Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Dolan
C C P C C P Alliance
577
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 19:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
In light of player concerns with recent changes to the Terms of Service (ToS) we wanted to take an opportunity to discuss the history of the Terms of Service and clarify both how the ToS is currently interpreted and how we intend to move forward into the future. The Dev Blog can be found here. Please feel free to leave an feedback or comments.
For constructive input on the recent changes to the ToS, the official CSM thread can be found here. CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1852
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 19:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Going to go ahead and say, "told you so."
With that out of the way, the CSM is continuing to gather feedback, and we consider pushing for action based on that feedback to be one of our top priorities. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4230
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 19:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Going to go ahead and say, "told you so."
With that out of the way, the CSM is continuing to gather feedback, and we consider pushing for action based on that feedback to be one of our top priorities. This is a thread about the ToS agreement, not the drone assist mechanic. . |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 19:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
It has already been made abundantly clear that the past enforcement of the ToS is very different from what people believed the rules have been. There is a separate underlying problem here in that it appears actual rules are kept secret until petitioned(and rulings cannot be republished).
This particular issue has been 'clarified' to death, more clarity is not needed. What is needed is for the previously secret rules to be changed as they are the antithesis of everything that is great about this game. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
77
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 19:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Two times in the past I have ask by petition to do something about this:
https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/DJWiggles
https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/DJ%20Wiggles
The former is an eve radio DJ that does the eve radio lottery, the other one is obvious an impersonator.
You have done nothing about it.
So yeah, your words about the ToS in this devblog they mean nothing I guess 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
|
Valrandir
Elemental Mercury
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 20:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
DevBlog wrote: As with any binding document like the ToS, making changes can sometimes take some time, and we appreciate your patience as we look into the matter.
As we have seen in very recent history changes can also be made quite quickly. Underlining that it may take some time reveals the damage control nature of this dev blog, along with the general ideas that problems might just go away with time.
|
Sid Hudgens
Totally not an NPC Corp
162
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 20:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nice blog. Solid info.
So to sum up what's been happening on the forums...
Whiny forum warrior: You've banned everyone! We can't scam, we can't have alts, we can't even undock! If this TOS change means what we think it does EVE is dead! Would someone please clarify what this means?
CCP: Explains everything...
Whiny forum warrior: No! Your clarification is obviously wrong! Why are you lying to us?
CCP: Provides proof of what they have been saying all along...
Whiny forum warrior: Obviously we don't need any more clarifying if all you are going to do is prove us wrong. Stop clarifying things. We reject your reality and substitute our own! Why have you been hiding these secret rules in these secret documents known as the EULA and the Naming Policy?
I think CCP's only move here is to admit that all players were secretly banned years ago but they couldn't stop allowing them to play EVE because then the secret would get out. So they moved all the secret rules to the non-secret TOS and now if anyone gets caught breaking the non-secret rules CCP can disclose the the player's account was secretly banned years ago and since the player has outed themselves by violating non-secret rules the aforementioned secret ban can now be un-secretly enforced. "....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced." |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
9392
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 20:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Will be interesting to read.
/c
|
|
Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
128
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 20:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
I predict that this BLOG will not stop the whining...
But I really can't understand the fuss people make about the whole thing... |
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain
Remanaquie Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 22:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
..."we have decided to take a deeper look at what we should and should not be enforcing.
This is where the problem lies. It bothers me to have CCP stating that there are some rules they set themselves, but then not all of which will be enforced. Should EVE players play russian roulette with the ToS?
All rules should be enforced. Which then leads to the 2nd part of the problem. Not everyone agrees that these should be the rules.
On a side note, the ToS also states "No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity". Short of hacking into someone's account, I fail to see how I could break this rule since the game doesn't allow for 2 characters to have the same name. But then CCP seems to interpret this rule not as a prohibition to use the same name, but as prohibition to use similar names.
For all this and a lot more, is why players are upset and arguing rightfuly so, that the ToS wording isn't clear. And either they're right, or CCP has a hard time intereting the rules they wrote themselves. |
|
Kelduum Revaan
Malkuth Technologies Inc.
2064
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 23:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:For all this and a lot more, is why players are upset and arguing rightfuly so, that the ToS wording isn't clear. And either they're right, or CCP has a hard time intereting the rules they wrote themselves. I'd say all of the above.
Something which runing E-UNI for 7 years taught me, was that now matter what you intend when you write something, if it can possibly be interpreted another way, if enough people read it some of them willinterpret it differently.
In this case, CCP need to fix the wording and provide examples of what is and is not allowed in the TOS itself. Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University |
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 23:36:00 -
[12] - Quote
Quote:... simply claiming you are the alt of someone (such as the 'I'm your CEO's alt' scam as described by F'nog), is not allowed.
Except that it should be allowed. Full stop. No one comes to EVE for the scenery - they come to be part of a ruthless, dog-eat-dog world, where trust is a currency as valid as isk.
Break that trust, you break the game. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1069
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 01:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Thanks for the blog and the explanation from CCPs side
Please update your TOS based on Player Feedback
A world where Chribba is allowed to scam, whereas someone who claims to be Chribba but actually is Chribbo is not is not a consistent one We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Syndic Thrass
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 02:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
I bought the character Syndic Thrass years ago. This character is now my main and I have assumed this pseudonym as my identity. In claiming that I am Syndic Thrass am I violating these new super ambiguous ToS? Am I Syndic Thrass? Is this world even real?
Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8 |
Safdrof Uta
VELOCIRAPTORS EATING GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH
23
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 05:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Only 13 other comments on a dev blog that was put up due to an 18 page forum post?
Funny.
Good to see that CCP are making clear to the other players who can't figure it out for themselves that the TOS change wasn't a change of policy at all, and that the policy was always in place. Hell, I'd be surprised if half of the people in the other forum thread had read or even knew of the Naming Policy. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2293
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 08:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
Easily done when 'clarifications' from two different GMs are mutually conflicting.
Also the discussion on this is taking place elsewhere. The TOS has now been clarified, its failings are plain to see, the next step is getting the necessary alterations made to fix it. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Pantheon Lea
Farmer Boyz
7
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 15:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Sooo, it was all about Chribba...
I knew it. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 17:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Yet again, CCP institutes rules designed to prevent players from being stupid.
What's next on CCP's agenda? Setting the client to auto-cloak if someone enters system? Alarms if something appears on D-Scan, even if you aren't watching it? Local in W-Space? Full reimbursement on legal/legit scams? Outlawing all scams?
Who the **** decided it was a good idea to enable "Easy Mode" in EVE???? |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
9399
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 20:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
Pantheon Lea wrote:Sooo, it was all about Chribba... I knew it. I wish If it had been I'd have made things differently haha
I've dealt with impersonators for years without too much trouble, so that's probably why I was used as an example (I guess?)
/c
|
|
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
134
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 22:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:Nice blog. Solid info.
So to sum up what's been happening on the forums...
Whiny forum warrior: You've banned everyone! We can't scam, we can't have alts, we can't even undock! If this TOS change means what we think it does EVE is dead! Would someone please clarify what this means?
CCP: Explains everything...
Whiny forum warrior: No! Your clarification is obviously wrong! Why are you lying to us?
CCP: Provides proof of what they have been saying all along...
Whiny forum warrior: Obviously we don't need any more clarifying if all you are going to do is prove us wrong. Stop clarifying things. We reject your reality and substitute our own! Why have you been hiding these secret rules in these secret documents known as the EULA and the Naming Policy?
I think CCP's only move here is to admit that all players were secretly banned years ago but they couldn't stop allowing them to play EVE because then the secret would get out. So they moved all the secret rules to the non-secret TOS and now if anyone gets caught breaking the non-secret rules CCP can disclose the the player's account was secretly banned years ago and since the player has outed themselves by violating non-secret rules the aforementioned secret ban can now be un-secretly enforced.
OMG! We're all on double-secret probation! |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4664
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 06:51:00 -
[21] - Quote
People hate it when CCP says "We will enforce this rule using our own discretion according to the circumstances"... mainly because it closes loopholes that they otherwise could take advantage of. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
392
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 10:50:00 -
[22] - Quote
Is this blog/thread an elaborate troll?
So what you are saying is all the ridiculous, over the top naysayers were right? The voices of moderation saying its just a few overzealous GMs and some poorly worded ToS changes were wrong?
What the **** has happened to CCP?
"Long standing, consistent rules"? Are you joking? Falsely representing your identity and that of your alts has been a HUGE part of both the scamming and meta games for over a decade. I can remember stealing whole alliance's assets by pretending to be the executors alt simply by changing my alts' bio. This has NEVER been an enforced rule.
Confidence tricks are basically the essence of all scamming that doesnt rely on simple mistakes. They have ALWAYS been a core part of what makes Eve Eve.
This is crazy. Literally nuts. I've been a vocal supporter since beta, with one notable period over GreedIsGood where I unsubscribed, but this, and the mentality it demonstrates, is close to pushing me out of the game.
what the ****. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
392
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 10:53:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tl;dr of this blog:
"Confidence Tricks are not permitted in Eve Online. In fact, they have never been permitted."
*Waves hand and ignores years of positive media coverage coming solely from this aspect of the metagame. |
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus
Dramani Confederacy
25
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:People hate it when CCP says "We will enforce this rule using our own discretion according to the circumstances"... mainly because it closes loopholes that they otherwise could take advantage of.
Mayhaps. But why does CCP chose to keep the loopholes in the first place? The solution to loopholes is addressing them and closing them, and not to arbitrarily enforce rules. And of course for that they may need people that really understand english both to write the rules and to enforce them. And that's what they should get done rather than drawing random names of rule breakers to decide who gets a ban on any given day. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2298
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 19:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Is this blog/thread an elaborate troll?
So what you are saying is all the ridiculous, over the top naysayers were right? The voices of moderation saying its just a few overzealous GMs and some poorly worded ToS changes were wrong?
What the **** has happened to CCP?
"Long standing, consistent rules"? Are you joking? Falsely representing your identity and that of your alts has been a HUGE part of both the scamming and meta games for over a decade. I can remember stealing whole alliance's assets by pretending to be the executors alt simply by changing my alts' bio. This has NEVER been an enforced rule.
Confidence tricks are basically the essence of all scamming that doesnt rely on simple mistakes. They have ALWAYS been a core part of what makes Eve Eve.
This is crazy. Literally nuts. I've been a vocal supporter since beta, with one notable period over GreedIsGood where I unsubscribed, but this, and the mentality it demonstrates, is close to pushing me out of the game.
what the ****. Better hope none of the old members of the alliances you scammed decide to put in a petition now over your historical actions or you might find yourself banned before you get the choice to unsubscribe or not! Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2183
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 22:01:00 -
[26] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:..."we have decided to take a deeper look at what we should and should not be enforcing.
This is where the problem lies. It bothers me to have CCP stating that there are some rules they set themselves, but then not all of which will be enforced. Should EVE players play russian roulette with the ToS?
All rules should be enforced. Which then leads to the 2nd part of the problem. Not everyone agrees that these should be the rules.
On a side note, the ToS also states "No player may use the character name of another player to falsely represent his or her identity". Short of hacking into someone's account, I fail to see how I could break this rule since the game doesn't allow for 2 characters to have the same name. But then CCP seems to interpret this rule not as a prohibition to use the same name, but as prohibition to use similar names.
For all this and a lot more, is why players are upset and arguing rightfuly so, that the ToS wording isn't clear. And either they're right, or CCP has a hard time intereting the rules they wrote themselves. How about BOB The Great and B0B The Great? Those are different names and you can see it if you look close. But its also what players do to impersonate others. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
James Amril-Kesh
Goonswarm Federation
5788
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 00:31:00 -
[27] - Quote
We don't need any more clarification. The question is not about what the ToS says, it's about a fundamental shift in policy that goes against everything the game has been for the past ten years. My Youtube Videos Latest video: August 25, 2013 |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 01:19:00 -
[28] - Quote
Future DevBlog: We have determined that it is unfair that some players are good at making ISK in EVE, and some players are not. Therefore, we are changing the ToS to re-state what we believe we have been doing all along, and that is that "7a. No player may accumulate in-game wealth at a rate disproportionate to other players. Any player being found to do so will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including: removal of wealth in excess of the average wealth of all players; temporary or permanent banning; account deletion. This action will be enforced at our discretion, and you, as a paying customer, will have no recourse." |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
654
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 08:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ah, so the documentation proves that the rules have always been hard on impersonation, but the players in general, myself included, have been unaware of this fact. The misconception has been enhancing itself, as victims have failed to realize they could petition their case, this leading to scammers believe their actions were within bounds.
One could blame an extensive misinformation campaign by the HTFU group, which themselves generally have an extremely hard time HTFU when being smacked in the face with the ToS and EULA.
Though, it is the GM group who should be much better at communication rules. Perhaps by highlighting for players the possibility to petition, when they spot cases that breaks the ToS, EULA, etc.
Anyhow, rules are not much good when they contradict the general perception on how things should be handled. In the current situation, it is probably better to adjust the ToS to the expectations of the players than the other way around.
But do not stop banning scammers that think themselves a little too smart. A failed scammer tears are still the best. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
54
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 09:16:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Is this blog/thread an elaborate troll?
So what you are saying is all the ridiculous, over the top naysayers were right? The voices of moderation saying its just a few overzealous GMs and some poorly worded ToS changes were wrong?
What the **** has happened to CCP?
"Long standing, consistent rules"? Are you joking? Falsely representing your identity and that of your alts has been a HUGE part of both the scamming and meta games for over a decade. I can remember stealing whole alliance's assets by pretending to be the executors alt simply by changing my alts' bio. This has NEVER been an enforced rule.
Confidence tricks are basically the essence of all scamming that doesnt rely on simple mistakes. They have ALWAYS been a core part of what makes Eve Eve.
This is crazy. Literally nuts. I've been a vocal supporter since beta, with one notable period over GreedIsGood where I unsubscribed, but this, and the mentality it demonstrates, is close to pushing me out of the game.
what the ****.
The purpose of impersonation rules is to protect the third party , not the mark. Its not about making a scammers life harder but to prevent endless "I want my stuff back spam" to the affected third party.
A third party has no input or decision in the process but may have there game play negativelly affected , hence these rules. Rules don't change just because you got away with stuff.
No one wants to stop scams or awoxing , just do it without affecting a third party's game experiance.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |