open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Words from the GM Team, a new Dev Blog
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

CCP Ginger

Posted - 2007.02.21 10:45:00 - [61]
 

I dont mean to derail this important discussion in any way. But I am forced to say one thing.

GM Nova is a hotty.

Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.02.21 11:08:00 - [62]
 

So are you telling me that you are going to ban all the accounts in the alliances cyonets?

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

Dronte
Minmatar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2007.02.21 11:26:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Pesadel0
So are you telling me that you are going to ban all the accounts in the alliances cyonets?

LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing
The exact opposite really. They're saying they dont have the man power to actively hunt down people sharing accounts. They can investigate it when someone petitions it, in a proper manor, meaning no:
Originally by: Sample Petition

omg omg omg omg (BoB|LV|Goons|RAZOR|D2) are sharing accounts for a cynonet, omfgomfgomfg, fiiiiiix1!1!1!

Would be very surprised to see CCP staff doing anything but just closing such a petition. Its fine to suspect stuff, but without any proof youre basicly up the creek, without a paddle :)

Big Al
The Aftermath
Posted - 2007.02.21 12:18:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Dronte

Would be very surprised to see CCP staff doing anything but just closing such a petition. Its fine to suspect stuff, but without any proof youre basicly up the creek, without a paddle :)


Looks like just another chance to play favorites to me.

Krayd Devre
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2007.02.21 12:42:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Krayd Devre on 21/02/2007 12:40:28
maybe this is somewhat off topic,
but what exactly are these cynonets discussed so much lately?

edit: nvm this was explained perfectly on previous page..

Dronte
Minmatar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2007.02.21 13:09:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Krayd Devre
maybe this is somewhat off topic,
but what exactly are these cynonets discussed so much lately?
I think the primary reason is because of the whole Developer / BoB incident, where a developer had been caught doing naughty stuff "for" BoB. And people alleged (i cant say knew, since no-one but the dev involved can know this for certain) that said developer had first hand knowledge of a cynonet within the BoB alliance. And being that he is a staff member of CCP he should be the first one to report these EULA violations to the appropriate people, for further investigations

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.02.21 13:22:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/02/2007 13:52:37
Originally by: IHaul4U


My suggestion to CCP would be to change the policy to allow account sharing but at your own risk... Meaning if you allow someone to use your account then that person steels your stuff then guess what... Your SOL... Sorry but it's just like if someone left their keys in the ignition and went to bed or something. The only issue would be hacking which will take up your time even with the current policy so imo that doesn't change anything.

An other option would be to allow corporations to purchase accounts that can be shared. While this doesn't solve all the problems it does help somewhat.

CCP I encourage you to change your mind on this issue...


The problem her is that most people will not admit to have given out the password, and instead call to have been hacked.

The legally shared accounts idea isn't bad.

Another option, seen in a completly different MMORPG, is the official substitute (called baysitting an account Smile):
a person is autorized by the owner of the account, with a form sent to CCP (compiled in game or in forum), and confirmation mail sent to the owner e-mail address, to operate on the account for him.

Every action done by the official substitute is considered done by the owner(for all the consequences), and no reimbursement will be given.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.02.21 13:25:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: IHaul4U
Originally by: hazeb
What about...

http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/namepolicy.asp Item 1.c

Quote:
EVE Online subscribers are responsible for protecting the confidentiality of their account information. Any authorized use of a subscriber’s account by another individual is the responsibility of the account holder. The subscriber is responsible for the behavior of others who are permitted to use his or her account. Therefore, account holders are strongly urged not to share accounts or account information with others.



Oops... More doublespeak from CCP... So which is it... Allowed or not allowed???


Not allowed, and if you do that, you can't say: "It is not right to ban me, was XXXZZZ using my character.".
Unlessy you can prove your account was hacked.

Altaree
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.02.21 13:38:00 - [69]
 

I would like to know why account sharing isn't the problem of the person sharing an account. If you don't use the tools CCP provides to transfer accounts you are taking a risk. One the GM's should not be responsible to clean up. Same for giving your buddy a password. Make account sharing legal and do nothing to help those that get scammed by that sharing. It's THEIR fault!!

Vidar Kentoran
Minmatar
Eighty Joule Brewery
Posted - 2007.02.21 14:05:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Vidar Kentoran on 21/02/2007 14:08:42
Originally by: Azerrad InExile
Originally by: Vidar Kentoran
You cannot stop players from doing something by telling them they're not allowed to, you can only stop them by eliminating the reason they do it.


Or by punishing them when they don't follow the rules...


First of all, no, punishment for not following rules is not going to prevent players from breaking them. You cannot force players to do what you want them to do - all it means is they will do it anyway and accept the risk as a cost of playing, you can only encourage them to do what you want them to. If you believe punishment works, then you live in a fantasyland where there's no ebay trade for every single game that claims it's illegal, etc. Second of all, the GM has already pointed out that it's impractical for them to actually enforce this rule properly.

You can't just magically wave your hand and all the horrible "rulebreakers" are punished. It doesn't work that way. And it's a pretty ridiculous rule in the first place when your game strongly encourages people to break it.

Originally by: GM Nova
I really like this idea. How about creating a sort of ten commandments which is neatly displayed every time you log in?


Lol. Now that's crazy. People don't break the rules because they don't know what they are. People break the rules because the rules are unrealistic and the game makes breaking this rule a requirement to play most effectively.

It's just... out of touch of reality to think that informing players of the rules is going to make them stop breaking them. That's not how people function.

Sathynos
Caldari
BSX Industries
Inver Brass
Posted - 2007.02.21 14:37:00 - [71]
 

Hi

This Devblog and it's message reminds me of a green square near my old house.

People used to cross it, instead going around as they should. They stomped the grass, it looked bad. So administration made a fence around it. People still walked through, someone broke the fence. Administration planted small trees there. People kept walking this way, destroying the trees. It took years for the administration to figure it out that people walk this way, because it is shorter and they won't go around, because that is waste of time.

Finally, administration came to their senses and planted a concrete road through the square, made nice grass and trees siding the road. Noone ruined the green any longer - administration was happy because of green square and people were happy because they didnt have to go around.

I hope the message here is clear enough, but since my english suck I'll translate to obvious:
- People do share their accounts. Period, full stop. That is a fact. Eula or not, this makes things easier, is effective and needed. There is a lot of reasons and people do that.
- Yes there are dangers of that, stated in the devblog.

It's like with consensual pvp in eve and more in other games - game mechanics or not, people will still find ways around, because they WANT to do that and they have a REASON to do that. Whether you like it or not, that's how it is. So you can keep making fences and people can keep breaking them, walking around, you will ban customers who like the game but will do not like "**** csrs" and nothing good will come out of that.

Instead - how about making it simple for everyone?
new eula:
"Account sharing is your own damn bussiness and if you give access to someone, CCP is not liable for the BPOs the other guy is gonna steal and you still owe us monthly fee, khtxbye".
Simple? Solves your "we have a lot of work, waaaaah!"? I think so.

Someone comes with petition - "We gave him access, he stole our corp hangar and a titan, help!"
CCP answer:
"Sucks to be you, read eula, cya".

Someone comes with petition - "Someone broke into my account and stole my stuff (and i'm so smart, you never gonna figure i gave him my account access)".
answer:
"We checked ip addresses logs - he logged to this account many times before, and you were good lads, and since you didnt admit you gave him your pass and we had to do a lot of work we now ban both of you, kthxbye, if you dont like it you can kiss our...eula".

Simple as that, personal responsibility ftw. Ppl happy, and you don't have to make any fences.

Or you might actually go different way - remove most of reasons for account sharing.
- Like make skills switchable through web site - that will be like what, 50% less reasons for acc sharing? Perhaps more.
- Add remote POS management so you don't have to keep an alt manager there? More reasons gone.

Go figure yourselfs if you want to make your customers happy, or build fences to make our lifes harder because of some rules, that are agains what people like to do and made mostly for your convinience. (And don't give me "its for your own protection" crap, I can protect myself just fine, thank you).

Sathynos
Caldari
BSX Industries
Inver Brass
Posted - 2007.02.21 14:42:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: kieron
Originally by: Dunedon
Does this policy also mean that using tools that store your username and password to retrieve information about your character from the myeve website are also illegal?

This pertains to account information sharing among users, not tools themselves. Some tools such as EVEMon have been given a stamp of approval by CCP. Walking through the office, you would probably be amazed at the number of workstations that have a familiar blue icon residing in their trays. Smile



What you just wrote shows pretty much that you guys are pretty reasonable when you want to. Now just re-think your rules - perhaps there are REASONS behind this account sharing and instead of banning it you could simpli civilize it.

0raven0
Burning Sky Labs
MARS WARFARE CENTRE
Posted - 2007.02.21 15:08:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Ginger.
I dont mean to derail this important discussion in any way. But I am forced to say one thing.

GM Nova is a hotty.
Proof or stfu

Kylania
Gallente
Phoenix Industries
Sylph Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.21 15:09:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Sathynos
Simple as that, personal responsibility ftw. Ppl happy, and you don't have to make any fences.


The problem is, most people have no personal responsibility at all. The insane reimbursment queue is testiment to that. People demand every little loss back, no matter what the cause.

Even if CCP changed the rules to day "You guys can share accounts all you want, but you accept responsibility for what happens to your items and accounts" people would STILL petition each and every time this happened. Then add to that the additional problems of people screaming "CCP won't help me, this game sucks!!"

If personal responsibilty were the answer, this would never have been a problem in in the first place I bet.Confused

Br0wn 0ps
Posted - 2007.02.21 15:26:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Ginger.
I dont mean to derail this important discussion in any way. But I am forced to say one thing.

GM Nova is a hotty.


If you think Nova is a hotty, you should take a look at Tinkers. Saw her in local the other day. Shocked

Sathynos
Caldari
BSX Industries
Inver Brass
Posted - 2007.02.21 15:32:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Kylania

If personal responsibilty were the answer, this would never have been a problem in in the first place I bet.Confused


It's a matter of enforcing it - if you discover a petition is submited with ill intend - ban offender for a week or two. I didn't make many petitions in my carieer in eve yet always GMs were eager to help, which always is a wonder to me, after traumatic experience of SWG CSRs. And because of how well they do they job they should not have to cope with all ill-intended petitions, that are obvious bunch of lies or miss critical information. If a case of attempted fraud is obious - have no mercy. Good will should flow both ways IMO.

hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved
Posted - 2007.02.21 15:39:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: IHaul4U
How do you move a capital ship and have no friends online at the current moment. (And without buying another account)


Well, has it ever occurred to you that capital ships are designed to require multiple player support, thus require corp/alliance support. They are clearly not meant to be operated completely alone without support of fellow corpmates/alliancemates. This is a multi-player, not a multi-account game.

There wouldn't be so many oversized capital fleets moving in a blink of an eye if alliances were actually required to divert their people resources (actual people) into supporting these, AS DESIGNED

Same with POSes, there wouldn't be so much mundane POS warfare if alliances were required to spare actual man power to manage them, again as designed

There is nothing wrong with the design. Capital ships and POSes are big corporate/alliance undertakings that require multi-player support of the corp/alliance.

The account sharing circumvents the design. Doesn't mean the design needs to be rethought. What it means is that the design has to be enforced.

Max Tesla
Posted - 2007.02.21 17:28:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Max Tesla on 21/02/2007 17:25:03
The solution is simple

LEAGALLY BIND ACCOUNTS TO PEOPLE

For example for a small fee you can bind your account and character/s to your self.

So the creator of the account and character must then of curse either pay via a credit card or auto giro, then for a one time fee he/she can bind the account and character to himself so that no matter what happens in the future the creator will always own his account.

If the options was avalible I would bind my account, because I do worry that someday someone will hack my account and steal what I have spent years on building

Kylania
Gallente
Phoenix Industries
Sylph Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.21 18:17:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Max Tesla
The solution is simple

LEAGALLY BIND ACCOUNTS TO PEOPLE

For example for a small fee you can bind your account and character/s to your self.

So the creator of the account and character must then of curse either pay via a credit card or auto giro, then for a one time fee he/she can bind the account and character to himself so that no matter what happens in the future the creator will always own his account.

If the options was avalible I would bind my account, because I do worry that someday someone will hack my account and steal what I have spent years on building


This is already how it works. The creator of the account is the owner for now and always. That's what causes some of these "hacked" issues when someone gives away an account then later says "Oh, it's mine, it was stolen". Or someone used that to deliberately scam someone.

You do still have to worry and take steps on your own to prevent your account from being hacked. That'll never change.

thatguyinpc
Subach-Tech
FATAL Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.21 22:19:00 - [80]
 

Just my 2 isk but I believe that an exception should be made for spouses as well as minor children

Guy

Draaken
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.02.21 22:59:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Draaken on 21/02/2007 22:56:37
Originally by: Dronte
Originally by: Don Temujin
  • Freighters:
    Those aren't jump-drive capable, but in the eyes of most players are a corp-level tool rather than a personal ship, and the pilots trained for freighters in most small corps tend to be few, for obvious reasons.
    Reducing the skill requirements for those ships should go a long way, maybe by reducing the secondary skill requirement from Racial Industrial 5 down to 4.


SIGNED!. *snip* It makes no sense to me that both Transports and Freighters needs level 5 industrial. Transport ships are the Tech 2 equivelant of Industrials, Freighters are "merely" a new class of ships.

It makes perfect sense if you compare it to the other capital class vessels. Both Dreadnought and Carrier are "merely" a new class of ship, yet they require Battleship lvl5 - and "but there are no t2 Battleships" really doesn't cut it as an argument.
Freighters are Capital class ships ("Freighters: Capital ships, able to transport a world and a half and then some." [Source]), and capitals require the base skill on 5, in this case industrial. You want to move ~24x the cargo of an Iteron Mark V, then you'll have to be patient and wait for the skill to complete.
But this is a bit off-topic.

More on-topic: good to see something's being done and it's not all just hot air.

Nev Clavain
Wise Guys
Rogue Method Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:35:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: kieron
The first in a short series of Blogs from the GM team to help the community understand some of the rules and policies that we must all abide by while participating in the EVE Community and to provide some insight into the day to day activities of the Customer Support team, Senior Game Master Nova has written a blog concerning one section of the End User License Agreement (EULA) and account information sharing.

Sharing is caring, unless it's account sharing. Check it out and please keep discussion on-topic.



Hey Keiron.

Its you at CCP that seems to have trouble understanding and enforcing the EULA in a consistent manner.

How about you work on that before coming bleating to us?

People aren't account sharing because they don't know it is forbidden. People are account sharing because you publically do nothing about it.

Remember t20? Remember the whole account sharing / ebaying/ cynonet / capital fleet he was responsible for that you so conveniently refuse to discuss?

START THERE. plenty of EULA breaches for you work on.

Now go ahead and delete half my post, give me a forum ban, and proceed to forget about the whole issue.

Honestly, that you have the cheek to come here and publically blame the community for your company's refusal to consistently enforce its own EULA is staggering.

Pilk
Evolution
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:56:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Ginger.
I dont mean to derail this important discussion in any way. But I am forced to say one thing.

GM Nova is a hotty.

Is this comment made in-character? If not, proof or STFU.
Originally by: Max Tesla
pay via ... auto giro

I'm sorry, we can pay for things by bartering with helicopters now!? That seems to lack some of the granularity I've come to take for granted in legal tender.

--P

Hoshi
Hedron Industries
Red Dwarf Racketeering Division
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:17:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Pilk
Originally by: Ginger.
I dont mean to derail this important discussion in any way. But I am forced to say one thing.

GM Nova is a hotty.

Is this comment made in-character? If not, proof or STFU.
Originally by: Max Tesla
pay via ... auto giro

I'm sorry, we can pay for things by bartering with helicopters now!? That seems to lack some of the granularity I've come to take for granted in legal tender.

--P

Giro not Gyro. Look here for an explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giro
Auto-giro is a monthly automatic transfer to a giro account often used for paying monthly reoccurring non amount changing bills like rent or loan payoffs.

Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
Posted - 2007.02.22 09:51:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Banana Torres on 22/02/2007 09:49:07
Originally by: Nev Clavain
Honestly, that you have the cheek to come here and publically blame the community for your company's refusal to consistently enforce its own EULA is staggering.

Sums up my feeling about this too.

You have been given information regarding systematic account sharing and you have done nothing about it. You want me to start trusting CCP again, start to enforce, and been seen to enforce the EULA.

If there needs to be a petition then I am sure t20 (or any of the other Devs in an alliance with a cynonet) knows how to raise one.

Cardinal Payne
Posted - 2007.02.22 10:59:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Banana Torres
(or any of the other Devs in an alliance with a cynonet)

Actually this is a very good point. If there is a Dev in an alliance that has a cynonet, and he does not report it then he is putting his alliance first.

Which, IMO, is not acceptable.

Can this be investigated by the IA team?

Br0wn 0ps
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:11:00 - [87]
 

Why should they enforce the EULA any different when they are in an alliance, when they don't even enforce it when they're not in an alliance (node crashes on purpose anyone? Clear violation of EULA, but yet nothing done about it).

The point that the GMs made clear, to me at least, is that they will investigate account sharing violations when there is a problem (i.e. something stolen, or what-have you), they will not try to seek them out just because people say "Ohnoes, alliance XYZ is able to jump their capital ships any time during the day, so they must be sharing accounts. Petition!"

Igorian
Minmatar
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:25:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Igorian on 22/02/2007 15:23:22
CCP talks about restoring trust...

You expect us to believe an experienced DEV/player knows nothing about cynonets and the use of shared alts?????

That is the standard method of moving numbers of capital ships and you expect us to believe YOUR EMPLOYEES know/knew nothing about this and yet didn't report the EULA abuse????

Come on....

Enforce your own rules on your own employees (T20 and the rest of the DEV/Players) then come to the player base.

How do you want the cynonet petitions to formatted? Do we have to know the name of the alt and the name of the main character to petition? You have basically said this happens but you do not have the resources to enforce it...So where does that leave us...allow what you term as illegal activity but turn "a blind eye" to it???

That is not a solution CCP...it is an excuse.

Nate D
Hell's Rejects
The Council.
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:35:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: GM Nova
Originally by: Dronte

It is understandable that players will get confused about what is and what isnt allowed (remember, not everyone reads the dev blogs). And while Im on the subject, please, please, please make it a bit more transparant what is and isnt allowed. Make a short list of the regular "Do's and Dont's" you as a GM encounter on a daily basis. Asking your users to read not just the EULA, but the Terms of Service, the Terms of Use, the Naming Policy, the Forum Rules, the Chat Rules and possibly the Ban Policy, just isnt the right thing to do, in my opinion.


I really like this idea. How about creating a sort of ten commandments which is neatly displayed every time you log in?



Hmmm yes... add a "tips" thing while loading stuff like other games...

-Nate

Cardinal Payne
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:17:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Igorian
You have basically said this happens but you do not have the resources to enforce it...So where does that leave us...allow what you term as illegal activity but turn "a blind eye" to it???


Also, by turning a blind eye to some of the illegal activities CCP are making all of the EULA unenforcable.

CCP can't really ban macro miners or ISK buyers for breaking the EULA if other players who also break the EULA are not punished.

But, now we are talking about Devs not enforcing the EULA, not just normal players. This is just incredible. Trust won't return until the Devs are seen to be clean.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only