EVE General Discussion

Mostly people upset he brought this in the public eye and false assumption he supports botting I think sums it up.

It just so happens that this one thing that we don't like has a detrimental affect on the game & it's players, and don't forget that people are pretty quick to condem a goon or TEST member for doing one thing that they don't like. Don't try to pretend that it's not the case.

Lol he needs a cape flapping in the breeze from his air recycling system on his ship

317B ISK Gone from Goonswarm: Who Watches the Watchmen?

tl;dr: Goonswarm member with spotless record gets temp banned for suspected botting. Is told to go away when he professes innocence and provides proof. Decides to just leave EVE and donates 300 billion ISK to Goonswarm. Goonswarm asks CCP if its all legit, CCP removes it. Goonswarm asks why even leave it with him if it was legit, and is concerned that CCPs security team have no oversight. Goonswarm is told to go away. CCP's security team have no oversight?

clearly the reaction would be "oh man this ban was clearly undeserved and Goonswarm should have kept the 327B"

Kelduum supported the individual because, based on his knowledge of what "John" was doing, he didn't believe it was botting. According to "John", none of his interactions with the game were automated. Kelduum would not support violating the EULA (evidenced by the fact that he is withholding the content of the petitions, much to his detriment). And, insofar as what "John" was actually doing was a legitimate violatoin of the EULA, I'm sure Kelduum would support the appropriate disciplinary actions. The key thing here is that, given what Kelduum knows about "John's" actvities, there is no EULA violation. Clearly CCP disagrees, so that means that Kelduum A) is misinterpreting or misinformed about some aspect of the EULA, B) What Kelduum knows about "John's" activities is incomplete, or C) CCP is being liberal with their own interpretation of their EULA. The only thing that is not true is that Kelduum knows/believes "John" was legitimately botting and supported such activity.

Ummm no. Explaining that someone did *not* automate a process ("botting") is not supporting a botter.

And did I say those people were any better?

That wasn't a post written out of a sense of entitlement. He wrote that in response to the suggestion that CCP somehow gives E-Uni special treatment. It isn't that Kelduum believes CCP has wronged him in all of these instances, he is simply indicating that the history of changes to the game clearly do not comport with the claim that CCP gives E-Uni special treatment.

Except the whole part where he used a web-assisted program that allowed him to perform actions faster than they can actually be performed. Kelduum knew about this, no matter how you try to spin it, the evidence is in his initial post.

There's a web program that lets you do things faster than they can be done? Sign me up.