some immersive, roleplayed opportunities for deception.

I understand that there are still avenues available for spies, scammers, and other ebil, ebil people, but I do not consider it intuitively obvious that those avenues are different or better than the ones that are getting closed off, and I suspect that you'll be getting a lot of petitions against newbies who aren't yet crafty enough about being crafty, and those petitions will come from more veteran players who have had the time and the experience to understand the policy in depth.

EDIT: Also, I'm going to second the request for clarification on what a "group of players" is. it doesn't have to be an exhaustive or definitive list, but, for example, is the gigantic CFC "a group of players?" Are highly distributed, subcontracted and decentralized organizations like New Order and the various Frogs "groups of players?" Is a fleet of otherwise unaffiliated players in e.g. an Incursion "a group of players," or a pick-up group like RvB Ganked?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1498 - 2013-09-13 20:26:58 UTC
Levarr Burton wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Levarr Burton wrote:
I had to log in and come to General Discussion to post in this, so, GM Karidor, you should already feel bad.

Now that I'm here, I have a few questions which I would like clarified:

If I claim that a character I own is NOT my alt ("No, Gallente Citizen 123456 is not owned by the same person who owns Levarr Burton"), could I now be considered to be impersonating a non-existent third party, and therefore be open to punitive measures for impersonating that party which does not exist?



Does the TOS say that you can't impersonate non-existent 3rd parties? Does it mention impersonation of non-existent 3rd parties anywhere? No. No it does not.

So why would you come in here and try to confuse things more by asking such a bizarre question?




Quote:
You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.


It's not such a bizarre question. If claiming to be associated to an entity (be it a player, group of players or character) is considered impersonation (even if it is true), then it follows that falsely claiming to NOT be associated with a player, group of players or character is also impersonation, even if no third party is explicitly named or implicated as being the (false) actual association.

If that is the view of the GM team, which would be consistent with what GM Karidor has stated, then any spying and meta-gaming (even through 3rd party communication channels) would potentially be bannable.

I am also curious as to the use of the phrase "Malicious intent." Maliciousness is quite subjective. If I am misrepresenting myself in order to provide a benefit to an organization which I sympathize with, it could be argued that I have benevolent intent, as I am defending my friends by weakening members of an entity which is malicious towards them.

If the GM team wants players to believe that there have been no practical changes in how the impersonation rules are to be implemented and enforced, then they need to stop making statements which implicitly or explicitly state the opposite.


I have been stating for I don't know how many posts now that the "group of players" part of that is the big problem here. Not the alts. This is a problem. It needs clarification and probably removal from the TOS. I would like other to join me in my concern that this part is new, troubling, and in dire need of clarification. That is the part that is going to have a large impact on EVE ... not the fringe case alt nonsense.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."

Levarr Burton
The Pinecone Squad
Rote Kapelle
#1499 - 2013-09-13 20:28:07 UTC
Also, seeing as CCP has a policy of not disclosing alt characters (treating every character as an independent entity, in terms of petitions, killrights, etc) to 3rd parties, I fail to see how any entity other than the entity being actively impersonated should be able to claim that a particular entity is being impersonated.

If I claim to be a Goonswarm recruiter, it would make sense for a Goonswarm director (who would be able to check against their database of API keys whether I had a character in Goonswarm) to petition for impersonation as I would have been sullying their good name. The 3rd party, in this case the scam victim, has no way of verifying that I am not, in fact, associated in any way with Goonswarm, and therefore it should be recognized that there is reasonable doubt (and in fact only hear-say evidence) as to whether any impersonation is taking place.
Isis Dea
Vixxen Inc.
#1500 - 2013-09-13 20:28:25 UTC
Was in the middle of making this statement in another topic (before it got locked):


GM Karidor wrote:

...2. IN-GAME NAMES
...
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...

...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...


Yet Goons used both of these mechanics to take over the strongest alliance in the game. I have logs of people who submitted petitions back during this time and were kicked away from CCP with statements that it was perfectly fine what Goons did.

CCP even made articles about it, with the usual 'welcome to eve' spew.

These rules have NOT been enforced, quite the opposite. And to enforce them now hints favoritism to what is presently the largest alliance in EVE...

More Character Customization :: Especially compared to what we had in 2003...