These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#121 - 2013-09-14 00:47:14 UTC


Personally I think the four things that should be prohibited are;

1) It is forbidden to impersonate CCP, it's employees or volunteer representatives.

2) It is forbidden to use official out of game websites (wiki etc) or the charcter bazaar section of the forum to perpetrate a scam.

All other areas (general discussion etc) and third party websites are not policed for scams.

3) It is forbidden to use a deceptive character name or image to impersonate anyone else.

4) It is forbidden to scam new players within the first two weeks of playing the game and/or anyone on a trial account.


IMO everything else should be allowed, if you tell someone you are CONCORD and you will pod them unless they pay you that is fine, all scamming, spying, misrepresentation, lying is fine, either in game or out, and the whole system rests on "Buyer beware".

I think if you try to police any more than this it will become impossible, trying to determine if someone is a legitimate representative of a large alliance is going to be impractical.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#122 - 2013-09-14 00:50:10 UTC
Impersonation based on unsupported claims of being someone else should not be discouraged.

Impersonation based on typographical trickery should be outlawed, especially if someone goes to the lengths of faking an alliance, corporation and character with duplicated logos and portraits, employing character substitution such as "I" for "l" to encourage confusion of the character, corp and alliance names.

I don't particularly fancy having to engage in thorough identify verification every time I want to donate to an in-game charity. I don't play at the same time as most people, meaning the "invite to conversation and verify using out-of-band communications" system doesn't cut it. How do you invite someone to a conversation when they're asleep?

If someone named "Sindel Pelion" is running a charity, I should have some reasonable certainty that when I search for "Sindel" and see a character with the name "Sindel Pelion," that character is actually the one I'm looking for. There should be no needlessly confusing names such as SindeI PeIion that require copy-and-pasting names into a text editor, changing fonts or converting names to lower case to figure out which is the character I'm actually looking for.

Maybe I'm too soft and looking for the game to provide me too many crutches. Or maybe a game shouldn't require jumping through hoops to verify that the character you're looking at is the one you were actually looking for.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Literally Space Moses
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#123 - 2013-09-14 00:52:41 UTC
Ban for impersonating a GM, CCP employee, member of ISD, or any type of "CCP only" position.

Warning/ban for imitating a corp/character by creating a char/corp with a similar name.

That's it.

#T2013
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#124 - 2013-09-14 00:59:55 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Andski wrote:
Actually, I'm going to retract my bit about alts. Claiming to be somebody else's alt should not be allowed. Imagine somebody going around claiming to be you and saying "Did I ever tell you guys how much I beat my wife?" or something along those lines.


That kind of thing would appear to fall under the harassment policy per GM Hormonia's wonderful post about the concept of the magic circle.

That's an action that steps outside of the magic circle and threatens to harm someone in RL (even if only their good name).

In other words, saying "Ruby beats his wife IRL" and saying "I'm Ruby's alt and I beat my wife IRL" are both against the rules already, and the fact that one case involves a lie about the speaker's identity is irrelevant.



Back onto the real Topic, I think Mynnna popped the nail on the head. But since I probably can't stop myself, here's my list of criteria for new TOS language:

These Bans are fine (the actions listed should not be legal):
Similar name impersonations: Angei Project vs Angel Project (even without capitalizing the i, the tittle is not easy to distinguish on the forums). Result > Name Change + Reversion of the deal being petitioned. (and obviously bans and things as appropriate)
Any sort of claim regarding being, representing, being related to, etc. CCP, the ISD staff, the GM staff, other CCP Employees. (Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to ban we go)

These bans are not fine (the actions listed should be legal):
Claiming to be someone you are not (I am shocked, SHOCKED that there is Dishonesty in EVE)
Claiming to be someone you actually are (How in the world did this come into question? :cripes:)
Claiming to represent someone/some group you do not represent
Claiming to represent someone/some group you actually do represent

These I'm not sure about:
Similar names for actual alts. Best option is probably a Name Change + Reversion like the above. Use your main, or use a different name and accept that the lie will be slightly harder to sell.


I'd also suggest either purging the EVE Wiki of content about players and player groups or adding something akin to Wikipedia's user pages for that sort of content.


The wording and explanations espoused by the GMs in the other thread mean that someone can and should petition for losses pertaining to a number of major scams that CCP have used as a selling point. And, since "this wasn't a change in policy, we've always been at war with EASTASIA," there's no reason for there to be a statute of limitations on enforcement.


Finally, in this matter like the matter of Cache scraping, it is absolutely ridiculous that CCP is inviting their players to flagrantly violate the TOS by insisting that they wont take action for certain violations. If anyone at CCP ever feels like they need to use the phrase "it's technically against the rules, but..."
GO
FIX
THE
RULES!
Not next week, not in 6 months, Now.
You are literally telling your players to cheat at the game you run. Fixing that is not a "next week" action item.

