Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1178
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 16:29:00 -
[331] - Quote
I don't think it's a good post at all because it indicates to me that they're still trying unsuccessfully to navigate this morass that these rules inevitably lead to. Fix your font and make it clear that people should read everything carefully because CCP does not police transactions that occur within the game.
There is no way to "clarify" yourselves out of this mess that you got yourselves into. I understand that there's an institutional and cultural tendency within enforcement communities to make rules upon rules, but the only solution here is to accept this class of rules as unenforceable, not waste more time, effort, and customer patience stumbling around constant clarifications of clarifications. Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
11
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 16:34:00 -
[332] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:Hello everyone,
I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all.
You cannot impersonate yourself.
Telling others that youGÇÖre an alt of a character you own or telling them what other characters you own is not a EULA/TOS violation and will not get you banned.
GM Karidor repeatedly said the exact opposite of that, so which one of you are we supposed to believe exactly? And how are we supposed to trust that this new ToS will be used in the way you say when not even CCP can get their stories straight on what it means or whether or not it changes anything? |
Azami Nevinyrall
Carbon Circle Tactical Narcotics Team
1266
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 16:35:00 -
[333] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:Hello everyone,
I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all.
You cannot impersonate yourself.
Telling others that youGÇÖre an alt of a character you own or telling them what other characters you own is not a EULA/TOS violation and will not get you banned.
With the possible exception of using your own alt to mimic your character using spelling trickery in order to trick people into accepting duels with a high skill monster when they thought they were going to duel with puny noob or something like that, and possibly some extreme weird and outlandish edge case we havenGÇÖt thought of yet GÇô you cannot impersonate yourself. The example above would not even be self-impersonation as much as it would just be a simple spelling trickery type of deal where it doesnGÇÖt really matter who owns the characters in question.
Impersonating yourself does not follow good logic since you are yourself and that is not a violation of any policies we have.
Thanks for reading.
Lead GM Grimmi
Can I use this so I can get an alt of mine a name change?
The alt has 1 letter difference then this one.
Or should I petition myself for impersonating myself in order to get a name change? I'm currently taking bets on the following: - CCP Games becomes EA Games' property. - EVE Online will have Microtranctions everywhere. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4751
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 17:53:00 -
[334] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote: Or should I petition myself for impersonating myself in order to get a name change?
you can also use what I am given to understand is a time-honored tradition of making up some racial slur your name references, adding it to urbandictionary or the like, then getting a friend to petition it as racially offensive |
Azami Nevinyrall
Carbon Circle Tactical Narcotics Team
1266
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 17:57:00 -
[335] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote: Or should I petition myself for impersonating myself in order to get a name change?
you can also use what I am given to understand is a time-honored tradition of making up some racial slur your name references, adding it to urbandictionary or the like, then getting a friend to petition it as racially offensive That's my final option... I'm currently taking bets on the following: - CCP Games becomes EA Games' property. - EVE Online will have Microtranctions everywhere. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2164
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:04:00 -
[336] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:Hello everyone,
I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all.
You cannot impersonate yourself.
I'm citing this as prime example of why whatever wording you end up with, it needs to be clear unto itself and not broad, over-reaching, or open to GM interpretation (which must be kept confidential).
Why? Because one of your Senior GMs told everyone the exact opposite of exactly what you're saying here. If your senior GMs need to be corrected in public (and lets not pretend this is anything but that) then god knows what imagined rules junior GMs are applying.
Telling us the rules are OK because "you can trust us to be consistent" whilst being wildly inconsistent just doesn't fly. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2165
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:07:00 -
[337] - Quote
If I wasn't clear enough - 'the misunderstanding' (passive tense FTW right?) was on part of the GM team, not the playerbase. We already knew this was silly. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe WAFFLES.
4194
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:36:00 -
[338] - Quote
I'm starting to consider a possibility:
What if none of the GMs actually speak English, and are using Google Translate to fake it?
That might explain their fantastical usage of the words "clarification" and "misunderstanding." "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Doris Dents
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
242
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:56:00 -
[339] - Quote
I hope CCP doesn't consider this settled. |
Apollo Eros
Daktaklakpak.
25
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 21:07:00 -
[340] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:Hello everyone,
I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all.
You cannot impersonate yourself.
Telling others that youGÇÖre an alt of a character you own or telling them what other characters you own is not a EULA/TOS violation and will not get you banned.
With the possible exception of using your own alt to mimic your character using spelling trickery in order to trick people into accepting duels with a high skill monster when they thought they were going to duel with puny noob or something like that, and possibly some extreme weird and outlandish edge case we havenGÇÖt thought of yet GÇô you cannot impersonate yourself. The example above would not even be self-impersonation as much as it would just be a simple spelling trickery type of deal where it doesnGÇÖt really matter who owns the characters in question.
Impersonating yourself does not follow good logic since you are yourself and that is not a violation of any policies we have.
Thanks for reading.
Lead GM Grimmi
Honestly this has gotten out of control and a bit ridiculous.
Grimmi. You base your hypothetical case off the fact that a name is changed to get a noob to dual you. Why does any of this matter? They die once and hopefully they will learn their lesson. Your methodology makes no sense what you are doing is encouraging petition and petition over losses. I thought this game was about actions and consequences.
All you are doing by throwing these hypothetical situations out there is stirring the pot. Adding fuel to the fire or whatever terms you use up in the land of ice.
This game is a sandbox. Where the "Meta" Plays into the every day shaping of the universe. The way you are wording erhm. excuse me not changing but vaguely clarifying TOS rules seems like a knee jerk reaction.
When I started playing this game it was because of the stories. I was told hey do not RMT and if people fall for things they will learn.
Oh and by the way I am pretty sure that with the route you would like to go most of the things you praise and promote your game over
https://truestories.eveonline.com/truestories/index.html
Would not be possible? Am I correct?
Impersonating a employee of CCP or volunteer I understand. However the other side of me believes that if someone actually falls for that they probably deserved it.
If you restrict the current meta. You would have the equivalent of GTA and that is a lonely person simulator. The interactions to allies and enemies you make. The espionage and most importantly the exploding of space ships is what we all love. That is why you have gotten a 80 page thread naught. That is why we are contributing and telling you how we feel here. Because people care and are passionate about this universe. I have a feeling some of you are taking this as whining etc. But we want you to hear us out. Objectively.
[Daktak Recruiter] We want you harder. Join "We're Bad"-á [LVL 5 Space Wizard] |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
923
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 00:32:00 -
[341] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:Hello everyone,
I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all.
You cannot impersonate yourself.
Telling others that youGÇÖre an alt of a character you own or telling them what other characters you own is not a EULA/TOS violation and will not get you banned.
With the possible exception of using your own alt to mimic your character using spelling trickery in order to trick people into accepting duels with a high skill monster when they thought they were going to duel with puny noob or something like that, and possibly some extreme weird and outlandish edge case we havenGÇÖt thought of yet GÇô you cannot impersonate yourself. The example above would not even be self-impersonation as much as it would just be a simple spelling trickery type of deal where it doesnGÇÖt really matter who owns the characters in question.
Impersonating yourself does not follow good logic since you are yourself and that is not a violation of any policies we have.
Thanks for reading.
Lead GM Grimmi
Glad to hear it. Unfortunately, this raises some ugly questions.
Did you guys just change your minds, or was GM Karidor just spouting off when he said completely unequivocally that you CAN impersonate yourself?
Is he insane? Was he shooting from the hip? Was he trying to "legislate from the bench"?
Or perhaps is this just throwing us a bone to distract us?
Because, while certainly welcome, this is not a change to the ToS. This is simply yet another "clarification", with only the weight of your word behind it. Which, as we can see, your word can simply be overturned in a week's time.
Then there is the matter that Self Impersonation-gate (yep, it's a gate now) was merely the most obviously, hilariously asinine of the problems created by the new wording.
So, I'll close by saying that I certainly hope this is not intended to be another "final word" on the matter... Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Echo Echoplex
88
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 00:50:00 -
[342] - Quote
Am I the only one who's feeling like she's/he's playing Bizarro World Online at this point? Maybe it's because I haven't been here long?
You may as well be saying I can't eat oatmeal in orange pants because the acorn in Miami.
Stating here and now that I don't have a damned clue WHAT'S allowed and what isn't, even though I'm reasonably literate and have earnestly read all 99 pages in both threads of this revision, which has left little time to play the game.
I'll bookmark and screencap this mess and pass it along if/when needed and hope for the best. Sorry, I rarely have an attitude and I respect people's positions but this is just Crazytown. Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton |
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1514
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 02:05:00 -
[343] - Quote
Something has just happened here:
1) We were told that a broad category of scamming was banned. A shitstorm began forming
2) A GM said something patently insane. The shitstorm picked up speed.
3) CCP began closing all threads, hoping to squash discussion this perfectly legitimate problem the players had. This lead to yet more threads and a larger uproar.
4) One thread was allowed to remain on a subject and it was locked in a far cupboard where no one would see it.
5) The patently insane thing was overruled.
6) CCP will now consider this finished and congratulate themselves on having gotten away with banning a broad category of scamming. Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity |
Echo Echoplex
88
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 02:28:00 -
[344] - Quote
GM Grimmi wrote:Hello everyone, I just want to clear up one little misunderstanding here once and for all. You cannot impersonate yourself.
Telling others that youGÇÖre an alt of a character you own or telling them what other characters you own is not a EULA/TOS violation and will not get you banned. With the possible exception of using your own alt to mimic your character using spelling trickery in order to trick people into accepting duels with a high skill monster when they thought they were going to duel with puny noob or something like that, and possibly some extreme weird and outlandish edge case we havenGÇÖt thought of yet GÇô you cannot impersonate yourself. The example above would not even be self-impersonation as much as it would just be a simple spelling trickery type of deal where it doesnGÇÖt really matter who owns the characters in question. Impersonating yourself does not follow good logic since you are yourself and that is not a violation of any policies we have.
Thanks for reading. Lead GM Grimmi You are right, in that it does not follow good logic. In point of fact, and with all due respect, it is impossible. One cannot impersonate oneself, ever, period. It cannot be done. It's an oxymoron. Yet again, someone is telling us within a single post that we can, and cannot, be banned/impersonate ourselves.
I'm understanding that CCP have painted themselves into a messy corner with wording of terms, but until people stop saying we aren't allowed to impersonate ourselves and start coming up with terminology that doesn't defy law as well as every dictionary in the known universe you're going to end up where we started, with a EULA ruling that makes no sense and would be unenforceable anywhere else.
Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets. Gen. George S. Patton |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
167
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 07:53:00 -
[345] - Quote
To be honest I think that's almost deliberately misunderstanding what Grimmi wrote. The word "cannot" has 2 possible meanings here: (1) are not allowed to (2) are not able to. I think it's pretty obvious from context that the second meaning was used here. |
Madlof Chev
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
254
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 10:58:00 -
[346] - Quote
The "impersonating yourself" thing was an extreme to paint a picture of just how widely the ToS can be interpreted. I don't think anyone is under any real illusion that you're capable of impersonating yourself - but evidently the ToS can be interpreted that way because GM Karidor did exactly that.
The whole point of the "impersonating yourself" thing was to prove that the ToS changes are awfully written and far too wide in scope, I thought this was self-evident. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
76
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 11:50:00 -
[347] - Quote
Every general norm like the ToS rules has to be interpreted on a case by case basis.
In real life after a few hundred years most democratic constitutional states got these interpretation procedures written down.
So the general public knows what to expect, and these interpretation procedures are not like written law (like the ToS in eve).
These interpretation procedures are called Custom in law, which are the established pattern of behavior that can be objectively verified within a particular social setting (in our case: within the New Eden Universe)
As a small part of the eve general public I want to know the GM's interpretation procedures,
to further my consumer rights towards CCP games.
Since a CCP banning is a high decree act, we as their customers should have high decree of transparency.
PS: at the minimum give the CSM these GM interpretation procedures concerning the ToS since they have signed the NDA Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
SquirlRuler Cadelanne
Guilliman Initiative
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 12:48:00 -
[348] - Quote
Posting in stealth CCP pacification thread. "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." |
Murk Paradox
Duty. The Cursed Few
523
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 13:49:00 -
[349] - Quote
digi wrote:I'm schizophrenic and so am I.
No we are not! 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. |
Murk Paradox
Duty. The Cursed Few
523
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 14:00:00 -
[350] - Quote
So we can say It is against the TOS to impersonate yourself out of all the other
"it is against the tos to impersonate the Amarr or any other RP'able entity" "impersonate an alt or player who is not you" "pretend the meta game matters" "live in anonymity" "it's ok to scam, as long as you don't meta" "It's not ok to live in obscurity"
Interesting.
So now, the only way to CHECK if someone is an "alt" (I HATE that misnomer) is to petition it, which if found to be "okay" the petitioner can be banned, and if found to be "not okay" then the imposter can be banned.
In a game built on lies and subterfuge?
Really? 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. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
1918
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 19:46:00 -
[351] - Quote
I saw it suggested earlier in the thread that someone wanted a third party alt confirmation service.
While I suspect the utility and adoption would actually be low, let me know at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3638740 Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Beness
Vojtech Fekete
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 20:18:00 -
[352] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/terms-of-service-history-and-clarification/
Obvious scope creep is obvious:
2003/2004 "No player may use the player name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity." Kinda vague, but limited specifically to "player" name. Corporation and so forth are not explicitly covered.
2004 "No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity." Clarification to be exclusively character name. Note that this language still retains the "of another player" text.
2008 "impersonating another player, be it by creating a character with a similar character name as someone else or simply claiming you are the alt of someone is not allowed." This is not in the actual TOS, but in the forums. The example given of "I'm your CEOs alt" is even broader, because technically "your CEO" is not a character name, but a role.
2013 "No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities."
The term "impersonate" has been dropped, and the scope has been extended to cover corporations and alliances.
I'm skipping the section from the post about Naming Policy, because that governs what names you can assign to a character, corporation, or alliance, and not what names you can drop in chat or eve-mail.
The original language technically allowed the use of corporation and alliance names in chat - this only changed in 2013, at least in the TOS. The original language technically only protected the character name, although was interpreted (by 2008) to also protect roles.
What's really needed is a handy chart of all the claims that can be made, and details of which ones are forbidden. Like:
- I claim to be myself.
- I claim to be an alt of another character on this account.
- I claim to be an alt of a character on another account I control.
- I claim to be an alt of a character on another account that I do not control.
- I claim to have a corporate role that I have on this character.
- I claim to have a corporate role that I have on another character (this account or another).
- I claim to have a corporate role that I do not have for a corporation that I am in.
- I claim to have a corporate role that I do not have for a corporation that I am not in.
- etc.
Does it matter who the claim is made to? |
Gevlin
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 20:19:00 -
[353] - Quote
I think I should be able to: say I am an alt of another even though I am not Say I be long to a coalition I don't
Just the Tos seems to say I can't
I do agree that Names meant to confuse others should be banned,
I wish there was a scammers guide to eve telling me what I can and cannot do, including samples
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Sid Hudgens
Totally not an NPC Corp
162
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 20:51:00 -
[354] - Quote
They are walking back the statement about alts because none of you can seem to wrap your brain around it. It's an edge-case and is not worth the hysterics we have all had to endure from those of you who can't follow simply logic. It has become apparent that it would be easier to teach a lobster to sing than to explain it to most of you so it's easier to just throw out that edge case and decide that you can't "impersonate yourself."
"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced." |
Safdrof Uta
VELOCIRAPTORS EATING GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH
23
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 21:26:00 -
[355] - Quote
I find this entire thread hilarious. Shows how many of you actually read the various documents contained in the eula and other such rules that you claim to have read when you press that "accept terms and conditions" button.
Scamming via impersonation has always been an offense. And now we have an 18+ page forum thread because they added that into the tos as well (albeit not the same words) and you're all claiming that you're gonna get banned for doing stuff that was going to get yourself banned before it was added. My goodness of you all spent as much time and effort playing the game and not circle jerking on the forums it wouldn't be an issue.
Go undock a ship would you? |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
19
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 21:31:00 -
[356] - Quote
So after reading the newest Dev Blog "Terms of Service History and Clarification", I did a bit of digging to highlight one thing mentioned:
Quote:These changes did not elicit any concern from players at the time. As such we did not expect the ToS update to do so either, since it was simply made to get all the above bits and pieces of policy regarding impersonation into one place where everyone could see it.
- Here is the original News Post on the TOS change from June 10, 2013 entitled "Changes to the EVE Naming Policy". Because this was a News Article and not a Dev Blog, there is no link to a centralized forum thread for the players to discuss the changes.
- Here is one such player created thread from June 11, 2013.
- Here is another thread from the Russian forums.
The player created threads mostly discuss semantics around impersonation of "player-nameable item" such as renaming ships to other character's names being in violation of the new EVE Online Naming Policy changes.
The implications of the section C change (c. No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity. Player created corporation and alliance names also fall under this policy, as do names of any other in-game entities.) don't appear to be discussed. These threads were both closed and locked indefinitely, although I can't tell when (it is probably just from age). There was no Dev or GM clarification on either of these threads, but to say the change did not elicit any concern from players seems inaccurate.
Personally, I feel that this was a stealth change, and because there was no huge outcry 3 months ago does not mean that the change was accepted by the community as a whole. The updated article seems to use the fact that it wasn't well understood or discussed as cover. I do appreciate later that this was admitted:
Quote:Many (including both scammers and their victims) did not realize that it was also against the policy to falsely state your identity by using another PlayerGÇÖs, CorporationGÇÖs, AllianceGÇÖs, or other in game entityGÇÖs name. This could clearly have been made, well, more clear.
My concern is around the Section C change, and the September 9th TOS Update which states:
You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
I feel this recent change should be rolled back, as it goes too far into restricting scams in EVE which I believe are valid means of social engineering without resorting to exploiting in-game mechanics. You can argue about which in-game mechanics should be exploitable and which shouldn't, but for my concerns, I want to be clear on one point:
I agree with the clarification that players should not be able to directly impersonate another player by means of fonts, or in-game character names which are similar in spelling to another player.
I don't agree with the wider change which does not allow you to falsely state your identify by using another Player's, CorporationGÇÖs, AllianceGÇÖs, or other in game entityGÇÖs name.
For example, if I want to present my character [with no affiliation to a renter alliance] as an administrator of another Alliance's rental program, and convince them to send me ISK to rent a solar system, this should be allowed. There have been some cases where it was stated you can't verify this, but I don't believe that to be true. They can verify who I am based on my character's non-editable information (Alliance, Corporation, Employment History). They can go directly to the Alliance Information page, and see who the valid contact members are for inquiring about rentals.
|
Gecko Runner Hareka
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 22:09:00 -
[357] - Quote
Beness wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/terms-of-service-history-and-clarification/What's really needed is a handy chart of all the claims that can be made, and details of which ones are forbidden. Like:
- I claim to be myself.
- I claim to be an alt of another character on this account.
- I claim to be an alt of a character on another account I control.
- I claim to be an alt of a character on another account that I do not control.
- I claim to have a corporate role that I have on this character.
- I claim to have a corporate role that I have on another character (this account or another).
