These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

I applaud CCP's new Security Dev Post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Karbox Delacroix
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-04-18 17:19:43 UTC
Cebraio wrote:
Karbox Delacroix wrote:

My problem is that these are technical questions with technical answers and I don't understand the technical details.


He says you're fine when using the market uploader that comes with EVEMon and other tools that are not used for botting and cheating. He says the same thing that has always been said by CCP. Unfortunately, the wiki page that was supposed to clear things up, says the opposite and the EULA says the opposite too. So don't worry, I guess. Roll


So un-checking the box in the "Market Unified Uploader" should make everything cool, right? I guess no more eve-central? Jita market alts for everyone?
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-04-18 17:28:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cebraio wrote:
Read it as you will.
Ok. It read it as them issuing threats to botters, RMTers, hackers, and cheaters, by telling them that it's futile to try to circumvent the “no client alteration” rule through some twisted logic that oh no, they're only doing cache scraping.

So no. They're not threatening people with bans for cache-scraping. They're threatening cheaters with bans, and saying that what the previous non-enforcement of cache-scraping shouldn't be considered a loop-hole since it's actually just as much against the rules.


But I don't think that is necessary:
- botters: Can be banned for botting (I.e. using a tool that automates commands)
- RMTers: Can be banned for RMT
- hackers: See botters
- cheaters: Pretty vague term. If it's some kind of disallowed cheat, they can be banned for it, based on the EULA part about unfair advantage.

So, if all these things are banable offenses anyway, why threaten your playerbase for cache-scraping? Since cache-scraping alone shouldn't get you banned in any way, there is no need to write something directed at your EULA abiding customers that can be perceived as a threat for permaban.
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-04-18 17:31:24 UTC
Karbox Delacroix wrote:
Cebraio wrote:
Karbox Delacroix wrote:

My problem is that these are technical questions with technical answers and I don't understand the technical details.


He says you're fine when using the market uploader that comes with EVEMon and other tools that are not used for botting and cheating. He says the same thing that has always been said by CCP. Unfortunately, the wiki page that was supposed to clear things up, says the opposite and the EULA says the opposite too. So don't worry, I guess. Roll


So un-checking the box in the "Market Unified Uploader" should make everything cool, right? I guess no more eve-central? Jita market alts for everyone?

Yes, you can disable it to be on the safe side - although it shouldn't be necessary because CCP says they wouldn't ban you for it.

And you can still use eve-central because using the data that EULA-breaching EVE player's have uploaded for you, is ok.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#24 - 2013-04-18 17:36:11 UTC
Cebraio wrote:
So, if all these things are banable offenses anyway, why threaten your playerbase for cache-scraping?
Redundancy and ease of detection, to cover all bases and protect against player cleverness.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#25 - 2013-04-18 17:41:12 UTC
Perhaps they are cracking down on bots more severely now than they did in the past? Why would they do that? Maybe something to do with the secret space-thing in the new expansion?

Oh god.
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-04-18 17:42:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Cebraio
Riot Girl wrote:
Perhaps they are cracking down on bots more severely now than they did in the past? Why would they do that? Maybe something to do with the secret space-thing in the new expansion?

Because next week is fanfest. They like to clean up before fanfest, so they can present numbers in ppt.

Tippia wrote:
Cebraio wrote:
So, if all these things are banable offenses anyway, why threaten your playerbase for cache-scraping?
Redundancy and ease of detection, to cover all bases and protect against player cleverness.

I still disagree with the approach. Redundancy is not necessary when you already have a reason for ban ... and ease of detection? I doubt checking for cache scraping will make things easier if they have to differentiate between 'nice application' and 'bad application' afterwards.
Big Jim Slade
Kentucky Fried Nightmare
#27 - 2013-04-18 17:52:33 UTC
You are not going to get banned for using a cache-scraping program like Evemon... it only lets GMs outright ban specific individuals if they so please with no ability for recourse if they use Evemon... See, nothing to get all worked up about.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#28 - 2013-04-18 17:56:22 UTC
Cebraio wrote:
Redundancy is not necessary when you already have a reason for ban
That's like saying you don't need a redundant power supply because you already have another source of power.

That's the whole point of having redundancy: because you might not already have a reason for a ban — the user has been clever enough to find away around the regular rules as stated. This leaves another hurdle for them to overcome.

Quote:
and ease of detection? I doubt checking for cache scraping will make things easier if they have to differentiate between 'nice application' and 'bad application' afterwards.
Again, it provides another tool, and another datapoint. Redundancy.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-04-18 18:07:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cebraio wrote:
Redundancy is not necessary when you already have a reason for ban
That's like saying you don't need a redundant power supply because you already have another source of power.

That's the whole point of having redundancy: because you might not already have a reason for a ban — the user has been clever enough to find away around the regular rules as stated. This leaves another hurdle for them to overcome.

Quote:
and ease of detection? I doubt checking for cache scraping will make things easier if they have to differentiate between 'nice application' and 'bad application' afterwards.
Again, it provides another tool, and another datapoint. Redundancy.


We probably all remmeber the eve-uni market bot being defended because he "only" used cache scrapping and not a software to look thing up in game. CCP is basicly just making sure people understand ebtter that this is not a hole in the security net. CCP Screeg even hinted toward the "change" during that event iirc.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-04-18 18:09:01 UTC
Akturous wrote:
No one will notice I'm sure.


Well, 250,000 alts that will now need more manual input on a daily basis... that's going to derail the "Gravy Train" in some parts of space...

Blink

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-04-18 18:38:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cebraio wrote:
Redundancy is not necessary when you already have a reason for ban
That's like saying you don't need a redundant power supply because you already have another source of power. That's the whole point of having redundancy: ...

No, it's like saying "I don't need this piece of code, because that one does exactly the same." That's the whole point of avoiding redundancy in some situations (like software development).

Tippia wrote:

because you might not already have a reason for a ban — the user has been clever enough to find away around the regular rules as stated. This leaves another hurdle for them to overcome.

If you already have a reason for a ban and the user found some clever way to talk himself out of it, you will ban him regardless. It's not like CCP has to justify their actions against Internet neck-beard lawyers.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

We probably all remmeber the eve-uni market bot being defended because he "only" used cache scrapping and not a software to look thing up in game. CCP is basicly just making sure people understand ebtter that this is not a hole in the security net. CCP Screeg even hinted toward the "change" during that event iirc.

The defense was bad because he did not "only" use cache-scraping but also use a bot to update orders. The issue was botting and he got banned for it. No need to drag another activity into it, that even people use who do want to abide the EULA.
Previous page12