EVE Search - Announcement:CCP Response Regarding SOMER Blink Concerns

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Announcement:CCP Response Regarding SOMER Blink Concerns

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 17 post(s)
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2524	Posted - 2014.08.20 23:56:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Falcon, is there any chance this might inspire a clearer definition of the third party rules and guidelines going forward? As it stands it seems that they are spread all over the place in articles, blogs, and years of forum posts. A big incident like this one can be kind of intimidating for first-time developers when the rules aren't exactly clearly laid out, especially when the result is a ban and the exact cause of the ban is unknown.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2532	Posted - 2014.08.21 00:19:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Falcon wrote: Derrick Miles wrote: CCP Falcon, is there any chance this might inspire a clearer definition of the third party rules and guidelines going forward? As it stands it seems that they are spread all over the place in articles, blogs, and years of forum posts. A big incident like this one can be kind of intimidating for first-time developers when the rules aren't exactly clearly laid out, especially when the result is a ban and the exact cause of the ban is unknown. This is still to be determined, but something that I'll be pushing for. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2559	Posted - 2014.08.21 03:39:00 - [3] - Quote mynnna wrote: Hava Heart wrote: I would just like to thank the Members of CSM; Xander Pheona, Sion Kumitomo, and mynnna for showing us that its okay to mock, and insult other players of this community. Thank you for showing us what that CSM tag leads you to believe what you may do. I'm sure you lot do CCP Falcon proud. Thank you for showing us the professionalism as members of the CSM that we can come to expect. Am I not allowed my opinion? I did not flame or denigrate anybody. I posted simply to thank those who supported Somer over the years, To share what I saw from Somer as another player, however I can see that the CSM Members are out to even attack the staff of Somer.Blink, who at the end of the day are just normal everyday players such as yourselves. You are allowed your opinion. And so am I. And my opinion is that you worked for a crook, and deserve condolences. I'm not really sure why you're so uptight over my offering of them. Yes, I'm sure they were completely sincere.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2559	Posted - 2014.08.21 03:49:00 - [4] - Quote Well I must say that the CSM as a whole has done a great job lately representing the community. A few of them pouncing on the first SOMERblink member on the other hand... not so great.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2713	Posted - 2014.08.21 11:00:00 - [5] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: in the SOMER / MD arrangement, what could be offered as a referral reward that would be considered OK by CCP and the community as not-RMT? example case: Amazon is an ETC reseller. assuming referrals can be verified by both Amazon and the referrer, would an Amazon credit arrangement be accepted by CCP and players as not-RMT? Any out of game incentives, such as promos or sales by Amazon, are not considered RMT because they don't cross the boundary between in-game and out-of-game trading. The reason Somer's offer was RMT (I assume, as CCP never officially confirmed it) is because it traded the service of buying a PLEX in-game in exchange for using the referral link, which was a real money transaction between Somer and the GTC seller. Fansites that use advertisements to generate revenue are not doing RMT. The reason is, they offer no in-game incentive for click-throughs on those ads, and any in-game services they may offer can be had without using anything that requires an action involving a real money exchange.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2713	Posted - 2014.08.21 11:02:00 - [6] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Mallak Azaria wrote: Rain6637 wrote: I can also think of reasons why the involved transactions are removed enough to not be RMT. Please tell me how offering people extra isk if they buy PLEX through your affiliate link & sell it back to you is not actually an attempt to launder isk. that was referring to the ISK payment made to article writers for TMC. This is a unique case that is explicitly allowed by CCP as well as other things like graphic design and web development. In addition, the articles and content written cannot be resold for a profit.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2738	Posted - 2014.08.21 11:28:00 - [7] - Quote Baneken wrote: Hakaari Inkuran wrote: I'm more wondering why it took players to bring the issue up in the first place. CCP was perfectly capable of visiting the site and looking at the new promotion (literally all they had to do was look at it), do they not keep close tabs on their affiliates? I take it that you have no idea how many affiliates a company of the size such as CCP might have ? Do you? Because I sure have no idea.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2738	Posted - 2014.08.21 11:29:00 - [8] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: Deka Ekato wrote: I really do feel, (and from what I understand), that Somer was not punished for RMT, (which he should be), but for some other reason(s). There is basically 3 reasons he was punished. The first is the RMT, the second would be falsely claiming that the scheme as it is was CCP approved, the third would be publicly posting the private emails with CCP. It wasn't actually confirmed that RMT was one of the reasons.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2766	Posted - 2014.08.21 12:58:00 - [9] - Quote ExplorerAlTNewb wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: BigSako wrote: So, technically EvENews24 and TheMittani are both RMT-ing, right? ISK -> Writers Writers -> Articles Users read Articles and see advertisement on website Mittani gets money for advertisement http://i.imgur.com/i6L5GGY.png just my .02 ISK. Paying ISK to writers for articles and opinion pieces is explicitly allowed by CCP, as long as they're Eve related. Monetisation of websites via ads is also OK with CCP as far as I know. What isn't allowed is offering an ISK/ingame incentive to buy ETC/GTC from an affiliate, i.e. buying the resulting PLEX back at an inflated ISK price, when that affiliate gives you a RL cash kickback for every sale. .. its not just EVE Related. http://imgur.com/sCn0H1u The scenario is basic, certain 3rd parties use ISK to pay EVE Players to create EVE content & services.... This is supposely OK"ed And one (possibly more) of the 3rd parties uses ISK to pay EVE Players to create content & services that have nothing to do with EVE Online. This hasnt been answered, and will most likely get ignored unless more focus is shined on it. Multiple CSM are a part of the "entity" that is doing it so they will deflect away from this. There is also the forum crashers & non sense wing working at odds ends to cover up / jam up everything as best they can. If you have reason to believe a specific site is breaking CCP rules you should send an email to [email protected] with your concerns, not air it out on the forums publicly.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2862	Posted - 2014.08.22 00:32:00 - [10] - Quote Garai Nolen wrote: Rroff wrote: Tippia wrote: Then you'd be paying them for a non-EVE-related service, which would be a no-no. Probably wasn't clear but I meant adding in some token incidental eve stuff just to fluff out the link maybe get them to jump through a couple of minor "eve related" content loops. But why would anyone click your referral link then? If you pay me ISK to spam your website in chat, sure, I'll take your ISK. And then I still won't click on your referral link. And neither will anyone who sees the spam, because they get literally nothing out of doing so. It's a lot easier just to go buy a PLEX from CCP or a time code from a site I actually want to support. So yeah, sure, you could probably do it and it probably would not count as RMT. Essentially you would be the world's first "ISK for EVE chat spam" service. You'd basically just be paying people ISK to spam chat with a link to your site but not actually providing anyone any reason to go to your website or click on your referral link (because you can't, and the moment you do with in-game ISK/items, yes, it becomes RMT). I'm not quite sure you could consider paying people isk to spam advertisements for your website as not RMT. You would essentially be paying in-game currency for something that is an out-of-game benefit. Besides which, I'm pretty sure there's a clause about spamming ads in-game in the ToS or EULA somewhere.

Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2862	Posted - 2014.08.22 00:38:00 - [11] - Quote Tippia wrote: Mark Munoz wrote: I perfectly understand that ISK isn't whats causing the cash earning. GÇªthus, no RMT, and thus, the ISK isn't actually relevant. The ad network pays for you click-throughs, which is a transaction that is wholly separate from any ISK you might have. You are paying ISK to you contributors, which is a transaction that is wholly separate from any click-through deal you might have. The only reason you're paying anything is because you can't be arsed to populate your site by yourself. Quote: I mentioned "Cash out" to get my point across. The problem is that mentioning it only muddies any point you might have. It implies a connection between the ISK and the cash, when in reality, the connection is between the ISK and your lack of personal effort. If you just wanted to earn some cash, you could do that without the ISK. I'm not so sure you're not missing the point yourself here, although I understand you do get it. The isk is being used to generate content on an external site which would be a case of RMT. The only reason it isn't considered to be RMT is because CCP has explicitly stated that it is allowed to pay isk for this kind of content, as well as the other stuff like graphic design and such.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2905	Posted - 2014.08.22 02:28:00 - [12] - Quote Ban Bindy wrote: Any site that sells PLEX or time codes is involved in RMT of a type that is allowed and governed by CCP. Sites that pay isk or request isk for certain services are also engaged in something that is close to RMT but that also is allowed and governed by CCP. I say it's close to RMT because CCP has stepped in to set rules for how this kind of transaction can be properly done. CCP has the right to allow players to do these kinds of transactions. Why fight about calling them RMT when the point is that this is CCP's product and CCP can govern how RMT and related types of income are handled. None of these third party sites are doing anything wrong. You can have the opinion that it's wrong if you want but why would you bother when your opinion means nothing unless you are in charge of the game? Sites that sell PLEX and time codes are not involved in RMT because they sell digital goods that can only be transfered one way: into the game, and only redeemed there. If there were to be any kind of traffic in the other direction then it would become RMT. I do agree that there are other types of services allowed by CCP that would otherwise be classified as RMT however. Tippia wrote: Derrick Miles wrote: The isk is being used to generate content on an external site which would be a case of RMT. The only reason it isn't considered to be RMT is because CCP has explicitly stated that it is allowed to pay isk for this kind of content, as well as the other stuff like graphic design and such. Thus: not RMT, no matter how angry it makes Mr. Pink Poker above. After all, no in-game-to-out-of-game transaction takes place. Yes I agree, but what I quoted didn't exactly say that.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2905	Posted - 2014.08.22 02:44:00 - [13] - Quote Slicr wrote: Tippia wrote: ... Could not notice how you suddenly threw retailers in the equation and avoided telling us what your definition of RMT is. The fact that from what I have read in the past from your postings - if you had a valid definition you would not hesitant to post it. Since you will not post what you think RMT is, there is no point in discussing this with you. For me RMT is the trade of in-game items, services, or currency for out-of-game items, services, or currency. What is your definition?
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2906	Posted - 2014.08.22 03:07:00 - [14] - Quote Slicr wrote: Derrick Miles wrote: ... For me RMT is the trade of in-game items, services, or currency for out-of-game items, services, or currency. What is your definition? Exchanging something in the real world with something in a virtual world with both having value. I can certainly see that as a valid definition for RMT. The only thing I'd point out though is that CCP specifically has created certain dynamics and exceptions to what they consider 'illegal' RMT. First, PLEX was created as a way to bridge the gap between the real-world economy and the Eve economy and so, as you say, there is value exchanged into the game world. The key distinction CCP makes, however, is that this exchange is strictly one way. There is only value transferred from real world currency into the game economy and rarely anything from in-game transferred out. The exceptions to this rule are the allowed forms of RMT which CCP has given players permission to partake in, namely things like graphic design, web development, writing, and web hosting. Basically, in CCP's view, anything traded in-game for real-world things that aren't on their exception list is RMT.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2913	Posted - 2014.08.22 04:08:00 - [15] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Derrick Miles wrote: ... I'll tell you what RMT is. It's one of the least of the things wrong with this game. It's also, in the context of this particular thread, a classic false flag operation. It'll be interesting to see where CCP takes this as more unfolds. Mr Epeen I disagree, I think RMT can have a big impact on any MMO and I, at least, am glad CCP and their security team is on top of enforcement. It may seem inconsequential at first glance, internet pixels and all that, but the complex and vibrant market economy simulation that Eve is home to is one of the unique and awesome things that makes Eve stand out among it's competitors. It would be a true shame to see it wrecked by a bunch of greedy people who are too short-sighted to see that.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2913	Posted - 2014.08.22 04:13:00 - [16] - Quote ExplorerAlTNewb wrote: Hendrick Tallardar wrote: ExplorerAlTNewb wrote: Hendrick Tallardar wrote: Your example is also flawed because per TMC's internal policy, and by CCP's guidelines, you can't be compensated with in-game ISK for a non-EVE contribution to the site. . So to get the record straight, TMC use to pay ISK to EVE Players for Non-EVE related contributions and was then contacted or made aware from CCP that this isnt allowed and corrected there policy. Is this correct? No. That was never said nor implied in anyway other than your own conjecture. TMC compensates a contributor who provides EVE IP related content (articles/streaming/videos) with ISK. That is what CCP deem acceptable and enforce it as such. Anything non-EVE related has no EVE based in-game reward or ISK compensation associated. So again, I'm not getting how it's hard for people to comprehend the differences but this thread has gone from a discussion on Somer's behavior to a thinly veiled "Grr Mittani/TMC/Goons" bitchfest so it's not all too surprising asinine conclusions are being drawn up from nothing. Can you help me understand what is on this page then? http://themittani.com/news/april-tmc-update-real-space-streamers-and-dota2 Snip from said page: http://imgur.com/FbR3Uyb This looks like its pay isk for non eve stuff ... what says you? I must admit that does look like it's crossing the line. But I don't think you should be airing it out on the forums even still, contacting CCP security would be the way to go.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2913	Posted - 2014.08.22 04:30:00 - [17] - Quote Hendrick Tallardar wrote: Derrick Miles wrote: I must admit that does look like it's crossing the line. But I don't think you should be airing it out on the forums even still, contacting CCP security would be the way to go. Read the date on the article, it's from April 2013. The SomerGate 1.0 took place in October 2013 which brought CCP addressing sites like TMC regarding those policies. There is a more recent article also advertising for the same, as well as Hearthstone and Warframe writers in July of this year.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2920	Posted - 2014.08.22 04:52:00 - [18] - Quote Hendrick Tallardar wrote: Derrick Miles wrote: Hendrick Tallardar wrote: Derrick Miles wrote: I must admit that does look like it's crossing the line. But I don't think you should be airing it out on the forums even still, contacting CCP security would be the way to go. Read the date on the article, it's from April 2013. The SomerGate 1.0 took place in October 2013 which brought CCP addressing sites like TMC regarding those policies. There is a more recent article also advertising for the same, as well as Hearthstone and Warframe writers in July of this year. http://themittani.com/features/july-site-update-quiet-days Please point to where they say they'll pay for non-EVE content with in-game ISK? CCP's policy doesn't prohibit them from hiring non-EVE writers, only that they cannot pay for non-EVE related content with in-game ISK. If you can prove they're paying for non-EVE content with ISK then report it to CCP. Simple as that really. You're absolutely correct, my mistake, I didn't see that there was no explicit mention of paying in isk in the latest post. You have to admit though with the first post saying they're hiring for isk and the second saying they're still hiring, the implication is pretty strong and a misleading conclusion easily reached.
Derrick Miles EVENumbers 2929	Posted - 2014.08.22 05:18:00 - [19] - Quote Hendrick Tallardar wrote: Derrick Miles wrote: You're absolutely correct, my mistake, I didn't see that there was no explicit mention of paying in isk in the latest post. You have to admit though with the first post saying they're hiring for isk and the second saying they're still hiring, the implication is pretty strong and a misleading conclusion easily reached. Yes, if you ignore the fact CCP and TMC have changed that policy from 18 months ago six months after the April 2013 post was made. Something that has been stated numerous times. Forgive me for skimming this monster of a thread. Though I did search the site for a clarification and didn't find one.