These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1541 - 2013-09-14 16:58:48 UTC
Dirk Action wrote:
I do not want to continue giving CCP my 8 accounts worth of money when the fundamental reason for so many players, myself included, to even consider giving EVE a shot - the metagame, the heists, the freedom to do whatever you want within the very fair rules - are turned upside-down on an apparent whim by what I sincerely hope is a case of a Game Masters team gone horribly wrong, and not actually a CCP sanctioned decision.



Just plex them then. Treat the game as cheap as it is.

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
#1542 - 2013-09-14 17:03:49 UTC
Mildew Wolf wrote:
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.




Afaik to "impersonate yourself" is an oxymoron





As a player yes, as a pilot no. It is indeed possible for a pilot to impersonate a player.

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.

Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1543 - 2013-09-14 18:00:22 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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?

You think it's a sting op?

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1544 - 2013-09-14 18:30:37 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
How in god's name did you get to that conclusion from what I wrote? Seriously? You're trolling me now right? Please say that you are...


Then define a scam in EVE in a way that doesn't amount to "a business deal which one party regrets."

If you can't, if I do any business on an alt, and one of the people I do business with regrets the deal, they can petition me for scamming and impersonating my main, therefor I can't do any business on any alts.


And that's entirely aside from the fact that, regardless of what the GMs enforce, you shouldn't have to break the rules to engage in legitimate gameplay.


Quote:
It's not an insane manner. It's probably the only manner in which they can enforce it. If they enforce it any other way and someone like Chribba decides he wants to make an alt and run scams ... then I can get it confirmed, by a GM that the alt is his and ruin his main's reputation. In an EVE universe where impersonating other characters is not allowed, this manner of enforcement actually protects THE SCAMMER.


"This rule is impossible to enforce sanely" is not an argument for enforcing the rule in an insane manner. It's an argument for scrapping the rule.

Banning people for their own protection is insane.


Ok, I'm going to (seriously) apologize because I don't seem to be bringing my point across (at least to you.) Let me give it another shot...

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

Scams conducted on alts that do not involve impersonating any other character (yours or otherwise) = OK

Scams that involve impersonating one character by another character (regardless of if they are both yours) = NOT OK

Is having all scams based on impersonating other characters be against the rules a good idea? Maybe, maybe not ... but it appears it has been for some time.

I do not see any reason why you could not conduct non-scam business on your alts or conduct scams that don't involve impersonating any other character on whatever character you want.



Just so we can all be clear... are you considering an "alt" as a secondary account, or one of the additional player slots on the same account? (The term "alt" is terrible in Eve as multiboxing and multiple pilots is indeed possible and not to be confused with the same pilot one normaly is associated with).

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
#1545 - 2013-09-14 18:32:04 UTC
Crimson Gauntlet wrote:
Quote:
I do not see any reason why you could not conduct non-scam business on your alts or conduct scams that don't involve impersonating any other character on whatever character you want.


Mostly because, as he has been trying to explain to you, a "scam" is defined by the victim. It's actually a business transaction that one party (typically immediately) regrets. It also tends to be avoidable by the victim. The combination results in a ton of hurt feelings.

And, if you have been playing this game long enough, you should know that "victims" in this game tend to be a bunch of butthurt crybabies.

So, as I tried to tell you, people are concerned about the ability of butthurt crybabies who should have known better anyway to get people banned for something that was previously as close to being a sanctioned activity as it's possible to be.

My basic point is, that this "clarification" puts yet more power into the hands of the people who cry the loudest and file the most petitions.

And I hate that. It rewards stupidity, even worse it makes the stupidity of Person A the fault of Person B so long as Person A can find enough flimsy justification to file a petition about it(because this casts such a wide net). And since Eve's GM decisions are legendary for being subjective and inconsistent...



You can't cheat an honest man.

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
#1546 - 2013-09-14 18:33:34 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Except that a GM is unlikely to confirm the identity of a scammers main. Somewhere in this thread I'm fairly sure we were told, by a CCP representative, that they can't verify alts and mains because there is no ingame way to do so (actually there is, but a GM said that there isn't, so I'm actually lying here Roll )

edit - the exact text
GM Karidor wrote:
What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.


Yes, that is actually my entire point! If a GM treated the "I'm Joe's alt" scam differently because that character really is Joe's alt then he is essentially confirming the identity of the scammer's main.

I would be willing to bet that GMs are constrained by CCP policy to never confirm if one character is an alt of another and therefore have no choice but to treat each character as an "independent entity" in order to avoid confirming that information.

Therein lies a fundamental flaw in policy.
The only real way to resolve it is either to make impersonating or claiming to represent other characters or groups, even ones you own, against the rules, or it would be to make impersonating or claiming to represent other characters or groups fine and allowed as long as it's within legitimate game mechanics.



Or do what most people do when going to the flea market, and that's to adopt a "buyer's beware" attitude when approaching any "business opportunity" you might be unsure of.

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.

Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#1547 - 2013-09-14 19:00:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
How in god's name did you get to that conclusion from what I wrote? Seriously? You're trolling me now right? Please say that you are...


Then define a scam in EVE in a way that doesn't amount to "a business deal which one party regrets."

If you can't, if I do any business on an alt, and one of the people I do business with regrets the deal, they can petition me for scamming and impersonating my main, therefor I can't do any business on any alts.


And that's entirely aside from the fact that, regardless of what the GMs enforce, you shouldn't have to break the rules to engage in legitimate gameplay.


Quote:
It's not an insane manner. It's probably the only manner in which they can enforce it. If they enforce it any other way and someone like Chribba decides he wants to make an alt and run scams ... then I can get it confirmed, by a GM that the alt is his and ruin his main's reputation. In an EVE universe where impersonating other characters is not allowed, this manner of enforcement actually protects THE SCAMMER.


"This rule is impossible to enforce sanely" is not an argument for enforcing the rule in an insane manner. It's an argument for scrapping the rule.

Banning people for their own protection is insane.


Ok, I'm going to (seriously) apologize because I don't seem to be bringing my point across (at least to you.) Let me give it another shot...

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

Scams conducted on alts that do not involve impersonating any other character (yours or otherwise) = OK

Scams that involve impersonating one character by another character (regardless of if they are both yours) = NOT OK

Is having all scams based on impersonating other characters be against the rules a good idea? Maybe, maybe not ... but it appears it has been for some time.

I do not see any reason why you could not conduct non-scam business on your alts or conduct scams that don't involve impersonating any other character on whatever character you want.



Just so we can all be clear... are you considering an "alt" as a secondary account, or one of the additional player slots on the same account? (The term "alt" is terrible in Eve as multiboxing and multiple pilots is indeed possible and not to be confused with the same pilot one normaly is associated with).


It doesn't matter. Each character is treated as separate.

The GMs have confirmed twice now that this is how they have to handle the alt situation in order to protect player account info. They have to do it this way because impersonation is against the rules. If you don't think impersonation should be against the rules, or you only think certain types of impersonation should be against the rules you should post (constructively) in the constructive feedback thread that CCP Dolan set up.

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

Migui X'hyrrn
No More Dramas Only Llamas
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
#1548 - 2013-09-15 17:51:04 UTC
I have alts with more SP than my "main". So, I am the alt? Is someone else? My name comes from a variation of my real name in rl and there are some people named like me. Are we impersonating each other? This is plainly ********. Is Amarr Citizen-1234567890 impersonating every other Amarr Citizen?

Scam is a part of EVE. As far as I know, Chribba and other 3rd parties have been dealing with impersonations and only retards fall for those obvious scams. If you want EVE to become the new WoW where Blizzard comes and kisses your wound when you fall at the ground, then it will not last much.

Why CCP has to care if someone says it is affiliated with a gaming entity? The responsability is on the hands of the entity. I'm diplo and I deal with this every day when someone comes because someone has said that they are affiliated with us. Read the alliance description and GTFO.

Please stop with this **** and kill all the botting RMT empires and market bots instead.
Captain Jonathan Tuttle
Hyperian Command
Solyaris Chtonium
#1549 - 2013-09-15 21:35:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Jonathan Tuttle
Migui X'hyrrn wrote:
Please stop with this **** and kill all the botting RMT empires and market bots instead.


Indeed. Day in and day out there are obvious bots, easily detectable as such. Take the Jita bots for example. Every day they misrepresent (which Idc about), and use bots. Try to report them or petition them. They aren't likely to go anywhere.
Captain Jonathan Tuttle
Hyperian Command
Solyaris Chtonium
#1550 - 2013-09-15 21:36:26 UTC
One day it was, “All animals are equal” and the next day it was,

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Ionia Leonforte
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1551 - 2013-09-16 01:38:18 UTC
Okay, I'm curious because I honestly don't know and this is a gigantic threadnaught:

WHY IS CLAIMING YOU ARE AN ALT OF ANOTHER PLAYER NOT ALLOWED?

What's the big deal? It's a scam. Who cares? I thought a major selling point of Eve Online was scams? So really, why isn't this allowed?

Claiming you are a CCP Employee or can get a CCP Employee to do "x" because you know him, or whatever is one thing. I understand why that shouldn't be allowed. To preserve CCP's reputation as an objective party because they, you know, run the game.

But WHY is impersonating another player an issue? Really? I don't ******* get it.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1552 - 2013-09-16 10:55:15 UTC
So to summarise this change, the sandbox has been shrunk a little more, and we're coddling people just a little bit more, because we can't have someone being scammed in EVE Online

I also don't see any clarification on how this applies to loosely defined "groups" - there are plenty of corps or alliances that are friendly to one another and basically operate as a "group" but isn't defined in game or can be checked, similarly, James 'New Order' is a group that is spread across multiple corps and alliances

How do misrepresenting yourself work in cases like this?

PS I am a member of the new order, give me ten million isk and the new order will leave you alone. Come at me GMBros
Reizak StormFury
Perkone
Caldari State
#1553 - 2013-09-16 13:13:21 UTC
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.


Well, that's backfired then hasn't it.

If nothing has changed, why update the text. If it's to "make things clearer", then it goes without saying that the opposite has occurred.

If really, truly, honestly, nothing has changed, then maybe just change it back? All this mess will then go away, and you can continue operating your department as it always has and currently still is.


People are concerned (and quite rightly so). Nothing is being done to address this concern.

You're saying that it's dealt with on a case by case basis. Post #4 gives a very clear example... An example of how GM's would respond to that isn't totally out of the question in my mind.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#1554 - 2013-09-16 17:50:19 UTC
ISD Cura Ursus wrote:
Please discuss the TOS changes here.


Wait...we're discussing the changes....but we're told there are no changes?!!?!

Are there changes or aren't there?

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#1555 - 2013-09-16 18:15:43 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
ISD Cura Ursus wrote:
Please discuss the TOS changes here.


Wait...we're discussing the changes....but we're told there are no changes?!!?!

Are there changes or aren't there?


There is no change. We have always been at war with EASTASIA.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1556 - 2013-09-16 22:57:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
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.


I would personally hate it... but that's eve - and it's expected game content right with the cloaky campers and all the other annoying stuff I love and hate :P A space game where there are severe limitation to what scams and bad stuff I could hypothetically still do does not sound like eve. I would prefer if you could find an in-game solution that is optional to work around it... if you really must.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1557 - 2013-09-17 01:03:04 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
So to summarise this change, the sandbox has been shrunk a little more, and we're coddling people just a little bit more, because we can't have someone being scammed in EVE Online

I also don't see any clarification on how this applies to loosely defined "groups" - there are plenty of corps or alliances that are friendly to one another and basically operate as a "group" but isn't defined in game or can be checked, similarly, James 'New Order' is a group that is spread across multiple corps and alliances

How do misrepresenting yourself work in cases like this?

PS I am a member of the new order, give me ten million isk and the new order will leave you alone. Come at me GMBros

New Order doesn't exist, according to one of the other gm responses in the earlier (now locked and lost somewhere in page 4 or whatever) thread.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#1558 - 2013-09-17 01:46:20 UTC
Hmmm I have spent all day reading this thread instead of playing the Game.

I realize many ppl from all over the world play this game but what i see here is a common thing in America.....we don't want more goverment in our daily lives. Put out the basic tenets of law and then let us work it out our damn selves....quit trying to micro manage our lives. Thats what i get from the responses and even the crap being said by the Senior GM.

So here is a thought....instead of threatening riots or whatever....want a real response to a real situational threat. I have heard because of the number of things changing so fast in nullsec that fights and targets are becoming scarce....

So screw it...want a major fight...want a major rebellion till your taken seriously...want to change something.........
FORGET another JITA riot.
Use outside forums to coordinate if need be....but every Null player and Losec player should log in simultaneoulsy their mains and Alts and invade Highsec....create fleets where only the fleet members are blue to each other or name each fleet a specific code for identity. KILL, ****, MURDER every player in Highsec that isnt part of those fleets till your voice is finally taken seriously.

Im a carebear...and i might even want to join in those type of fleets....maybe provide intel of juicy targets even...if nothing else the fact of 400,000+ accounts logging in the same day and blowing the holy crap out of every High sec character in game might at least raise a few eyebrows....whats the worst that can happen? TIDI all over Highsec?, Server crash? Concord in every belt, anom, and mission thru out high sec? Who cares? Want to do something worth while and have your voice heard.....try that for size....im sure CCP will respond to your discussion then....not some GM. I am sure CSM will take your thoughts more seriously and begin to represent you better.

Further more if this was to have any appeal at all....Nullsec alliances would have decide they were all in...meaning telling your own nullbears that its mandatory....join and participate or get he hammer meaning kicked out of said alliance and SOV space for refusing.
Call it whatever....maybe a true BURN HIGHSEC event or something....in the end you just might get rid of the infectious cancer of the type of ppl US average EvE players dont want here and we can all then return to bussiness as usuall GM's be damned how they wish to interpret things....EvE is meant to be harsh and brutal...the stupid dont belong here. Neither do the run of mill MMO players....to include my youngest sibling who has wasted my time, money, and isk....who i have told that if attempts to return to game I will hunt him down and gank him to oblivion...
Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#1559 - 2013-09-17 02:12:04 UTC
So I glanced over this article about how a scam related to this topic went south, and after going back over it more carefully there were several "events" in the course of this scam that were violations of the ToS as it was relating to impersonation. For one, you can't say you are another in-game character. I learned that when I tried to make a char and corp that looked very similar to EvE Texas Hold'em or whatever they're called and held a "special event" in which players of the eve poker site sent my alt a lot of cash to buy-in, all of which was returned to them, my account and it's corp got generic name changes, and I was given a warning by the GMs. I didn't know the policy at the time, and the GMs agreed it was vague and changed the policy description on eve wiki... We went back and forth on it a bit, the ticket got escalated, blah blah blah... I was angry that what seemed like a legit scam to me just by reading the ToS was not. However, as long as the rules are universally applied, I don't have a problem with it. The GMs took the time to thoroughly explain the policy to me using a number of examples I came up with. They were patient and in the end I got a standing warning, but now that I know what the policy is (at least I think I do) there's no risk that I'll make that mistake again. As I understand it, suggesting affiliation with ISD, GMs, or CCP is a violation of the policy, just as impersonating another player is a clear violation. Those are all things that the guy in the article linked above did. So that's the easy part.

The part I don't care for is how CCP handled this. If CCP can't adequately describe their position on a policy, or if that policy is vague, as the impersonation section of the ToS was, it is NOT our fault as players!!It's CCPs fault, and they should take the time to properly explain their position to people who have been petitioned for the violation to adequately explain the rule, as they did with me, or take the 20 minutes to just correct the fickin' policy. How hard is that? Hell... how many lawyers and skilled writers play this game? If you can't be bothered and whomever is in charge of writing is on vacation, have us do it for you, CCP.

Now if you want a suggestion on how to fix this going forward, it's relatively easy:

  • Create a sub-wiki on eve wiki and call it "legal precedent"
  • Write out every "rule" for the game under it's own heading.
  • Allow players, of their own volition, to post examples of incidents where they violated those terms and what the consequences are, then allow GMs, Devs, ISD, and players to comment on individual policies and events for clarification.


In this way, we please a lot of people. CCPs marketers can go circle jerk over "video game legal system adopted by genius video game developer" as an oft repeated headline. Scammers and scammees can look over these policies and see if it's worth filing a petition for, saving GMs a lot of time having to re-explain the rules over and over. Players will know what the rules are. As more invalid/bannable gameplay gets explicitly detailed in the wiki, you can expect to see fewer players making these violations.

If CCP wants to build a virtual society, I think that's awesome. If CCP wants to make a virtual society and botch up some of the fundamentals of ANY society than there's only so far you'll be able to take EvE. The problems CCP is facing right now and have for ages via petitions could be easily resolved by implementing this. Time to nut up or shut up on the CCP legal system, imho.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1560 - 2013-09-17 14:18:38 UTC
Yeah, that would make eve much better, an extremely tedious-to-read set of legal "books" and a "law" that can be continuously escalated until you achieve the result you wish.

Of course larger, more organized player groups blobs will probably have some people who will be able to specialize in advocacy. Nerf having friends

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?