These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Is overview and ship label XML modification allowed?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#21 - 2013-04-19 09:54:26 UTC
Miilla wrote:
Inxentas Ultramar wrote:
If this was not allowed, everybody that put a colored font in the UI would be breaking the rules. I see a lot of these color-coded UI elements and haven't heard anyone getting banned over them. You'd be wise to make sure, and I'm sorry I can't deny or confirm this for you 100%, but I'm fairly sure this is allowed. There's no programmatical reason to put data in XML other then to make it readable for the human eye while still having a clear, nested structure. The game has buttons to import / export these settings, if a manual modification on them is not allowed then why in the seven hells would CCP use an XML format instead of (much smaller) binary data?


Because they can then use standard XML parsers duh instead of a custom binary one, and it is self validating


Yeah I understand but that's plain lazy in my book. I don't take CCP to be that lazy. If you put a file on a client machine, make that code human-readable, easily adaptable, easily interchangable, you kind of send a message it's done to allow for easier manual modification. I just find it hard to believe CCP would chose XML without any form of encryption should modifying these files be disallowed. There are standard binary formats too by the way, but self-validation is indeed nice to have. Maybe that's exactly why they chose XML as those files may be modified by the user.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-04-19 10:54:02 UTC
Saying "you're not entitled to a refund if you break the rules" just doesn't work here I'm afraid. That's been set in a precedent a while back in Australia, I have nfi about the rest of the world, but as CCP trade in Australia, they need to abide the rulings here.

It's also still just a click through on the purchase site, agreeing to fine print is provably not legally binding if it's unclear or ambiguous (which ccps' eula most definitely is) but I couldn't give two ***** about the opinion of people here, I want CCP's statement, Will you or will you not give a refund for accounts banned due to violations of your EULA?

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Tub Chil
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-04-19 10:56:01 UTC
Nobody cares about your crappy overview and you won't get banned, at least unless you declare publicly that you break rules
oh wait you are doing that now
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-04-19 10:58:18 UTC
Tub Chil wrote:
Nobody cares about your crappy overview and you won't get banned, at least unless you declare publicly that you break rules
oh wait you are doing that now


Funnily enough I used a macro to mine in a vexor when I first started playing this game, had nfi it wasn't allowed, it seemed like a good way to get through a boring job, but I don't get on any exploit bandwagon, I never used the warp to 0 injection etc.

If you don't care, don't post, easy isn't it?

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#25 - 2013-04-19 12:40:03 UTC
Akturous wrote:
It's also still just a click through on the purchase site, agreeing to fine print is provably not legally binding if it's unclear or ambiguous
It's not particularly unclear or ambiguous. They ask you to review the rules, which state — in no uncertain terms — that failing to comply with the rules means no refund, and then ask you if you've read the rules and accept them. It is a part of the purchase process. Whether or not it's a click-though isn't particularly relevant — only whether the terms are unconscionable. No accept = no purchase is a form of adhesion contract that exists for all kinds of services and which have been upheld in tons of cases.

Quote:
That's been set in a precedent a while back in Australia
Funnily enough, ye olde wiki has this to say about these contracts: “Standard form contracts have generally received little special treatment under Australian common law”.

Quote:
Will you or will you not give a refund for accounts banned due to violations of your EULA?
Of course they won't. You agreed that they wouldn't.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-04-19 13:10:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Akturous
Tippia wrote:
Akturous wrote:
It's also still just a click through on the purchase site, agreeing to fine print is provably not legally binding if it's unclear or ambiguous
It's not particularly unclear or ambiguous. They ask you to review the rules, which state — in no uncertain terms — that failing to comply with the rules means no refund, and then ask you if you've read the rules and accept them. It is a part of the purchase process. Whether or not it's a click-though isn't particularly relevant — only whether the terms are unconscionable. No accept = no purchase is a form of adhesion contract that exists for all kinds of services and which have been upheld in tons of cases.

Quote:
That's been set in a precedent a while back in Australia
Funnily enough, ye olde wiki has this to say about these contracts: “Standard form contracts have generally received little special treatment under Australian common law”.

Quote:
Will you or will you not give a refund for accounts banned due to violations of your EULA?
Of course they won't. You agreed that they wouldn't.


Why are you still speaking? The terms are not clear, not the 'you will obey our terms or you won't get a refund'

Good job checking Wikipedia, what else does it tell you??!

Lots of phone contracts tell you that you'll get no refund if you blahblah blah, that's been to the ACCC in au and been squashed, so stop talking.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#27 - 2013-04-19 13:20:02 UTC
Akturous wrote:
The terms are not clear, not the 'you will obey our terms or you won't get a refund'
The terms you are asking about are perfectly clear. The only question is whether or not they're unconscionable. So… are they?

Quote:
Good job checking Wikipedia, what else does it tell you??!
Not much, aside from the fact that these kinds of contracts have been enforced on numerous occasions.
Previous page12