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
#1501 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:30
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Levarr Burton wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Levarr Burton wrote:
I had to log in and come to General Discussion to post in this, so, GM Karidor, you should already feel bad.

Now that I'm here, I have a few questions which I would like clarified:

If I claim that a character I own is NOT my alt ("No, Gallente Citizen 123456 is not owned by the same person who owns Levarr Burton"), could I now be considered to be impersonating a non-existent third party, and therefore be open to punitive measures for impersonating that party which does not exist?



Does the TOS say that you can't impersonate non-existent 3rd parties? Does it mention impersonation of non-existent 3rd parties anywhere? No. No it does not.

So why would you come in here and try to confuse things more by asking such a bizarre question?




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


It's not such a bizarre question. If claiming to be associated to an entity (be it a player, group of players or character) is considered impersonation (even if it is true), then it follows that falsely claiming to NOT be associated with a player, group of players or character is also impersonation, even if no third party is explicitly named or implicated as being the (false) actual association.

If that is the view of the GM team, which would be consistent with what GM Karidor has stated, then any spying and meta-gaming (even through 3rd party communication channels) would potentially be bannable.

I am also curious as to the use of the phrase "Malicious intent." Maliciousness is quite subjective. If I am misrepresenting myself in order to provide a benefit to an organization which I sympathize with, it could be argued that I have benevolent intent, as I am defending my friends by weakening members of an entity which is malicious towards them.

If the GM team wants players to believe that there have been no practical changes in how the impersonation rules are to be implemented and enforced, then they need to stop making statements which implicitly or explicitly state the opposite.


I have been stating for I don't know how many posts now that the "group of players" part of that is the big problem here. Not the alts. This is a problem. It needs clarification and probably removal from the TOS. I would like other to join me in my concern that this part is new, troubling, and in dire need of clarification. That is the part that is going to have a large impact on EVE ... not the fringe case alt nonsense.



I too have an issue with the "groups of players" part. It is a very real threat to many aspects of gameplay which have been actively celebrated and encouraged. However, considering there are multiple statements by GMs in this very thread saying that telling someone that my alt is my alt, and being honest about it, is considered bannable, I would say that there is more than one big problem with this policy.
Caldari State
#1502 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:30
Sid Hudgens wrote:
arabella blood wrote:


I can give a POA to someone scam on my behalf. can't see a reason it's forbidden.



I didn't say that giving imaginary POA to your imaginary character in an imaginary universe is forbidden. It's just irrelevant. The GMs have to treat different characters as separate entities or they will be divulging info about player accounts. You are not going to talk the GMs or CCP into divulging player account information in any way. It's not going happen. I suggest you move on to the root issue which is that impersonation is prohibited and ignore this silly alt stuff which is merely a symptom of that.


That is exactly what they are doing when they are banning all of a RMT player accounts. So they can.
Troll for hire. Cheap prices.
C C P Alliance
#1503 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:31  |  Edited by: CCP Dolan
Greetings guys, I am posting the following on behalf of GM Karidor so that you all have a nice shiny blue post to jump too.

Quote:
There are a few players in this thread, who get our intentions with the impersonation policy that is in place. Chanina pretty much already nailed it on page 44 (Link), Sir Hudgens understands the reasons behind it, even though he disagrees on the policy itself, to name just a few.

Understand this: As those policies we're outlining here have been in place and enforced when we actually got a report for a rather long time (speaking from my several years of being an EVE GM), reverting the ToS change, or the naming policy change for that matter, would effectively change nothing about the policy itself (yes, I'm saying it again). I can completely relate if you disagree with that policy, but that's pretty much a whole other discussion to be had independently of the actual ToS changes and as I said previously, it is more than apparent that there is an interest in discussing this further and we will continue to take this matter on with the CSM in order to try and come to a solution regarding the policy itself. Until then:

Is scamming involving impersonation an automatic ban?
No. If it is happening we may have a word with you (as in: a warning). It is exceedingly rare that someone is banned outright. Please do remember that in any case you may always request a review of a warning or a ban applied against your accounts.

Should players be allowed to scam by impersonating other players?
As mentioned above, this is another discussion to be had, and which we are happy to continue with the CSM. Customer Support stance on this question is at this time as it has been for the past years, a pretty clear "No, but we're not proactively hunting down anyone". As time passes and more tools become available to make informed decisions (as in being able to verify things yourself without having to involve any other player via EVE Mail or other external tools), we will review that stance and eventually change it. Unfortunately, so far the opportunity unfortunately has not come along for us to comfortably change this stance.

Have we banned Scamming?
No, our stance has not changed at all. I remember having to act on various impersonation scam cases over the years since I started as a GM more than 6 years ago. We have been enforcing it in the past (when it was reported) via various different rulings that now have been collected into one. "Enforcing" usually meaning, as outlined above, having a word with you in form of a warning in which we lay out our reasons as well as which points of EULA, ToS or other policies are the grounds for the warning, which you of course may appeal by bringing your own arguments to the table.

Again, we are now very aware that there is a disagreement about this long standing policy about impersonation among our players, and if anything the change of the ToS has brought this to light very clearly. We will get together with the CSM to find out how things regarding the policy itself need to change exactly before other changes to the according contentious points are being made.


Now back to me posting (thought I highly recommend all of you read GM Karidor's post above). Your response to the most recent changes to the Terms of Service makes it clear that many of you are unhappy with the current state of the ToS. CCP is ultimately the arbiters of the universe that you all live in, but that doesn't mean we are beyond talking to the players and making constructive changes. As such, I have started a thread in the Jita Park Speaker's Corner for you all to give constructive feedback to CCP and the CSM. We would like to hear both, (1) ideas for rewording the changes to the ToS, and/or (2) well thoughtful objections to our traditional reinforcement of ToS in regards to impersonation.

This is not our "Final Response" in this thread; However, we do not want to make any rash changes, and I hope you all will provide as much constructive feedback as possible. CCP is just as committed to make the EVE Universe the best and most interesting Sandbox Universe in video games as all of you are.
CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls
Caldari State
#1504 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:33
Sid Hudgens wrote:

Seriously folks ... you're not getting it. Try to calm yourself. Go back. Read the CCP posts again. Skip the wild hysteria posts by other players who are just making up complete fiction. Try to understand.

There are actual issues here that need to be discussed.

Yes.

Issues like how these rules, as stated, are here to protect the entity of the person being impersonated.

So I, an NPC corp member, Goon recruitment scam a player. The rules against me impersonating a GSF recruiter are there to protect GFS and stop me from tarnishing their good name (lol). When contacted by the mark, GSF can petition me for tarnishing their reputation.

How this is actually being applied, is the mark petitions that I did not, in fact, get them into GSF and took their money. It does not even matter if I am a pubbie or an alt of The Mittani himself, the result is the same. The verdict is the mark gets his stuff back and I suffer account action*.

Do you not realize how pants-on-head that is in the EvE universe? It's literally GM's responding to a "I'm stupid, please fix" support ticket with "OK".


*Lets drop the whole warning vs ban discussion while we are at it. All that varies is the size of the bat. The operative statement is that punishment against the account for breaching ToS is enacted.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
StructureDamage
#1505 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:33  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Isis Dea wrote:
Yet Goons used both of these mechanics to take over the strongest alliance in the game. I have logs of people who submitted petitions back during this time and were kicked away from CCP with statements that it was perfectly fine what Goons did.

CCP even made articles about it, with the usual 'welcome to eve' spew.

These rules have NOT been enforced, quite the opposite. And to enforce them now hints favoritism to what is presently the largest alliance in EVE...


Per the GMs, this rule is not more than 1.5 years old. The flipping of BoB happened before the policy was set in place. So it's not so much a question of whether the rules were enforced--the ones that were in place at the time were--as it's a question of whether this more recent change in the rules is good for the game, no matter how long it's been in place.

[EDIT: Ninja'd by a Dev. It's not clear from reading Karidor's latest missive that the above is actually correct, so caveat lector.]
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Goonswarm Federation
#1506 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:36
CCP Dolan wrote:
Greetings guys, I am posting the following on behalf of GM Karidor so that you all have a nice shiny blue post to jump too.


So, are you shutting this thread down? Everyone to Jita Park now?
Goonswarm Federation
#1507 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:36
Dolan, you totally should be like nah nah I got a blue name and you don't to GMs
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Goonswarm Federation
#1508 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:39
Kismeteer wrote:
CCP Dolan wrote:
Greetings guys, I am posting the following on behalf of GM Karidor so that you all have a nice shiny blue post to jump too.

So, are you shutting this thread down? Everyone to Jita Park now?

Only need one thread for discussion after all.
Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

My main is out of sub ... NO, STOP BEING POOR I can't talk about my main due to TOS "clarifications"
Goonswarm Federation
#1509 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:40
Isis Dea wrote:
Was in the middle of making this statement in another topic (before it got locked):


GM Karidor wrote:

...2. IN-GAME NAMES
...
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...

...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...


Yet Goons used both of these mechanics to take over the strongest alliance in the game. I have logs of people who submitted petitions back during this time and were kicked away from CCP with statements that it was perfectly fine what Goons did.

CCP even made articles about it, with the usual 'welcome to eve' spew.

These rules have NOT been enforced, quite the opposite. And to enforce them now hints favoritism to what is presently the largest alliance in EVE...


We don't like it any more than you do.
Pandemic Legion
#1510 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:46
CCP Dolan wrote:
Greetings guys, I am posting the following on behalf of GM Karidor so that you all have a nice shiny blue post to jump too.

Quote:
There are a few players in this thread, who get our intentions with the impersonation policy that is in place. Chanina pretty much already nailed it on page 44 (Link), Sir Hudgens understands the reasons behind it, even though he disagrees on the policy itself, to name just a few.

Understand this: As those policies we're outlining here have been in place and enforced when we actually got a report for a rather long time (speaking from my several years of being an EVE GM), reverting the ToS change, or the naming policy change for that matter, would effectively change nothing about the policy itself (yes, I'm saying it again). I can completely relate if you disagree with that policy, but that's pretty much a whole other discussion to be had independently of the actual ToS changes and as I said previously, it is more than apparent that there is an interest in discussing this further and we will continue to take this matter on with the CSM in order to try and come to a solution regarding the policy itself. Until then:

Is scamming involving impersonation an automatic ban?
No. If it is happening we may have a word with you (as in: a warning). It is exceedingly rare that someone is banned outright. Please do remember that in any case you may always request a review of a warning or a ban applied against your accounts.

Should players be allowed to scam by impersonating other players?
As mentioned above, this is another discussion to be had, and which we are happy to continue with the CSM. Customer Support stance on this question is at this time as it has been for the past years, a pretty clear "No, but we're not proactively hunting down anyone". As time passes and more tools become available to make informed decisions (as in being able to verify things yourself without having to involve any other player via EVE Mail or other external tools), we will review that stance and eventually change it. Unfortunately, so far the opportunity unfortunately has not come along for us to comfortably change this stance.

Have we banned Scamming?
No, our stance has not changed at all. I remember having to act on various impersonation scam cases over the years since I started as a GM more than 6 years ago. We have been enforcing it in the past (when it was reported) via various different rulings that now have been collected into one. "Enforcing" usually meaning, as outlined above, having a word with you in form of a warning in which we lay out our reasons as well as which points of EULA, ToS or other policies are the grounds for the warning, which you of course may appeal by bringing your own arguments to the table.

Again, we are now very aware that there is a disagreement about this long standing policy about impersonation among our players, and if anything the change of the ToS has brought this to light very clearly. We will get together with the CSM to find out how things regarding the policy itself need to change exactly before other changes to the according contentious points are being made.


Now back to me posting (thought I highly recommend all of you read GM Karidor's post above). Your response to the most recent changes to the Terms of Service makes it clear that many of you are unhappy with the current state of the ToS. CCP is ultimately the arbiters of the universe that you all live in, but that doesn't mean we are beyond talking to the players and making constructive changes. As such, I have started a thread in the Jita Park Speaker's Corner for you all to give constructive feedback to CCP and the CSM. We would like to hear both, (1) ideas for rewording the changes to the ToS, and/or (2) well thoughtful objections to our traditional reinforcement of ToS in regards to impersonation.

This is not our "Final Response" in this thread; However, we do not want to make any rash changes, and I hope you all will provide as much constructive feedback as possible. CCP is just as committed to make the EVE Universe the best and most interesting Sandbox Universe in video games as all of you are.


based mb3 please don't let this go unfixed
Caldari State
#1511 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:53
Sid Hudgens wrote:

I am much more concerned with the new language that prohibits representing groups. This is a problem for a lot of eve institutions like the good old recruitment scam. It also causes problem for groups like ... I dunno ... goons who are setting up alt corps and such to run their new rental empire.

Then there's the standard MMO definition of a group (fleet).

As a spy , am I falsely presenting myself as a member of the fleet (group) with malicious intent?
Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Gallente Federation
#1512 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:53  |  Edited by: Cierra Royce
Sid Hudgens wrote:
Doris Dents wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:

The GMs have already stated that some kind of malicious intent would have to be determined in order for them to take action against the petition. So no, you won't be banned for that.


It would be a ridiculous ban even for malicious intent, verifying someone has some claimed authority or that they're a claimed alt is easy as a quick evemail. It says a hell of a lot that CCP claim the rules have always been this way but we just never noticed because victims of such a scam often don't think to petition.

Adding extremely broad rules then saying "hey trust us to apply this sensibly" will absolutely have a chilling effect on the whole metagame because no one is going to risk their whole account often with the best part of a decade's accumulated SP on the whims of a random GM and the sustained whininess of an unfortunate victim be it an individual or a whole alliance avalanching petitions.



I don't have access to all the historical versions of the TOS and naming policy so I have no way of knowing for exactly how long the rules have been this way. CCP has provided (for me, satisfactory) evidence that they were this way prior to this last TOS change.

I am much more concerned with the new language that prohibits representing groups. This is a problem for a lot of eve institutions like the good old recruitment scam. It also causes problem for groups like ... I dunno ... goons who are setting up alt corps and such to run their new rental empire.


It's a very annoying problem meta-game wise, if I claim right here or in game to be a goon alt, and my corp and its members affiliated with the goons and encourage someone to engage in some form of behaviour, hand me 500m isk for a vaporous promise to get them into the promised land of Goonwaffe for example, that in the zero sum world of eve results in that person becoming butthurt and feeling all litigious they will 'ticket' me, to use the new parlance, and my fate will be in the hands of a GM.

A GM whose intention is to decide were my actions malicious, and as in most player versus player interactions in eve, there will be a certain level of deception aimed at increasing my advantage in some way to the marked disadvantage of the buttehurted petitioner.

I simply can't see that a GM will look at such actions and think they don't fall under the malicious category, because of course they are malicious actions, and prior to this 'clarified rewording' has always been perfectly fine as long as you didn't step over certain red lines by Impersonating a GM/DEV/ISD (or engaging in some form of exploit or using a cloned character name Chrlbba etc).

This is even true if I am not lying in anyway and am actually a goon alt with all the backing of the GS_Scams brigade, because I cannot identify my alt as a goon due to the newly added misinterpretation of relationship 'statutes' which would pretty much guarantee a reversal of the end result of my labours, and probably a warning or a ban for good measure.

Also the 1.5 month old naming stuff nonsense, ie naming my Celestis 'Serpentis Watchman' or my Vindicator 'Serpentis Admiral' and running the risk of petition as they are named after NPC entities.
It might be silly to think a GM would look at a petition from a gankee and say, yes they were deceived just long enough for the ToS violator to land on grid and grab a point that a reimbursement is required and a warning to the ToS violator.
I'd like to think such an event would never happen, but it probably will, and it may well be reversed on appeal etc, but it all results in players spending time in a quasi-legal star chamber process rather than playing the game.

Mean minded space lawyers will always find ways to submit petitions/tickets and argue with GMs even without these changes, but they will have a field day with all the uncertainty this stuff will create.
And an aspect of gameplay previously always accepted as part of the dystopian no hand holding universe that Eve represented, one that has generated a huge amount of content for the players, will have a blanket drawn over it and pennies put on its closed eyes.
#1513 Posted: 2013.09.13 20:55  |  Edited by: Sid Hudgens
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:

Seriously folks ... you're not getting it. Try to calm yourself. Go back. Read the CCP posts again. Skip the wild hysteria posts by other players who are just making up complete fiction. Try to understand.

There are actual issues here that need to be discussed.

Yes.

Issues like how these rules, as stated, are here to protect the entity of the person being impersonated.

So I, an NPC corp member, Goon recruitment scam a player. The rules against me impersonating a GSF recruiter are there to protect GFS and stop me from tarnishing their good name (lol). When contacted by the mark, GSF can petition me for tarnishing their reputation.

How this is actually being applied, is the mark petitions that I did not, in fact, get them into GSF and took their money. It does not even matter if I am a pubbie or an alt of The Mittani himself, the result is the same. The verdict is the mark gets his stuff back and I suffer account action*.

Do you not realize how pants-on-head that is in the EvE universe? It's literally GM's responding to a "I'm stupid, please fix" support ticket with "OK".


*Lets drop the whole warning vs ban discussion while we are at it. All that varies is the size of the bat. The operative statement is that punishment against the account for breaching ToS is enacted.



I fully agree that the language about falsely representing groups is in fact new policy (or at least previously unstated policy) and that it is a very big cause for concern. I would like the discussion to focus more on this point and less on people making up ridiculous hypothetical situations about getting banned for telling their FC they have a scout alt. Mostly because these ridiculous stories have (really I swear) no basis in reality.
"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
#1514 Posted: 2013.09.13 21:02
This isn't the Eve I joined all those years ago, seriously CCP, put the crack pipe down and start giving less of a **** over stupid people losing virtual items.... it's only a bloody game Roll
#1515 Posted: 2013.09.13 21:03
Cierra Royce wrote:

It's a very annoying problem meta-game wise, if I claim right here or in game to be a goon alt, and my corp and its members affiliated with the goons and encourage someone to engage in some form of behaviour, hand me 500m isk for a vaporous promise to get them into the promised land of Goonwaffe for example, that in the zero sum world of eve results in that person becoming butthurt and feeling all litigious they will 'ticket' me, to use the new parlance, and my fate will be in the hands of a GM.

A GM whose intention is to decide were my actions malicious, and as in most player versus player interactions in eve, there will be a certain level of deception aimed at increasing my advantage in some way to the marked disadvantage of the buttehurted petitioner.

I simply can't see that a GM will look at such actions and think they don't fall under the malicious category, because of course they are malicious actions, and prior to this 'clarified rewording' has always been perfectly fine as long as you didn't step over certain red lines by Impersonating a GM/DEV/ISD (or engaging in some form of exploit or using a cloned character name Chrlbba etc).

This is even true if I am not lying in anyway and am actually a goon alt with all the backing of the GS_Scams brigade, because I cannot identify my alt as a goon due to the newly added misinterpretation of relationship 'statutes' which would pretty much guarantee a reversal of the end result of my labours, and probably a warning or a ban for good measure.



You can run both of those scams without having to impersonate any particular player or character, including your own. This keeps you out of contention with all but the "groups" part of the new language which I think is the dangerous part.
"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Gallente Federation
#1516 Posted: 2013.09.13 21:10  |  Edited by: Cierra Royce
Sid Hudgens wrote:


You can run both of those scams without having to impersonate any particular player or character, including your own. This keeps you out of contention with all but the "groups" part of the new language which I think is the dangerous part.


True enough, but the groups wording is what pulls the rug from under the scam, same if I were to be running a professed debt collection agency on behalf of some NPC corporation.

The changes go a step too far, and I am pretty pleased that the Dev's and GM are now asking for direct feedback and suggestions on the language.
WAFFLES.
#1517 Posted: 2013.09.13 21:11
I think that in the new thread Mynnna's post is probably the best version of this that we have seen, as it allows what eve players have believed to be acceptable all along (claiming to be someone's alt), but stops what CCP appear to want (direct impersonation through use of name, e.g capital "i" and lowercase "L")
#1518 Posted: 2013.09.13 21:11
Cierra Royce wrote:
Sid Hudgens wrote:


You can run both of those scams without having to impersonate any particular player or character, including your own. This keeps you out of contention with all but the "groups" part of the new language which I think is the dangerous part.


True enough, but the groups wording is what pulls the rug from under the scam, same if I were to be running a professed debt collection agency on behalf of some NPC corporation.

The changes go a step too far, and I am pretty please that the Dev's and GM are now asking for direct feedback and suggestions on the language.



I wholeheartedly agree.
"....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced."
Of Sound Mind
#1519 Posted: 2013.09.13 21:20
Quote:

Understand this: As those policies we're outlining here have been in place and enforced when we actually got a report for a rather long time (speaking from my several years of being an EVE GM), reverting the ToS change, or the naming policy change for that matter, would effectively change nothing about the policy itself (yes, I'm saying it again). I can completely relate if you disagree with that policy, but that's pretty much a whole other discussion to be had independently of the actual ToS changes and as I said previously, it is more than apparent that there is an interest in discussing this further and we will continue to take this matter on with the CSM in order to try and come to a solution regarding the policy itself. Until then:


One of the issues from this thread is that the above is up to interpretation. The original existence of this policy, as GM Karidor quoted earlier, was from the EULA, in a section "B. Passwords and Names" that specifically refers to the naming of things. It's not so strange of a belief that this section would be limited to naming, and not about general player behavior. Therefore the moving the policy o the Terms of Service doc and applying it to general player behavior can reasonably be interpreted as a change in policy.

Also, while not maliciously, it's either disingenuous or pedantic to claim that the policy has always been this way when a large portion, if not the majority, of the player base has for years had a different interpretation of those rules. To use the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy as a parallel, the earth is going to be destroyed to make way for an interstellar bypass, the planning charts and demolition orders were all available for 50 years at the planning department in alpha centauri, it's not the vogon's responsibility if humans never invented space travel to go read them.

The joke being that obviously it is.
#1520 Posted: 2013.09.13 21:24
Theon Severasse wrote:
I think that in the new thread Mynnna's post is probably the best version of this that we have seen, as it allows what eve players have believed to be acceptable all along (claiming to be someone's alt), but stops what CCP appear to want (direct impersonation through use of name, e.g capital "i" and lowercase "L")


Ya, wow, problem solved as far as I'm concerned. At the very least that post should be the base point that people can then comment on. Good job digging it up, and of course good job to mynnna for posting it in the first place (but no surprise there).

Seeing a blue tag saying that this issue is now being addressed by the proper people through the proper channels is really all I wanted to hear for the last two days. It's unfortunate it took that long and it's unfortunate that the trust doesn't exist that it would have arrived without the formulaic forum-warrioring and general foot-stamping, but here we are; a better place than we were an hour ago.

Thanks to Dolan and whoever else has been working behind the scenes to get this issue properly addressed.
Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Forum Jump