EVE Information Portal

mynnna

I was always under the impression that if a player was banned for botting, and the character in question had just been purchased legitimately, a deeper investigation would be initiated at the players request... and if necessary the ban would be reversed AFTER the investigatioin was concluded.

So are you saying this didn't happen and that further investigation was refused until a stink was made?
Or is this a case of the investigation was under way and just didn't get concluded until after loud rumblings were made?

The former is a problem that needs to be worked on, the latter is simply taking credit for something that would have eventually happened anyway.

*uninstalls fraps, good thing I auto disable overlay*

What are you doing about the Jita bots?

Veritas is familiar with the danger zone and I'll be training someone new at Fanfest who will be introduced later.

but... sreegs... I loved you... How could you leave...?

So with these changes, what's the plan for two-factor authentication?

I'm afraid CCP anit-bot team lives in some lalala-land. Jita is filled with market bots that deny even remote chance of fair competition from human beings.

First, congrats on the progress, and on tightening the screws. You guys are doing this the smart way.

o7 CCP Sreegs.



Just thinking aloud here, but the obvious difference is that neither is modifying the EVE UI at all, least of all in a way that grants any in-game advantage. Mumble and TS are overlaying their UIs, making things more cluttered. fraps just sits in the background and, if anything, reduces your client's performance.

None of them really even know that they happen to be overlaying an EVE client; they'll just as happily do their thing with whatever app or window or screen you point them toward.

Why not go after the 'doers' as well as the 'enablers'? Just targeting the 'doers' is a waste of time.

PS. My main was banned for botting a few years back, too much EVE not enough real life I suppose, but after looking into the case CCP did reactivate the account. They did do their due diligence in my case.

Add me to the list of people concerned about your "we can't approve anything" policy. Teamspeak and fraps have overlays that modify the client memory in exactly the same way a bot does. They get handles to EVE windows, debug running processes, start new threads in the target process, etc. How do your automated systems distinguish Teamspeak's overlay from a bot?

Other legitimate software such as remote desktop applications also inject clicks into running programs, so do some VMs with host integration. I find it very hard to believe the claim that you never have false positives.

Another issue I want to quickly mention is your policy on ISBoxer. ISBoxer used to be "approved", but it's not anymore. This change in policy was announced by ninja-editing a 3 year old GM post. This is a terrible way to announce policy changes, because people don't read 3 year old GM posts every day to check if they've been ninja-edited. Please don't do this in future, make a new sticky somewhere telling people you've changed the policy.

I don't use ISBoxer myself though I've got a few friends who do. They're all legitimate players. One of them is worried enough by your non-announcement that he cancelled his plans to create an additional 25 accounts for use with ISBoxer (on top of his 30 existing accounts). If you don't want people using ISBoxer then come out and say it, if you want those accounts then approve the software -- this current limbo where we're never sure if anything is safe is no good for anybody.

I'm glad this subject came up. I currently have a open petition regarding exactly this. It's being handled by GM Nythanos, which has been great but he replied to the petition but didn't actually answer the questions. This is not a personal attack on Nythanos. I have nothing against him and he's been outstanding as a professional for all I can see.

If I petition about some software being "ok/nok" and you guys reply saying "read the EULA" ... then why in the hell is there a EULA section for petitions? The EULA is ambiguous. For all intents and purposes, TeamSpeak, EVEMON or even EFT are not allowed.

The Terms of service state that you can't build third party tools.

EVE Online TERMS OF SERVICE

21. You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game.
http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/terms.asp


So, if you won't ban someone because they are using an external tool, let's say, Teamspeak, because it's silly, how am I supposed to know what you'll ban me for if all you do, when a question is presented via petition on the EULA section, is point to the EULA and TOS but then make up your own interpretation instead of taking it literally?

So some applications are ok but you can't say so in public? Leading to stuff like the ISBOXER kind of stuff, where you had tons of CCP people say it was ok and then GM Nythanos says it's not ok. When you look for all the previous posts that said it was ok ... they got ninja edited!

I do understand security through obscurity but if you're passing random interpretations of your own rules and can't give out a straight answer to a customer asking if it's in the rules or not, this is plain stupid. I can easily be investing several hundreds of euros (along the past few years) and then get banned because your interpretation of the rules just suddenly changed.

Sure, you never said it was ok, but now you're saying it's silly ... tomorrow we'll get banned for a mere TS overlay.


This kind of rules MUST be clear. It's not a "maybe". It's a yes or a no. If you know of some software that is possible to exploit something in EVE, rule it out.

A current example is ISBoxer. As GM Nythanos answered me (can't copy the text), you can't allow that software. If this is the case, why not make a simple public statement saying that X software is simply not allowed? You end up banning paying customer who actually thought they were playing straight!