These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Terms of Service History and Clarification Dev Blog

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2013-09-20 19:19:02 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
In light of player concerns with recent changes to the Terms of Service (ToS) we wanted to take an opportunity to discuss the history of the Terms of Service and clarify both how the ToS is currently interpreted and how we intend to move forward into the future. The Dev Blog can be found here. Please feel free to leave an feedback or comments.

For constructive input on the recent changes to the ToS, the official CSM thread can be found here.

CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-09-20 19:29:30 UTC
Going to go ahead and say, "told you so."


With that out of the way, the CSM is continuing to gather feedback, and we consider pushing for action based on that feedback to be one of our top priorities.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-09-20 19:37:26 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Going to go ahead and say, "told you so."


With that out of the way, the CSM is continuing to gather feedback, and we consider pushing for action based on that feedback to be one of our top priorities.

This is a thread about the ToS agreement, not the drone assist mechanic. Blink
Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2013-09-20 19:41:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
It has already been made abundantly clear that the past enforcement of the ToS is very different from what people believed the rules have been. There is a separate underlying problem here in that it appears actual rules are kept secret until petitioned(and rulings cannot be republished).

This particular issue has been 'clarified' to death, more clarity is not needed. What is needed is for the previously secret rules to be changed as they are the antithesis of everything that is great about this game.
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#5 - 2013-09-20 19:45:55 UTC
Two times in the past I have ask by petition to do something about this:

https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/DJWiggles

https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/DJ%20Wiggles

The former is an eve radio DJ that does the eve radio lottery, the other one is obvious an impersonator.

You have done nothing about it.


So yeah, your words about the ToS in this devblog they mean nothing I guess Sad

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
Valrandir
Senex Legio
Manifesto.
#6 - 2013-09-20 20:22:48 UTC
DevBlog wrote:

As with any binding document like the ToS, making changes can sometimes take some time, and we appreciate your patience as we look into the matter.


As we have seen in very recent history changes can also be made quite quickly.
Underlining that it may take some time reveals the damage control nature of this dev blog, along with the general ideas that problems might just go away with time.
Sid Hudgens
Doomheim
#7 - 2013-09-20 20:32:19 UTC
Nice blog. Solid info.

So to sum up what's been happening on the forums...

Whiny forum warrior: You've banned everyone! We can't scam, we can't have alts, we can't even undock! If this TOS change means what we think it does EVE is dead! Would someone please clarify what this means?

CCP: Explains everything...

Whiny forum warrior: No! Your clarification is obviously wrong! Why are you lying to us?

CCP: Provides proof of what they have been saying all along...

Whiny forum warrior: Obviously we don't need any more clarifying if all you are going to do is prove us wrong. Stop clarifying things. We reject your reality and substitute our own! Why have you been hiding these secret rules in these secret documents known as the EULA and the Naming Policy?


I think CCP's only move here is to admit that all players were secretly banned years ago but they couldn't stop allowing them to play EVE because then the secret would get out. So they moved all the secret rules to the non-secret TOS and now if anyone gets caught breaking the non-secret rules CCP can disclose the the player's account was secretly banned years ago and since the player has outed themselves by violating non-secret rules the aforementioned secret ban can now be un-secretly enforced.

"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#8 - 2013-09-20 20:45:55 UTC
Will be interesting to read.

/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
#9 - 2013-09-20 20:58:52 UTC
I predict that this BLOG will not stop the whining...

But I really can't understand the fuss people make about the whole thing...
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain
Remanaquie Federation
#10 - 2013-09-20 22:34:40 UTC
..."we have decided to take a deeper look at what we should and should not be enforcing.

This is where the problem lies. It bothers me to have CCP stating that there are some rules they set themselves, but then not all of which will be enforced. Should EVE players play russian roulette with the ToS?

All rules should be enforced. Which then leads to the 2nd part of the problem. Not everyone agrees that these should be the rules.

On a side note, the ToS also states "No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity". Short of hacking into someone's account, I fail to see how I could break this rule since the game doesn't allow for 2 characters to have the same name. But then CCP seems to interpret this rule not as a prohibition to use the same name, but as prohibition to use similar names.

For all this and a lot more, is why players are upset and arguing rightfuly so, that the ToS wording isn't clear. And either they're right, or CCP has a hard time intereting the rules they wrote themselves.
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#11 - 2013-09-20 23:10:26 UTC
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:
For all this and a lot more, is why players are upset and arguing rightfuly so, that the ToS wording isn't clear. And either they're right, or CCP has a hard time intereting the rules they wrote themselves.

I'd say all of the above.

Something which runing E-UNI for 7 years taught me, was that now matter what you intend when you write something, if it can possibly be interpreted another way, if enough people read it some of them willinterpret it differently.

In this case, CCP need to fix the wording and provide examples of what is and is not allowed in the TOS itself.
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun
REUNI0N
Against ALL Authorities
#12 - 2013-09-20 23:36:14 UTC  |  Edited by: E'lyna Mis Dimaloun
Quote:
... simply claiming you are the alt of someone (such as the 'I'm your CEO's alt' scam as described by F'nog), is not allowed.


Except that it should be allowed. Full stop. No one comes to EVE for the scenery - they come to be part of a ruthless, dog-eat-dog world, where trust is a currency as valid as isk.

Break that trust, you break the game.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2013-09-21 01:09:52 UTC
Thanks for the blog and the explanation from CCPs side

Please update your TOS based on Player Feedback

A world where Chribba is allowed to scam, whereas someone who claims to be Chribba but actually is Chribbo is not is not a consistent one
Syndic Thrass
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-09-21 02:28:13 UTC
I bought the character Syndic Thrass years ago. This character is now my main and I have assumed this pseudonym as my identity. In claiming that I am Syndic Thrass am I violating these new super ambiguous ToS? Am I Syndic Thrass? Is this world even real?

Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8
Safdrof Uta
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2013-09-21 05:56:28 UTC
Only 13 other comments on a dev blog that was put up due to an 18 page forum post?

Funny.

Good to see that CCP are making clear to the other players who can't figure it out for themselves that the TOS change wasn't a change of policy at all, and that the policy was always in place. Hell, I'd be surprised if half of the people in the other forum thread had read or even knew of the Naming Policy.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2013-09-21 08:13:24 UTC
Easily done when 'clarifications' from two different GMs are mutually conflicting.

Also the discussion on this is taking place elsewhere. The TOS has now been clarified, its failings are plain to see, the next step is getting the necessary alterations made to fix it.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Pantheon Lea
Farmer Boyz
#17 - 2013-09-21 15:18:37 UTC
Sooo, it was all about Chribba...

I knew it. Shocked
Laendra
Universalis Imperium
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2013-09-21 17:24:04 UTC
Yet again, CCP institutes rules designed to prevent players from being stupid.

What's next on CCP's agenda? Setting the client to auto-cloak if someone enters system? Alarms if something appears on D-Scan, even if you aren't watching it? Local in W-Space? Full reimbursement on legal/legit scams? Outlawing all scams?

Who the **** decided it was a good idea to enable "Easy Mode" in EVE????
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#19 - 2013-09-21 20:37:26 UTC
Pantheon Lea wrote:
Sooo, it was all about Chribba...

I knew it. Shocked

I wish Lol If it had been I'd have made things differently haha

I've dealt with impersonators for years without too much trouble, so that's probably why I was used as an example (I guess?)

/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#20 - 2013-09-21 22:40:34 UTC
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Nice blog. Solid info.

So to sum up what's been happening on the forums...

Whiny forum warrior: You've banned everyone! We can't scam, we can't have alts, we can't even undock! If this TOS change means what we think it does EVE is dead! Would someone please clarify what this means?

CCP: Explains everything...

Whiny forum warrior: No! Your clarification is obviously wrong! Why are you lying to us?

CCP: Provides proof of what they have been saying all along...

Whiny forum warrior: Obviously we don't need any more clarifying if all you are going to do is prove us wrong. Stop clarifying things. We reject your reality and substitute our own! Why have you been hiding these secret rules in these secret documents known as the EULA and the Naming Policy?


I think CCP's only move here is to admit that all players were secretly banned years ago but they couldn't stop allowing them to play EVE because then the secret would get out. So they moved all the secret rules to the non-secret TOS and now if anyone gets caught breaking the non-secret rules CCP can disclose the the player's account was secretly banned years ago and since the player has outed themselves by violating non-secret rules the aforementioned secret ban can now be un-secretly enforced.


OMG! We're all on double-secret probation!
123Next page