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) |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1113
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:27:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Glad to see some of the more...edge cases were discussed and addressed.
I don't have much issue with many of the examples being discussed here. The one we (goons) have been most interested in is the representation of entities. We feel this is the only new change to the TOS and was highly disturbing as we can cite so many examples that were permitted in the past.
Let me use my personal favorite example and see if the GMs can give some insight into how it would be handled today. (This example happens and I think it is hilarious)
Goons run an ice interdiction. We sell mining permits to miners (this is just a scam) saying we won't shoot them. However, lets for the purposes of this example say we would honor them.
Another player not related to Goons, or any goon corp starts selling permits claiming they are a Goon. He convinces some miner to pay him for a mining permit.
Would this unaffiliated player have action taken against them (it appears so in the new TOS, and if so what action? Just a warning at first? 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. |
Sarah Harpoon
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:29:00 -
[1352] - Quote
X ATM092 wrote:What if someone impersonates a role by deceiving those around them. For example I ask a member of TEST called SpyMcAlt "is SpyMcAlt your main or are you actually someone else?". Would he be impersonating SpyMcAlt if he answered "yes" when in fact he is not SpyMcAlt but the alt of some other character. His main would be impersonating the invented persona of SpyMcAlt for malicious purposes.
yeah this is legit an issue, I call this alt my main every day |
Murk Paradox
Duty. The Cursed Few
504
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:29:00 -
[1353] - Quote
I like the references to Somer Blink being "popular" because I can claim ignorance since SOMER BLINK is technically 3rd party as there is no way ingame to gamble with my funds other than sending isk to a corporation (which is no different than any other corporation).
(Yes, I'm still on page 30something playing catchup after just ONE DAY). This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Isis Dea
Combat Cruise Control
39
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:29:00 -
[1354] - Quote
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:First brutally honest feedback. I'll word it as politely as possible without sacrificing honesty.
This is the biggest knife in the heart of EVE's gameplay and culture of 'spies and deception are everywhere' since the Incarna debacle. I have no confidence in the ability of the people behind this change to understand EVE, let alone implement reasonable policies or rules.
It appears that any deceptive behaviour at all that involves a declaration that "X is my alt" or "I am working in conjunction with X" is against the rules, and by extension, and outsourcing of core activities of a corporation, alliance or 'entity' now has CCP enforcing the honesty of such dealings.
For instance, under the new rules Goonswarm Federation retain the CCP endorsed right to scam people interested in renting space from them. However, in the unlikely situation that Goonswarm were to appoint me (a non-member of the alliance) as a third party to act on their behalf in rental deals, I would not be allowed to scam and and deliberate scamming by me of renters would be an account-ban offence. (A similar situation would occur if I were to collude with a 'renter' that intended to not pay but instead use their 'rented space' as a staging ground to attack GSF interests).
Particularly relevant to sovereign nullsec is that one of the major vectors for inserting spies into hostile entities, applying to multiple corps saying "I am XYZ's alt", fishing for one that is not vigilant enough to API verify this information, is no longer legal.
What you should be doing is the following:
- Ban names that are deceptively close to existing character, corporation or alliance names. GM discretion applies when it's unclear (Currln Trading is clearly deceptively close to Currin Trading; while 'Avengers of the South' would not be deceptively close to 'Southern Avengers') - Ban deceptive conduct carried out on CCP hosted websites other than the official EVE forums - Change the font so that capital 'o' and 'zero' look more different ingame than the presently do. Likewise for capital 'i' and lower case 'l'. - Remove all reference to 'entities'. The game client recognises corporations and alliances. It doesn't recognise coalitions, the New Order or other such 'entities'. - Explicitly allow players to lie about their affiliation to in-game corporations and alliances and to other characters, as long as they do not do so in ways that 'trick' the in-game methods for checking this information. Disallowed would be misuse of CCP websites and any form of API falsification. (Providing information and saying 'this is what my API says' should be fine; altering what the API actually says should be a banhammer). Absolutely spot on. What the **** is going on ccp, why are you doing all this. Absolutely none of this needed fixing and there are much more pressing issues to address
+1
This. Please explain, CCP.
Good at EVE wrote:And yes, we will petition anyone claiming to be either of us.
Sarah Harpoon wrote:I'm good at eve, just look at my killboard.
Amen. Lots of win. But seriously, CCP, please don't let the veterans down. This doesn't make a lick of sense in EVE (maybe in other MMOs).
Also, how does one reach out to internal affairs? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Sweet Sensations Radical Industries
13806
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:29:00 -
[1355] - Quote
Aryth wrote: Let me use my personal favorite example and see if the GMs can give some insight into how it would be handled today. (This example happens and I think it is hilarious)
Goons run an ice interdiction. We sell mining permits to miners (this is just a scam) saying we won't shoot them.
How very disreputable of you, I approve.
I am furnishing this post "as is" I do not provide any warranty whatsoever, whether express, implied, or statutory, including, but not limited to, any relevance or fitness for purpose or any warranty that the contents herein are error-free.
Article 8 is ToSh |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11613
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:29:00 -
[1356] - Quote
Would the famous GHSC gank (ca. 2005) be permitted under this new TOS?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Isis Dea
Combat Cruise Control
39
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:31:00 -
[1357] - Quote
Moreso, what about the whole concept behind EVE:Casualty? D: |
Isis Dea
Combat Cruise Control
39
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:34:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Ominaeon wrote:I for one applaud this move. EVE has been a cold, dark place for a long time, and it's nice to see the GMs and devs beginning to understand that protecting their playerbase from "griefers" is in their best interests. Nullsec isn't relevant in this game anymore (thanks to the CFC) and so the focus must shift to those in high sec that earn an honest living through mining and mission running. "Scamming" and "multiboxing" hurt the online playerbase and the economy and must be rigidly policed to avoid driving the high-sec core of EVE away from the game and into the arms of an (admittedly) superior game like FFXIV.
These safeguards will allow CCP to begin the transition that all major MMOs of the last decade have taken towards a friendlier, less dangerous atmosphere that fosters good will and FUN (read:PvE) for all. Personally, I might actually consider deactivating my WoW account (lvl 90 Pandaren XD) and coming here to run missions in high sec full time just for the social aspect of it!
Truly a good move by CCP. Scamming wasn't fun for anyone, and protecting the playerbase is what EVE is all about.
+1
Epic sarcasm is epic.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Sweet Sensations Radical Industries
13807
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:37:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Can we petition CCPs legal department for impersonating
- people who know what they're doing?
- people who actually play Eve?
**This is a tongue in cheek post, I'm assuming that it was a legal department that altered the wording of Article 8, and not someone rolling their face across the keyboard, although they're not mutually exclusive** I am furnishing this post "as is" I do not provide any warranty whatsoever, whether express, implied, or statutory, including, but not limited to, any relevance or fitness for purpose or any warranty that the contents herein are error-free.
Article 8 is ToSh |
Desivo Delta Visseroff
Cedar Knolls Research STEEL BROTHERHOOD
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:37:00 -
[1360] - Quote
If CCP would simply come out and say "We will only enforce the TOS change and it's associated rules solely upon request/petition of the impersonated party, and none other, " I am sure the great majority of the intelligent and mature player base would be satisfied and the game would continue unchanged.
If on the other hand, this is an attempt to bring the game into a more mainstream mass marked, as I posted before, it will have long term consequences.
As an aside, dumbing-down a game to make it more friendly in preparation for a prospective conversion to a F2P model will have the same result. This game has the single unique market attraction of being the only playable and enjoyable dark, hard and cold MMO universe, who's content and economy is almost completely player driven. It should stay that way! |
|
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
2721
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:39:00 -
[1361] - Quote
OK can someone explain to me why all the mad? The ToS always had that bit about impersonation. I think they only care about Dev Actors for live events or GM/CCP xxxx whatever. Why would they randomly start banning someone named 'Teh Mitanni' for using the name to scam people?...