As far as edge and corner cases, that's what 25 and 26 are there for. The rest of the TOS is there to inform the players as to what is allowed. Making the rest too broad makes it ineffective at that job.
Quote:
25. 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.

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

"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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#125 - 2013-09-14 01:03:47 UTC
mynnna wrote:
My personal feeling on what such a revision should look like is as follows.


  • Expand section 2B of the naming policy to include player names and names of player organizations. Change the relevant sections of the EULA & TOS to mirror this.
  • Nuke section 2C of the naming policy from orbit, & remove the clauses that mirror it from the EULA and the TOS.


These changes would continue to forbid impersonation through similar names (abusing I vs l to fool and confuse and so forth), but allow more meta styles of impersonation as have been brought up as examples countless times in the past few days, such as claiming to be a representative of another player or player group, claiming to be another player, and so on.


In more elaborate terms, Section 2B of the naming policy would add a clause something like this after the second bullet point:

  • Impersonate or parody another character's name or player corporation or alliance for the purpose of misleading other players.


Section 2C would be removed.

Section 8 of the ToS would then read something like "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or present yourself or your corporation or alliance by imitation of their name"; the language may be a bit clunky, but you get the idea.

And finally, the line in section B of the EULA which currently reads "No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity." would change to something similar to the TOS, for example "No player may impersonate or parody the name of another character, corporation or alliance for the purpose of misleading other players."

+1

I can live with this. Although I think some parody names are for fun or gentle mockery as opposed to misleading. I'm not sure how they would be affected, if at all.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#126 - 2013-09-14 01:05:16 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
Posting publicly what I'll be saying in private as well:

My thoughts are more along the lines of no. #2, thoughtful objections to the TOS itself. I like mynnna's wording, and here's where I'm coming from on it:

The TOS on impersonation should (1) prohibit players pretending to be CCP or people connected to CCP, and (2) it should prohibit players from using UI tricks to make their characters too difficult to distinguish from another character.

That's it. Players lying and pretending to be other players or organizations or representatives of those organizations should be completely allowed. After all, if I am pretending to be someone else or someone else's representative, my mark can check in with the original as long as I'm not violating point no. 2 above. If I am, then *that's* the TOS violation that protects the player.

People with good reputations can protect them by petitioning any clones who're scamming and by reminding their customers to triple-check before doing business with them. Access to a character in order to edit a bio or send a mail can verify that you're working with the right person. Someone wants to broker supercaps on their alts? Great, they list their names in their main's bio. Someone wants to rent out all of Vale? Great, they list the approved rental officers in the corp description or a bio or something.

Similarly, if someone apps to my corp with the text 'June Ting's Cyno Alt' and I don't check with June to see whether they're actually who they say they are, I'm liable for anything that happens afterwards. It's no different from accepting an app from someone who says they're a total carebear who wants to come to mining ops without checking their API to see what they *do* at said mining ops. Sure, it's a lazy way to awox, but margin trading is a lazy way to scam and *that* still works. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.


This is exactly how Eve has been for years, it is what made the game better than everything else out there. I'm glad Ali Aras had a change of heart and I fully support this interpetation of what the TOS should read.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
BitRusher
Temporal Paradox
#127 - 2013-09-14 01:22:17 UTC
It seems like CCP should do a better job of listening to the CSM in the future. Mynnna pretty much sums up where players draw the line. Taking advantage of a players trust is what scamming is. If they believe your claims about being a representative or someone else its still misplaced trust in your current character that makes the scam work.
Berendas
Ascendant Operations
#128 - 2013-09-14 01:28:17 UTC
I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said by players more articulate myself. I do though want to thank CCP for making this thread and letting us know that dialogue is in fact taking place between devs and the CSM.
mmorpg lol
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#129 - 2013-09-14 01:28:51 UTC
See Mynnna's post.

Eve is a dark place and that is its primary selling point, not spaceships, not anything else; rule changes that threaten that must have some overriding need for occurring. This change/not change is nowhere close to fitting that requirement.

It is simply mind-blowing that currently I could technically get myself banned by claiming with this char that I am in Broski to another of my characters on this account, while being in broski on the third character and petitioning it with the other.

The rule should only cover CCP associated characters and groups, and impostering by UI. Thus devs, GMs concord, etc are covered, but but I can claim to be the brutor tribe, mittens, vince draken, grath all at the same time or separately just fine.
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#130 - 2013-09-14 01:35:09 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:


Just leave it as is, the QQ and crying over it are silly. It changes at most .05% of all player interactions, and anyone claiming its the end of the sandbox or that EVE is now WOW, or coddling of players doesn't understand the wording or is terribly afraid of change.

"Oh no, I can't pretend to be CCP D01an anymore", boo hoo, get over it. The wording is as such to catch all potential exploits, it has to be else people are going to weasel out of it by saying "but the character wasn't on MY account, it was my alt's account", and so on.


shut up and get out
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#131 - 2013-09-14 01:37:04 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I'm for whatever wording causes the most griefer tears. I can't help it, they are the best tears.


you also shut up and get out
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#132 - 2013-09-14 01:39:06 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Finally, in this matter like the matter of Cache scraping, it is absolutely ridiculous that CCP is inviting their players to flagrantly violate the TOS by insisting that they wont take action for certain violations. If anyone at CCP ever feels like they need to use the phrase "it's technically against the rules, but..."
GO
FIX
THE
RULES!
Not next week, not in 6 months, Now.
You are literally telling your players to cheat at the game you run. Fixing that is not a "next week" action item.

But... rules are MEANT to be broken.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Dirk Action
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2013-09-14 01:40:28 UTC
A repost of mine from the threadnaught:


"GMs need to stay out of legal scams altogether. "Legal scams" meaning ones done entirely through social manipulation, not through illegal, exploitative means such as account hacking.

This brand new policy is completely unprecedented and wrong. Period."

This obviously doesn't include things such as I or l, 0 or O, etc., but entirely through making the other guy bite your shiny carrot.
FearlessLittleToaster
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2013-09-14 01:47:33 UTC
In my opinion the bright line that divides permitted from forbidden activity is verifiability. Eve is a harsh game; that is what makes it fun. If a way exists for a player to confirm or deny that somebody is who they say they are, and they are too lazy or inept to use that resource, why should they be protected from the consequences of their incompetence or apathy?

For example, lets say I buy a carrier in lowsec and want to move it out into nullsec space, with two scenarios for how I try to do that move:

Being a member of a large nullsec alliance, I have standing beacons which I can use as the destination for my jump. However, although I have access to intel channels I don't bother to read them. Though I have a second account which I could use to scout, I don't bother to log in and look at local. Though I could ask friend to look for me, I just cant be bothered. Then I jump my carrier to a camped beacon, get tackled, and suddenly 50 bombers explode my carrier. Can I petition that loss?

On the other hand, lets say that I get a convo form a guy right after I buy the carrier. He tells me that he is the alt of a Goonwaffe capswarm director and he is willing to help me move my carrier with a beacon right on a station. Granted the guy I am talking to is not a goon but hey, I love help! I could convo the director he is claiming to be and ask if this is legitimate. I could request that he convo me with his main to prove who he is. I could drop a scout in system and see where his cyno is lit before I jump in. But I don't do any of those things and so he drops me in the middle of 50 bombers and they explode my carrier. I petition the loss, get my carrier back, and the guy who tricked me gets a perma-ban.

The only impersonation that should be forbidden is impersonation that relies on technical means to deceive (L vs I) or are totally unverifiable by an Eve player who can only access information available in game. Otherwise, if you cant confirm to your satisfaction who you are talking to, hit accept on that trade window at your own risk.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#135 - 2013-09-14 01:57:30 UTC
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:

The only impersonation that should be forbidden is impersonation that relies on technical means to deceive (L vs I) or are totally unverifiable by an Eve player who can only access information available in game. Otherwise, if you cant confirm to your satisfaction who you are talking to, hit accept on that trade window at your own risk.


Do you have an example of a potential "totally unverifiable" impersonation in mind? That's a fairly vague set of possibilities, and it's therefore a worrisome inclusion. I don't really understand what you're trying to prevent by introducing this ambiguity into your proposal.
Luis Graca
#136 - 2013-09-14 01:58:09 UTC
since you wanna check every ToS and not just the impersonating thing here goes

1 -"You may not abuse, harass or threaten another player or authorized representative of CCP ......"

Remove the harass part or perma camps, cloackys afk's continuous wardec's are ilegal even knowing the game mechanics allow it

2,3,4 - Racials and religious stuff i don't mind but some people abuse and touch other where they don't like so yeah they need to continue

5 - Guess it a legal thing

6 - I get the reason but i don't see it work 100%

7 - Legal stuff again

8 - "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer."

Remove the "EVE Online volunteer" and write ISD and CSM, player can volunter to help improve the game whitout these tags.
Also there are in game tools to find if players are being impersonated or not so no need for the players part

9- "You may not advertise, employ, market, or promote any form of solicitation – including pyramid schemes and chain letters – in the EVE Online game world or on the website."

You should write this better special the "pyramid scheme" part it's really funny every time some open opens a eve bank and people actually buy it

About the ads if it's ads that have nothing to do with eve universe pls make a 3 month ban and if they repeat a perma ban but except if it's a personal mail instead of a mass mail.

10, 11- ok

12 - another one i don't work and honestly don't know why CCP whats to know what people are doing, btw if by any reason they check whats on my PC beside the eve client they are broking the law of my country. so they better check this line

13 - ok

14 - "You may not post or distribute emulators, software tools or utilities related to EVE Online without the express written permission of CCP."

Actually i'm in favor of this one but CCP should check the tools or utilities code lines to prevent people from keylog's and stuff and for the same reason they should host them for free to people download them safelly.

15 , 16, 17 - ok

18 - name the representatives and volunters

19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 - ok

25 - "CCP reserves the right to close, temporarily or permanently, any user’s account without advance notice"

Make a temporary ban to investigate and only after the investigation is over you can perma ban, it really bad to recieve a perma ban and then "oh wait you right"

26 ,27- ok

28 - legal stuff
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2013-09-14 02:01:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Fey Ivory
mynnna wrote:
SAJUK NIGARRA wrote:
As far as re-re-wording the ToS, Mynnna's proposal is spot on and I doubt myself or anyone else could come up with anything that is clearer and closer to the spirit of Eve. Maybe there should also be a provision against editing the wiki with malicious intent, but other people already touched up on this.

However, after reading Karidor's previous posts posts it seems the wording is ultimately irrelevant, because even with the previous version, the GM team was working not under the ToS, but under their interpretation of what the ToS reads between the lines :

GM Karidor wrote:


So, onwards to the ToS, which now contains the following after the change:

Quote:
...
8. You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
...


This was changed from: "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer." only. The highlighted bit is, from what I understand, the only part that is worded slightly differently from the other two places, but in our interpretation also falls into "falsely represent his or her identity", and always has.




While I am fairly sure (and I can understand that is an internal company policy matter) no CCP employee will come here willing to discuss the degree of freedom allowed to GMs or admitting that GM interpretation of the ToS can be sometimes arbitrary beyond common sense, I hope at least in private CSM will approach this matter and get a form of assurance that the written rules and only those will govern action or inaction taken by GMs (except borderline cases or loopholes, obviously)

Otherwise, no matter how and how often the ToS is changed, we'll always have the unpleasant surprise to hear "yes, but in our interpretation ..."


I do happen to agree that their interpretation is valid with the way the EULA & naming policy are currently written, and do believe that they've been enforcing it that way for awhile, even though it differs so strongly from the common player interpretation. This is why I believe so strongly that the way they are written should be changed. Blink


I personally dont have a problem with this, but there is a few things that have to be clarified, as a Roleplayer, and many like me, we create stories, where we claim to have done tasks for this NPC corporation, some may ewen claim to have spoken with this NPC person, and its done from character and story driven perspective, for you that been in the summit, may hear several things that relate to NPC organisation, persons etc... and for me and i think many other Roleplayers, that we dont get hit with a tabu that threatens our way of acting in Eve, we are sort of not the issue most of the time ;P, so how do you clearly make a distinct written wording, to allow Roleplay and not limit that in the effort to avoid scams through impersonating afiliation with NPCs and their corps... thank you
FearlessLittleToaster
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2013-09-14 02:10:53 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:

The only impersonation that should be forbidden is impersonation that relies on technical means to deceive (L vs I) or are totally unverifiable by an Eve player who can only access information available in game. Otherwise, if you cant confirm to your satisfaction who you are talking to, hit accept on that trade window at your own risk.


Do you have an example of a potential "totally unverifiable" impersonation in mind? That's a fairly vague set of possibilities, and it's therefore a worrisome inclusion. I don't really understand what you're trying to prevent by introducing this ambiguity into your proposal.


I have that there because of the possibility of a scam developing somehow and somewhere which would require a 3rd party external tool to detect. While the data would be available publicly, it would not be accessible to somebody without an external app.

I could see the victim arguing that he had no way with just his eve client to detect the impersonation while the perpetrator could just as easily argue that the scam could be detected with tools and data available to anyone with an internet connection.

With the proliferation of 3rd party applications and CCP releasing more and more information to the public I could not rule this out in the future, so I brought it up as something they might as well make clear here.
Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#139 - 2013-09-14 02:52:24 UTC
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
On the other hand, lets say that I get a convo form a guy right after I buy the carrier. He tells me that he is the alt of a Goonwaffe capswarm director and he is willing to help me move my carrier with a beacon right on a station. Granted the guy I am talking to is not a goon but hey, I love help! I could convo the director he is claiming to be and ask if this is legitimate. I could request that he convo me with his main to prove who he is. I could drop a scout in system and see where his cyno is lit before I jump in. But I don't do any of those things and so he drops me in the middle of 50 bombers and they explode my carrier. I petition the loss, get my carrier back, and the guy who tricked me gets a perma-ban.

Ironically, we once jumped to a neural alt cyno....

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.
Shamna Skor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2013-09-14 02:58:04 UTC
I just want to be sure I'm not going to get banned for naming my ship Cargo Container.