These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ed Tekki
Doomheim
#161 - 2013-09-14 10:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Ed Tekki
I still think plagiarise is far better wording in context of "name impersonation".

I also think an important addition is "sanctioned" when reffering to volunteers, as there's a lot of people who volunteer (eg, E-Uni).

My version would be as follows:

"You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or a sanctioned EVE Online volunteer. You may not plagiarise the name of another player, corporation or alliance for the purpose of imitation or impersonation."

I've also had another thought about people impersonating someone for the purpose of defamation, isn't that already covered in personal attacks and harassment?

edit: I should point out that the reason behind the additional, seemingly superfluous " for the purpose of imitation or impersonation" is to cover incidental "similar names", to essentially prevent ~XxXsEpHiRoThXxX~ from reporting ~xXxSePhIrOtHxXx~ for "impersonation".
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2013-09-14 10:43:33 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
You may have missed the part where |Mynnna IS a member of a CCP organization, the CSM
Mynnna wrote:
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.

Maybe change it like this?

"You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer in their official capacity. You may not impersonate or present yourself or your corporation or alliance by imitation of their name"

That also catches another possible case. A lot of devs play Eve on other accounts/characters. So if I would impersonate some lowsec solo pvp character of CCP Rise, I assume that would be illegal under Mynnna's terms without the above addition.
Regarding the CSM this addition means, as long as normal ingame matters are concerned, like Supercapital trades or whatsnot, you may impersonate them, but not when it comes to their CSM-related duties.



Yeah, I also think that the CSM shouldn't gain some kind special protection from scams, or people claiming to be them (through lying). While they do have a particular role (i.e communicating the Eve Communities opinions to CCP), they should not gain any special disposition in game, as that would obviously give them an advantage (however slight that may be).
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#163 - 2013-09-14 10:54:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
If we're going along the 'official capacity' thing, I think it's OK to say "sure we can use The Mittani as a third party, he's leadership of the biggest coalition in the game"

But if you don't want people misrepresenting CSM in an official capacity, then saying "sure we can use The Mittani, he's part of the CSM so he's trustworthy" is not OK

You're suggesting that
a) the CSM can't lie in game (misrepresenting the CCP volunteer organisation) and
b) Mittani had specifically agreed as a CSM to the trade beforehand (misrepresenting a CSM, a CCP volunteer)

If the scammer had said that The Mittani had agreed to third-party a trade without mentioning Mittani was CSM, the scammer is misrepresenting 'The Mittani, EVE Player' not 'The Mittani, Chairman' which I think is perfectly fine in EVE
Mhtsos
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#164 - 2013-09-14 11:17:30 UTC
No one seems to be mentioning this, this rule is much more difficult to enforce to groups that aren't "supported" by an ingame mechanic. When I become a member of my corp's leadership my CEO just tell me so. Then when I negotiate blue standings with someone as a member of my corp's leadership, I put myself in a position where I may be called upon to prove I hold that position. My own CEO might report me, and deny he's put me in that position. One might go so far as to say "well your CEO never put you in the leadership council, he just lied to you, so you (unknowingly) broke the rules by saying you were in leadership".

That might affect many player interactions. Let's lie to these guys about allowing them in our space. Not only they get shot at, but by saying "we're allowed to be here" they pretend to be blue to us (because that's what they think). Someone buying a new order mining license, their database barfs on commit so they're never actually on the list. Or maybe I scammed him and sold him a bogus license, and now he thinks he's good to mine, but he's breaking the rule.

So now we face the technical question of how players can implement tamper proof trusted group member lists both sides can't tamper with, and verifiable by ccp.
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2013-09-14 11:57:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


Ok, then just let's get out the space lawyers. We are paying for a product with a TOS that has changed, and as long as we conform to cases that have not lead to banning in the past, we are on the safe side. So we just have to digg out case law of past decisions to be on the safe side... do you really want this -i mean really, and not as a PR "put out the fire" stunt?

As you are not going into specifics the only basic rule can be destilled from what you said - as a representative of those senior "Crowd Control Production" gamedesigners, who are likely responsible for this mess and letting you take the fall for their inability to formulate a clear statement.

So here is what I am working with what YOU said: "there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago":

* It is allowed to chat with someone to get him romantically engaged to steal all his allys assets (thx haven't tried that one) - why? Involved parties still play and have not been banned. Check.

