|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 18:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
All my EVE characters are beautiful strong independent characters that don't need no man. |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 18:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Georgina Parmala wrote:Heimdallofasgard wrote:HEY GUYS! I JUST IMPERSONATED MY ALT AND TRADED MY MAIN SAYING I WAS GOING TO TRANSPORT SOME LOOT TO JITA FOR MYSELF...
I MADE THE FOOLISH MISTAKE OF BELIEVING MYSELF AND NOW I HAVE ALL MY PHAT LOOT INSTEAD OF ME :'(
should I have used a courier contract? I'm pretty pissed off with myself for scamming me, I think myself should be banned but I don't believe I should be.
How do I legal? I like bashing this stupidity as much as the next guy, but lets have some common sense for a minute. The clarifying post clearly clarified that the person in im personation is defined as a character. A opposed to the player behind it, or an arbitrary entity such as an account. Lets say Solstice Project makes an alt. [ISMETA] wardecs a corporation. He approaches the corporation with the alt and says "I'm Solstice project's alt, give me 100 mil and I drop the dec". They pay up and contact Solstice about the transaction. He says no, that's not my alt you got scammed. What the nice GM is saying is that it does not matter that the alt is in fact the same player, or even on the same account as the main character. He falsely spoke on behalf of the main with malicious intent. So the alt gets a name change and a time out.
Okay, let's talk common sense. Why should that be punishable and why should CCP protect people from their own stupidity? |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 19:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bayushi Tamago wrote:If the problem is stemming from too many petitions about similarily named characters scamming, perhaps it would be a good idea to limit similarily named entity creation (ie SOMER BLINK. CHR1BBA etc) in the first place? If it's stemming from the GMs getting sick of people petitioning what, until now, have been completely in-game legal confidence tricks, then you either need some new GMs or perhaps need to stop catering to the players who would probably drop sub after having someone insult them by mining the same asteroid as them.
They have a clause for impersonating somebody with a similarly named character. |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 19:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:La Nariz wrote:22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything. 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.
Why should recruitment scamming for GSF as a TEST pilot not be okay? Misrepresenting yourself is a huge part of the metagame when it comes to scamming and espionage.
I am honestly shocked that a member of the CSM can read a sentence that says "a player can be actioned by GMs for claiming that they are their own alt even if it's true" and NOT see what a gigantic can of worms this is. The new section of the TOS that reads "You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity." is absolutely not consistent with previous policy and should never have been added to the TOS. |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 19:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:Vatek wrote: Edit: by the way, as a CSM member you're supposed to be speaking on behalf of the interests OF THE PLAYERS, not acting as a mouthpiece supporting CCP's terrible decisions.
Ali Aras wrote: 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.
So we should just not discuss it at all and trust the CSM to read our minds? I wasn't aware that using a forum intended for discussion about the game to discuss the game was "ineffective rioting". Last I heard, rioting worked pretty well to reverse the Incarna trainwreck!
Brushing us off with "okay we're gonna yap with CCP about this and release a crappy devblog 2 months from now that doesn't actually address anything" sucks. |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:Vatek wrote: So we should just not discuss it at all and trust the CSM to read our minds? I wasn't aware that using a forum intended for discussion about the game to discuss the game was "ineffective rioting". Last I heard, rioting worked pretty well to reverse the Incarna trainwreck!
Brushing us off with "okay we're gonna yap with CCP about this and release a crappy devblog 2 months from now that doesn't actually address anything" sucks.
Productive posting is fine and great. I use it as a CSM member to distill into better feedback; you're right that I don't read any minds. I also receive substantial assistance in representation via private messages such as evemails. I do also *play* the game, and have been both perpetrator and victim of the types of scams covered under this update. The bit about rioting in this thread was to attempt to dissuade people from making 100x posts saying "this is bad ccp sux see the csm agrees"; 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.
Will you be pushing for a removal of this new clause then? Let's look beyond the obvious stupidity of "saying you are your own alt is punishable even if it's true" and look at the deeper damage to the metagame here.
If you have participated and been a victim of these types of scams, then you are obviously aware of how misrepresentation and deception plays a huge part in the metagame. You bring up the example of a TEST pilot passing himself off as a GSF recruiter, so I'm going to ask the question: if that TEST pilot is actually able to convince somebody that he is a GSF recruiter, why should that be punishable? |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Would the real DBRB please bark bark bark |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:you have more space likes than me
this can not stand
I bet you'd have a lot of spacelikes if you represented yourself as the spokesperson for the EVE furry community.
You wouldn't even get banned for impersonation since it's not false! |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Yes, let's give everyone a nice grr goons distraction.
If you try to sell burn jita "avoid gank" passes though you might be banned What about selling hot dogs to spectators?
Only if the hotdogs aren't falsely represented as being 100% beef. |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Damn it, yours is better. Knock that off. |
|
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 21:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ganque wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Ganque wrote:Pyth2 wrote:So if someone is asking pyth2 here a question related to goonwaffe and I respond with pyth3, a neutral jita alt am I impersonating myself and misrepresenting my corp/alliance?
This policy is ******* dumb and stinks of GM Butthurt & GM Publord trying to change the game to reflect how they think it should be changed. **** this ****, lets burn Jita. I see what you're saying, So just to be clear do goonswarm recruit outside the SA forums? We have pubbies (in the sense of not owning a SA account when they joined GoonWaffe) in GoonWaffe Thanks Alvaria, but I want an answer from pyth3 on this ideally, or perhaps another non-goon alt of a goon but nonetheless still a cfc representative just to clear matters up to my total satisfaction.
I see what you're trying to do here. |
Vatek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 20:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
Isis Dea wrote:Was in the middle of making this statement in another topic (before it got locked): GM Karidor wrote: ...2. IN-GAME NAMES ... 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...
...8. You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity...
Yet Goons used both of these mechanics to take over the strongest alliance in the game. I have logs of people who submitted petitions back during this time and were kicked away from CCP with statements that it was perfectly fine what Goons did. CCP even made articles about it, with the usual 'welcome to eve' spew. These rules have NOT been enforced, quite the opposite. And to enforce them now hints favoritism to what is presently the largest alliance in EVE...
We don't like it any more than you do. |
|
|
|