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.

Except CCP have literally endorsed this behaviour in the past, whether they say they enforced it as a rule or not. You've drunk their koolaid pretty hard if you believe what you're saying here.

As baltec fleets are ad hoc player organizations and you are but one pilot, once you get everyone else banned you would be misrepresenting yourself as an in-game organization and get yourself banned.

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.

Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them.

Can the current CSM members be banned for impersonating effective representatives?

I am quite sure that public interviews and publicly stating how awesome some of the scams in EvEs history were
definitely counts as endorsing them ...

Like Hilmar said, regarding the EvE Bank heist ... the first big one.
500 people left the game ... 5000 more joined in.


Edit: Just realized it's actually a bad example. My point was that CCP does indeed
endorse scamming and impersonating somebody else is usually a big part of it.
Sorry for mixing things up.

rioting in this thread is unlikely to be effective.

Does anyone have a written example of CCP saying it was allright for a member of corp X to say he is a representant/member of corp Y and scam someone over joining corp corp Y? If not, then we can't say they endorsed it before. THis is where we lack most power. Most ruling if not all are case slosed for CCP and people are not allowed to discus them.

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...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.

Can the current CSM members be banned for impersonating effective representatives?

i am CCP Hilmar

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 Threadnaught never happened. There is no such thing as a Threadnaught. Mass complaints have never yielded anything in the history of EVE-O.

--noted Baghdad Bob impersonator Ali Aras

http://i.imgur.com/j7lQn2G.png

And, therein, lies the continued problems that haven't been adequately addressed:

• Continued ambiguity of language
• Inconsistent language between the previously quoted character name clauses and the changed clause
• Non-codification of the clarification into the actual document to remove ambiguity of enforcement

The misunderstanding of previous enforcement isn't the issue, and never has been. The new language of the ToS is about as muddy as a rainforest swamp and needs to be clarified for proper enforcement. Otherwise, its exceptionally broad and effectively "bans" a large number or previously sanctioned meta-game elements, regardless of whether GMs actually enforce the policy (which they should).

its just me but I don't consider identifying myself as myself when on an alt something "blatantly out there"

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.

The Threadnaught never happened. There is no such thing as a Threadnaught. Mass complaints have never yielded anything in the history of EVE-O.

--noted Baghdad Bob impersonator Ali Aras

Because CCP has been scamming us all these years. Apparently EVE was never meant to be a cold dark universe but a happy fun land where the lazy and dumb are protected from the consequences of their easily avoided carelessness.

Okay, let's talk common sense. Why should that be punishable and why should CCP protect people from their own stupidity?