- I claim to have a corporate role that I do not have for a corporation that I am in.
- I claim to have a corporate role that I do not have for a corporation that I am not in.
- etc.
Does it matter who the claim is made to?
I think those are important points.
It should just be crystal clear what a spy should or should not be allowed to do during his mission :P
And again, although those "rules" seemed to be in force for a long time, they just did not have been used... Otherwise most of the "classics" of eve subterfuge would not have been possible. And instead of all the great press for EVE and the following new player influx after those "true stories" there would just have been a lot of perma-bans for all the usual suspects...
The problem arised because the actual player actions differed from the rules for so long that on might argue it established "customary law" :P I mean, most of the true stories could be petitioned in a heartbeat but were instead featured in the wall street journal and whatnot.
That is why I am looking forward to what the CSM and CCP can cook up after (hopefully) reading some of the ideas here.... |
BitRusher
RecordNotFound900000000000000000000000000000000000
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 23:03:00 -
[358] - Quote
I think after you join a corp you should be fair game for someone to impersonate you for means of espionage and playing the meta game. There are two ways spying is portrayed in movies, the boring invisible guy who is embedded, and the guy who quickly gets access with fake credentials to cause a lot of damage before being found out. If your going to let people build empires you should let people pretend their Bond or Archer. Instead of letting GMs or Legal ruin basic concepts, Devs should acknowledge that this is game play. |
Ammzi
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1475
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 23:24:00 -
[359] - Quote
Not being allowed to convince someone that I am an alt of their ceo/a third party/what not by misusing character names is totally understandable. Not being allowed to impersonate other groups/entities based solely on your social skills and scamming capabilities is ******* bullshit and caters to the WoW Hello Kitty generation and CCP should be ashamed as the emperor in "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Literally gonna unsub a few accounts if it's not reversed, backward policy or not backward policy. Not being able to cleverly spin lies in the face of others without facing repercussions is absolutely appalling.
I sincerely hope this is changed, if not, I hope it ends up with another dozens of employees fired due to CCP's absolute desynchronization with their player base....
AGAIN.
and we'll be thrown a few sincerely apologetic letters and this whole ruse can start all over again. quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
124
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 23:40:00 -
[360] - Quote
I have taken the time to read this thread in its entirety.
The key points I have seen are this:
1) Impersonation / goofy name to represent CCP / ISD / CONCORD / ETC is bad and wrong
2) Goofy name to represent other players / Corps / Allies / etc is bad
3) Claiming to be someone you are not is OK because it is easy to verify
4) Claiming to be part of a Corp / Alliance / group that you are not is OK, again easy to verify
5) Scamming is an integral part of EvE and attracts players
Specifically I want to talk about point 4 I lost a ship to the new order. I did not petition its return or quit the game. However most of the feedback I revived when I asked what I could do to ACTIVELY combat ganks was to simply war-dec them. Well, there are a large amount of players with Bios that claim they are part of the new order while staying in a NPC corp to dodge war-decs.
Unless there is an in-game method to list off ALL of the new order 'knights' that I can check then there is no way to verify who they really are.
Does this mean I can petition CCP for the return of my ship / cargo as well as ban the ganker because he falsely represented the new order and caused m losses?
Sadly this is not an edge case either, many of the gankers I tracked were members of NPC corporations while claiming to represent James315 and his goals.
Point 5 also raises a question for me. EvE has a tutorial system in place, but this does NOT mention alts, scams or how to check a basic API. If all these things are central to EvE then include them in the training missions. Give the new players the tools to protect themselves from scams.
As mentioned previously in this thread, most new players that play for a few months then lose it all, they will be jaded and may quit. Given that they are going to be told "scamming is OK" and "It's part of EvE" they likely will not even file a petition. Hence no GM involvement and no rants on the forums. I would be willing to guess this is what CCP's investigation showed when looking at why players left. Massive loss of isk to 3rd party, many angry chat logs / mails then log-off and un-sub.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |