These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Laurici
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#161 - 2013-09-10 22:27:13 UTC
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
also mister GM guy your posts are garbage you should stop posting bro


You are obviously lying and should thus, be banned. Petitioned.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#162 - 2013-09-10 22:33:32 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
Here's the news item...


Well now everything makes sense. That article is dated 10-06-2013, so it's from the future. We'll just have to wait until October to find out what happens!

YK

DD.MM.YYYY format. Same as all the other articles there. That is from June 10th.



Sorry bout that. Just trying to bring some levity to the drama. I was under the impression this rule change was implemented this week and read the link with that in mind. My bad.

YK

Come to think of it that change is just as bad. It covers any entity named by players. Ships are entities named by players.

If I'm sitting on a wormhole and someone jumps through, I rename my ship to match theirs and jump into their hole. That's not being clever trying to stay under the radar of his bro's on the other side if they catch me on dscan... that's impersonation and subject to account action?

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38

Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-09-10 22:35:11 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
Here's the news item...


Well now everything makes sense. That article is dated 10-06-2013, so it's from the future. We'll just have to wait until October to find out what happens!

YK

DD.MM.YYYY format. Same as all the other articles there. That is from June 10th.



Sorry bout that. Just trying to bring some levity to the drama. I was under the impression this rule change was implemented this week and read the link with that in mind. My bad.

YK

Come to think of it that change is just as bad. It covers any entity named by players. Ships are entities named by players.

If I'm sitting on a wormhole and someone jumps through, I rename my ship to match theirs and jump into their hole. That's not being clever trying to stay under the radar of his bro's on the other side if they catch me on dscan... that's impersonation and subject to account action?

CCP ****** up so bad they need to sort there **** out, My anshar is named anshar am i going to get double banned now?

#freebarracuda #freedeesnider

Karma Bad
Eve Defence Force
Get Off My Lawn
#164 - 2013-09-10 22:45:09 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings pilots,


We would like to address your concerns regarding the update to article 8 of our TOS that was published yesterday. Some basic information on how we deal with issues that come up regarding impersonation is therefore appropriate.

All cases are investigated individually on a case by case basis. If there are complications or difficulties in reaching a solution cases are moved to senior game masters, which happens a lot with the impersonation issues that are reported to us. There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace. For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years. The TOS update reflects the way reported cases of impersonation have been handled by Customer Support for a long time. The rules applied have been buried in our naming policy and EULA but have now been placed in plain view in order to better help players to make decisions on how they interact with one another.

As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a player’s actions. 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.

One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.


Thank you and fly safe.




I would like to point out, This by no means says anything about calming the fears of the player base. Since we are unable to talk about bans among are-selves officially or any other warning done by the gms, How do we know what is ok and what is not, especially now that the wording of the tos got moved from a strict word from the gms (or from what i understand, to bans.

Karma Bad
Asian Pineapple
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#165 - 2013-09-10 22:47:50 UTC
Maybe it is just me, but I feel like everyone is nit-picking this change. If CCP ever had a problem with all this stuff that has been going on for so long I'm sure that they would have excplicitly said that this is not allowed. (I.E. pretending to be a recruiter or lying about your affiliations) It seems like the sort of impersonation that they can reasonably be caring about is the sort of scamming you see potentially happen with character sales. When people make slight changes to a character name so that in almost every way they appear to be this specific purpose. Then they profit off essentially identity theft. Past all that stuff, they did state that they handle everything in a case by case basis, so if you really think that whatever "impersonation" you were potentially taking part in is not exploitative, then you can make your case to them. Most mmo's with a subscriber system dont hand out perma bans left an right anyways, worst case scenario you get a temp suspend and a slap on the wrists unless you have a previous history of exploiting/cheating in the game anyways. But hey that is just my two cents, give CCP a break, i doubt that they were trying to make drastic gameplay changes, because if they did this would have been way more public.
Le Creed
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2013-09-10 22:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Le Creed
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings pilots, ...


You realize this is Eve Online correct? You know, a game that is famous for allowing players to employ mallicious trickery agaInst others without retribution.

Just saying.
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#167 - 2013-09-10 23:04:56 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
Not to be a complete wang, but wouldn't the new terms of service mean the NCdot is in the running for GM loving? I mean, they made the alliance name explicitly the same as the Northern Coalition many moons ago. While we're on this track, wouldn't Mittens and the current Goonswarm alliance be in the same boat, since they named a new alliance (many moons ago) a near identical name to their former alliance after the whole Delve paying the rent thing?

The list could go on for pages really. Misrepresenting yourself in Eve is a huge part of what makes Eve... Eve.


Uh oh. We're in trouble.
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#168 - 2013-09-10 23:06:25 UTC
Scams

A scam is what happens when someone takes advantage of your misplaced trust, temporary confusion or ignorance of game rules, and robs you via legal in-game means. When this occurs, there is nothing the Support Team can do for you. Although low and despicable, scams do not violate any game mechanics and can not be compensated for by the GMs, nor can the scammers generally be punished for their actions.


.
.
.
.
.
Tips

DON'T TRUST ANYONE. It's a tough galaxy out there, and anyone could betray you.

Make sure that the person you are doing business with is who he says he is.
EVE-Online has a unique naming policy, making it impossible for more than one player to have the same name. However, names may be very similar, and it is a good idea to be 100% certain that the party you are dealing with is the real thing. Also, never believe someone who says he is an alternate character of someone you know but doesn't offer any proper proof.

www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42

Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#169 - 2013-09-10 23:06:42 UTC
Asian Pineapple wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but I feel like everyone is nit-picking this change.

It's not just bad because it prohibits things that were allowed before (and CCP is insisting that is not the case)

It's bad because it's ambiguous and subjective.

It's bad because a new player can get scammed and petition what looks to be clearly against this rule, only to be told by the GM it is, in fact, allowed.
It's bad because the same noob can then go ahead and scam someone else exactly the same way he was just scammed, get reported and get a permanent ban for the same action because it happened to be reviewed by a different GM. (or even the same GM on a bad day)

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38

silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#170 - 2013-09-10 23:07:04 UTC
Asian Pineapple wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but I feel like everyone is nit-picking this change.

You're new here, aren't you?

Of COURSE we're nit-picking. It's an old, old tradition around here - That's how we keep things from getting lousy.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc

Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#171 - 2013-09-10 23:07:45 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Scenario : All the asshats, scammers, gankers, awoxers and other nefarious people that currently drive the market and generate all the decent content leave, as a result of attempts to mass market Eve. CCP is then left with a game with questionable physics and mediocre PvE content.

Despite the assurances of GM Grimmi, the new ToS puts some, up until yesterday, acceptable shenanigans into a limbo where the fate of those indulging in them is at the mercy of an interpretation of something that is as clear as mud by someone who may or may not, be in a good mood, had enough coffee, hungover, have gotten some the night before.

If they decide (or did already) to do this, it is unlikely to happen in a short or medium timeframe.

They will decide, depending on the exact circumstances, whether at a given point in time it's against what they perceive as the future gameplay or not. Without having to actually change the eula again.

All older players will be faced again and again with the decision to stick with the game or to leave. Over time, together with the game, the playerbase slowly evolves into something very much different from what it is today.

Blizzard has been extremely successful with these baby steps in WoW. "At this point in time we have no plans to..."

Remove standings and insurance.

Laurici
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2013-09-10 23:12:46 UTC
Asian Pineapple wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but I feel like everyone is nit-picking this change. If CCP ever had a problem with all this stuff that has been going on for so long I'm sure that they would have excplicitly said that this is not allowed. (I.E. pretending to be a recruiter or lying about your affiliations) It seems like the sort of impersonation that they can reasonably be caring about is the sort of scamming you see potentially happen with character sales. When people make slight changes to a character name so that in almost every way they appear to be this specific purpose. Then they profit off essentially identity theft. Past all that stuff, they did state that they handle everything in a case by case basis, so if you really think that whatever "impersonation" you were potentially taking part in is not exploitative, then you can make your case to them. Most mmo's with a subscriber system dont hand out perma bans left an right anyways, worst case scenario you get a temp suspend and a slap on the wrists unless you have a previous history of exploiting/cheating in the game anyways. But hey that is just my two cents, give CCP a break, i doubt that they were trying to make drastic gameplay changes, because if they did this would have been way more public.

Someone should recruit this guy, I have a strong suspicion he may have devhax.
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2013-09-10 23:15:37 UTC
I think the TOS needs to be revisited, the term "group of players" is too open ended to be inserted in a legal agreement. Seeing as the EULA is the legal agreement between me the player and CCP it is conceivable someones actions or demands for actions forces a different interpretation of this upon all of Eve and all of GM Grimmi's nice wording on policies and how they are applied gets chucked out the window. That is my concern and I think should be addressed.

The lore of eve, the legends of the game, such as what The Guiding Hand Social Club would do, the disbanding of BoB and so on all involve actions very easily interpreted as EULA violations.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#174 - 2013-09-10 23:23:59 UTC
Susan Black wrote:
Scams

A scam is what happens when someone takes advantage of your misplaced trust, temporary confusion or ignorance of game rules, and robs you via legal in-game means. When this occurs, there is nothing the Support Team can do for you. Although low and despicable, scams do not violate any game mechanics and can not be compensated for by the GMs, nor can the scammers generally be punished for their actions.


.
.
.
.
.
Tips

DON'T TRUST ANYONE. It's a tough galaxy out there, and anyone could betray you.

Make sure that the person you are doing business with is who he says he is.
EVE-Online has a unique naming policy, making it impossible for more than one player to have the same name. However, names may be very similar, and it is a good idea to be 100% certain that the party you are dealing with is the real thing. Also, never believe someone who says he is an alternate character of someone you know but doesn't offer any proper proof.

I think people aren't twigging why this is significant, great find.

CCP GMs are saying the new naming policy is the same as the old one and consistent with how they've always done things, yet here is a knowledgebase article where it talks about protecting yourself from things that aren't against the rules, and specifically cites people pretending to be someone who they are not.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

thee lous3
Tech III Bone Cancer
#175 - 2013-09-10 23:24:05 UTC
Which one of you has been scamming GM's? Tut tut
:P
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#176 - 2013-09-10 23:27:05 UTC
Laurici wrote:
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
also mister GM guy your posts are garbage you should stop posting bro


You are obviously lying and should thus, be banned. Petitioned.

BS petitions will also get you in trouble...
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#177 - 2013-09-10 23:29:25 UTC
Mara Pahrdi wrote:


Blizzard has been extremely successful with these baby steps in WoW. "At this point in time we have no plans to..."
Ah! The old "Boiling Frog" ploy.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#178 - 2013-09-10 23:35:44 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
jesus there is a lot of butthurt in this thread. Can we not bring up the plethora of cases to which this is normally applied to which is clearly what they are referencing instead of bringing up fringe cases where the rule has never been applied?

For example: Someone wants to apply to SniggWaffe and they find a corp on the recruitment threads called SniggWaffe. (notice the dot) in an alliance WAFFELS. (misspelled) that was made to misdirect pilots and scam for recruitment.

Previously this would result in a name change for both the corp and the alliance which are clearly impersonating the real deal. Now it would be a ban. I really don’t get all the rage about this. You couldn't do it before, you still can’t. They simply changed the punishment. And knowing the GMs the punishment is probably relatively light



That is one case that was always against the rules.

Now consider this situation which was not against the rules before: As a member of my current corp (no alliance affiliations, no coalition affiliations) I see a post in recruitment channel from someone saying "I want to join Goonswarm".

I then send them a private message saying "Hey mate, Goonswarm have outsourced their recruitment to people they trust to keep AWOXing down. I can put in a good word to get you in there if you want." as the start of a recruitment scam.

Note that I have never claimed to be in GSF and have in fact explicitly denied it.

This is however supposedly now AGAINST the rules, as I am claiming (falsely) to be acting on behalf of an entity I am not affiliated to.

What's more, it would also be against the rules as written even if I had GSF's explicit permission to do this scam.



IMO the rule should be as follows:

"Creating a character name, corporation name or alliance name that is similar to an existing player, corp or alliance in order to impersonate that entity is against the TOS."

That would prohibit creating a "TEST Aliance Please Ignore", but would not prohibit pretending to be in TEST when you are actually in no alliance or a member of PL, and would not prohibit creating an entity named "TEST Alliance Please Destroy", as the similar name is clearly created to mock, not to impersonate.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#179 - 2013-09-10 23:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Georgina Parmala
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Blizzard has been extremely successful with these baby steps in WoW. "At this point in time we have no plans to..."

You mean like how one year they make an april fools joke out of how ******** the idea of gear score is http://www.wowwiki.com/Equipment_Potency_EquivalencE_Number

Then proceed to not only include it in game as an attribute on the character sheet, but actually use it as a content entry restriction feature.

Edit:
Wonder how long until Random Guild Finder becomes a real thing
http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_4.1.11

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38

S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#180 - 2013-09-10 23:39:28 UTC
EVE ToS wrote:
CCP reserves the right to close, temporarily or permanently, any user’s account without advance notice as we deem necessary. Furthermore, we reserve the right to delete all user accounts or inventory of characters as warranted.

We reserve the right to ban any user from the game without refund or compensation.


Eve's TOS/EULA (like the TOS/EULA of every large game) is designed as a giant "**** you" for the consumer. Get over it.