These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Request for CLEAR developer statement on legality of key broadcast programs (such as ISBoxer)

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-09-17 10:43:42 UTC
Vihura wrote:
Quote:
CONDUCT
...
3. You may not use your own or any third-party software,



You can't be more clear, they can ban someone who use third-party software at any time. GM is just GM nothing more.


The text that you cut out is highly relevant, please add in the rest.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Solstice Project's Alt
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-09-17 11:15:46 UTC
Fatbear wrote:
... in the German forums ...
There's the actual issue.
Why do you even listen to them ? O_o

Buy Solstice Project for PLEX4GOOD ! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=301266 (this alt-character will get deleted once the sale is done, on 6th of december)
Fatbear
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-09-17 11:17:52 UTC
Germans have feelings too!
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#24 - 2013-09-17 11:23:54 UTC
Fatbear wrote:
Germans have feelings too!


And we have the tanks to express them Twisted
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#25 - 2013-09-17 12:41:13 UTC
I have deleted some off-topic posts from this thread.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-09-17 13:17:24 UTC
Anyway since this thread is now a thing, it would be really nice if we could get a clear statement from CCP about this & not some random CCP person saying yes/no. I would like to know in particular as when my new PC is done I'm planning on making 15 new accounts for suicide ganking & would hate to get banned for it. Of course that also means CCP loses a bunch of money, but they'll lose more in the longterm if I get banned, so get to it CCP.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2013-09-17 13:24:37 UTC
CCP Eterne wrote:
I have deleted some off-topic posts from this thread.


Since you did not answer the original post MY post was very much related to the topic.

If it comes to costumer requests CCP seems to react like that.

Disclaimer:
This is not a rant neither a discussion of forum moderation. That is me stating the obvious.

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
Camper101
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-09-17 13:30:58 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Anyway since this thread is now a thing, it would be really nice if we could get a clear statement from CCP about this & not some random CCP person saying yes/no. I would like to know in particular as when my new PC is done I'm planning on making 15 new accounts for suicide ganking & would hate to get banned for it. Of course that also means CCP loses a bunch of money, but they'll lose more in the longterm if I get banned, so get to it CCP.


This and think of the thousands of accounts involved in Multibox Mining operations.
Official Devblog needed, as Dev/GM posts express different opinions on that matter. Get together guys, decide something. Please? Lol

2013.03.01 13:30:58 notify For participating in the General Discussion Forum Section your trustworthiness has been adjusted by -2.5000.

My name is Hans. The "L" stands for danger.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#29 - 2013-09-17 13:41:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
This is not a new position on CCP's part. Macros and key broadcasts, like cache scraping, have been in the "grey area" of the EULA for some time now, meaning that while they're technically in violation of the EULA, CCP is not going after people who use them.

I came away from the last threadnought about this with the impression that the proper translation of this stance is, "we think this enables good gameplay and we want to fold it into the game, but we haven't figured out how yet, so carry on." But they won't actively support the use of those features, which is essentially what you're asking them to do, because the long-term goal is to get the client to the point where they can eliminate the "grey area" from the EULA.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-09-17 13:52:07 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
This is not a new position on CCP's part. Macros and key broadcasts, like cache scraping, have been in the "grey area" of the EULA for some time now, meaning that while they're technically in violation of the EULA, CCP is not going after people who use them.

I came away from the last threadnought about this with the impression that the proper translation of this stance is, "we think this enables good gameplay and we want to fold it into the game, but we haven't figured out how yet, so carry on." But they won't actively support the use of those features, which is essentially what you're asking them to do, because the long-term goal is to get the client to the point where they can eliminate the "grey area" from the EULA.


I'm not asking for official support, I'm asking will this get me banned. A statement from CCP regarding it would be great before I decide to make another 15 accounts that may or may not get banned.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Fatbear
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-09-17 13:53:02 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
This is not a new position on CCP's part. Macros and key broadcasts, like cache scraping, have been in the "grey area" of the EULA for some time now, meaning that while they're technically in violation of the EULA, CCP is not going after people who use them.

I came away from the last threadnought about this with the impression that the proper translation of this stance is, "we think this enables good gameplay and we want to fold it into the game, but we haven't figured out how yet, so carry on." But they won't actively support the use of those features, which is essentially what you're asking them to do, because the long-term goal is to get the client to the point where they can eliminate the "grey area" from the EULA.


I spy someone else that hasn't read the entire thread.

We know it's been an acceptable grey area in the past. We're not asking them to support the features. We're asking for an official clarification since Karidor & Phantom have now contradicted the previous "we don't like it but we allow it" stance - albeit only buried in a German thread.

We've got a plethora of official sources saying it's okay for now. We now have an official source saying it's not okay, but in a rather secluded post. We're asking for a clear and public ruling on what is okay and what isn't.
Fatbear
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-09-17 13:53:59 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:

I'm not asking for official support, I'm asking will this get me banned. A statement from CCP regarding it would be great before I decide to make another 15 accounts that may or may not get banned.


I'm glad you've got what I was getting at and are on-board with trying to get this straightened out.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-09-17 14:04:23 UTC
Gosh darn it, now I have to haul out this rig again.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#34 - 2013-09-17 14:20:47 UTC
Ah zzek. A hero to us all.

To some of us, a demon who has unleashed the fear of multiboxed fleets onto our general consciousness. And with drone assist, this is even more of a reality.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#35 - 2013-09-17 14:26:44 UTC
Fatbear wrote:

Can we just get a clear, public (ie a dev blog post) single statement on what is and isn't legal within ISBoxer to use, please?


Yeah...because CCP has been doing such a good job clarifying their policies lately.

I'm sure the CSM has your back and will get CCP to jump right on this.

Right CSM?
Guys??
Hello....?




☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#36 - 2013-09-17 14:56:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Fatbear wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
This is not a new position on CCP's part. Macros and key broadcasts, like cache scraping, have been in the "grey area" of the EULA for some time now, meaning that while they're technically in violation of the EULA, CCP is not going after people who use them.

I came away from the last threadnought about this with the impression that the proper translation of this stance is, "we think this enables good gameplay and we want to fold it into the game, but we haven't figured out how yet, so carry on." But they won't actively support the use of those features, which is essentially what you're asking them to do, because the long-term goal is to get the client to the point where they can eliminate the "grey area" from the EULA.


I spy someone else that hasn't read the entire thread.

We know it's been an acceptable grey area in the past. We're not asking them to support the features. We're asking for an official clarification since Karidor & Phantom have now contradicted the previous "we don't like it but we allow it" stance - albeit only buried in a German thread.


I read the entire thread, and the translated text of the comments in the German forum. It says exactly what they said when they last talked about ISBoxer.

Nothing has changed.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Fatbear
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-09-17 16:31:58 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:

I read the entire thread, and the translated text of the comments in the German forum. It says exactly what they said when they last talked about ISBoxer.

Nothing has changed.


Amusing that native German speakers say otherwise.
Niec Mogul
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2013-09-17 17:05:00 UTC
Why is there a continual parade of people getting their panties all wadded up over ISBoxer? As others have said, a simple search on the intertubes will show CCP's position is "it's allowed unless we don't like your face then BLAMMO, bangun."

And really it's about that arbitrary. They have a policy, they get to choose to enforce it however they'd like, and that's the end of the story. There's no "supreme court" of EVE that's going to come into the forums, weigh your reasoned arguments, and present some ironclad final judgement that you can wave in the air as an absolute truth.

Even if some dev comes in here and says "Oh yeah, it's totally legit you go on with your bad self," you know how much good that forum post is going to do you after the banhammer has smashed you flat? About as much good as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card at Abu Ghraib.

I don't mean to come off as some CCP fangirl but really, this crap just keeps being dredged up. Everyone knows the basic idea behind the rule: Did the computer decide to press the key? Not allowed. Did the human decide to press the key? Allowed. You can take that to the bank, 'cause it's just as valid as any other statement that's ever been made or will be made about this bullshit.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2013-09-17 17:08:29 UTC
Niec Mogul wrote:
Why is there a continual parade of people getting their panties all wadded up over ISBoxer? As others have said, a simple search on the intertubes will show CCP's position is "it's allowed unless we don't like your face then BLAMMO, bangun."

And really it's about that arbitrary. They have a policy, they get to choose to enforce it however they'd like, and that's the end of the story. There's no "supreme court" of EVE that's going to come into the forums, weigh your reasoned arguments, and present some ironclad final judgement that you can wave in the air as an absolute truth.

Even if some dev comes in here and says "Oh yeah, it's totally legit you go on with your bad self," you know how much good that forum post is going to do you after the banhammer has smashed you flat? About as much good as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card at Abu Ghraib.

I don't mean to come off as some CCP fangirl but really, this crap just keeps being dredged up. Everyone knows the basic idea behind the rule: Did the computer decide to press the key? Not allowed. Did the human decide to press the key? Allowed. You can take that to the bank, 'cause it's just as valid as any other statement that's ever been made or will be made about this bullshit.



What if it does both?

Now you see the quandary.

What if the deciding force (CCP staff) says it's allowed AND not allowed?

Now you see the need for a clear and concise ruling. Or rather, a stance.

And since we are all computer nerds trying to figure out how we can best ruin someone else's day or further our own interests without getting in trouble....

Let the parade continue!

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
l0rd carlos
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#40 - 2013-09-17 17:15:17 UTC
at least one GM is clear:

[Tuesday 10 September 2013] [15:04:08] <[GM]XXX> the "why" didn't change. We still don't care if you activate all your modules with a single keypress. Activating all modules on 20 clients at the same time with a single press goes far beyond that, though.

[Wednesday 11 September 2013] [12:29:42] <[GM]XXX> and it's pretty similar to the AP0 hack thing. Just because we may not necessarily take immediate action doesn't mean we still tolerate it. And the current EULA imho pretty clearly forbids mirroring keystrokes (and would have done so for the past 1.5 years)

Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos