These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Terms of Service CSM Feedback Thread

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#341 - 2013-09-20 00:32:45 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


Glad to hear it. Unfortunately, this raises some ugly questions.

Did you guys just change your minds, or was GM Karidor just spouting off when he said completely unequivocally that you CAN impersonate yourself?

Is he insane? Was he shooting from the hip? Was he trying to "legislate from the bench"?

Or perhaps is this just throwing us a bone to distract us?

Because, while certainly welcome, this is not a change to the ToS. This is simply yet another "clarification", with only the weight of your word behind it. Which, as we can see, your word can simply be overturned in a week's time.

Then there is the matter that Self Impersonation-gate (yep, it's a gate now) was merely the most obviously, hilariously asinine of the problems created by the new wording.

So, I'll close by saying that I certainly hope this is not intended to be another "final word" on the matter...

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Echo Echoplex
#342 - 2013-09-20 00:50:34 UTC
Am I the only one who's feeling like she's/he's playing Bizarro World Online at this point? Maybe it's because I haven't been here long?

You may as well be saying I can't eat oatmeal in orange pants because the acorn in Miami.



Stating here and now that I don't have a damned clue WHAT'S allowed and what isn't, even though I'm reasonably literate and have earnestly read all 99 pages in both threads of this revision, which has left little time to play the game.


I'll bookmark and screencap this mess and pass it along if/when needed and hope for the best. Sorry, I rarely have an attitude and I respect people's positions but this is just Crazytown.

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#343 - 2013-09-20 02:05:34 UTC
Something has just happened here:

1) We were told that a broad category of scamming was banned. A shitstorm began forming

2) A GM said something patently insane. The shitstorm picked up speed.

3) CCP began closing all threads, hoping to squash discussion this perfectly legitimate problem the players had. This lead to yet more threads and a larger uproar.

4) One thread was allowed to remain on a subject and it was locked in a far cupboard where no one would see it.

5) The patently insane thing was overruled.

6) CCP will now consider this finished and congratulate themselves on having gotten away with banning a broad category of scamming.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Echo Echoplex
#344 - 2013-09-20 02:28:27 UTC
GM Grimmi wrote:
Hello everyone,

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

ArrowYou 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.

ArrowImpersonating 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

ArrowYou are right, in that it does not follow good logic. In point of fact, and with all due respect, it is impossible. One cannot impersonate oneself, ever, period. It cannot be done. It's an oxymoron. Yet again, someone is telling us within a single post that we can, and cannot, be banned/impersonate ourselves.

I'm understanding that CCP have painted themselves into a messy corner with wording of terms, but until people stop saying we aren't allowed to impersonate ourselves and start coming up with terminology that doesn't defy law as well as every dictionary in the known universe you're going to end up where we started, with a EULA ruling that makes no sense and would be unenforceable anywhere else.

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#345 - 2013-09-20 07:53:49 UTC
Echo Echoplex wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
ArrowYou cannot impersonate yourself.


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

ArrowYet again, someone is telling us within a single post that we can, and cannot, be banned/impersonate ourselves.

To be honest I think that's almost deliberately misunderstanding what Grimmi wrote. The word "cannot" has 2 possible meanings here: (1) are not allowed to (2) are not able to. I think it's pretty obvious from context that the second meaning was used here.
Madlof Chev
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#346 - 2013-09-20 10:58:59 UTC
The "impersonating yourself" thing was an extreme to paint a picture of just how widely the ToS can be interpreted. I don't think anyone is under any real illusion that you're capable of impersonating yourself - but evidently the ToS can be interpreted that way because GM Karidor did exactly that.

The whole point of the "impersonating yourself" thing was to prove that the ToS changes are awfully written and far too wide in scope, I thought this was self-evident.
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#347 - 2013-09-20 11:50:22 UTC
Every general norm like the ToS rules has to be interpreted on a case by case basis.

In real life after a few hundred years most democratic constitutional states got these interpretation procedures written down.

