EVE General Discussion

I like where you're going with this.

On an unrelated note ... are there any american players around who would like to band together with me to claim that our interpretation has always been that paying income tax is completely optional?

Man, that other thread is actually going to work, I think. It seems people are civilly discussing moderation and possible alternatives rather than just presenting examples of 'This is why it's broken'. Thank you Dolan.

There are a few points of this issue that just don't add up. I'll have to address these as two separate posts due to character limits.

(Disclaimer: I have never scammed another player, nor have I ever been the victim of a scam. I don't particularly care for players who do scam, and in principle, I don't really mind if their in-game activities become a bit more difficult. However, when I see CCP behaving in a manner that is so blatantly ridiculous, I have to call them on it)

First:



Does it bother anyone else that the stated justifaction for this portion of the policy is patently false? Let me point it out again:



For these cases, there most certainly are in-game possibilities of verification. If someone is claiming
to be a part of an in-game entity he is not, it is an incredibly simple matter to look at his character information and see exactly which entity he currently belongs to. Unless you are claiming that there is somehow a way to spoof one's corporation/alliance membership information, and that such information is incorrect/unreliable, then there is no reason that such a method cannot be considered a viable form of verification (if you are claiming that there is such an exploit, then the playerbase needs to be made aware of it and it needs to be fixed immediately!).

At the same time, I find it completely backwards that you use this justification, yet the policy does nothing in regards to impersonation of entities in which membership truly cannot be verified through in-game tools. It has been previously stated that this policy does not forbid claiming to be a member of player groups or associations which have no official existence or organization in-game (eg., a coalition of alliances). If you were truly concerned about impersonations of entities which cannot be verified in-game, it is impersonation of these groups which would be forbidden, not those which obviously have a simple and widely used method for in-game verification. This part of the policy as it stands just defies all logic, and is based entirely on a false premise.

My second point:



Let me pose another situation using the same example. What if Abdiel Kavash himself, after building up his reputation, decides to scam his own customers by taking their money and closing up shop. Would any petions from his customers receive a reimbursement, or would Abdiel receive any kind of penalty? I'm pretty sure that the answer would be no. The probelm with this that I see is that the end result is the same as "CASE 2" above; in both situations, Abdiel Kavash, whether through his main character or an alt, chose to trade his reputation for ISK. However, in one case, that choice is considered reversible by the GMs, while in the other it is not.



If the above statement is true, then shouldn't the decisions of the one being "impersonated" in this cased be the deciding factor? That is, if he chose to destroy his reputation, he should have to live with the consequences. That would seem to be at the heart of the risk vs. reward dynamic that EVE is so famous for.

Of course, this then brings us to the following:



The fact is that this does present a problem; if you're treating legitmate alts differently then true imposters, that does provide a meta means of identifying a player's alts. However, disallowing a player from trashing his own reputation is not a legitimate solution; allowing players to potentially be scammed by someone claiming to be an alt is (it is interesting that Tyberius seemed to come to the same conclusion in the last line of his post, but you chose to ignore this entirely). If a player can not be bothered to do his due diligence in verifying who he is working with, then frankly, the results are his own responsibility. He can either insist that the person he is communicating with switch to his main character for the transaction, or EVEmail the individual he is supposedly interacting with for verification of identity (yes, another in-game tool for verification!). Of course it is possible for someone to intentionally misdirect by falsely identifying another character as one of his alts, but doing so would fall under the same category as the previous example, that of a player choosing to destroy his own reputation for potential gain, and as such, should be allowed as consequences of choice and action.

GM policy and the TOS/EULA should protect players from bugs, exploits, and potential circumstances which are truly beyond their control. They should not protect players from their own stupidity. Stupid should hurt, especially in EVE.

Good stuff going down.

Big summary of recommendations (my post) on Page 2: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=277841

This move maybe will have small factual consequences, but it's deeply wrong in relation to EVE's ethics.
It just feels wrong to me, as a player. It's against the spirit that pervades the game and its community. For eve it's a small cultural backslash, some kind of censorship, a whiteknight attempt, a Vienna Congress.

This isn't a dumb move made by mistake (hello useful CQ!), this move shows a will to change EVE. It's small, but deeply wrong, and made on purpose.

Are you trying to change us as players? Are you "softnening" the game? Polishing it for some reason?
This move (and a few other small ones) make me worry about that.
Are you sure that changing what makes EVE truly unique, what makes it different from the usual MMORPG that rise and fall in 2 years, is gonna pay results? To me it looks like a suicidal move in the long term. Do you care about EVE in the long term?
I sincerely hope so.

tldr: EVE is my addiction, dont break it.

I don't even want to know where this game is going any more, Making something that can now be actionable/bannable which has been a main attraction of the game to current players, and those looking inwards going, "Wow, they can scam each other and its encouraged by the sandbox nature of the game".

Just reeks of a softening of the game/powertrip of employees/ idontevenknow what you are doing to this game.

:CCP: Why you break something that doesn't need fixing, just because a few people managed to pull of a decent scam of others who didn't do their due diligence and research before progressing with a sale.

~notevenmad

Reading this is telling me it doesn't have to be a scam either. Representation with "malicious intent" can mean anything as it is definitely open to interpretation.

It boils down to this, if the scammers can't adapt, **** them. THAT's EVE. Everyone else had to adapt or die to the many, many changes to EVE that ruined someone's particular playstyle or great isk-making venture or whatever. Why the **** can't THEY? It never ceases to amaze me that the people in EVE who talk about it's ruthlessness and the thick skin the game requires are invariably the people who whine loudest when the nerf bat hits THEM instead of someone else. For God's sake, nut the **** up.

When you work on a "case by case basis" and do not publicly acknowledge your results, there is no intel meta in your example.

The clarification comes from the fact I cannot petition you as James 315 alt unless you have specifically tried to convince me you are his alt. IF I'm not a victim, my petition goes un actioned.

Because of that, I have 0 recourse and can in fact get in trouble by false accusation. I think this TOS is to be read as "don't be a whistleblower" because you cannot share your findings on forums anyways without getting in trouble.

He specifically did say however, that if you are indeed your alt, you can get in trouble, because I think it's due to the fact that this game, while player driven, is pilot represented.

You do not know my account name, and I don't give it out. You do however, know this pilot's name. So that's the representative I am known by.

2 sides to a coin.