4) Claiming to be part of a Corp / Alliance / group that you are not is OK, again easy to verify


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.

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.

The people who do not understand this, and want to harass out of game for ingame retribution is where rules such as these get so convoluted since people simply cannot maintain the necessary duality that gamers need to have (tl;dr don't break your keyboard or try to be a douche because your pixels got blown up).

The UI window below works two-fold. Both as a warning to players and as an education into the harsh realities of EVE Online. The window also ensures that new players are educated on the harsh realities of EVE Online early. To ensure that players receive said education, the UI window would appear before the completion of all contract, send money and trade transactions. The window would function in completing or cancelling those transactions. The window would appear a minimum of 10 times (thus the counter in the lower left corner) before it could be disabled via the option menu. All players are forced to see this window at least ten times during their EVE subscriptions, thus no player can claim that they were unaware of fraud, extortion and racketeering among players.

(THE UI WINDOW IMAGE)

Thoughts? The text can obviously be altered and extended as necessary.


from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/09/is-it-ccps-job-to-protect-players-from.html

First of all, I've no problem with game mechanics that help protect players to some degree, such as Crimewatch and CONCORD and security status. Game mechanics are objective criteria and rules. They apply equally to all players, without prejudice. I'm also in favour of educating players about EVE and its many dangers.

My problem lies with subjective rules, such as those in the EVE Online Naming Policy and the Terms of Service. Subjective rules will always be applied unevenly, even given the good intentions of CCP Games. I think where possible, CCP should strive to eliminate subjective rules and replace with either objective game mechanics or work to further educate players.

Two simple things CCP can do. First, fix the font. Especially so that a lowercase "L" does not look like an uppercase "i".

Second, a UI window that educates. Below I include an example of a very simply UI window that would allow CCP to eliminate all rules concerning impersonation and representation of other players from the Naming Policy and the Terms of Service documents. The only rules remaining would pertain to impersonation or misrepresentation of CCP employees and representatives. Otherwise, everything else is fair game and it is up to the players to protect themselves and to protect their own reputations.

(Rules concerning the alteration of EVElopedia and other CCP web properties are another matter altogether. I've no problem with those being off-limits where impersonation and representation are concerned.)

The UI window below works two-fold. Both as a warning to players and as an education into the harsh realities of EVE Online. The window also ensures that new players are educated on the realities of EVE early. To ensure that players receive said education, the UI window would appear before the completion of all contract, send money and trade transactions. The window would function in completing or cancelling those transactions. The window would appear a minimum of 10 times (thus the counter in the lower left corner) before it could be disabled via the option menu. All players are forced to see this window at least ten times during their EVE subscriptions, thus no player can claim that they were unaware of fraud, extortion and racketeering among players.

(THE UI WINDOW IMAGE)

Thoughts? The text can obviously be altered and extended as necessary. And I wrote it fairly quickly, so there are some silly grammar errors in there. And yes, I used an old EVE font for the mock-up, which is a problem font. I simply used it for aesthetics.


from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/09/is-it-ccps-job-to-protect-players-from.html

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?

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

It is so nice to see that all of the GMs are on the same page on this issue, and are clearly communicating each other so that they all understand and interpret the policies in the same way, and that no posts from GM representatives have ever been in direct contradiction with each other.

It is also very reassuring to know that the GMs are most likely applying rules and discipline in the same equal and uniform manner that they have demonstrated in their understanding of the impersonation policy.

/sarcasm

People need to keep this thread alive and kicking. While the lack of responses and action from is frustrating, the player base cannot allow that frustration to turn into defeat. The only solutions is to fully revert the changes made to the TOS. Till that happens everyone needs to keep driving the rage forward.

The latest Wicked Princess/Black Legion titan kill (where an alt spy turned off a POS protecting a titan) is precisely the kind of action that could now be petitioned and perhaps reversed under these new rules, given the results of the GM escalation lottery.

The latest Wicked Princess/Black Legion titan kill (where an alt spy turned off a POS protecting a titan) is precisely the kind of action that could now be petitioned and perhaps reversed under these new rules, given the results of the GM escalation lottery.

(Citation needed).

I'm with you guys about keeping impersonation scams alive, but I don't see any evidence that there was any kind of impersonation going on in this situation.

b. In-game names may not:

* Impersonate or parody an NPC type from the EVE game world (i.e. CONCORD or other official NPC corporation or organization members) for the purpose of misleading other players.

* In-game names include, but are not limited to: Character names, corporation names, alliance names and any other player-nameable item or entity within the game world.