These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

IS boxer Software and it's legality under the EULA

First post First post First post
Author
De'Veldrin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2013-05-22 17:41:28 UTC
Azure Moonlight wrote:
I dont think using ISBoxer or similar tools is immoral. If something is allowed it consequently is also moral.


Just because something is allowed doesn't make it morally correct. (By the same token, just because something is not allowed, it is not necessarily immoral.)

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2013-05-22 17:47:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Randi Fleetstalker wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You ignored the portion that involves a program. Please do not edit my posts.

I think what you're consistently missing is that the fact that ISBoxer is a program isn't really relevant to what you're saying regarding the EULA / ToS / third-party policy.

The question isn't whether "automation" is present or not; in fact, pretty much anything you do on your computer boils down to automation at some level. So people loooooove to make this argument, "ohhh you hit one button and two things come out, AUTOMATION! SCARY!" But you say this without realizing that you can't actually write software that doesn't do "automation". We're "automatically" doing things on your CPU, your GPU, your hard drives, etc.

In fact, "Automation" is not even mentioned in EVE's EULA or Terms of Use, and I would recommend you review them because.. well, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." "Botting" on the other hand, which is absolutely different from this loosely applied "Automation" term, is explicitly prohibited in the Third-Party Policies.

As others have pointed out in this thread, exactly what you're complaining about has been done without a program. Zhek Kromtor posted his hardware multiboxing setup years ago, and connected mice and buttons together using wooden dowels. This clearly demonstrated that not only was it possible to do without software, but also that software that performs the same function without otherwise violating the EULA/ToS does not constitute an "Unfair advantage". It's pretty hard to ban for using the hardware, so why should they apply a different rule just to software that is not doing anything wrong?

You should either be trying to argue that the EULA/ToS/Third-party policy should be changed to fit your particular viewpoint on this activity, or switch to talking about something that is actually covered in the rules.

Carry on.. ;)


I'm quite literally touching on the fact that the automation in question that once actionable click is equal to 1 actionable click. When you use a program to copy those actionable clicks and do them for you, ther elies the problem.

Not the fact it's a computer.

Here is a for instance.

You have 5 accounts. You control click a target on one account. Just 1.

Now 1 out of the 5 have that target locked. You want a second target locked. You have to "manually" control click the 2nd target to acquire that lock. Then the 3rd account. Etc and etc.

With isboxer, you can use the SOFTWARE to lock the same target on account #s 2, 3, 4 and 5 all at the same time of you clicking 1 target on account #1.

That's where I draw the line at the EULA.

The whole argument about the dowels is sort of irrelevant since one, it is not a 3rd party program, and 2, how can you enforce the rule since it is done on the hardware level? Bot aspirancy? The devs can ban you anyways... so that strays from the point.

Multiboxing is allowed, and there is nothing saying you cannot use the dowel system, since it cannot be enforced electronically. But, if the eula said using programs such as isboxer was against the rules, and you used the dowel system, the devs could ban you for being suspected as a bot, because you could not personally click that many actions in that short of a time.

Very similiar to the IVY dude who was using that market bot and got caught not too long ago.

Anyways, I digress.

The argument, as it came to be.. migrated into a "replication versus automation" argument when the 2 terms, in the question of using ISBoxer, are not dissimiliar. They are arguably the same action since you are using 1 click to perform multiple actions across multiple accounts. Arguably NOT interacting with your additional accounts, as a human. But as program controlled.


EDIT-

Otherwise, what is implied in the argument, is that it's ok to run 4 bots as long as you manually control 1 account yourself.

Which obviously, is not allowed (by your own term of using "bot").

That's the iffy grey area that becomes the problem. Not the fact you have multiple accounts. I have multiple accounts myself. I have used isboxer myself as well. And across multiple other games. I also have multiple systems of which to use those multiple accounts.

I choose to not use isboxer. Not because I think it's unfair, but I am against botting et al. If I can't manually control all my accounts, then I don't deserve to use them.

Welcome to Eve and all that.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2013-05-22 17:48:56 UTC
Mag's wrote:


Oh and lol at your spelling lesson, that was also rather disingenuous. Blink


I had to double check, but I could have swore your original post included a misspelling of the word. Hence why I edited my own post.

You have my apologies for something I already took the steps to correct.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Cambarus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2013-05-22 18:07:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

I'm quite literally touching on the fact that the automation in question that once actionable click is equal to 1 actionable click. When you use a program to copy those actionable clicks and do them for you, ther elies the problem.

I can confirm that grouping your guns is against your view of the EULA, since it allows you to do 2-8 actions with a single keystroke.

Murk Paradox wrote:

That's where I draw the line at the EULA.
The pointlessness of this statement rivals those in the EVE IS DYING!!! threads that have popped up every few weeks like clockwork over the last 10 years. Where you personally draw the line is 100% irrelevant, because you don't get to make those calls, and the people who DO get to make them draw their line in a different place than where you've put yours. You're like one of those people who looks up a word in the dictionary to win an argument, realizes that the dictionary proves them wrong, then says "Well I don't believe in that definition".

Murk Paradox wrote:

The argument, as it came to be.. migrated into a "replication versus automation" argument when the 2 terms, in the question of using ISBoxer, are not dissimiliar. They are arguably the same action since you are using 1 click to perform multiple actions across multiple accounts. Arguably NOT interacting with your additional accounts, as a human. But as program controlled.
The CCP response to this has been pretty much along the same lines I see it:
Macros are allowed as long as you have to be manually controlling them, as long as you're actively participating in the game it's all good.

The difference between automation and replication is simple: I have to be at my keyboard controlling my accounts while using replication, for automation this is not the case. No replication software is going to let you get up and leave the keyboard while still controlling the clients, and this is where I, and more importantly CCP, draws the line.

De'Veldrin wrote:
Just because something is allowed doesn't make it morally correct. (By the same token, just because something is not allowed, it is not necessarily immoral.)
Please don't try to argue morals in a game like eve, where one of the main draws is the fact that not having any is not only allowed but encouraged.



One more small thing I feel the need to bring up, as I think it's important:
Why are there so few multiboxers? The way you make it sound, it would seem like there is literally no reason NOT to multibox 15+ accounts, yet there are very few people who actually do it, so what gives? If 10 accounts can be controlled with the same effort as 1, then why would anyone ever want 1 account, given that making isk gets easier rather than harder as the number of accounts goes up (and that's not even getting into the pvp side of things, where numbers reign supreme)
GreenSeed
#145 - 2013-05-22 18:14:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



I did in fact mention that the one account used human input.

Please do not be facetious with your misuse of terminologies.

Saying 1 human inputted sequence followed by 19 automated actions is not "disengenuous".

It is accurate.


no, its not. it shows how little you understand of the way hardware events are handled by the OS.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2013-05-22 18:22:54 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



I did in fact mention that the one account used human input.

Please do not be facetious with your misuse of terminologies.

Saying 1 human inputted sequence followed by 19 automated actions is not "disengenuous".

It is accurate.


no, its not. it shows how little you understand of the way hardware events are handled by the OS.



Really? How so?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Randi Fleetstalker
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2013-05-22 18:23:48 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm quite literally touching on the fact that the automation in question that once actionable click is equal to 1 actionable click. When you use a program to copy those actionable clicks and do them for you, ther elies the problem.

Not the fact it's a computer.

Here is a for instance.

You have 5 accounts. You control click a target on one account. Just 1.

Now 1 out of the 5 have that target locked. You want a second target locked. You have to "manually" control click the 2nd target to acquire that lock. Then the 3rd account. Etc and etc.

With isboxer, you can use the SOFTWARE to lock the same target on account #s 2, 3, 4 and 5 all at the same time of you clicking 1 target on account #1.

That's where I draw the line at the EULA.

That's where you "draw the line at the EULA". But keep in mind that, as I already pointed out, the EULA does not draw your line. The software has no knowledge of your targets and whether you're locking the right one, and if it did have this knowledge then it would violate it! IF!

Quote:
But, if the eula said using programs such as isboxer was against the rules

You said it: "if the eula said using programs such as isboxer was against the rules" -- and it doesn't.

Quote:
Otherwise, what is implied in the argument, is that it's ok to run 4 bots as long as you manually control 1 account yourself.

Which obviously, is not allowed (by your own term of using "bot").

Again you're confusing the term with something else. Some people (clearly including yourself) refer to their alts as "bots" regardless of whether they use "Botting software" which is prohibited. But this is not botting software and we are not talking about actual bots (short for "robot" by the way), no matter what you imply or try to convince anyone here of.

A bot requires sensory information, and the ability to respond to that information. ISBoxer can neither sense nor act upon information on its own, it requires your eyeballs to do the sensing, and your hands and feet or whatever other input-capable limbs you have, doing something, for anything to happen.

Refer back to the wooden dowels: He moves his mouse to click on a spot on the screen, with the intent of clicking on the same spot in the game windows. 100% identical to what is happening with ISBoxer in your hypothetical scenario. Are you telling me that doing so wih ISBoxer is a "bot" and with the hardware is "not"? What sense does this make?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#148 - 2013-05-22 18:31:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Cambarus wrote:

I can confirm that grouping your guns is against your view of the EULA, since it allows you to do 2-8 actions with a single keystroke.


So you think one specific instance is the cardinal rule? Why can't we group mining lasers then? Or targeting computers? Why not painters? Other ewar? Regardless if something is grouped or not, you are still manually hitting F1 as a player. As a person. On your keyboard. For one account. If you want to use 15 accounts, fine. It is allowed. Hit F1 that many times.


Quote:
The pointlessness of this statement rivals those in the EVE IS DYING!!! threads that have popped up every few weeks like clockwork over the last 10 years. Where you personally draw the line is 100% irrelevant, because you don't get to make those calls, and the people who DO get to make them draw their line in a different place than where you've put yours. You're like one of those people who looks up a word in the dictionary to win an argument, realizes that the dictionary proves them wrong, then says "Well I don't believe in that definition".


You are in fact kind of right here. If someone is going to say "this is what it means" and I believe them wrong, I am going to prove them wrong. Whether or not I believe them to be wrong would be on me to prove wouldn't it? Considering that "I" say that "I believe" in something, is to show I am not speaking for anyone else. It is relevant when my intelligence or thought or opinion comes into question. Call it a "citation" if you need to justify it.

Quote:
The CCP response to this has been pretty much along the same lines I see it:
Macros are allowed as long as you have to be manually controlling them, as long as you're actively participating in the game it's all good.

The difference between automation and replication is simple: I have to be at my keyboard controlling my accounts while using replication, for automation this is not the case. No replication software is going to let you get up and leave the keyboard while still controlling the clients, and this is where I, and more importantly CCP, draws the line.


Wait, now you are contradicting yourself. Are macros allowed or not? Macros can have a time setting. If you can manipulate a click, you can manipulate WHEN to process that "click". Welcome to the grey area of this discussion.



Quote:
One more small thing I feel the need to bring up, as I think it's important:
Why are there so few multiboxers? The way you make it sound, it would seem like there is literally no reason NOT to multibox 15+ accounts, yet there are very few people who actually do it, so what gives? If 10 accounts can be controlled with the same effort as 1, then why would anyone ever want 1 account, given that making isk gets easier rather than harder as the number of accounts goes up (and that's not even getting into the pvp side of things, where numbers reign supreme)


Plenty of people multibox. I don't understand your logic. Or rather, how that logic applies to this discussion.

You do not need isboxer to have a scout alt or cyno alt (which is what people use multiple accounts for mostly that I interact with).

Unless you mean ice miners who afk mine all day? I have yet to have them respond to my questions. You will simply have to elaborate on that question.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#149 - 2013-05-22 18:40:28 UTC
Once again, CCP employees get to sit around the bar choking on their beers reading another multi-box comedy thread.

Y'all know that CCP interprets their rules, not the players right? But please carry on. It only gets more hilarious as the usual suspects start to wade in with what they know is the right interpretation, ignoring the DEV/GM/ISD posts completely.

Mr Epeen Cool
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#150 - 2013-05-22 18:45:59 UTC
Randi Fleetstalker wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm quite literally touching on the fact that the automation in question that once actionable click is equal to 1 actionable click. When you use a program to copy those actionable clicks and do them for you, ther elies the problem.

Not the fact it's a computer.

Here is a for instance.

You have 5 accounts. You control click a target on one account. Just 1.

Now 1 out of the 5 have that target locked. You want a second target locked. You have to "manually" control click the 2nd target to acquire that lock. Then the 3rd account. Etc and etc.

With isboxer, you can use the SOFTWARE to lock the same target on account #s 2, 3, 4 and 5 all at the same time of you clicking 1 target on account #1.

That's where I draw the line at the EULA.

That's where you "draw the line at the EULA". But keep in mind that, as I already pointed out, the EULA does not draw your line. The software has no knowledge of your targets and whether you're locking the right one, and if it did have this knowledge then it would violate it! IF!

Quote:
But, if the eula said using programs such as isboxer was against the rules

You said it: "if the eula said using programs such as isboxer was against the rules" -- and it doesn't.

Quote:
Otherwise, what is implied in the argument, is that it's ok to run 4 bots as long as you manually control 1 account yourself.

Which obviously, is not allowed (by your own term of using "bot").

Again you're confusing the term with something else. Some people (clearly including yourself) refer to their alts as "bots" regardless of whether they use "Botting software" which is prohibited. But this is not botting software and we are not talking about actual bots (short for "robot" by the way), no matter what you imply or try to convince anyone here of.

A bot requires sensory information, and the ability to respond to that information. ISBoxer can neither sense nor act upon information on its own, it requires your eyeballs to do the sensing, and your hands and feet or whatever other input-capable limbs you have, doing something, for anything to happen.

Refer back to the wooden dowels: He moves his mouse to click on a spot on the screen, with the intent of clicking on the same spot in the game windows. 100% identical to what is happening with ISBoxer in your hypothetical scenario. Are you telling me that doing so wih ISBoxer is a "bot" and with the hardware is "not"? What sense does this make?



Uhm, no.

None of what you said makes sense or is correct.

I do not consider any of my other accounts bots.

I draw the line in the EULA in regards to the part we speak about, not a pro/con line as in a toe in the sand.

Yes, I did say "if", because currently, there is no way to enforce the use of dowels because there is no need for one. Attempt at straying from topic maybe?

Talking about a bot needing sensory information is YOUR definition. An automated bot does not need sophisticated inputs to perform. Some can use it, but not required. A simple script can be a bot.

The dowels, I love this part of the argument... again the fact you using the dowels is not the same as using isboxer. The dowel system is a prosthesis. ISBoxer is not. ISBoxer is a 3rd party software. If you want to focus on that, that is your prerogative. I do not think it applies however. I did not see anything in the EULA mentioning hardware.

Also, I do not understand your reference to the "right target" because again, that's not the semantics of this discussion. Explain?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Cambarus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2013-05-22 19:17:33 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

So you think one specific instance is the cardinal rule? Why can't we group mining lasers then? Or targeting computers? Why not painters? Other ewar? Regardless if something is grouped or not, you are still manually hitting F1 as a player. As a person. On your keyboard. For one account. If you want to use 15 accounts, fine. It is allowed. Hit F1 that many times.
You've arbitrarily drawn a line there, and what's worse is that it's not the same as the line CCP has drawn, since given that it's their game, it's also their line and they can do with it as they please. Consider this sentance:
"Regardless if something is grouped or not, you are still manually hitting F1 as a player. As a person. On your keyboard. For one weapon. If you want to use 15 modules, fine. It is allowed. Hit F keys that many times."
It's functionally identical to yours, and is, at it's core the same argument, just with the arbitrary line drawn somewhere else.
If your entire argument can be summed up as "I don't like this, so it should change" then I'm more than happy to point out that nobody cares what you want.


Murk Paradox wrote:

You are in fact kind of right here. If someone is going to say "this is what it means" and I believe them wrong, I am going to prove them wrong....
It's CCP. It's their game. They get to make whatever rules they want, and you can either abide by them or leave. Frankly the only way to change it has nothing to do with trying to argue something logically, it'd have to be done entirely from a numbers point of view. A couple of arguments thrown around won't change anything, because if enough people were bothered by it that CCP might actually consider doing something, you'd not be seeing threads like this, where most of the people involved are fine with ISBoxing or don't care. Basically what I'm saying is that if you need to sit here babysitting your thread, your cause is already lost.


Murk Paradox wrote:

Wait, now you are contradicting yourself. Are macros allowed or not? Macros can have a time setting. If you can manipulate a click, you can manipulate WHEN to process that "click". Welcome to the grey area of this discussion.
Macros are allowed, CCP has said as much repeatedly. If a macro can run long enough that you can reasonably leave the computer and go do something else for while then it's not allowed. Exactly how long that time is is entirely up to CCP and is most likely looked at on a case by case basis.


Murk Paradox wrote:

Plenty of people multibox. I don't understand your logic. Or rather, how that logic applies to this discussion.

You do not need isboxer to have a scout alt or cyno alt (which is what people use multiple accounts for mostly that I interact with).

Unless you mean ice miners who afk mine all day? I have yet to have them respond to my questions. You will simply have to elaborate on that question.
OK I'll try to lay this out as simply as possible:

Assumption 1) People who multibox with ISBoxer make heaps more isk/can field entire pvp fleets by themselves.

Assumption 2)People who multibox with ISBoxer need not put any more effort into what they do than someone who runs a single account.

Conclusion: If there is an acceptable game mechanic that that multiply the isk you pull in by an amount as staggering as 15 times, for no extra work, then you'd be a fool not to use it rather than sit around making isk on one account like a chump. It's the rough equivalent of someone who wants to run level 4s in an assault frigate. Sure, you CAN, but the returns are going to be so pathetic why would you even bother?

Problem: Most people AREN'T running fleets of 15 guys, in pve OR pvp. If the rewards are so amazing, and there's no real downside, why aren't more people doing it? The issue at hand here is the big time multiboxers, not the average joe with a scouting/cyno alt. If assumptions 1 and 2 were true, you would see everyone and their dog running 15 accounts for damn near everything, but you don't, and you know why? Because it's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2013-05-22 19:17:52 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Anyone care to bet on whether IsBoxer will suddenly be made against EULA

If that happens I will unsubscribe the 9 accounts I just signed up for. 10 ship Exequror sniper gang coming up.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#153 - 2013-05-22 19:34:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Cambarus wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

So you think one specific instance is the cardinal rule? Why can't we group mining lasers then? Or targeting computers? Why not painters? Other ewar? Regardless if something is grouped or not, you are still manually hitting F1 as a player. As a person. On your keyboard. For one account. If you want to use 15 accounts, fine. It is allowed. Hit F1 that many times.
You've arbitrarily drawn a line there, and what's worse is that it's not the same as the line CCP has drawn, since given that it's their game, it's also their line and they can do with it as they please. Consider this sentance:
"Regardless if something is grouped or not, you are still manually hitting F1 as a player. As a person. On your keyboard. For one weapon. If you want to use 15 modules, fine. It is allowed. Hit F keys that many times."
It's functionally identical to yours, and is, at it's core the same argument, just with the arbitrary line drawn somewhere else.
If your entire argument can be summed up as "I don't like this, so it should change" then I'm more than happy to point out that nobody cares what you want.


Murk Paradox wrote:

You are in fact kind of right here. If someone is going to say "this is what it means" and I believe them wrong, I am going to prove them wrong....
It's CCP. It's their game. They get to make whatever rules they want, and you can either abide by them or leave. Frankly the only way to change it has nothing to do with trying to argue something logically, it'd have to be done entirely from a numbers point of view. A couple of arguments thrown around won't change anything, because if enough people were bothered by it that CCP might actually consider doing something, you'd not be seeing threads like this, where most of the people involved are fine with ISBoxing or don't care. Basically what I'm saying is that if you need to sit here babysitting your thread, your cause is already lost.


Murk Paradox wrote:

Wait, now you are contradicting yourself. Are macros allowed or not? Macros can have a time setting. If you can manipulate a click, you can manipulate WHEN to process that "click". Welcome to the grey area of this discussion.
Macros are allowed, CCP has said as much repeatedly. If a macro can run long enough that you can reasonably leave the computer and go do something else for while then it's not allowed. Exactly how long that time is is entirely up to CCP and is most likely looked at on a case by case basis.


Murk Paradox wrote:

Plenty of people multibox. I don't understand your logic. Or rather, how that logic applies to this discussion.

You do not need isboxer to have a scout alt or cyno alt (which is what people use multiple accounts for mostly that I interact with).

Unless you mean ice miners who afk mine all day? I have yet to have them respond to my questions. You will simply have to elaborate on that question.
OK I'll try to lay this out as simply as possible:

Assumption 1) People who multibox with ISBoxer make heaps more isk/can field entire pvp fleets by themselves.

Assumption 2)People who multibox with ISBoxer need not put any more effort into what they do than someone who runs a single account.

Conclusion: If there is an acceptable game mechanic that that multiply the isk you pull in by an amount as staggering as 15 times, for no extra work, then you'd be a fool not to use it rather than sit around making isk on one account like a chump. It's the rough equivalent of someone who wants to run level 4s in an assault frigate. Sure, you CAN, but the returns are going to be so pathetic why would you even bother?

Problem: Most people AREN'T running fleets of 15 guys, in pve OR pvp. If the rewards are so amazing, and there's no real downside, why aren't more people doing it? The issue at hand here is the big time multiboxers, not the average joe with a scouting/cyno alt. If assumptions 1 and 2 were true, you would see everyone and their dog running 15 accounts for damn near everything, but you don't, and you know why? Because it's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be.



All you posted was the equivalent of "I am speaking for CCP" by actually trying to say I am wrong because you believe I am. Welcome to interpretation, milord.

Your argument about people NOT using isboxer and using "multibox" as a reference are not synonymous. You can use either one without the other.

You can use isboxer with 1 account if you like. You can multibox without using isboxer.

You're saying on one hand that it IS ok to use, but you are saying people do NOT use it because it's "hard".

It may be hard for you.

That doesn't mean it is hard for everyone else. I have it, and have used it. I already mentioned that I stopped using it not because of the difficulty (it isn't difficult at all), but because the way I play and how I play do not require me to.

I have no need to automate clicks through replication.

Next time, keep it simple. Speak for yourself. Do not speak for others. You will be more likely to get your point across when you speak from experience, not assumption.

I do not believe I saw anyone say they liked isboxer, but couldn't figure it out and got a refund.

In regards to babysitting a thread... it isn't my thread to babysit.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#154 - 2013-05-22 19:37:16 UTC
1. ISBoxer is allowed and its public knowledge.
2. This thread is a duplicate/triplicate/quadruplicate at least.
3. Duplicate threads are not allowed.

Do the math.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Randi Fleetstalker
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2013-05-22 19:39:09 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I draw the line in the EULA in regards to the part we speak about, not a pro/con line as in a toe in the sand.

Yes, I did say "if", because currently, there is no way to enforce the use of dowels because there is no need for one. Attempt at straying from topic maybe?

How is it not on topic? It's doing exactly and precisely the same thing. How is there no need for one, if you feel there is a need to prohibit exactly the same thing from ISBoxer? What good would that do the game, to ban the software but not hardware with identcal function?

Quote:
Talking about a bot needing sensory information is YOUR definition. An automated bot does not need sophisticated inputs to perform. Some can use it, but not required. A simple script can be a bot.

That's nice, going right back to the "everything is automation". A simple script is not the same as "a bot".

Quote:
The dowels, I love this part of the argument... again the fact you using the dowels is not the same as using isboxer. The dowel system is a prosthesis. ISBoxer is not. ISBoxer is a 3rd party software. If you want to focus on that, that is your prerogative. I do not think it applies however. I did not see anything in the EULA mentioning hardware.

There's no rule against using 3rd party software. Only specific types of 3rd party software are prohibited. This was covered by the recent dev blog. If you still want to focus on that ISBoxer "is 3rd party software", that's your prerogative, but it's not prohibited by the EULA.

If you are so opposed to multiboxing with ISBoxer, my question is why are you not also opposed to precisely the same thing done with hardware? The dowels are a simple illustration of your silliness.

Quote:
Also, I do not understand your reference to the "right target" because again, that's not the semantics of this discussion. Explain?

The semantics of your post was about selecting targets:
Quote:
With isboxer, you can use the SOFTWARE to lock the same target on account #s 2, 3, 4 and 5 all at the same time of you clicking 1 target on account #1.

You seem to be implying that something is happening that is not. Someone reading your post might be led to believe that ISBoxer somehow knows how to lock the same target on the different windows. It doesn't know or have anything to do with locking targets. All it can do is click in the same spot. You're implying that there's some magic within ISBoxer that says "hey, here is the same target as account 1, let's target it!" and there's not.

The target is not even guaranteed to be at the same spot in all windows. Your Overview window will often have different ordering in different game windows. To mitigate that, many will use Fleet Broadcasting to broadcast the next target to the fleet, and then click on the fleet window in all windows.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#156 - 2013-05-22 19:53:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Randi Fleetstalker wrote:

How is it not on topic? It's doing exactly and precisely the same thing. How is there no need for one, if you feel there is a need to prohibit exactly the same thing from ISBoxer? What good would that do the game, to ban the software but not hardware with identcal function?


Please read the EULA and point me to the subsection regarding hardware.

Quote:
Talking about a bot needing sensory information is YOUR definition. An automated bot does not need sophisticated inputs to perform. Some can use it, but not required. A simple script can be a bot.-
That's nice, going right back to the "everything is automation". A simple script is not the same as "a bot".


You are implying a bot could not be made from a simple script? Based on your suggestion I would advise you of speaking of something you know naught.

Quote:
The dowels, I love this part of the argument... again the fact you using the dowels is not the same as using isboxer. The dowel system is a prosthesis. ISBoxer is not. ISBoxer is a 3rd party software. If you want to focus on that, that is your prerogative. I do not think it applies however. I did not see anything in the EULA mentioning hardware.

Quote:
There's no rule against using 3rd party software. Only specific types of 3rd party software are prohibited. This was covered by the recent dev blog. If you still want to focus on that ISBoxer "is 3rd party software", that's your prerogative, but it's not prohibited by the EULA.

If you are so opposed to multiboxing with ISBoxer, my question is why are you not also opposed to precisely the same thing done with hardware? The dowels are a simple illustration of your silliness.


Color by number please, your artistic skills are lacking. (ex- Explain.)

I am not "so opposed" I just merely wish to not use it. If I was so opposed, I wouldn't have purchased it.

Quote:

The semantics of your post was about selecting targets:


What?

To be Continued...

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#157 - 2013-05-22 19:53:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Quote:

You seem to be implying that something is happening that is not. Someone reading your post might be led to believe that ISBoxer somehow knows how to lock the same target on the different windows. It doesn't know or have anything to do with locking targets. All it can do is click in the same spot. You're implying that there's some magic within ISBoxer that says "hey, here is the same target as account 1, let's target it!" and there's not.


If you were "led to believe" something, maybe you should ask a question or request clarification. It does click in the same spot. That's the point. IT does. You don't but once.

Quote:
The target is not even guaranteed to be at the same spot in all windows. Your Overview window will often have different ordering in different game windows. To mitigate that, many will use Fleet Broadcasting to broadcast the next target to the fleet, and then click on the fleet window in all windows.



That is one of the ways to accomplish things, yes.

I think you have the impression I am witch hunting. Let me be clear. I am not. I am having a civil conversation. I do not get mad with Eve. It is a game. A complicated fun game, but a game just the same. Isk does not have value, it is a means to an end. Miners, marketers, industrialists, soldiers, whatever, all have their place and I have no ill will towards any of them.

I hate stupidity though. I hate people who kneejerk their reactions and assume.

Maybe it's my altruistic nature, but I felt compelled to reiterate that.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

rswfire
#158 - 2013-05-22 19:57:17 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Anyone care to bet on whether IsBoxer will suddenly be made against EULA

If that happens I will unsubscribe the 9 accounts I just signed up for. 10 ship Exequror sniper gang coming up.


Please do. Playing ten characters simultaneously and in synchronization is, imo, cheating. It's extra DPS from one player using one command. I have just as many accounts as you and I do not use multiboxing software. I also find it rather annoying to see 20 mining characters in a belt being controlled by a single person in an NPC corp. I think most people intuitively find people who use this software to be (insert expletive). CCP really should make it against the EULA, but for whatever reason, they haven't...so enjoy your advantage and feel awesome because you've created a 10x multiplier for each command you use.
Randi Fleetstalker
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2013-05-22 20:11:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Randi Fleetstalker wrote:

How is it not on topic? It's doing exactly and precisely the same thing. How is there no need for one, if you feel there is a need to prohibit exactly the same thing from ISBoxer? What good would that do the game, to ban the software but not hardware with identcal function?


Please read the EULA and point me to the subsection regarding hardware.

This goes both ways: Please point us all to the subsection that ISBoxer violates.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#160 - 2013-05-22 20:23:55 UTC
Randi Fleetstalker wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Randi Fleetstalker wrote:

How is it not on topic? It's doing exactly and precisely the same thing. How is there no need for one, if you feel there is a need to prohibit exactly the same thing from ISBoxer? What good would that do the game, to ban the software but not hardware with identcal function?


Please read the EULA and point me to the subsection regarding hardware.

This goes both ways: Please point us all to the subsection that ISBoxer violates.



It's on the first page of this thread. I'm surprised you missed it. It is what this entire thread is about.

So unfortunately, it does not go both ways. You are making a wild accusation, I am arguing a vague interpretation.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.