While we have a break in the action... (and my head IS still spinning around this...) -

I applaud the many Goons for seriously engaging to get this all straightened out, but is it only me that feels a bit of irony in that this "clarification" does bolster their new renting efforts?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.... LOL

I now return you to the same bat thread, on the same bat channel...

i'll be honest i haven't massively been following this thread; does the ToS agree with the GMs posts yet?

Its never to late to go "Sorry guys we screwed up bad. We're reverting to the old TOS. We intended to prevent incidents like X from ever happening again but this wording is causing concerns. EVE is a massively complex game and it is hard to see all of the implications that a change will make. We respect our subscribers and want to keep a healthy atmosphere for EVE so we will revert the change and attempt to rework it in a way to do what we want but is more amiable to our community."

Its not hard.

*Not maligning the new guys, but their previous employers reputation for being money grubbing arse-holes with no concern for their customers, and killing decent software houses, has left an awful taint on them, at least in my opinion.

Let me quote the relevant sentence, the EULA paragraph is not only about sharing, but also usage of names from other players in general:



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.

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.

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.

Now, when there's malicios intent is involved, we're kind of back to the "self impersonation" thing that I wrote about earlier. I realize that this needs some more... clarification, so I'll grace that one with some more detail because of the confusion that specific bit has been causing (which, for that bit, is honestly completely my own fault):

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.

I am certain that everyone can agree that this is a primary and obvious case of impersonation, which has always resulted in B getting a rename, warning and his gains (if any) reversed as soon as he's been brought to our attention by player A or a victim. All well and good, right?

B will always get that treatment. Yes. Even if A is on the same account. And that is what I wanted to refer to when saying "yes, you actually can impersonate yourself". It's an edge case.

I am aware that this is not the only thing and that discussion will be ongoing about the rest of the points, both here as well as with the CSM, but I will slink back into the shadows and continue to watch this thread. Also, I would like to thank to keep it relatively civil despite the agitation this is obviously causing.

To throw the ball back to you:
In the hypothetical situation that we were to take no action in such cases, you'd be rather annoyed about Joe once you got wind that he's ruining your hard earned reputation, wouldn't you? Given that such characters as Joe usually don't go about wandering in space very often, you'd have no real recourse of hounding him down until the end of time either.

Why would you even bother with the alt in that situation? You can just do whatever you need to do with Abdiel Kavash then. The character Phil technically still impersonates Abdiel.

Your input here is appreciated. It touched on rules i didn't know existed and for what it's worth don't think are necessary or beneficial, but was at least clearer.

There is still, however, a large degree of ambiguity regarding what counts as a "group of players" in the relevant section since this seems to extend beyond game defined groups, but doesn't encompass all player defined groups. If you could please help here or poke someone who could clarify a bit it would be nice.

Last reply from me, before I really go back to watching mode for the thread (well, some sleep as well).



Mostly this is in place for the ones that have been impersonated, though directly affected victims may of course report that as well.

And while kind of unrelated on the issue of the thread itself, as for player run entities, the CEO/Directors (of the executor corporation) would be considered spokespersons for their respective entities, as is usually the case when those entities are directly affected as a whole. This is mainly to try and prevent larger player bodies to flood the ticket system with identical tickets. If none of those are online at the time to create a needed ticket for a report, it can of course be another member of the entity bringing an issue to our attention, but flooding the ticket system will usually result in closing the multiple tickets with a request to chose one person with the authority to deal with the matter to continue with.

If I was a player with multiple accounts, how am I supposed to say that another character is an alt of mine without breaking the EULA through impersonation or communicating with third party software?

I'm not one of the people who thinks CCP owes me to skew EVE towards the kind of game that I want to play. I just am asking for clarity. If you're going to make rules against malicious trickery, just make rules against it. Don't make a bunch of contradictory, confusing rules and only enforce them against malicious tricksters, hoping that unwritten rules will create less pushback. It's not true, it won't create less pushback, and it's disrespectful--and that's the message you've given in this thread so far.

Non-scam business conducted on alts = OK (why would they even be petitioned? and if petitioned and non-scam why punished?)