These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Evanga
The Congregation
420 MLG TWINTURBO 3000 EMPIRE ALLIANCE RELOADED
#1641 - 2013-09-26 12:27:10 UTC
This is really ridiculous ccp.

Signing off my accounts, who wants stuff?Cool
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1642 - 2013-09-26 15:14:34 UTC
Evanga wrote:
This is really ridiculous ccp.

Signing off my accounts, who wants stuff?Cool



I'll take some please ;)

But seriously, don't just sign straight off. Lets give them another week or two, at lease until the winter expansion. After that, I will have to make a decision as well.

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

Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
#1643 - 2013-09-26 16:27:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Quote:
b. In-game names may not:

* Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.

* In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/terms-of-service-history-and-clarification/

This seems to forbid renaming cheap items and selling them as a more expensive item. Such as renaming a Raven "Raven Navy Issue" and selling it in the trade window. An "In-game name" (which includes player-nameable items) is used to impersonate an "NPC type/other official NPC corporation" (Caldari Navy). It is also done "for the purpose of misleading other players". So effectively this kills one of the oldest, simplest, well-known scams in Eve's history along with every variation on it.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Old Space Guy
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1644 - 2013-09-27 01:57:22 UTC
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:
Evanga wrote:
This is really ridiculous ccp.

Signing off my accounts, who wants stuff?Cool



I'll take some please ;)

But seriously, don't just sign straight off. Lets give them another week or two, at lease until the winter expansion. After that, I will have to make a decision as well.



no, please sign off right away. i prefer my free lewtz hot.

waaah waaah waaah. i didn't get my way so i'm going to ragequit. eve has come a long way in a decade, but eve players have been a consistent problem that hasn't yet been fixed.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#1645 - 2013-09-27 05:42:35 UTC
Interesting... just realized something... I am wondering if this new stance on the TOS is tied in with CCP giving SOMER Blink all that shiny stuff. I am sure they wouldn't want people trying to scam such an "honorable" institution as those Blink lotteries after giving them all that shiny stuff. Lol
Stoogie
Cadre Assault Force
#1646 - 2013-09-27 20:50:13 UTC
Wow that's an interesting thought and a scary one.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1647 - 2013-09-28 07:44:13 UTC
Tell me this person is gonna get a ban

please

I mean it ticks all the boxes of using text tricks and the bad taste to imitate a player who has passes away

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Julia Reave
Silicon Moon
#1648 - 2013-09-28 11:22:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Julia Reave
Mike Azariah wrote:
Tell me this person is gonna get a ban

please

I mean it ticks all the boxes of using text tricks and the bad taste to imitate a player who has passes away

m


Interesting timing. Maybe(!) someone(?) did this in order to further a certain agenda(?), since you are right, it ticks all those boxes indeed.
Gel Musana
LOL a Sticky Situation
#1649 - 2013-09-28 13:57:59 UTC
If a character has been sold let's say within 6 months, it should show an automatic note or a visual marker indicating that this is the case.

Ideology  s-h-i-t  list https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Gel%20Musana

Damsel in Distress
The Scope
#1650 - 2013-09-29 14:37:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Damsel in Distress
Quote:
b. In-game names may not:

* Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.


Just for reference, in case any overzealous GM gets funky ideas:

My character is not named after an NPC corporation or organization members. I am named after a classic theme in world literature, art, film and video games. The word "damsel" derives from the French demoiselle, meaning "young lady", and the term "damsel in distress" in turn is a translation of the French demoiselle en détresse. It is an archaic term not used in modern English except for effect or in expressions such as this, which can be traced back to the knight errant of Medieval songs and tales, who regarded the saving of such women as an essential part of his raison d'être.

Coincidentally, a couple of missions in the game bear that name. Missions are not an 'NPC type'. Moreover, the NPC appearing in them is called 'The Damsel'. On top of that, it's not really an NPC but listed under Items/Commodity/Livestock in eves database.



Whilst I have tried to scam people in Jita local early on during my exploits, these attempts are entirely unrelated to the characters name.

Quote:
* In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.


Princess Bride wrote:


This seems to forbid renaming cheap items and selling them as a more expensive item. Such as renaming a Raven "Raven Navy Issue" and selling it in the trade window. An "In-game name" (which includes player-nameable items) is used to impersonate an "NPC type/other official NPC corporation" (Caldari Navy). It is also done "for the purpose of misleading other players". So effectively this kills one of the oldest, simplest, well-known scams in Eve's history along with every variation on it.


And what about renaming contracts? I used to set up sell order contracts with single units of Megacyte, posting them as '[want to sell] Megathron Spiky Issue' in Jita local. Since Megacyte isn't a player-namable item, I assume that's okay (?).

In addition to what Princess Bride said, I'd furter like to ask if this would render naming my Machariel 'Pleasure Hub Sentinel' when running the Damsel in Distress in lowsec to mislead pirates into believing it was an NPC ship a bannable offence?
Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
#1651 - 2013-09-29 15:54:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Bride
Damsel in Distress wrote:

And what about renaming contracts? I used to set up sell order contracts with single units of Megacyte, posting them as '[want to sell] Megathron Spiky Issue' in Jita local. Since Megacyte isn't a player-namable item, I assume that's okay (?).

In addition to what Princess Bride said, I'd furter like to ask if this would render naming my Machariel 'Pleasure Hub Sentinel' when running the Damsel in Distress in lowsec to mislead pirates into believing it was an NPC ship a bannable offence?


My understanding of the situation, as it currently stands, is that a good argument can be made that changing the name of a contract (as a player-nameable item, or under the "but not limited to" clause within the definition) "for the purpose of misleading others" is a violation of the TOS if the change includes a reference to an NPC group.

But here things get fuzzy. Selling Carbon as a Charon, or Megacyte as Megathron could be a violation because it somewhat involves "impersonating" a "NPC type". Charon and Megathron don't directly reference an NPC type. However, they do indirectly reference Caldari State and Gallente Federation respectively as the manufacturers. As this appears to all be justified by the goal of "protecting the reputation" of the innocent party referenced by the fraud, then it's conceivable that CCP might interpret it this way. If not, why change the heading in the Naming Policy from "Player names" to "In-Game Items" and then include "player nameable items" in the definition? Why devote an entire bullet to the impersonation of "NPC type[s]" and "official NPC corporation[s]?"

Also, as CCP is claiming to have ALWAYS interpreted the TOS this way, every single player who has ever renamed a stock ship to mislead someone into thinking it's a faction ship was in violation of the TOS. Every single player who has been a victim of such a scam has a valid petition issue, in my humble opinion. The same goes for every past successful space rental scam that involved pretending to be a representative of the alliance holding sovereignty of the space being rented. (Unless they actually were a member of that alliance).

What I don't get is, if this was their goal, why not just hard-code it so that pasted contracts can't be altered? CCP states that we, as the players (both scammers and scam victims) were unaware of the official CCP stance on impersonation until the recent TOS update. They have to know that such a drastic shift in policy will lead to utter chaos in terms of petitions and honest misunderstanding of what's allowed and what isn't.

After sending the message "Be the Villain", they turned the murky unworld of Eve scams into a minefield for players. I wouldn't advise running any sort of scam until this thing plays out. Right now, it seems very easy to run afoul of a well-meaning GM trying to enforce current policy, no matter how hard you try to follow the rules.

http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/

Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1652 - 2013-10-05 03:18:48 UTC
Surely this rule applies to everyone regardless of their position as a scammer.

Perhaps we should all start to petition this guy for claiming, in his bio, no less, the names of his 'supposed' alts.

This new change and interpretation of the TOS is a pile of **** and you guys know it.

A part of me wants to start petitioning everyone who claims, rightly or wrongly, that ____ is their alt. This would, of course, happen in many recruitment situations, or when you are telling corp-mates who to contract their stuff to for a freighter hauling.

I mean, HOLY ******* ****, do you guys not see how bad of an idea it is.

But seriously, start reporting everyone every time that they say "____ is my alt". The GMs will figure out how terrible of an idea this is quite quickly.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#1653 - 2013-10-05 03:28:04 UTC
Demon Azrakel wrote:
A part of me wants to start petitioning everyone who claims, rightly or wrongly, that ____ is their alt. This would, of course, happen in many recruitment situations, or when you are telling corp-mates who to contract their stuff to for a freighter hauling.


Why just a part of you? CCP is explicitly telling you to do this.

Impersonation is against the rules, CCP has a long standing request for players to report rulebreaking, and you have (per CCP's own posts) no possible way of weeding out false positives yourself, so why wouldn't you do your utmost to help CCP in its hour of need?

"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

Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1654 - 2013-10-06 01:48:55 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Demon Azrakel wrote:
A part of me wants to start petitioning everyone who claims, rightly or wrongly, that ____ is their alt. This would, of course, happen in many recruitment situations, or when you are telling corp-mates who to contract their stuff to for a freighter hauling.


Why just a part of you? CCP is explicitly telling you to do this.

Impersonation is against the rules, CCP has a long standing request for players to report rulebreaking, and you have (per CCP's own posts) no possible way of weeding out false positives yourself, so why wouldn't you do your utmost to help CCP in its hour of need?


umm... :effort:

That's pretty much it...
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1655 - 2013-10-06 07:34:28 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Demon Azrakel wrote:
A part of me wants to start petitioning everyone who claims, rightly or wrongly, that ____ is their alt. This would, of course, happen in many recruitment situations, or when you are telling corp-mates who to contract their stuff to for a freighter hauling.


Why just a part of you? CCP is explicitly telling you to do this.

Impersonation is against the rules, CCP has a long standing request for players to report rulebreaking, and you have (per CCP's own posts) no possible way of weeding out false positives yourself, so why wouldn't you do your utmost to help CCP in its hour of need?

I think their hour of need is trying to get the ccp approved lottery group out of player consciousness

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 ?

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#1656 - 2013-10-06 17:47:09 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
I think their hour of need is trying to get the ccp approved lottery group out of player consciousness


So they have 2 hours of need this week.

Needy brats, aren't they?

"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

Stoogie
Cadre Assault Force
#1657 - 2013-10-08 10:37:28 UTC
Is the new ccp policy ignore things till they go away?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1658 - 2013-10-08 11:51:12 UTC
Stoogie wrote:
Is the new ccp policy ignore things till they go away?


That's the oldest of CCP policies.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Xeen Du'Wang
Perkone
Caldari State
#1659 - 2013-10-08 13:33:19 UTC
Old Space Guy wrote:
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:
Evanga wrote:
This is really ridiculous ccp.

Signing off my accounts, who wants stuff?Cool



I'll take some please ;)

But seriously, don't just sign straight off. Lets give them another week or two, at lease until the winter expansion. After that, I will have to make a decision as well.



no, please sign off right away. i prefer my free lewtz hot.

waaah waaah waaah. i didn't get my way so i'm going to ragequit. eve has come a long way in a decade, but eve players have been a consistent problem that hasn't yet been fixed.



I love how morons argue
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1660 - 2013-10-08 15:32:24 UTC
Soooooo...how's this little gem progressing now that we have other hilarious foibles to distract us?

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal