A few bullet points here.
- Nothing about this is new. The line “No player may use the character name of another player to impersonate or falsely represent his or her identity.” really has been in the EULA for approximately forever, and the argument that it extends to claiming you are another person (and that that, in turn, extends to alts) is, in that context, a reasonable reading of the rule.
- That said, no, I’m not getting banned for simply claiming on an alt that I am mynnna. I almost certainly will have no action taken at all. Everything I’ve read seems to indicate that malicious intent would be required, eg Chribba creates an alt and claims to be Chribba on that alt, and uses the trust built up as Chribba to scam people in an effort to get in on the fun without tarnishing his good name.
- Rental scams, spying, awoxing, and so forth are not “dead” and if you think so you should probably…unsub…yourself. Same goes for the “START OF A KINDER GENTLER EVE” crowd. You can continue to rental scam (unless you’re a goon), you just can’t claim you’re another person while doing it (or do it on behalf of an entity you’re not a member of.) You can continue to spy as all you’re misrepresenting is that you’re a member in good standing of your target; “What you are” not “Who you are”. Awoxing continues to be fine, just don’t go claiming “I’m X’s cyno alt” to get in. As a late update, “stealing 60b in TEST couriers” is fine, the guy only ever claimed to be himself and the rules don’t say “You can’t misrepresent yourself as some platonic ideal of a player.”
- The 90% or so of the game’s population that seemingly never reads anything ever will continue to be oblivious and you’ll continue to be able to break the EULA to scam them. The remaining 10%, you’ll have to be slightly more clever for.
So, really, I know we’re all eve players and childish overreactions is what we do, but let’s get away from the childish overreactions, shall we?
All that said, I don’t actually like the new/not new interpretation. If I’m on one character, claiming to be another, it’s pretty easy to verify whether I am what I claim. So if I’m logged into mynnna and I manage to convince you that I’m Vince Draken and I can rent out all of Scalding Pass to you (at least without inviting “Vince Drakon” to the convo to “confirm” my credentials), then my reward should be all your isk and a hilarious story, not a petition. And likewise, if I’m on my alt and claim I’m myself and use my trusted position to scam you, my reward should be all your isk and a ruined reputation… not a petition.
So, tl;dr in no specific order: the “new” interpretations are not new, aren’t some radical interpretation in context, I don’t really like the context and think it should be changed if possible, and stop being ignorant exaggerated shitdicks about it.
The Third N 
Spoken like a true ignorant exaggerated shitdick.
A more accurate response would be:
Yes, CCP are being colossally disingenuous if not blatantly dishonest about a change that is being made to make EVE a friendlier and more welcoming environment to the pussies who cry that EVE is too hard or too scary or too mean. But CCP has always been colossally disingenuous and dishonest about just about everything so who gives a fuck?
LikeLike
Poetic Stanziel is —-> That way. You’ll find more traction with that idea there.
LikeLike
lololololol I love you mynnna
LikeLike
I think you are wrong.
Now, you have had the benefit of sitting in the meetings with the developers, being able to ask direct questions to the people making the policy, all of which are still bound up in the NDA. What the rest of the playerbase got was: “You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.” and some shifty answers from the GMs, lack of developer response, and a couple CSM telling us we don’t know what were talking about, when even what they say doesn’t explain the situation.
The whole third point is the issue, the critical issue, and you seem to be dismissing it like its no big deal. Maybe it IS the wording, which getting it correct would fix the third issue being a big deal. But you cannot possibly believe that what you describe is okay. Essentially, all a CEO has to do is periodically send out an e-mail stating, “Please tell me if you are honestly working for our coalition/alliance/corporation.” Boom. Sorry, but according the above statement, A STATEMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED OR QUALIFIED, then every spy in that coalition, alliance, etc could be petitioned and would be banned in accordance to the new TOS.
I am really, really disappointed. Your explanation of this issue is just as clueless as you claim us to be. YOU have had direct contact with CCP on this, we have not. YOU have had plenty of time to research all possibilities. YOU have had plenty of time to respond clearly and informatively, and you chose not to. And instead calling us childish, still without proof that those very things we worry about would not happen.
I hope you are right, Mynnna. I really do like Eve Online the way it is.
LikeLike
Perhaps nothing much has changed except the perception of the players. And perhaps in a few months things will have settled down and even Poe will return to the game.
But I would expect a lot of petitions these next few weeks where people try to use the new wording to their advantage and to eliminate competitors. Even if nothing has actually changed, people have become aware of the ToS/Eula again.
I am no fan of Minerbumping (http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/09/does-ccp-enforce-rules-against.html) but I can easily see people petitioning related to this just as they did against miner bumping when it was new.
LikeLike