These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zentiu
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1621 - 2013-09-20 04:45:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Zentiu
Accidental double post.
Old Space Guy
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1622 - 2013-09-20 06:49:38 UTC
Zentiu wrote:
SInce we're doing listed respones I will do so.

1. With this TOS you cannot claim to be an alt or a friend of another character.
2. Claiming to be someone you are not is not meta trust. Meta trust is an out of game mechanic forcing you to do something. The game does not force you to tell everyone who your alts are. IF It did that would be a meta mechanic. How did you not understand this?
3. Again you misread what has been stated for 70+ pages of this post.

...

As an aside for 1,2 and 3.

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

If I roleplay being a part of Gurista, I'm obviously not part of gurista, that in itself is " falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity."


if your point is that the language of the TOS update is confusing, then i'd have to agree. that's why there's a thread to clarify the matter.

1. you cannot claim to be an alt or a friend of another character. true, if the other character is not one you yourself own. false, if the other character is you.

here, i rather like @zaxis' very reasonable post. basically, if you claim to be XXX, an extension of an alt or a corporation YYY (that you own) in order to further a scam, and you readily admit this as both XXX and YYY, then there shouldn't be consequences. in my mind, this would simply be viewed as a scam being perpetrated by YYY, which is permitted. this is also a reasonable assumption based on Grimmi's reading of the TOS and clarification linked above.

it is malicious, but it is NOT impersonation. also, it costs CCP nothing to manage this process.

one might argue that a corporation (let's say the goons) publicly gives anyone the authority to be associated with them and scam in their name, that also should not be seen as impersonation because the authority is real.

if you mean to claim to be an extension of YYY, but you do not own or otherwise "legally" represent YYY, then it's impersonation with malicious intent.

malicious impersonation under the game mechanics does not have any tangible consequences (disposable alts/accounts will make this impossible for the victim to have any form of recourse). so like in the real world, appeal to higher authority is required.

this does add cost for CCP to manage.

2. "meta" indicates an abstraction. if AAA trusts BBB, that's just trust. if AAA trusts CCC because CCC claims to be BBB, that's meta trust. it is abstracted. this applies both in and out of game, but yes, it is a semantic argument that has little bearing on the actual discussion. i apologise for even bringing it up.

3. you CAN claim association for the purposes of roleplay.

"Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated."

if you roleplay being part of the Guristas, i don't see how that can be construed as being a violation of the terms of service, nor can i see any grounds for you to be reported for doing such in the first place. if you create a toon named The Big Gurlista and start a corp called Gurlista Gangstas and go around in a revenge spree, ganking hulks in caldari space and leaving behind tags, that would be rather unimaginative roleplay, but largely harmless insofar as my interpretation of the TOS goes.

CCP might object to the names, or the damage to the storyline canon, but i cannot imagine this to be something that warrants a permaban. while the act of ganking itself may be considered malicious, the intent of the impersonation is to create immersive RP for yourself - a perfectly sandbox-y thing to do.

i can see a grey area where you roleplay as being The Big Gurlista, but instead go to jita selling "magic veldspar" that protects your ship from being aggroed by Gurista NPCs in Gurista space. the obvious scam aside, this behaviour is largely harmless. but now you're claiming to be affiliated with an NPC corp in order to conduct a scam, the intent of the impersonation is malicious.

i personally wouldn't consider that serious enough to warrant a ban, but it's certainly much more grey as far as the TOS changes go.

that grey aside, my above statement still stands. you can claim association for the purposes of RP, but not to create the illusion of trustworthiness to further a scam.

Zentiu wrote:
4. How is it ironic that I enjoy ruining someones day and pinning the blame on someone else? Oh I know, the E-Bushido is going to come out in your response when you tell me that I'm spineless or something of the such.
5. You are still a pillock you berk.


4. nothing so absurd as a code of honor. i just find it ludicrous that someone who harvests tears by stomping on other children's sandcastles should shed tears when his own sandcastle is stomped on. i mean, come on. that's what this is, isn't it? waah waah. give me my toys back! waah waah waah.

5. am not. are too. am not. are too.

Zentiu wrote:
I really hope you're an alt because if you've only been playing for 3 months I seriously doubt that you actually know what you're talking about what so ever and think that calling scammers carebears is some great insult.


good question. am i an alt? am i impersonating a fictional character that isiah mustafa impersonates? can i earn a ban (or at least a name change) for parody?

whoa. deep.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1623 - 2013-09-20 07:52:04 UTC
The fact that benevolent misrepresentations are allowed but malevolent ones are not is a problem.

It is, in effect, saying good behaviour = legal, bad behaviour = illegal

That's not the EVE I signed up for seven years ago.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1624 - 2013-09-20 12:28:22 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The fact that benevolent misrepresentations are allowed but malevolent ones are not is a problem.

It is, in effect, saying good behaviour = legal, bad behaviour = illegal

That's not the EVE I signed up for seven years ago.


Yup, it's one of the major sticking points in this whole disaster, and should not be allowed to stand. There is effectively no such thing as a "scam" in Eve. An action either breaks the EULA/ToS or it doesn't, CCP should not police in-game transactions.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Frieza
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1625 - 2013-09-20 14:15:46 UTC
Wow, just wow....

CCP doing it again, first couple weeks ago I was made aware that linking women in bikini in a chat is bannable, because.... its offensive. It was like wtf CCP. Your new target group is 9yo muslim kids? Not that I got something against 9yo muslim kids. Just that what I have in mind if i hear that half naked woman is considered offensive. We weere doing it for years, and now it's bad mkay.

And now you are changing the ToS so that Goons can rent their space more easily, and make a mockery of EvE idea of sandbox.
Sure you will make EvE more availible for kids that way. And maybe get more subscriptions for a while. But remember CCP who is people who stays with you for years now.

So after you make next change to make EvE world "nice" place (maybe we ban cureswords in chat huh ?), and you start to lose subscriptions because there many very interesting space games coming out soon, and the one EvE advantage is freedom
of doing whatever you want to do is destroyed by you, and when this advantage is lost believe me you will stay with those kids and your frigin fail-DUST maybe you realise your mistakes, but we will say ,,i,, and move on to star citizen or something diferent.

Well it was longer than i wanted to be, but EvE is/was awesome experience and I really hope this was the last weird change you make.

Gorgoth24
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1626 - 2013-09-20 15:41:12 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
Hello everyone,

I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all.

You cannot impersonate yourself.

Telling others that you’re an alt of a character you own or telling them what other characters you own is not a EULA/TOS violation and will not get you banned.

With the possible exception of using your own alt to mimic your character using spelling trickery in order to trick people into accepting duels with a high skill monster when they thought they were going to duel with puny noob or something like that, and possibly some extreme weird and outlandish edge case we haven’t thought of yet – you cannot impersonate yourself. The example above would not even be self-impersonation as much as it would just be a simple spelling trickery type of deal where it doesn’t really matter who owns the characters in question.

Impersonating yourself does not follow good logic since you are yourself and that is not a violation of any policies we have.

Thanks for reading.

Lead GM Grimmi


It was generally figured that this statement would roll about at some point or another. But, still, I'd just like to give my personal thanks for clearing that up, as when I read the initial post about impersonating myself I almost **** a brick.

Here's to the hopes the rest of this TOS debacle will get sorted out just as satisfactory as this bit!
Old Space Guy
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1627 - 2013-09-21 08:00:59 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The fact that benevolent misrepresentations are allowed but malevolent ones are not is a problem.

It is, in effect, saying good behaviour = legal, bad behaviour = illegal

That's not the EVE I signed up for seven years ago.


i get that may be how it feels, but i don't think that's actually the case. eve has always had rules, and people who've discovered ways to exploit the grey areas between these goal posts. eve also has always had lawlessness, and continues to.

we hyper-inflate the importance of lawlessness. if that were all it takes to make a game successful, shadowbane would not have died such a quick death.

eve is a game of balance, of consequences. empire ganking is an example of consequences. you blow up a sixty billion isky raven, and concord blows you up. you invade, capture and hold a sov, and become a target for some ambitious other alliance. almost every action in eve has consequences, and it is those consequences - whether written into the mechanics, or in the psyche of the player - that makes eve great.

there are almost no consequences to the scam. the consequence of scam is only a corresponding loss in reputation. but with disposable toons and unregulated "reputation" market (read, the ability to impersonate others), the consequences are negligible. outlawing impersonation is simply evening out the consequences.

the most disappointing thing about this whole thing is not the changes, but the people. there is an entitled attitude that says "we don't like this, therefore it must be wrong".

but here's the rub. nothing has really changed. scams are still permitted, except there are consequences and it requires a better class of criminal to do it and get away with it.

you know, just like in the real world.
Eve oh
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1628 - 2013-09-21 08:51:04 UTC
Old Space Guy wrote:
[quote=Zentiu]
You are a pi...snipped for brevity...bears.


he he, All you Forum Trolls are so taken by your own version of petty politics, have you nothing real in your life that you could be doing, rather than bitching and moaning over a pedantic use of inflated grammer that is meaningless to most of you. You have ALREADY solved the problem people, STFU and move on, ha ha.
Alternate Jita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1629 - 2013-09-21 21:43:12 UTC
Can we impersonate solar systems? like could i make a new character "Jita Solar System" or something like "CCP-US Solar System" or even make up my own like "Foxtrot Solar System"?
Obearoth HuanTao
Perkone
Caldari State
#1630 - 2013-09-22 17:41:50 UTC
The more CCP desides to interfere with gameplay like this, pad new or dumb players alike, the more eve will lose it self.

Do I love sci fi, and flying internet spaceship, you bet. But what I truly love about eve, is the sandbox feeling, of being able to do anything, just like real life, including scam/fool or simply ROB unsuspecting retards ( will piracy and blob rapage become against the eula next?)
Like the totally unneeded change to anoms, where it went from skilled scan downs, to one click warps. Dont be like goverments, dont **** with us. Leave us be, and make the virtual world we love work !\ . /!

On a personal note; I think scammers them selfs are somewhat ********, and I dispise their actions, but really, what is the difference between scammers and those that run of with the coffer of a huge alliance or corp. They still steal value others have either paid RL money for, or spent countless hours in game producing.

P.S
GM Spiral should consider banning him self for his decision to ban the player scamming fellow players for half a trillion isk. Its to desperate a move, by a company running out of creativity and will to evolve this greatest of games. You were met with a challenge by an adventures player, and simply smashing the banhammer on hes head is like pissing once pants to keep warm. There is nothing to stop this individual from comming back and continue exploring ways to earn isk by stepping other players, nor discuraging other players doing the same,or even worse.
And this comes from a player who really dispise scammers, and have a very ambivalent relation to his membership by proxy to some of the most notorius scammers in eve.
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#1631 - 2013-09-22 20:39:12 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The fact that benevolent misrepresentations are allowed but malevolent ones are not is a problem.

It is, in effect, saying good behaviour = legal, bad behaviour = illegal

That's not the EVE I signed up for seven years ago.


Yup, it's one of the major sticking points in this whole disaster, and should not be allowed to stand. There is effectively no such thing as a "scam" in Eve. An action either breaks the EULA/ToS or it doesn't, CCP should not police in-game transactions.



Hmm, I'm finally beginning to see the argument those bothered are trying to make from skimming the thread a bit more.

It's true that EVE has been unusually extreme in it's reliance on mechanics as the limiting factor. Most games we're accustomed to do rely on rules, not mechanics to keep play within the defined scafold. White line on a playing field, not a high enough wall to ensure that a ball will neer leave the field..., taking money from another players pile when they leave for the bathroom in monopoly etc

Most of me says... "common, guys.. is it that complex for you ? Can you just scam in another way and act like an intelligent well adjusted out of the game enough to understand the "spirit of the law, not the letter of the law" ? " .

I'm not sure why they're picking one particular issue but, I think that it is a pretty lame scam for someone to copy a name and put an extra letter on it . A good scam is one that plays on the greed of the target. "can't con an honest man" is a great and usually true metric.

Being able to con someone because they can't see an extra "s" or "." in a name makes the game about using your spare time to look very closely at typed letters. It is the "typed letters" not the clever nature of scammers that become the issue. "Do we want a a focal point in our game that expects that people should spend their efforts looking very closely at avatar faces and for transposed letters?"

Some guy named Dionysus Orestes in a corp named "The Greek Armada" claiming to be and associate of the "Aelatolian Armada" who can assure you entrance there for a fee... is a lot different from a person who creates an alt character that mimics my avatar called Diomdes Calypso (dropped "e" ) in the Aeitolean Armada .

Both share the same level of "badness"... it is not a matter of how evil your intent, or whether or not you are trying to use deceit.

The "evil" is not the issue... the issue is the purposeful use of game Mechanics to let the mechanics themselves to enable the scam.

They do not want their mechanics to create scams but are happy having players create scams that are not so dynamics driven.


When they say... "don't use our mechanics to scam people in this regard..... go find another clever way to scam people" .


Go find another clever way.

The do have an even more cumbersome method that would hinge more on mechanics ...... limiting all players choices of names and Avatar design and burdening developers installing restrictions bound to get buggy, to try to mechanically prevent the use of their mechanics to exploit identity. The alternative is that they could instead create all of these algorithms that do not permit names without 6 characters different from others and demand that Avatars that share more than 7 letters with another character have hair colors 3 and Jaw Width more than three settings apart. Corporate names with periods or double XXs could be eliminated as options on top of number of identical characters in the corp name.

Is that mechanical approach really necessary ? Is assuming that players can make judgement as if they are reall people who play games and expect them on a meta level to be able to make judgement like reasonably well adjusted people can?


(all of that being said... I do agree, that I worry about the direction of subjective involvement. The issues limiting how people can communicate via links in player created chat channels bothers me far far more. I do understand the idea of "first they came for the smiths, and no-body said anything" . This issue just doesn't strike me being about the nastiness of scamming h but about finicky details they'd rather not spend developer / programming time on.)

.

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1632 - 2013-09-22 21:03:41 UTC
The font issue is minor, and is easily solved by employing actual legible font and making it clear that names should be read carefully.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#1633 - 2013-09-23 03:09:40 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Diomedes Calypso wrote:
Being able to con someone because they can't see an extra "s" or "." in a name makes the game about using your spare time to look very closely at typed letters. It is the "typed letters" not the clever nature of scammers that become the issue. "Do we want a a focal point in our game that expects that people should spend their efforts looking very closely at avatar faces and for transposed letters?"

Some guy named Dionysus Orestes in a corp named "The Greek Armada" claiming to be and associate of the "Aelatolian Armada" who can assure you entrance there for a fee... is a lot different from a person who creates an alt character that mimics my avatar called Diomdes Calypso (dropped "e" ) in the Aeitolean Armada .


Except that according to CCP, that's not different at all, so that's against the new rule as well.

If you read the thread, you'd notice that nobody's enormously bothered by the ban on "Chribba/Chrlbba" scams. It's the fact that "Hi, I'm Chribba's alt (or representative) and I've got a line on a bridge Revenant to sell you for only 25bil" scams are also banned by the ruling.

"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

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#1634 - 2013-09-23 05:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Diomedes Calypso
RubyPorto wrote:
Diomedes Calypso wrote:
Being able to con someone because they can't see an extra "s" or "." in a name makes the game about using your spare time to look very closely at typed letters. It is the "typed letters" not the clever nature of scammers that become the issue. "Do we want a a focal point in our game that expects that people should spend their efforts looking very closely at avatar faces and for transposed letters?"

Some guy named Dionysus Orestes in a corp named "The Greek Armada" claiming to be and associate of the "Aelatolian Armada" who can assure you entrance there for a fee... is a lot different from a person who creates an alt character that mimics my avatar called Diomdes Calypso (dropped "e" ) in the Aeitolean Armada .


Except that according to CCP, that's not different at all, so that's against the new rule as well.

If you read the thread, you'd notice that nobody's enormously bothered by the ban on "Chribba/Chrlbba" scams. It's the fact that "Hi, I'm Chribba's alt (or representative) and I've got a line on a bridge Revenant to sell you for only 25bil" scams are also banned by the ruling.



Sorry .. yes that is somewhat better. That is not relying on the game mechanics themselves to create a new kind of scam _etireley_

The "i'm his alt" scam does hinge on the idea that One person can bet Two people -- That Chirba, can be someone else too.

That scam is based upon the a wrinkle in the nature of a game with Alts ....
... alts are not exactly "mechanics" yet they are say.. "a unique abstraction related to the scaffold created" ?

Should someone say "I am chirba's friend" it is clear that the con is not based upon oddities of the way the Abastraction scaflold/ mechanics of the game are designed

If you are correct, that now "Trust me, I'm a friend of Chirba" is against the T.O.S. yes I agree that is a pretty big change in the spirit of the game. That really does not hinge at all on oddities created by need for abstraction in virtual world creation.

I can support the idea that Characters reputations add a lot to the game and without the game abstraction they're be all sorts of other clues to know whether the person you were talking to was really who you thought.... the way other people around react with respect... custom paint jobs on rims.... "legacy area code on the phone number' etc.

"Hey there.. its me Chirba.. this is my alt. Welcome to EVE, nothing makes me happier than see new people come to the game and gain a taste for Veldespar ! ... Yes, its a shame. I know you want something that shoots more than Asteroids but I hope you use it to good cause protecting miners!. So, Lets get to it. I have an Archon in Harkonen (just next to high sec) that I can sell you right away if you like. I guy just traded up to a Nyx and I took it as partial payment. Is today too soon? I have another person interested if you've prefer to wait"

I have to say, though that I might agree with CCP that my hypothetical conversation below, isn't much better than the above...

"I do business with Chirba. You're new to EVE so be sure to always check references. Here are links to three forum posts at mainstream EVE sites where Chirba's associates are listed and verified by whole threads of players. NEVER trust anyone until you see that. Ok so , now that you know who I am, I'll give you Chirba's whole spiel... "Welcome to EVE.... nothing makes me .... "

it still is predicated upon an abilty to fabricate references without as many tell-tale warnings ... but. I have mixed feelings.. most of me thinks that my second script is a more acceptable misrepresentation as it even warns the person to verify their idenity ... a reminder that means something even if it comes along with fake references fabricated at other sites.

3) ,, this one seems fair for sure:
If it was... "Chirba offered me this great deal on a Nyx but I need to find a buyer for my Archon. You're probably not ready for a capital ship yet but I looked at your killboard record and you look like you're really hitting stride with the game. You've probably met some people you fleet with that are looking for an Archon.. its actually a stupid good deal maybe because I bought it 2 years ago and I'll sell it for the cost I paid then.....half of todays cost. . Anyway ask in your corp and let me know.. if I don't answer your chat request right away its because I'm scrambling talking to everyone I can to find a buyer right now."

That .. I hope they don't ban that!




or the same said a bit differently:

Not as glaring a use of the mechanic itself to provide opportunity for a crime.. but still one that could not be accomplished without the odd game quirk of multiple identities

... . they idea that "I'm really someone I'm not, trust me like you would trust him" is laughable without the Meta abstraction created by the game itself.

.

Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1635 - 2013-09-23 16:05:48 UTC
So are we getting a rewrite? Or are we just going to be getting continual unofficial clarifications that will be lost as soon as this thread closes down?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1636 - 2013-09-23 16:51:00 UTC
I'm wondering if the TOS is written such as to mean outside of game.

Like if I were to say I was an alt of Chribba and I forgot my password. Or any other customer service related issue.

Even after a whole new week of this I still cannot wrap my head around being banned for claiming to be someone else in game.

It is just too far fetched as to what Eve 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.

Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1637 - 2013-09-24 23:14:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirren D'marr
GM Grimmi wrote:
Hello everyone,

I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all.

You cannot impersonate yourself.

Telling others that you’re an alt of a character you own or telling them what other characters you own is not a EULA/TOS violation and will not get you banned.

With the possible exception of using your own alt to mimic your character using spelling trickery in order to trick people into accepting duels with a high skill monster when they thought they were going to duel with puny noob or something like that, and possibly some extreme weird and outlandish edge case we haven’t thought of yet – you cannot impersonate yourself. The example above would not even be self-impersonation as much as it would just be a simple spelling trickery type of deal where it doesn’t really matter who owns the characters in question.

Impersonating yourself does not follow good logic since you are yourself and that is not a violation of any policies we have.

Thanks for reading.

Lead GM Grimmi


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.



Always good to see that the GMs are on the same page when it comes to rules and policies!

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_

Heinrich Rotwang
Spectre Fleet Corporation
#1638 - 2013-09-25 04:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinrich Rotwang
-
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1639 - 2013-09-25 08:51:11 UTC
Kismeteer wrote:
So are we getting a rewrite? Or are we just going to be getting continual unofficial clarifications that will be lost as soon as this thread closes down?


Or how about a clarification on why bad mean nasty misrepresentations are punishable, but good benevolent misrepresentations are fine?

Or how about how the new new explanations could lead to the results of a petition (i.e. whether or not isk was returned to someone who was scammed) results in leaking data about what other accounts/characters the scammer has?
Le Petite More
Doomheim
#1640 - 2013-09-26 10:33:14 UTC
I joined EVE because it was a game that promised to punish people too stupid to check with my main if I claimed to be an alt. Please go back to that. I should be able to say I am anybody's alt. It isn't like it is hard to vertify if they aren't an idiot.