EVE General Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

GM clarification on rewording of the Terms of Service

Jump to first DEV post
Author
#221 Posted: 2013.09.11 08:33
Seras VictoriaX wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

Then you shouldnt of had GM Grimmi start this thread off with a wall of text that said nothing. At this point it really seems like you guys are just stalling for time so that people forget / ignore this.

From 30 pages in a day to now... 1 page after a day.

It's effective.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.

Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
#222 Posted: 2013.09.11 08:46  |  Edited by: Reckless Ourtomineng
@ Alvaria Fera

4 poasts in a row that added nothing to the conversation ?
At least just make one so eyes won't hurt.

edit : 5 poasts
WAFFLES.
#223 Posted: 2013.09.11 09:46
Yeah, there's not really a lot left to say about this that hasn't already been said, but the thread should at least stay active until this is resolved
Market and Contract PVP
#224 Posted: 2013.09.11 10:11
Theon Severasse wrote:
Yeah, there's not really a lot left to say about this that hasn't already been said, but the thread should at least stay active until this is resolved


Everything has been clarified. You can report anyone for anything, and its up to the moderators to decide if you get warned/banned, depending on his feels.
I am the Zodiac, I am the stars,
You are the sorceress, my priestess of Mars,
Queen of the night, swathed in satin black,
Your ivory flesh upon my torture rack.
Nulli Secunda
#225 Posted: 2013.09.11 10:12
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.
I'm not trying to sound too bitter, but I heard that before.
And the "something" that was written up was the anti-clarification that is the OP here.

So now that we know, from you, that GM Grimmi was not representing or even misrepresenting CCPs stance on this issue, can we petition him under the new TOS since he portraited himself to be something he wasn't?

A good point. Let us all report the post.
Done.

For anyone who wants to see it, the text that I might have written as the reason for reporting the OP is this:
Quote:
This post is either not representative, or maybe even misrepresentative, of CCP policy, according to this post by GM Karidor, and is thus, under the new TOS, not allowed.

Background: The TOS changes made a lot of players nervous as to how player groups and representative should be understood. CCP Guard said that a clarification would be forthcoming, and when GM Grimmi posted this OP/thread, CCP Falcon closed the player thread on the basis that the official thread should be used. Now, with GM Karidors explanation, the GM Grimmi post here reported is not that official clarification, and as such it tries to present itself as something official that it is not.
Whether the GM Grimmi post will be in accordance with the final clarification or not is unimportant.
The poster gives the appearance of being official CCP clarification while we're told that the official CCP clarification is still being worked on.
#226 Posted: 2013.09.11 10:12
Theon Severasse wrote:
Yeah, there's not really a lot left to say about this that hasn't already been said, but the thread should at least stay active until this is resolved


If they stick to the timeline, we only have to wait about an hour or so from time of posting.

Deep breaths gentlemen.
#227 Posted: 2013.09.11 10:15
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.



a very clear example was presented, please clarify in this specific situation

ifs and buts be damned

since this 'clarification' clarifies nothing
#228 Posted: 2013.09.11 10:38
Antaria T'nar wrote:
GM Grimmi wrote:
We cannot go into specifics as each report is different and this will just end up leading into a circular argument of “ifs” and “buts”. We will say that impersonation cases are handled on a case by case basis by experienced GMs and there is no change in how such cases will be handled from now from how they were handled a year ago.



a very clear example was presented, please clarify in this specific situation

ifs and buts be damned

since this 'clarification' clarifies nothing

But it does, a GM said so. It clarifies that CCP can, and will, throw a FU in our general direction if they feel like it.
Psychotic Monk for CSM 9. Would you like to more?
Be sure to vote in the CSM 9 elections, they are your voice at CCP
Goonswarm Federation
#229 Posted: 2013.09.11 10:39
GM Karidor wrote:
Just popping into here quickly to ask some patience in this matter and to please hold your horses, at least until tomorrow. We are currently in the process of writing something up that will (hopefully) give you some better insight regarding this ToS change and clear up some misunderstandings. I hope to have this done until tomorrow around noon (GMT), but will update here should there be any further delay.

Just as an FYI if you're looking for a magic combination of words that say nothing of any substance yet stop people complaining about this issue, you'll not find them. You know, like you tried to do in this thread.

i.e. if the wording of the TOS goes unchanged, the issue remains unchanged.
"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930
Goonswarm Federation
#230 Posted: 2013.09.11 10:39
Antaria T'nar wrote:
a very clear example was presented, please clarify in this specific situation

ifs and buts be damned

since this 'clarification' clarifies nothing

the whole point of that 'clarification' was to clarify nothing and instead pacify the peons who didn't even read the text because it was more than ten words or so
i know because if they wanted to issue a clarification they could have done so easily, or at least have commented on some of the questions posed in the last thread. or the thread before that. which very intentionally didn't happen
Deep Space Engineering
#231 Posted: 2013.09.11 10:56  |  Edited by: Lei Merdeau
fundamentally,

we need clarity because once we have clarity we can go back to piloting battleships through the eyes of needles.
Goonswarm Federation
#232 Posted: 2013.09.11 11:20  |  Edited by: Sirane Elrek
Yes, but clarity is the bane of all Terms of Service. This is why every game company in existence has far-reaching ToS which are as unclear as possible: if you have to invoke the "terminate agreement for any reason" clause too often, that's bad publicity. If on the other hand you have a broad list of things that are unclear, you can justify any ban that's perceived overreaching as being against the letter (if not the spirit) of the ToS, and if you reconsider your ban in the face of public backlash and commute it to a temporary suspension, you can claim that it was a new guy who did it who didn't know how the ToS were supposed to be applied, but won't have to completely overturn your GM's decision (because the reason for the ban was still something that's technically forbidden) and risk making your CS staff look incompetent or arbitrary.
#233 Posted: 2013.09.11 11:39  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
CPP, you have to care less about scams and lies and impersonation of NPC's in this game. What's happening in EVE, must stay in EVE. This is dystopian universe. We can't stop being assholes. That would ruin immersion. Goons fit excellently in this game. And when one of them is leaving, everything has to be automatically more fair? That's bad....
When weapons, technology, and economies mature faster than the leadership culture entrusted with them, disaster ensues.
C C P Alliance
#234 Posted: 2013.09.11 12:04
So it's noon and time for a small update. Post is written up. Currently in the process of proofreading and getting at least a little CSM feedback on it. Stay tuned.
GM Karidor | Senior Game Master
#235 Posted: 2013.09.11 12:09
GM Karidor wrote:
So it's noon and time for a small update. Post is written up. Currently in the process of proofreading and getting at least a little CSM feedback on it. Stay tuned.

Clarification of the clarification of the clarification?

Excuse me if I seem a little jaded and don't hold my breath, we've seen this from CCP before, and we'll no doubt see it again.
Psychotic Monk for CSM 9. Would you like to more?
Be sure to vote in the CSM 9 elections, they are your voice at CCP
WAFFLES.
#236 Posted: 2013.09.11 12:17
GM Karidor wrote:
So it's noon and time for a small update. Post is written up. Currently in the process of proofreading and getting at least a little CSM feedback on it. Stay tuned.




I think you should get a lot of CSM feedback on this...
Deep Space Engineering
#237 Posted: 2013.09.11 12:40
and cracking down on the wrong scammers, banning creative scammers while letting scam bots pollute local is just wrong.
C C P Alliance
#238 Posted: 2013.09.11 12:46
A small warning and Disclaimer:
The post will be long (ca. 1.5 posts total), there won't be a TL;DR. Don't expect specific examples being addressed in all detail, this will not happen no matter how much you ask. I will address some things in a general manner, trying to get the general idea across on how such cases are viewed by us. The post will be as detailed as we're willing to go with the matter of the ToS change, and as such it will be "the final word" on this change. The CSM did not have much time to review the final version itself, but discussion on the matter had been ongoing for a bit already (since before my post yesterday). And without further ado, here we go:

Let me first point a few other places where impersonation is mentioned within our policy, and which have not changed alongside this ToS change:

The Naming Policy has some rather obvious points in this regard:

Quote:
...
2. IN-GAME NAMES
...
b. In-game names may not:
Impersonate or parody any employee or representative of EVE Online, CCP, Customer Support personnel or volunteers.
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.

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.



Granted, this particular version is also only 3 months old at this point, but you can find the exact changes made to the naming policy at the time, together with the reasoning, in the according announcement about this change

Next up, the EULA also has a bit that touches impersonation, and this has been in place for about 1.5 years in its current form, but earlier versions of the EULA contained similar phrases:

Quote:
B. Passwords and Names
...
You will be assigned a login name and a character name during the registration and character creation process. You may not allow anyone to use your login name or character name to access the System or play EVE. No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity. You may not obtain, attempt to obtain, use or attempt to use the login name or character name of anyone else.
...


You may recognize the highlighted part, it made it pretty much verbatim into the naming policy.

So, onwards to the ToS, which now contains the following after the change:

Quote:
...
8. You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
...


This was changed from: "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer." only. The highlighted bit is, from what I understand, the only part that is worded slightly differently from the other two places, but in our interpretation also falls into "falsely represent his or her identity", and always has.

So, from the perspective of Customer Support, nothing regarding the actual policy and its enforcement has changed at all, we merely updated the ToS to include the things that have been said in other documents carrying pretty much the same weight as the ToS.


So why were the changes made to the ToS (and earlier, the naming policy)? That one pretty much comes down to us receiving an increased number of cases about impersonation that showed us that the policy is not clear to players, both perpetrators and victims, mostly due to actually not being aware of their full extent. As such, the clarifications were made accordingly to better represent how Customer Support interprets those rules usually, which brings us to some of the questions that have been brought up:

How come that people got away with [insert Impersonation variant] in the past?
Simple. Often, they simply weren't reported. This could have the reason of the impersonators not actually doing anything that would have bothered anyone, or a victim just not being aware of the full extents of their rights in this regard. We are also not actively hunting down impersonators, so if there is no report, there won't be an action either.
[...]
GM Karidor | Senior Game Master
C C P Alliance
#239 Posted: 2013.09.11 12:46
[...]

Where does Customer Support draw the line for impersonation?
As much as we'd love to be able to draw a clear line, it is quite impossible. Impersonation can take various forms, and each with endless subtleties involved. While most cases luckily (for us GMs, that is) tend to be rather clear, being the most obvious form of impersonation by taking up a similar character name from another player for malicious purposes, more and more players are attempting much more subtle attempts.
What needs to be kept in mind regarding impersonations is that all characters involved are seen as their own, independent entity, which effectively means it's quite possible that a situation may appear where a player impersonates his trustworthy main character using an alt character located on the same account. As there is no in-game way to verify whether or not certain characters are located on the same account (the API needs the key and external tools to be read properly, so that one doesn't count here), this case would be handled the very same way as the impersonator character being owned by another player.

In summary, with the exception of the most obvious Character impersonations, each impersonation report will usually have to be decided on a case by case basis, taking all things and contexts that we can reliably verify into account. Standings between entities are usually not taken into consideration, as those are being used in wildly differentiating contexts. Generally speaking, if you're claiming to act on behalf of a player run in-game entity, you should be a member of said entity. Acting with a character on behalf of another entity (NPC or player run) that the character is not a member of can, and will, be interpreted as impersonation within our policies in cases of conflict, even if the player eventually has a member alt. Again, this comes down to the fact that there are no in game possibilities of verification.


But think of the Roleplayers!?
Impersonating NPC entities not being permitted has always been part of the impersonation policies. However, it is entirely possible to declare support for NPC entities without the need of claiming that you act "on their behalf or order". It should be noted that outside of events, NPC entities will not usually acknowledge the support of any player run entities.

So, will I be banned now?
Impersonation violations very rarely result in a ban if there have not been any previous warnings. Bans regarding impersonation so far usually have been the result of repeat offense or very extreme cases. A name change is a standard part of the procedure, as is a warning, the removal (and return) of assets gained through the violation can happen as well, depending on the nature of the case.


Well, that's it for now. I hope this rather lengthy post clears up some of the confusion that this ToS change brought about.
GM Karidor | Senior Game Master
#240 Posted: 2013.09.11 13:01
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
IF that's the only indication of a preset "yes you can" or "no you can't", can we get a link or a citation as to what happened? (I want to discern details out of what can normally happen in Eve everyday versus getting banned =/)

Comments sections of various eve news websites will be illuminating, as well as 3rd party forums.



Bleh =(
This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation.
Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Forum Jump