These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Hide your ISK, Team Security is out of control. (Allegedly)

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#121 - 2013-02-12 12:46:54 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:

While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.


Induction is not a valid form of deduction. No matter the amount of times you do right, does not prevent the possibility of you doing wrong.

I don't believe in CCP misconduct in this case. I believe that this guy was a botter. That is not the issue. I was trying to point out that if your sec team had convinced this E-U guy (a third party) that there was sufficient proof of the botters deeds, this thread wouldn't be here. He was not technically even a third party since he was holding the isk. But no, there is this policy about discussing moderation in place. (which this thread is breaking already)

After a while, people will remember only the suspicion, not the particulars. In this thread someone already implied security incidents that happened long time ago, that people can't remember the particulars of. This is why I believe that policy is wrong. It will always make you look bad. And you can only alleviate the suspicions by breaking that very selfsame policy yourselves.

"The world is not based on reality, but the perception of reality" - sneakers, 1992

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Nemo deBlanc
Resource Acquisition Unlimited
#122 - 2013-02-12 12:47:59 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:


I'm not sure how asking for where we've made a statement I disagree with (and I'm the only one that matters in this instance) is "cluelessness" but suffice it to say that I would highly recommend you not engage in such activity. You can choose to ignore that and make a self righteous post defending yourself after we take action if you like.


Speaking of self righteous...

Are we to interpret this as official policy change on the issue of cache scraping? 9 months ago, you were fine with it, have things changed since then? If so, I guess enjoy gloating over wrongly banned market accounts.


I've never agreed with it. My stance of "Don't modify the client" hasn't changed since day one. That GMs for some reason have a different interpretation than I do is irrelevant.


Answer the question. Are these above couple posts you making cache scraping a bannable offense from here on out, or are they not? This isn't that hard, and you talking in circles isn't getting any of us anywhere. As you so happily proclaimed in a previous post, decisions like this are up to you. So make the decision before you start banning innocent people.

Do you, CCP Screegs from here on out make things like:

http://dev.eve-central.com/contribtastic/start

a bannable offense? That's the only question myself, and several others are asking.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#123 - 2013-02-12 12:49:34 UTC
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:


I'm not sure how asking for where we've made a statement I disagree with (and I'm the only one that matters in this instance) is "cluelessness" but suffice it to say that I would highly recommend you not engage in such activity. You can choose to ignore that and make a self righteous post defending yourself after we take action if you like.


Speaking of self righteous...

Are we to interpret this as official policy change on the issue of cache scraping? 9 months ago, you were fine with it, have things changed since then? If so, I guess enjoy gloating over wrongly banned market accounts.


I've never agreed with it. My stance of "Don't modify the client" hasn't changed since day one. That GMs for some reason have a different interpretation than I do is irrelevant.


Answer the question. Are these above couple posts you making cache scraping a bannable offense from here on out, or are they not? This isn't that hard, and you talking in circles isn't getting any of us anywhere. As you so happily proclaimed in a previous post, decisions like this are up to you. So make the decision before you start banning innocent people.

Do you, CCP Screegs from here on out make things like:

http://dev.eve-central.com/contribtastic/start

a bannable offense? That's the only question myself, and several others are asking.


In my opinion cache scraping is illegal. You won't be banned for it today. I didn't see any questions asked what I saw was insults and accusations. Sorry if you have a different interpretation of polite social discourse.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#124 - 2013-02-12 12:53:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Wacktopia
Garcia Arnst wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:

I'm not sure how asking for where we've made a statement I disagree with (and I'm the only one that matters in this instance) is "cluelessness" but suffice it to say that I would highly recommend you not engage in such activity. You can choose to ignore that and make a self righteous post defending yourself after we take action if you like.


So are you saying that scraping the Market cache is not okay, or only okay until you decide it constitutes botting?


Try not to think of it as black and white as you perhaps might like. Instead try to understand a situation from a reasonability point of view.

I'm sure this is what is applied when GM's deal with certain cases. The question that will be asked in the grey area outside the EULA is... "is this player taking the p*ss?".

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2013-02-12 12:53:30 UTC
hmm... this thread was going to places, went places, went back to the street, went to other places and it's now setting up a nuke to wtfkaboom everybody.



...well that escalated quite quickly.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#126 - 2013-02-12 12:54:15 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:

While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.


Induction is not a valid form of deduction. No matter the amount of times you do right, does not prevent the possibility of you doing wrong.

I don't believe in CCP misconduct in this case. I believe that this guy was a botter. That is not the issue. I was trying to point out that if your sec team had convinced this E-U guy (a third party) that there was sufficient proof of the botters deeds, this thread wouldn't be here. He was not technically even a third party since he was holding the isk. But no, there is this policy about discussing moderation in place. (which this thread is breaking already)

After a while, people will remember only the suspicion, not the particulars. In this thread someone already implied security incidents that happened long time ago, that people can't remember the particulars of. This is why I believe that policy is wrong. It will always make you look bad. And you can only alleviate the suspicions by breaking that very selfsame policy yourselves.

"The world is not based on reality, but the perception of reality" - sneakers, 1992


I didn't make the policy. However, I don't believe the ridiculous insinuations being leveled against my team are in any way a case of someone mistakenly not being convinced of something. When I disbelieve something I don't have a need to race around the internet telling everyone about it. Disagreement I don't mind. Trying purposely to cause damage to my team, my reputation and company because you don't like the explanation you got I do.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Whitehound
#127 - 2013-02-12 12:55:09 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
In my opinion cache scraping is illegal.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Nemo deBlanc
Resource Acquisition Unlimited
#128 - 2013-02-12 12:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Nemo deBlanc
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:


I'm not sure how asking for where we've made a statement I disagree with (and I'm the only one that matters in this instance) is "cluelessness" but suffice it to say that I would highly recommend you not engage in such activity. You can choose to ignore that and make a self righteous post defending yourself after we take action if you like.


Speaking of self righteous...

Are we to interpret this as official policy change on the issue of cache scraping? 9 months ago, you were fine with it, have things changed since then? If so, I guess enjoy gloating over wrongly banned market accounts.


In my opinion cache scraping is illegal. You won't be banned for it today. I didn't see any questions asked what I saw was insults and accusations. Sorry if you have a different interpretation of polite social discourse.


I don't see where I insulted you (at least not using any terms you hadn't already used yourself), and I think I've been perfectly polite. My questions also seemed to be clearly stated in my quoted and unedited post. I didn't accuse you of anything either, unless I'm missing something. I merely asked that you make CCP policy abundantly clear, in the interest of protecting innocent players accounts from any wrongful bans. Surely you can see the reason in that.

Regardless, thank you for answering the question. It's all I really wanted.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#129 - 2013-02-12 12:57:07 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
In my opinion cache scraping is illegal.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.


Cache scraping is read only. No modification.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#130 - 2013-02-12 12:57:14 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
In my opinion cache scraping is illegal.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.


Technically I think you can achieve this without modifying the client itself fwiw.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Octaviun
United Mining And Distribution
#131 - 2013-02-12 12:58:13 UTC
First time i've ever seen a Dev be so aggressive on an issue, Sreegs first reply supplied all information needed and answers to something everyone really doesn't need to know about. Now all I'm seeing is people baiting a Dev.

Got LP Store Items? Have Faction Ammo you recently looted/redeemed? EVE Mail me for a deal.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#132 - 2013-02-12 12:59:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Whitehound wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
In my opinion cache scraping is illegal.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.

cache scraping doesn't modify any client files (or memory) - it only reads files that EVE stores on your harddisk.

that modification of cache files would be illegal has been the CCP stance from day one but so far GMs have ruled that accessing them read-only is legal (and as Evemon includes a cache scraper that is activated by default many eve players do this - whether they know it or not).

.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#133 - 2013-02-12 13:00:08 UTC
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:


I'm not sure how asking for where we've made a statement I disagree with (and I'm the only one that matters in this instance) is "cluelessness" but suffice it to say that I would highly recommend you not engage in such activity. You can choose to ignore that and make a self righteous post defending yourself after we take action if you like.


Speaking of self righteous...

Are we to interpret this as official policy change on the issue of cache scraping? 9 months ago, you were fine with it, have things changed since then? If so, I guess enjoy gloating over wrongly banned market accounts.


In my opinion cache scraping is illegal. You won't be banned for it today. I didn't see any questions asked what I saw was insults and accusations. Sorry if you have a different interpretation of polite social discourse.


I don't see where I insulted you (at least not using any terms you hadn't already used yourself), and I think I've been perfectly polite. My questions also seemed to be clearly stated in my quoted and unedited post. I didn't accuse you of anything either, unless I'm missing something. I merely asked that you make CCP policy abundantly clear, in the interest of protecting innocent players accounts from any wrongful bans. Surely you can see the reason in that.

Regardless, thank you for answering the question. It's all I really wanted.


I wasn't referring to you but rather the other "questioners" you mentioned :)

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#134 - 2013-02-12 13:00:26 UTC
Sreegs's avatar picture should be smoking a cigar while having his name spray painted out and "Comedian" written over it.

His one comment reminded me of "Who Watches the Watchmen?" Lol
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#135 - 2013-02-12 13:01:21 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
In my opinion cache scraping is illegal.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.


Technically I think you can achieve this without modifying the client itself fwiw.


You can't do it without interacting with local files used by the client. In my perfect world those would be protected better. As I said you won't be banned for it today but that's why I take issue with it. We should be enabling this via the API instead.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#136 - 2013-02-12 13:01:29 UTC
Octaviun wrote:
First time i've ever seen a Dev be so aggressive on an issue, Sreegs first reply supplied all information needed and answers to something everyone really doesn't need to know about. Now all I'm seeing is people baiting a Dev.


It's understandable given the insinuations.

To be honest given the law covering this kind of thing the outcome could have been worse.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Cursan Voran
Jita Traders Society
#137 - 2013-02-12 13:03:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cursan Voran
Sreegs you have won this one by a knockout.

Go do something else for a few hours and let us players deal with the dicks in this thread...
Equto
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#138 - 2013-02-12 13:04:17 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Wacktopia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
In my opinion cache scraping is illegal.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.


Technically I think you can achieve this without modifying the client itself fwiw.


You can't do it without interacting with local files used by the client. In my perfect world those would be protected better. As I said you won't be banned for it today but that's why I take issue with it. We should be enabling this via the API instead.

I personally would love an API for this, however with all the market sites and custom programs people use I am not entirely sure the API servers can take alot more. Not to mention the killmail pulls are already at the limits of some pulls.
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#139 - 2013-02-12 13:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Wacktopia
CCP Sreegs wrote:
You can't do it [screen scrape] without interacting with local files used by the client. In my perfect world those would be protected better. As I said you won't be banned for it today but that's why I take issue with it. We should be enabling this via the API instead.


Couldn't agree more. (Also to be clear I was not advocating the practice, merely factoiding).

Having worked with the cached data (for information purposes only) to work on fitting attribute data tools I would love to get at that information without having to go poking around in the data cache. Win-win situation tbh.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Lady Aleena
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#140 - 2013-02-12 13:06:31 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:

I would not recommend anyone do this and I'd ask that you not tell our players what you consider to be legal. The EULA does a decent enough job of that and is contrary to your statement.


I wonder what makes you think your EULA is so much better than every other single law in the world that it does not need interpretation. I bet legions of lawyers would like to know how to craft such fine rules that you don't need to have bookshelves full of literature and cases discussing the finer points of it (actually the more I think about it, the lawyers I know would most likely not like this).

Every law making entity on this planet has the same problem, how to make a rule as easy to understand as possible while still being able to cover as much as you want to have covered. It is also common knowledge that you can't craft rules that are not subject to interpretation.

I highly suggest you guys at CCP realize this and don't have one part of your company post about a behaviour as being legal while the higher authority has a different stance on this. It makes it no fun to interact with your rules and your authorities if you give out conflicting information that result in bans/confiscating. Claiming the EULA itself is clear and precise is laughable.