Assembly Hall

How would you expect them to enforce it? Short of not allowing more than one client to open from any given IP address at a time (which is another nightmare due to shared IP's), how are expecting them to stop people from multi-boxing? Remember, ISBoxer WAS against the EULA, until some inventive chappie demonstrated a totally hardware way of doing the same thing.

ISBoxer became "legal" simply because there's no way for CCP to tell when people are using it versus when they're not.

Inh otherwords, OP, please demonstrate how to tell when someone is using ISBoxer versus a couple of these.

Simple. #1: Client can check to see if the IsBoxer program is installed or running.
#2: Automatically flag IPs that have 5+ simultaneous accounts coming from them and ban them until they can prove that they are using hardware methods.

My question would be why?

For most activities in the game, having 10 individuals controlling 10 characters is far more effective than having 10 one individual controlling 10 characters. These are some exceptions.

These are the reasons I could think of:

1.) ISBoxers artificially bump the population engaging in an activity. For something like mining, which is a quasi-finite resource, this means more focused competition. In the classic example of highsec ice belts, gathering ice before someone else gathers it is basically a race, and the bump in competing characters diminishes the gains of an individual player.

2.) ISBoxer allows several characters to coordinate some actions far more effectively than 10 non-ISBoxer players could achieve. This has been utilized for mining ice, bombing runs, suicide ganking, and even running incursions. However, this is also a major weakness of ISBoxer, especially when they game mechanics encourage spreading targets out.

The benefits of ISBoxer are:

A.) More accounts which results in more money for CCP.
B.) "Emergent gameplay" that keeps niche players playing the game.

I feel like I'm missing some pro's and cons. I honestly don't care all that much about isboxers, mainly because the areas of game play they impact the most are the areas of game play that bother me the least. That being said, I do occasionally mine ore and ice, but the local ISBoxer just doesn't bother me.

Q) Why ban multiboxing software?

A) Because, as far as I am concerned it is violation of the EULA which as players we are supposed to abide by.
A) Because, however you see it, it is having an effect on the in game economy which affects everyone.

Q) Why has CCP not banned it?

A) Because they are making money from it, albeit indirectly.

Luckily, CCP's interpretation of their EULA, which they wrote and police, is the only interpretation that matters.

Your concerns are irrelevant. As far as CCP is concerned, it's not a violation of the EULA and they have very clearly said so many many times. Furthermore, there is nothing in the EULA that even remotely suggests that it would be a violation to control multiple clients at once. As for your second answer, so what? A single person doing a single thing with a single account affects the economy — should he be banned too because of it? What's so bad about isboxers affecting the economy (same as everyone else) that makes it particularly heinous?

So again, why? Why should they ban something that very clearly does not violate any of their rules?

So laughably incorrect that it borders on the absurd.
They haven't banned it because it doesn't do anything that is ban-worthy.

The idea that they don't ban because the number of accounts a person has is instantly proven 100% idiotic by looking at how they treat botters.

Unfortunately (for you anyway) CCP doesn't agree. And frankly, since their interpretation of the matter is the only one that actually has any impact on the situation, I'd say you're probably SOL.

I will ask my question again:

How is using IS Boxer any different than using a hardware solution that HAS THE SAME RESULTS?

Until you can come up with a legitamate answer to that question, we're pretty much done here.

Maybe because we don't feel the need to. Honestly, I'm not for or against it - I could care less either way, but as with suicide ganking and AFK cloaking, CCP has repeatedly, constantly, and directly said it's not against the rules of the game and therefore is OK to do.

in the case of IS Boxer, they even specifically made it "legal" - it used to be bannable offense. How much more clear do they need to be?

Does it mention anything about using hardware to gain any form of advantage in the EULA?

Because it does mention third party software.

The big problem with this is that it is open to interpretation and if the EULA is "legal" as CCP says, then it should clearly state what is acceptable and what isn't.

That is why there are so many posts regarding this, because the way it is worded is open to interpretation.

If you want to play the game with blinkers on and agree to something that we are told is "legal" without fully understanding it, that my trusting friend is up to you.

Because ISBox is cheating, regardless of what CCP claims. CCP might allow it because it makes them money, but it is still cheating.