These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gavinvin1337
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1521 - 2013-09-13 21:24:08 UTC
Sluvia Doktrob wrote:
Quote:

Understand this: As those policies we're outlining here have been in place and enforced when we actually got a report for a rather long time (speaking from my several years of being an EVE GM), reverting the ToS change, or the naming policy change for that matter, would effectively change nothing about the policy itself (yes, I'm saying it again). I can completely relate if you disagree with that policy, but that's pretty much a whole other discussion to be had independently of the actual ToS changes and as I said previously, it is more than apparent that there is an interest in discussing this further and we will continue to take this matter on with the CSM in order to try and come to a solution regarding the policy itself. Until then:


One of the issues from this thread is that the above is up to interpretation. The original existence of this policy, as GM Karidor quoted earlier, was from the EULA, in a section "B. Passwords and Names" that specifically refers to the naming of things. It's not so strange of a belief that this section would be limited to naming, and not about general player behavior. Therefore the moving the policy o the Terms of Service doc and applying it to general player behavior can reasonably be interpreted as a change in policy.

Also, while not maliciously, it's either disingenuous or pedantic to claim that the policy has always been this way when a large portion, if not the majority, of the player base has for years had a different interpretation of those rules. To use the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy as a parallel, the earth is going to be destroyed to make way for an interstellar bypass, the planning charts and demolition orders were all available for 50 years at the planning department in alpha centauri, it's not the vogon's responsibility if humans never invented space travel to go read them.

The joke being that obviously it is.


If you didn't notice CCP Dolan's post above, CCP have listened to our complaints and are considering changing the TOS. Been moved over to this thread. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3613780#post3613780
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1522 - 2013-09-13 21:26:57 UTC
Sluvia Doktrob wrote:


Also, while not maliciously, it's either disingenuous or pedantic to claim that the policy has always been this way when a large portion, if not the majority, of the player base has for years had a different interpretation of those rules. To use the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy as a parallel, the earth is going to be destroyed to make way for an interstellar bypass, the planning charts and demolition orders were all available for 50 years at the planning department in alpha centauri, it's not the vogon's responsibility if humans never invented space travel to go read them.

The joke being that obviously it is.



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?

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

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1523 - 2013-09-13 21:35:40 UTC
Paying income tax IS optional. Just make or join a corp that has it set to 0.

Oh, you meant...

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1524 - 2013-09-13 21:47:42 UTC
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.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1525 - 2013-09-13 21:53:35 UTC
Kismeteer wrote:
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.
You mean, instead of GMs offering to worsen the problem, it's better when CCP listens?
I don't refuse to believe it!

In all seriousness, thanks Dolan (And whoever might also have been involved). It's a relief to see CCP act before it gets too much out of hand, and in a fashion that is more consistent with the CCP-Community relationship.
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1526 - 2013-09-13 22:19:08 UTC
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:

GM Karidor wrote:
Generally speaking, if you're claiming to act on behalf of a player run in-game entity, you should be a member of said entity. Acting with a character on behalf of another entity (NPC or player run) that the character is not a member of can, and will, be interpreted as impersonation within our policies in cases of conflict, even if the player eventually has a member alt. Again, this comes down to the fact that there are no in game possibilities of verification.


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

GM Karidor wrote:
Again, this comes down to the fact that there are no in game possibilities of verification.


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.

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_

Escobar Slim III
YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS
#1527 - 2013-09-13 22:30:42 UTC
LOUD NOISES.
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1528 - 2013-09-13 22:31:27 UTC
My second point:

GM Karidor wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:


Help me understand this then:

I, Abdiel Kavash, run a legit 3rd party business. Over the years I gain the trust of hundreds and a multibillion empire.

CASE 1: A new character, Joe McScammer, completely unaffiliated with me, decides to make some extra money. Joe McScammer convoes a customer of AbdielCorp and claims to be an alt of Abdiel Kavash. The poor mark falls for it and gives Joe McScammer ISK thinking he's sending it to Abdiel Kavash.

In this case, Joe McScammer is guilty of "[using] the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity", and if petitioned by the unsatisfied customer is prone to getting banned.


CASE 2: I decide that I want to make some extra money off my past customers, without necessarily having to provide any extra services. I create a new character, Phill McScammer, on my account. I then go talk to a past customer of AbdielCorp and I claim that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash. Customer falls for it, sends me their money and never sees it again.

Since different characters are treated as separate entities, is this judged the same as case 1? Is Phill McScammer prone to getting banned for impersonating Abdiel Kavash? I.e. can I get banned for claiming that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash?


I suppose you have read my example, so you can answer that yourself as it is pretty much the same thing with different names.

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.


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.

