Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
To Be Me
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
38
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 14:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
People saying alts are illegal are a joke imo
where does it say they are illegal? |
Electrique Wizard
Mutually Lucrative Business Proposals Market and Contract PVP
57
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 14:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
To Be Me wrote:People saying alts are illegal are a joke imo
where does it say they are illegal?
Alts arent illegal. Claiming your alts are your alts, or claiming you are an alt of your main, however is a bannable offense, unless you are somehow related to Goons, SOMER or both. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
1683
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 14:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
To Be Me wrote:People saying alts are illegal are a joke imo
where does it say they are illegal? People are idiots.
It doesn't. |
Na Und
Galactronics
93
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 14:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Electrique Wizard wrote:Claiming your alts are your alts, or claiming you are an alt of your main, however is a bannable offense....
I didn't follow that controversy. Is that true? Can someone give me the reasoning behind it? I'm not looking to reopen the debate, just looking for a quick answer. |
Rhivre
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
563
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 14:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
it is like this:
If I go "Hey, I am the alt of Na Und, so you can trust me with this contract/isk/whatever" (and I am not your alt), then that has always been bad. Now they have clarified to say that if I say "Hey, I am the alt of Rhivre, check my history and fluffiness" and then scam you, I am now treated the same as if someone else used my name to scam.
Basically, using your main as verification of your trustworthiness, allowing you to scam, while leaving your mains reputation untouched "That guy is not my alt", now gets the same as if someone else did it. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
333
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 15:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Na Und wrote:Electrique Wizard wrote:Claiming your alts are your alts, or claiming you are an alt of your main, however is a bannable offense.... I didn't follow that controversy. Is that true? Can someone give me the reasoning behind it? I'm not looking to reopen the debate, just looking for a quick answer.
CCP basically put a blanket statement in the ToS saying impersonation of any in game or out-of-game entity is illegal. This covers your own alts claiming to be you, people claiming to be Barack Obama, corporations named after real-life entities that they couldn't possibly be actually affiliated with. Then they said "but we won't ever enforce it, except when we do. GM enforcement policy is not changing."
CCP originally said they wanted to clarify the naming policy, but instead of putting specific legalese into the ToS, they used language covering any impersonation whatsoever, not just stuff like switching 1's for L's or I's.
The point being, if CCP decides, they can use the ToS to justify wiping away the work of a director-spy, if the director-spy ever claimed to be the alt of a legitimate director. Or I could scam someone claiming to be a party which I do not infact represent, and I would have violated the impersonation policy, despite not doing so based on having a similar name. Fighting is Magic |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
1686
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 15:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Na Und wrote:Electrique Wizard wrote:Claiming your alts are your alts, or claiming you are an alt of your main, however is a bannable offense.... I didn't follow that controversy. Is that true? Can someone give me the reasoning behind it? I'm not looking to reopen the debate, just looking for a quick answer. No.
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
Source |
Electrique Wizard
Mutually Lucrative Business Proposals Market and Contract PVP
63
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 15:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
But no, just saying "XYZ is my alt" will not get you banned.
Reported. I know XYZ irl and you're not him |
Casanunda
Church Of The Eternal Cosmic Confidence Trick
91
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 16:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Na Und wrote:Electrique Wizard wrote:Claiming your alts are your alts, or claiming you are an alt of your main, however is a bannable offense.... I didn't follow that controversy. Is that true? Can someone give me the reasoning behind it? I'm not looking to reopen the debate, just looking for a quick answer. No. 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
SourcePeople implying otherwise are probably referring to posts by GM Karidor ( #1, #2), which examine a complex case. The resolution is questionable to this day. I personally maintain that GM Karidor was mislead by the context of the thread, and that the behavior in question would not get you banned by any competent GM. But no, just saying "XYZ is my alt" will not get you banned. Unless it does, in which case you ended up with a gnarly, hungover, didn't get any rumpy pumpy last night and the coffee machine was empty when they got to work GM.
The fact that I am not a millionaire aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle. - Edmund Blackadder-á |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
783
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 17:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
To Be Me wrote:People saying alts are illegal are a joke imo
where does it say they are illegal?
I've never said they were illegal, I just said that CCP is poisoning the game with alts, rather than try marketing to new customers.
2/10 for an old troll.
CCP, trading shiny pictures for playability since 2003.. EvE, a cutting edge game. The only game to provide Matrix style gameplay for the masses! (trouble is, most people don't have 9 hours to waste on a one hour fight.) |
|
destiny2
Perkone Caldari State
253
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 17:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
alts just give you advantages, ie in pvp they can give you a good upper hand, and players who only have 1 account find that as cheating when faceing someone with 2 or more chars,
its their way of being a sore loser |
Lord Ryan
True Xero True Zombies
864
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 17:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Just play it safe and cancel all alts like I did.
Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.
|
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith Filthy Bastards
155
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 17:37:00 -
[13] - Quote
To Be Me wrote:People saying alts are illegal are a joke imo
where does it say they are illegal?
Not quite, the controversy started over a few players claiming to be the alts of a well known and respected player, when they weren't, for the purpose of scamming. They were banned and new language added to the ToS/EULA making impersonation bannable in very broad terms. When asked, a GM came straight and repeatedly said that yes even impersonating yourself was bannable even just saying you were an alt of [-----] was included. This understandably caused an uproar at which point another higher ranking GM came along and said you silly players of course you can't impersonate yourself, obviously talking to the other GM since WE had never misunderstood that.
CCP has promised to look into the matter and tighten up the language of the ToS/EULA to remove "misunderstandings" of this nature in the future, but CCP being CCP it's been well over a month and we haven't heard anything further on the subject from them. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
311
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 17:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
i wish your face was illegal No sig. |
Sirinda
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
254
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 17:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'm claiming I'm not Barack Obama. Will I get banned now? |
Alt Two
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
80
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 17:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:[...] any competent GM. Like they exist.. "Hurr durr free SP if you blame your brother." |
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
180
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Na Und wrote:Electrique Wizard wrote:Claiming your alts are your alts, or claiming you are an alt of your main, however is a bannable offense.... I didn't follow that controversy. Is that true? Can someone give me the reasoning behind it? I'm not looking to reopen the debate, just looking for a quick answer. CCP basically put a blanket statement in the ToS saying impersonation of any in game or out-of-game entity is illegal. This covers your own alts claiming to be you, people claiming to be Barack Obama, corporations named after real-life entities that they couldn't possibly be actually affiliated with. Then they said "but we won't ever enforce it, except when we do. GM enforcement policy is not changing." CCP originally said they wanted to clarify the naming policy, but instead of putting specific legalese into the ToS, they used language covering any impersonation whatsoever, not just stuff like switching 1's for L's or I's. The point being, if CCP decides, they can use the ToS to justify wiping away the work of a director-spy, if the director-spy ever claimed to be the alt of a legitimate director. Or I could scam someone claiming to be a party which I do not infact represent, and I would have violated the impersonation policy, despite not doing so based on having a similar name.
Why - I suspect it might relate to some legal concepts. The might see a risk that unsettled real-world law is moving a certain direction.
Detailed Legal stuff is beyond detailed discussion here. All I am implying that Risk Managment at corporations make decisions on "mights" .. .. "mights" can be costly. Even cases they would certainly win or be dismissed by courts would require time and resources to get them dismissed.
- my vague guess - They are trying hard to distinguish between Player to Player contact on a Meta level and Character to Character in game contact. Obviously it is a very murky line. The farther they can distance themselves from policing interactions between Humans out of game, I'd think the less likely it would be for them to get named in some legal dispute between players .. perhaps two players living in New York or something.. one taking action against the other.
- vague.. even if there is only a 20% element of truth to it, that might be enough for the risk management department.
- habit - risk managment might just want the T.O.S. to get in the habit of moving a certain direction ... sometimes drawing a line farther out prevents mistakes closer to a cusp where it could matter.
--
Separate Issue -
Subjectivity - So many players here seem to think that anything subjective is completely unworkable and inherently unfair.
- Sport referees have been able to make subjective calls for decades in matches where millions of fans and participants getting paid tens of millions care deeply about the results.
Take Football (and though I'm american I'm referring to Football as the rest of the world knows it.. with the round ball) - it is against the rules for one player vying for a ball to deliberately entangle their feet so as to purposely trip the offender - if it is deemed blatant it may even result in ejection and virtually determining the whole match Certainly there are hot debates about whether some calls should be made .. whether it was worthy of ejection... for untrained eyes a trip can be very very subtle clip of the back of a cleat.
The alternative, no rules that must be made on subjective calls, would result in injuries to the players as well as more subtle issues about what the game should be..
What the game should be ? yes, that is a fair debate for people to discuss. It is also fair to discuss whether players want subjective rules..
Stating it as a fact .. that anything subjective cannot be applied in a way that could be good for a game, is something I'd take issue with. It is something that has worked in other games that fascinate the world. (others are free to object) . |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
7249
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:16:00 -
[18] - Quote
How can alts be illegal if CCP gives you three slots per account.....
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
1501
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
Quote:Subjectivity - So many players here seem to think that anything subjective is completely unworkable and inherently unfair.
Subjectivity is inherently bad, yeah.
The concept of being banned or given other disciplinary action for something that another player would get away with, entirely based on which GM you manage to whistle up, is pretty unpalatable. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Violet Crumble
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Sirinda wrote:I'm claiming I'm not Barack Obama. Will I get banned now?
You claim, but where's the proof?
And if you are Barack Obama, don't worry Mr President former Nobel Peace Prize winner, the NSA will sort it out for you. I may be a girl but be careful, I bite. |
|
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
180
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Subjectivity - So many players here seem to think that anything subjective is completely unworkable and inherently unfair. Subjectivity is inherently bad, yeah. The concept of being banned or given other disciplinary action for something that another player would get away with, entirely based on which GM you manage to whistle up, is pretty unpalatable.
I agree.
They might feel their hand is being forced though.
It is less clear to me with the alt thing.
It is more clear to me with the "harassment" issue. I don't think they had a choice to ignore harassment even if they wanted to.
I do believe that there are laws about harassment and generally accepted industry practice in dealing with harassment that they can't ignore. Whether or not the same would apply to impersonation is beyond me.. their actions suggest it could be something they are concerned with. . |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
600
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:38:00 -
[22] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:How can alts be illegal if CCP gives you three slots per account.....
The trick is to give people just enough rope to hang themselves. |
Xavier Higdon
Wolfbane Hauler Inc
99
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
I still haven't figured out if threads such as this are just attempts at trolling, attempts at inciting rage against CCP for some reason or if the people are truly just obtuse. The answer given by the sourced GM was replaced by the answer given later by a more senior GM. Are you really so incapable of comprehending that your question has been answered? Why do you continue to focus on an older, now defunct, answer? Do you pine for attention so deeply that you must deny reality and instead live in your own fantasy where the first answer to a question is the only answer? With your infallible logic the world is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth and the Moon is made of cheese. And let me ask and answer a question for you, therefore solidifying it as fact for all future generations. Do people think To Be Me should biomass and unsub? Yes, yes they do. In fact, it is widely held that To Be Me is actually not a person at all, but some kind of errant animal that walks across a keyboard at random intervals, managing through shear luck to form words and post those words onto these forums. The playerbase of EvE Online feels that allowing someone's pet to continue to hold an account for EvE Online is a travesty, and that it should be addressed immediately through ample application of the banhammer. A proud member of Wolfbane Hauler Inc. We are currently recruiting pilots of all skill levels. We need both industrial combat specialists. For more information see our ad:-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3764273&#post3764273 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
1501
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
Diomedes Calypso wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Subjectivity - So many players here seem to think that anything subjective is completely unworkable and inherently unfair. Subjectivity is inherently bad, yeah. The concept of being banned or given other disciplinary action for something that another player would get away with, entirely based on which GM you manage to whistle up, is pretty unpalatable. I agree. They might feel their hand is being forced though. It is less clear to me with the alt thing. It is more clear to me with the "harassment" issue. I don't think they had a choice to ignore harassment even if they wanted to. I do believe that there are laws about harassment and generally accepted industry practice in dealing with harassment that they can't ignore. Whether or not the same would apply to impersonation is beyond me.. their actions suggest it could be something they are concerned with.
Non of that has anything to do with being banned for scamming. Or in my case, having gotten a GM warning on an an account of mine for someone reporting me for "exploiting newbies" by putting up lowball buy orders in Arnon. It was that week they started up with the ToS blitz, in fact.
Harrassment is an easy call. Plenty of other things aren't.
So, I have to say I don't give a hoot if they feel their hands are being forced. In a game like this, where skullduggery and trickery are specifically encouraged, the lines should be clear and out in the open. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
1501
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 01:52:00 -
[25] - Quote
Quote:The answer given by the sourced GM was replaced by the answer given later by a more senior GM. Are you really so incapable of comprehending that your question has been answered? Why do you continue to focus on an older, now defunct, answer?
Because next time someone files a just-for-spite petition when I awox them, the case might be heard by the GM(s) who just makes things up.
And since they've specifically said they do it subjectively and not by any precedent, the responsible GM's statements mean precisely nothing. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Xavier Higdon
Wolfbane Hauler Inc
99
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 02:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:The answer given by the sourced GM was replaced by the answer given later by a more senior GM. Are you really so incapable of comprehending that your question has been answered? Why do you continue to focus on an older, now defunct, answer? Because next time someone files a just-for-spite petition when I awox them, the case might be heard by the GM(s) who just makes things up. And since they've specifically said they do it subjectively and not by any precedent, the responsible GM's statements mean precisely nothing.
You do understand that if you are dissatisfied with the result of a petition you have the ability to request escalation, sending the petition on to a more senior GM. This very simple check is in place to prevent the example you just gave. And no where has CCP or any of its employees stated that they "just make things up" or that they judge things "subjectively." What they have stated, numerous times, is that each petition is handled on a case by case basis. They do this for the simple fact that EvE Online is a rather complex game, and any number of mitigating factors might be present to warrant a different action than what was previously taken for a similar event. Also, I would like to know where you are getting your information regarding petitions. I'm hoping you're not citing some case of hearsay as fact. A proud member of Wolfbane Hauler Inc. We are currently recruiting pilots of all skill levels. We need both industrial combat specialists. For more information see our ad:-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3764273&#post3764273 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
1502
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 02:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Xavier Higdon wrote:
You do understand that if you are dissatisfied with the result of a petition you have the ability to request escalation, sending the petition on to a more senior GM. This very simple check is in place to prevent the example you just gave.
So? How many petitions have you ever had overturned successfully? My record is one, and it was pretty brutally obvious(bumping a freighter).
You are aware that escalation resulting in an overturn is pretty rare, right? From my experience with it(played off and on since late '04), they tend to circle the wagons and back each other up.
I've played a lot of MMOs (more than twenty) in my lifetime, and although I like EVE the most, their GM staff is legendary for not being consistent or objective. Consistency and objectivity are not bad things, no matter how you may try to spin it.
Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
180
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 02:19:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Harrassment is an easy call. Plenty of other things aren't.
So, I have to say I don't give a hoot if they feel their hands are being forced. In a game like this, where skullduggery and trickery are specifically encouraged, the lines should be clear and out in the open.
I folow you..
people were asking "why in the hell" and I've looked at the pattern of their actions. The pattern I saw brought my guess about their _motivations_ to my mind.
You have a reason to be mad.
I think I agree with you and others who see a trend that is eliminating more and more scamming from the game.
Most of the presumptions I see are that CCP is changing to Coddle Carebears.
I'm _wondering_ it they're changing to keep themselves out of potential RL issues that would be costly to get embroiled in.
Could be both. maybe it's only coddling.
I think if it were only coddling they'd do it another way. . |
Xavier Higdon
Wolfbane Hauler Inc
100
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 02:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Xavier Higdon wrote:
You do understand that if you are dissatisfied with the result of a petition you have the ability to request escalation, sending the petition on to a more senior GM. This very simple check is in place to prevent the example you just gave.
So? How many petitions have you ever had overturned successfully? My record is one, and it was pretty brutally obvious(bumping a freighter). You are aware that escalation resulting in an overturn is pretty rare, right? From my experience with it(played off and on since late '04), they tend to circle the wagons and back each other up. I've played a lot of MMOs (more than twenty) in my lifetime, and although I like EVE the most, their GM staff is legendary for not being consistent or objective. Consistency and objectivity are not bad things, no matter how you may try to spin it.
I've never filed a petition, nor had one filed against me, at least I don't think so. I've also played many MMOs, but only one of them can be compared to EvE Online for its freedom of play, and it too was plagued by people claiming the GMs favored one group over another. When asked for specifics, however, their response was much the same as yours. I've never had a ticket go my way! You ask for consistency and objectivity, but from your point of view any petition that doesn't go your way is obviously a case of the GMs being unfair, so consistency and objectivity to you is if your requests are granted while those of others are not. CCP has always made it clear that petitions are judged on a case by case basis, and that the final decision rests with them. No place does it state that they have to take a certain action under certain conditions. They attempt to put guidelines in place, but this game is complex and there may be any number of mitigating factors that could cause them to make one decision today, and another tomorrow. A proud member of Wolfbane Hauler Inc. We are currently recruiting pilots of all skill levels. We need both industrial combat specialists. For more information see our ad:-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3764273&#post3764273 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
1502
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 03:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Quote:When asked for specifics, however, their response was much the same as yours. I've never had a ticket go my way! You ask for consistency and objectivity, but from your point of view any petition that doesn't go your way is obviously a case of the GMs being unfair, so consistency and objectivity to you is if your requests are granted while those of others are not.
Pretty sure you're fully aware of why I can't and haven't given you specifics. Because it's against the rules to discuss GM actions on the forums.
The specifics I gave, like I said, were that I have had quite a few petitions made against me, and I have a pile of GM warnings. I always try to escalate if I think if I have a chance. Sums up to about a dozen times so far(across 4 accounts), and out of those, I have 1 overturned, and my warning rescinded.
And idk, let's examine if it was unfair.
I once tricked a guy into ejecting from a T2 cruiser, after telling him that I would get CONCORD'ed in highsec if I took it myself. I ejected my noobship, and ran off with his ship.
3 hours later, poof, GM warning.
You tell me. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |