Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1011
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:20:00 -
[61] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote: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. I hate to use my personal life as the building blocks of a response here, but I've got nothing better at the moment.
I spent most of this morning debating just how big a truck you can drive though most of the ambiguous language in 18 USC 1030. In comparison, after looking at the changes to the TOS, I'm left wondering if I could drive the Titanic through it or just a Ticonderoga.
If you've got a list of circular "if-buts" that you can't actually articulate, you're doing something very wrong when it comes to handling cases of impersonation under the TOS. There should be clear lines as to what is and isn't a violation. IE: explicitly state that representing an NPC faction for the purposes of role-playing on behalf of the NPC faction does not constitute a violation of the TOS. State that representing yourself as a another player in a fashion that closely mimics the party being impersonated is a violation of the TOS. Heck, write a page on the Evelopedia with explicit cases of Yes/No under the clause and then have the TOS redirect interested parties to the Evelopedia page. But please, don't try and get away with saying "everything is the same as it was" when you've made a number of formerly "not-bannable" situations puzzlingly close to being bannable with the change in language. Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword |
Lady Areola Fappington
New Order Logistics CODE.
464
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:21:00 -
[62] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: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. No. What they are saying right now is the spped limit is 65 but we have been letting people go as fast as they want before and will continue to do so as long as we jugde it's ok but don't count on it.
For some reason, I've got this feeling we've had this sort of discussion with CCP......
Oh yeah! Cache Scraping! It's against EULA, but we have no intention of enforcing it, so everything is the same as it was before. Unless we change our minds.
That didn't work too well either, CCP. Don't worry miners, I'm here to help!
|
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
150
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:22:00 -
[63] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: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. No. What they are saying right now is the spped limit is 65 but we have been letting people go as fast as they want before and will continue to do so as long as we jugde it's ok but don't count on it. But only if you have good intentions. If you go 65.01 with bad intentions you get the electric chair. Intentions to be determined by GM who may or may not had his morning coffee on a day that may or may not be monday. |
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
414
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:23:00 -
[64] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Karl Planck wrote: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
(Disclaimer: while I bath in scammer tears, this is an issue that might affect the player base negatively, and we have a community here to think about). You see what's being asked for here is known as "precedent". When I legally openly carry a loaded gun in public, and cops show up, half of the documents I shove at them are precedents in case law where the police felt it was safe for their careers to take sides with whoever made a complaint and found out otherwise in court. I do the same at warrantless checkpoints when I refuse to let them search my vehicle. So what I think the rage/butthurt is about is a lack of "case precedent". Without precedent, then each case to be "decided on" individually, as the GM post implies, may end up seeming arbitrary. Arbitrary is a legal word for "unfair", meaning that one person is at risk of getting banned while another is not FOR THE SAME ACTIONS. And God help us if the person not being banned has some kind of ties or connection with CCP or a large alliance said to have some ties with CSMs or CCP. The tears will flow like rivers of pure hate and rage. CCP Falcon will have to don a robe and beard and build an ark for all of the new players (bitter vets can walk on water or PLEX their own arks, what with all those SP). So I think what is sorely needed in this case is precedent to be known. There needs to be some public knowledge of outcomes of past cases to guide us towards justice in future cases. We need to be able to cite these cases like "No way could I be banned for that because in CCP vs. Captain Butthead back in 2012 it was ruled that the defendant did in fact not violate the rules and I am doing the same thing". Yeah I know this would be a lot to ask. We have an ISD of volunteers, perhaps there are legal eagles playing the game who could be part of a new division of ISD to handle this sort of thing? Exactly so. Have a space-like.
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
470
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:25:00 -
[65] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote: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
I was under the impression you couldn't scam on the forums anyways. (Or is that just the pilot bazaar?). "But my favourite visual experience in Eve was a pipebombing run on a digital projector. Sure, the aliasing can never match the perfection of a 2160p image - but you can't beat a five metre space volcano on your wall." - Lord Maldoror(RnK)
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2223
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:26:00 -
[66] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: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. No. What they are saying right now is the spped limit is 65 but we have been letting people go as fast as they want before and will continue to do so as long as we jugde it's ok but don't count on it.
If you want to nit-pick its more like "we previously gave the impression that the speed limit was 65 and enforced it as such but that wasn't ever actually the limit at all. We're still not telling you what the limit actually is and will judge whether you're going too fast on a case-by-case basis!" Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3738
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:26:00 -
[67] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Karl Planck wrote: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
I was under the impression you couldn't scam on the forums anyways. (Or is that just the pilot bazaar?).