GM Karidor wrote:
Mostly this is in place for the ones that have been impersonated


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:

GM Karidor wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

It could be the case that they want to avoid any act which allows for the potential identification of alts from their actions. Going back to the example where actually being an alt is treated differently:

The scammed player petitions Joe
- Gets reimbursed. Does business Abdiel as normal.
the scammed player petitions Phill
- No reimbursement > Scamee knows Phill = Abdiel thus both are labelled as scammers > Abdiel burns 2 characters since he was effectively outed by GM actions

Which demonstrates why the overreaching use, rather than simply naming, seems like a bad rule.


Bingo. That is one of the other reasons that both situations are handled identically.


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.

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_

Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1529 - 2013-09-13 22:35:07 UTC
Escobar Slim III wrote:
LOUD NOISES.

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider

Isis Dea
Vixxen Inc.
#1530 - 2013-09-13 22:43:25 UTC
Good stuff going down.

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

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

English Don
Dark Sacred Knights
#1531 - 2013-09-14 00:44:41 UTC
Just thought I would add my own two cents worth (if even down this far it is taken notice of).
Your game, your rules so what you say goes. The problem is that if you then muddy the waters by introducing restriction within a lawless, scamming, ganking environment and what happens? - the players get confused when you introduce rules that effectively cancel out the base concepts.
Why change? - it seems that you're changing for the sake of change - as well as the change being worded in such a way that promoted confusion which cannot be easily sorted out.
Drop it - my advice
Kina Ayami
R I 0 T
R I O T
#1532 - 2013-09-14 00:48:16 UTC
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.
Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1533 - 2013-09-14 07:03:45 UTC
Be the Villain ..oh wait.. nevermind don't be the Villain..

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet

Kano Takada
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1534 - 2013-09-14 10:19:43 UTC
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
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1535 - 2013-09-14 11:47:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
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.


Ok, then just let's get out the space lawyers. We are paying for a product with a TOS that has changed, and as long as we conform to cases that have not lead to banning in the past, we are on the safe side. So we just have to digg out case law of past decisions to be on the safe side... do you really want this -i mean really, and not as a PR "put out the fire" stunt?

As you are not going into specifics the only basic rule can be destilled from what you said - as a representative of those senior "Crowd Control Production" gamedesigners, who are likely responsible for this mess and letting you take the fall for their inability to formulate a clear statement.

So here is what I am working with what YOU said: "there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago":

* It is allowed to chat with someone to get him romantically engaged to steal all his allys assets (thx haven't tried that one) - why? Involved parties still play and have not been banned. Check.

* It is allowed to steal anything from TEST (should def try that one). Why: Involved parties still play and have not been banned. Check.

and the list goes on...


Fun times ahead... the problem here is that EVE just has such a loyal fanbase BECAUSE of the scams and the danger.. if we wanted a walled garden we could just stop playing eve at all, because we all got the new X and Star Citizen and will try int and come back to EVE anyway...

It is a miscalculation of who your playerbase is: we are not 14 years old, most of us are around 25-35 and WANT somethign a little darker than "Space Ponies in Rainbowland".

And it is also a PR-misconception: The main reason why eve is in the press at all is BECAUSE scams are allowed and this is a welcome contrast to the us-based secure walled garden games. I read about eve in the mainstream press just because someone was scammed... and it want downhill from there until I started playing ;)

DISCLAIMER: I hate Scammers and also lost some stuff to them. But it is an ESSENTIAL part of the game to make it a dangerous, lawless space. And there are enough possibilities to check up on chars, both in-game and with all the meta info pages out there. So after being angry I actually valued the experience (not that I want to repeat it) as something different and great in EVE.



Ideas on how to fix it:



  • Just openly limit the changes to the starter systems and people who are still eligible for the newbie help chat - and make it clear to other players by a badge, a newbie corp or anything. The new changes in the EVE wiki already reflect that - although this change should be better advocated and not done in silence to prevent the next escalation...

  • Limit newbies ability to accept contracts for the first 2-4 weeks and warn them... Please note the difference between warning someone and prohibiting a certain game move. One thing makes the individual player responsible for his in-game fate, the other kills possible game-content in a sandbox-game.

  • Differ better between actions against developers (no impersonation etc) and actions of player vs player (be smart or get used to being scammed)

  • Introduce a new region with harsher rules, e.g. an a.i. region where there is no privacy or protections and the a.i.s are the ultimate arbitrators. This region could have different rules in the game... much like super-casual-safe-high-sec, where you could test drive how "appealing" this is as a new starter region for new players - they could choose the unsafe safe or super safe regions, with difficult, less difficult, windows assistant help options... all without breaking the game fur current users but adding to it.



In short: do anything to help new players while not breaking the meta-game for your long term loyal playerbase. PLEASE!
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1536 - 2013-09-14 14:30:02 UTC
Petrus Justinianus wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:


Help me understand this then:

I, Abdiel Kavash, run a legit 3rd party business. Over the years I gain the trust of hundreds and a multibillion empire.

CASE 1: A new character, Joe McScammer, completely unaffiliated with me, decides to make some extra money. Joe McScammer convoes a customer of AbdielCorp and claims to be an alt of Abdiel Kavash. The poor mark falls for it and gives Joe McScammer ISK thinking he's sending it to Abdiel Kavash.

In this case, Joe McScammer is guilty of "[using] the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity", and if petitioned by the unsatisfied customer is prone to getting banned.


CASE 2: I decide that I want to make some extra money off my past customers, without necessarily having to provide any extra services. I create a new character, Phill McScammer, on my account. I then go talk to a past customer of AbdielCorp and I claim that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash. Customer falls for it, sends me their money and never sees it again.

Since different characters are treated as separate entities, is this judged the same as case 1? Is Phill McScammer prone to getting banned for impersonating Abdiel Kavash? I.e. can I get banned for claiming that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash?


I suppose you have read my example, so you can answer that yourself as it is pretty much the same thing with different names.

Abdiel Kavash wrote:

Can I be banned for telling the truth?


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.


but he never lied, he just scammed someone. the statement he was his alt was true. he never misrepresented himself he just decided to scam someone. if this is the GM's stance then Chribba cant do any business on any of his alts right? because he is impersonating himself to gain their trust. WHAT IF HE DECIDES TO SCAM SOMEONE?!?1? this is why LEGAL AND BINDING CONTRACTS SHOULD NOT BE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.



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.

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.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1537 - 2013-09-14 14:54:13 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
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? 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.


Joe was indeed impersonating Abdiel, as he was claiming to be somebody he wasn't. That is definitely a preach of TOS policy (both the old one as clarified by yourself and the new one).

Phill merely stated exactly what he was, an alt of Abdiel. He was not trying to pretend to be anybody else.



If "claiming to be an alt of someone (you are an alt of) in order to scam" is bannable, does the same apply to "claiming to be a recruiter of a corporation (of which you are) in order to scam"?

It could be the case that they want to avoid any act which allows for the potential identification of alts from their actions. Going back to the example where actually being an alt is treated differently:

The scammed player petitions Joe
- Gets reimbursed. Does business Abdiel as normal.
the scammed player petitions Phill
- No reimbursement > Scamee knows Phill = Abdiel thus both are labelled as scammers > Abdiel burns 2 characters since he was effectively outed by GM actions

Which demonstrates why the overreaching use, rather than simply naming, seems like a bad rule.



And do not disregard all the power of 2 and sidekick specials that CCP puts forward.

It's almost like it's entrapment eh?

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.

Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1538 - 2013-09-14 15:08:31 UTC
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.

Bokononist

 

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1539 - 2013-09-14 16:51:43 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Last reply from me, before I really go back to watching mode for the thread (well, some sleep as well).

greiton starfire wrote:
New hard question. is this rule to protect those who have been imposted or those who have been scammed. who has the right to petition. if it is to protect the imposted, for groups who has the right to petition, the ceo, any line member, etc.


Mostly this is in place for the ones that have been impersonated, though directly affected victims may of course report that as well.


So, to protect the person being impersonated, you're going to ban them. That's literally insane.



WitSec (Witness Security/Protection)

AdSeg (Administrative Segregation)

For YOUR protection right?

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.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1540 - 2013-09-14 16:57:21 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Dirk Action wrote:


god
damn


like I can't actually believe that you're saying this.

You are saying, with a straight face, that you using an alt in order to scam someone, *or otherwise represent YOURSELF* on that alt character, is against the rules.

I am like... completely flabbergasted. And angry.

You cite earlier in the thread - and I can't remember where because this entire fuсking thread is a trainwreck of your team putting their feet in their mouth - that each character is its own representation.

This is rеtarded, and let me tell you why. The character doesn't matter in this game, especially with the Character Bazaar being a thing. What matters is the person behind the keyboard. Who are you to say what someone wants to do from within the confines of the game? Why shouldn't someone like Abdiel, or The Mittani, or Chribba himself, be able to decide, "hey this guy has a stupid amount of money, I feel like liberating it from him from this character I am going to claim is my main's alt (which it really is!) because... that's EVE!"

God just get out forever. You have no idea what this game is about, and how you EVER managed to become a GM - and SENIOR GM at that - is a mystery to any sane person; something you clearly aren't.


Actually, no.

Try to keep up.

He is not saying that you can't use an alt to scam someone.
He is not saying that you can't use an alt to represent yourself.
He is saying that if you choose to use an alt to IMPERSONATE yourself in a SCAM then he has to handle that the same way as he handles someone else IMPERSONATING you in a scam.

Why? Because if he treats those two cases differently he is essentially giving out information on player accounts ... specifically by confirming that one character is an alt of another.





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.

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.