EVE General Discussion

Jesus Christ in a Falcon!

Could this really just be a troll thread? Man, I would have to admit to be totally taken for a ride if that were the case. I am actually hoping the OP is really just unable to read and comprehend.

Despite the OP openly denying it; I'm still calling OP a troll

Another I hate multiboxing thread.... Not like there's not already a few dozen of these already.

In before lock

This extends to multiboxing software. Some of the multiboxing software out there is powerful enough to count as “client modification” if used for that purpose. Our stance on third-party software is that we do not endorse such software as we have no control over what it does. As such, we can’t say that multiboxing software isn’t against our EULA. But the same goes in this case, that unless we determine that people are doing things beyond “multiboxing”, we will not be taking any action. We only care about the instances where people are messing with our process for the purposes of cheating, and running multiple clients at the same time is not in violation of our EULA in and of itself unless it involves trial accounts.

This Clearly states that Multi Boxing is fine. So you can Multi box away in your incursions.

But this also states using it to gain an unfair advantage over player Example ganking ect is not acceptable.

We do not endorse or condone the use of player-made software or any other third party applications or software that confers an unfair benefit to players. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay. However, if any third party application or other software is used to gain any unfair advantage, or is used for purposes beyond its intended use, or if the application or other software violates other parts of the EULA, we may fully enforce our rights to prohibit such use, including player bans. Please use player-made or other third party software at your own risk.

That information can be found here.
http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/third-party-policies/?_ga=1.235170247.792540985.1403572578

updating OP

Guess what: CCP doesn't think they were doing the EXACT same thing. The problem here isn't selective enforcement of the EULA or favoritism or anything else. The problem is that you think that two different things are exactly the same.

*pinches the bridge of his nose*

its simple. ISBox is allowed. That's it. There is nothing that says its not, anywhere. If you have a problem with someone using it then go a head and send a petition, CCP will look into it and deal with it. No amount of arguing your insane point will matter. End of thread.

As the post from I gm in 2013 I posted said isbox is not endorced or condoned means its allowed. your argument is invalid and finished. So again, if you have an issue file a petition.

LOL no it isnt. OP is updated and you can find all the information in it. Thank you for your hilarious comments and have a wonderful eve day. Now i got a movie to catch with a very fine lady. see you in space.

You found a discussion point at the top of your OP (the ISBoxed bomber fleet is a bit of a sore point, because simulcasting commands becomes an issue when you can get perfect alpha every time).

For the rest: are you actually going to counter-petition someone who you think multiboxed a gank of your friend's bot-controlled mining ship to get them banned? Good luck with that.

(ps: your friend would have been banned regardless--CCP doesn't rely on ganker reports to determine if someone's botting).

Huh. It throws an enormous amount of fail everywhere, gets completely owned by everyone, and then asks for the lock?


I have a counter-proposal: ISD, don't lock this thread. Sticky it. Because OP isn't the intellectual punching bag that we deserve, it's the one we have. Or however that goes.

I was mighty bored so… here's to you OP, and why your premise is a fallacy:

First of, what does “denying the antecedent” mean?
It's a formal fallacy that arises when you have a claim that follows the pattern:

If A, then B.
Not A.
Therefore not B.

By denying that the first part of the premise (the antecedent) is true, you somehow conclude that the result (the consequent) is also untrue. This is an invalid conclusion because there are more ways for B to be true than just A — A is simply one way for B to become true. This error often arises because of some confusion about the (valid) reversal of the first premise, called a modus tollens. A modus tollens follows a very similar form (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) and is valid because if B is not the case, then A — which always leads to B — simply cannot be true or B would also be true by very definition. Another common cause is to confuse “if … then” for “if and only if … then” (in other words, there are no other ways for B to be true than if A is true, and as a result, if A is false, the only thing that could make B true isn't, so B is false too).

So, what does this mean in this case? Let's look at the GM statement again:

”Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose.”

The analytical breakdown of this would be:
IF you are using [mutlibox software] AND you control multiple computers with it THEN we are OK with it.
A ∧ B ⇒ C

The OP is fallaciously trying to turn this into the claim:
IF you are using [mutlibox software] AND you do NOT control multiple computers with it THEN we are NOT OK with it.
A ∧ ¬B ⇒ ¬C

This is an invalid (partial) denying of the antecedent. We are assuming, for no reason, that if we negate the B, the C will also be negated even though there is noting in the initial premise that actually supports this conclusion. The only valid negative conclusion we can draw (using the modus tollens rule) is:
¬C ⇒ ¬(A ∧ B)

…or, in actual words, if they are not ok with it, then you weren't using multiboxing software to control multiple computers.

Now, here's the fun part that the OP could have used to confuse matters: there are two ways to negate that right-hand side of the premise — either A (you're using mutliboxing software) is false or B (you're controlling multiple computers) is false. So doesn't that mean he's right? No, because now we have a completely different premise and a completely different demand for making it true and the consequent can be true in a number of different ways that cannot be identified without additional information. We have to fist actually find a case where ¬C is true — in other words, a case where they're not ok with it — and see which one of A and B is false. From the premise alone, we can't tell which one it will be, just that it will be one of them (hint: it'll be because of the “not using multiboxing software” part).

So what are the cases in this modus tollens?

C: they're ok with it → we don't know anything about A or B — a null case.
¬C: they're not ok with it → at least one of A and B is false.
     1. ¬A ∧ B: you were using not-multiboxing software when you controlled those multiple computers. A botting farm.
     2. A ∧ ¬B: you were using multiboxing software to control not-multiple computers. The OP's case.
     3. ¬A ∧ ¬B: you were using not-multiboxing software to control not-multiple computers. Yeah, even a single bot will get you slapped.

But here's the thing: all of these cases are hypothetical reasons why C would be false. If C is false one of the combinations of ¬A and ¬B must be the case, but again, we can't tell from C alone which one it is. As luck would have it, we have an explicit dev statement that lets us rule out one of the hypotheticals: a GM statement that tells us that using multiboxing software to control a single computer is ok (or, if you like, A ∧ ¬B ⇒ C). So case 2 cannot be an explanation for why we have ¬C. That leaves ¬A ∧ B and ¬A ∧ ¬B as the only possibilities.

What this tells us is that B (the use of multiple computers) is actually inconsequential to the state of C. Our initial premise could be simplified to “if you are using multiboxing software, we are ok with it” (A ⇒ C), and its modus tollens “if we aren't ok with it, you are not using multiboxing software” ( ¬C ⇒ ¬A).