Greetings pilots,


We would like to address your concerns regarding the update to article 8 of our TOS that was published yesterday. Some basic information on how we deal with issues that come up regarding impersonation is therefore appropriate.

All cases are investigated individually on a case by case basis. If there are complications or difficulties in reaching a solution cases are moved to senior game masters, which happens a lot with the impersonation issues that are reported to us. There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace. For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years. The TOS update reflects the way reported cases of impersonation have been handled by Customer Support for a long time. The rules applied have been buried in our naming policy and EULA but have now been placed in plain view in order to better help players to make decisions on how they interact with one another.

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.

One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.

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.

Grimmi, thanks for posting. Just to clarify, because I think this was the crux of a lot of the remaining confusion yesterday:

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?

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.

Well THAT certainly clears things up.

Well THAT certainly clears things up.

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.

One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.

If I apply to an NC. corp claiming to be Vince Draken's cyno alt, am accepted, then go on a wild Awoxing spree, then again by the newly presented wording I've breached the TOS.

Is this your intention?

If I apply to an NC. corp claiming to be Vince Draken's cyno alt, am accepted, then go on a wild Awoxing spree, then again by the newly presented wording I've breached the TOS.

Is this your intention?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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?

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

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.

I was under the impression you couldn't scam on the forums anyways. (Or is that just the pilot bazaar?).

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.

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.

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.

If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...

If the potential reward is there but tied to a risk, that's about as EvE like as it could be...

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!"

[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".

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.

EvE Hardmode engaged - Permadeath enabled

I truly understand why you guys see this as a change but in reality, the official rule didn't change.

Just the character bazaar.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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?

You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.

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?

Arbitrary is a legal word for "unfair",

Utterly pointless hand-waving; might as well have not posted anything.

The new wording does not at all reflect past policy with reference to representing yourself as a member of a group. Come back and try again when you've actually addressed the community's concerns.

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.

How would you know when the ongoings in petitions are not released to outside parties?

This is most likely what the scams will have to look like to pass the judgement.

The change in the wording of the TOS was massive and there was no basis for adding the bolded section here:



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.

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.

I think I see a TOS violation, Murk.

You are "falsely representing or impersonating a person" (those words are there in the clause) who can actually sell.is willing to sell those moons.

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:



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.

I think I see a TOS violation, Murk.

You are "falsely representing or impersonating a person" (those words are there in the clause) who can actually sell.is willing to sell those moons.

That's not true. I am representing myself, and I can gladly accept isk. I cannot, unfortunately, sell the sov space that moon resides in (sov isn't in question) nor does a moon be possessed by anyone (only the tower in place) as it is a celestial in the game.

saying you are a goon director.

There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace.

Confirming that this was in fact at the center of yesterday's confusion/ire. Players feel this sort of thing was allowed in the past, and that if you can convince someone you're a member of a group you clearly are not (such as in Ali's example), you and they both deserve everything coming to you. They're concerned that what is now coming to them is a ban, that you're forbidding sandboxy play in the form of lying, smooth talking and cleverness (as opposed to outright impersonation like naming yourself "CHRlBBA") and you've done little to address that concern.

Let me make this example as clear as I can.

Illegal Before:

Saying you are the mittani or making a char name or other such methods to impersonate him.

Illegal Now:

Saying you are the mittani OR saying you are a goon director.

The latter was not illegal before, yet now is, and they claim nothing has changed when the wording clearly has to encompass that.

What I got from this is;

• CCP altered the ToS to make it even more ambiguous.
• We, the players, made our concerns about the alterations abundantly clear.
• CCP said they'd look at our concerns.
• CCP decided to ignore our concerns and fob us off.

Do I have that about right?
Smacks of the initial CCP response to our concerns about Incarna tbh, ignore it and hope it'll go away. That worked out well for them last time.

RIP recruitment scam, although I guess we could just give everyone a director title.

When I call myself, as an alt, "not a PL guy" and I am in "nothing to do with pandemic legion at all corp" I am representing myself. If I then try to sell someone PL space by saying "I AM TOTES LEGIT SALES MAN FOR PL BRO JUST ASK ANYONE LOL!" I am falsely representing an organization (now against the rules) despite the fact I am being myself.

Hopefully it's clear why the new rules can theoretically be used to ban many, many scam types no matter who you say you are.

I intentionally did not claim to be the sov or tower owner for that very reason.

I am NOT saying "I can sell CFC Sov at a discounted rate because The Mittani gave me the go ahead".

For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years.

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.

Yes, so you're saying you now have fewer options available to you to scam / metagame with, which is the entire complaint that is being made.

So, you agree?

You should actually work in some sort of prize if someone successfully maliciously impersonates someone else in EVE. Like some concord LP or something if you pull off a tight scam.

Sincerely,

JEFFRAIDER,
Goonswarm Talent Management Specialist

It's my understanding that this was already (recently) banned by TOS or impersonation policy somewhere.

Greetings pilots,


We would like to address your concerns regarding the update to article 8 of our TOS that was published yesterday. Some basic information on how we deal with issues that come up regarding impersonation is therefore appropriate.

All cases are investigated individually on a case by case basis. If there are complications or difficulties in reaching a solution cases are moved to senior game masters, which happens a lot with the impersonation issues that are reported to us. There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace. For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years. The TOS update reflects the way reported cases of impersonation have been handled by Customer Support for a long time. The rules applied have been buried in our naming policy and EULA but have now been placed in plain view in order to better help players to make decisions on how they interact with one another.

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.

One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.


Thank you and fly safe.

Apparently you've become the new Hans Jagerblitzen ... apologizing on behalf of CCP for things you're not familiar with. This might be a case of improper impersonation. :)

The situation described was never illegal, unless the person named their character in such a way to pose as an alt. For instance, real alts name is leo (lowercase L) and the faker named a character as Ieo (uppercase i). This was covered in the NAMING POLICY and was bannable.

The act of just stating that you're an alt of someone (with no naming violations) was not against the TOS previously.

Previously, if I wanted to fly around (as Poetic) and claim that I was an Ali Aras alt, and scam ISK out of people for some purpose (perhaps campaign finances), I could do so freely. Now, according to the TOS, I will be banned for doing so.

The TOS changes are there to protect really stupid people, apparently. People incapable of doing a Google search, or sending an EVEmail to Ali Aras to confirm.

Apparently you've become the new Hans Jagerblitzen ... apologizing on behalf of CCP for things you're not familiar with. This might be a case of improper impersonation. :)

The situation described was never illegal, unless the person named their character in such a way to pose as an alt. For instance, real alts name is leo (lowercase L) and the faker named a character as Ieo (uppercase i). This was covered in the NAMING POLICY and was bannable.

The act of just stating that you're an alt of someone (with no naming violations) was not against the TOS previously.

Previously, if I wanted to fly around (as Poetic) and claim that I was an Ali Aras alt, and scam ISK out of people for some purpose (perhaps campaign finances), I could do so freely. Now, according to the TOS, I will be banned for doing so.

The TOS changes are there to protect really stupid people, apparently. People incapable of doing a Google search, or sending an EVEmail to Ali Aras to confirm.

didn't that whole alt thing originate from some guy awoxing freighters with a vindicator after he applied to the freighter pilot's corp claiming to be the freighter pilot's alt? which was, until that spree, completely legit?

Apparently you've become the new Hans Jagerblitzen ... apologizing on behalf of CCP for things you're not familiar with. This might be a case of improper impersonation. :)

So some idiot was dumb enough to let someone into his corp that claimed to be an alt of one of his members without taking the very minimal precaution of checking this postulated fact, then took the time and trouble to petition his own stupidity and somehow got a positive result from the GMs, thus reinforcing his know nothing not my responsibilty attitude, and somehow setting a precedent on the matter

Look lets all be clear on one point, because it's perhaps possible some people don't know what precipitated this change.

CCP recently banned multiple people for pretending to be someone they were not. They did not make similar looking names, they did not make a corp that looked similar enough, or avatars designed to look the same. They just said "Hey, look we are all that guy".

Under the old wording of the rules, that was **not** against the rules.
Under the new wording of the rules, that was **definitely** against the rules.

Yet CCP are trying to sell this change as something they have totally always done and no change is happening honest, despite the fact the change has literally been made so that the rules can be applied, as written, in the above scenario where they couldn't before.

CCP, it might be helpful (customer relations 101 ITT) if you didn't communicate with your playerbase by citing easily demonstrable lies as justification for a change. Wait, no, it's not a change. It's the same but it's not the same. I can't keep up.

I'm not even against those guys getting banned, I'm just violently against you lying and saying you're not changing the wording so it will apply in more situations, when that is exactly why you've done it.

I am waiting for DUST to die already so at least they are only paying attention to 2 games, not three.

So some idiot was dumb enough to let someone into his corp that claimed to be an alt of one of his members without taking the very minimal precaution of checking this postulated fact, then took the time and trouble to petition his own stupidity and somehow got a positive result from the GMs, thus reinforcing his know nothing not my responsibilty attitude, and somehow setting a precedent on the matter

Hello everyone, my name is Carmaine of The Awesome Corp and I would like to announce to everyone in this thread that I have started the EVE PlayerGäó group as well as the carebearGäó, pirateGäó and pvperGäó groups!

"It's my understanding that..." isn't "apologizing" or "defending" CCP. I'd say stop being an idiot, but you're incapable of it.

Care to make a more meaningful contribution after the GMs response than "Poetic, you're wrong"?

IF that's the only indication of a preset "yes you can" or "no you can't", can we get a link or a citation as to what happened? (I want to discern details out of what can normally happen in Eve everyday versus getting banned =/)

"You may not create a character for the purpose of stealing the name and likeness of another player, or non-player entity. Inaccurate claims of identity are otherwise permitted."

Wouldn't that work a little better, and provide a clearer guideline for what is and isn't allowed?

You appear to be confusing the CSM with CCP employees. Even if they wanted to make a more meaningful contribution, it isn't up to them what the rules are. CCP needs to step in and actually clarify things.

The situation described was never illegal, unless the person named their character in such a way to pose as an alt. For instance, real alts name is leo (lowercase L) and the faker named a character as Ieo (uppercase i). This was covered in the NAMING POLICY and was bannable.

The act of just stating that you're an alt of someone (with no naming violations) was not against the TOS previously.

Totally agree. But I would much rather he'd said "I'm pursuing this" than "hurf blurf, poetic you be butt hurt" (although Poe is wrong)

False. Here's the news item, and here's a TMC article containing a convo in which a serial awoxer gets warned for pretending to be people's alts. He's not changing his name, just putting "Ali Aras's alt" in the application text and stupid people clicked "invite to corp".

N.B, nowhere in this post in the previous have I shared any opinion on the policy itself. I'm just making sure everyone's working from the actual facts here.

"You may not create a character for the purpose of stealing the name and likeness of another player, or non-player entity. Inaccurate claims of identity are otherwise permitted."

Wouldn't that work a little better, and provide a clearer guideline for what is and isn't allowed?

"I'm pursuing this."

Here's the news item...

That would be a good wording of the old rule. Unfortunately, the new rule (which we're meant to pretend is the old rule) wouldn't be covered within that. Specifically, in some cases inaccurate claims of identity are now bannable.

Well now everything makes sense. That article is dated 10-06-2013, so it's from the future. We'll just have to wait until October to find out what happens!

YK

DD.MM.YYYY format. Same as all the other articles there. That is from June 10th.

also mister GM guy your posts are garbage you should stop posting bro

Sorry bout that. Just trying to bring some levity to the drama. I was under the impression this rule change was implemented this week and read the link with that in mind. My bad.

YK

Come to think of it that change is just as bad. It covers any entity named by players. Ships are entities named by players.

If I'm sitting on a wormhole and someone jumps through, I rename my ship to match theirs and jump into their hole. That's not being clever trying to stay under the radar of his bro's on the other side if they catch me on dscan... that's impersonation and subject to account action?

Greetings pilots,


We would like to address your concerns regarding the update to article 8 of our TOS that was published yesterday. Some basic information on how we deal with issues that come up regarding impersonation is therefore appropriate.

All cases are investigated individually on a case by case basis. If there are complications or difficulties in reaching a solution cases are moved to senior game masters, which happens a lot with the impersonation issues that are reported to us. There are no magic catch-all rules and policies to cover every eventuality so they must interpret the rules we have in place and apply them to the issue at hand in order to keep the peace. For all practical purposes there has been no change in how impersonation issues will be handled compared to the last few years. The TOS update reflects the way reported cases of impersonation have been handled by Customer Support for a long time. The rules applied have been buried in our naming policy and EULA but have now been placed in plain view in order to better help players to make decisions on how they interact with one another.

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.

One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.


Thank you and fly safe.

Greetings pilots, ...

Not to be a complete wang, but wouldn't the new terms of service mean the NCdot is in the running for GM loving? I mean, they made the alliance name explicitly the same as the Northern Coalition many moons ago. While we're on this track, wouldn't Mittens and the current Goonswarm alliance be in the same boat, since they named a new alliance (many moons ago) a near identical name to their former alliance after the whole Delve paying the rent thing?

The list could go on for pages really. Misrepresenting yourself in Eve is a huge part of what makes Eve... Eve.

Maybe it is just me, but I feel like everyone is nit-picking this change.

Maybe it is just me, but I feel like everyone is nit-picking this change.

Scenario : All the asshats, scammers, gankers, awoxers and other nefarious people that currently drive the market and generate all the decent content leave, as a result of attempts to mass market Eve. CCP is then left with a game with questionable physics and mediocre PvE content.

Despite the assurances of GM Grimmi, the new ToS puts some, up until yesterday, acceptable shenanigans into a limbo where the fate of those indulging in them is at the mercy of an interpretation of something that is as clear as mud by someone who may or may not, be in a good mood, had enough coffee, hungover, have gotten some the night before.

Maybe it is just me, but I feel like everyone is nit-picking this change. If CCP ever had a problem with all this stuff that has been going on for so long I'm sure that they would have excplicitly said that this is not allowed. (I.E. pretending to be a recruiter or lying about your affiliations) It seems like the sort of impersonation that they can reasonably be caring about is the sort of scamming you see potentially happen with character sales. When people make slight changes to a character name so that in almost every way they appear to be this specific purpose. Then they profit off essentially identity theft. Past all that stuff, they did state that they handle everything in a case by case basis, so if you really think that whatever "impersonation" you were potentially taking part in is not exploitative, then you can make your case to them. Most mmo's with a subscriber system dont hand out perma bans left an right anyways, worst case scenario you get a temp suspend and a slap on the wrists unless you have a previous history of exploiting/cheating in the game anyways. But hey that is just my two cents, give CCP a break, i doubt that they were trying to make drastic gameplay changes, because if they did this would have been way more public.

Scams

A scam is what happens when someone takes advantage of your misplaced trust, temporary confusion or ignorance of game rules, and robs you via legal in-game means. When this occurs, there is nothing the Support Team can do for you. Although low and despicable, scams do not violate any game mechanics and can not be compensated for by the GMs, nor can the scammers generally be punished for their actions.


.
.
.
.
.
Tips

DON'T TRUST ANYONE. It's a tough galaxy out there, and anyone could betray you.

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.

You are obviously lying and should thus, be banned. Petitioned.

Blizzard has been extremely successful with these baby steps in WoW. "At this point in time we have no plans to..."

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

Blizzard has been extremely successful with these baby steps in WoW. "At this point in time we have no plans to..."

CCP reserves the right to close, temporarily or permanently, any userGÇÖs account without advance notice as we deem necessary. Furthermore, we reserve the right to delete all user accounts or inventory of characters as warranted.

We reserve the right to ban any user from the game without refund or compensation.

For all the weasel words we're left with a rule that by the plain meaning of the words bans most nefarious acts in Eve. Well except for isk doublers in Jita, thank god they were spared.

Why make a new post to say exactly the same thing as the last GM post and not even try to address the concerns raised? Just say "htfu" and be done with it.

You mean like how one year they make an april fools joke out of how ******** the idea of gear score is http://www.wowwiki.com/Equipment_Potency_EquivalencE_Number

Then proceed to not only include it in game as an attribute on the character sheet, but actually use it as a content entry restriction feature.

I can see why they decline - Trying to get specific absent real-world cases means they expose themselves to endless nit-picking and lawyering.

Which you KNOW we'd do.
Which I'd still like to have a chance to take a crack at - if only to define the edges of what's permissible or not.

Tera Online does this.

Equipment Level or something

Why make a new post to say exactly the same thing as the last GM post and not even try to address the concerns raised? Just say "htfu" and be done with it.

For all the weasel words we're left with a rule that by the plain meaning of the words bans most nefarious acts in Eve. Well except for isk doublers in Jita, thank god they were spared.

Yeah I gotta say I'm really not impressed with this response. There was no real follow-through here: a boilerplate statement, and then a statement that "well we can't answer any questions".

I'm pretty much left with the impression this was solely a delaying tactic and GM Grimmi is neither reading nor responding to any of the concerns.

I liked E-PEEN better

Do you guys not realize what you have? You have a real point of difference from other MMO's and it looks like your trying to throw that away. I once talked someone to coming to a gate to help me out, I lied and cheated this guy into getting into a position that we could kill his ship. It was great, afterwards we all had a good laugh at it including the guy that was ganked (yes seriously) he called me a mupper - fair point too. These days apparently he could petition my actions and possibly get me banned.

Fantastic.

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.

"Clarification" removed for brevity.

DON'T TRUST ANYONE. It's a tough galaxy out there, and anyone could betray you.

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.

Until now. Now the GMs will do all the hard-work of investigation for you.

Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

Greetings pilots,


One concern is that we have pretty much banned all scams in EVE. Clearly, this is not the case.

Honestly it is not clear at all. To suggest otherwise is to be willfully ignorant of player concerns. The new TOS can be interpreted so widely that players are rightfully confused and frustrated. The tools exist in game and out (API key) to check the validity of someones claim to represent a particular group or person. It seems a shame you don't trust the tools you provide. Fix the tools, don't throw a wide reaching amendment into the TOS.

Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.