| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
|
GM Grimmi
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
1
   |
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Greetings pilots,
We would like to address your concerns regarding the update to article 8 of our TOS that was published yesterday. Some basic information on how we deal with issues that come up regarding impersonation is therefore appropriate.
All cases are investigated individually on a case by case basis. If there are complications or difficulties in reaching a solution cases are moved to senior game masters, which happens a lot with the impersonation issues that are reported to us. There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace. For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years. The TOS update reflects the way reported cases of impersonation have been handled by Customer Support for a long time. The rules applied have been buried in our naming policy and EULA but have now been placed in plain view in order to better help players to make decisions on how they interact with one another.
As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a playerGÇÖs actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.
One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.
Thank you and fly safe.
|
|
Laurici
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
So can you pretend to be a recruitment officer for goons to scam people? That's a lot of text to say pretty much nothing new. |
Ganque
Ganque's Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:Greetings pilots,
We would like to address your concerns regarding the update to article 8 of our TOS that was published yesterday. Some basic information on how we deal with issues that come up regarding impersonation is therefore appropriate.
All cases are investigated individually on a case by case basis. If there are complications or difficulties in reaching a solution cases are moved to senior game masters, which happens a lot with the impersonation issues that are reported to us. There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace. For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years. The TOS update reflects the way reported cases of impersonation have been handled by Customer Support for a long time. The rules applied have been buried in our naming policy and EULA but have now been placed in plain view in order to better help players to make decisions on how they interact with one another.
As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a playerGÇÖs actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.
One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.
So claiming I am a Quafe Ultra delivery guy and for 50m Isk I'll drop a case or two for a cat is malicious trickery, guy did you even realise this game is Eve? |
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night
Of Sound Mind
332
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Grimmi, thanks for posting. Just to clarify, because I think this was the crux of a lot of the remaining confusion yesterday:
If I, Ali Aras, member of Valkyries of Night and Of Sound Mind, represent myself as a CFC rental agent (a title I do not hold in a coalition I am not a member of), is this a violation of the TOS as changed and impersonation policies as historically implemented?
http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
178
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a playerGÇÖs actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.
How can those terms be objectively defined in a universe like Eve Online's? |
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1530
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:Grimmi, thanks for posting. Just to clarify, because I think this was the crux of a lot of the remaining confusion yesterday:
If I, Ali Aras, member of Valkyries of Night and Of Sound Mind, represent myself as a CFC rental agent (a title I do not hold in a coalition I am not a member of), is this a violation of the TOS as changed and impersonation policies as historically implemented?
Confirming that this was in fact at the center of yesterday's confusion/ire. Players feel this sort of thing was allowed in the past, and that if you can convince someone you're a member of a group you clearly are not (such as in Ali's example), you and they both deserve everything coming to you. They're concerned that what is now coming to them is a ban, that you're forbidding sandboxy play in the form of lying, smooth talking and cleverness (as opposed to outright impersonation like naming yourself "CHRlBBA") and you've done little to address that concern.
Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Tron 3K
Ship Spinning Industries
78
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
I think they don't want to answer this question as there is going to be a Riot over it! |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1022
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
Utterly pointless hand-waving; might as well have not posted anything.
The new wording does not at all reflect past policy with reference to representing yourself as a member of a group. Come back and try again when you've actually addressed the community's concerns.
Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
328
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
If I say I'm part of the Mordus Angels, and if you fly through my space I will kill you, could a newbie petition his ship loss for thinking he was fighting NPCs?
It's poor wording in your Terms of Service. Please just try again. |
handbanana
State War Academy
Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Hey, lets create another thread and lock the old one again and hope it all goes away.
GÇ£It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.GÇ¥
-á-á -Jack Handy
|
|
|
Lady Areola Fappington
New Order Logistics
CODE.
459
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Further question I have, once you cover the above.
If it is decided that pretending to be a member of a group (example stated above, recruitment scam) is considered a ToS breach, what metrics will CCP be using to define exactly what a "group" is.
Confusion happened when, in specific example, we were told that pretending to be a nonspecific "recruitment officer" for the CFC was against ToS if not a member of CFC, but conversely, pretending to be a member of the New Order "Coalition" was allowed (classing the New Order as "not a group" as it were).
Thanks in advance.
Don't worry miners, I'm here to help!
|
Maaaaowm Ogeko
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:
As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a playerGÇÖs actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.
Well THAT certainly clears things up. 
|
Ganque
Ganque's Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
Maaaaowm Ogeko wrote:GM Grimmi wrote:
As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a playerGÇÖs actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.
Well THAT certainly clears things up.
Particularly when taken view of in the context of a long con... |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
328
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
Maaaaowm Ogeko wrote:GM Grimmi wrote:As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a playerGÇÖs actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.
Well THAT certainly clears things up.
What, intent is easily distinguishable by everyone in eve. Everyone's intent is 'I want your stuff'. Hence, it is always applicable.
I mean, people petition for people just talking funny all the time, right? |
Tubrug1
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
255
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
Well that clarified... nothing.
Writer of The Eve Onion
http://eveion.blogspot.co.uk/
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
726
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:23:00 -
[16] - Quote
If the wording now reflects what enforcement has always been, I have to say I'm completely confused regarding the legitimacy of recruitment scamming. The post reads like it isn't allowed, as it's clearly isn't "benevolent." But that was only stated in reference for NPC impersonations.
So I can only assume that misrepresentation of membership, ownership or authority is handled under a different set of rules. That being the case, why can't those rules be objectively stated in the EULA, killing community outbursts like these before they start? |
Carmaine
The Awesome Corp
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
First of all, beautiful PR response! 262 words, 13 sentences, to say nothing new or bring anything useful to the table. I am not a scammer nor have I ever been scammed by such shenanigans, but myself I find the wording extremely vague.
Let's assume the stupidest player in existence with the shittiest overview setup where he only sees distance and ship name. Let's say I name my ship "Centatis Wraith" and warp around. This player sees me on a gate with a Succubus named "Centatis Wraith", locks me up and gets concordokken. He could argue I was impersonating an NPC ship because he was ******* ********.
We're entering lawyer territory now. Are we going to need trademarks for our corp/alliance names now? If someone creates a corp called Goonhunters, could goon fill a complaint saying that the word "Goon" could confuse players into thinking the Goonhunter is a branch of Goonswarm, and as such appear to be representing Goon and thus break the ToS?
Seriously, instead of coming up with bright ideas like this, take your ToS, give it to your lawyer, ask to what extent someone could argue over it. You'll see how badly it is worded. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2210
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
If I PM an NC. member and say "hey dude, its ok, I'm actually a spy for you guys, the gate is clear to go through", and he jumps into our bubblecamp and dies, by the newly presented wording I've breached the TOS and can be punished by GM action.
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. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2211
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
If I apply to an NC. corp claiming to be Vince Draken's cyno alt, am accepted, then go on a wild Awoxing spree, then again by the newly presented wording I've breached the TOS.
Is this your intention?
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. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1420
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:29:00 -
[20] - Quote
frankly, the whole situation is a disaster. in my personal opinion, impersonation of anyone other than CCP staff (including GMs and ISD) should have always been legal in the first place, especially if it was 'malicious'. people who fall for fake names, supposed alts etc. cannot blame anyone but themselves, just as when they do not count the zeroes in a private contract.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
The Cursed Few
467
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
Intent as in regards to scamming, awoxing (both allowed) or defamation of character (not allowed).
For instance...
I recruit you to join Red Tsunami and get you to contract your stuff to me, move it all, and pod you back home and do not allow you in corp. (Allowed).
I recruit you to join E-Uni or promise to "fastrack" you into that corp for a sum of isk, a ship, whatever, when clearly I have no affiliation of E-Uni. (Not allowed by the words in GM's post). E-Uni obviously not being known to scam their potential members into their corp.
I pretend to be an alt of Chribba's.... now this, I am not sure. Here's the reason.
1.- Chribba is Chribba. Period. "There can be only one".
2.- "I work on Chribba's behalf to help this transaction along and to go smoothly since it is outside his timezone" should be ok as it is just a scam and only a scam. Con man stuff "let me sell you a bridge".
It's all weird and shady when you have a world full of thieves and justified crime and then tell people you cannot do anything criminal unless you follow this presented regiment to trick people.
"But my favourite visual experience in Eve was a pipebombing run on a digital projector. Sure, the aliasing can never match the perfection of a 2160p image - but you can't beat a five metre space volcano on your wall." - Lord Maldoror(RnK)
|
Theon Severasse
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:
As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a playerGÇÖs actions. Benevolent roleplaying of NPC entities may not be considered to warrant action in regards to impersonation while malicious activity employing such trickery will not be tolerated.
One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.
So does this mean that it's only being applied to direct impersonation (me saying that I am Chribba), and it is perfectly fine for me to lie about association (saying that I am friends with Chribba)?
Or are you saying this is only in regards to NPC entities (I would assume that ISD etc would fall under that bracket)?
I think we need a clarification of the clarification. We can make do with the same thread though ;) |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
328
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:31:00 -
[23] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:If I apply to an NC. corp claiming to be Vince Draken's cyno alt, am accepted, then go on a wild Awoxing spree, then again by the newly presented wording I've breached the TOS.
Is this your intention?
That actually is illegal under the current TOS, and has had stuff reversed. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
1318
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
The legal department is probably coaching this response. CCP is not going to say exactly what you want to hear. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2211
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:33:00 -
[25] - Quote
Haargoth Agamar initially joined IGNE on his alt by misrepresenting himself to be a newbie, setting off a chain of events which led to the downfall of one of the most famous and powerful alliances in Eve and generating publicity for CCP across the world's media.
If a similar situation arose today, would the infiltrator be banned?
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. |
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night
Of Sound Mind
335
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:If I apply to an NC. corp claiming to be Vince Draken's cyno alt, am accepted, then go on a wild Awoxing spree, then again by the newly presented wording I've breached the TOS.
Is this your intention?
It's my understanding that this was already (recently) banned by TOS or impersonation policy somewhere.
http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
|
GM Grimmi
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:34:00 -
[27] - Quote
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago. |
|
Crestor Markham
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:35:00 -
[28] - Quote
"One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case."
That is a concern, and you have not done the first thing to alleviate that concern. What have you done to make it clear?
What it sounds like you're saying is "don't worry we haven't changed anything; it was always illegal but most people didn't realize it. Now you all know." |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1023
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:36:00 -
[29] - Quote
Seriously here, you guys are the ones who are going to be inundated with multiple new classes of petitions for actions you have not historically punished but which your new wording suggests are at least potentially actionable.
This is an extremely unprofessional response, and you are only hurting yourselves by not sitting down and just doing your job properly. If nothing has changed with reference to enforcement, then at the very least roll back the wording to its previous unproblematic version. By your own statements here, that would be the most logical course of action. Why make a clarification that represents a worse explanation than that which it was originally meant to clarify?
Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
The Cursed Few
468
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.
So recruitment scams are okay then, regardless if you're part of that coalition or not? Confirm or deny?
"But my favourite visual experience in Eve was a pipebombing run on a digital projector. Sure, the aliasing can never match the perfection of a 2160p image - but you can't beat a five metre space volcano on your wall." - Lord Maldoror(RnK)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |