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) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4549
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:28:00 -
[901] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:well, who can blame them? the way i see it there are only two valid courses of action: 1. hold their fingers still and hope that the whole thing blows over. What do you think is happening right now There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Shade Millith
Bite Me inc Bitten.
99
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:29:00 -
[902] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:blah blah blah
So nobody ever again needs to actually check to see if someone is who they say they are? Now they can just cry to mummy and get her to fix their failure?
Wow, that's pathetic.
It's my damn job to make sure I'm talking to who I think I'm talking too, and if I'm foolish enought to just believe someone without evidence (namely having the character he's supposed to be get in contact), then it's my damn fault for being an idiot.
It's not that hard to avoid it, and it's only the greedy, lazy and foolish that get caught by this kind of stuff.
This is a major kick in the teeth for the universe being a harsh place.
What's next? If something is priced too high, you'll reverse the contract? If someone lied about being friendly, are you going to start replacing ships? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4549
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:34:00 -
[903] - Quote
Shade Millith wrote:It's my damn job to make sure I'm talking to who I think I'm talking too, and if I'm foolish enought to just believe someone without evidence (namely having the character he's supposed to be get in contact), then it's my damn fault for being an idiot. Yep, and you can get back whatever you lost and get that badguy banned if you know about the TOS mechanics.
It's a means to get revenge, not unlike ganking ... except you (well the gm) can deal the best form of punishment. There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Sol Kal'orr
The Scope Gallente Federation
107
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:39:00 -
[904] - Quote
I just received an eve-mail informing me of a new courier service. If the person who sent it doesn't represent this new service can I petition him?
If yes, fix this. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4549
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:52:00 -
[905] - Quote
Sol Kal'orr wrote:I just received an eve-mail informing me of a new courier service. If the person who sent it doesn't represent this new service can I petition him?
If yes, fix this. They are intentionally misleading you. Misrepresenting, if you would There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4549
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:57:00 -
[906] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Shade Millith wrote:It's my damn job to make sure I'm talking to who I think I'm talking too, and if I'm foolish enought to just believe someone without evidence (namely having the character he's supposed to be get in contact), then it's my damn fault for being an idiot. Yep, and you can get back whatever you lost and get that badguy banned if you know about the TOS mechanics. It's a means to get revenge, not unlike ganking ... except you (well the gm) can deal the best form of punishment. One might say that learning about how to best make use of the eve online TOS and GM mechanics, you are able to do more to defend yourself and punish people to hurt you than someone who does not know.
In other words, it's like learning to fit a tank. Or the right way to make optimal use of your rack of blasters. There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
greiton starfire
The Scope Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:09:00 -
[907] - Quote
so It's a new day, can we get a dev to weigh in on how this change in specific enforceable tos clause relates to their vision of the game. cause ill be honest I hate mmo's and eve is the only one i can stand to play. if you are moving to get in line with the others and get rid of scamming and metagaming then im out and i think a very good chunk of people are with me. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
362
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:10:00 -
[908] - Quote
Maybe we should go back to banning discussion of the TOS for being 'discussing moderation'. That was fun.
When are we getting a senior non-GM in this thread again to discuss this? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4550
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:11:00 -
[909] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:so It's a new day, can we get a dev to weigh in on how this change in specific enforceable tos clause relates to their vision of the game. cause ill be honest I hate mmo's and eve is the only one i can stand to play. if you are moving to get in line with the others and get rid of scamming and metagaming then im out and i think a very good chunk of people are with me. Needs to be in a new thread, so this one can be locked and sent to the depths of the forums.
I think that CCP might prefer to forgot things like the humiliating CSM posts in this thread by that one person, you know what I mean There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1080
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:13:00 -
[910] - Quote
Unlike the majority of guys in this thread, I'm not afraid of girls. Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1089
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:18:00 -
[911] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:La Nariz wrote:3. Admitting a mistake, apologize and rolling back to the old TOS wording. too late for that now. they told us repeatedly that "impersonation" is banned in other parts of the legal magic scrolls. the only reason most of us still have their accounts is that the people who are not smart enough to avoid scams are also not smart enough to file a petition. Quote:4. Using this community response to better reword the TOS. which is essentially 2.)
Its never to late to go "Sorry guys we screwed up bad. We're reverting to the old TOS. We intended to prevent incidents like X from ever happening again but this wording is causing concerns. EVE is a massively complex game and it is hard to see all of the implications that a change will make. We respect our subscribers and want to keep a healthy atmosphere for EVE so we will revert the change and attempt to rework it in a way to do what we want but is more amiable to our community."
Its not hard.
E:
Seriously CCP La Nariz new community manager. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
greiton starfire
The Scope Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:23:00 -
[912] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:La Nariz wrote:3. Admitting a mistake, apologize and rolling back to the old TOS wording. too late for that now. they told us repeatedly that "impersonation" is banned in other parts of the legal magic scrolls. the only reason most of us still have their accounts is that the people who are not smart enough to avoid scams are also not smart enough to file a petition. Quote:4. Using this community response to better reword the TOS. which is essentially 2.) Its never to late to go "Sorry guys we screwed up bad. We're reverting to the old TOS. We intended to prevent incidents like X from ever happening again but this wording is causing concerns. EVE is a massively complex game and it is hard to see all of the implications that a change will make. We respect our subscribers and want to keep a healthy atmosphere for EVE so we will revert the change and attempt to rework it in a way to do what we want but is more amiable to our community." Its not hard.
I don't mind if they just come out and say hey we want to stop "x" from happening, so give us a day or two to re word it and release it to the public for review. of course if "x" is scamming and meta game we have a whole nother issue. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
169
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:23:00 -
[913] - Quote
Another evening has passed and still no word from either the CSM or CCP.
I can sort of understand why CCP's response might take some time. They had a reason for the change and also need to go through and not fubar the PR again like they did the first time. Though, I still don't understand why they just can't pull back to the previous TOS and have another pass at it to get it right. I also don't fully comprehend why deleting a single sentence, which end this discussion completely and clearly and takes literally seconds to do, appears to be harder than actual demolition work. That particular point has not been clarified at all by either CCP or the CSM.
But increasingly I am disturbed by the lack of response from the CSM. Are they still so shocked about this that they aren't able to respond? Are they embarrassed that this fairly large issue pretty much waltz right passed the CSM without bringing up any red flags, to anyone? Do they realize that as each day passes on this one issue that they hurt the value of the CSM as a whole if they don't say at least something?
I mean, there were multiple replies from the CSM on rebalancing concerns. There were multiple replies on all sorts of other minor issues that upset some people. But this? Why the silent treatment CSM? What are you guys doing as player advocates? |
Malcolm Shinhwa
Bad Touches
237
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:30:00 -
[914] - Quote
CCP has already responded several times. The last GM statement called it "the final word." Unless something new happens, I'm not expecting any further statement.
This is the rule:-á In Eve it's always a trick. If you don't think it's a trick, you just don't have enough experience to know what the trick is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't launch on that fool anyway and roll the dice. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1091
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:31:00 -
[915] - Quote
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:CCP has already responded several times. The last GM statement called it "the final word." Unless something new happens, I'm not expecting any further statement.
Your "final word" has your customer base furiously upset about it and that's a good way to leave it? This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
169
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:32:00 -
[916] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: Its never to late to go "Sorry guys we screwed up bad. We're reverting to the old TOS. We intended to prevent incidents like X from ever happening again but this wording is causing concerns. EVE is a massively complex game and it is hard to see all of the implications that a change will make. We respect our subscribers and want to keep a healthy atmosphere for EVE so we will revert the change and attempt to rework it in a way to do what we want but is more amiable to our community."
Its not hard.
E:
Seriously CCP La Nariz new community manager.
Yep, something like this would calm the community down. Why they aren't do this I have no idea. |
Malcolm Shinhwa
Bad Touches
237
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:35:00 -
[917] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:CCP has already responded several times. The last GM statement called it "the final word." Unless something new happens, I'm not expecting any further statement.
Your "final word" has your customer base furiously upset about it and that's a good way to leave it?
No its a terrible way. But seeing as how they handled "new jump animation makes me violently ill" (that thread is still going) by basically saying "sucks to be you, we'll look into a fix some day." Why would you expect anything different? This is the rule:-á In Eve it's always a trick. If you don't think it's a trick, you just don't have enough experience to know what the trick is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't launch on that fool anyway and roll the dice. |
Gavinvin1337
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:36:00 -
[918] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Another evening has passed and still no word from either the CSM or CCP.
I can sort of understand why CCP's response might take some time. They had a reason for the change and also need to go through and not fubar the PR again like they did the first time. Though, I still don't understand why they just can't pull back to the previous TOS and have another pass at it to get it right. I also don't fully comprehend why deleting a single sentence, which end this discussion completely and clearly and takes literally seconds to do, appears to be harder than actual demolition work. That particular point has not been clarified at all by either CCP or the CSM.
But increasingly I am disturbed by the lack of response from the CSM. Are they still so shocked about this that they aren't able to respond? Are they embarrassed that this fairly large issue pretty much waltz right passed the CSM without bringing up any red flags, to anyone? Do they realize that as each day passes on this one issue that they hurt the value of the CSM as a whole if they don't say at least something?
I mean, there were multiple replies from the CSM on rebalancing concerns. There were multiple replies on all sorts of other minor issues that upset some people. But this? Why the silent treatment CSM? What are you guys doing as player advocates?
I am inclined to agree with you, apart from Ali Aras (who seemed to be backing up the GM's stance) I have yet to see any other CSM comments here. It could be that anything to do with TOS changes is heavily NDA'ed and they are unable to say anything useful on the topic. If that was the case I would appreciate them telling us the reason they are silent is because of the NDA. Either that or CCP has gag ordered them until they can prepare a proper response. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1441
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:37:00 -
[919] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Shade Millith wrote:It's my damn job to make sure I'm talking to who I think I'm talking too, and if I'm foolish enought to just believe someone without evidence (namely having the character he's supposed to be get in contact), then it's my damn fault for being an idiot. Yep, and you can get back whatever you lost and get that badguy banned if you know about the TOS mechanics. It's a means to get revenge, not unlike ganking ... except you (well the gm) can deal the best form of punishment. One might say that learning about how to best make use of the eve online TOS and GM mechanics, you are able to do more to defend yourself and punish people to hurt you than someone who does not know. In other words, it's like learning to fit a tank. Or the right way to make optimal use of your rack of blasters. in yet other words, the old and new version of the ToS includes an EVE version of american 'stand your ground' laws: if someone pisses you off, you can shoot him dead and walk away.
sounds legit.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Malcolm Shinhwa
Bad Touches
237
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:46:00 -
[920] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: in yet other words, the old and new version of the ToS includes an EVE version of american 'stand your ground' laws: if someone pisses you off, you can shoot him dead and walk away.
As an American I can say that is a gross characterization of "stand your ground" laws. Lots of people **** me off every day, and legally I'm not allowed to shoot them... oh.. but a man can dream.
As for other CSM members Ripard Teg has commented. He's not a fan. But the CSM are basically "players we listen to a bit more than the riff-raff" as far as CCP is concerned. Its not like they have the power, or any power, to make CCP do anything. This is the rule:-á In Eve it's always a trick. If you don't think it's a trick, you just don't have enough experience to know what the trick is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't launch on that fool anyway and roll the dice. |
|
LTHenrich Lehmann
The Royal Engineers
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:49:00 -
[921] - Quote
Chanina wrote:And where is the problem now?
You want to rob someone blind? Don't impersonate a good friend of that one, become one your self. Needs a bit more effort and the result is equal or greater.
You want to scam? No problem, just don't claim your scam is secured by trusted person XYZ.
You want to get your spy into a corp? Don't just send this stupid "cyno alt of xxx". Do it RIGHT, get your character applied with some decent effort.
You want to role play? For my holiness empress Sarum, I will purge you from this system. No problem. My empress gave me the order and authority to purge you. Wrong, that order wasn't given, its an NPC after all.
So again, what is the problem? You are screaming because you can't spam the apply button with your want-to-be-cyno-alt?
.
Considering that if the above is indeed correct then a lot of the complaining (not all) is not an issue.
As for the TOS change, CCP have already stated that this is exactly as intended, this is the same as per the previous rules (though maybe not well understood) therefore this is not new, however what this now does is allow the players that have been subjected to 'the rule breaking/bending' that has occured up until now, to better understand what they can or cannot petition regarding said impersonation activities.
So if you have been able to do things outside the rules (albeit with or without knowing it) in the past, be grateful that you have been able to get away with that activity and profiting etc (by breaking the already existing rules) for so long.
As the hard core players (now crying in their milk) in the cold harsh universe of EVE would say, screaming it with glee at the top of their lungs, to care bears if it was their game play that was adversely affected by perceived rule changes (which remember this is not) adapt or .... well you know the rest right.
So come on folks, show the bears that you can do what you berate them to do at every opportunity.
Adapt and enjoy the game.
Ok, so as this issue is so unpopular I know you won't like what I have to say so do your best /flame on. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
5762
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:51:00 -
[922] - Quote
Guys I got scammed by my alt, should I petition? I feel like my left hand was misrepresenting my right. My Youtube Channel Latest video: August 25, 2013 |
Berendas
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
499
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:58:00 -
[923] - Quote
I was part of the initial flood of locked forum threads when 19 of 25 threads on GD page 1 were padlocked, but I've held off on posting in the threadnaught. I'm always hesitant to do so, because at 47 pages with no CCP or any meaningful CSM response, anything I say will be lost in the chorus of discontent. But as another day passes the situation is only festering.
Seriously, the changes are stupid.
Not 'Oh, I mad," stupid, but stupid in that the TOS changes demonstrate an actual lack of intelligence on the part of the author. The wording is SO broad and SO against EVE's history that CCP could not have possibly expected to escape some sort of backlash. The new TOS sets a terrible precent in terms of limiting the sandbox, and anyone who doesn't think so either doesn't know this game, or simply can't read. Just think about all of the monumental moments in EVE's history that could now be interpreted to be against the TOS and thus bannable. Events like the fall of BoB or the EVE Bank scandal will exist strictly in the past now that any sort of loss to subterfuge or deception can just be petitioned. Bearing in mind that they are changing their game universe on a fundamental level, CCP should have had a response prepared as soon as the first draft of the TOS changes hit somebody's desk.
If CCP's only response is silence, and especially if this is only the beginning of several similarly draconian changes, I will find it very difficult to resub my accounts when the time comes. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
5763
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 16:06:00 -
[924] - Quote
**** son I can't bring my alt into corp now because I can't just be like "I'm James Amril-Kesh's alt" because GM Karidor says my corp has no way of verifying that it's me. My Youtube Channel Latest video: August 25, 2013 |
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 16:10:00 -
[925] - Quote
Kojaxe LeAppljaxe wrote:It's simple, to summarize the ToS: Player stupidity is a bannable offense.
Is GM stupidity bannable too?
unsubscribing imminent. You got it all wrong. You need to re-read the ToS.
Taking advantage of the stupidity of other players is a bannable offense.
Next we'll see people petitioning that they sold a Vindicator to a 0.01 ISK buy order and get their ship back along with a ban for the malicious scammer who posted the order. Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38 |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
204
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 16:15:00 -
[926] - Quote
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:As for the TOS change, CCP have already stated that this is exactly as intended, this is the same as per the previous rules (though maybe not well understood) therefore this is not new, however what this now does is allow the players that have been subjected to 'the rule breaking/bending' that has occured up until now, to better understand what they can or cannot petition regarding said impersonation activities. Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Hell, just because CCP says so doesn't make it true either. Unless of course you mean there's a bunch of rules that nobody knew about because they've never been stated anywhere, and also haven't been enforced. At which point there's not much of a rule left. |
Djan Sarpati
Ganque's Squad
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 16:15:00 -
[927] - Quote
Berendas wrote:I was part of the initial flood of locked forum threads when 19 of 25 threads on GD page 1 were padlocked, but I've held off on posting in the threadnaught. I'm always hesitant to do so, because at 47 pages with no CCP or any meaningful CSM response, anything I say will be lost in the chorus of discontent. But as another day passes the situation is only festering.
Seriously, the changes are stupid.
Not 'Oh, I mad," stupid, but stupid in that the TOS changes demonstrate an actual lack of intelligence on the part of the author. The wording is SO broad and SO against EVE's history that CCP could not have possibly expected to escape some sort of backlash. The new TOS sets a terrible precent in terms of limiting the sandbox, and anyone who doesn't think so either doesn't know this game, or simply can't read. Just think about all of the monumental moments in EVE's history that could now be interpreted to be against the TOS and thus bannable. Events like the fall of BoB or the EVE Bank scandal will exist strictly in the past now that any sort of loss to subterfuge or deception can just be petitioned. Bearing in mind that they are changing their game universe on a fundamental level, CCP should have had a response prepared as soon as the first draft of the TOS changes hit somebody's desk.
If CCP's only response is silence, and especially if this is only the beginning of several similarly draconian changes, I will find it very difficult to resub my accounts when the time comes.
Can't disagree with much of that, I was mildly amused at first with the no impersonating NPCs schtick, but it is an extreme and stupid change, it will hammer rp'ers who choose to play anything other than straight laced goody two shoes and even run the risk of nailing them also if someone 'interprets' their motives to be askew in a way that the new TOS overlords don't approve of. The rulings made by GMs will be capricious and arbitrary and as discussing the content of such exchanges is forbidden, the actual results of such moderation will be mostly hidden, like a soft turd just under the top layer of sand in the sandbox awaiting the unwary to step in, that we are now told was always there we just imagined it wasn't.
It seems like such a small change that's of course denied being any kind of change but in reality it is a massive betrayal of the entire ethos of eve and its community coming ex cathedra from the GM team, it really cannot stand or we will lose our sandbox with no where else to go.
As for CSMs, pretty certain Mynna was dead against the changes and said so in a locked thread. Daughter of the illustrious Salvator Sarpati, I can sell you standings with Serpentis fighters for 500m isk (or a half hour chat with Cierra on Vent) |
Luis Graca
208
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 16:32:00 -
[928] - Quote
I guess the winter expansion is gonna be something like
"New eden is a warm and soft place" |
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
191
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 16:38:00 -
[929] - Quote
Sol Kal'orr wrote:I just received an eve-mail informing me of a new courier service. If the person who sent it doesn't represent this new service can I petition him?
If yes, fix this. There is no reason to concern yourself any longer with the legitimacy of such claims. You can simply file a petition and all will be answered. Furthermore, feel free to take advantage of the offer. Should it prove illegitimate a GM will simply restore your goods to you. Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38 |
None ofthe Above
677
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 16:43:00 -
[930] - Quote
As much as I think much of the response here has verged on the hysterical (some of it hysterically funny), I do think there is cause for concern here.
I don't want to see people getting slack about being smart because they can always petition, nor do I want to see any entrapment scenarios with GM Bannings being sought to "get revenge" or whatever.
Selective enforcement of overly broad rules can cause these problems.
I do understand that much of what has been discussed has been "illegal" for quite some time and rarely enforced. I can recall a number of scams reported of late, where I've wondered if someone was going to be banned under the impersonation rules.
This idea that you can be banned for impersonating yourself is fairly mind boggling, but I remembered a report in Gevlon's Blog that might be worth looking at for this:
http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-worst-scammer-ever.html
Mumble08 "impersonates" Test Diplo Mumble07. Here, he screwed up and actually did confirm that they were the same person. Got fired as a Test diplo for it. I don't think anyone back in the day would have actually thought if he'd pulled it all off, it would be a violation of TOS. If it had been a different player, then yes actually it could be a problem since you have not been allowed to pull the similar name scam for quite some time.
I can sympathize with GM staff and CSM members, in some ways this does look like a tempest in a teacup with typical player overreaction, but I would urge to tread lightly here and deliberate carefully. It is a pretty important area of EVE and the right guidelines and precedents are very critical. Don't make me hand you a wizard hat. |
|
|
|
|
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 |