These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Petition to Ban Isobox/Vec, bots and other similar program

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-01-01 10:42:52 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Necromendes wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Necromendes wrote:
If the 50 bot mining didn't purchase the plex, it will still be divided to 50 other players who usually unable to purchase the plex due to insane bot activities. Someone else will still purchase the Plex rather than concentrated to a single player.
…except that the demand would be much lower so there would be less reason to do so and/or the stockpiles would just pointlessly build up.

Either way, these are still payed-for accounts you're talking about, and you're still asking them to reduce the number of such accounts. No matter how you cut it, that means less income for CCP.



CCP will have to choose to act accordingly to their EULA or forget EULA ever exist. You can't allow parts of EULA to be breach while acting faithfully on other parts of the EULA. CCP must made their stand clear on the topic of external program.

What part is being breached? I ask you to read it carefully before replying.


I ask YOU to read it carefully before replying/quote:

6. CONDUCT

A. Specifically Restricted Conduct

Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.

1) You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
2) You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
3 You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
4) You may not use the Software, or any information accessible through the System, to bypass the System login architecture or create or provide any other means through which the System may be accessed and/or the Game may be played by others, as, for example, through server emulators.
Dave Stark
#22 - 2014-01-01 10:44:58 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Necromendes wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Necromendes wrote:
If the 50 bot mining didn't purchase the plex, it will still be divided to 50 other players who usually unable to purchase the plex due to insane bot activities. Someone else will still purchase the Plex rather than concentrated to a single player.
…except that the demand would be much lower so there would be less reason to do so and/or the stockpiles would just pointlessly build up.

Either way, these are still payed-for accounts you're talking about, and you're still asking them to reduce the number of such accounts. No matter how you cut it, that means less income for CCP.



CCP will have to choose to act accordingly to their EULA or forget EULA ever exist. You can't allow parts of EULA to be breach while acting faithfully on other parts of the EULA. CCP must made their stand clear on the topic of external program.

What part is being breached? I ask you to read it carefully before replying.


I ask YOU to read it carefully before replying/quote:

6. CONDUCT

A. Specifically Restricted Conduct

Your continued access to the System and license to play the Game is subject to proper conduct. Without limiting CCP's rights to control the Game environment, and the conduct of the players within that environment, CCP prohibits the following practices that CCP has determined detract from the overall user experience of the users playing the Game.

1) You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
2) You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
3 You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
4) You may not use the Software, or any information accessible through the System, to bypass the System login architecture or create or provide any other means through which the System may be accessed and/or the Game may be played by others, as, for example, through server emulators.



none of those parts are being breached.

try again.

also, look at the bit he quoted, I CALLED IT!
Mag's
Azn Empire
#23 - 2014-01-01 10:45:21 UTC
So which part is being breached?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2014-01-01 10:45:38 UTC
Mag's wrote:

They do ban botters, so I do not see your point.

There are so many people talking about isboxing a bunch of BS to solo incursions around here that I seriously doubt that tbh.
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#25 - 2014-01-01 10:45:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Necromendes
[/quote]

none of those parts are being breached.

try again.

also, look at the bit he quoted, I CALLED IT![/quote]


You should go back to school.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#26 - 2014-01-01 10:47:37 UTC
Necromendes wrote:



You should go back to school.
And maybe you can point out the parts being breached? Again, read them first before replying.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#27 - 2014-01-01 10:48:24 UTC
Odithia wrote:
Mag's wrote:

They do ban botters, so I do not see your point.

There are so many people talking about isboxing a bunch of BS to solo incursions around here that I seriously doubt that tbh.
What does that have to do with botting?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Dave Stark
#28 - 2014-01-01 10:48:43 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
You should go back to school.

said the guy that has systematically failed to provide evidence for his argument, and failed to read the eula?

c'mon now, resorting to childish insults isn't the way to go about this.
Samuel Wess
Doomheim
#29 - 2014-01-01 10:48:45 UTC
Remove ice from highsec, or do some form of ownership so they fight over it first.

Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2014-01-01 10:48:58 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Necromendes wrote:



You should go back to school.
And maybe you can point out the parts being breached? Again, read them first before replying.


Since you have problem comprehending English, I suggest you use Google translate to whatever language you are use to.
Dave Stark
#31 - 2014-01-01 10:49:43 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Necromendes wrote:



You should go back to school.
And maybe you can point out the parts being breached? Again, read them first before replying.


Since you have problem comprehending English, I suggest you use Google translate to whatever language you are use to.

we need a forum emote for irony, or something.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#32 - 2014-01-01 10:51:12 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Necromendes wrote:



You should go back to school.
And maybe you can point out the parts being breached? Again, read them first before replying.


Since you have problem comprehending English, I suggest you use Google translate to whatever language you are use to.
If you cannot point the parts out, that's fine. It just shows you have no case.

Also, the program is called ISBoxer. Not ISOBOX. Just saying.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#33 - 2014-01-01 10:53:53 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
If the belts are gone due to regular mining or fleet mining, that can't be argue as there are several players involve. However, belts and ice are clear with 60-80 ships but actual maybe 10-15 players. Fact remains these are external program . Using external program is against EULA, so why is it allow?
Because it doesn't break any part of the EULA.

Quote:
Yes I do know CCP ban botters, although it seem they are not very successful it in. However, CCP has not made it clear on Isobox and Vec. These are external program. EULA does not allow any external program to work with Eve.
Yes it does. Or, more accurately, it doesn't say anything about external programs except to disallow those that break some very specific design considerations. As they have explained on many occasions, they can't outright and explicitly allow anything because that opens up a whole avenue of attack for creating “legal” hacks and bots and the like, but they can simply not disallow stuff unless it breaches some rule or another, and that's the route they've taken.

As it happens, multiboxing is one of those “not disallowed” categories.
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2014-01-01 10:56:03 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Necromendes wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Necromendes wrote:



You should go back to school.
And maybe you can point out the parts being breached? Again, read them first before replying.


Since you have problem comprehending English, I suggest you use Google translate to whatever language you are use to.
If you cannot point the parts out, that's fine. It just shows you have no case.

Also, the program is called ISBoxer. Not ISOBOX. Just saying.



Point 1, Point 2, Point 3 and Point 4....are you freaking blind or what?

Constantly saying I did not point the fact while I already posted the part on EULA for people word blind like yourself, does not strengthen your argument in anyway. Either you reply something constructive or get lost!
Dave Stark
#35 - 2014-01-01 10:57:29 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Point 1, Point 2, Point 3 and Point 4....are you freaking blind or what?

Constantly saying I did not point the fact while I already posted the part on EULA for people word blind like yourself, does not strengthen your argument in anyway. Either you reply something constructive or get lost!


erm, you are aware isboxer breaks none of those eula terms right?

i mean obviously you're not aware of it, but you should be.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#36 - 2014-01-01 10:58:14 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Mag's wrote:
If you cannot point the parts out, that's fine. It just shows you have no case.

Also, the program is called ISBoxer. Not ISOBOX. Just saying.



Point 1, Point 2, Point 3 and Point 4....are you freaking blind or what?

Constantly saying I did not point the fact while I already posted the part on EULA for people word blind like yourself, does not strengthen your argument in anyway. Either you reply something constructive or get lost!
But you haven't said how it breaks those points. It's all well and good saying it, but you need to show proof.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lledrith
Ex Caminus
#37 - 2014-01-01 10:59:47 UTC
unless any gm would like to change or give a different interpretation to the Eula. for your understanding this forums post will still be the same until a new gm says otherwise.

isoboxer forum post
Necromendes
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#38 - 2014-01-01 11:00:00 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Necromendes wrote:
Point 1, Point 2, Point 3 and Point 4....are you freaking blind or what?

Constantly saying I did not point the fact while I already posted the part on EULA for people word blind like yourself, does not strengthen your argument in anyway. Either you reply something constructive or get lost!


erm, you are aware isboxer breaks none of those eula terms right?

i mean obviously you're not aware of it, but you should be.



I really feel sad for you that you can comprehend simple English in the EULA. Buddy, you had to back to school, you can't be working as a pimp forever.
Dave Stark
#39 - 2014-01-01 11:01:24 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Necromendes wrote:
Point 1, Point 2, Point 3 and Point 4....are you freaking blind or what?

Constantly saying I did not point the fact while I already posted the part on EULA for people word blind like yourself, does not strengthen your argument in anyway. Either you reply something constructive or get lost!


erm, you are aware isboxer breaks none of those eula terms right?

i mean obviously you're not aware of it, but you should be.



I really feel sad for you that you can comprehend simple English in the EULA. Buddy, you had to back to school, you can't be working as a pimp forever.


we've been through this; childish insults doesn't make you correct when you yourself are quoting things that do not apply because YOU are the one who has the issue comprehending the english language at it's most basic.

multiboxing still breaks exactly 0 of the eula terms that you've listed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#40 - 2014-01-01 11:02:32 UTC
Necromendes wrote:
Mag's wrote:
If you cannot point the parts out, that's fine. It just shows you have no case.

Also, the program is called ISBoxer. Not ISOBOX. Just saying.

Point 1, Point 2, Point 3 and Point 4....are you freaking blind or what?
Are you? Have you read them? Because no, it does not break any of those points.

1. It does not impose any unreasonable or disproportionate load — it's just a bunch of accounts playing the game as normal.
2. It does not modify any content or change how the game is played.
3. It does not let you acquire anything at an accelerated rate or bypass the normal mechanisms of acquisition.
4. It does not bypass or change the mechanisms for logging in.

So, again, what parts of the EULA does it break because it isn't any of those.

Quote:
I really feel sad for you that you can comprehend simple English in the EULA. Buddy, you had to back to school, you can't be working as a pimp forever.
The fact that you can't point out or describe how it in any way breaks the EULA and instead have to rely on personal abuse to (utterly fail to) cover up this fact means that no-one really cares how you feel about them, because it's just all a defensive mechanism on your part at this point.