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 impersonation 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?

We should probably stop using that word. It looks like CCP's English-to-GM:ese translation software has confused GÇ£clarificationGÇ¥ with GÇ£vast senseless expansionGÇ¥.

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 impersonation 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.

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.

Attention all Citizens and Pirates and Sov holders!

If you have a problem with someone impersonating you and do not want to go through the petition process, then hire me to act on your behalf!

For the small fee of 50,000,000.00 isk I will do all your paperwork for you. All you need is a note/evemail with the offending party'a name and if you consent to me working on your behalf, I will make sure it all gets filed!

Contact me for more details. Do not let those pesky miscreants tarnish your good name!

*This service does not guarantee results as the GM may or may not, on a case by case basis, decide if the offense is against the TOS, or within the rules given since they reserve the right to not clarify the rules to which we are allowed to play by and might even decide it's funny, or treat that account as invalid and ban the offending party. I cannot guarantee those results because that would be impersonating an employee of CCP and that would not do. This is only permission on your behalf with proof given by the fee transfered that I would do the typing on your behalf with your express permission.*(Disclaimer)




Holy hell the now needed disclaimer is longer than the ad!

22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything.

hi im chribba's alt open for 3rd party services

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.

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.

However, that process is a longer one that will take place internally; rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective.

stuff

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.

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.

So basically, we just wait for you to get back to us and say "yeah, get bent" ?

Ok.

So turned out that under this rule I could get everyone who takes part in a baltec fleet that is not me banned.

I can ban all of the CFC. Please place your offers of payment (bribes)

I look forward to future productive discussions with CCP, and hope to be able to share results of those in the future.