Assembly Hall

I would like an official statement from a senior GM or DEV regarding ISBoxer ganks and their subsequent replacement. I am specifically referring to ganking a person in highsec with nados, and them having that person's ship reimbursed.

I do not understand CCP's policy with this as there is no statistically significant difference from using ISBoxer to coordinate a gank, using a mechanical setup like this guy, a fleet of dedicated gankers using TS to coordinate their alpha / DPS, or just opening multiple windows, offset them by a little to allow space to click, and rapidly clicking on the next window and hitting F1.

The reason I say "statistically significant" is because of the server cycle time. If the EVE server was set up in such a way that milliseconds actually counter, then it would be understandable. However, since the servers are set up to send commands in a "stack" for a measurable period of time, there is no reason why ganks should be reimbursed.

I await a response from CCP, and welcome any contributions from the playerbase.

I watch some incursion runners get ganked by isboxer to have their ship replaced because " 1 pilot is the player and the rest are considered bots" which comes to the person getting this ship back, but yet isboxer is legal. If the isboxer is legal then why are these people getting their ships back, and a 10 man gank fleet considered 1 pilot and 9 bots, and no other use of isboxer is?

They tried to have an isboxer in one of the tournament to prove isboxer isnt all that, but he also wasnt controling something like a team of 10 nightmares either due to tournament rules, which i might add would put isobox at a disadvantage using the rules as isboxer is made to control account clones and not a fleet of individual ships of different kinds.

Still, this same setup can be achieved mechanically, just alot more thought behind it.

After the reports of Caldari Predators Rapier supposedly being reimbursed because it was killed by an isBoxer, I also petitioned CCP requesting clarification on the rules relating to the use of isBoxer in PVP, and was told by CCP "We cannot discuss the terms of our policies". How can CCP expect a player base to follow the rules, if when requested for clarification on said rules, they refuse to discuss it.
I use isBoxer yes, but I do also see the objection alot of players have with it, and my stance is this, if you are going to allow isBoxer, then you cannot reimburse players who lose their ships to one. If not, then just get it over with and ban the use of isBoxer. You cannot have it both ways, either allow it entirely or ban it.

Oh wow, this is really happening?

I thought CCP gave the use of isBoxer their blessing? Is it only allowed to be used in PvE farming or something?

I hope to see a CCP response as well.

bump