These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

A Disincentive for Returning Players
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Techagunichxio
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2011-12-14 22:42:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Techagunichxio wrote:
Ghoest wrote:
Are you being intentionally dense for the sake of discussion?

As I explained this has nothing to do with the amount of time elapsed nor does it concern effort to dig through data bases.

There are 2 innocent parties - one must accept the damage. CCP is going to side with the one who did not screw up and allow their account to be hacked.
Hypothetically you mean.

There is only one party that is somewhat innocent- the original player whose account was hacked. The person currently holding the char in question could well be just another alt of the hacker/ thief. This would be especially true if the transfer occurred through a private sale, as in this, hypothetical, example
Not hypothetically, no — realistically.

Realistically, there is one party that undoubtably has made an error: the supposed previous owner. It is possible (but far from certain) that the current owner is also at fault, but of the two, he's the one who's a priori the most innocent. So it is indeed right that CCP doesn't side with the party that unquestionably screwed up.


If someone carjacks your locked vehicle from a carpark, have you made an error? You took reasonable care to lock the vehicle. You did not leave your keys in the ignition. You did not hand the thief your keys. He saw you leave and took his opportunity.

If he was then to say, sell the car to a friend, that friend may be innocent of the crime itself (even if he had knowledge of it) but he would not retain ownership rights of it, particularly if it was a private sale/ transfer- as per the hypothetical.

I appreciate your point of view, but I believe your argument is mute in this circumstance.
Darren Corley
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2011-12-14 22:46:24 UTC
Techagunichxio wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Techagunichxio wrote:
Ghoest wrote:
Are you being intentionally dense for the sake of discussion?

As I explained this has nothing to do with the amount of time elapsed nor does it concern effort to dig through data bases.

There are 2 innocent parties - one must accept the damage. CCP is going to side with the one who did not screw up and allow their account to be hacked.
Hypothetically you mean.

There is only one party that is somewhat innocent- the original player whose account was hacked. The person currently holding the char in question could well be just another alt of the hacker/ thief. This would be especially true if the transfer occurred through a private sale, as in this, hypothetical, example
Not hypothetically, no — realistically.

Realistically, there is one party that undoubtably has made an error: the supposed previous owner. It is possible (but far from certain) that the current owner is also at fault, but of the two, he's the one who's a priori the most innocent. So it is indeed right that CCP doesn't side with the party that unquestionably screwed up.


If someone carjacks your locked vehicle from a carpark, have you made an error? You took reasonable care to lock the vehicle. You did not leave your keys in the ignition. You did not hand the thief your keys. He saw you leave and took his opportunity.

If he was then to say, sell the car to a friend, that friend may be innocent of the crime itself (even if he had knowledge of it) but he would not retain ownership rights of it, particularly if it was a private sale/ transfer- as per the hypothetical.

I appreciate your point of view, but I believe your argument is mute in this circumstance.


The problem is that a digital account is nothing like a physical car. The car can be traced back to the original owner comparatively simply compared to the account, especially after said amount of time.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#23 - 2011-12-14 23:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
In all honesty, I'm very surprised the character wasn't simply bio massed by CCP.

In the past that has been their policy when a characters ownership is in question and cannot be substantiated.

It doesn't make anyone very happy, but it is the "fair" thing to do... it keeps people from resurfacing years later and yelling "I was hacked" after their buddy refused to give back the character that was given to them.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ai Shun
#24 - 2011-12-14 23:13:49 UTC
I found this:

Reimbursement Policy wrote:
9. HACKING & ACCOUNT TRANSFERS

Hacking is any unauthorized access to another person's account, by illegal means or not.

You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password and for any damage, harm, lost or deleted characters, etc. resulting from your disclosure, or allowing the disclosure, of any password, or from use by any person of your password.


  1. If your account is accessed by another player and assets are stolen or transferred to other players, we will investigate and items that we are able to track down will be moved back to the rightful owner.
  2. Any ISK stolen from the account may be transferred back to the rightful owner on a case-by-case basis.
  3. Any assets sold to another player will not be returned to the original owner; however, any ISK gained from the sale may be transferred to the original owner of the items instead on a case-by-case basis.
  4. Reprocessed assets cannot be restored to prior status.
  5. If someone gained access to your account as a result of your use of a third party program or other violation of our EULA/TOS, all requests for reimbursement will be null and void.


I suspect a character will be seen as an "Asset" under point 3?
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-12-15 00:03:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
As the OP specifically mentions keyloggers and "hacking", I think point 5 also applies.
Glory Hound
No Glory in Violence
#26 - 2011-12-15 00:07:50 UTC
Protip: dont let your account lapse. Continue to pay for your account even if you will not be logging in. Its $15 bucks man! Thats 2 lattes and the cheap meal at McDonalds per month.

You are trying to claim protection under the EULA, but you were not a paying customer when this alleged issue happened. You cannot claim EULA protection from a company you are not paying.

Try letting your car insurance lapse a couple months, then get in a wreck. See how much consumer protection you get then.
Techagunichxio
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2011-12-15 00:08:31 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
I found this:

Reimbursement Policy wrote:
9. HACKING & ACCOUNT TRANSFERS

Hacking is any unauthorized access to another person's account, by illegal means or not.

You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password and for any damage, harm, lost or deleted characters, etc. resulting from your disclosure, or allowing the disclosure, of any password, or from use by any person of your password.


  1. If your account is accessed by another player and assets are stolen or transferred to other players, we will investigate and items that we are able to track down will be moved back to the rightful owner.
  2. Any ISK stolen from the account may be transferred back to the rightful owner on a case-by-case basis.
  3. Any assets sold to another player will not be returned to the original owner; however, any ISK gained from the sale may be transferred to the original owner of the items instead on a case-by-case basis.
  4. Reprocessed assets cannot be restored to prior status.
  5. If someone gained access to your account as a result of your use of a third party program or other violation of our EULA/TOS, all requests for reimbursement will be null and void.


I suspect a character will be seen as an "Asset" under point 3?


Id see point 1 as more valid here, but thanks for the info. Can a character itself be defined as an asset? Thats a whole other can of worms considering the char market. Personally I dont think Characters themselves were the intended meaning of asset in point 3. I think it was speaking more along the lines of the assets that characters hold, ships, mods, pos isk etc
Techagunichxio
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2011-12-15 00:11:03 UTC
Glory Hound wrote:
Protip: dont let your account lapse. Continue to pay for your account even if you will not be logging in. Its $15 bucks man! Thats 2 lattes and the cheap meal at McDonalds per month.

You are trying to claim protection under the EULA, but you were not a paying customer when this alleged issue happened. You cannot claim EULA protection from a company you are not paying.

Try letting your car insurance lapse a couple months, then get in a wreck. See how much consumer protection you get then.



Good point. To the poster above you, accessing third party websites/ forums is not against the EULA, which was my intented meaning, otherwise you would ban the vast, vast majority of accounts held by eve players.

Hypothetically speaking, of course
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#29 - 2011-12-15 00:23:53 UTC
I like to think of it this way:

In this hypothetical scenario, there are 2 reasonable outcomes:

CCP leaves the character where it is.
CCP moves the character back to its original owner.


The thing is, there's more being implied here, because no matter what, SOMEONE is getting their character stolen:

Some random guy steals the character from the old owner.
CCP steals the character from the new owner.

Which sounds worse to you? The guy (who at some point HAD to have done something wrong, cripes don't re-use passwords) getting his account stolen by someone who gained access to his account? Or the guy who gets his character stolen by CCP?
Ai Shun
#30 - 2011-12-15 00:26:37 UTC
Techagunichxio wrote:
Id see point 1 as more valid here, but thanks for the info. Can a character itself be defined as an asset? Thats a whole other can of worms considering the char market. Personally I dont think Characters themselves were the intended meaning of asset in point 3. I think it was speaking more along the lines of the assets that characters hold, ships, mods, pos isk etc


A character is an asset on the account. The modules, fittings and ships are assets of a character. You could interpret it that way. Either way, no matter which rule we're looking at (1 or 3) it deals with assets.
Olleybear
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2011-12-15 02:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Olleybear
The hypothetical scenario being discussed is something called Receiving Stolen Property.

In a stolen car scenario, the person receiving the stolen property( car ) has the proprtey taken back from them and the original owner gets it back. It is illegal to receive stolen property.

Why is it illegal to receive stolen property? It encourages the stealing, and then the sale, of someone elses property.

Hows does it not having a law against receiving stolen property encourage the stealing and sale of stolen property? It encourages a market for stolen goods as there is zero penalty for buying something that is stolen.

As a buyer of that property, it does not matter whether you knew it was stolen or not. You are encouraging the stealing by buying the stolen goods. This is supply and demand. If you know anything about supply and demand, when there is a demand for something, someone will endeaver to supply it.

Is it fair to the person buying the stolen property if that person buying is completly innocent and then gets the stolen item taken from them and that item is then given back to the original owner? Perhaps not, but what a society trys to do is discourage the original stealing. You do that by removing the demand for stolen goods as best you can.

The principal behind making receiving stolen property illegal, is sound whether the property is physical or virtual. You are trying to discourage a market forming for stolen property and thus discourage the original stealing.

Think about this. Just how willing are you going to be to buy something from someone you do not know and have a 'funny' feeling about if you know that what your buying might be stolen, taken back from you, and returned to its rightfull owner? How eager is someone going to be to steal something if that person knows it is going to be very difficult or impossible to sell?

Back to the hypothetical scenario. The person receiving the stolen character ( property ) gets it removed from their account and it is given back to the original owner, IF the character was indeed stolen.

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
Previous page12