So... it doesn't matter how I interpreted it, even though I interpreted it differently to the way you said people would, because... everyone's going to interpret it the way you said they would?

Do you understand what's wrong with that?

So... it doesn't matter how I interpreted it, even though I interpreted it differently to the way you said people would, because... everyone's going to interpret it the way you said they would?

Do you understand what's wrong with that?

Look, you guys now have a place to discuss this in proper with the DEV's. CCP Guard has made a reply earlier for all of you.
Use this forum to have a civil discussion about it. You dont have to troll just because you are on the internet.

Look, you guys now have a place to discuss this in proper with the DEV's. CCP Guard has made a reply earlier for all of you.
Use this forum to have a civil discussion about it. You dont have to troll just because you are on the internet.

How many of your members come from CFC stock? I think that might be one of the problems that caused this shitstorm in the first place.

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?

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

I have an email adress for you: [email protected]

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?

The problem is that this is too broadly worded. All players of a corp are representing their group of people by their actions and words. It's why corps often have some form of rule of conduct. Simply by wearing their corp name is representing them. By legalese-ing it, it's now a TOS violation for -


* All Spying (To Spy you falsely present yourself as a member of the corp)
* AWOXing (To AWOX you falsely present yourself as a member of the target's corp)
* Joining a corp to steal from it (Same as spying and AWOX)
* Several Scams ("I represent Goons, and I want to sell you space")


It needs to say that it only applies to using your character name to falsely present others.


EDIT: Someone mentioned that in the actions of the character in this official trailer would go against the new TOS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGplrpWvz0I

* All Spying (To Spy you falsely represent yourself as a member of the corp to work)
* AWOXing (To AWOX you falsely represent yourself as a member of the target's corp to work)
* Joining a corp to steal from it (Same as spying and AWOX)
* Several Scams ("I represent Goons, and I want to sell you space")

It needs to mention that it only applies to using your character NAME to falsely represent.

So let's go with this
How many people are taking up courses in logic, speaking, and other similar fields in order to choke lawyers with how worded their scams will be?

I'm adding an asterisk to all mine, how about you?

Had our fun picking on the ISD in the many, many locked threads. We got what we asked for in a forum to discuss the issue. Seems like the decent thing to do is leave them alone at this point.

No in-game goods or services may be exchanged for anything but other in-game goods and services.

I'm not intending to accuse you of anything I'm suggesting a rethinking of how ISDs are selected. Right now I think the hiring process probably eliminates those who prefer to play the "bad guy" in EVE from ISD candidacy.

If they want to hone in the behaviour they want to stamp out, then why not just ban in-game transaction for anything other than in-game transactions. I'm no lawyer, but the text of such a change could read something like this:

Voila! No more real-world pizza transactions. Problem solved. Of course, this creates an issue for folks that write for sites like EVENews24.com and TheMittani.com, who are paid in ISK, but I'm sure the language could be expanded to continue to allow those sorts of transactions.

Oh ho, that thread about how bad guys won't get anywhere irl is true.

Screw you goon, you guys deserved it. Soon N3 will have you by the

I think perhaps we need some form of space affirmative action so big alliances aren't under represented in ISD. The forum is a big part of EVE and preventing a portion of people from having a say in it is harmful to the metagame. The main thing that is free advertising for EVE and draws players in.

So, this is already being abused by the crybabies, I can tell you. Just saw someone launch a petition against someone (might have been me, I was involved in the conversation too) for "falsely claiming to be a noob" (when in fact he just got scammed), and that "CCP says that's illegal now".

Revert this as fast as possible to prevent abuse.

Then, we can have a dialogue as to why this nonsense was put in, and what we can do about whatever issue warranted this change.

(Btw, does anyone actually know why the heck this was put in?)

I have to say, interpreting the new language to make joining a corp under false pretenses a breach of the EULA is quite the stretch. One that borders on hysteria. Pretty sure that's not the intent or the practice that would come out of it. Because most of the EULA is meant as a guideline, and they can always invoke the "for any reason" clause, I don't think this is quite as dire as many are making it out to be. That slope is already as slippery as it can be, the only thing holding things back is the goodwill and (by and large) rational decisions of GMs and Devs.

That's why I said 'If you legalese it'. I'm not hysterical, I know it's a stretch, and I'm sure it's not their intent to stop these things (At least, I hope not), but I don't like it when there's that kind of ambiguousness about it.

Better to just nip it in the butt now, and simply clarify that it's specifically referring to using misleading character names, before it can cause any potential issues.

lol, that's quite a stretch.

from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/09/a-knee-jerk-reaction-to-pizza-debacle.html

There's some suggestion that the recent changes to the EVE Online Terms of Service was a knee-jerk reaction by CCP Games to the pizza debacle. CCP will never admit that this is the case, or that they're knee-jerking a reaction, but they were unhappy with the pizza story.

What is the pizza debacle? Apparently a couple of dudes ransomed the ship of another dude for a pizza. An actual pizza delivery.

To me, that obviously falls under the auspices of an RMT (real-money trading) transaction. If CCP wants to make it super clear that this sort of garbage is not allowed, then the current Terms of Service changes are far too overly broad.

If they want to hone in the behaviour they want to stamp out, then why not just ban in-game transaction for anything other than in-game transactions. I'm no lawyer, but the text of such a change could read something like this:

Voila! No more real-world pizza transactions. Problem solved. Of course, this creates an issue for folks that write for sites like EVENews24.com and TheMittani.com, who are paid in ISK, but I'm sure the language could be expanded to continue to allow those sorts of transactions.

lol, that's quite a stretch.

Its not a stretch, CCP gets plenty of free advertising from shenanigans caused by the metagame. I could cite them all but that's a waste of time. Its also a good point that if CCP is only allowing "good guys" to be ISD then the "bad guys" are far more likely to get moderated into oblivion and be unable to influence the metagame through this venue. Space affirmative action easily fixes this problem.