You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.

What the christ?

So I noticed there was a small update to the EVE terms of service, noted here: http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/eve-online-terms-of-service-update-1/

No comment thread was provided. This new "update" adds this:



This effectively bans most scamming and appears to be entirely unwarranted and an intrusion into the sandbox, made without comment or justification. Of course, this may be poorly worded and intended to address a specific problem, in which case I think a discussion of the subject would produce a much better result - after all, this will be cited by every scamee in a petition and if it doesn't mean what it says, some new GM will quickly make a mistake. As written, one of our members who scams someone with the time-honored recruitment scam will get petitioned when someone says that he wasn't authorized to represent Goonswarm.

If it does mean what it says - the GM team has decided to ban most scamming ("why yes, I'm a representative of NC. and can rent you Scalding Pass, pay no attention to the part of the game that tells you I'm in Goonwaffe") I'd like an explanation as to why such a massive intrusion into one of the core features of EVE was warranted. I mean, if you actually get scammed by someone claiming to represent one of the EVE [b]NPC Corporations[/u] you deserve everything that's coming to you.

This appears to be the GM team simply giving in to the masses of people who just spam unjustified petitions. I don't want to get ahead of the facts without a GM or CCP response, but this clearly warrants one.

sorry CCP

ah **** I'm gonna get banned now

With a beak like that, your mom was sorry too.

As written, one of our members who scams someone with the time-honored recruitment scam will get petitioned when someone says that he wasn't authorized to represent Goonswarm.

You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.

Wait...we claimed Providence in the name of the Amarrian empire, which is an NPC group.



Guess we will just have to add CCP to the KOS list...

why on Earth anyone would care about some stupid goonie who was punished for his scams? What?

Perhaps CCP would like to enlighten me as to the diffference between the CFC and the New Order, since last I checked, they were both groups of players. Why is impersonating the CFC a violation of the TOS, but impersonating one of the New Order's subgroups not a violation of it?

'Pizza incident'

/comes out from under rock

link/enlightenment plz?

Wait...we claimed Providence in the name of the Amarrian empire, which is an NPC group.



Guess we will just have to add CCP to the KOS list...

This comes from the fact that there are players telling new people that they are representatives of,
for example, Republic University or other NPC corps
and ... i have this info from a scammer who did this and had a GM convo ...
because it seems to be a scam so widespread that it interferes with lore and live events, or something.
Paraphrasing this, because i forgot the exact wording.

Does this mean roleplaying is dead?

A couple of guys ransomed a pilot for a pizza IRL.

CCP was unhappy with this.

I think that's the Pizza story. Unless there is another one.

Wait...we claimed Providence in the name of the Amarrian empire, which is an NPC group.



Guess we will just have to add CCP to the KOS list...

Yeah, this is a good example of why this is bad, unworkable policy.

Okay, I think what's happening here is that CCP wants every claim of identity to be checkable using the game. Impersonating CFC is off limits now because a player can't use EVE to determine if you're actually CFC. If I'm reading this right, then you CAN impersonate GoonWaffe because it's as simple as checking your information sheet.

I'm seeing this as a way to level the playing field for people who don't know Eve's meta-political landscape. Under these rules, everyone has the tools to verify someone's claim to identity - or at least to demand said proof with an in-game source.

That sounds like an...exceptionally weak justification for a poorly written policy that bans roleplaying. It's not at all a justification for all of the extra crap tacked on.

Nah, they are just being dumb about how they cover a specific incident, OR they are crying because scams represent much of their workload.

Essentially a couple scammers modified the WIKI page for trusted 3rd parties to include themselves with something to the effect of ISD Verified. I forget the exact details as it was many weeks ago. This mean that the person that got scammed checked the wiki, say their names, say ISD verified, got scammed.

CCP reacted by ban hammer cause of this and made up some rules on the fly. Not content to stop there they went ahead and then blanket applied it across EVE.

I added an edit
.
That's what i've heard of and there's no reason to believe the scammer lied to me,
as there was no money involved. lol

The policy as written doesn't have those limitations, and that's not a problem that warrants this sort of heavy-handed intrusion. The New Order folks are quite correct as well to argue that there's no reason for this policy to apply to the CFC but not "mining permit holders".

I

Comor Dunathis > so basically, what i'm getting out of this is that player-made groups that surpass alliance/corp boundaries are not official groups
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis That sounds about right. yes.
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis To answer your question, groups, such as the CFC, as you asked, are included in the ToS change.So no. Don't do it.
Comor Dunathis > thanks. so everyone without a permit that claims to have one is now violating the TOS. gotcha.
ISD Arooga > Comor Dunathis not really

WHat do you think.

