|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4646
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
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 GÇ£ifsGÇ¥ and GÇ£butsGÇ¥. 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.
Then why is there a need for a change? Surely if there's no change, there's no need for a rules change.
More importantly, previously you stated this was not allowed:
Quote: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.
As far as I'm aware, this was not previously banned. It's not impersonating anyone. It's not falsely claiming to be another identifiable EVE player. I would have confidently told anyone in our alliance this was allowed. I see no reason it should not be allowed. As a result, I'm really not confident in "trust us, we'll interpret it correctly and there's no changebut can't tell you how" because you've just suddenly declared that lying about the authority you have is actually lying about your identity. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4646
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Georgina Parmala wrote:Weaselior wrote: As far as I'm aware, this was not previously banned. It's not impersonating anyone. It's not falsely claiming to be another identifiable EVE player. I would have confidently told anyone in our alliance this was allowed. I see no reason it should not be allowed. As a result, I'm really not confident in "trust us, we'll interpret it correctly and there's no changebut can't tell you how" because you've just suddenly declared that lying about the authority you have is actually lying about your identity.
Lets say I'm trying to sell a moon I do not actually own as a scam. I am NOT impersonating a director of whatever corporation owns the tower anchored at that moon. I am merely lying about it being mine to sell. To my understanding: I'm not impersonating anyone under the old rules and it's fine. Under the letter of the new rules I appear to be misrepresenting the player group who actually does own the moon and it's not ok. Nothing changed how? Something changed based on what GM Grimmi said in the example. And a fair amount of the time your scamee will read what Grimmi wrote or the TOS, and petition that you falsely represented that you were a representative of that corp based on thinking that actually means what it says instead of being officially meaningless.
The change in the wording of the TOS was massive and there was no basis for adding the bolded section here:
Quote:You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
Claiming you're Goonwaffe by registering the corporation Goomwaffe is one thing. Claiming you're The Mittani's Space Lawyer (go ahead and ask!) and are authorized to negotiate on his behalf is another so just send all that isk to my wallet and I'll move you into Deklein tomorrow. The TOS above bans the first. Until now, it didn't ban the second. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4653
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 00:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:Why make a new post to say exactly the same thing as the last GM post and not even try to address the concerns raised? Just say "htfu" and be done with it.
For all the weasel words we're left with a rule that by the plain meaning of the words bans most nefarious acts in Eve. Well except for isk doublers in Jita, thank god they were spared.
Yeah I gotta say I'm really not impressed with this response. There was no real follow-through here: a boilerplate statement, and then a statement that "well we can't answer any questions".
I'm pretty much left with the impression this was solely a delaying tactic and GM Grimmi is neither reading nor responding to any of the concerns. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4655
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 14:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote: 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.
I'm sorry but I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. If I claim to represent another entity it is absolutely trivial to verify they're in the alliance: "sure, send me a evemail from your [alliance] alt". Or get info on the character and determine "you know this guy isn't even in that alliance why am I even talking to them".
I mean goddamn, we have been able to do this for a decade now fairly routinely. It is an absolutely normal part of 0.0 living to figure out how you contact an alliance and we all have been able to do it entirely successfully: you check if the character is actually in the alliance, you then check the alliance description to see if they're listed as a diplo or a contact, and if you're still willing to proceed despite that, you check their character info and see if they have titles that back up their story.
Not only that, but you've now actually made it potentially bannable if I use one of my alt characters to represent myself. I may be on another character on my main account, and use another Goonwaffe character and identify myself as a weaselior alt. The fact you've just made it bannable for one character actually owned by a player to correctly represent themselves as an alt of another player actually owned by that player.
