These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#1581 - 2013-09-18 07:25:00 UTC
I simply can't understand why not letting it be like it was before ?

I mean, impersonating players or corporations are fine.

Okay, eventually, not NPC corporations as you can trick newbies with it... But that's all.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1582 - 2013-09-18 08:35:05 UTC
Altrue wrote:
I simply can't understand why not letting it be like it was before ?

I mean, impersonating players or corporations are fine.

Okay, eventually, not NPC corporations as you can trick newbies with it... But that's all.


It looks like another attempt to fix stupid.

Wordle
Cepheus Phi
#1583 - 2013-09-18 08:36:10 UTC
"If you're going to follow us to the top harden the **** up." This is ridiculous, CCP.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1584 - 2013-09-18 08:47:56 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Your character Phill McScammer impersonated Abdiel Kavash, the same way as Joe McScammer did, thus gets it from us the same way if reported. From our point of view, as well as from a victims, there is no technical difference between those two cases of a character impersonating another.


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

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


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

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

To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.


Excuse me but this is the most stupid, insane thing I have ever heard. It makes absolutely zero sense for a player to not be able to say they are the same player behind both X and Y characters (when it is literally true) in order to scam. That is not "impersonation", that is at worst using your own genuine good reputation to persuade someone to part with their isk. It is clear the only reason such an insane rule has been invented is to act like a bandaid over a terrible, unworkable solution
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1585 - 2013-09-18 09:27:18 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Also, how does this affect ... unimpersonation... for lack of a better word.

Say for example I am a member of Corp A. I decide I want to rip them off, and the best way for me to do that is to get another character into the corp. So I apply to corp with my alt, Alty McNotGunslinger, say (via my main) to the directors or recruitment people "hey my friend wants to join corp too" and Alty McNotGunslinger gets accepted because I vouched for him, and then using that character I steal things, destroy assets, or otherwise harm the corp...

Would I then get banned if Corp A petition what happened - I didn't impersonate anyone, not even myself, but I certainly went out of my way to misrepresent who a character was. Is that against the rules now too?

It is crystal clear that these new - ahem I mean "clarifications of existing" - policies are nothing more than a massive shrinkage of the sandbox, designed to stamp out vast swaths of the lying and scamming that make EVE the game we love
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1586 - 2013-09-18 12:38:49 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Your character Phill McScammer impersonated Abdiel Kavash, the same way as Joe McScammer did, thus gets it from us the same way if reported. From our point of view, as well as from a victims, there is no technical difference between those two cases of a character impersonating another.


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

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


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

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

To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.


Excuse me but this is the most stupid, insane thing I have ever heard. It makes absolutely zero sense for a player to not be able to say they are the same player behind both X and Y characters (when it is literally true) in order to scam. That is not "impersonation", that is at worst using your own genuine good reputation to persuade someone to part with their isk. It is clear the only reason such an insane rule has been invented is to act like a bandaid over a terrible, unworkable solution


This is a pretty good summary of the situation.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#1587 - 2013-09-18 12:50:57 UTC
What's the deal if a characters name references to the name, does that constitute impersonation as well?
Cause it clearly labels onself as an alt. (i.e I make a character called jill chastots alt)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."

Silvenstream
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1588 - 2013-09-18 15:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Silvenstream
Can you report yourself like in RL? If not you can always report yourself with an alt. Stuff like this is done in RL if people want to prove a point and show that there is a bit of a error in how things work.

So let's say someone calls all eveplayers to say in local that they are an alt of some other toon. After that they open a petition with that same toon or with another toon and report their own action.

Will this be bannable? According to your rules it is. In theory, if someone would call for such a protest, you can expect thousands of petitions and according to the rules as they are now, the same amount of bans.....

Another problem I see. With this new rule, a new exploit is being created. Let's say you know the name of an alt of an important enemy. Let's say a FC, or even better, the Holding Char of a CEO. With this new rule these people can be tricked. If you see them online, you open a convo, have a chat and ask merely: who are you again? If they are on their toes they will not respond, if they do, even to a spy, they can be reported and banned. So by trying to "fix" an exploit (which in my opinion is part of this awesome game) you just create a new one which is actually more damaging.

If this all correct? Just asking cause this would be a very bad situation.

