|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4074
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 23:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Plastic Psycho wrote:I can see why they decline - Trying to get specific absent real-world cases means they expose themselves to endless nit-picking and lawyering.
Which you KNOW we'd do. Which I'd still like to have a chance to take a crack at - if only to define the edges of what's permissible or not.
The flip side is that, without it, the only method of finding out what actions are where on the line is to perform testing. And since it's a TOS violation to share the results of said testing, that means that each and every player has to perform that testing.
Inviting that kind of onslaught of petitions seems like a bad idea.
@GM Grimmi, if you can't clarify the new rule, can you at least clarify the old rule? Or how about describe what what lacking in the old wording, so we can see what kind of new circumstances this new rule is meant to encompass.
PS: Claiming that the wording of a rule was changed for no reason at all*, and expecting us to believe that is ridiculous.
*If a changed wording is not meant to represent a changed meaning, why would you change the wording? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4077
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 03:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.
CCP Guard wrote: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, lookee there. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4078
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 05:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
MotherSammy wrote:So yes, claiming to be an alt of a known character has always been against the rules.
If it was, that rule had been spectacularly inconsistently applied until very recently. (See: the Freighter AWOXing story) "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4089
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 16:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
The good news about this new "correctly claiming your alt is related to your main gets you banned" rule is that sussing out where the line is just got easier.
No longer do you need to actually scam or get scammed to perform tests. Just roll up a host of trial accounts and start lying to yourself like a mythomanic schizophrenic. You'll then, quite naturally, have to petition yourself for representing yourself as an alt of yourself, and through that find out what forms of representation are banned.
I believe this sums up my opinion on the reasonableness of this new massive change in the TOS. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4093
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:I'm an alt of RubyPorto.
She is, but...
Uh-Oh...
GM Karidor wrote:What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.
Dang, and Pipa was a useful character, too. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4093
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Confirming I am the only one true scammer in Eve. I will petition the rest who claim to be a scammer. (I will accept isk payments of 250mil as an "entry fee" into my "ingame group").
Are you saying:
You're the EVE Scammer, yes you're the real Scammer All the other EVE Scammers are just imitating So won't the real EVE Scammer please stand up, Please stand up, please stand up? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4094
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ivan Krividus wrote:Don't worry, if the GMs lie to us its against TOS,
Except that we'd have to share GM correspondence to determine whether they've lied to us, which is itself a TOS violation, so... "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4097
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Dextrust wrote:Anyone up for shooting some monuments? Sorry busy shooting stuff in Delve
So... what exactly is the difference between a Sov Structure and a monument? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4098
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 22:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Echo Echoplex wrote:Wait, I heard rioting never works. Color me confused!
Rioting never works, so we should use civil discourse, but of course civil discourse on the official forums for EVE related discourse is considered rioting... "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4099
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 00:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:It was recently pointed out to me that CCP doesn't have to go that deep into the TOS to ban most of you. Read the TOS ... no. 2 and 3 specifically. If all TOS violations resulted in ban-hammer ... how many of you would still be here? Why aren't you up in arms about that?
You get down towards the end of the TOS and it basically says they can ban you or do whatever they want to your account whenever they feel like it anyway. So what's the difference?
I don't think any of the language I've used ITT has been defamatory, vulgar, etc, and the in game organization that I am a member of is founded on the proposition that people like waffles, so I don't see how that could be a hate group.
How am I in TOS section 2 and 3's crosshairs? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4099
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 00:37:00 -
[11] - Quote
John Ryuk wrote:Use some common sense.
So, according to your "common sense" is it against the rules to say that your alt is you?
Because GM Karidor has answered that question, and the answer may surprise you.
There's a reason why laws don't operate on the principle "use common sense." "Common sense" is not "common" in either sense of the word. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4101
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 01:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
John Ryuk wrote:It's against Federal Law to smoke Marijuan-a yet they do it in WA and CO, but the federal law is rarley enforced, but you push your luck then the local pd can charge you with a federal charge instead of a state charge to make it stick.
This rule is likely to be rarley enforced unless someone pushes there luck.
It's a legal tool at there desposial if they need to use it.
Local law enforcement officers are not in any way empowered to enforce federal law, just like Federal law enforcement officers are not empowered to enforce state law (absent special agreement, i.e. many NPS LE Rangers are deputized by the local LE dept).
The Local Police officer who tried to arrest you for something that is not against any law he can enforce would be setting his department up to lose a significant lawsuit.
In addition, Law enforcement actions are public. GM actions are not. The public can find out how often the local PD is illegally holding pot users for the FBI. The public cannot find out how often GMs are doing anything nor can we find out for what reason they're doing it.
The legal tools at their disposal that covers "I want to ban someone in a fit of pique" and related offenses are found in TOS sections 25 and 26.
Anyway, why do you think it should be against the rules to associate your alt and main? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4101
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 03:02:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:I am certain that whatever legal beagles exist at CCP are advising them to keep this kind of language in the TOS as broad as possible in order to give CCP and their GMs the maximum amount of discretion. You have to remember that the TOS is meant to be interpreted by human beings. They are not programming the TOS into the concord AI and giving concord the ability to ban you based of a long series of regular expressions. If CCP would wanted to explicitly spell out each and every possible situation and how it should be handled they would need a large team of lawyers to produce a several thousand page document which we would all have to hire our own lawyers to help us understand. That's not what the TOS is for.
In any case I'm more than willing to take anecdotal evidence into account to show that there is cause for concern here and that CCP is trying to change the nature of the game and to massively curtail scamming. But I'm just not seeing it. All I'm seeing is a lot of convoluted hypothetical situations that everyone seems to assume will result in massive amounts of bans.
The TOS exists to inform the players of the rules of the game they are playing. If the TOS is worded such that the players cannot find out what the actual rules are, or even what direction they lie in, the TOS has utterly failed in its purpose.
In the real world (in common law jurisdictions, at least, and common law appears to be the behind-the-scenes model here), specific questions are handled by extensive, public case law. That's how the US has a Constitution that you can carry in your underwear's opening as a present for the TSA while still being able to find out what each of those short sections means in practice.
In EVE, we've been told (now twice) "Oh don't worry, we're not going to enforce chunks of the TOS (until we decide to) so you should feel free to break those chunks while you play (though we won't tell you what direction the edges are)." It's not just about the threat of being banned, Why should we have to break the stated rules of the game to play in a way CCP says is "OK"?
Oh, and CCP started enforcing the "no saying that you're someone's alt" rule several months ago, so it's not hypothetical. And GM Karidor just posted that "saying you're your own alt" is against the rules and will be enforced in the same way, so that isn't either.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4105
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 22:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
FightingMoose wrote:Has anybody started compiling a list of what is and isn't being allowed? Not the wording of the TOS, but whether or not impersonating your alt/pretending to be a recruitment officer/etc is leading to warnings or bans? Seems like that's going to be our only chance at some real clarity on this issue since the GMs have said their piece.
If they have, sharing that list would be a violation of the TOS for sharing GM correspondence.
So everyone has to do their own copy of that legwork. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4108
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 00:08:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote:The issue is that these "infractions" will always be handled case by case, and as such by their very nature will be "arbitrary decisions" as you state. I do not believe any amount of precise wording in the TOS, EULA, naming Policy will change that fact.
So you'd be a-OK with a line in the TOS that says "Doing missions is against the rules" with an accompanying GM post that says "Only some parts of doing missions are against the rules and we'll handle violations on a case by case basis, but we won't give you any hints about what's allowed or not." How would that affect your mission running activities? It's now technically against the rules, but at some point, without any warning, you might be breaking the part of that rule that's going to be enforced.
Scamming is legal in EVE. Lying to people used to be legal in EVE. The people who do these things do not automatically also want to break the rules of EVE. Not just because they might be punished, but because they don't like cheating at games.
This overly broad rule means that a whole host of activities that were legitimate gameplay celebrated by CCP are now against the rules. Whether CCP enforces those rules or not is irrelevant. Why should people engaging in (what should be*) legitimate gameplay be forced to break the rules of the game to do so?
*or else why wouldn't CCP enforce the rules banning it "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4110
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 00:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Let me wuote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general: Quote: ... No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity. ...
The "use" in that sentence is not limited to using another players name as a name for a character, it includes the use in chats etc. and always has.
If that's so, why the hell was that rules change (3 months ago) buried in the Naming Policy section (i.e. the Policy regarding Naming things)?
Oh, and no matter how much you try to convince us that we have always been at war with EASTASIA, it is a change. Using other people's names in chats being against the rules is new.
Quote:To your question: It's to broadly formulated, really. If that someone you claim to be complains, or a victim of malicious action of yours due to this claim, and we can verify that you claimed to be that someone's alt, then yes, you'll fall under this policy and will get warnings (or if you just can't stop doing it, eventually get banned). Reason: you are still using his name to (actively) impersonate him, just not as the name of your alt.
Quote:Your alts claiming to be alts of your main and doing nothing wrong otherwise would as such only get you in trouble in case of extreme schizophrenia and you reporting your own alt from your main, in which case I would likely just facepalm over here if I were to get that report.
Fictitious character "OIIi"(that is 3 "i" total, for the rest of this example player "A") has a good reputation and is trusted throughout, makes a lot of money. Fictitious character "Olli" (now, that's 2 "L", let's call him "B") decides to ride on the trust of A in order to relieve some fools of their money.
Nobody has any problem with the parts relating to naming characters/corps/alliances with names similar to other characters/corps/alliances. Scams based on bad typeface and pixely screens are bad.
Some of the issues that I see are as follows (mind you, I'm going by the publicly available information, since that's all the players have to work with, and thus must follow if they don't want to cheat*):
The true statement "Pipa Porto is my alt" is now against the rules. That you're promising not to enforce that part of the rule is dandy, but doesn't change the fact that it's a ludicrous rule, and regardless of enforcement policy those who wish not to cheat will be obliged to follow it.
Using the statement (true or false) "BobBoberino is my alt" in the course of a scam is against the rules. Why in the world would this spectacularly easy to verify statement be against the rules? Why was the the rules change instituting the ban on lying about who you are buried in the Policy on Naming? Your claim earlier that there aren't in game methods to determine the affiliation between two characters is, frankly, bizarre, as the "Send Message" feature accomplishes the determination easily.
Using the statement (true or false) "I am a member of the CFC" is now against the rules. As the group of players known as "the CFC" has no in-game member list, and per your example of claiming to be your own alt being against the rules because it "cannot" be verified, all claims of Coalition or other non-Alliance/Corp group membership are against the rules.
*Unless you're telling us that we shouldn't follow EVE's EULA, TOS, and Policies? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4114
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 05:49:00 -
[17] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Last reply from me, before I really go back to watching mode for the thread (well, some sleep as well). greiton starfire wrote:New hard question. is this rule to protect those who have been imposted or those who have been scammed. who has the right to petition. if it is to protect the imposted, for groups who has the right to petition, the ceo, any line member, etc. Mostly this is in place for the ones that have been impersonated, though directly affected victims may of course report that as well.
So, to protect the person being impersonated, you're going to ban them. That's literally insane. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4115
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 06:33:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote: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.
So, any and all business conducted through alts is banned. Super.
There is no way to distinguish between a scam and a legitimate business deal in EVE, because all scams are legitimate business deals in EVE.
Quote: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.
That's an argument for not having the rule, not for enforcing it in a literally insane manner. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4116
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 06:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:How in god's name did you get to that conclusion from what I wrote? Seriously? You're trolling me now right? Please say that you are...
Then define a scam in EVE in a way that doesn't amount to "a business deal which one party regrets."
If you can't, if I do any business on an alt, and one of the people I do business with regrets the deal, they can petition me for scamming and impersonating my main, therefor I can't do any business on any alts.
And that's entirely aside from the fact that, regardless of what the GMs enforce, you shouldn't have to break the rules to engage in legitimate gameplay.
Quote:It's not an insane manner. It's probably the only manner in which they can enforce it. If they enforce it any other way and someone like Chribba decides he wants to make an alt and run scams ... then I can get it confirmed, by a GM that the alt is his and ruin his main's reputation. In an EVE universe where impersonating other characters is not allowed, this manner of enforcement actually protects THE SCAMMER.
"This rule is impossible to enforce sanely" is not an argument for enforcing the rule in an insane manner. It's an argument for scrapping the rule.
Banning people for their own protection is insane. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4118
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 07:10:00 -
[20] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:I do not see any reason why you could not conduct non-scam business on your alts or conduct scams that don't involve impersonating any other character on whatever character you want.
You skipped right over most of my post, didn't you? It's ok, it happens a lot. I'll give you another bite at the apple:
What distinguishes a scam from a non-scam in EVE? Because the only halfway decent definition of a scam that fits what's legitimate gameplay in EVE is that if someone regrets the deal, it's a scam.
Which means that, because anyone can decide they regret anything at any time, you can't do business on any alts who have an identified connection to your main, because CCP's going to ban you for your own protection. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4122
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 08:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:CCP has provided sufficient evidence to show me that such scams were not allowed prior to the TOS change. They were forbidden by language in the naming policy. I have no problem believing that the GMs have not changed anything regarding enforcement against impersonation scams and that they were taking action against them when petitioned both before and after the TOS change.
"We made a change to the policy 3 months ago and nobody noticed it, so it's always been the policy." Super convincing argument.
If, in fact, that policy has always been in place, why does Chribba's page have an exhaustive list of his alts and an exhortation not to trust anyone not on that list (along with a specific list of people who have impersonated him in the past*) instead of a line "if someone scams you by pretending to be my alt, file a petition and you'll get everything back and they'll get banned"? Real answer: Because that policy is brand new. Whether it was put in place when it was announced 3 months ago, or whether it was arbitrarily and secretly put into place before then doesn't matter, it's a new policy change and it's a terrible one.
*a number of characters on this list appear to still be active. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4122
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 08:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:Ok one more ....
If you can show me where CCP has said that they will ban someone with NO EVIDENCE that they have done anything against the TOS because someone on an anonymous account claimed to be them I will spend all day tomorrow shooting the jita statue.
In his original proposal he mentioned manufacturing evidence.
Scam someone (or better yet, yourself) using a library computer > Send the ISK to the person you want banned.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe WAFFLES.
4169
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 18:15:00 -
[23] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:ISD Cura Ursus wrote:Please discuss the TOS changes here. Wait...we're discussing the changes....but we're told there are no changes?!!?! Are there changes or aren't there?
There is no change. We have always been at war with EASTASIA. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe WAFFLES.
4187
|
Posted - 2013.09.18 21:18:00 -
[24] - Quote
Moss Keetow wrote:The TOS change is indeed a bad idea, but I would agree we would need a way to trust characters (but not alts of) one way or another.
There is. Reputation.
Trust implies the possibility of betrayal. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe WAFFLES.
4202
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 22:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
Old Space Guy wrote:you can't impersonate another character, even one of your own, to further a scam. boo hoo. suck it up and figure out a solution to run a scam without contravening the rule.
You're reading a modifier into the rule that, by the nature of EVE, isn't there. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe WAFFLES.
4203
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 03:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
Old Space Guy wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Old Space Guy wrote:you can't impersonate another character, even one of your own, to further a scam. boo hoo. suck it up and figure out a solution to run a scam without contravening the rule. You're reading a modifier into the rule that, by the nature of EVE, isn't there. actually. the modifier to that rule is on page one, post one.
Find a general definition of a Scam for EVE that isn't equivalent to "a deal that one party regrets." If you can't, do understand that any and all business dealing are against the rules.
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.
if you impersonate yourself (read further clarifications that this can never be the case) and you con a whole bunch of people to go mining with you in shiny ships... and you actually mine... who in their right mind is going to report you? and exactly what would you expect a GM to do with that report?
Nothing in your quoted section mentions "scamming."
And what's the difference between "benevolent" impersonation and "malicious" impersonation? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe WAFFLES.
4203
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 04:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
Old Space Guy wrote:now you are reading something that isn't there.
Nope. The rule is "it's only impersonation if there's a scam involved." That's what the GMs have been saying, and that's what you said in the post I quoted.
So saying "I'm Chribba" then doing a deal that's "not a scam" is legal, while saying "I'm Chribba" then doing a deal that "is a scam" is not legal.
The only difference between the two situations is that one involves a scam and one does not. Therefor, the rule hinges on a definition of a scam that doesn't boil down to "one party regrets the deal."
Define "malice" in the context of a game. Was whoever taught you chess being malicious when he(or she) took your queen during your first game of chess?
Oh, and this new "clarification" also puts the GM team into the position of semi-publicly confirming who is and is not an alt of someone.
Quote:if instead, i claim to be an alt of RubyPorto, and give out billions of isk in jita... FOR REAL, it can be argued that my impersonation was benevolent. however, because i impersonated you, i'm STILL liable to be banned, because by being a generally all round nice guy to a couple of newbies, i've ruined your hard earned reputation for being an all-star douche. for that, i could very well be banned.
Except that the rule is that only "malicious" impersonation is against the rules. (So are personal attacks, but I guess you only like some rules, huh-uh?)
Or is it that all impersonation is against the rules and CCP is handing out lists of alts anytime anyone ever claims to be someone who they may be?
Quote:scamming is ethically bankrupt.
I get it, you're one of the people who can't separate fantasy from reality.
Quote:just don't pretend to be someone else when you do.
Kind of hard to do in a game that insists that we pick pseudonyms... "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe WAFFLES.
4219
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 03:09:00 -
[28] - Quote
Diomedes Calypso wrote:Being able to con someone because they can't see an extra "s" or "." in a name makes the game about using your spare time to look very closely at typed letters. It is the "typed letters" not the clever nature of scammers that become the issue. "Do we want a a focal point in our game that expects that people should spend their efforts looking very closely at avatar faces and for transposed letters?"
Some guy named Dionysus Orestes in a corp named "The Greek Armada" claiming to be and associate of the "Aelatolian Armada" who can assure you entrance there for a fee... is a lot different from a person who creates an alt character that mimics my avatar called Diomdes Calypso (dropped "e" ) in the Aeitolean Armada .
Except that according to CCP, that's not different at all, so that's against the new rule as well.
If you read the thread, you'd notice that nobody's enormously bothered by the ban on "Chribba/Chrlbba" scams. It's the fact that "Hi, I'm Chribba's alt (or representative) and I've got a line on a bridge Revenant to sell you for only 25bil" scams are also banned by the ruling. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4230
|
Posted - 2013.10.05 03:28:00 -
[29] - Quote
Demon Azrakel wrote:A part of me wants to start petitioning everyone who claims, rightly or wrongly, that ____ is their alt. This would, of course, happen in many recruitment situations, or when you are telling corp-mates who to contract their stuff to for a freighter hauling.
Why just a part of you? CCP is explicitly telling you to do this.
Impersonation is against the rules, CCP has a long standing request for players to report rulebreaking, and you have (per CCP's own posts) no possible way of weeding out false positives yourself, so why wouldn't you do your utmost to help CCP in its hour of need? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4232
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 17:47:00 -
[30] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:I think their hour of need is trying to get the ccp approved lottery group out of player consciousness
So they have 2 hours of need this week.
Needy brats, aren't they? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
|
|
|
|