If I am on my character in our renter alliance, I can now be banned for - correctly - representing that I am Weaselior. If I am on Weaselior, I can now be banned for - correctly - representing that I am a full director in our renter alliance. And this isn't something that I'm making up as a crazy application of the rules, this is another new rule you've suddenly announced during your "we are not actually changing any rules" 'clarification'. You need someone who actually understands this game to be sanity-checking these policies because they're atrocious. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4657
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 14:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
This parade of actively insane interpretations of the rules that no sane person would think are banned is why "everything is handled on a case by case basis" is not a good enough answer, because nobody can even comprehend what principles might suddenly be applied in this case by case basis and wind up banned because they quite reasonably assumed that telling people you are you was not impersonation. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4657
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 14:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
Since one character cannot impersonate another will all of my characters with "weasel" in their names be banned, because you know they might be falsely impersonating me and we can't have that, even if they are me. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4659
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 14:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
To be honest it's even more troubling that these insane interpretations of the rules were the status quo, and only didn't come to light because nobody was crazy enough to petition someone who said they were an alt of someone else when they actually were. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4660
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:From CCP's point, it's probably "If you can't provide a proof that you are the alt of X, how do you expect other people to find if you really are his alt? by evemailing his main, just like any sane person would think was the proper way to verify |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4660
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
"you insufficiently proved you were an alt of yourself and you are now banned. as you are a bad, TOS breaking person, we banned all of your accounts including your main that you were impersonating" |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4660
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Weaselior wrote:"you insufficiently proved you were an alt of yourself and you are now banned. as you are a bad, TOS breaking person, we banned all of your accounts including your main that you were impersonating" I know it's stupid but thats the only way I can see to be safe in doing buisness. Their policies it to not hunt down people and this is not said to have changed so as long as you are not reported, you will be ok. If you get reported, then having proved who you were will be important. to be honest the only way I see to be safe doing business is to reiterate how utterly insane the GM policies have become until someone sanity checks them and reverses this |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4663
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: If you can defend yourself after getting petitionned, you might be able to forgot proving who you are during the initial dealing but I do not know how they deal with such cases so I would go on the safer side.
I don't really see the value in debating what perticular hoops to jump through to protect yourself against this insane interpretation because just the fact that a GM declared you can be banned for impersonating yourself means you can't rely on "reason" or "facts" in these case-by-case decisions. Just because you jump through all these hoops doesn't mean much when it turns out that you missed the invisible hoop. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4665
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 16:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:My take on this "clarification" - people that have been scammed/AWOX'd over the years have not been filing enough petitions!! What we have all believed to be valid EVE sandbox play has been in violation the whole time. We conned ourselves. lol Yeah, I'm going to have to form the Official Goonswarm Space Lawyer squad, where we fight our enemies by getting exceedingly high and then petitioning our enemies for anything that we can come up with. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4682
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 17:39:00 -
[13] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Kojaxe LeAppljaxe wrote:Whoever that GM was should be fired. Irony: It was the Senior GM. guess i'll be asking for my petitions to be demoted rather than escalated now so i might get a response that makes sense |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4693
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 17:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything. Oh no, we've gotten plenty of clarification, it's just been "the rules have always been more terrible than anyone anticipated". |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4706
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 19:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:La Nariz wrote:22 pages and we still have the same explanation from a couple days ago with more words that don't clarify anything. On the contrary, the new explanation (the one by GM Karidor) lays out the reasoning behind the TOS change and quotes the other policy that the TOS is being brought into line with. It's pretty clear to me now what CCP's views on impersonation are; while the specifics of any particular scheme are a bit fuzzy, I'm content with knowing that as long as I'm not doing something blatantly out there, I won't get instabant. its just me but I don't consider identifying myself as myself when on an alt something "blatantly out there" |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4728
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 20:50:00 -
[16] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Aryth wrote:Well, at least CCP finally admits their intention was to ban many forms of scamming. I still have hope that this is just a case of "GMs gone wild", and someone who isn't the video-game version of an arm-banded thug from 1930s Europe has the sense to step in here and impose some sanity. GMs don't create policy like this. This is the sort of policy that originates at the producer level. Seagull for instance. No, I would sort of expect this was GMs making policy for a long time without really consulting anyone and they make a slow drift into crazyland that's not seen by anyone else, because appeals simply go to the GM team and they can't be discussed on the forums. |
|
|
|