EVE General Discussion

That's people NOT being banned for breaking the EULA

I wanted people being banned for NOT breaking the EULA.


Subtle difference.

We're back to arguing about EFT then because the EXACT SAME THING could be said about using EFT to test fits over having to do it inside.

You can do it prior to running which he should of done. If we're going to ban people for a minor convenience then I can't wait to see what else they are going to ban people for.


Also I'm glad that CCP allows us the privilege of positioning windows as we please on our computers.


Anyway TS vent murmor all give in game advantages and even have client overlays in some cases. Should that be bannable too?

What if I'm too poor for paper?

Yes, however, in doing so with paper and pencil,you lose valuable time you could have spent ratting and earning ISK.
Now do you see the conundrum?

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better

I still haven't had an answer as to why calling ISBoxer users ISBotters makes them so angry. It's almost like they think botting is bad in some way.

And if I didn't use a fitting program but just fitted exactly the fits given to me by my great blue-blob superiors, no time wasted whatsoever, so how has someone that used a fitting program gained an advantage?

I mean they must have spent some time using the fitting program but I was just given a fit with absolutely zero time spent borrowing my family braincell to puzzle over it. Just fit, drop sentries, turn on prop mod and orbit, watch the wallet blinks.

Basically anyone who uses EFT is doing it wrong, the in-game advantage is from joining a null alliance and being told what to fly.

Whereas a tangential argument about pieces of paper and how unrelated pieces of software do or don't fall within the EULA is really taking this thread somewhere.

And it's not a strawman; some people never use EFT; people that use EFT have very little if any advantage over those people; therefore EFT does not provide an advantage over something that can be attained in-game through fit sharing and linking.

Try to say the same about ISboxers multibroadcasting, rolling over, whatever you want to call your techniques for sending many more commands than would be otherwise possible.

I am in total agreement with CCP that bots should be banned. Pretty sure I've said this before, but I forgive you for not reading the thread. This includes chat bots and spammers in Jita, but I'm a little alone in this aspect.

However, by any definition of the word "bot", ISBoxer does not fall into it, as it does not alter the game environment, it does not boost the abilities of the player, nor reduce his opponents. ISBoxer does not allow a player to continue to rack up experience and points (ISK / modules) when he or she is not at the computer.
You just linked two websites which actually undermine your argument.

Anyone can fleet warp his fleet out of danger. Just look at Slippery Petes; they take "escaping danger" to a whole new level with their bubble immunity.

And your pathetic attempt to say that cheats are legitimate because everyone is using it is a argumentum ad populum fallacy. In English, it's the old "jump off a cliff" argument your mother brings up to you whenever you beg to get a piercing or tattoo at 13. I have no problem whatsoever if CCP wants to modify their EULA to narrow the scope of 6A3 and thus make PYFA, EFT, etc safe from being banned so long as they unban ISBoxer and all it's functionality when they narrow said scope.

Why? What reason is there for the ISboxing nerf to be repealed? Other than "I want it."

You've been very good at falsely pointing out others fallacious arguments and not actually put anything forward yourself for your own side of the argument - except some discredited evidence of someone getting wrongfully banned and a wide variety taken from your personal area of expertise: fallacies.

F.E.

Fallacy #1 ISboxer does boost a players' abilities by enabling them to multiply their action rate as well as provide a far simpler viewpoint of multiple screens which are well organised and better managed than would otherwise be the case. So the rest of your argument above rests on a false premise put forward by yourself.

Fallacy #2: A thinly veiled ad hominem by calling their attempt 'pathetic'

Fallacy #3 Presuming that because different third party programs share the property of being a third party program that they should be treated the same... an association fallacy.


So please, WHY should ISboxer have it's full functionality re-enabled?

I have already explained at great lengths, in great detail, and without anyone offering up a counterargument other than "no it doesnt", the specific advantages of the aforementioned programs, why if ISBoxer is to be banned so should they, and why if CCP narrows 6A3 to disclude these aforementioned programs then they should unban ISBoxer's functions.

To Eli:
#1: There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. The fastest VG Boxer did not magically skyrocket his ISK potential to 1b / hour / client when he installed ISBoxer. The largest mining fleet did not gain the ability to instantly mine out a belt in ten seconds, nor are they protected when CODE comes callling to system. The bomberboxers did not magically gain an invulnerability to defensive bubbles when they run ISBoxer. And finally, ISBoxer is not some Turing-tested AI that makes no mistakes, responds to ever-changing grid warfare instantly, and it sure as hell can't be compared to some script kiddy running an aimbot in COD4.

#2. What you just did, focusing on the fallacy and dismissing everything else, is called an argument from fallacy. I stand by what I said that, and I would like to reiterate that you are currently grasping at straws here in an attempt to convince yourself and anyone within earshot that I'm as bad as T20, or Somer Blink despite offering no evidence that ISBoxer gives someone an advantage while PYFA and EFT do not.

#3. I have been arguing that all third party tools should adhere to the third party policy. I have also been arguing that, since CCP seems intent on quoting 6A3 to us in regards to ISBoxer, in other words, that they have been enforcing 6A3 for one program, that they need to enforce it for all the programs. When Somer was told to knock off the possible RMT aspect of Somer Blink, CCP didn't say "Only Somer Blink is being disallowed to participate in such an action". It went into effect universally for all the various sites.