Edit: was just thinking. What happens when I say in the heat of battle "Warp to my alt [insert name here]" or "Wait a second I will get my alt in with a hauler" or "Do not shoot [insert name here] he is my neutral alt"? Bigger fleets tend to have spies in them. So if I say something like that, I can be reported?? How on earth can that work?
Silvenstream
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1589 - 2013-09-18 16:11:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Silvenstream
Removed double post
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#1590 - 2013-09-18 16:36:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Paraphrasing old rule of the GMs: give me a player and I will find rule in TOS to ban him. Lol
Bluetippedflyer
Fallen Rabbits
#1591 - 2013-09-18 17:59:08 UTC
all this effort and whining from so many goons and others, when you end up stop playing eve, is this something you wanna remember you spent your time on?
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1592 - 2013-09-18 18:25:04 UTC
Bluetippedflyer wrote:
all this effort and whining from so many goons and others, when you end up stop playing eve, is this something you wanna remember you spent your time on?


Your point... I don't understand it.

I for one want to remember making an impact in/on New Eden. If that includes saving its soul from its creators, so be it.

I was hunting for sick loot, but all I could get my hands on were 50 corpses[:|]..............[:=d]

Zentiu
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1593 - 2013-09-18 18:51:51 UTC
You know when I used to do corp-theft I would do a few things as I left the corp with their assets: I would tell them I was an extension of N3 or Ev0ke (When it existed) Or White noise, or whatever the first thing I saw on the map was. Because I wanted to make someone hate others. I can't do this any more because now if I claim I an extension of X alliance sent here to disrupt flow and destroy assets I can be banned. How does this system work? You are now saying I can't lie to people? How is this a game that breaks the chain of MMOs with horrible systems of the GM overlord saving you if you get scammed. Eve DEFIED sandbox MMOs and now it threatens the very existence of what it has created.

With this change you can no longer make yourself sound like you're an actual high up. I mean impersonation as a whole should be allowed 100%. (Impersonationg GMs does not qualify under this as its an meta rank) CCP needs to stop glorifying good play and promote both sides of the fence. This would be like telling miners they can no longer have mining alts. They would be up in arms. I hate to use the token phrase "Muh Freedoms" but it seems to come into play quite well.

For years scammers have had the ability to make quadrillions of isk from those who are less cranially gifted. Now with this change you've broken that. Because you cannot claim to be the alt or main of anyone, nor can you claim to be parts of groups you are not, nor are you able to even tell the truth. You again dug a hole for yourselves that will force the hand of everyone around you. And this is practically being ignored at this point because most of you have your noses so high that you're too busy swatting flies to actually read the community backlash against such a change. What's next CCP, are you going to reimburse people who get scammed because you want to make the game fun for everyone? What's next, can people be banned if they blow up those who give them ransoms because its lying and we can't have that!

I half suspect you to just ban scams entirely and watch your playerbase go from a functional society that has a group for everyone to a mining serf kingdom,
Moss Keetow
Rat Collection Agency
#1594 - 2013-09-18 20:43:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Moss Keetow
IRL, you only have your own physical self but you can fake your identity to steal/scam/fraud.
In EVE, your identity cannot be faked because its stored ingame, so scamming needs another mechanism : alt characters.

The problem is that trust in EVE is almost impossible to ascertain. At some point, you could get totally paranoid. Even old characters coming back from nowhere after 3 months being AFK can be characters bought by someone else with real bad intentions.

The TOS change is indeed a bad idea, but I would agree we would need a way to trust characters (but not alts of) one way or another.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#1595 - 2013-09-18 21:18:07 UTC
Moss Keetow wrote:
The TOS change is indeed a bad idea, but I would agree we would need a way to trust characters (but not alts of) one way or another.



There is. Reputation.

Trust implies the possibility of betrayal.

"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

Zentiu
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1596 - 2013-09-18 21:22:20 UTC
Trust is a myth thought out by humans to ascertain the idea that there is good in people. You don't need a way to trust people through a meta mechanic.
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1597 - 2013-09-19 01:54:56 UTC
This.

Your Alt is Slacking...updated with new ToS

Fix POSes.  Every player should want one (even if all players can't have one).

Shotgun Raine
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1598 - 2013-09-19 03:24:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Shotgun Raine
PotatoOverdose wrote:
So.......we've reached the point where someone can be banned for responding to something directed at themselves using their own alt.

Hmmmmmm......

Hrrrrmmmmm.......


Care to pass the dope? I wish to partake in whatever you swell dudes are having.



Man, you're going to screw up the space/time continuum with statements like this. Big smileBig smileBig smile
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1599 - 2013-09-19 03:32:06 UTC
EULA changes don't fix stupid, ISK transfers and Void L fixes stupid.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

Tristanor
Majorum Gnavita In Industria
#1600 - 2013-09-19 05:10:55 UTC
mmmmm the only reason i see people getting in trouble with this is if they scam......

So people against it........MUST be scammers.....**taking notes of the names in this topice**

Damp...there are even CCP' ers on the list......


Nah, just joking!


But on another point.....

I see the reason for this rule and agree. No joke here!!