And your point is what, they should ban making new threads instead of just locking them

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?

What did I miss?

Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?

What did I miss?

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?

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.

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.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?

Everyone please calm down, we'll announce something when everyone gets back in the office.

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?

repostin:




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.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?

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?

What. The. Fuck.

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?

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?

Banning 'impersonating' someone goes completely against what EVE is.
It's also a completely un-enforceable rule that can be easily exploited to get people banned/suspended.

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?

They already cleared this up in another thread earlier in the day, this is an attempt to revive said thread.

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.

I vote to directly attack ISD's and CCP at every possible chance.

30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

Well Scamming has been part of Eve since day one. I for one think it's a ****** way of playing the game but it is legit considering you are out witting another player. Since GREED is the main factor of most scams it serves you right for handing over hard earned ISK thinking some stooge is going to give you many times over the amount in return. ( or whatever the scam )

Since CCP has really done NOTHING in the past about scams then it's kind of silly to do something now about one type of scam. Hey CCP how about ending all of them!!! I am for one tired of seeing the same old ones taking up text space on the local channels.

It seems someone has got one by CCP or someone of influence in the game. This appears to be a "butt-hurt" response to the issue. It also seems to be a GM dilemma of how to actually be fair and bring some sort of impartial justice to the game.

What this says, for those who still need clarification, is that the policy hasn't changed, the wording has.

What this says, for those who still need clarification, is that the policy hasn't changed, the wording has.

See, I've been reading through all the locked threads trying to figure out what all the fuss is, and I keep seeing this thing about CCP doing something about scamming, but I'm confused, how does being prohibited from imitating CCP staff, their intellectual property (ie NPCs) and other players prohibit scamming?

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.

Here's my easy example for you. PLease let me know if it's unclear, I'll try to word it better.

Under the old rules, it was perfectly legal for me, a non CFC member, to sit in Jita and say "Hey, I'm the alt of a recruiter in Goonswarm. If you want in, pay me ISK"

Today, under the given ToS change, that move is now a rules violation, under impersonating a group of players, specifically, the CFC.


The problem is, "Group of players" is a very vague term, that can be defined different ways. In a discussion had earlier, we had ISDs on the help channel disagreeing with each other, on if a coalition of alliances consisted of a "group of people" covered in this clause.


Hope that helped.

And the award goes to...

Its funny how people who scam people in this game are able to use several scams which sometimes involve not reading something properly.
Yet they can't read a simple update on a eula or tos, however they choose to cry on the forums just like some of the ones they scammed.

Nothing has changed, it has been made more clear now do what everyone else does when there is a change to this game, learn to live with it or just stop playing.

Posted by Comor Dunathis:
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

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.

Referring to the 'New Order' thing referenced earlier I read that somewhat differently.

In that claiming to own a Permit is not claiming to be part of the New Order, nor claiming to represent them in any way. If the New Order claims to include all those people, that's the New Orders claim. Not the Miners.
While claiming to be part of a Coalition is pretending to be part of a group falsely.

The New Order Permit claim is really the same as 'I have a Gnosis for sale, see my Gneiss contract'. Very different kettle of fish scam.

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 and act accordingly and that will cause problems.

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?

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.

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.

Maybe bad guys should be moderated into oblivion

The fact that CCP employees aren't allowed to scam, pirate or suicide gank on their anonymous accounts really says it all.

call of duty devs are not allowed to use guns against other players ingame

OMG THEY'LL BAN THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS !!!! O_O

I underlined the important part because a lot of devs still play the game with regular accounts.

We already are. It doesn't take much for a Goon to get a forum ban, yet the pubs can say whatever they want.

Not enough apparently.

We're still posting, deadtear would never allow this

Worse things could happen, WIdotte could have an eve-o posting op.

Aren't they here already?

but getting banned because you scammed the wrong dude? Ouch.

CCP really needs to reconsider who they are serving with their policies.

This already happens quite often when you scam a dude who happened to buy all of that isk from some website.

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?

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?

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 guys must be daft. Here, I'll quote this so you can unwind your panties elsewhere.



You've got your answer.

Nothing is changing, nothing has been done to enforce this, so try to wash off the sand out of your cooches.

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.

That's your opinion, as such it's not necessarily right. I have an opinion too, that's not necessarily right either.

Did you somehow miss the bit about not attacking/ insulting others in the ISD post?

Name one person who's gotten banned by the changes in the EULA.
I'll go to bed now, since there is no point in me staying up for you to come up with a name.

locking threads that apparently shouldn't be locked with just the 1st excuse that comes up in your minds doesn't look much civil as well.

The change was only implemented yesterday (9/9/13), as such nobody has been banned, yet.

If it remains as is, there's a very definite possibility of people being banned for things that up until yesterday afternoon were completely acceptable, such as pretending to be a recruiter for GSF while not actually being in GSF.

The current wording is ambiguous; there are examples, in this very thread, of ISD staff in the help channel having differing interpretations when asked to clarify it. If CCP staff don't know what it means, how are we meant to?

Aren't they here already?

So the rules changed and you cannot scam using someone elses identity/corp name. I dont see a point why all the rage because of this change. I think that this is very good. I would be pretty p!ssed off if someone would use my identity/corp name to scam other people and destroy my reputation / good name (hypothetically).

Change to the game in ANY way or form > Rage!

...it's expected.

Seriously though: I think that's a good change... if it can be enforced in a comprehensible way. It's something one cannot really enforce ingame, so some outgame solution had to be found eventually.

The issue with the rules change as written is that a lie of "I am not a goon" fits as a violation of the TOS. (The EVE group being impersonated is the group "not-goons")

Nothing has changed, I have a serious suspicion that you are all from the "please remove animations they make me dizzy" thread.

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?

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?

As guard posted last night, we'll look into this today for you guys..

I'm going to take your concerns, and the concerns highlighted by the CSM directly to the GM Team to get this all ironed out. Whether this is a full explanation of the wording change in detail, or alteration to the wording is to be decided, of course.

As guard posted last night, we'll look into this today for you guys..

I'm going to take your concerns, and the concerns highlighted by the CSM directly to the GM Team to get this all ironed out. Whether this is a full explanation of the wording change in detail, or alteration to the wording is to be decided, of course.

There also comes the question about wether you are even trying to impersonate another group.

Having corp names with different spelling but similar to other names may not be direct impersonation but may infact be trying to be their own identity. This is the same with character names which was outlines earlier (with people that have a name they like that is taken so use small differences in order to keep their name similar. There involves a hell of alot of work if CCP have to investigate properly weather someone was impersonating someone else before taking any action. Work that I think won't be carried out beceause hell if someone going to spend 3 hours per petition investigating weather members even said they were a part of the official group.

If I were to say "I represent the group of players known as "people who live in nullsec", pay me 10bn isk and you will be given a free pass to all of nullsec."

^
i would now be banned, correct?

edit: apparently this is now the "civil discussion about a bad idea thread"

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.

Scammers Tears, Best Tears :D

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?

Scammers Tears, Best Tears :D

yep , this is nice , love to read all those whiny north gay boys.

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.

This thread is open on sufferance, calling people gay boys and gloating over tears are hardly in keeping with the stipulations of the quote above.

It's rare for CCP to allow us to discuss things like the change to the ToS, don't ruin this rare opportunity.

If you can't post nicely in it, don't post. Alternatively start your own thread dedicated to collecting scammer tears.

This thread is open on sufferance, calling people gay boys and gloating over tears are hardly in keeping with the stipulations of the quote above.

It's rare for CCP to allow us to discuss things like the change to the ToS, don't ruin this rare opportunity and get it locked.

If you can't post nicely in it, don't post. Alternatively start your own thread dedicated to collecting scammer tears.

As guard posted last night, we'll look into this today for you guys..

I'm going to take your concerns, and the concerns highlighted by the CSM directly to the GM Team to get this all ironed out. Whether this is a full explanation of the wording change in detail, or alteration to the wording is to be decided, of course.

It's rare for CCP to allow us to discuss things like ...

On the plus side it would potentially mean that the bumpers wouldn't be able to claim to be from/an agent of New Order when they are not, maybe even cut down on the sheer volume of spam they pump into local which is probably the most irritating part of their activity. Its not all bad.

It shouldn't be a rare event.

I am an agent of the New Order though, lucky for you that I am here. Simply pay me the 10m for your permit and you will be granted a years worth of mining in our space (systems rated between 0.5 and 1.0 inclusive)

We believe that this was intended as a clarification to prevent the Pizza incident from reoccurring. Where people edited the Wiki to say they were ISD verified trusted 3rd parties (Then scammed using that page).

If so a new rule adding ISD and the Wiki to the "out of bounds" parties seems like the best solution.

I'm not a miner, I'm just one of the many thousands of people that have to suffer the dribble that gets posted in local. Since New Order is a character and various corporations and alliances have similar names perhaps you should be more cautious about who exactly you are so openly claiming to be an agent of, I definitely think you are breaking the rules and I'm going to tell my mummy all about you nasty people as well as chastising you with various iterations and variations of the word 'um', so there.

OK.

I removed a post(and all that quoted it) involving sexual orientation as an insult.

The perpetrator has been reported upward.


Remember that this thread is open on contingency of it staying civil and (mostly) troll free.

On the plus side it would potentially mean that the bumpers wouldn't be able to claim to be from/an agent of New Order when they are not, maybe even cut down on the sheer volume of spam they pump into local which is probably the most irritating part of their activity. Its not all bad.

Yup. That's the way these guys post when they are both Mad..............and Butthurt.

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.

On the plus side it would potentially mean that the bumpers wouldn't be able to claim to be from/an agent of New Order when they are not, maybe even cut down on the sheer volume of spam they pump into local which is probably the most irritating part of their activity. Its not all bad.

Translation: It's like one player can't fck over the other no more!

I think it's hilarious! The amount of tears coming from people who play the game in the vilest manner and are the lowest form of scum in the game are crying because they're going to have to move up one rung up the ladder descending directly into the poop chute of Eve, it's plain simple hilarity!

With that said, I'm also not one for lots of rules and especially those that are so vague that simply having a name similar to another toon might get me banned for no other reason than being here. *shakes head*

It shouldn't be a rare event.

OK.
I removed a post(and all that quoted it) involving sexual orientation as an insult.

[As guard posted last night, we'll look into this today for you guys..

I'm going to take your concerns, and the concerns highlighted by the CSM directly to the GM Team to get this all ironed out. Whether this is a full explanation of the wording change in detail, or alteration to the wording is to be decided, of course.

Do you understand that your little translation runs counter to the themes, mechanics, and rules that this game was designed around and spent ten years enjoying? Do you understand that CCP have explicitly made it a selling point of this game that in the quest for your own personal gain and entertainment you can kick over someone elses sandcastle?

I hope you do, otherwise you might be playing the wrong game to begin with.

Translation: It's like one player can't fck over the other no more!

I think it's hilarious! The amount of tears coming from people who play the game in the vilest manner and are the lowest form of scum in the game are crying because they're going to have to move up one rung up the ladder descending directly into the poop chute of Eve, it's plain simple hilarity!

With that said, I'm also not one for lots of rules and especially those that are so vague that simply having a name similar to another toon might get me banned for no other reason than being here. *shakes head*

The irony though is that the people that elect the CSM and continually manipulate you developers are the same people who don't spend any money on the game, because they are advanced enough to earn their PLEX, while hard working newbros such as myself, who have put thousands of dollars into the game get the shaft, and it's not cool. you should start listening more to the people who feed your family and keep a roof over your head.

One of the great things about EVE is the "hook". Also why DUST is failing.

EVE is the only game around where there is a sandbox where you can play sociopaths in space, scammer extraordinaire, megalomaniac that commits war crimes, super spy that takes down empires, robber who specializes in thefts, cruel pirate, economy shaping market warlord, etc.

These are the things that make EVE better than any other game out there for those that enjoy interacting in a world with those archtypes. Ships in space while a niche, is not truly the niche that makes EVE excel. It is the broad and deep and endless possibilities of the sandbox itself.

In general the Goon position is for an expansive sandbox as possible. Scamming is not my playstyle of choice and I have never participated in it, but I do love the new stories and drama it generates. Impersonation is a cornerstone of many scams and I would not like to see that leave EVE.

Do you understand that your little translation runs counter to the themes, mechanics, and rules that this game was designed around and spent ten years enjoying? Do you understand that CCP have explicitly made it a selling point of this game that in the quest for your own personal gain and entertainment you can kick over someone elses sandcastle?

I hope you do, otherwise you might be playing the wrong game to begin with.

Those scams should be stopped , other scamms already bad enough , lots of new bros who got scammed the first week are going and never return.

I like the servers go online a decade more, eve always had a nice position in the mmo sc-fi genre , that wouldnt be long tho

really good change

Or maybe, impersonation became so pervasive that CCP got tired of dealing with the problems that it creates.

The new rule does more to mirror RL than anything else .

Translation: It's like one player can't fck over the other no more!

I think it's hilarious! The amount of tears coming from people who play the game in the vilest manner and are the lowest form of scum in the game are crying because they're going to have to move up one rung up the ladder descending directly into the poop chute of Eve, it's plain simple hilarity!

With that said, I'm also not one for lots of rules and especially those that are so vague that simply having a name similar to another toon might get me banned for no other reason than being here. *shakes head*

CCP uses this image to market the game. The ability to be bad is literally a selling point.

To some, be the villain means "Only engage in piracy in low/null, where combat is expected and consented to. All ransoms must be honored. Targets will be verified if newb or not, and if newb, they'll be left alone.

Scamming, awoxing, ganking, bumping, and nonconsensual wardecs are not things that an isolated from humanity, immortal, hypercompetitive posthuman being with no effective limits on their behaviour (as according to lore) would do.

Star Trek is the future, man.



On that note, some of you guys need to go pick up The Empyrean Age, a book written about the EVE universe. The Broker is a capsuleer (sorta), and he pulls crap that make some of these complaints look tame. THAT'S the vision CCP has for the EVE universe.

me...only to see them leave fairly quickly for a combination of two influences; the complexity of the game coupled with what they felt was a needless level of paranoia caused by the constant worry that someone, anyone, everyone, is trying to steal your stuff.

I know you didn't seriously recommend someone pay for those books. I did and I feel eternal shame for it. They are that bad.

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?

I've tried to bring several people into the game...only to see them leave fairly quickly for a combination of two influences; the complexity of the game coupled with what they felt was a needless level of paranoia caused by the constant worry that someone, anyone, everyone, is trying to steal your stuff.

Which is why we survive and why they didn't. We are stronger than them and can deal with it.