These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#61 - 2013-09-17 18:57:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yes, that 2010 post is great and all, but as the TOS and other services specifically justify CCP staff being able to change policy as they see fit, and a GM publicizing his opinion (an opinion that matters as he has account power) it becomes a matter of believing in a grandfather policy, or an ever changing policy.

In short, it makes it worse =(.

EDIT- Is GM Lelouch still around btw?

He was around 7 months ago when that old post was updated with reference to the new 3d-party policy.

Multiboxing (be it mechanical or through software) was still allowed — they just couldn't give any kind of official endorsement to any specific programs as they had no control over how those programs might change over time.

Either way, the GM claim (ok… opinion) that it's been disallowed for a year and a half is 100% incorrect, as is the nonsense that it qualifies as some kind of automation, since the Lead GM has unequivocally said that multiboxing does not violate the EULA — not even the new and updated one.


If I recall correctly (probably not), this is the same GM that told us a few days ago that pretending to be your own alt is bannable.

EDIT: Yep, GM Karidor. Same person.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#62 - 2013-09-17 19:04:25 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
If I recall correctly (probably not), this is the same GM that told us a few days ago that pretending to be your own alt is bannable.

No, that was GM Karidor.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-09-17 19:05:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
If I recall correctly (probably not), this is the same GM that told us a few days ago that pretending to be your own alt is bannable.

No, that was GM Karidor.


Yeah I was referring to Karidor, I probably should have mentioned that.

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.
Lady Areola Fappington
#64 - 2013-09-17 19:08:58 UTC
You'll never get CCP to confirm/deny if a 3rd party program is EULA compliant, simply because it's 3rd party. CCP has no control over the code, so there's no way to verify yes/no.

Example:
Our totally legal program IXBOXER operates fully within CCP guidelines, simply replicating keystrokes. CCP approves it.
IXBOXER devs decide to include a Python injection into EVE, to "improve IXBOXER response" (hypotheticals all round)
IXBOXER neglects to mention it's a python injection.
CCP security does a sweep, and bans folks with a modified client...including our IXBOXER users.
Hue and cry on the forums, with fingers pointing back at CCP going "YOU TOLD US IT WAS OK!"



The best answer you'll get from the devs will always be "Use 3rd party tools at your own risk, we reserve the right to cut them off whenever we choose."

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#65 - 2013-09-17 19:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Yeah I was referring to Karidor, I probably should have mentioned that.

Oh, ok. Yeah, I assumed it was Lelouch because he was the one mentioned in my and Murk's post. Oops

Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
You'll never get CCP to confirm/deny if a 3rd party program is EULA compliant, simply because it's 3rd party. CCP has no control over the code, so there's no way to verify yes/no.

Example:
Our totally legal program IXBOXER operates fully within CCP guidelines, simply replicating keystrokes. CCP approves it.
IXBOXER devs decide to include a Python injection into EVE, to "improve IXBOXER response" (hypotheticals all round)
IXBOXER neglects to mention it's a python injection.
CCP security does a sweep, and bans folks with a modified client...including our IXBOXER users.
Hue and cry on the forums, with fingers pointing back at CCP going "YOU TOLD US IT WAS OK!"

The best answer you'll get from the devs will always be "Use 3rd party tools at your own risk, we reserve the right to cut them off whenever we choose."

…and that's all fine. They said as much when the 3pSW policy was updated. What they can do (and effectively have done on numerous occasions in the past) is to say that certain functionality is or isn't ok. Broadcasting has been fine since roughly forever. Automation has been against the rules since the early Devonian era. Non-timed ”mash-the-keyboard”-style macros have been fine (ye olde G15 keyboard rule); conditional macros with timers have not. Doing it that way makes it very clear what's allowed without having to specify any kind of software.

That way, the Q&A would be: “Is [ ISBoxer | Synergy | short-circuited KVM switch | my wood-shop project ] fine? If it only broadcasts, yes. If it automates, no.”
Tesco Ergo Sum
#66 - 2013-09-17 19:16:12 UTC
Simple rules to play EVE by:

Don't trust anything CCP say about EULA/TOS/the magical "emergent gameplay"/0.01 ISK/etc
Don't trust anything forums trolls write

Either do it yourself and find out the hard way,

Or don't do it at all...
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2013-09-17 19:19:11 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yes, that 2010 post is great and all, but as the TOS and other services specifically justify CCP staff being able to change policy as they see fit, and a GM publicizing his opinion (an opinion that matters as he has account power) it becomes a matter of believing in a grandfather policy, or an ever changing policy.

In short, it makes it worse =(.

EDIT- Is GM Lelouch still around btw?

Yeah, and is editing posts from 2010 in line with CCP's policy on revisionist policy enforcement.



Nice, that is what I was wanting to see.

Responsibility is going to a major thing within the next few weeks. That and accountability lol.

Save those bookmarks!

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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2013-09-17 19:31:51 UTC
Of course now I came back from a break and read the changes to that edited 2010 post...

This game is ****** up.

LOL

Now I get that multiboxing is fine (I use multiple accounts) but now they are saying isboxer is NOT condoned.

But they aren't saying it's forbidden.

Yay dice rolling!

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.
Cierra Royce
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-09-17 19:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Cierra Royce
Camper101 wrote:

GM Karidor wrote:

Fazit: ob eine EULA-Verletzung nun per Roboterarm, Dritt-Software, Stäbchen oder was auch immer passiert ist nicht relevant für den EULA-Verstoß selbst. Und wenn ein Klick auf mehrere Clients verteilt wird, fällt diese Parallelisierung ebenfalls unter "Automatisierung", oder um die Formulierung der EULA zu verwenden: (...)


Summary: wether an EULA violation happens through a robotic arm, third-party software, sticks or whatever is not relevant for the EULA violation itself. And when a click is distributed to multiple clients this parallelization falls under "automation" - or to use the phrasing of the EULA...


---

By that sort of reasoning it is probably a Eula Violation for me to control two clients, one with my left hand one with my right, if I somehow manage to click the same modules on in parallel.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2013-09-17 19:46:45 UTC
Cierra Royce wrote:
Camper101 wrote:

GM Karidor wrote:

Fazit: ob eine EULA-Verletzung nun per Roboterarm, Dritt-Software, Stäbchen oder was auch immer passiert ist nicht relevant für den EULA-Verstoß selbst. Und wenn ein Klick auf mehrere Clients verteilt wird, fällt diese Parallelisierung ebenfalls unter "Automatisierung", oder um die Formulierung der EULA zu verwenden: (...)


Summary: wether an EULA violation happens through a robotic arm, third-party software, sticks or whatever is not relevant for the EULA violation itself. And when a click is distributed to multiple clients this parallelization falls under "automation" - or to use the phrasing of the EULA...


---

By that sort of reasoning it is probably a Eula Violation for me to control two clients, one with my left hand one with my right, if I somehow manage to click the same modules on in parallel.



I am starting to read it as "ban the calculators and bust out your fingers and toes folks!".

But I'm starting to get weary of all these changes.

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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#71 - 2013-09-17 19:57:25 UTC
Tesco Ergo Sum wrote:
Simple rules to play EVE by:

Don't trust anything CCP say about EULA/TOS/the magical "emergent gameplay"/0.01 ISK/etc
Don't trust anything forums trolls write

Either do it yourself and find out the hard way,

Or don't do it at all...

Find out when... you get banned?

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 ?
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#72 - 2013-09-17 19:58:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Barzai Mekhar
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
You'll never get CCP to confirm/deny if a 3rd party program is EULA compliant, simply because it's 3rd party. CCP has no control over the code, so there's no way to verify yes/no.

Example:
Our totally legal program IXBOXER operates fully within CCP guidelines, simply replicating keystrokes. CCP approves it.
IXBOXER devs decide to include a Python injection into EVE, to "improve IXBOXER response" (hypotheticals all round)
IXBOXER neglects to mention it's a python injection.
CCP security does a sweep, and bans folks with a modified client...including our IXBOXER users.
Hue and cry on the forums, with fingers pointing back at CCP going "YOU TOLD US IT WAS OK!"



The best answer you'll get from the devs will always be "Use 3rd party tools at your own risk, we reserve the right to cut them off whenever we choose."


Most people here are aware of that particular problem. However, the german GM heavily suggested that any method of broadcasting/replicating is a EULA violation, no matter if the replication is achieved by a tool that modifies the client, operates completely outside of the client, is mechanical in nature or relies on using extraordinarily well trained hamsters.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#73 - 2013-09-17 20:14:21 UTC
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
You'll never get CCP to confirm/deny if a 3rd party program is EULA compliant, simply because it's 3rd party. CCP has no control over the code, so there's no way to verify yes/no.

Example:
Our totally legal program IXBOXER operates fully within CCP guidelines, simply replicating keystrokes. CCP approves it.
IXBOXER devs decide to include a Python injection into EVE, to "improve IXBOXER response" (hypotheticals all round)
IXBOXER neglects to mention it's a python injection.
CCP security does a sweep, and bans folks with a modified client...including our IXBOXER users.
Hue and cry on the forums, with fingers pointing back at CCP going "YOU TOLD US IT WAS OK!"



The best answer you'll get from the devs will always be "Use 3rd party tools at your own risk, we reserve the right to cut them off whenever we choose."


Most people here are aware of that particular problem. However, the german GM heavily suggested that any method of broadcasting/replicating is a EULA violation, no matter if the replication is achieved by a tool that modifies the client, operates completely outside of the client, is mechanical in nature or relies on using extraordinarily well trained hamsters.

Well then, i see how we might need a clarification to let us know how evil we are

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 ?
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#74 - 2013-09-17 21:01:22 UTC
The problem isn’t in the wording but in the MONIES. By definition and application isboxer should be bannable. CCP chooses to make the loop hole because they understand should they come right out and say it is bannable instead of the grey area they deliberately now have then they would lose subs.

Should they make isboxer bannable so the average goonie wouldn’t be able to SOLO Roll pvp with their 8 accounts or mine with their 20 accounts then there would be no reason to have all those subs and that would result in loss of revenue.

I would love to see isboxer banned and make pvp and game better all around.

All these people love to say eve isint pay to win but thats a lie as this is a prime example of how it is.
Fatbear
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2013-09-17 21:14:50 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
so the average goonie wouldn’t be able to SOLO Roll pvp with their 8 accounts


There's absolutely no reason to bring politics into this thread, nor such trolling. Save it for CAOD or Failheap where it belongs, and leave this thread as a valid query please.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#76 - 2013-09-17 21:17:10 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
By definition and application isboxer should be bannable.
Why, and how so?
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#77 - 2013-09-17 21:26:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
By definition and application isboxer should be bannable.
Why, and how so?


Haven't there been enough threadnoughts that discussed this issue to death? Some people get the distinction between "automatization" and "broadcasting" and some dont....
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#78 - 2013-09-17 23:10:44 UTC
Posting in a stealth ISBoxer advertising thread.

I was going to accuse Tippia of trolling and not just posting a link to one of the posts from CCP that states that they will not ban for ISBoxer use and that if CCP decides that they will start banning that they will inform everyone first. But I've searched and can't find any of them, even with Chribba's tools.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#79 - 2013-09-18 03:24:41 UTC
There is a GM reply here regarding it.

And then there is the "search" function that works well: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&search=isboxer&devbadge=1&gmbadge=1

That's probably the best you will get.


This thread is going to be locked now, as this topic has been beaten to death and no new policy has come out regarding it.

ISD Cura Ursus

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department