* It is allowed to steal anything from TEST (should def try that one). Why: Involved parties still play and have not been banned. Check.

and the list goes on...


Fun times ahead... the problem here is that EVE just has such a loyal fanbase BECAUSE of the scams and the danger.. if we wanted a walled garden we could just stop playing eve at all, because we all got the new X and Star Citizen and will try int and come back to EVE anyway...

It is a miscalculation of who your playerbase is: we are not 14 years old, most of us are around 25-35 and WANT somethign a little darker than "Space Ponies in Rainbowland".

And it is also a PR-misconception: The main reason why eve is in the press at all is BECAUSE scams are allowed and this is a welcome contrast to the us-based secure walled garden games. I read about eve in the mainstream press just because someone was scammed... and it want downhill from there until I started playing ;)

DISCLAIMER: I hate Scammers and also lost some stuff to them. But it is an ESSENTIAL part of the game to make it a dangerous, lawless space. And there are enough possibilities to check up on chars, both in-game and with all the meta info pages out there. So after being angry I actually valued the experience (not that I want to repeat it) as something different and great in EVE.


Ideas on how to fix it:

Just openly limit the changes to the starter systems and people who are still eligible for the newbie help chat - and make it clear to other players by a badge, a newbie corp or anything.

Limit newbies ability to accept contracts for the first 2-4 weeks

In short: do anything to help new players while not breaking the meta-game for your long term loyal playerbase. PLEASE!

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... and much more eloquently put: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3613856#post3613856
Johan March
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2013-09-14 12:43:16 UTC
In my opinion, this is what it should be:

Any player cannot have any character or alliance name similar to that of a GM, Dev, ISD, CCP, or any subsidiary, parent, or affiliate of CCP. Players cannot modify official CCP websites (e.g. the wiki) to gain any advantage over another player. No player may claim to be or have authorization to act on behalf of a GM, Dev, ISD, CCP, any subsidiary, parent, etc. to gain any advantage over another player.

If a player or player organization has any name that matches or similar to any real world organization, CCP reserves the right to insist on the player or player organization changing their name.


That's it. You keep players from impersonating CCP and its employees and volunteers. If Xe or American Training or whatever they call themselves these days sends a cease and desist over the EVE Corproation Blackwater USA, you tell the players or player organization that they have to change their name.

Nobody can pretend to be you, CCP. But, in game, I can pretend to be Phreeze or ProGodLegend or whomever and the onus to verify my claims rests with the person I'm speaking with.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#167 - 2013-09-14 13:43:08 UTC
Post number 4 is what I agree with.
Sam Alkawe
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2013-09-14 13:54:39 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:


iii) I chat with a guy who says he is Mynnnas alt . . . I contact Mynnna to see if it is on the up and up (it isn't) BUT Mynnna thinks it would be hilarious to see me fall for a scam and tells me yes, that is an alt of his. Who gets banned, the false alt, Mynnna or both?

m


As far as I know, CSM is a player-electect group that received no special treatment inside the magic circle. As far as I know, CSM is just a regular player that decided they wanted to represent players. If Mynnna decides to go along with the scam, then Mynnna decided to destroy her reputation. It should not result in a ban for either. Now, if the now destroyed reputation ends up in Mynnna not being able to perform her duties as a CSM member (because nobody trusts her), then the very players that elected her should be able to replace her.
Madlof Chev
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#169 - 2013-09-14 14:02:09 UTC
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.


Ok, then just let's get out the space lawyers. We are paying for a product with a TOS that has changed, and as long as we conform to cases that have not lead to banning in the past, we are on the safe side. So we just have to digg out case law of past decisions to be on the safe side... do you really want this -i mean really, and not as a PR "put out the fire" stunt?

As you are not going into specifics the only basic rule can be destilled from what you said - as a representative of those senior "Crowd Control Production" gamedesigners, who are likely responsible for this mess and letting you take the fall for their inability to formulate a clear statement.

So here is what I am working with what YOU said: "there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago":

* It is allowed to chat with someone to get him romantically engaged to steal all his allys assets (thx haven't tried that one) - why? Involved parties still play and have not been banned. Check.

* It is allowed to steal anything from TEST (should def try that one). Why: Involved parties still play and have not been banned. Check.

and the list goes on...


Fun times ahead... the problem here is that EVE just has such a loyal fanbase BECAUSE of the scams and the danger.. if we wanted a walled garden we could just stop playing eve at all, because we all got the new X and Star Citizen and will try int and come back to EVE anyway...

It is a miscalculation of who your playerbase is: we are not 14 years old, most of us are around 25-35 and WANT somethign a little darker than "Space Ponies in Rainbowland".

And it is also a PR-misconception: The main reason why eve is in the press at all is BECAUSE scams are allowed and this is a welcome contrast to the us-based secure walled garden games. I read about eve in the mainstream press just because someone was scammed... and it want downhill from there until I started playing ;)

DISCLAIMER: I hate Scammers and also lost some stuff to them. But it is an ESSENTIAL part of the game to make it a dangerous, lawless space. And there are enough possibilities to check up on chars, both in-game and with all the meta info pages out there. So after being angry I actually valued the experience (not that I want to repeat it) as something different and great in EVE.


Ideas on how to fix it:

Just openly limit the changes to the starter systems and people who are still eligible for the newbie help chat - and make it clear to other players by a badge, a newbie corp or anything.

Limit newbies ability to accept contracts for the first 2-4 weeks

In short: do anything to help new players while not breaking the meta-game for your long term loyal playerbase. PLEASE!

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... and much more eloquently put: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3613856#post3613856


posts like this are going to hurt our case on the whole - you've managed to write good ideas into a post resembling a coffee machine

from bean to cup you **** up
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#170 - 2013-09-14 14:10:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
I would reevaluate what was wanted by changing the ToS. If it is the protection of new players and making the game more attractive by removing the one thing that got EVE into mainstream media worldwide (a world where players have to be smart and can be scammed), then perhaps one would be better served by trying to protect new players through automated game mechanics than messing up the meta game for experienced long term supporters:


Ideas on how to do it in a less-invasive way:


  • Just openly limit the changes to the starter systems and people who are still eligible for the newbie help chat - and make it clear to other players by a badge, a newbie corp or anything. The new changes in the EVE wiki already reflect that - although this change should be better advocated and not done in silence to prevent the next escalation...

  • Limit newbies ability to accept contracts for the first 2-4 weeks and warn them... Please note the difference between warning someone and prohibiting a certain game move. One thing makes the individual player responsible for his in-game fate, the other kills possible game-content in a sandbox-game.

  • Differ better between actions against developers (no impersonation etc) and actions of player vs player (be smart or get used to being scammed)

  • Introduce a new region with harsher rules, e.g. an a.i. region where there is no privacy or protections and the a.i.s are the ultimate arbitrators. This region could have different rules in the game... much like super-casual-safe-high-sec, where you could test drive how "appealing" this is as a new starter region for new players - they could choose the unsafe safe or super safe regions, with difficult, less difficult, windows assistant help options... all without breaking the game fur current users but adding to it.

  • Perhaps think of forking a game that better suits new players, if that is really the new vision for EVE. Something like sim space open only to 12-17y old players. *satire off* :P



In short: do anything to help new players while not breaking the meta-game for your long term loyal playerbase. PLEASE! Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... and much more eloquently put: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3613856#post3613856
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#171 - 2013-09-14 14:18:34 UTC
Dirk Action wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
iii) I chat with a guy who says he is Mynnnas alt . . . I contact Mynnna to see if it is on the up and up (it isn't) BUT Mynnna thinks it would be hilarious to see me fall for a scam and tells me yes, that is an alt of his. Who gets banned, the false alt, Mynnna or both?

m


Nobody, because since when has EVE been a game where you get banned for lying?


No one should be banned in that case. Mynnna would simply be responsible for his own actions, the way it should be, no different than if he scammed you directly.
Madlof Chev
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#172 - 2013-09-14 15:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Madlof Chev
Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
I would reevaluate what was wanted by changing the ToS. If it is the protection of new players and making the game more attractive by removing the one thing that got EVE into mainstream media worldwide (a world where players have to be smart and can be scammed), then perhaps one would be better served by trying to protect new players through automated game mechanics than messing up the meta game for experienced long term supporters:


Ideas on how to do it in a less-invasive way:


  • Just openly limit the changes to the starter systems and people who are still eligible for the newbie help chat - and make it clear to other players by a badge, a newbie corp or anything. The new changes in the EVE wiki already reflect that - although this change should be better advocated and not done in silence to prevent the next escalation...

  • Limit newbies ability to accept contracts for the first 2-4 weeks and warn them... Please note the difference between warning someone and prohibiting a certain game move. One thing makes the individual player responsible for his in-game fate, the other kills possible game-content in a sandbox-game.

  • Differ better between actions against developers (no impersonation etc) and actions of player vs player (be smart or get used to being scammed)

  • Introduce a new region with harsher rules, e.g. an a.i. region where there is no privacy or protections and the a.i.s are the ultimate arbitrators. This region could have different rules in the game... much like super-casual-safe-high-sec, where you could test drive how "appealing" this is as a new starter region for new players - they could choose the unsafe safe or super safe regions, with difficult, less difficult, windows assistant help options... all without breaking the game fur current users but adding to it.

  • Perhaps think of forking a game that better suits new players, if that is really the new vision for EVE. Something like sim space open only to 12-17y old players. *satire off* :P



In short: do anything to help new players while not breaking the meta-game for your long term loyal playerbase. PLEASE! Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... and much more eloquently put: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3613856#post3613856


god are you actually ******* serious

  • Just openly limit the changes to the starter systems... -

    • so you're essentially saying "squeeze the newbie for the first 30 days or so then let them get thrown to the wolves anyway" - what's the point of even ever protecting them in the first place (hint: there's not one)

  • Limit newbies ability to accept contracts for the first 2-4 weeks and warn them -

    • so you effectively hamstring people's new alt accounts, cut new players out of a chunk of the game, and baby them like little princesses instead of feeding them the congregation of pricks that this game's playerbase actually is - so again, you either teach the new players what they're getting into or they'll just scream and whine after this cutout period ends that the nasty man touched them in every special place they have simultaneously.

  • Introduce a new region with harsher rules, -

    • blow loads of developement resources on a "test drive" of what is essentially a different game right at the core instead of fixing legitimate real issues with the game as it stands instead of catering to some gigantic prissy baby

  • Perhaps think of forking a game that better suits new players -

    • this idea is literally like freebasing fecal matter hope that helps

  • Differ better between actions against developers (no impersonation etc) and actions of player vs player (be smart or get used to being scammed)

    • oh my god there's actually one good idea hidden in your fetid lump of e.coli that's passing off as a post
    Yathsou Athanah
    Second Sons
    Brave United
    #173 - 2013-09-14 15:02:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Yathsou Athanah
    Suggested change:
    'It is not allowed to misrepesent CCP, representatives of CCP or players directly affiliated with CCP through the (ISD, CSM, ???) organisations.'

    Misrepresentation is the key word that this clause should be about, to prevent players from damaging the image of CCP through in-game actions. This clause should work both ways, it is not allowed for players to impersonate CCP affiliates for ingame actions, nor is it allowed for CCP affiliates (devs, ISD, CSM) to use their affilition with CCP for their own or other's ingame actions.

    This is the only limitation the ToS/EULA should have to impersonating others

    A petition for one of these subjects should then only be reviewed from the question: has the image of CCP been misrepresented, and if so, wich person or persons are to blame for this.

    However, because of the multiple causes for the desire to change this specific part of the ToS/EULA I'd also suggest:
    - fix the damn UI to make it easier to distinguish characters, make character/corp/etc. names uniquely identifiable
    - put a giant red disclaimer 'no claims can be made based on the contents of this page as they can be edited by anyone at any time' on wiki pages that can be edited. If you want to make a page official, make damn sure it's contents are correct and can't be edited, and then refund/punish if people do abuse it.
    Madlof Chev
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #174 - 2013-09-14 15:11:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Madlof Chev
    Split player pages (for players, player organizations, and player history) off from the lore/informational content of the wiki. It's ludicrous to think you can have some kind of neutral representation of player-created content anyway so you might as well put it in its own, unofficial, free-for-all zone where you don't need to concern yourself with the wording of the ToS in the first place.

    The original clarification strikes me as a way to reduce workload (i guess???) and removing the source of the problem that I assume started this whole drive to sanitizing EVE (the wiki edit scam) would help massively.
    Gecko Runner Hareka
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #175 - 2013-09-14 15:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
    Madlof Chev wrote:
    [quote=Gecko Runner Hareka]

  • Perhaps think of forking a game that better suits new players -

    • this idea is literally like freebasing fecal matter hope that helps

  • Differ better between actions against developers (no impersonation etc) and actions of player vs player (be smart or get used to being scammed)

    • oh my god there's actually one good idea hidden in your fetid lump of e.coli that's passing off as a post



    It doesn't really matter what I am serious about, but what CCP decided upon. Until we get clarification we have to evaluate the actions they took. For me it is a step to a newbie-friendly EVE that appeals to more people. Don't get me wrong, I would let EVE stay exactly as it is (with some sov mechanic changes but that's beside the point).

