We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.

If that's the case, then the new language is more confusing than ever, because it makes scams that have been going for years sound illegal, even though apparently they're not?

I think most people would agree that the new language makes it sound like the policy is changing. If it's not changing, the new TOS language should be altered to make that clear.

We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.

We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.

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.

We certainly understand that these things will be taken on a case by case basis by experienced GMs, but this whole thing is leaving us without any idea where the line might be. As a veteran bad guy and supporter of this game and the rules of it, I need at least a ballpark idea. Like a hint.

So can you pretend to be a recruitment officer for goons to scam people? That's a lot of text to say pretty much nothing new.

We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.

jesus there is a lot of butthurt in this thread. Can we not bring up the plethora of cases to which this is normally applied to which is clearly what they are referencing instead of bringing up fringe cases where the rule has never been applied?

For example: Someone wants to apply to SniggWaffe and they find a corp on the recruitment threads called SniggWaffe. (notice the dot) in an alliance WAFFELS. (misspelled) that was made to misdirect pilots and scam for recruitment.

Previously this would result in a name change for both the corp and the alliance which are clearly impersonating the real deal. Now it would be a ban. I really donGÇÖt get all the rage about this. You couldn't do it before, you still canGÇÖt. They simply changed the punishment. And knowing the GMs the punishment is probably relatively light

...
If I, Ali Aras, member of Valkyries of Night and Of Sound Mind, represent myself as a CFC rental agent (a title I do not hold in a coalition I am not a member of), is this a violation of the TOS as changed and impersonation policies as historically implemented?

May as well change the ToS to "we'll do what we want, when we want, and there's nothing you can do about it"

If you don't tell us what "the law" is, how the hell are we supossed to follow it?!

May as well change the ToS to "we'll do what we want, when we want, and there's nothing you can do about it"

We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.

If you don't tell us what "the law" is, how the hell are we supossed to follow it?!

[May as well change the ToS to "we'll do what we want, when we want, and there's nothing you can do about it"

We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.

jesus there is a lot of butthurt in this thread. Can we not bring up the plethora of cases to which this is normally applied to which is clearly what they are referencing instead of bringing up fringe cases where the rule has never been applied?

For example: Someone wants to apply to SniggWaffe and they find a corp on the recruitment threads called SniggWaffe. (notice the dot) in an alliance WAFFELS. (misspelled) that was made to misdirect pilots and scam for recruitment.

Previously this would result in a name change for both the corp and the alliance which are clearly impersonating the real deal. Now it would be a ban. I really donGÇÖt get all the rage about this. You couldn't do it before, you still canGÇÖt. They simply changed the punishment. And knowing the GMs the punishment is probably relatively light

Sometimes, expressing simple idea can be hard.

Question:
Does this mean that role-playing, say, the Docking Manager at Jita 4-4 CNP for the purposes of entertainment is OK? But that doing the same for purposes of income or scamming would not be? Do I have that right?

What we have here is the traffic cops saying "if you drive too fast along this road we reserve the right to confiscate your car and fine you, but we're not going to tell you what the speed limit is. That will be decided on a case by case basis, but don't worry, all decisions are made by experienced traffic cops!"

If you can't see for yourself why this is hopelessly inadequate I really don't know what to tell you.

What we have here is the traffic cops saying "if you drive too fast along this road we reserve the right to confiscate your car and fine you, but we're not going to tell you what the speed limit is. That will be decided on a case by case basis, but don't worry, all decisions are made by experienced traffic cops!"

If you can't see for yourself why this is hopelessly inadequate I really don't know what to tell you.

Uh, yes, you can go into specifics.

You refuse to which is the problem.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every goon have the possibility to sponsor people into the corp? Thereby making every goon a recruitment officer by extension? They're just a recruitment officer lying to someone? No impersonation involved?

They've already stated that it's okay to scam representing your own corp. It's representing other "groups" that is the problem.

Case in point: Goonwaffe recently started a renter empire that lives out in null sec. Due to our tumultuous history with scamming (oops), this was met with a bit of skepticism. Now, can a Goonwaffe main sell renter space in this other alliance? How can we prove he is 'authorized' to represent the group? He's in the alliance information as a valid sales people. I would say more what happened next, but that's moderation discussion, which is verbotten, but you can guess.

So what is the proper way to 'prove' that you are a valid representative of the 'group'? There is no 'CFC' alliance, but there are lot of people who can claim to represent us.