Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Ralegna Porthar
Kick B0rt Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:46:00 -
[631] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them. They have emphatically spoke about how great it is that things like the Ubiqua Seraph heist could only occur in Eve, an event that was 100% deception surrounding who the alts were. (Soundwave has spoken highly of this fact on camera .. you'll need to sleuth out exactly where and when, though). They have literally produced a trailer for the game (causality) loosely based on similar events. They recently plastered the Revenent kill all over their own site and media outlets, an event that was based on an alt lying about who he was to get into the corp. The various eve bank scams have all heavily violated the new TOS, yet CCP lauded them as uniquely possible in eve. I could go on a while if I was inclined to look them up.
I was going to cite the Revenant kill as well. With the large amount of media attention, yet it was all due to a spy. Which is against TOS now.
Makes sense to me. |
Poetic Stanziel
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
1956
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:46:00 -
[632] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Aryth wrote:Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming. I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity. GMs don't create policy like this.
This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance. Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
xBumper Baby
Joss Ackland's Spunky Backpackers
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:48:00 -
[633] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote: this is bad ccp sux
Seriously though. This sounds very much like the day EVE bacame just another dumbed-down, sugar-coated, click-fest for the masses. Might as well move it from PC to console. |
Titus Phook
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:48:00 -
[634] - Quote
I may, or may not, be an alt of one or more posters in this thread. I hear that there's a new team at CCP, and they're in charge of being making all of the things a bannable offence.
They said I could be anything I wanted, so I became fabulous. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4728
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:50:00 -
[635] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Aryth wrote:Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming. I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity. GMs don't create policy like this. This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance. No, I would sort of expect this was GMs making policy for a long time without really consulting anyone and they make a slow drift into crazyland that's not seen by anyone else, because appeals simply go to the GM team and they can't be discussed on the forums. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
491
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:50:00 -
[636] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Confirming I am the only one true scammer in Eve. I will petition the rest who claim to be a scammer. (I will accept isk payments of 250mil as an "entry fee" into my "ingame group"). Are you saying: You're the EVE Scammer, yes you're the real Scammer All the other EVE Scammers are just imitating So won't the real EVE Scammer please stand up, Please stand up, please stand up?
LOL This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2147
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:50:00 -
[637] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:Prroductive posting is fine and great. I use it as a CSM member to distill into better feedback; you're right that I don't read any minds. I also receive substantial assistance in representation via private messages such as evemails. I do also *play* the game, and have been both perpetrator and victim of the types of scams covered under this update. The bit about rioting in this thread was to attempt to dissuade people from making 100x posts saying "this is bad ccp sux see the csm agrees"; contrary to popular belief, large public outcry is largely ineffective in getting anything done. Oh hey, see I didn't realize you were just badly misinformed / ignorant. That makes it easier to understand your posting. Because, unless you want to rewrite Eve history, mass outcry is the ONLY thing that has ever made CCP listen, about ANYTHING.
The whole reason people are turning this into a riot is we all know too ******* well that reasoned discourse falls on death ears (read - all CCPs press releases after incarna) and that forcing CCP to listen to what the majoirty of the players want is the only thing that works.
Last time the CSM chair had to fly to Iceland and beat CCP over the head until they 'got it' -- this time apparently the CSM are ineffectual Yes-men, so who knows what will happen next. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
491
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:51:00 -
[638] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Aryth wrote:Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming. I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity. GMs don't create policy like this. This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance.
Didn't Jester on Jester's Trek touch on something like a HUGE change that may or may not excite some people... This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Poetic Stanziel
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
1956
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:51:00 -
[639] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:Vatek wrote: So we should just not discuss it at all and trust the CSM to read our minds? I wasn't aware that using a forum intended for discussion about the game to discuss the game was "ineffective rioting". Last I heard, rioting worked pretty well to reverse the Incarna trainwreck!
Brushing us off with "okay we're gonna yap with CCP about this and release a crappy devblog 2 months from now that doesn't actually address anything" sucks.
Productive posting is fine and great. I use it as a CSM member to distill into better feedback; you're right that I don't read any minds. I also receive substantial assistance in representation via private messages such as evemails. I do also *play* the game, and have been both perpetrator and victim of the types of scams covered under this update. The bit about rioting in this thread was to attempt to dissuade people from making 100x posts saying "this is bad ccp sux see the csm agrees"; contrary to popular belief, large public outcry is largely ineffective in getting anything done. I was unaware that posting acknowledging concerns and promising to use the tools at my disposal to work to resolve them constituted a "brush-off". I meant what I said when I said that I'd seen a lot of good come out of the CSM process, more than just "a devblog once in a while". The fact that we work primarily under NDA and outside of the public eye can make it hard to see, especially when our efforts avert a crisis instead of responding to one.
With whom did this policy originate? It had to be at the producer level. Is this Seagull's vision for EVE Online? Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1495
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:52:00 -
[640] - Quote
So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.
Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to much such a judgement?
HTFU!...for the children! |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
1956
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:54:00 -
[641] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Aryth wrote:Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming. I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity. GMs don't create policy like this. This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance. No, I would sort of expect this was GMs making policy for a long time without really consulting anyone and they make a slow drift into crazyland that's not seen by anyone else, because appeals simply go to the GM team and they can't be discussed on the forums.
The GMs don't change/update major documents without the producer being aware of it. Or the producer having directed that change in the first place.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1698
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:55:00 -
[642] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Weaselior wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Aryth wrote:Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming. I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity. GMs don't create policy like this. This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance. No, I would sort of expect this was GMs making policy for a long time without really consulting anyone and they make a slow drift into crazyland that's not seen by anyone else, because appeals simply go to the GM team and they can't be discussed on the forums. The GMs don't change/update major documents without the producer being aware of it. Or the producer having directed that change in the first place.
you have more space likes than me
this can not stand |
Poetic Stanziel
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
1956
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:55:00 -
[643] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.
Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to much such a judgement? Not just impersonation, but misrepresentation. It's far far broader than impersonation alone.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
494
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:55:00 -
[644] - Quote
Quick, someone go to LoL and ask Soundwave! This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent
274
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:56:00 -
[645] - Quote
I don't appreciate the amount of space these clarifications have left open for interpretation
Which behaviors are you trying to stop with this ToS change, CCP? With the information we have available, we can only assume your new policies exist to forbid all forms of contract scamming that misconstrue one item for another, and any claim, true or false, that you are an alternate account of another player. |
Sara Leone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:58:00 -
[646] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:
The GMs don't change/update major documents without the producer being aware of it. Or the producer having directed that change in the first place.
you have more space likes than me this can not stand I tossed you a like Blawrf, the fight back starts here! |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1062
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:58:00 -
[647] - Quote
The most disappointing part is that I thought we had got beyond the now formulaic beating over the head necessary to get major issues addressed. It's almost funny how dispassionate this "riot" is, as we all merely go through the now nauseatingly familiar motions until heads are removed from buttes... but instead it's just sad.
Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:58:00 -
[648] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:you have more space likes than me
this can not stand
I bet you'd have a lot of spacelikes if you represented yourself as the spokesperson for the EVE furry community.
You wouldn't even get banned for impersonation since it's not false! |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
494
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:00:00 -
[649] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.
Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to much such a judgement?
In a game built on mistrust and distrust and all those negative forms of not trusting... I too would find it hard to swallow that an obscure answer to a TOS claim falls into the "trust" category...
In a weird I hope tl;dr version...
Don't trust anyone.
The game you once knew was ripe with scams.
Now it's illegal to pretend you are someone you aren't.
Scams are still legal (wtf).
GMs will not clarify their position, although the policy has not changed (wait what?).
GMs judge on a case by case basis.
The GMs request you trust them to make that call.
Again, I never got any answer concerning those links that are "api verified" that isk doublers link you (I know they are scams, I mean, are they bannable?) and are we to believe the only scams that would be legal, are margin trade scams?
Everything else is done by false representation!
EDIT- and for the love of all things explosive, please add "bannable" to the spellcheck list! This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Red Crown
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:04:00 -
[650] - Quote
New form of AWOXing: Ask one of your corpmates if they're on their alt. If they reply "Yes, my main is XXX", report them and have them banned. |
|
Danelaan
Hachaisse Bis
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:04:00 -
[651] - Quote
I'm not sure if it's useful to answer there. I haven't been playing (a lot) for long, but that character is still a few years old and I've been playing on and off. That game, EvE Online, is very special and very different from the others.
But why has he been alive from so long, and why is he so famous? Yes, famous compared to infamous, because when major media refer to WoW or other MMORPG, that's usually in bad terms, to express addiction or make any (stupid) clich+¬ about how gaming makes you a bad person. It's not the case with EvE. EvE is seen with some kind of admiration because it' really is something else. Hell, it's even one of the few games in the MoMA, in New York. There have been news about the big fight in Fountain recently, and about the Jita thingy one or two years back.
And why is that? Because it's really a different game and scams, impersonations, spying and all that stuff is part of what makes the game special. I mean, why would you shoot yourself in the feet by simply endangering the very attraction you have over any other game. It's not the exciting gameplay that keeps us playing EvE, it's the fact that we're really playing with and against other players, and not just by pew-pewing at them.
The whole matter is strange, to be honest. Why be afraid of someone claiming is something is not? Lying is part of the game. And the whole "claiming to be someone else" is stupid beyond anything. I'm a guy, behind my computer. I'm not Danelaan, nor any of my other characters. They are exactly that: characters that I impersonate. It's okay to impersonate a character but it's not okay then to impersonate a character? Can a character lie? I don't think so. The player lies. And the player can lie nonetheless. The example taken before in this thread was someone verifying if the alt was really the alt of the character he claimed to be an alt of. But so what? Even if I'm the alt of [X] who wardec'd [Y Corporation], I can take the money and still keep the wardec alive. Is that also bannable? I say it's part of the game.
The true problem is:
Yes it's true, scamming is maybe too easy. In the real world, when you fraud and cheat and scam, there are repercussions. The problem is, right there, you're offering out-of-the-game repercussions for a problem that happens in the game. Do you want to have a "police" against scammers? Then make it in-game for ****'s sake. Give rights to volunteers to become the representative of Concord when it comes to the fight against scam. Make them electable (oh, I already see scammers voting for someone who will let them do their stuff; but isn't that part of it too? Corruption?) and have them build cases. Make sure, with the means that they have, that this is indeed a scam that was given to them. In which case they would be banned from Empire Space on the whole account or I don't know, have to pay a tremendous fee, whatever.
I'm pulling that out of nowhere. I haven't even thought about that more than five seconds so there are probably blatant flaws or better ways to do it. But the idea is that: the game is praised for being a world in itself. Forget that change that goes clearly against that: make things that happen in game stay in game and give a way to punish scammers in-game. Stuff, drama in game, life within the game, spying, infiltration of corps, treasons, that's what make that game great. Don't waste that, please. Not when I'm at last taking the time to play it more actively. |
Pyth2
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:05:00 -
[652] - Quote
So if someone is asking pyth2 here a question related to goonwaffe and I respond with pyth3, a neutral jita alt am I impersonating myself and misrepresenting my corp/alliance?
This policy is ******* dumb and stinks of GM Butthurt & GM Publord trying to change the game to reflect how they think it should be changed. **** this ****, lets burn Jita. |
Copypasta
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:05:00 -
[653] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.
Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to make such a judgement?
Hell, just the idea of CCP GMs asking us to trust them is patently ridiculous. Their track record would make CIA blush. |
Fix Lag
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
492
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:08:00 -
[654] - Quote
Copypasta wrote:Hell, just the idea of CCP GMs asking us to trust them is patently ridiculous. Their track record would make CIA blush.
Goonswarm is the CIA, didn't you hear? |
Solstice Project's Alt
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:13:00 -
[655] - Quote
Okay, so what's the deal now ?
(omg this is great, i have to run the tutorial missions so i can bash CCP ^_^) |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
372
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:13:00 -
[656] - Quote
What if I give someone permission to represent me then lie to the GMs about it? What if I give someone permission to misrepresent me? |
Solstice Project's Alt
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:14:00 -
[657] - Quote
Yeep wrote:What if I give someone permission to represent me then lie to the GMs about it? What if I give someone permission to misrepresent me? I hearby misrepresent you, *without* your permission !
HA ! IN YOUR FACE ! |
Ganque
Ganque's Squad
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:14:00 -
[658] - Quote
Pyth2 wrote:So if someone is asking pyth2 here a question related to goonwaffe and I respond with pyth3, a neutral jita alt am I impersonating myself and misrepresenting my corp/alliance?
This policy is ******* dumb and stinks of GM Butthurt & GM Publord trying to change the game to reflect how they think it should be changed. **** this ****, lets burn Jita.
I see what you're saying, So just to be clear do goonswarm recruit outside the SA forums? |
Ivan Krividus
Born Crazy
13
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:16:00 -
[659] - Quote
Copypasta wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:So, we're left with a TOS that really can be applied to any form of impersonation leaving no exception but are told to "trust us" that it will be applied fairly, justly and with much consideration. Well, I don't trust you.
Why don't I trust you? Because you're too lazy to write a TOS with any definable limit to its application. Why then would I trust you to apply it within reason requiring any amount of effort on your part to make such a judgement? Hell, just the idea of CCP GMs asking us to trust them is patently ridiculous. Their track record would make CIA blush. Don't worry, if the GMs lie to us its against TOS, |
Jonah Gravenstein
Sweet Sensations Radical Industries
13704
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:16:00 -
[660] - Quote
Pyth2 wrote:So if someone is asking pyth2 here a question related to goonwaffe and I respond with pyth3, a neutral jita alt am I impersonating myself and misrepresenting my corp/alliance?
This policy is ******* dumb and stinks of GM Butthurt & GM Publord trying to change the game to reflect how they think it should be changed. **** this ****, lets burn Jita. I'm a publord and I find the new "totally not changed, even though we changed it to make playing the metagame a bannable offence" ToS(h) downright intellectually challenged.
Totally with you on burning something. I am furnishing this post "as is". I do not provide any warranty for the post whatsoever, whether express, implied, or statutory, including, but not limited to, any relevance or fitness for a particular purpose or any warranty that the contents of the post will be error-free.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |