These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Convo request spamming - why isn't this an exploit?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#121 - 2012-10-05 14:48:27 UTC
Ohanka wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Kalen Vox wrote:
I cannot imagine why people are popping up even to defend this, which, in my opinion is clearly an exploit.


Jetting a single can is not an exploit. A whole fleet jetting hundreds of cans to cause grid loading lag is. This we know.

Starting a single convo is not an exploit. A whole fleet starting hundreds of convos to cause lag is.


Simple.


So dropping 1,000 ships onto a gate is........

Half of Deklein was won because of lag. Intentional or otherwise.


t's clear that the Committee has agreed that your new policy is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle.



Was that a Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister quote? Because it sounds like one. If it was I need to seriously High 5 you.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2012-10-05 14:56:35 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
Hi Gustav,

Not intentionally; I don't have many people blocked anyway.

This is why it's best to take it to the GMs though - they can see the server logs and would know explicitly what has happened.





You have never fought the CFC. A lot of us blocked them at the alliance level in Delve. So much more peaceful.

Convo away.
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2012-10-05 16:36:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucy Ferrr
Argh... my post got all messed up and didn't post. Perhaps I will come back and edit later
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#124 - 2012-10-05 16:45:14 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
[Let me address this:

The EULA clearly says "You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System."

Sending somebody a convo is an action "you" perform. The system is designed to support a conversation request from "you." One request does not break the game.


But hundreds do & spamming the convo does when performed multiple times by that single pilot.
0/10 bad trolling with bull crap justification
Any GM that used your justification should be fired
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#125 - 2012-10-05 17:14:48 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
[Let me address this:

The EULA clearly says "You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System."

Sending somebody a convo is an action "you" perform. The system is designed to support a conversation request from "you." One request does not break the game.


But hundreds do & spamming the convo does when performed multiple times by that single pilot.
0/10 bad trolling with bull crap justification
Any GM that used your justification should be fired

The question was: "Why isn't this an exploit?"

I answered it with, to my knowledge, the status-quo answer used by every major FC in Eve who uses (uesed) this tactic.

It may not be a good justification, but it was the one in use. Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Cpt Roghie
Chemical Invasion Co.
#126 - 2012-10-05 21:42:42 UTC
I don't see how it's an exploit. Game mechanic used as intended. We all just want to have a chat! It's a dirty tactic, yes. Still haven't seen anyone get banned for it and if anyone was to get banned, would you ban the FC or the entire fleet? But if they ban someone now, they have to ban them all. We're screwed.

This could be fun.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#127 - 2012-10-05 23:04:24 UTC
Cpt Roghie wrote:
I don't see how it's an exploit. Game mechanic used as intended. We all just want to have a chat! It's a dirty tactic, yes. Still haven't seen anyone get banned for it and if anyone was to get banned, would you ban the FC or the entire fleet? But if they ban someone now, they have to ban them all. We're screwed.

Retroactive bans would obviously pose problems, so they wouldn't do it.


But yeah, I'd suggest starting with a temporary ban for all parties involved, say, a day to start for the first offense, then getting progressively longer. That's mild seeing as this could potentially be considered illegal in several countries.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Hrothgar Nilsson
#128 - 2012-10-05 23:09:51 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
That's mild seeing as this could potentially be considered illegal in several countries.

Someone's got a flair for hyperbole.

I'm sure something like this would be priority #1 for the FBI Cybercrime Task Force. Maybe Interpol would get involved to coordinate a multinational investigation.

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#129 - 2012-10-05 23:13:35 UTC
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
That's mild seeing as this could potentially be considered illegal in several countries.

Someone's got a flair for hyperbole.

I'm sure something like this would be priority #1 for the FBI Cybercrime Task Force. Maybe Interpol would get involved to coordinate a multinational investigation.

I think you're the only one here who's hyperbolizing. I never said anything about crime investigations, international or otherwise. Saying that denial of service attacks are illegal is not hyperbole, it's fact. The only question is whether for purposes of law this would be considered a type of DoS attack.

Whether anyone would bother prosecuting is irrelevant to its legality.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Hrothgar Nilsson
#130 - 2012-10-05 23:26:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Hrothgar Nilsson
Wow, somebody's completely unable to comprehend sarcasm.

Pretty sure there are no countries where this kind of crap would be even remotely considered a criminal matter, or a DoS under the letter of the law.

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2012-10-05 23:28:13 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
Wow, somebody's completely unable to comprehend sarcasm.

Pretty sure there are no countries where this kind of crap would be even remotely considered a criminal matter, or a DoS under the letter of the law.

And you happen to be a legal expert?
I obviously got your sarcasm, by the way. Seeing as, you know, I responded to the sarcasm itself.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Hrothgar Nilsson
#132 - 2012-10-05 23:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Hrothgar Nilsson
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
Wow, somebody's completely unable to comprehend sarcasm.

Pretty sure there are no countries where this kind of crap would be even remotely considered a criminal matter, or a DoS under the letter of the law.

And you happen to be a legal expert?

You know what you're coming across as?

James Amril-Kesh: requested hundreds of times to convo-bomb, never petitions the people asking him to do so. Loses a carrier, makes a whiny threadnaught.

You sitting here claiming there's criminal acts being carried out is beyond stupid. I don't think there's any provisions under any criminal laws dealing with flawed game mechanics that cause you a bit-o-lag.

Since you're so serious, life and death about this issue, why don't you file a petition on your next FC who asks you to convo-bomb, and take a screenshot to show the rest of us just how seriously you take this issue?

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#133 - 2012-10-05 23:40:51 UTC
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
Wow, somebody's completely unable to comprehend sarcasm.

Pretty sure there are no countries where this kind of crap would be even remotely considered a criminal matter, or a DoS under the letter of the law.

And you happen to be a legal expert?

You know what you're coming across as?

James Amril-Kesh: requested hundreds of times to convo-bomb, never petitions the people asking him to do so. Loses a carrier, makes a whiny threadnaught.

K. You're free to point out any particular post in which I've whined and how it qualifies as such.
There's obviously no point in mentioning that I have never even flown a carrier, seeing as it's unprovable due to alts and such.

Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
You sitting here claiming there's criminal acts being carried out is beyond stupid.

I merely pointed out the possibility. What's not ambiguous is that this behavior IS in violation of both the EULA and the TOS.

Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
Since you're so serious, life and death about this issue, why don't you file a petition on your next FC who asks you to convo-bomb, and take a screenshot to show the rest of us just how seriously you take this issue?

I might if that weren't also a clear violation of the TOS. As far as being life or death serious, it would seem that you're projecting.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Spurty
#134 - 2012-10-06 02:32:52 UTC

http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.asp
Quote:
You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.



So any alliance that's bigger than the biggest the system can handle is against the EULA?

"We were all just meeting up in one place for a sing song in local and when pod pilot 2900 jumped in, your server fell over. You should fix that!"

:-)

I really don't think CCP mean what that one says.

I agree, its bollox, but CCP want it, so it is what they want.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#135 - 2012-10-06 03:14:29 UTC
Deliberately causing a client to crash should be an exploit. "Everyone else was doing it" is not an acceptable defense.

Technically it's probably illegal in many jurisdictions; as is any unauthorized action that may interfere with another computer. Although I suspect that if reported it would get prioritized somewhere between rescuing cats in trees and handing out parking tickets.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#136 - 2012-10-06 04:38:16 UTC
Kalen Vox wrote:
I cannot imagine why people are popping up even to defend this, which, in my opinion is clearly an exploit.


Jetting a single can is not an exploit. A whole fleet jetting hundreds of cans to cause grid loading lag is. This we know.

Starting a single convo is not an exploit. A whole fleet starting hundreds of convos to cause lag is.


Simple.



This post should have ended the thread. It is spot on.

I would imagine that it's use is so common CCP is reluctant to open this particular can of worms as it could potentially eat up huge amounts of time to verify.

A better solution would be when you have your client set to auto reject convo's from people not in your address book they should be stopped at the server level so that they do not affect your client.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#137 - 2012-10-06 04:41:04 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Ranger 1 wrote:
A better solution would be when you have your client set to auto reject convo's from people not in your address book they should be stopped at the server level so that they do not affect your client.

To be honest that would be much preferred.

EDIT: Actually, instead of making it dependent on a client setting, the server could throttle conversation requests. Anymore than 5 requests in 30 seconds and the server doesn't let any more through for, say, another minute.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Arec Bardwin
#138 - 2012-10-06 13:20:28 UTC
Or make the server handle the blocking of chat requests, and only pass on the ok'ed ones to the client.
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#139 - 2012-10-06 13:43:33 UTC
Kalen Vox wrote:
I cannot imagine why people are popping up even to defend this, which, in my opinion is clearly an exploit.
Because they are pricks who can't win otherwise...
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#140 - 2012-10-07 20:39:14 UTC
Anya Ohaya wrote:
Deliberately causing a client to crash should be an exploit.


Continuing to let people use a software setup that allows people's clients to be crashed by others is irresponsible. This is a problem at the CCP level and instead of working on shiny crap for PLEX like they are doing, THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF CRAP WE ASKED TO BE FIXED over a year ago.

Players are taking advantage of a weakness in the design of the software. Rather than argue about if it is or not acceptable behavior and pay GM's to review cases, fix the darned software so it can't happen. Period.