EVE Search - Lying About Identity No Longer Allowed Under EULA

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Lying About Identity No Longer Allowed Under EULA

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Mara Tessidar Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 898	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:28:00 - [1] - Quote This is a poor idea and so is the ISD's plan to lock every thread about it when there is no discussion thread open. Continuing to lock threads instead of an ISD taking the initiative and opening a thread and saying "stop making angry threads and discuss everything here" is stupid. Do the people working in the ISD department never update their "Censor everything" playbook after each scandal? It doesn't work. People just post elsewhere where they can't be censored, like on reddit. Every time an ISD locks a thread in an attempt to shut down all discussion about it they and CCP just look dumber and dumber.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 4461	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:35:00 - [2] - Quote And your point is what, they should ban making new threads instead of just locking them 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
Mara Tessidar Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 901	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:37:00 - [3] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: And your point is what, they should ban making new threads instead of just locking them Never stop (the) posting
Eram Fidard Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 259	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:37:00 - [4] - Quote A 'discussion thread' is precisely what was needed in this circumstance. Unfortunately I don't think CCP policy gives the ISD much leeway in terms of moderation. Bad policy, it would have indeed been much better to have one threadnaught on eve-o than 20 locked threads and hordes of angry players posting on other sites instead.
Doc Severide Caldari Provisions Caldari State 86	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:39:00 - [5] - Quote My opinion of the ISD's behavior cannot be posted. Note: I do not mean anything personal against them but I think how they treat us is not very well... Everyone is always repeating the mantra "Don't Trust Anyone" ad nauseum... If I can't trust the guys I play with, why bother playing with them at all? Fly Solo...

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 2403	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:41:00 - [6] - Quote Congratulations! You may discuss the ToS changes in here so long as you do it civilly, and without attacking CCP, ISD or each other. Thank you. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Mara Tessidar Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 901	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:41:00 - [7] - Quote ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Congratulations! You may discuss the ToS changes in here so long as you do it civilly, and without attacking CCP, ISD or each other. Thank you. I am....pleasantly surprised.
Malcolm Shinhwa Bad Touches 221	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:47:00 - [8] - Quote Well this is awkward. I don't really have anything left to say after posting in the 20 other locked threads. 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.
Jonah Gravenstein Sweet Sensations Radical Industries 13547	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:47:00 - [9] - Quote Thank you ISD Dorrim Barstorlode I am furnishing this post "as is". I do not provide any warranty of the item 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 item will be error-free.
Arec Bardwin 1107	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:48:00 - [10] - Quote ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Congratulations! You may discuss the ToS changes in here so long as you do it civilly, and without attacking CCP, ISD or each other. Thank you. To be fair, the op is kinda attacking ISD and CCP.
Pap Uhotih Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 22	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:53:00 - [11] - Quote Arec Bardwin wrote: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Congratulations! You may discuss the ToS changes in here so long as you do it civilly, and without attacking CCP, ISD or each other. Thank you. To be fair, the op is kinda attacking ISD and CCP. I was seeing that as well, equally discussing a change made by CCP with anything but approval can be seen as attacking the decision so I fail to see the facility to discuss?
Eram Fidard Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 259	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:55:00 - [12] - Quote wind < sails Onto topic. Is 'represent' the wrong wording to use? I think it's this wording specifically that has led to the vagueness. I think the intention is to remove 'impersonation' ie. saying you are a specific person or entity. But that leaves the question of impersonation of a specific role. It can't possibly be CCP's intention to remove the ability to impersonate a role, since that would go against their entire game philosophy, previously mentioned trailers, and would remove certain 'player jobs' from the sandbox. So, should it be 'legal' to impersonate a role within your character, without impersonating another character or organisation? Is it even possible to 'legislate' this kind of behaviour? Where is the line drawn? Is it ok to (for instance) impersonate the recruiter for an alliance? A corp? A non-affiliated squad? As long as you are not impersonating the character but the role is it ok? How about representing your organisation as something it is not? Surely a corp whose description says "pvp, pve, wormholes, nullsec, lowsec, missions" but who actually only run missions would not face a ban for misrepresenting themselves? But what about a corp whose purpose is to defraud it's members? Where is the line between a group with stated high goals they never actually achieve (and perhaps they choose to rob their members later) and a group deliberately created to rob it's members based on false promises?
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1001	Posted - 2013.09.09 21:59:00 - [13] - Quote Reposting some thoughts from a previous thread. The gist of the clarification seeking is that the previous rules allowed for quite a wide range of scamming. Some of the notable examples that I have ran into. Guys running around ice/mining belts selling mining permits on our behalf. Guys taking that initiative with scam and running with it should be encouraged and not stifled. They were not related to us at all. People selling r64s they did not own. This one was popular for a short while as you could often line up a kill as well. Rental space scams (we don't allow this internally any longer). You can scam/sell space you don't even control! People fall for this constantly. There is no reason a person should be associated with a given mega entity (CFC/N3/etc) to be allowed to scam in a way that represents them. There are checks and balances for this now in game that people can use. These are just a few of the many scams I have ran across that this kills. Everyone understands that using tricks like lower case letters or zeros in a name to impersonate someone else is across the line. What should not be across the line is the wide collection of scams out there that utilize the general publics lack of nullsec or mechanics knowledge to get over. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal - Representing Goonswarm Federation, Goonwaffe, CFC Finance, Greater Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere, CFC Rental Program, Burn Jita, CFC Supply, and who knows what else.-á Vile Rat: You'e the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
KnowUsByTheDead The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology Innovia Alliance 216	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:01:00 - [14] - Quote I, for one, am opposed to this change. But I have a question. Can I impersonate one of my alts? Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 4620	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:01:00 - [15] - 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.
Lady Areola Fappington New Order Logistics CODE. 440	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:02:00 - [16] - Quote ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Congratulations! You may discuss the ToS changes in here so long as you do it civilly, and without attacking CCP, ISD or each other. Thank you. Appreciate it Dorrim, not having a voice is really frustrating. Really, the key flaw in this update/clarification/whathaveyou is the term "groups of players". How is CCP going to define a group of players? Two people is a group of players. A coalition is a group of players. The New Order is a group of players. Furries are a group of players...... In the end, how are you going to designate who is the "official" recognized group, and who is misrepresenting themselves? I'll give a hypothetical example. I am a member of the Something Awful forums, commonly known as "Goons". I create a corp, and give it the name, say "EVE Goons Inc." I now proceed to run around EVE, merrily scamming folks with "Hey dude, I can get you into Goons, 10mil ISK." I'm not lying, or misrepresenting myself as anyone. I'm a Goon. I have a Goon corp. I can recruit people into my Goon corp. What happens when Joe Pubbie sends in a support ticket with "Wagh, Lady Fapp scammed me, she said she could get me into Goons then stole my ISK. Total violation of misrepresenting herself as a group of players!" Second Example. I'm a standard line member of a corp. I scam a dude with "I can totally get you in my corp, gimmee some ISK". According to the rule I'm misrepresenting myself as a person, or group of people who can recruit someone into a corp. I understand the need to keep rules vague, in order to prevent people from tapdancing to the line. In this case, your wording honestly is way too vauge. It has a chilling effect on the metagame we all know and love. Don't worry miners, I'm here to help!
Kismeteer GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 317	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:05:00 - [17] - Quote Why does the TOS now directly say that impersonating an NPC group is against the TOS? What will happen to groups like Mordus Angels and CVA who say they work for the pirate and empire factions Mordus and Amarr respectively? Are they going to be required to change their Role-Playing schtic immediately? Why is it now against the rules to say 'I work with The Mittani' when only the 'I am The Mittani' was actionable before? This is a major policy shift. Can I petition people for saying they'll double my isk because they are not actually in the isk doubling group? How does a person like Mr Omni 'prove' that he represents a rental alliance for goonwaffe when he's in another alliance? He's as a listed contact in the alliance info, is that enough? Why did it take so long to address the issue of getting a discussion item for a news announcement, which traditionally announced at the same time?
Just Lilly 119	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:12:00 - [18] - Quote Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all? What did I miss? Powered by Nvidia GTX 690
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1003	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:16:00 - [19] - Quote Just Lilly wrote: Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all? What did I miss? The new Terms of Service bans any form of impersonation. Even of mega coalitions. Even more disturbing there seem to be highly subjective rules of who qualifies. Making it even more of a mess. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal - Representing Goonswarm Federation, Goonwaffe, CFC Finance, Greater Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere, CFC Rental Program, Burn Jita, CFC Supply, and who knows what else.-á Vile Rat: You'e the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2205	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:16:00 - [20] - Quote Just Lilly wrote: Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all? What did I miss? http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/eve-online-terms-of-service-update-1/ A not-entirely clearly worded update to the TOS, which Grimmi later claimed was not a change at all, but which on the face of it rules a great deal of previously permitted scamming and metagaming activity illegal. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge **.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006 ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Malcolm Shinhwa Bad Touches 221	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:20:00 - [21] - Quote Reposting from the locked thread that started it all... Comor Dunathis wrote: 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? 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.
Lyell Wolf Virtues Corporation Yulai Federation 37	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:22:00 - [22] - Quote 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.
Just Lilly 119	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:23:00 - [23] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Just Lilly wrote: Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all? What did I miss? http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/eve-online-terms-of-service-update-1/ A not-entirely clearly worded update to the TOS, which Grimmi later claimed was not a change at all, but which on the face of it rules a great deal of previously permitted scamming and metagaming activity illegal. Wooh yeah, did a little reading up on the forums and found quite a few locked threads on the subject. Powered by Nvidia GTX 690

CCP Guard C C P C C P Alliance 4142	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:24:00 - [24] - Quote Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjav+¡k, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner. 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. If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided. I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed? CCP Guard \| EVE Community Developer \|-á@ccp_guard

Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 4622	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:25:00 - [25] - 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.
Jonah Gravenstein Sweet Sensations Radical Industries 13548	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:25:00 - [26] - Quote The new wording also seems to rule out satirical corporation and character names, that poke fun at other individuals and organisations, without actually impersonating them. 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? That's fair enough, I can live with that. Is the Amarr monument still intact? 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.
Kismeteer GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 318	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:26:00 - [27] - 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? Thank you, sir, this was the response we were waiting for. Clarity is all we're after.
Mara Tessidar Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 903	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:26:00 - [28] - Quote CCP Guard wrote: Everyone please calm down, we'll announce something when everyone gets back in the office. Sounds good to me.
Lady Areola Fappington New Order Logistics CODE. 442	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:27:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Guard wrote: Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjav+¡k, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner. 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. If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided. I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed? Of course, I can't represent myself as speaking for all of EVE, but that sounds reasonable. Some dialog would be nice, to balance the wants of the players for metagame, vs. the need of CCP to quantify rules. I'm sure we can give ya'll an honest few days before that monument in Jita starts looking targetworthy again. Don't worry miners, I'm here to help!
Inxentas Ultramar Ultramar Independent Contracting Home Front Coalition 678	Posted - 2013.09.09 22:27:00 - [30] - Quote The problem lies not in the wording or it's intent, but in enforcing this rule. I see a dozen ways to break this rule without the victim being able to produce conclusive evidence that a breach of the rule indeed took place, which is problematic at the very least. Out-of-game communication (audio) come to mind.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,06s, ref 20251002/0745
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.