So the general public knows what to expect, and these interpretation procedures are not like written law (like the ToS in eve).

These interpretation procedures are called Custom in law, which are the established pattern of behavior that can be objectively
verified within a particular social setting (in our case: within the New Eden Universe)

As a small part of the eve general public I want to know the GM's interpretation procedures,

to further my consumer rights towards CCP games.


Since a CCP banning is a high decree act, we as their customers should have high decree of transparency.



PS: at the minimum give the CSM these GM interpretation procedures concerning the ToS since they have signed the NDA

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
SquirlRuler Cadelanne
Guilliman Initiative
#348 - 2013-09-20 12:48:22 UTC
Posting in stealth CCP pacification thread.

Slipping steadily into madness; now that is the only place to be free.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#349 - 2013-09-20 13:49:01 UTC
digi wrote:
I'm schizophrenic and so am I.



No we are not!

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
#350 - 2013-09-20 14:00:34 UTC
So we can say It is against the TOS to impersonate yourself out of all the other

"it is against the tos to impersonate the Amarr or any other RP'able entity"
"impersonate an alt or player who is not you"
"pretend the meta game matters"
"live in anonymity"
"it's ok to scam, as long as you don't meta"
"It's not ok to live in obscurity"

Interesting.

So now, the only way to CHECK if someone is an "alt" (I HATE that misnomer) is to petition it, which if found to be "okay" the petitioner can be banned, and if found to be "not okay" then the imposter can be banned.

In a game built on lies and subterfuge?

Really?

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.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#351 - 2013-09-20 19:46:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
I saw it suggested earlier in the thread that someone wanted a third party alt confirmation service.

While I suspect the utility and adoption would actually be low, let me know at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3638740

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Beness
Vojtech Fekete
#352 - 2013-09-20 20:18:24 UTC
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/terms-of-service-history-and-clarification/

Obvious scope creep is obvious:

2003/2004
"No player may use the player name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity."
Kinda vague, but limited specifically to "player" name. Corporation and so forth are not explicitly covered.

2004
"No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity."
Clarification to be exclusively character name. Note that this language still retains the "of another player" text.

2008
"impersonating another player, be it by creating a character with a similar character name as someone else or simply claiming you are the alt of someone is not allowed."
This is not in the actual TOS, but in the forums. The example given of "I'm your CEOs alt" is even broader, because technically "your CEO" is not a character name, but a role.

2013
"No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities."

The term "impersonate" has been dropped, and the scope has been extended to cover corporations and alliances.

I'm skipping the section from the post about Naming Policy, because that governs what names you can assign to a character, corporation, or alliance, and not what names you can drop in chat or eve-mail.

The original language technically allowed the use of corporation and alliance names in chat - this only changed in 2013, at least in the TOS. The original language technically only protected the character name, although was interpreted (by 2008) to also protect roles.

What's really needed is a handy chart of all the claims that can be made, and details of which ones are forbidden. Like:


  • I claim to be myself.
  • I claim to be an alt of another character on this account.
  • I claim to be an alt of a character on another account I control.
  • I claim to be an alt of a character on another account that I do not control.
  • I claim to have a corporate role that I have on this character.
  • I claim to have a corporate role that I have on another character (this account or another).
  • I claim to have a corporate role that I do not have for a corporation that I am in.
  • I claim to have a corporate role that I do not have for a corporation that I am not in.
  • etc.


Does it matter who the claim is made to?
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#353 - 2013-09-20 20:19:14 UTC
I think I should be able to:
say I am an alt of another even though I am not
Say I be long to a coalition I don't

Just the Tos seems to say I can't

I do agree that Names meant to confuse others should be banned,

I wish there was a scammers guide to eve telling me what I can and cannot do, including samples





Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#354 - 2013-09-20 20:51:36 UTC
They are walking back the statement about alts because none of you can seem to wrap your brain around it. It's an edge-case and is not worth the hysterics we have all had to endure from those of you who can't follow simply logic. It has become apparent that it would be easier to teach a lobster to sing than to explain it to most of you so it's easier to just throw out that edge case and decide that you can't "impersonate yourself."

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Safdrof Uta
VELOCIRAPTORS EATING GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH
The Burning Contingent Alliance
#355 - 2013-09-20 21:26:12 UTC
I find this entire thread hilarious. Shows how many of you actually read the various documents contained in the eula and other such rules that you claim to have read when you press that "accept terms and conditions" button.

Scamming via impersonation has always been an offense. And now we have an 18+ page forum thread because they added that into the tos as well (albeit not the same words) and you're all claiming that you're gonna get banned for doing stuff that was going to get yourself banned before it was added. My goodness of you all spent as much time and effort playing the game and not circle jerking on the forums it wouldn't be an issue.

Go undock a ship would you?
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#356 - 2013-09-20 21:31:53 UTC
So after reading the newest Dev Blog "Terms of Service History and Clarification", I did a bit of digging to highlight one thing mentioned:

Quote:
These changes did not elicit any concern from players at the time. As such we did not expect the ToS update to do so either, since it was simply made to get all the above bits and pieces of policy regarding impersonation into one place where everyone could see it.



  • Here is the original News Post on the TOS change from June 10, 2013 entitled "Changes to the EVE Naming Policy". Because this was a News Article and not a Dev Blog, there is no link to a centralized forum thread for the players to discuss the changes.
  • Here is one such player created thread from June 11, 2013.
  • Here is another thread from the Russian forums.


The player created threads mostly discuss semantics around impersonation of "player-nameable item" such as renaming ships to other character's names being in violation of the new EVE Online Naming Policy changes.

The implications of the section C change (c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.) don't appear to be discussed. These threads were both closed and locked indefinitely, although I can't tell when (it is probably just from age). There was no Dev or GM clarification on either of these threads, but to say the change did not elicit any concern from players seems inaccurate.

Personally, I feel that this was a stealth change, and because there was no huge outcry 3 months ago does not mean that the change was accepted by the community as a whole. The updated article seems to use the fact that it wasn't well understood or discussed as cover. I do appreciate later that this was admitted:

Quote:
Many (including both scammers and their victims) did not realize that it was also against the policy to falsely state your identity by using another Player’s, Corporation’s, Alliance’s, or other in game entity’s name. This could clearly have been made, well, more clear.



My concern is around the Section C change, and the September 9th TOS Update which states:

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

I feel this recent change should be rolled back, as it goes too far into restricting scams in EVE which I believe are valid means of social engineering without resorting to exploiting in-game mechanics. You can argue about which in-game mechanics should be exploitable and which shouldn't, but for my concerns, I want to be clear on one point:

I agree with the clarification that players should not be able to directly impersonate another player by means of fonts, or in-game character names which are similar in spelling to another player.

I don't agree with the wider change which does not allow you to falsely state your identify by using another Player's, Corporation’s, Alliance’s, or other in game entity’s name.

For example, if I want to present my character [with no affiliation to a renter alliance] as an administrator of another Alliance's rental program, and convince them to send me ISK to rent a solar system, this should be allowed. There have been some cases where it was stated you can't verify this, but I don't believe that to be true. They can verify who I am based on my character's non-editable information (Alliance, Corporation, Employment History). They can go directly to the Alliance Information page, and see who the valid contact members are for inquiring about rentals.
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#357 - 2013-09-20 22:09:15 UTC
Beness wrote:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/terms-of-service-history-and-clarification/

What's really needed is a handy chart of all the claims that can be made, and details of which ones are forbidden. Like:


  • I claim to be myself.
  • I claim to be an alt of another character on this account.
  • I claim to be an alt of a character on another account I control.
  • I claim to be an alt of a character on another account that I do not control.
  • I claim to have a corporate role that I have on this character.
  • I claim to have a corporate role that I have on another character (this account or another).
  • I claim to have a corporate role that I do not have for a corporation that I am in.
  • I claim to have a corporate role that I do not have for a corporation that I am not in.
  • etc.


Does it matter who the claim is made to?


I think those are important points.

It should just be crystal clear what a spy should or should not be allowed to do during his mission :P

And again, although those "rules" seemed to be in force for a long time, they just did not have been used... Otherwise most of the "classics" of eve subterfuge would not have been possible. And instead of all the great press for EVE and the following new player influx after those "true stories" there would just have been a lot of perma-bans for all the usual suspects...

The problem arised because the actual player actions differed from the rules for so long that on might argue it established "customary law" :P I mean, most of the true stories could be petitioned in a heartbeat but were instead featured in the wall street journal and whatnot.

That is why I am looking forward to what the CSM and CCP can cook up after (hopefully) reading some of the ideas here....
BitRusher
Temporal Paradox
#358 - 2013-09-20 23:03:59 UTC
I think after you join a corp you should be fair game for someone to impersonate you for means of espionage and playing the meta game. There are two ways spying is portrayed in movies, the boring invisible guy who is embedded, and the guy who quickly gets access with fake credentials to cause a lot of damage before being found out. If your going to let people build empires you should let people pretend their Bond or Archer. Instead of letting GMs or Legal ruin basic concepts, Devs should acknowledge that this is game play.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#359 - 2013-09-20 23:24:06 UTC
Not being allowed to convince someone that I am an alt of their ceo/a third party/what not by misusing character names is totally understandable.
Not being allowed to impersonate other groups/entities based solely on your social skills and scamming capabilities is ******* bullshit and caters to the WoW Hello Kitty generation and CCP should be ashamed as the emperor in "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Literally gonna unsub a few accounts if it's not reversed, backward policy or not backward policy. Not being able to cleverly spin lies in the face of others without facing repercussions is absolutely appalling.

I sincerely hope this is changed, if not, I hope it ends up with another dozens of employees fired due to CCP's absolute desynchronization with their player base....

AGAIN.


and we'll be thrown a few sincerely apologetic letters and this whole ruse can start all over again.
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#360 - 2013-09-20 23:40:24 UTC
I have taken the time to read this thread in its entirety.

The key points I have seen are this:

1) Impersonation / goofy name to represent CCP / ISD / CONCORD / ETC is bad and wrong

2) Goofy name to represent other players / Corps / Allies / etc is bad

3) Claiming to be someone you are not is OK because it is easy to verify

4) Claiming to be part of a Corp / Alliance / group that you are not is OK, again easy to verify

5) Scamming is an integral part of EvE and attracts players

Specifically I want to talk about point 4
I lost a ship to the new order. I did not petition its return or quit the game. However most of the feedback I revived when I asked what I could do to ACTIVELY combat ganks was to simply war-dec them. Well, there are a large amount of players with Bios that claim they are part of the new order while staying in a NPC corp to dodge war-decs.

Unless there is an in-game method to list off ALL of the new order 'knights' that I can check then there is no way to verify who they really are.

Does this mean I can petition CCP for the return of my ship / cargo as well as ban the ganker because he falsely represented the new order and caused m losses?

Sadly this is not an edge case either, many of the gankers I tracked were members of NPC corporations while claiming to represent James315 and his goals.

Point 5 also raises a question for me. EvE has a tutorial system in place, but this does NOT mention alts, scams or how to check a basic API. If all these things are central to EvE then include them in the training missions. Give the new players the tools to protect themselves from scams.

As mentioned previously in this thread, most new players that play for a few months then lose it all, they will be jaded and may quit. Given that they are going to be told "scamming is OK" and "It's part of EvE" they likely will not even file a petition. Hence no GM involvement and no rants on the forums. I would be willing to guess this is what CCP's investigation showed when looking at why players left. Massive loss of isk to 3rd party, many angry chat logs / mails then log-off and un-sub.