Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
546
   |
Posted - 2013.09.26 16:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Quote:b. In-game names may not:
* Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.
* In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/terms-of-service-history-and-clarification/
This seems to forbid renaming cheap items and selling them as a more expensive item. Such as renaming a Raven "Raven Navy Issue" and selling it in the trade window. It impersonates an "NPC type" (Caldari Navy). It is also done "for the purpose of misleading other players". So effectively this kills one of the oldest, simplest, well-known scams in Eve's history along with every variation on it.
http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/ |
Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
550
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 15:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Damsel in Distress wrote:
And what about renaming contracts? I used to set up sell order contracts with single units of Megacyte, posting them as '[want to sell] Megathron Spiky Issue' in Jita local. Since Megacyte isn't a player-namable item, I assume that's okay (?).
In addition to what Princess Bride said, I'd furter like to ask if this would render naming my Machariel 'Pleasure Hub Sentinel' when running the Damsel in Distress in lowsec to mislead pirates into believing it was an NPC ship a bannable offence?
My understanding of the situation, as it currently stands, is that a good argument can be made that changing the name of a contract (as a player-nameable item, or under the "but not limited to" clause within the definition) "for the purpose of misleading others" is a violation of the TOS if the change includes a reference to an NPC group.
But here things get fuzzy. Selling Carbon as a Charon, or Megacyte as Megathron could be a violation because it somewhat involves "impersonating" a "NPC type". Charon and Megathron don't directly reference an NPC type. However, they do indirectly reference Caldari State and Gallente Federation respectively as the manufacturers. As this appears to all be justified by the goal of "protecting the reputation" of the innocent party referenced by the fraud, then it's conceivable that CCP might interpret it this way. If not, why change the heading in the Naming Policy from "Player names" to "In-Game Items" and then include "player nameable items" in the definition? Why devote an entire bullet to the impersonation of "NPC type[s]" and "official NPC corporation[s]?"
Also, as CCP is claiming to have ALWAYS interpreted the TOS this way, every single player who has ever renamed a stock ship to mislead someone into thinking it's a faction ship was in violation of the TOS. Every single player who has been a victim of such a scam has a valid petition issue, in my humble opinion. The same goes for every past successful space rental scam that involved pretending to be a representative of the alliance holding sovereignty of the space being rented. (Unless they actually were a member of that alliance).
What I don't get is, if this was their goal, why not just hard-code it so that pasted contracts can't be altered? CCP states that we, as the players (both scammers and scam victims) were unaware of the official CCP stance on impersonation until the recent TOS update. They have to know that such a drastic shift in policy will lead to utter chaos in terms of petitions and honest misunderstanding of what's allowed and what isn't.
After sending the message "Be the Villain", they turned the murky unworld of Eve scams into a minefield for players. I wouldn't advise running any sort of scam until this thing plays out. Right now, it seems very easy to run afoul of a well-meaning GM trying to enforce current policy, no matter how hard you try to follow the rules.
http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/ |