These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Protection of Pilot Privacy

Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1 - 2014-02-21 14:17:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
Concord knows who you are.

CCP obviously does as well, seeing that you can log in.

I would like to see the option added to place everyone else on a "Need to Know" basis.
Maybe I don't want to be chatted up, or I see someone I don't want to talk with. Why should I need to advertise my chat presence?

Basic explanation: Create the option to change your chat status to "ANONYMOUS", replacing your name in Local Chat with this instead of your pilot name.
This would be strictly an option, like many chat systems, it is widely accepted that some players want to be seen, and the means to know who is feeling chatty can be helpful socially.

The need to separate pilots from each other can still be achieved by simply assigning them a number, based on how many are currently in system that seek anonymity.
ANONYMOUS-001
ANONYMOUS-002
ANONYMOUS-003
Etc.

(This would strip away all personally identifying details, such as standings, to prevent work arounds)

Suspect and criminal flagging, not being the result of identity directly, but derived from recent actions instead, would still appear.

You would still appear in the local chat system, showing someone was present and able to hear your poetic words, but they would not be identified to you through the chat system itself.

Players would be able to set the standing for ANONYMOUS to indicate a default hostile, if they are concerned about being warned.

EDIT:
There should definitely be the option to block anonymous, just like you would block a specific pilot, and thereby not see anything they say in chat. (You would still see them in the list normally, as ANONYMOUS-001, etc)
This would be inclusive of all using the ANONYMOUS option, just like they could all be flagged as hostile by default.

This would be a presumed function already, in my opinion, but I am specifying it here.


The overview, displaying ships in sensor range, would obviously have actual pilot details as normally present.

Let's help the people who want to chat stand out, and those wishing privacy to have that respected!
scimichar
Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
#2 - 2014-02-21 14:24:19 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:


Basic explanation: Create the option to change your chat status to "ANONYMOUS", replacing your name in Local Chat with this instead of your pilot name.
This would be strictly an option, like many chat systems, it is widely accepted that some players want to be seen, and the means to know who is feeling chatty can be helpful socially.


Local chat is not really about chatting. It's an area to see who is hostile and who is not. By making an option to make your name anonymous, it essentially removes local. (Because no one in their right mind will want to advertise that they are a hostile).
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#3 - 2014-02-21 14:26:03 UTC
DARN YOU NSA!!!11elf
Seliah
Blades of Liberty
#4 - 2014-02-21 14:27:01 UTC
This would go far beyond just "hiding so people can't talk to me", since it would hide standings, corp and alliance. This information is a big part of local intel. With your option, you'd potientally only have access to how many people are in local. This is sort of half-way between the classic "remove local" proposal and the current local system.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-02-21 14:27:50 UTC
scimichar wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:


Basic explanation: Create the option to change your chat status to "ANONYMOUS", replacing your name in Local Chat with this instead of your pilot name.
This would be strictly an option, like many chat systems, it is widely accepted that some players want to be seen, and the means to know who is feeling chatty can be helpful socially.


Local chat is not really about chatting. It's an area to see who is hostile and who is not. By making an option to make your name anonymous, it essentially removes local. (Because no one in their right mind will want to advertise that they are a hostile).

1. Local is supposed to be about chatting and not an intel channel.
2. You completely missed the point, it is about making your posts say anonymous said, and nothing to do with replacing your name in the list.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Seliah
Blades of Liberty
#6 - 2014-02-21 14:31:45 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

2. You completely missed the point, it is about making your posts say anonymous said, and nothing to do with replacing your name in the list.


Did he ? I think the OP meant the names would be hidden in the list and in the chat if you're talking. If not, it definitely needs clarification.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#7 - 2014-02-21 14:36:04 UTC
scimichar wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:


Basic explanation: Create the option to change your chat status to "ANONYMOUS", replacing your name in Local Chat with this instead of your pilot name.
This would be strictly an option, like many chat systems, it is widely accepted that some players want to be seen, and the means to know who is feeling chatty can be helpful socially.


Local chat is not really about chatting. It's an area to see who is hostile and who is not. By making an option to make your name anonymous, it essentially removes local. (Because no one in their right mind will want to advertise that they are a hostile).

Seliah wrote:
This would go far beyond just "hiding so people can't talk to me", since it would hide standings, corp and alliance. This information is a big part of local intel. With your option, you'd potientally only have access to how many people are in local. This is sort of half-way between the classic "remove local" proposal and the current local system.


It should be pointed out, quite notably,that I conceded to such concerns already.

As stated in the OP:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Players would be able to set the standing for ANONYMOUS to indicate a default hostile, if they are concerned about being warned.

You can choose to be warned in this manner.

Players setting themselves as ANONYMOUS will be doing so with the understanding that they will appear as hostile, creating a sense of discomfort in any who have adjusted their settings this way.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#8 - 2014-02-21 14:37:32 UTC
Seliah wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

2. You completely missed the point, it is about making your posts say anonymous said, and nothing to do with replacing your name in the list.


Did he ? I think the OP meant the names would be hidden in the list and in the chat if you're talking. If not, it definitely needs clarification.

No, it means the list is changed specifically too.

Entries in both would display as ANONYMOUS, followed by a number for reference as needed.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-02-21 14:43:37 UTC
Seliah wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

2. You completely missed the point, it is about making your posts say anonymous said, and nothing to do with replacing your name in the list.


Did he ? I think the OP meant the names would be hidden in the list and in the chat if you're talking. If not, it definitely needs clarification.

Guess I interpreted it wrong.

@OP you know better than to try a local discussion again. They dont end well.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Seliah
Blades of Liberty
#10 - 2014-02-21 14:44:04 UTC
1. The option to switch between the 2 modes should be integrated ingame and relatively easy to access then, since this might be something you'd want to change on the fly.

2. I'm assuming you'd lose your Anonymous status the second you actually say something in local or gain a suspect/criminal flag ?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#11 - 2014-02-21 14:53:24 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Seliah wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

2. You completely missed the point, it is about making your posts say anonymous said, and nothing to do with replacing your name in the list.


Did he ? I think the OP meant the names would be hidden in the list and in the chat if you're talking. If not, it definitely needs clarification.

Guess I interpreted it wrong.

@OP you know better than to try a local discussion again. They dont end well.

This one is much more user friendly.

To those using Local for intel, you simply add ANONYMOUS to your hostile threat set, and you still get warned.

Seliah wrote:
1. The option to switch between the 2 modes should be integrated ingame and relatively easy to access then, since this might be something you'd want to change on the fly.

2. I'm assuming you'd lose your Anonymous status the second you actually say something in local or gain a suspect/criminal flag ?

1. This sounds practical, I would suggest it be a right click option in the chat window itself.

2. No.
If you chat in local, it says ANONYMOUS-001 instead of your name, (number may vary per pilot).
If become flagged as criminal or suspect, you remain listed as ANONYMOUS but with the specific criminal or suspect icon established.

While suspect / criminal flagging is not a social function, the existing means of remote notification using the system is maintained by this compromise.

Privacy is respected, while concerned parties can still maintain a sense of security knowing when friendly names are voluntarily present.
Seliah
Blades of Liberty
#12 - 2014-02-21 15:00:28 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Seliah wrote:

I'm assuming you'd lose your Anonymous status the second you actually say something in local or gain a suspect/criminal flag ?

No.
If you chat in local, it says ANONYMOUS-001 instead of your name, (number may vary per pilot).
If become flagged as criminal or suspect, you remain listed as ANONYMOUS but with the specific criminal or suspect icon established.

While suspect / criminal flagging is not a social function, the existing means of remote notification using the system is maintained by this compromise.

Privacy is respected, while concerned parties can still maintain a sense of security knowing when friendly names are voluntarily present.


I can understand your reasoning, but you bring up "privacy" quite a lot, when I think this feature would mostly be used for hiding presence in local by making people doubt your identity. In that regard, I felt that it made sense that you could only hide your identity for as long as you hadn't interacted with other people. Along the same line, you could also imagine that everybody you've spotted at least once on your overview since they entered system can no longer be "anonymous" for you.


scimichar
Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
#13 - 2014-02-21 15:22:16 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:


It should be pointed out, quite notably,that I conceded to such concerns already.



As pointed out, everyone would just be "anonymous".
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#14 - 2014-02-21 15:27:58 UTC
Seliah wrote:
I can understand your reasoning, but you bring up "privacy" quite a lot, when I think this feature would mostly be used for hiding presence in local by making people doubt your identity. In that regard, I felt that it made sense that you could only hide your identity for as long as you hadn't interacted with other people. Along the same line, you could also imagine that everybody you've spotted at least once on your overview since they entered system can no longer be "anonymous" for you.

Once someone enters a system, like any chat room, they can be considered committed to having the identity they are using.

That said, it need not be a requirement. Like any chat room, they can change their status, exit, and reenter.

The key detail, if they are not leaving in order to establish the new status, is that it would enter the change into the chat log itself, saying Pilot So-and-so has changed to ANONYMOUS-001.
This grants those with prior awareness of the pilot a grandfathered token to refer to.

It could be important, say, if someone were using the chat for secondary intel, that they recognize the person as friendly in this manner.
(They could voluntarily toggle ANONYMOUS on and off, logging into the chat window that they wished to be known as friendly, and not a cause for concern)
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#15 - 2014-02-21 15:31:45 UTC
scimichar wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:


It should be pointed out, quite notably,that I conceded to such concerns already.



As pointed out, everyone would just be "anonymous".

This is possible, while not necessarily being inevitable.

Do you believe everyone will switch over to being anonymous, despite expectations that such will be considered hostile by default?

Won't that simply help identify genuine threats more easily?
SKINE DMZ
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2014-02-21 16:09:14 UTC
scimichar wrote:

Local chat is not really about chatting. It's an area to see who is hostile and who is not. By making an option to make your name anonymous, it essentially removes local. (Because no one in their right mind will want to advertise that they are a hostile).

That is what it's used for, don't forget CCP thinks local is way too powerful as an intel tool as it was never meant to be that, it seems they are open to good solutions, although in my opinion I don't think this is a good solution.

In my opinion local just needs to be like wormholes everywhere, if you speak you are seen. Theres a directional scanner to show you what's near you and cloakers should be actually cloaked and off the map kind of thing. Knowing there is someone cloaked kind of defeats the point and also creates all the afk cloaking whining.

I disagree

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#17 - 2014-02-21 16:29:17 UTC
SKINE DMZ wrote:
scimichar wrote:

Local chat is not really about chatting. It's an area to see who is hostile and who is not. By making an option to make your name anonymous, it essentially removes local. (Because no one in their right mind will want to advertise that they are a hostile).

That is what it's used for, don't forget CCP thinks local is way too powerful as an intel tool as it was never meant to be that, it seems they are open to good solutions, although in my opinion I don't think this is a good solution.

In my opinion local just needs to be like wormholes everywhere, if you speak you are seen. Theres a directional scanner to show you what's near you and cloakers should be actually cloaked and off the map kind of thing. Knowing there is someone cloaked kind of defeats the point and also creates all the afk cloaking whining.

Again, while you obviously read enough to recognize this is about local chat, you are not acknowledging the ability to flag anything ANONYMOUS as hostile by default.

This, if abused to impact intel gathering, simply allows anyone to flag themselves as hostile, even to friends.
The moment they are viewed on grid, however, the truth always comes out regarding their standings.

If they want to scare their buddies in chat, that should be up to them.
If your friends do that to you... maybe you should try talking to them about it.
HTC NecoSino
Suddenly Carebears
#18 - 2014-02-21 17:30:19 UTC
You sound like you would enjoy WH space tremendously..

Blackstar Privateers is recruiting Blink
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#19 - 2014-02-21 17:40:38 UTC
HTC NecoSino wrote:
You sound like you would enjoy WH space tremendously..

Blackstar Privateers is recruiting Blink

Thank you, but I've already been there.

While I did appreciate the gritty realism of some aspects, it was a bad match for my general play style.
(I missed the static connections, and the lack of station / market access)

My evaluation: thrilling, but too inconvenient for long term presence.
HTC NecoSino
Suddenly Carebears
#20 - 2014-02-21 18:09:14 UTC
Sounds like you hooked up with the wrong group then. The right group of people will roll until they get a k-space entrance to get people in/out, killing anyone they encounter in the process. Twisted
12Next page