    But what I want to do with those changes is to show alternatives to either - or gameplay. It should be possible to scam, which is fun as a gameplay mechanism in EVE, while CCp should be able to tap into new player segments to get the money they want/need for further development.

    What they are now doing is slowly changing the playerbase with a succession of small changes aimed at a more - it seems to me - peaceful law-abiding boring style with new players that replace the playerbase (I think this is the death of EVE but again, it's not my company, I just have fun here). My ideas would allow for both player-styles to remain possible in EVE.

    It's not about what I like, it's about what might work, mate.
    Dirk Action
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #176 - 2013-09-14 15:17:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Action
    Benny Ohu wrote:
    If we're going along the 'official capacity' thing, I think it's OK to say "sure we can use The Mittani as a third party, he's leadership of the biggest coalition in the game"

    But if you don't want people misrepresenting CSM in an official capacity, then saying "sure we can use The Mittani, he's part of the CSM so he's trustworthy" is not OK

    You're suggesting that
    a) the CSM can't lie in game (misrepresenting the CCP volunteer organisation) and
    b) Mittani had specifically agreed as a CSM to the trade beforehand (misrepresenting a CSM, a CCP volunteer)

    If the scammer had said that The Mittani had agreed to third-party a trade without mentioning Mittani was CSM, the scammer is misrepresenting 'The Mittani, EVE Player' not 'The Mittani, Chairman' which I think is perfectly fine in EVE


    this is dumb, because it takes the choice The Mittani has in what he wants to do (does he want to scam them? does he want to be a legitimate third party?) away and puts it in the hands of the scammer, who may not even know what the rules are.

    If he inadvertently mentions that The Mittani is on the CSM, well shіt now if Mittens does anything BUT follow through on the legitimate third party option he would be punished. That isn't ok.
    Madlof Chev
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #177 - 2013-09-14 15:19:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Madlof Chev
    Gecko Runner Hareka wrote:
    Madlof Chev wrote:
    [quote=Gecko Runner Hareka]

  • Perhaps think of forking a game that better suits new players -

    • this idea is literally like freebasing fecal matter hope that helps

  • Differ better between actions against developers (no impersonation etc) and actions of player vs player (be smart or get used to being scammed)

    • oh my god there's actually one good idea hidden in your fetid lump of e.coli that's passing off as a post



    It doesn't really matter what I am serious about, but what CCP decided upon. Until we get clarification we have to evaluate the actions they took. For me it is a step to a newbie-friendly EVE that appeals to more people. Don't get me wrong, I would let EVE stay exactly as it is (with some sov mechanic changes but that's beside the point).

    But what I want to do with those changes is to show alternatives to either - or gameplay. It should be possible to scam, which is fun as a gameplay mechanism in EVE, while CCp should be able to tap into new player segments to get the money they want/need for further development.

    What they are now doing is slowly changing the playerbase with a succession of small changes aimed ad a more - it seems to me - peaceful law-abiding boring style. My ideas would allow for both player-styles to remain possible in EVE.

    It's not about what I like, it's about what might work, mate.



    The key point about this thread is that CCP are going to draw from it for ideas, so if you're spraying e. coli-ridden ideas out of your arse at 300mph you'd better be careful because some of them might stick.

    The boiling frog analogy is fine if you're not also saying from the other side of your mouth "god you know what let's just skip boiling the frog and serve it for dinner while its legs are still twitching from the taser we used to fry it alive"

    what you're essentially advocating is skipping the ~slow process~ of changing the game and going right to stabbing it through the heart with a ****-encrusted dagger
    Tu Ko
    Ascendance
    Goonswarm Federation
    #178 - 2013-09-14 15:22:47 UTC
    I haven't read every post in this thread so excuse if this has been said before

    I don't see any need to prohibit people from making characters or groups from impersonating other groups or characters with similar spelled names. There is no reason to give any player a trademark because they have made a successful in game business.If people can exploit the good name of another player, then they should be allowed to. No player is 'too important' that their name must be protected by CCP. We have access to exact same in game searches and even out of game searches (forums,killboard,API, etc.) and no one should be held favorite because of past glory. If Chribba turns around next week and scams a titan off someone there is literally no difference than if Chribbo does it they are both in characters in game and unique unto themselves.

    The second thing I take issue with is this common argument that because the font is terrible that we need to create some protections because letters look the same. I realize this is very true and that is very easy to make character name indistinguishable from another when typed into an in game chat. However, its still a rather flimsy trick. Anyone doing business with anyone else with an meaningful amount of isk should have some real knowledge of that other person and without hesitation have them in their People and Places, if they do neither they should not have any protection since they didn't know who they were dealing with anyway. Corps have their own protection by having members run backgrounds on new recruits. I've done them for nearly every corp I have ever been in and I have been subject to them in every corp I have ever joined. If they don't have the people to do that then they not a corp to be a member of and let them be AWOX'ed down to their noobships.

    All this revising of the TOS is merely a band-aid for bad in game fonts and to protect people that CCP think are special and both of those reasons are bad and anything done in service to those reasons will be bad as well.
    Madlof Chev
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #179 - 2013-09-14 15:25:37 UTC
    Tu Ko wrote:
    I haven't read every post in this thread so excuse if this has been said before

    I don't see any need to prohibit people from making characters or groups from impersonating other groups or characters with similar spelled names. There is no reason to give any player a trademark because they have made a successful in game business.If people can exploit the good name of another player, then they should be allowed to. No player is 'too important' that their name must be protected by CCP. We have access to exact same in game searches and even out of game searches (forums,killboard,API, etc.) and no one should be held favorite because of past glory. If Chribba turns around next week and scams a titan off someone there is literally no difference than if Chribbo does it they are both in characters in game and unique unto themselves.

    The second thing I take issue with is this common argument that because the font is terrible that we need to create some protections because letters look the same. I realize this is very true and that is very easy to make character name indistinguishable from another when typed into an in game chat. However, its still a rather flimsy trick. Anyone doing business with anyone else with an meaningful amount of isk should have some real knowledge of that other person and without hesitation have them in their People and Places, if they do neither they should not have any protection since they didn't know who they were dealing with anyway. Corps have their own protection by having members run backgrounds on new recruits. I've done them for nearly every corp I have ever been in and I have been subject to them in every corp I have ever joined. If they don't have the people to do that then they not a corp to be a member of and let them be AWOX'ed down to their noobships.

    All this revising of the TOS is merely a band-aid for bad in game fonts and to protect people that CCP think are special and both of those reasons are bad and anything done in service to those reasons will be bad as well.


    The font is terrible? The old font was even worse. You're going to encounter capital I / lowercase l problems with pretty much any font unless you jump in a time machine to 2003 and adopt some kind of serif abomination for your futuristic space game.
    Gecko Runner Hareka
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #180 - 2013-09-14 15:27:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko Runner Hareka
    Madlof Chev wrote:


    The key point about this thread is that CCP are going to draw from it for ideas, so if you're spraying awful ideas out of your arse at 300mph you'd better be careful because some of them might stick.

    The boiling frog analogy is fine if you're not also saying from the other side of your mouth "god you know what let's just skip boiling the frog and serve it for dinner while its legs are still twitching from the taser we used to fry it alive"

    what you're essentially advocating is skipping the ~slow process~ of changing the game and going right to stabbing it through the heart with a ****-encrusted dagger


    Yeah, basically that's what I want to provoke - goons and pandemic legion should have some xp with that, no (especially the dagger part)?!

    I think that the boiling frog approach is more dangerous exactly because we all will spend our energy at different points of the debate and slowly move on to other games, instead of one violent reaction that they will feel in revenue too and might actually make them take back the changes and keep us playing EVE.


    And to clarify why all those changes invite such violent reactions (if CCP really reads this and thinks about it):

    EVE takes up a lot of time. It caters to a playerbase that has to work and has not soo much freetime at hand. Those that still play do have enough money for subscriptions but not so much time as they had during university or edu. So a hobby really has to be something they like to do, something that is fun and they enjoy and relaxes them. For most of the eve-players this is the unforgiving playstyle of the EVEverse. If you mess with that you also mess with the fun-factor, the relaxation and the enjoyment they get out of it. And this is why I want to make them incorporate both playstyles... for all I care space-farm-players can have their super-safe-high sec space. As long as a lawless space also exists.