Yes this is probably a stupid question, but I want to see if I can get a concise, non-mad answer.
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
189
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:42:00 -
[1362] - Quote
Shade Millith wrote:
Also, I question that "it always has". Goons and others claiming to be Goons have been publicly making big heists of money from the foolish, and I've never heard a single thing from the GMs about this. No nothing.
I can bet that we're going to see a massive clamp down on these activities.
I'm going to say it again. This is just sad. This is just GM hand-holding to protect the foolish and gullible. Not what I signed up to EVE for.
Because I'm a bit hungover and grumpy, lets have some fun.
They are not doing this to protect the foolish or gullible. Sure the foolish or gullible are getting protected by this, but it's the big and powerful who are the real beneficiaries and probably the real reason for the changes. Just put on the tinfoil and think about it for a sec. A small change in the wording of the TOS suddenly outlaws all renter scams that are done in another entities name and have been going on for years, precisely as all the large 0.0 power blocks move to a renter arraignment for income. Hmmmmmmmm.
Now i'm taking the tinfoil off and going to have some tea and Aleeve and hope this headache goes away. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
429
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:44:00 -
[1363] - Quote
space chikun wrote:Never thought I'd "like" a nulli post. Don't worry, you can shoot me and get even.
Just make sure it's the two correct characters, lest one of us should get banned for some impersonation attempt!
Besides, S2N people are good poasters. Also toasters and poachers. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
285
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:46:00 -
[1364] - Quote
I think at this point it's safe to assume that CCP has in fact deliberately changed the fundamental principles of their game.
It's not practical for me to withhold judgement on this any longer. CCP you are irrevocably changing your game for the worse.
Going silent, with the last official communication being the "final word" that now, apparently saying who my alts are is a bannable offence? You have to be ******* kidding me here.
Whatever happened to restoring the faith of the community? Whatever happened to the giant letter of apology last year that promised to not roll out game-breaking changes without player/csm/community representation?
I assume that letter was written in good faith at the time, I guess it's just not relevant to you any longer. Well, I'm pissed off.
You provided this promise, this vision of a universe. Remember atmospheric flight demos? Whatever happened to that CCP? The CCP that actually had a coherent vision of what their game was going to be...
...It seems now to have turned into "GMs Online" where the people who have to sort whining petitions all day are magically the same ones who get to direct game-changing policy.
Bad idea.
Bad ******* idea.
How long do you think we are going to keep arguing for the universe we have supported until we just say "**** it, they're not listening, I'll support a game where the developers don't just pretend to listen to player feedback". I'm just about there, but my problem is I still believe you. I honestly do believe this is not where you intend to take the game. It just doesn't make any sense to create an entire universe based around a principle, then to abandon that principle entirely, for whatever reason.
The cold, dark EVE, and those players responsible for making it that way, are the sole reason for your outstanding success with eve. Kick that out of the game and what do you have? A sub-par chaos ball simulation with a bunch of silly UIs tacked on top.
Please see reason, already. |
Lexmana
1028
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:47:00 -
[1365] - Quote
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:If CCP would simply come out and say "We will only enforce the TOS change and it's associated rules solely upon request/petition of the impersonated party, and none other, " I am sure the great majority of the intelligent and mature player base would be satisfied and the game would continue unchanged! Can you imagine the number of petitions? nd this time it is the playbear that cites the TOS and not the GM pointing towards "A cold harsh universe" and HTFU. If TOS remains at current state I expect every victim of a scam/heist to submit a petition with chat logs attached. EVE will never be the same.
|
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
183
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:48:00 -
[1366] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kheeria wrote:So, if we all impersonate someone we all get ourselves banned and CCP loses tons of money. Kheeria wrote:So, if we all impersonate someone we all get ourselves banned and CCP loses tons of money. At this stage I'm much prefer to make a coherent and well-argued case that these changes are not a good idea, and demonstrate why it is to the benefit of the game in general not to have the GMs be put in a position where they're increasingly expected to nursemaid players. Frankly, these changes, the way they've been surreptitiously introduced and the shady, emotive "Won't somebody please think of the children, I mean noobs!!!!" arguments that have been used to justify them are extremely disappointing. I'm certainly not at the "Who wants my stuff" stage, but if we can't get these bad, destructive changes reversed, it will leave me loving EVE a lot less.
Many of us are eagerly watching Star Citizen due to changes like this and the fact that CCP is literally bleeding their talent to Riot, Sony and others. Like you, I'm not at the giving-stuff-stage but this latest thing makes me wonder why I play this game and pay for the number of accounts that I do.
I play for a sandbox and a metagame. Space is only a beautiful backdrop. CCP has always claimed to embrace the metagame so I would like to think that this mess will eventually be reinterpreted to be more in line with the vision and the original business ideals.
|
Lexmana
1028
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:49:00 -
[1367] - Quote
Anslo wrote:OK can someone explain to me why all the mad? The ToS always had that bit about impersonation. I think they only care about Dev Actors for live events or GM/CCP xxxx whatever. Why would they randomly start banning someone named 'Teh Mitanni' for using the name to scam people?...
Yes this is probably a stupid question, but I want to see if I can get a concise, non-mad answer.
See GM response beloW:
GM Karidor wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Help me understand this then:
I, Abdiel Kavash, run a legit 3rd party business. Over the years I gain the trust of hundreds and a multibillion empire.
CASE 1: A new character, Joe McScammer, completely unaffiliated with me, decides to make some extra money. Joe McScammer convoes a customer of AbdielCorp and claims to be an alt of Abdiel Kavash. The poor mark falls for it and gives Joe McScammer ISK thinking he's sending it to Abdiel Kavash.
In this case, Joe McScammer is guilty of "[using] the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity", and if petitioned by the unsatisfied customer is prone to getting banned.
CASE 2: I decide that I want to make some extra money off my past customers, without necessarily having to provide any extra services. I create a new character, Phill McScammer, on my account. I then go talk to a past customer of AbdielCorp and I claim that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash. Customer falls for it, sends me their money and never sees it again.
Since different characters are treated as separate entities, is this judged the same as case 1? Is Phill McScammer prone to getting banned for impersonating Abdiel Kavash? I.e. can I get banned for claiming that Phill McScammer is an alt of Abdiel Kavash?
I suppose you have read my example, so you can answer that yourself as it is pretty much the same thing with different names. Abdiel Kavash wrote: Can I be banned for telling the truth?
Your character Phill McScammer impersonated Abdiel Kavash, the same way as Joe McScammer did, thus gets it from us the same way if reported. From our point of view, as well as from a victims, there is no technical difference between those two cases of a character impersonating another. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
429
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:51:00 -
[1368] - Quote
Anslo wrote:OK can someone explain to me why all the mad? The ToS always had that bit about impersonation. I think they only care about Dev Actors for live events or GM/CCP xxxx whatever. Why would they randomly start banning someone named 'Teh Mitanni' for using the name to scam people?...
Yes this is probably a stupid question, but I want to see if I can get a concise, non-mad answer. That exact name? Probably, since it's a clear impersonation. My two biggest problems are that a) they can ban people for admitting alts, even if they won't (then why have the rule in place?) and b) many of the scams, stories etc. that define EVE are now against the TOS and will get reversed. Moreover, to that last point, since the GM staff clarified that this change is not a change but simply a rewording, in other words the rule has always been like that, those pranks, scams, stories, changes, politics, metagames etc. etc. etc. would have been against the TOS if reported!
I don't see it as an enormous problem to ban making your name too visually alike (i and l, O and 0, stuff like that). I don't see a reason for a change if they just continue to say that people can try to fool you, but I don't see that change as problematic in itself. This however is much more than that which makes me a sad panda (WHOOPS DID I MISREPRESENT MY SPECIES THERE?!?). |
Desivo Delta Visseroff
Cedar Knolls Research STEEL BROTHERHOOD
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:51:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:If CCP would simply come out and say "We will only enforce the TOS change and it's associated rules solely upon request/petition of the impersonated party, and none other, " I am sure the great majority of the intelligent and mature player base would be satisfied and the game would continue unchanged! Can you imagine the number of petitions? nd this time it is the playbear that cites the TOS and not the GM pointing towards "A cold harsh universe" and HTFU. If TOS remains at current state I expect every victim of a scam/heist to submit a petition with chat logs attached. EVE will never be the same.
Which is why I said "impersonated party" not "victim."
I Agree, It would be most ideal to revert the TOS back to its original state, but in order to do so, I think some in-game server crushing rage would be needed, not just forum posting. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
285
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:52:00 -
[1370] - Quote
^^ And this here is exactly why GMs should not be allowed to dictate policy. |
|
Clavin
Coiled Spring Inc
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:54:00 -
[1371] - Quote
I'm curious, is this change in the ToS still being looked at or are we now at the definitive "this is how it is, get used to it" stage?
I'm genuinely curious if I should bother looking at this thread anymore or reside myself to playing carebears in space? |
Ammzi
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1448
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:54:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Step 1. Fire all GMs who have never played EVE (and biomass their characters and erase any trace of them ingame/on forums). Step 2. All GMs must have 2 years of EVE history where they have scammed, pirated, carebeared, etc. etc. Step 3. Rejoice in rules THAT ACTUALLY MAKE ******* SENSE.
quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
2724
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:57:00 -
[1373] - Quote
Wow so it's actually making scams harder? I mean, I'm not pro-scamming but...hell it's a part of Eve. Espionage, under handed tactics etc...
Did that EA talking head tell you people to do this, CCP? Cause yeah, you might get more subscribers in the short run...who will quickly get bored. Oh but the vets wi-no they won't. They'll be long gone.
Dude, seriously.
Wat.
|
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
372
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:57:00 -
[1374] - Quote
The GM interpretations I have seen thus far are appalling. Please, we want this escalated to someone more senior to reconsider this.
The change to not being able to impersonate groups or NPCs is a new change, and will only lead to abuse. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:57:00 -
[1375] - Quote
Clavin wrote:I'm curious, is this change in the ToS still being looked at or are we now at the definitive "this is how it is, get used to it" stage?
I'm genuinely curious if I should bother looking at this thread anymore or reside myself to playing carebears in space?
According to GM Karidor, the final word has been said on the subject.
I guess GMs have a higher level of responsibility now at CCP, dictating the direction of the game...I thought that was the job of the Dev Team. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
430
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:58:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Clavin wrote:I'm curious, is this change in the ToS still being looked at or are we now at the definitive "this is how it is, get used to it" stage?
I'm genuinely curious if I should bother looking at this thread anymore or reside myself to playing carebears in space? We have been told that the GM Karidor version of the clarification is the final word. That he clarified the clarification again later must have been a mistake.
I know that they can back down on that promise, I sure hope they do, but we've been told that the rule has always been there and the clarifications we have got are the ones we'll have to settle for. |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
2724
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:01:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Maybe that's why Zulu and Soundwave peaced out.
|
Lexmana
1030
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:02:00 -
[1378] - Quote
Since I have been away for some time can anyone tell me if this has anything to do with Soundwave leaving CCP? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
840
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:05:00 -
[1379] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Since I have been away for some time can anyone tell me if this has anything to do with Soundwave leaving CCP?
If he caught wind of it beforehand, it certainly wouldn't have encouraged him to stay. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1114
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:06:00 -
[1380] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Since I have been away for some time can anyone tell me if this has anything to do with Soundwave leaving CCP?
In my opinion they are unrelated. However, Soundwave was the most vocal and visible proponent of the dystopian and ruthless sandbox. Him leaving is definitely not a good thing for the future of EVE. 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. |
|
|
|
|
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 |