Let's start reporting all roleplayers

That pizza incident would have never happened if CCP had actual vision
and introduced PIZZA FOR PLEX, a service with business relations all over the world.

Golden pods? Bullshit. The money lies in Pizza. I'm dead serious.

This tops CCP Mintchip. Way to go guys!

Wonder how the CSM is going to damage control this one...

This tops CCP Mintchip. Way to go guys!

Wonder how the CSM is going to damage control this one...

Are we playing the same game or am I just smelling highsec carebear who got scammed?

So if ButthurtMcGee decides to report me for selling him 6 Tech moons that actually belonged to Evoke 2 years ago am I going to get banned?

"It's only there to catch goonies"

"grr goonies. ok"

Here's some other humor for this. According to the definition given, strictly by the rules, anyone claiming to have a mining permit from the New Order is misrepresenting themselves as a member of a group, if they don't actually have a permit. (We consider all valid permit holders a member of our highsec coalition).

Unfortunately, we were told we don't count as a "group" according to CCP definition. CFC though, is considered a "group" so anyone trying to pull the "join GoonSwarm" scam, be careful!

b. In-game names may not:
Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.

c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.

You aren't an evoke spy, are you

And here I thought that one was topless

So if ButthurtMcGee decides to report me for selling him 6 Tech moons that actually belonged to Evoke 2 years ago am I going to get banned?

And here I thought that one was topless

Also for the new players here, I would like to remind you that CCP tried to ban scamming in the past.

What you did there..I see it

Apparently. This ruling really does screw with a ton of scams in EVE.

I guess Mittens is gonna have to shut down his trusted third party escrow service.

So I noticed there was a small update to the EVE terms of service, noted here: http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/eve-online-terms-of-service-update-1/

No comment thread was provided. This new "update" adds this:



This effectively bans most scamming and appears to be entirely unwarranted and an intrusion into the sandbox, made without comment or justification. Of course, this may be poorly worded and intended to address a specific problem, in which case I think a discussion of the subject would produce a much better result - after all, this will be cited by every scamee in a petition and if it doesn't mean what it says, some new GM will quickly make a mistake. As written, one of our members who scams someone with the time-honored recruitment scam will get petitioned when someone says that he wasn't authorized to represent Goonswarm.

If it does mean what it says - the GM team has decided to ban most scamming ("why yes, I'm a representative of NC. and can rent you Scalding Pass, pay no attention to the part of the game that tells you I'm in Goonwaffe") I'd like an explanation as to why such a massive intrusion into one of the core features of EVE was warranted. I mean, if you actually get scammed by someone claiming to represent one of the EVE [b]NPC Corporations[/u] you deserve everything that's coming to you.

This appears to be the GM team simply giving in to the masses of people who just spam unjustified petitions. I don't want to get ahead of the facts without a GM or CCP response, but this clearly warrants one.

Harsh..;-;

I didn't see it. But perhaps it's best that way.

I don't know about you, but I hear that goons use the mittani all the time.

I plan to use him as a third party when buying a supercap from my friend, in fact

OK, now here's my question. Since when has ISD been allowed to make interpretations of the EULA as CCPs agent? I know they ENFORCE the rules set down by CCP, but an ISD declaring "X is a real group protected under EULA" and "Y is not a real group" is a pretty big declaration for a player volunteer to make.


Catch the right ISD, and we can ~disband~ coalitions as needed, just by stating they don't fall under this EULA clause's protections.

Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

GÇ£No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identityGÇ¥

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

GÇ£c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.GÇ¥

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.

Thanks for clarifying. Would you like to join Goonwaffe?

So I noticed there was a small update to the EVE terms of service, noted here: http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/eve-online-terms-of-service-update-1/

No comment thread was provided. This new "update" adds this:



This effectively bans most scamming and appears to be entirely unwarranted and an intrusion into the sandbox, made without comment or justification. Of course, this may be poorly worded and intended to address a specific problem, in which case I think a discussion of the subject would produce a much better result - after all, this will be cited by every scamee in a petition and if it doesn't mean what it says, some new GM will quickly make a mistake. As written, one of our members who scams someone with the time-honored recruitment scam will get petitioned when someone says that he wasn't authorized to represent Goonswarm.

If it does mean what it says - the GM team has decided to ban most scamming ("why yes, I'm a representative of NC. and can rent you Scalding Pass, pay no attention to the part of the game that tells you I'm in Goonwaffe") I'd like an explanation as to why such a massive intrusion into one of the core features of EVE was warranted. I mean, if you actually get scammed by someone claiming to represent one of the EVE [b]NPC Corporations[/u] you deserve everything that's coming to you.

This appears to be the GM team simply giving in to the masses of people who just spam unjustified petitions. I don't want to get ahead of the facts without a GM or CCP response, but this clearly warrants one.

Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

GÇ£No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identityGÇ¥

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

GÇ£c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.GÇ¥

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.

Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

GÇ£No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identityGÇ¥

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

GÇ£c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.GÇ¥

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.

Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

GÇ£No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identityGÇ¥

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

GÇ£c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.GÇ¥

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.

Come on, where's your creativity. As a member of GoonWaffe this is the perfect opportunity to sell people permits to scam in your name (because if they have your permit they are not technically 'falsely' presenting themselves as your representative - and a representative is not necessarily the guy who is allowed to add someone to the corp).
.
.
.
And then threaten to withdraw that permit and petion them unless they give you 80% of their earnings.

Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

GÇ£No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identityGÇ¥

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

GÇ£c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.GÇ¥

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.

Literally BoB with GMs in the alliance eh

So tell me, how does this affect my question? Is the CFC favored over the New Order, or does ISD not act as a representative of CCP? Because this clearly form-response does nothing to address the issues in this thread.

I was told in help chat by ISD Arooga and ISD FlowingSpice that only official groups can be impersonated, though it wasn't clear what official groups were. I had answers saying that the CFC was an official group, but the new order was not. The only difference I can see is that CFC is a nullsec power bloc, whereas the new order is a highsec bloc.

I was told that recruitment scams were fine, but that people impersonating permit-holding miners were not against the TOS.

When I questioned them on this further, here's what followed:

Comor Dunathis > so basically, what i'm getting out of this is that player-made groups that surpass alliance/corp boundaries are not official groups
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis That sounds about right. yes.
ISD FlowingSpice > Comor Dunathis To answer your question, groups, such as the CFC, as you asked, are included in the ToS change.So no. Don't do it.
Comor Dunathis > thanks. so everyone without a permit that claims to have one is now violating the TOS. gotcha.
ISD Arooga > Comor Dunathis not really

Perhaps CCP would like to enlighten me as to the diffference between the CFC and the New Order, since last I checked, they were both groups of players. Why is impersonating the CFC a violation of the TOS, but impersonating one of the New Order's subgroups not a violation of it?

Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

GÇ£No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identityGÇ¥

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

GÇ£c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.GÇ¥

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.

The TOS update does not include these clarifications, and I can absolutely assure you that you will be deluged with petitions for false representation of authority. That's what's at issue here: you are not banning misrepresenting your identity[b]. You are banning misrepresenting your [b]authority. If I tell the world ProGodLegend has authorized me to rent out whatever worthless regions he currently occupies, I'm not misrepresenting my identity. I'm not misrepresenting my affiliations. I'm baldly lying in a way that's easy to verify and not pretending to be another person in the game.

Nothing to see here, please move along. Eurasia has always been at war with eastasia.

I'd say the part on your char sheet that shows your alliance is an indication.

Take CODE Logistics for instance. They are a group.

Being an "agent" of New Order is not.. since that's a meta group, not a mechanic group.

Think of the server.

Well, that's all well and good, but this old policy focuses specifically on using character names to impersonate.

Meanwhile the 'interpretation' by ISD is that impersonating an entity regardless of naming conventions is a bannable offence.

So, that necessarily implies that anyone impersonating anyone for any reason using any manner may be banned.

Which includes spies, thieves, roleplayers, and on the whole, a giant chunk of the playerbase. Hell, anyone named "Lord ____" should be up for a ban, unless they are confirmed as actual lords by CCP.

Obviously, this is completely ******* ridiculous, but after all, that's why this thread has devolved so far. So what are the actual rules?

Will you get banned for any/all attempts at any kind of impersonation? Because that seems like you will need a new customer service wing.

By this definition, every coalition in the game doesn't exist. We've already been told the CFC counts as a "group".

I'd say the part on your char sheet that shows your alliance is an indication.

Take CODE Logistics for instance. They are a group.

Being an "agent" of New Order is not.. since that's a meta group, not a mechanic group.

Think of the server.