Just the character bazaar. The guy who was sitting next to me in the first nullsec round table who had obviously not had a shower since before boarding his flight to Iceland, you really stank. You know who you are. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
670
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:27:00 -
[68] - Quote
Georgina Parmala wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: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. No. What they are saying right now is the spped limit is 65 but we have been letting people go as fast as they want before and will continue to do so as long as we jugde it's ok but don't count on it. But only if you have good intentions. If you go 65.01 with bad intentions you get the electric chair. Intentions to be determined by GM who may or may not had his morning coffee on a day that may or may not be monday.
The law technically is crystal clear. How you may or not overpass it is left blank so they can say all day that you only have to follow the rules that have been the same as before and you will never get caught for following the rules or you can try your luck like many people did before and go over the rule. The results will vary so it's a risk.
If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be... |
Seras VictoriaX
Relentless Grind
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:29:00 -
[69] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote: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 the rules are not easily understandable / explainable in a clear concise manner then how can you expect anyone to follow them?
It seems like a large corner stone of what makes eve different from other games (allowed scamming) is now a random dice roll of if you will get banned or not.
I remember seeing a official eve trailer that said "Be the Villain" Is that no longer allowed?
Also can you please update the rules on this page as well so its clear? http://community.eveonline.com/support/knowledge-base/article.aspx?articleId=34
Quote:Make sure that the person you are doing business with is who he says he is. EVE-Online has a unique naming policy, making it impossible for more than one player to have the same name. However, names may be very similar, and it is a good idea to be 100% certain that the party you are dealing with is the real thing. Also, never believe someone who says he is an alternate character of someone you know but doesn't offer any proper proof.
That should be changed to "Report the person for impersonation, and make sure they get banned" If i understand correctly?
|
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
414
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:29:00 -
[70] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...
True, and an intersting point.
Perhaps we're a buncha rules carebears?
|
|
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
152
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:30:00 -
[71] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...
EvE Hardmode engaged - Permadeath enabled |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
670
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:31:00 -
[72] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: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. No. What they are saying right now is the spped limit is 65 but we have been letting people go as fast as they want before and will continue to do so as long as we jugde it's ok but don't count on it. If you want to nit-pick its more like "we previously gave the impression that the speed limit was 65 and enforced it as such but that wasn't ever actually the limit at all. We're still not telling you what the limit actually is and will judge whether you're going too fast on a case-by-case basis!"
No, they are still telling you the limit is 65 (you cannot impersonate people) but we will arbitrate over any impersonation on a case by case basis. The rules is still the same but the wording give them a bit more muscle in case you go over the rule.
Note : I truly understand why you guys see this as a change but in reality, the official rule didn't change. They only give themselves more firepower in case you choose to not follow it. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1423
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:31:00 -
[73] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:[So I think what is sorely needed in this case is precedent to be known. There needs to be some public knowledge of outcomes of past cases to guide us towards justice in future cases. We need to be able to cite these cases like "No way could I be banned for that because in CCP vs. Captain Butthead back in 2012 it was ruled that the defendant did in fact not violate the rules and I am doing the same thing". yea, either that or just rewrite the rules so that they make some ******* sense. that way, you do not need space legal insurance.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
248
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:31:00 -
[74] - Quote
Let me tell a little story about the recruitment channel.
For as long as I can remember, the recruitment channel had a "no scamming" rule. This rule was correctly interpreted by the GMs for it's purpose of preventing the recruitment channel from becoming jita local. Then one day something happened, people started getting warnings/bans for scamming. Someone who was in the recruitment channel and got scammed and petitioned it along with the recruitment channel rules. The GM had decided that the rule meant that being in the recruitment channel made it illegal to scam him. Suddenly a single GM had effectively banned recruitment scamming through creative reinterpretation of a badly posted rule.
Eventually they were reversed and the wording of the rule was rewritten to its actual intention. The moral of the story is that broadly worded rules will be enforced based on what they say, not how they were intended. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
139
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:31:00 -
[75] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote: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.
How about you guys just walk back to the previous revision.. the one that didn't cause the uproar and do a complete rethink on this. You guys at CCP have a ton of goodwill and respect points for turning the company around after the Incarna fiasco. Don't waste them here. You are probably going to need as much as you can get when you take another look at expanding incarna or any thing else gameplay wise.
|
Laurici
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
21
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:33:00 -
[76] - Quote
Inb4 threadnaught in... 3...2...1...
Well done CCP. *slow clap* |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
670
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:33:00 -
[77] - Quote
Georgina Parmala wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...
EvE Hardmode engaged - Permadeath enabled
As stupid as it sounds, to me it is just that yeah. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3738
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:37:00 -
[78] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:I truly understand why you guys see this as a change but in reality, the official rule didn't change.
But the wording in the TOS has changed & for all intents & purposes it's the TOS that GM's will refer to when they need to make a decision. Newbie GM is going to make a decision based on the wording of the TOS, not the intent of the scammer. The GM team really needs to clarify this properly. The guy who was sitting next to me in the first nullsec round table who had obviously not had a shower since before boarding his flight to Iceland, you really stank. You know who you are. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
470
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:37:00 -
[79] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Karl Planck wrote: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
I was under the impression you couldn't scam on the forums anyways. (Or is that just the pilot bazaar?). Just the character bazaar.
Ah fair enough, thanks. "But my favourite visual experience in Eve was a pipebombing run on a digital projector. Sure, the aliasing can never match the perfection of a 2160p image - but you can't beat a five metre space volcano on your wall." - Lord Maldoror(RnK)
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4646
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:38:00 -
[80] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote: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.
Then why is there a need for a change? Surely if there's no change, there's no need for a rules change.
More importantly, previously you stated this was not allowed:
Quote:Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.
As far as I'm aware, this was not previously banned. It's not impersonating anyone. It's not falsely claiming to be another identifiable EVE player. I would have confidently told anyone in our alliance this was allowed. I see no reason it should not be allowed. As a result, I'm really not confident in "trust us, we'll interpret it correctly and there's no changebut can't tell you how" because you've just suddenly declared that lying about the authority you have is actually lying about your identity. |
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
470
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:40:00 -
[81] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Georgina Parmala wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: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. No. What they are saying right now is the spped limit is 65 but we have been letting people go as fast as they want before and will continue to do so as long as we jugde it's ok but don't count on it. But only if you have good intentions. If you go 65.01 with bad intentions you get the electric chair. Intentions to be determined by GM who may or may not had his morning coffee on a day that may or may not be monday. The law technically is crystal clear. How you may or not overpass it is left blank so they can say all day that you only have to follow the rules that have been the same as before and you will never get caught for following the rules or you can try your luck like many people did before and go over the rule. The results will vary so it's a risk. If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...
My curiosity comes from the fact that it says "the same rule as before..."
What rule? Scams are either legal or they aren't. Scams are all tricks, lies, cons, subversive tactics in order to get someone to give something to you under false pretenses.
Now those false pretenses, or rather not "now" but ALWAYS, are against the rules of the game?
Begone with your sorcery wizard! "But my favourite visual experience in Eve was a pipebombing run on a digital projector. Sure, the aliasing can never match the perfection of a 2160p image - but you can't beat a five metre space volcano on your wall." - Lord Maldoror(RnK)
|
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1026
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:40:00 -
[82] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:How about you guys just walk back to the previous revision.. the one that didn't cause the uproar and do a complete rethink on this. You guys at CCP have a ton of goodwill and respect points for turning the company around after the Incarna fiasco. Don't waste them here. You are probably going to need as much as you can get when you take another look at expanding incarna or any thing else gameplay wise.
Excellent post. This is how I feel as well.
This game is revolutionary in how it depends on player input and feedback. Every time the effort is spent to really understand and respond to what the players are saying, the game gets better; and, of course, the opposite when the old "we know best, trust us" attitude comes creeping back.
Stop, think, do your jobs properly, and solve this problem like it should be solved. Learn your own institutional history, as we have been through this so many times before, and the best course of action has always been to listen to what the community is trying to tell you, not to try and side-step the issue through condescending and blatantly transparent corporate jargon.
Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Deep DonkeyPunch
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:42:00 -
[83] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote: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. So if your GMs are experienced why was dee snider and barracuda unjustifiably banned for reasons that wern't even in the EULA? Flash news at 11 |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
470
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:44:00 -
[84] - Quote
Deep DonkeyPunch wrote:GM Grimmi wrote: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. So if your GMs are experienced why was dee snider and barracuda unjustifiably banned for reasons that wern't even in the EULA? Flash news at 11
They weren't an old retired rockstar or a meat eating fish, respectively? "But my favourite visual experience in Eve was a pipebombing run on a digital projector. Sure, the aliasing can never match the perfection of a 2160p image - but you can't beat a five metre space volcano on your wall." - Lord Maldoror(RnK)
|
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
152
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:45:00 -
[85] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: As far as I'm aware, this was not previously banned. It's not impersonating anyone. It's not falsely claiming to be another identifiable EVE player. I would have confidently told anyone in our alliance this was allowed. I see no reason it should not be allowed. As a result, I'm really not confident in "trust us, we'll interpret it correctly and there's no changebut can't tell you how" because you've just suddenly declared that lying about the authority you have is actually lying about your identity.
Lets say I'm trying to sell a moon I do not actually own as a scam.
I am NOT impersonating a director of whatever corporation owns the tower anchored at that moon. I am merely lying about it being mine to sell.
To my understanding: I'm not impersonating anyone under the old rules and it's fine. Under the letter of the new rules I appear to be misrepresenting the player group who actually does own the moon and it's not ok.
Nothing changed how? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4646
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:53:00 -
[86] - Quote
Georgina Parmala wrote:Weaselior wrote: As far as I'm aware, this was not previously banned. It's not impersonating anyone. It's not falsely claiming to be another identifiable EVE player. I would have confidently told anyone in our alliance this was allowed. I see no reason it should not be allowed. As a result, I'm really not confident in "trust us, we'll interpret it correctly and there's no changebut can't tell you how" because you've just suddenly declared that lying about the authority you have is actually lying about your identity.
Lets say I'm trying to sell a moon I do not actually own as a scam. I am NOT impersonating a director of whatever corporation owns the tower anchored at that moon. I am merely lying about it being mine to sell. To my understanding: I'm not impersonating anyone under the old rules and it's fine. Under the letter of the new rules I appear to be misrepresenting the player group who actually does own the moon and it's not ok. Nothing changed how? Something changed based on what GM Grimmi said in the example. And a fair amount of the time your scamee will read what Grimmi wrote or the TOS, and petition that you falsely represented that you were a representative of that corp based on thinking that actually means what it says instead of being officially meaningless.
The change in the wording of the TOS was massive and there was no basis for adding the bolded section here:
Quote:You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
Claiming you're Goonwaffe by registering the corporation Goomwaffe is one thing. Claiming you're The Mittani's Space Lawyer (go ahead and ask!) and are authorized to negotiate on his behalf is another so just send all that isk to my wallet and I'll move you into Deklein tomorrow. The TOS above bans the first. Until now, it didn't ban the second. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
671
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:55:00 -
[87] - Quote
Georgina Parmala wrote:Weaselior wrote: As far as I'm aware, this was not previously banned. It's not impersonating anyone. It's not falsely claiming to be another identifiable EVE player. I would have confidently told anyone in our alliance this was allowed. I see no reason it should not be allowed. As a result, I'm really not confident in "trust us, we'll interpret it correctly and there's no changebut can't tell you how" because you've just suddenly declared that lying about the authority you have is actually lying about your identity.
Lets say I'm trying to sell a moon I do not actually own as a scam. I am NOT impersonating a director of whatever corporation owns the tower anchored at that moon. I am merely lying about it being mine to sell. To my understanding: I'm not impersonating anyone under the old rules and it's fine. Under the letter of the new rules I appear to be misrepresenting the player group who actually does own the moon and it's not ok. Nothing changed how?
For all we know, they might have handled some case like that with a bad/warning except we have no ruling available because the EULA clearly state they do not need to give the information of any ruling to anyone but the person getting the ruling done over himself. The system of justice is not the same as in let's say Canada where I can read ruling done in case of other people. They will be able to hide themselves like that because their very own law allows them to. If they say the policy was applied like it is written now and always had to make a judgement call, we are all toast and will have to deal with the new wording. |
Jassmin Joy
Oblivion Watch HYDRA RELOADED
179
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:55:00 -
[88] - Quote
It's amazing it took your team, and ccp literally all day/night to come up with something, which explains nothing. I'm getting real tired of this CCP, You've been slowly heading back to pre-incarna ccp and this is a prime example.
Get your **** together. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1028
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:56:00 -
[89] - Quote
These replies have cleared up nothing other than to make this other magical "trust us" grey area like cache scraping is. Having one was bad enough, now we have another that is as clear as mud.
You already have a 'we can ban for any reason clause' there is hardly a reason to spell out anything by the same line of reasoning as is being used. All this does is serve to further confuse everyone as to any specifics around impersonation. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal - Representing Goonswarm Federation, Goonwaffe, CFC Finance, Greater Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere, CFC Rental Program, Burn Jita, CFC Supply, and who knows what else.-á Vile Rat: You'e the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
471
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:56:00 -
[90] - Quote
I'm Murk Paradox and I can sell any moon in the game to you. Contact me for details. This cannot be a scam since I am in fact representing myself and not under false pretenses (I really am me!) since that would be a TOS violation.
Let me sell you a moon!*
*The above is an example of a perfectly acceptable scam because of the wording as opposed to the inferred intent. "But my favourite visual experience in Eve was a pipebombing run on a digital projector. Sure, the aliasing can never match the perfection of a 2160p image - but you can't beat a five metre space volcano on your wall." - Lord Maldoror(RnK)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |