EVE ToS Impersonation Clause Updated

Avatar
The CSM has been following this issue and pressed CCP for clarification after the initial post went up. We still have questions following the GM update to the thread, and will continue to pursue those questions until the limits of the policy are clarified.
Avatar
Eve is dying.
Avatar
This is very much appreciated. I am (and I assume I'm not alone in this) rather tired of these unclear statements from CCP in their official policies, so please keep pushing for 'clear-speak'. CCP should know better by now, considering how us players are very much motivated to find every edge case that might give us the advantage over our adversaries.
Avatar
EULA was updated following a specific ponzi sceme to scam people out of isk involving the claim on a third party website "CEO of *enter an NPC corporation here* " while also using in game assets in the form of logo's belonging to NPC corporations.The fine print was discussed too much to maintain last version. Particularly because this is a form of impersonation specificly employed to decieve people for financial gain and has no roleplaying or storybuilding value to anyone.
Avatar
Trite, melodramatic pronouncements, however, appear to be doing just fine.
Avatar
Problem is, those guys in PIZZA (my former corp members) got banned before this thing was clarified. And by banned, that is completely and permanently banned. Furthermore, the GM - can't remember his name - who managed the whole thing was showing a certain lack of discernment looking at how he handled the situation. I'm not saying they didn't do anything wrong, but since the actual ToS article needed some clarification, was it necessary to actually ban them BEFORE the thing was changed ? Had CCP enforced that policy before, and made it known via the ToS, NOFUN would not have set up a scam like that. It's like condemning someone based on a law that hasn't been passed, or isn't known to anyone but the lawbearer, or at least that is not specific and leave the whole thing subject to interpretation.For the record, the guy who banned them is also the dude who went berzerk on GOONS back in the day when they scammed in public channel (as I recall, GOONS was pretty damn mad and the whole thing got settled). ie, not the most objective of GMs when it comes to scamming and "emergent gameplay". I'll add that he actually "gave" money to the players who were scammed by giving them back the hull of the supercap that were stolen together with the fit that was actually bought by PIZZA members (I'm grasping at straws here to try and show the incompetence of that duder since it is completely illegal and mentionned in the GM chart that in no condition should a GM create and offer assets to a player). He cut out all contact with the banned players who were asking for some kind of explanation and in the end, most of my corp got banned and I was left alone with some weird dudes I didn't konw :'( Hence the post and why I'm mad !
Avatar
Adding what CCPGuard said at 22:24 EVE: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?https://forums.eveonline.com/d...
Avatar
You'd think that by this time in EVE's history, the lawyers/GMs/Devs writing the EULA and TOS updates would be well aware that any ambiguity in the documents is going to be torn apart by a player base that thrives on ambiguity.
Avatar
And in unrelated news; the average net income of individual players within Goonswarm Federation dropped by 91.2%.
Avatar
Come on, it wasn't a long post: "Recruitment scams using your own corp/alliance are fine".
Avatar
https://forums.eveonline.com/d... ... guess now everybody really hates him. All the drama because of a joke that was not even funny.
Avatar
We're all dying.
Avatar
Your initial argument is fine, and probably the kind of reasoning they should listen to; but the latter part just devolves into attempted character assassinations, and adds nothing but a flavor of personal vendetta.They certainly won't care much about that when it's time to review things.
Avatar
Your drunk CCCP. Go back to FOOF ;-)
Avatar
Avatar
Seems like a good story to me. Why not tell the entire bit at length?
Avatar
I was honest about it though, saying I was mad, grasping at straws and stuff :D
Avatar
Is joke.
Avatar
Goon tears much?So now you can't recruitment scam anymore, big deal go cry with someone who gives a shit.Now i will just say what was said when something was changed in their benefit, adapt to it and live with it.Its the game its ccp's game they change alot people didn't like but they all learned to live with it i suggest the scammers that cry like little bitches on the forums do the same.And just so the csm people that read this site know, the heirachy at ccp is : 1 ccp 2 investors 3 sony 4 players ( and a little csm )2 and 3 being close to the same.
Avatar
Actually you can, but okay.
Avatar
I would have liked to see 14 day bans or something. I mean, botting which is also a breach in the TOS gets a 3 strike rule.I don't understand why this was treated more harshly. Sure, slap them on the wrists, tell them they're being bad for skating around an unwritten rule. But perma ban?v0vCCP banned 3 quality FC's and players who provided content permanently, while lines of code doing the mundane and repetitive tasks get a break.
Avatar
*sigh* CCP...
Avatar
Yea!! Scammers got it up the tailpipe!! About time too. Now Ban some Goons and it will be Christmas!!
Avatar
People will bitch for months that "EVE was dumbed down" because they added customizable drone formations, but when something like this happens, with seriously far-reaching consequences that limit the ways in which you can play the game, nobody will give a damn by the end of the week.
Avatar
Why was this event not covered on theMittani?
Avatar
Some of the 2,000 scammers in Jita and Amarr might have to get in to space ships now.
Avatar
Impersonating CCP personnel, NPC characters, NPC organizations or other players was already not allowed under the EULA. The new update bans claiming to REPRESENT player organizations, when in fact you are not such. You used to be able to say "Hi I'm a recruiter for Goons, give me isk I will add you to our alliance", today you cannot.
Avatar
cause the entire thing has little to no relevance for most eve players
Avatar
Avatar
I know quite a few occasions where people have been banned for impersonation before, hell in 2007 I got some one banned who used a nick close to mine and tried to blackmail me with abusing that Nick.As for recruitment scams, those work best with a character in the Corp you claim to be recruiting for. And frankly, all those who are whining about recruitment scams "gone", are lacking creativity and only preying on the weakest of noobs. A good scammer us someone who constantly reinvents himself and targets the richest and most well known people around
Avatar
First of all, technically speaking: Every time something is reimbursed it gets spawned for the player.Second: impersonation has resulted in bans since at least (!) 2006 (that's the first time I can remember that a friend got banned for it)Third: feeding evelopedia with wrong information was never allowed either.And last the story you where referring to was from what I remember not about "public" channels (that would include local), it was about the rookie channel that new players are forced to join to get help.
Avatar
Maybe they like ambiguous? They want to leave the game as open ended as possible, it must be hard to write scamming rules when certain types of scamming are allowed, and essentially its the scamming that sets Eve apart from the multitude of other mmo's out there. Yeah you want to protect your player base but you also want to protect that which makes the game so unique. It's a fine line and I'm glad I dont need to write the policy on it.
Avatar
Do you even read, brah?
Avatar
That is not true. When you have events happen that take away some of the tools we use to shape our messed up little sandbox, players need to know.
Avatar
Unless you are a member of that coalition/alliance/corp, then you can keep on scamming.
Avatar
Them being quality FCs and providing content should not be something shielding them from bans if they broke EULA.
Avatar
I'm actually genuinely interested in scams of that size. It's always interesting to see what crafty means the EVE players have come up with this time to steal/acquire stuff from others. It's the same reason I keep Jita local open and read advertisements after a while, some of the contract scams can be really crafty.
Avatar
Guard is a useless cum sucking cunt which I have numerous emails from him to evidence,This is all a continuation of Peter McKay's obsession with controlling any aspect of the EVE universe that doesn't involve compliant fuckers paying endlessly.It's all about support costs and Pete would prefer them to be zero.
Avatar
Getting banned for editing the official evelopedia to impersonate people is fine imo, but a general all out ban on things like recruitment scamming is just another step to coddling and handholding to try and deal with the fact some players are just stupid and deserve to be separated from their isk
Avatar
Goonswarm is famous for recruitment scams. Now goonswarm wants a rental empire (something they despise some guy once said). So CCP made recruitment scam illegal so that people don't fear being scammed if they want to join goons's rental empire.If you look closely enough, you can see the threads that make ccp dance here...
Avatar
I guess reading the whole article would have been to hard for you.
Avatar
Manipulating the evelopedia to scam people should always result in a permaban, wether its against the EULA or not.
Avatar
IS this good? Impersonation, awoxing are all scams. Scamming in CCP doctrines are okay imaright? So why would CCP ban an impersonator? Why won't they ban scammers or awoxers. They are in the same categories to scam people. yeah???
Avatar
The question is, are you really Ali and are you really allowed to make that statement, or are we going to have to backtrace you, get the cyber police involved and batphone CCP for ToS breaking?On a more serious note, I'd like to see the CSM asking questions of why the playerbase weren't informed of changes and discussion as to how best to word it. After all - we agree to the EULA implicitly or explicitly, so we might as well have a clear understanding. I accept that CCP are free to change policy as they wish, but a sudden, unnanouced step change causes a stir in the playerbase, as we've seen regardless of it it's good, bad or well intentioned.
Avatar
Sounds like a reasonable response from CCP for a request of patience, I look forward to them defining what it is, this rule is intended to prevent.
Avatar
Hiding behind an anonymous name and calling people cunts? Big man
Avatar
I came here for the delicious goon/ganker tears. Would you guys like a bucket?
Avatar
So in a game where ingame scams are encouraged, scamming is now illegal? Seems odd.Oh wait let me clarify my comment-Scamming where you are a con man is illegal, but if you are a flat out liar and thief with your own assets, it's ok.So I cannot sell you my bridge unless I own it, but if I own it, and sell it to you, I can go and take it back to resell it again.How odd.This Chribba guy like, the CEO playing the game or something? Seems odd to totally revamp an element because some guys did something awesome in the game that has been encouraged for some time now.
Avatar
nice to see you to ooblack
Avatar
Mittani or someone give me a email to write to and i'll get the story written up. The total was 405B
Avatar
Everything said he was correct, But let me clarify the fact that we didn't say it was run by ISD or anything we just said send him a mail. This can be looked at in different ways but ultimately if you believed that make shift page just to sell your super in a rush your deserved it.
Avatar
Use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the site if you have information or want to write a submission.
Avatar
Tried but no one replied to me
Avatar
You clearly have no clue what a wiki is.
Avatar
All bumpers and gankers are James 315 alts, and James 315 is a Mittens alt, do you not keep up with tinfoil monthly?
Avatar
GM Thunder is a piece of shit, no surprise there.
Avatar
No, because you still don't represent them. Vague grey area, eh?
Avatar
You really aren't that smart, are you? This change to the ToS doesn't affect Goons in any way.As I said in the very post you replied to: Reading must be hard for you.
Avatar
Possibly if they literally say "hi, i'm from somer!", but sending a contract with a charge for something you've won, probably not.
Avatar
I do not care for this policy. It means Non goons/pl/whatever people cannot recruitment scam for them, and make money. Keeping us from impersonating ccp is all well and good, but letting stupid players give there motherships to themittanie deserves it, and it ruins an intersting bit of metagame.
Avatar
Now that is the content that gets me coming back to eve time and time again. FREE PIZZA!!!
Avatar
Their qualities as 'chill bros' or whatever it is you care about are immaterial to this issue.
Avatar
I will give a damn by the end of the week.
Avatar
I approve of this message.
Avatar
I think we need a new Jita riot, or better yet, a riot in the noob systems. Deceiving newbies is against the rules, suicide ganking their pods whenever they undock from the starter station is AFAIK not.
Avatar
Indeed, you have suffered a grievous injury and should seek... oh wait, this is about a EULA. Well, now you know who really owns the playground you're playing in. You can keep playing, or you can go home.
Avatar
HUH! Impersonation is a form of scamming. You impersonate, you lie. you scam you lie. Impersonation is a scam. If I say, I am the president of the United Socialist of Amerikkka I'm Barack Odumbo and will tell you give me all your ISK now or I will send IRS to your home. Am I scamming? yeah? and impersonating at the same time? yeah? CCP ToS are f*k up! My point impersonation shouldn't be on ToS because its another form of scam. LAWL! Its the player who believed the scammers are the morons. Anyway, we are all morons too, when we are a newbie, we learnt the hardway that this game are full of scammers. and CCP are letting them wreck havoc like mad dogs. Most of us impersonate our avatars, people have sexy girls with big boobs but are fat old men playing on the other side of the box. Should these players be banned? hahahaha!
Avatar
TheTOS have been updated to hurt goons cuz soundwave left. simple as that. fuck you ccp, fuck you.
Avatar
Love this change, I´m going to spend next week getting recrutimentscamed and get people banned for it :)
Avatar
Hahaha you guys where so smart and smug. Where is the smugness now?
Avatar
I believe that is a grey area: "Attempting to abuse a new player’s lack of knowledge of the game and its mechanic for your personal gain or simply for their harm is prohibited in these solar systems. This includes, but is not limited to; tricking new players into situations where you or others may open fire on them freely or scamming ISK or assets from them"
Avatar
Chribba is a known player and one of the very few that are trusted by most players. A valuable attribute in a game like Eve. He actually earns ingame money by acting as a third party on sales of supercapital ships.
Avatar
So, this is going to be sticking around. It's time.Burn Jita III.
Avatar
Does NC. break the rule? Someone might think it's the NC
Avatar
https://forums.eveonline.com/d... is the clarification, of the previous clarifications...
Avatar
So is CCP going to crack down on Mordus Angels then?
Avatar
“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.”It all makes since to me now. After the CFC started their rental empire, they were no longer able to do the rental scams. In order to make it so others couldn't do the same to them, which would hurt their income from potential renters, they got CCP to add this to the ToS.It's all a Goonspiracy I tell ya.
Avatar
Carlos Danger happened in the real world. EVE is becoming more real than life, man.
Avatar
^ There's your smugness. It's fixing your typos, thinking they are fixing grammatical errors.

CCP announced a controversial change to EVE’s Terms of Service today, amending Article 8, the section on impersonation. According to Game Masters, this was done merely to clarify existing rules, but players found the new terms to be vague and ambiguous. The change added the following rule to the ToS:

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

This has understandably created a lot of confusion among the EVE community. Like many details in the EULA, the conditions are not completely clear and could be interpreted in different ways. Under these terms, it sounds like recruitment scamming on behalf of a corp you are not in will now be illegal. For example, a character in corp A would break the ToS by scamming someone with the offer of entry into corp B. With "representative" being poorly defined, the legal status of recruitment scamming for the corp you are in is also in question. In short, what would break the ToS after this update is unclear, at least in the creative minds of EVE players.

GM replies have been rare and as unhelpful as the news bulletin itself. Lead GM Grimmi replied to a thread on the forums asking for clarification on the topic:

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.

There is some contradiction in Grimmi’s post; according to the EULA quotes he linked, only impersonation by means of character, corp, or alliance names was unauthorised, while the new text seems to implicate straight up lying. Scams that went unpunished prior to this change now appear to be in violation of the ToS, suggesting that this new iteration of unlawful impersonation is in fact new. Some have speculated this was caused by a recent scam involving PIZZA members using the official EVElopedia to pose as alts of Chribba, which resulted in the theft of several supercarriers and permanent bans for those involved.

The ToS update implicates more scams than simple recruitment ones, though the extent of the limitations remains uncertain until CCP clarify on the update further. Meanwhile, speculation about the intent and effects of the change continues, despite the repeated locking of EVE Online forum threads.

Update:

Ali Aras, the CSM8 Vice Secretary, says in the comments,

The CSM has been following this issue and pressed CCP for clarification after the initial post went up. We still have questions following the GM update to the thread, and will continue to pursue those questions until the limits of the policy are clarified.

At 22:24, CCP Guard posted:

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?


  •  
  • The overlord of the Eve Onion and a humble line member of the Brave Collective. You can find me on Twitter at @Tubrug1.