EVE General Discussion

au·to·ma·tion
noun \ˌȯ-tə-ˈmā-shən\
Definition of AUTOMATION
1
: the technique of making an apparatus, a process, or a system operate automatically
2
: the state of being operated automatically
3
: automatically controlled operation of an apparatus, process, or system by mechanical or electronic devices that take the place of human labor

What part of this can't you understand? It's so clear, it boggles my mind how you continue to troll your way around the EXACT Websters definition of the word.

Read it already, or have an adult read it and explain it to you. This stuff isn't hard.

I explained it already u dont want to understand it.

(1) Suspension of Account

Without limiting CCP's rights or remedies, CCP may immediately, and without notice, discontinue or suspend access to the System through your Account, and any and all other Accounts that share the name, phone number, e-mail address, internet protocol address or credit card number with the discontinued or suspended Account, in the event of (i) a breach of the EULA (including the Rules of Conduct) by you or any user under your Account; or (ii) unauthorized access to the System or use of the Game by you or any user under your Account.

Here and

(2) Termination of EULA

CCP reserves the right to terminate any and all other Accounts that share the name, phone number, e-mail address, internet protocol address or credit card number with the closed Account.

U agree with a rule that states "Player is responsible for all actions on his accounts. Illegal action on single account may effect all accounts". Which means "All illegal actions perfomer by accounts are attributed to player".

Because EULA is lacking any other rule per analogiam "All benefits gained with accounts are attributed to a player".

As I already stated, when trying to control more than one account, efficiency of one user decreases accordingly to the number of accounts he is trying to control without 3rd party software. With ISBoxer this is not the case. U control all accounts as u would be controlling one. The discrepancy in "benefits gained" is not as apparent with low number of controlled accounts, however it grows bigger with higher number of accounts.

Example:
Player A has 5 accounts. He runs 1 anom with them. It takes him 1 minute to target desired npcs and fire at them with all his accounts. With his 5 accounts he earns 4x more than player C who flies anoms under same conditions, but only has one account.

Player B has 5 accounts and runs anoms under same conditions as player A and C. He uses ISBoxer. Time required to target and fire at NPC with 5 accounts is same as for player C. With his 5 accounts player B earns 5x more than player C.

Conclusion:
Player B uses 3rd party software and gets more "benefits" than player A. Effort player B exerts on anom running is same as player C. Player B earns 5 times as much as player C.

Disclaimer:
Numbers in "example" are merely illustrating the dropoff in efficiency.



Thats just CCP interpretation of EULA. It carries the same weight as my or any other players interpratation. I have not agreed with it. And as for the ISboxer official web. He is trying to sell his product. Who would have thought, he would say it is allowed.

Um, no it's their game, they make the rules. Their interpretation carries ALL the weight. What anyone else thinks means squat.

If you want to remove multiboxing, write up a rational letter to CCP explaining how it'll improve their game. It might help to show prior examples of other companies removing multiboxing that leading to higher profits.

"Me don't like" ... "Here look EULA" ..."You go ban" really won't cut it.

Isboxer isnt a bot.

Also CCP are still banning bots.

Actually no. CCPs interpretation is the only one that matters. It's their game, as such they get the final say on what is and what is not allowed. How you interpret the EULA and ToS is irrelevant, you don't work for CCP.

Its their game. They say its ok, why is this not enough for you?

This is a false accusation. I am not, nor have I ever been associated with mining.

No, the fact that it's not autmoation makes it less automation.

So it's a key braodcaster, not automation. Thanks for agreeing.

You are irrelevant, thus your views are irrelevant. You can continue to voice them and I can continue to say "wrong", and still the only thing that will matter is what CCP think, which is that it's not automation and that it's allowed.

You're welcome to do as you please, it doesn't make your interpretation of the EULA more relevant than CCPs.

As for ISBoxer, it's not a bot, a bot plays the game with zero interaction from the user beyond starting the bot and the game, unlike ISBoxer, which I don't use btw as I only have one account, which requires regular interaction from the user to accomplish anything.

Yes I agreed on terms of EULA and I am (for most parts) bound to act accordingly to it. However the statement linked in Tipias post is not part of EULA. I have not agreed with it. CCP has no power to state that their opinion matter more than mine. Its me and CCP agreeing on EULA. If the terms are not defined in the agreement, the weaker side (that is the player this time) gets the benefit of the doubt when interpreting EULA, not the huge company employing gazilions of lawyers and using foreign and to most unknown law system to increase the difficulty of asserting ones claims.