On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant.

The clarification by GM Karidor sums up quite well everything the CSM has heard in internal conversations. Given the clarification, it's now clear that the TOS change is consistent with previous policy, and confusion about that stems from people's (mis)understanding of previous enforcement. After all, it's easy to go from "recruitment scamming for GSF as a Goon is okay" to "recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot is okay" without feeling like you've made a leap of logic. This is the stated reason behind the update-- players were confused.

With all that said, this thread has made clear that there remains some unhappiness with the policy as written and intended by CCP. This unhappiness has been noted by the CSM, and we can and will follow up on the policy itself. However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective. Given the way the CSM process has worked so far and the success we've had in other conversations, I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.

contrary to popular belief, large public outcry is largely ineffective in getting anything done.

I was unaware that posting acknowledging concerns and promising to use the tools at my disposal to work to resolve them constituted a "brush-off". I meant what I said when I said that I'd seen a lot of good come out of the CSM process, more than just "a devblog once in a while". The fact that we work primarily under NDA and outside of the public eye can make it hard to see, especially when our efforts avert a crisis instead of responding to one.

Well, there was that one hire, if you recall.

I suppose you have read my example, so you can answer that yourself as it is pretty much the same thing with different names.



Your character Phill McScammer impersonated Abdiel Kavash, the same way as Joe McScammer did, thus gets it from us the same way if reported. From our point of view, as well as from a victims, there is no technical difference between those two cases of a character impersonating another.

[

Actually, no.

Try to keep up.

He is not saying that you can't use an alt to scam someone.
He is not saying that you can't use an alt to represent yourself.
He is saying that if you choose to use an alt to IMPERSONATE yourself in a SCAM then he has to handle that the same way as he handles someone else IMPERSONATING you in a scam.

Why? Because if he treats those two cases differently he is essentially giving out information on player accounts ... specifically by confirming that one character is an alt of another.