EVE General Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

12 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

Lying About Identity No Longer Allowed Under EULA

Jump to first DEV post
Author
C C P Alliance
#21 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:24
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?

CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer | @ccp_guard
Goonswarm Federation
#22 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:25
Lyell Wolf wrote:
Just Lilly wrote:
Why are people even discussing this? What is the point of it all?

What did I miss?


Hell if I know tbh. I think the EULA was "reclarified" after a big issue with people falsely representing alliances to scam them. If that's the case, my opinion is mixed and I don't have enough information on it's effects on EVE to make a solid stance on the matter.

If someone would be so kind as to clarify the ordeal it would be much appreciated. The piles of locked threads is giving me the suspicion that the facts passing around are not being properly compiled in this remaining thread.

Here is the original thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276594&find=unread

The large number of closed threads started getting posted when that one was closed. That thread has much of the actual discussion of the change.
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
#23 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:25  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
The new wording also seems to rule out satirical/ parodies of corporation and character names, that poke fun at other individuals and organisations, without actually impersonating them.

CCP Guard wrote:

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?

That's fair enough, I can live with that.

Is the Amarr monument still intact?Twisted
Never go full Ripard
Goonswarm Federation
#24 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:26
CCP Guard wrote:
I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?


Thank you, sir, this was the response we were waiting for. Clarity is all we're after.
Goonswarm Federation
#25 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:26  |  Edited by: Mara Tessidar
CCP Guard wrote:
Everyone please calm down, we'll announce something when everyone gets back in the office.


Sounds good to me.
CODE.
#26 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:27  |  Edited by: Lady Areola Fappington
CCP Guard wrote:
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?




Of course, I can't represent myself as speaking for all of EVE, but that sounds reasonable. Some dialog would be nice, to balance the wants of the players for metagame, vs. the need of CCP to quantify rules.

I'm sure we can give ya'll an honest few days before that monument in Jita starts looking targetworthy again.
The risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).
Advanced Amateurs
#27 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:27  |  Edited by: Inxentas Ultramar
The problem lies not in the wording or it's intent, but in enforcing this rule. I see a dozen ways to break this rule without the victim being able to produce conclusive evidence that a breach of the rule indeed took place, which is problematic at the very least. Out-of-game communication (audio) come to mind.
Gallente Federation
#28 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:28
Weaselior wrote:
repostin:

Quote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
Greetings,

Impersonation has been prohibited for a long time.

The EULA clearly states that:

“No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity”

A similar clause has been in the EVE Online Naming Policy for a good while:

“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.”

The TOS update is therefore nothing new, merely a clarification of what has been policy for ages.

Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine, claiming to be working on behalf of players/groups of players you're not affiliated with is considered impersonation and a violation of our policies.



The TOS update does not include these clarifications, and I can absolutely assure you that you will be deluged with petitions for false representation of authority. Even if you're only getting at what you say above, you've worded it poorly and are creating more work for yourself, and creating future inappropriate bans when a new GM reads the policy and figures it means what it says.

But more importantly your argument is wrong: you are not banning misrepresenting your identity. You are banning misrepresenting your authority. If I tell the world ProGodLegend has authorized me to rent out whatever worthless regions he currently occupies, I'm not misrepresenting my identity. I'm not misrepresenting my affiliations. I'm baldly lying in a way that's easy to verify and not pretending to be another person in the game. This isn't an extension of a policy banning misrepresenting your identity, it's creating a new, bad, policy.

This seems incredibly restrictive to really any sort of free form scamming. I somewhat baffled as to why this was thought to be necessary.
Goonswarm Federation
#29 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:30
CCP Guard wrote:

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?


Yeah, I think it's completely reasonable that people just worded something more broadly than they intended, the real trouble came when it seemed like that discussion on the issue was getting abruptly shut down. I think my concerns and whatever the GM team was trying to get at can easily both be solved.
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
#30 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:30
What. The. Fuck.
Goonswarm Federation
#31 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:38
CCP Guard wrote:
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?



Agreed. I have faith you guys like the sandbox as much as we do.

I hope even!
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Sky Syndicate
#32 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:43
Banning 'impersonating' someone goes completely against what EVE is.
It's also a completely un-enforceable rule that can be easily exploited to get people banned/suspended.
#33 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:47
Thomas Hurt wrote:
What. The. Fuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awa87mmCKpM


I would be curious as to the initiator/intended fix of this.
Would delve greatly into the intent of why this was done.
Gallente Federation
#34 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:48
CCP Guard wrote:
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?


Yep ... But I'm sad that trying to make people laugh by creating this character was severly banned :/

Now if I understand well, I'm as illegal as all people trying to use NPC or eve-BG-related names.
Scotty.
At your service.
CODE.
#35 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:48
Another point I'd like to see clarification on:

There are many groups in this game that do not have official backing of the pool of people they draw from. There's warhammer 40k corps, brony corps, RL military corps, StarTrek fan corps...too many to count.

What happens when, say, crazy example, Hasbro gets into EVE and says "OK, our alliance is the official alliance for bronies. Any other alliance out there who claims to be a brony alliance is impersonating our official group. We own the IP, it belongs to us."

What will you do when (picking on Goonies again), Lowtax, the owner of SomethingAwful, decides to join up in EVE and create the "official" SomethingAwful Goon corp? The RL company is his, it's his IP again...Goonswarm would be falsely representing themselves as the Goon corp in EVE at that point.


Granted, these are pretty outlandish examples, but they are things that could happen. I'm exaggerating for effect, but it'll be something CCP will have to deal with in some way if they keep this wording for the ToS.
The risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).
Ad-Astra
#36 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:49
CCP Guard wrote:
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?



They already cleared this up in another thread earlier in the day, this is an attempt to revive said thread.
Goonswarm Federation
#37 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:49
We believe that this was intended as a clarification to prevent the Pizza incident from reoccurring. Where people edited the Wiki to say they were ISD verified trusted 3rd parties (Then scammed using that page).

If so a new rule adding ISD and the Wiki to the "out of bounds" parties seems like the best solution.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Goonswarm Federation
#38 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:49  |  Edited by: Kismeteer
Jon Matick wrote:
Banning 'impersonating' someone goes completely against what EVE is.
It's also a completely un-enforceable rule that can be easily exploited to get people banned/suspended.


Impersonating an individual you're not, that's a no-no. Impersonating a group or POV is the problem everyone has. You should force a name change on someone for having a typo'd name and such, that shouldn't be allowed. That's always been the rule. You cannot expect everyone to user-check every single person they work with, at all times, and expect zero typos etc. Nor do you want people saying 'I'm an administrator for eve online, give me your password'. That is and should be bannable.

However, making 'I work with xxx person' a bannable offense is a new change. It can quickly be expanded out to crazy reaches, as subterfuge is one of the main things that makes eve interesting. Make the person have a reason to trust this obvious new person they're talking to.

Or if people want to role play NPC corps, let them. Why make it a bannable offense?

Or for that matter, if they want to say 'I fly with PL, give me 3 billion isk to join PL', it's on the shoulders of the pilot to trust or not trust that person, not on CCP.
Goonswarm Federation
#39 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:50
CCP Guard wrote:
Hey everyone. It's evening here in Reykjavík, our senior staff are presumably at home with their families and it may take until tomorrow to get this all cleared up in an official manner.

I can assure you that this is intended in the best way, as clarification of policy that's been in effect for a long time so I hope we have your patience until office hours tomorrow. Nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

If it turns out that this change to the wording is actually too far reaching, goes against its intended purpose, or is somehow confusing things rather than clarifying them, that will be taken care of...trust me. If it turns out to make sense despite the worries you guys have, proper explanations will be provided.

I want to give the people responsible for drafting the policy a chance to read your posts and address the matter. Agreed?

I think pretty much all of us realise that the intent of the revised TOS isn't actually to introduce a massive shift in policy towards scamming and metagaming. But a vague and poorly-worded policy which gives that impression can easily be misapplied in ways not intended by the original writer.

As has been pointed out, the wording of this alteration could be read as making CVA's conquest of Providence in the name of the Amarr Empire a bannable offence, never mind the multitude of ways it interacts with various scams and tricks available to the more devious amongst your playerbase. All it takes is one tired GM at the end of a long nightshift to receive an angry ARGH I GOT SCAMMED IT ISN'T FAIR petition, look at the wording of the TOS you guys have just put out, and decide to reach for the banhammer. Believe me, it's better that you get this straightened out now before you have to start dealing with the fallout of players getting wrongly punished for activities that appear to break the letter of the law but which you never intended to be a breach.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
#40 Posted: 2013.09.09 22:52  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Cade Windstalker wrote:

They already cleared this up in another thread earlier in the day, this is an attempt to revive said thread.

If you could kindly link to the thread where it was cleared up, as we all obviously missed it, we'd be most grateful. If it's the thread I think it is, it actually muddied the waters more rather than cleared them.
Never go full Ripard
12 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump