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) |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
295
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:48:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Viscis Breeze wrote:This is just CCP Mad wielding the power stick for too long right?
Also how about this:
I roll a second account and a second character and impersonate myself to steal from someone who trusts my main. CCP knows that I own both accounts and that therefore I wasn't lying. Does my main then get banned and punished for something that my alt did?
Yes, because according to GMs there is no ingame way to verify that your main is you.
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun wrote:Johan March wrote:Probably the most idiotic is the "you cannot impersonate an NPC entity". That is probably one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in an MMO. Not really. I remember someone naming their ship "CONCORD Salvager" and then salvaging mission wrecks of random guys. One guy even got confused and started asking in local when did CCP introduce Salvaging NPCs. Guess that kind of ingenuity would be banned now =P
Yes, and according to GMs always has been. |
arabella blood
I Swear She Looked 18
150
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:52:00 -
[1412] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:Viscis Breeze wrote:This is just CCP Mad wielding the power stick for too long right?
Also how about this:
I roll a second account and a second character and impersonate myself to steal from someone who trusts my main. CCP knows that I own both accounts and that therefore I wasn't lying. Does my main then get banned and punished for something that my alt did? Yes, because according to GMs there is no ingame way to verify that your main is you.
Total BS...how do they ban all accounts of a botter then?
Troll for hire. Cheap prices. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
1111
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:53:00 -
[1413] - Quote
arabella blood wrote:Total BS...how do they ban all accounts of a botter then?
Using out-of-game tools. |
Viscis Breeze
TriFlexure Void-Legion
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:55:00 -
[1414] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:Viscis Breeze wrote:This is just CCP Mad wielding the power stick for too long right?
Also how about this:
I roll a second account and a second character and impersonate myself to steal from someone who trusts my main. CCP knows that I own both accounts and that therefore I wasn't lying. Does my main then get banned and punished for something that my alt did? Yes, because according to GMs there is no ingame way to verify that your main is you. E'lyna Mis Dimaloun wrote:Johan March wrote:Probably the most idiotic is the "you cannot impersonate an NPC entity". That is probably one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in an MMO. Not really. I remember someone naming their ship "CONCORD Salvager" and then salvaging mission wrecks of random guys. One guy even got confused and started asking in local when did CCP introduce Salvaging NPCs. Guess that kind of ingenuity would be banned now =P Yes, and according to GMs always has been.
Since when did we start taking all the sand out of the sandbox? |
arabella blood
I Swear She Looked 18
150
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:56:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:arabella blood wrote:Total BS...how do they ban all accounts of a botter then?
Using out-of-game tools.
Great. so let them use those tools to varify if I am impersonating my alt or not :)
Troll for hire. Cheap prices. |
Ed Tekki
Grief University
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:58:00 -
[1416] - Quote
This is a horrible change. I don't entirely understand what it's purpose is, other than to act as the pebble which starts the avalanche of "carebear" ToS changes that see Eve, after 10 years of being the premier sandbox MMO, turn into another mundane cookie-cutter borefest, where all out of the box plays are instantly reported.
What makes it worse is there has been no detailed explanation why. The new rules are muddled, poorly contexted and only serve to diminish the game rather than enrich it. |
Isis Dea
Combat Cruise Control
41
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:00:00 -
[1417] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:Viscis Breeze wrote:This is just CCP Mad wielding the power stick for too long right?
Also how about this:
I roll a second account and a second character and impersonate myself to steal from someone who trusts my main. CCP knows that I own both accounts and that therefore I wasn't lying. Does my main then get banned and punished for something that my alt did? Yes, because according to GMs there is no ingame way to verify that your main is you. E'lyna Mis Dimaloun wrote:Johan March wrote:Probably the most idiotic is the "you cannot impersonate an NPC entity". That is probably one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in an MMO. Not really. I remember someone naming their ship "CONCORD Salvager" and then salvaging mission wrecks of random guys. One guy even got confused and started asking in local when did CCP introduce Salvaging NPCs. Guess that kind of ingenuity would be banned now =P Yes, and according to GMs always has been.
My question: Why even try to regulate who is who in a world where your avatar is a weapon (in summary of the CONCORD Pilot Introduction video, or in the EVE:Empyrean Age novel where the broker uses multiple bodies/personas to accomplish his agenda). Why try to fix what isn't broken by catering to the gullible and the dumb?
There's a reason space is dark, kids don't play here, and GOOD players are built through the process. These players can't find a home anywhere else because of the process, other MMOs simply aren't good enough to satisfy after braving the learning curve of EVE and coming to realize what all it teaches/provides you, even WITH the dangers and risk of people and their word.
EVE is VR, emphasis on the R (Reality), especially where people still have yet to grow the **** up. WE LOVE THIS.
Whoever you are, GMs, wherever you're coming from, some of you need to step back and ask about the history that makes this game WHAT IT IS present day.
I strongly request you watch your OWN video, titled: EVE - Casualty
Some of you really need to learn what EVE is before you dare start trying to manage it.
P.S. Sure, EVE doesn't generate as much money for this style/art to its mechanics, but it practically OWNS the mature player base, with loyal friends like me who've stood by your side for 9 years ongoing. Expand the game on WHAT IT IS -NOT through redefining it. |
Maximilian Akora
It's just business.
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:09:00 -
[1418] - Quote
So is CCP going to ban ~50% of the accounts then? Since the vast majority of female characters are actually men it's clearly a misrepresentation and impersonation. |
Gavinvin1337
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:19:00 -
[1419] - Quote
I wouldn't be suprised if this was caused by someone getting recruited to the legal team from another games company. They get tasked to use their experience of gaming TOS's to look over the EVE one and see if there is anything they can fix.
They see the fact that other games have these types of statements in their TOS's and think "Oh look there's a big gaping hole in the TOS, lets fill it." .
I 100% think that whoever made this decision does not know the game or the community very well, as shown by this threadnaught. |
Hra Neuvosto
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
110
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:20:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Very saddened by the lack of blue in this thread. |
|
LTHenrich Lehmann
The Royal Engineers
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:21:00 -
[1421] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:Player: Can I be banned for telling the truth?
GM Karidor: Yes.
^^ And this here is exactly why GMs should not be allowed to dictate policy.
This in isolation as you have it should be completly correct depending on what the 'truth' is that is being told as long as that truth incurrs something that is bannable from say e.g. the EULA take your pick of any that apply.
This is why isolation, out of context posts prove nothing, they add no value and contribute nothing constructive to getting a resolution to (insert item under discussion) .
sorry, but really, after so much, players "we need clarification blah blah posts", a GM bothers to try and help understanding of perceived issues etc, at least show some respect to that fact.
I know feelings are running high but this won't help at all. |
Berendas
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
514
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:26:00 -
[1422] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:thee lous3 wrote:
You have no idea how much it warms my heart to see a CSM who gets it. Malcanis, could you please inform us whether the majority of the CSM agrees or disagrees with the policy change?
I'm sorry to say that I have had almost no time for my CSM duties in the last 2 weeks, but I can confirm that I'm definitely not the only CSM who is unhappy with the turn this situation has taken.
It's good to hear that the CSM is aware of the gravity of these changes, and I hope you guys are doing all you can to see this through to a solution. However, this isn't just a burden for the CSM to bear, but rather one for every player who enjoys an unrestricted and emergent game universe. Do you have any advice for the rest of us on what we can do to help out? I would hope the common player can do more to participate in this process than posting in a sticky that has only gotten sparse and largely unsatisfactory GM replies.
I tried petitioning for clarification, but it was of course locked with no replies |
GENT
black-body Abandon Ships
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:28:00 -
[1423] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Milton Middleson wrote: What if Abdiel Kavash directly confirms that Phill McScammer (his alt) is in fact his alt (e.g. starting a private conversation with the mark using his main and saying "Phill McScammer is my alt")? Does that still qualify as impersonation?
Why would you even bother with the alt in that situation? You can just do whatever you need to do with Abdiel Kavash then. The character Phil technically still impersonates Abdiel.
Impersonate: To pretend to be (another person) as entertainment or in order to deceive someone.
Pretend: To speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.
So no. In this case, in no way shape or form, is he impersonating Abdiel. He is Abdiel. He is actually going to lengths to PROVE that, rather than pretend to be someone else. Black-Body is recruiting small gang PVPers and PVP corporations! |
Ed Tekki
Grief University
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:29:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Gavinvin1337 wrote:I wouldn't be suprised if this was caused by someone getting recruited to the legal team from another games company. They get tasked to use their experience of gaming TOS's to look over the EVE one and see if there is anything they can fix.
They see the fact that other games have these types of statements in their TOS's and think "Oh look there's a big gaping hole in the TOS, lets fill it." .
I 100% think that whoever made this decision does not know the game or the community very well, as shown by this threadnaught.
It does indeed seem like a rookie mistake. What's worrying is there's been little in the way of comment about trying to bring forth a resolution to resolve the problem, and diffuse the situation.
I appreciate that this has stemmed from an abuse of the Wiki, but rather than a massive upheaval of the rule, they could have just added a line that said "screwing with the wiki to perform a scam will get you banned." |
Gavinvin1337
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:36:00 -
[1425] - Quote
Im just going to take the first few storys I find on https://truestories.eveonline.com/ and compare them to the new TOS.
BOB disbanding https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/976-the-mittani-sends-his-regards-disbanding-band-of-brothers
Haargoth used an alt to get scammed/recruited into goons, then told them he had a director character in BOB, under the new TOS he would be banned.
Guiding Hands Social Club https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/1025-guiding-hand-social-clubs-uqs-contract-or-the-heist-where-mirial-and-ubiqua-seraph-have-a-bad-day
When the members left the alliances they scammed, they left notes taking credit and stating they were part of the Guiding Hands Social Club, as there is no in game means to prove this, they were misrepresenting themselves and therefore should have been banned.
These are the 1st and 3rd ranked stories on an official eve website, both of which now break the TOS.
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
433
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:38:00 -
[1426] - Quote
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:Player: Can I be banned for telling the truth?
GM Karidor: Yes.
^^ And this here is exactly why GMs should not be allowed to dictate policy. This in isolation as you have it should be completly correct depending on what the 'truth' is that is being told as long as that truth incurrs something that is bannable from say e.g. the EULA take your pick of any that apply. This is why isolation, out of context posts prove nothing, they add no value and contribute nothing constructive to getting a resolution to (insert item under discussion) . sorry, but really, after so much, players "we need clarification blah blah posts", a GM bothers to try and help understanding of perceived issues etc, at least show some respect to that fact. I know feelings are running high but this won't help at all. I have yet to see a GM understand the issue. The post you quoted was the extreme shorthand if a couple of replies that GM Karidor made. It's short, to the point and correct. You need not do anything else than impersonate your other character to get penalised (Warned, banned, permabanned) if reported. You don't have to break the EULA, you already broke the TOS which can get you banned.
The truth here refers to saying that he was one of his own alts. The GM did not understand, did not help, and need no respect. I'll respect CCP staff that actually shows they know what end of the digestive system they're speaking out of. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
295
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:40:00 -
[1427] - Quote
LTHenrich Lehmann wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:Player: Can I be banned for telling the truth?
GM Karidor: Yes.
^^ And this here is exactly why GMs should not be allowed to dictate policy. This in isolation as you have it should be completly correct depending on what the 'truth' is that is being told as long as that truth incurrs something that is bannable from say e.g. the EULA take your pick of any that apply. This is why isolation, out of context posts prove nothing, they add no value and contribute nothing constructive to getting a resolution to (insert item under discussion) . sorry, but really, after so much, players "we need clarification blah blah posts", a GM bothers to try and help understanding of perceived issues etc, at least show some respect to that fact. I know feelings are running high but this won't help at all.
You're right, it was a **** move. I was honestly surprised to see the 'final word' had been 're-re-clarified' by Karidor to even more disastrous interpretation. Still no dev response, though.
Funny of you to interpret my post so literally though when it was an obviously dumbed-down simplification that illustrates the perils of speaking and/or interpreting in broad, vague ways. Not meant as gospel, though I admit it came across a little bitter. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
189
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:40:00 -
[1428] - Quote
Ed Tekki wrote:Gavinvin1337 wrote:I wouldn't be suprised if this was caused by someone getting recruited to the legal team from another games company. They get tasked to use their experience of gaming TOS's to look over the EVE one and see if there is anything they can fix.
They see the fact that other games have these types of statements in their TOS's and think "Oh look there's a big gaping hole in the TOS, lets fill it." .
I 100% think that whoever made this decision does not know the game or the community very well, as shown by this threadnaught. It does indeed seem like a rookie mistake. What's worrying is there's been little in the way of comment about trying to bring forth a resolution to resolve the problem, and diffuse the situation. I appreciate that this has stemmed from an abuse of the Wiki, but rather than a massive upheaval of the rule, they could have just added a line that said "screwing with the wiki to perform a scam will get you banned."
While this is most likely the case, I still like the tin foil hat idea that this was done to remove the ability to perform renting scams in the name of another so as to protect the integrity of the new 0.0 income stream of renters. |
Grimpak
Duty. The Cursed Few
1095
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:43:00 -
[1429] - Quote
how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Berendas
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
514
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:44:00 -
[1430] - Quote
This. These new rules, quite frankly, are idiotic. They make impossible (or rather illegal) much of the intrigue and creative social play that made EVE such a gem. |
|
arabella blood
I Swear She Looked 18
150
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:49:00 -
[1431] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues.
Prove consent first...
At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/
Troll for hire. Cheap prices. |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:55:00 -
[1432] - Quote
I am the N3 Coalition |
Grimpak
Duty. The Cursed Few
1095
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:59:00 -
[1433] - Quote
arabella blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues. Prove consent first... At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/ granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started cleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Ed Tekki
Grief University
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:00:00 -
[1434] - Quote
Interesting legal fact:
Anyone with an account that pre-dates the ToS change is not yet bound by the new rules, as there has been no new ToS agreement requests when entering the game. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
176
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:00:00 -
[1435] - Quote
Can I petition a unit of Carbon for impersonating a different in-game item? |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:01:00 -
[1436] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:arabella blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues. Prove consent first... At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/ granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing. They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now. |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
2724
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:05:00 -
[1437] - Quote
Is there a way to see if people are unsubbing?
|
Grimpak
Duty. The Cursed Few
1095
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:05:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:Grimpak wrote:arabella blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues. Prove consent first... At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/ granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing. They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now. doesn't help at all. I mined a rock and all of the sudden I'm banned because some obscure law made it illegal to mine something at some place and a GM just happened to woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
the clearer the law, the less problematic the interpretation is, the easier is to pass judgement. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:07:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:Grimpak wrote:arabella blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues. Prove consent first... At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/ granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing. They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now. doesn't help at all. I mined a rock and all of the sudden I'm banned because some obscure law made it illegal to mine something at some place and a GM just happened to woke up on the wrong side of the bed. the clearer the law, the less problematic the interpretation is, the easier is to pass judgement. Exactly, The EULA is a joke they just want to be able to ban anyone at anytime so that any problems they run into can just be brushed under the rug.
RIP Eve |
arabella blood
I Swear She Looked 18
150
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:12:00 -
[1440] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:Grimpak wrote:arabella blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:how bloody hard is to get the ToS saying:
"you cannot impersonate and/or claim association with X, Y and/or Z groups without consent" if there was no practical change with this ToS update?
this is why I hate legal types. they always do regulations that can leave space for too much interpretation avenues. Prove consent first... At this point, no matter what they will change, nothing good can't come out of it :/ granted the "without consent" part was needless, but the point still stands: if CCP started vleaning up the ToS to make it more clear on the wording, it would have half the size and still say the same damn thing. They want you to play a game where you constantly are in doubt if what you just did was against the eula. Hence the **** open ended EULA they have now. doesn't help at all. I mined a rock and all of the sudden I'm banned because some obscure law made it illegal to mine something at some place and a GM just happened to woke up on the wrong side of the bed. the clearer the law, the less problematic the interpretation is, the easier is to pass judgement.
Actually NO, beeing as i am IRL Lawyer, i promise to you - "the less problematic the interpetetion" does not result in "the easier is to pass judgment"...but that's IRL law stuff and a bit out of place here, despite the TOS beeing a legal thing.
Anyway, my question/seggestoin still stands: what happens when i give "Power of attorney" to some other player? Troll for hire. Cheap prices. |
|
|
|
|
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 |