| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4620
   |
Posted - 2013.09.09 22:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
repostin:
Quote:GM Grimmi wrote:
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. Even if you're only getting at what you say above, you've worded it poorly and are creating more work for yourself, and creating future inappropriate bans when a new GM reads the policy and figures it means what it says.
But more importantly your argument is wrong: you are not banning misrepresenting your identity. You are banning misrepresenting your 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. This isn't an extension of a policy banning misrepresenting your identity, it's creating a new, bad, policy. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4622
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 22:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lyell Wolf wrote:Just Lilly wrote:Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?
What did I miss? Hell if I know tbh. I think the EULA was "reclarified" after a big issue with people falsely representing alliances to scam them. If that's the case, my opinion is mixed and I don't have enough information on it's effects on EVE to make a solid stance on the matter. If someone would be so kind as to clarify the ordeal it would be much appreciated. The piles of locked threads is giving me the suspicion that the facts passing around are not being properly compiled in this remaining thread.
Here is the original thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276594&find=unread
The large number of closed threads started getting posted when that one was closed. That thread has much of the actual discussion of the change. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4625
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 22:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Guard wrote:
I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?
Yeah, I think it's completely reasonable that people just worded something more broadly than they intended, the real trouble came when it seemed like that discussion on the issue was getting abruptly shut down. I think my concerns and whatever the GM team was trying to get at can easily both be solved. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4628
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 23:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:CCP Guard wrote:
I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.
What this says, for those who still need clarification, is that the policy hasn't changed, the wording has.
There's two issues: first, the wording matters (if it's unclear someone's going to wind up banned by a newbie GM reading the rules and not realizing they actually are intended to mean far less, and it will directly lead to increased petitions from players reading the rules and not realizing they actually mean less). Second, the GM clarification introduced a new rule I don't believe I've ever seen and don't believe is a case of spoofing someone's identity, so that's worrying. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4628
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 23:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I don't seem to be having as much trouble understanding it, but perhaps those that are should just wait patiently for that clarity that Guard said would come before panicking. In the meantime, petition any action taken by GMs you feel doesn't suit the wording of the policy, and carry on business as usual. If the clarity doesn't come as stated, then make a point of it.
I dunno, maybe I just don't have a problem here because a) I've never imitated anyone, b) never intend to and c) if it has anything to do with the policy, never have and never will scam anyone.
I started a thread laying out my concerns and asking for clarification, and I'm continuing doing exactly that. Nobody was impatient about a response: people were (before Guard's post) concerned there would be no response. I'm laying out my specific concerns so those can be taken into account in this response.
I also don't think it matters how you interpret it, or I think it was meant, because as written it's very broad and people will interpret it the way I said they will. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
4637
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 16:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
The Git wrote:The game is about space ships, asteroids, pew pew, stations, fighting.........but don't some of you get the impression that the game is becoming defined by how ****** you can treat other players?
no, it always has been |
| |
|