open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked BACON: Never be surprised again (relaunch)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 ... : last (34)

Author Topic

RebelWithACause
Gunfleet Logistics
Hydra Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:36:00 - [661]
 

Originally by: Mars Magnus
Originally by: GM Grimmi
... the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players ...

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master


The common Eve player does not have access to such tools unless they are "in the know". Does this make any of you who DON'T have access to tools like these mad at the fact that CCP has known all along that only certain privileged people used them (probably against you)?.


Whether you like BACON or not, how can this not bug EVERYONE on this thread? CCP has openly admitted that they KNEW others were ALREADY using similar tools... We just had the guts to bring it to light, for better or worse.

I use BACON, I like BACON, but I see a frightening impact of encrypting the logserver info vs removing local (both valid responses):

What would stop CCP from handing out the decrypt key to 'key alliances' of their choosing? (you can't tell me that others aren't as paranoid as I am).

Ikki Phoenix
Gallente
United Imperial Fleet
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:36:00 - [662]
 

Originally by: Cori4n
Edited by: Cori4n on 22/04/2008 18:31:27
In the meantime...

I can't actually get BACON to work on this computer (Embarassed) but...

Anyone who can, try pasting this into some chat channel you're in
ScatterEvent( OnLSC ,*args= ((('solarsystemid2', 0),), 0, 'JoinChannel', (0, 0, [0, u'x', 0], 0, 0), ()) ,**kw= {} )

If I'm right (just from looking at the source), BACON will match this and incorrectly report a neutral entering... if you pasted into local, everyone in the system who had BACON would get that...

I could be wrong though, seeing as BACON won't work at all for me Embarassed


I wish I could help you.But I am having my own problems with BACON,meaning that I am unable to get a standing list to work

Ikki Phoenix
Gallente
United Imperial Fleet
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:39:00 - [663]
 

Edited by: Ikki Phoenix on 22/04/2008 18:41:39
Edited by: Ikki Phoenix on 22/04/2008 18:39:34
Originally by: RebelWithACause
Originally by: Mars Magnus
Originally by: GM Grimmi
... the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players ...

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master


The common Eve player does not have access to such tools unless they are "in the know". Does this make any of you who DON'T have access to tools like these mad at the fact that CCP has known all along that only certain privileged people used them (probably against you)?.


Whether you like BACON or not, how can this not bug EVERYONE on this thread? CCP has openly admitted that they KNEW others were ALREADY using similar tools... We just had the guts to bring it to light, for better or worse.

I use BACON, I like BACON, but I see a frightening impact of encrypting the logserver info vs removing local (both valid responses):

What would stop CCP from handing out the decrypt key to 'key alliances' of their choosing? (you can't tell me that others aren't as paranoid as I am).


Very good point. CCP has more or less recognized that alliances/corps have been using such tools and they didn't do anything.
However when a public tool which does what those private tools were already doing is released for all to use, people ask for it to be banned and CCP plans to take action.
Personally I see this as a double standard which doesn't promise much for fairness
And now that CCP has recognized being aware of alliances/corps using such tools, the bottom line for me is as follow:

-either CCP bans all such tools and provides proof that no privileged corps/alliances are able to circumvent the system
-either CCP authorizes such tools for all to use

Orchid Ix
Kahi Mohala
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:46:00 - [664]
 

Originally by: Malachon Draco

I don't see what Avon being in BoB has to do with it. God knows I am not a BoB fanboy Wink, but this discussion is in no way related to what BoB did or did not do.



BoB is the Eve Online whipping boy now where have you been? Razz

As such I never saw this type of tool used while I was flying around under the BoB flag...

FireFoxx80
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:50:00 - [665]
 

Originally by: Reuser
Originally by: FireFoxx80
AFAIK, Avon joined BoB long after the T20 scandal; and to be fair, there are other corps/alliances which have used similar tools.

I am not jumping to BoB's defence ehre, but Avon's. He does know what he's talking about.


(Sorry at this point I brought BoB into this.)

CCP admits that large groups of people have been using these tools, presumably for a long time. I'd just like to understand a bit more why the decision is being made now, rather than in the past. I don't see how covert use of the tools is better than an open, fair, playing field.

Either way, CCP has our IRC channel info, and if they would prefer that venue or PM to answer my questions, I certainly understand that. Again, I am not trying to cause trouble, just to understand the thinking.


You're being targeted because you've gone public. Plenty of people use this sort of thing, either privately within a corp/alliance, or personally without telling a soul.

An Anarchyyt
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:54:00 - [666]
 

It's okay, I can still use Beetracker.

Ki Anna
Ki Tech Industries
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:54:00 - [667]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master
Can we get this into something definitive as a final policy.

This is no more a condemnation of BACON than the earlier statements were an approval. ugh

Can you please estabilsh a definitive policy on this matter?

Until you make whatever changes you will be making, are tools that read realtime data from the LogServer allowed or disallowed?

I don't care one way or the other what you decide, but please set the record strait once and for all. Ultimately this needs to have a yes or no answer: is it tolerated?

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:06:00 - [668]
 

Joy and an expected reaction from CCP.

Though Reuser have a point.

This incident is not the first of its kind in EVE and it will not be the last as long as some people thinks that "hardcore gaming" means taking any advantage possible, metagame and borderline cheat as much as possible to get the edge (cheating is also fine as long as you do not get caught).

Are cyno-nets still around?

Cori4n
Caldari
principle of motion
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:06:00 - [669]
 

Originally by: Ki Anna
Until you make whatever changes you will be making, are tools that read realtime data from the LogServer allowed or disallowed?


Quote:
While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS

F90OEX
F9X
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:08:00 - [670]
 

Looks like BACON got sizzled good Laughing

Fifth Horseman
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:10:00 - [671]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master


[MichaelIronside]
'bout god dam time
[/MichaelIronside]

Terianna Eri
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:12:00 - [672]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master


<3 Embarassed

Ikki Phoenix
Gallente
United Imperial Fleet
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:15:00 - [673]
 

Originally by: Jowen Datloran
Joy and an expected reaction from CCP.

Though Reuser have a point.

This incident is not the first of its kind in EVE and it will not be the last as long as some people thinks that "hardcore gaming" means taking any advantage possible, metagame and borderline cheat as much as possible to get the edge (cheating is also fine as long as you do not get caught).

Are cyno-nets still around?


I wouldn't call using such tools cheating.For me cheating is using a tool or a method which violates the EULA and the ToS.
After the latest CCP statement, my problem is that people have been using this type of tool in secret and CCP and the community did nothing.However as soon as BACON was released and began providing players with similar features as the tools privately used, a part of the community wakes up and starts harassing BACON and its users and CCP begins to do something.
Sorry,but to me, it is a double standard and it is not fair to either party.Either people complain from the very beginning(whether the tools are private or public) and CCP reacts from the very beginning or there is no complaining at all
People can't have it both ways

Wei Tago
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:20:00 - [674]
 

Edited by: Wei Tago on 22/04/2008 19:21:00
Originally by: Ki Anna

Can you please estabilsh a definitive policy on this matter?


If they can't detect it, they can't punish it.

Definitive enough for you?

You know, there actually is one MMO game out there with technology advanced enough to seek out and report third-party apps like this that operate outside the game proper.

So, if that's a requirement to make your gaming experience tolerable, then, by all means, go play WoW.

Blane Xero
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:26:00 - [675]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master


Halle-****ing-llujah

Torik Tavitas
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:29:00 - [676]
 

Originally by: Wei Tago
Edited by: Wei Tago on 22/04/2008 19:21:00
Originally by: Ki Anna

Can you please estabilsh a definitive policy on this matter?


If they can't detect it, they can't punish it.

Definitive enough for you?

You know, there actually is one MMO game out there with technology advanced enough to seek out and report third-party apps like this that operate outside the game proper.

So, if that's a requirement to make your gaming experience tolerable, then, by all means, go play WoW.


Just because they can't punish does not mean that they can't disallow. If CPP thinks BACON is against the 'spirit of the game' then they should disallow it 'in the spirit of the game'. Then people using it would be cheaters for real rather then just falsely accused by ignorant people.


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:29:00 - [677]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master



Excellent, full marks to CCP for addressing this situation.

Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:30:00 - [678]
 

Originally by: Cori4n

Quote:
While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS



amidoinitrite?

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:32:00 - [679]
 

Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 22/04/2008 19:33:53

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix
Originally by: Jowen Datloran
Joy and an expected reaction from CCP.

Though Reuser have a point.

This incident is not the first of its kind in EVE and it will not be the last as long as some people thinks that "hardcore gaming" means taking any advantage possible, metagame and borderline cheat as much as possible to get the edge (cheating is also fine as long as you do not get caught).

Are cyno-nets still around?


I wouldn't call using such tools cheating.For me cheating is using a tool or a method which violates the EULA and the ToS.
After the latest CCP statement, my problem is that people have been using this type of tool in secret and CCP and the community did nothing.However as soon as BACON was released and began providing players with similar features as the tools privately used, a part of the community wakes up and starts harassing BACON and its users and CCP begins to do something.
Sorry,but to me, it is a double standard and it is not fair to either party.Either people complain from the very beginning(whether the tools are private or public) and CCP reacts from the very beginning or there is no complaining at all
People can't have it both ways


I don't know why you act surprised. This is how a lot of things in life work, from politics, to activism, to the 6:00 news, and game forums are an extreme example of it.

I mean, hell, the whole point of a public release on the official forums is to get a lot of attention, isn't it?

Speaking for myself, I didn't -know- applications like this existed, or that they didn't violate the TOS. I've heard people -say- they existed, primarily in association with macros and farmers, which has been an eternal battle for the game.

BACON brought the scope and nature of the logserver problem to light for me, and it seems like CCP is going through a similar process.

Ikki Phoenix
Gallente
United Imperial Fleet
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:37:00 - [680]
 

Except that CCP knew already about it and did nothing.Same goes for those who are now complaining about the BACON

Eronysis
Caldari
Gunfleet Logistics
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:42:00 - [681]
 

Edited by: Eronysis on 22/04/2008 19:45:25

Quote:
While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS

uwerdoinitwrong!
Fixed that for ya!

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:49:00 - [682]
 

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix
Except that CCP knew already about it and did nothing.Same goes for those who are now complaining about the BACON


WTF, didn't I just write a long post addressing wh...Oh that's right, I'm posting on Eve-O. Silly me. Laughing

Ki Anna
Ki Tech Industries
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:52:00 - [683]
 

Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Just because they can't punish does not mean that they can't disallow. If CPP thinks BACON is against the 'spirit of the game' then they should disallow it 'in the spirit of the game'. Then people using it would be cheaters for real rather then just falsely accused by ignorant people.
Exactly.

So far what CCP has said on the matter can be heard to mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.
Originally by: CCP Lingorm
I will find out for you.

My initial reaction is that there is nothing 'wrong' with this per say. As long as you are only reading the logserver logfiles not the raw log server output. As these files can be delayed in writing, or if you want an immediate write then it takes up more cpu and disk IO that is your call.

Please do not take this as CCP approval, but I will go ask the appropriate people and get you a definitive answer.
Originally by: GM Grimmi
There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate.
Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master
Statements saying it is fine in green.
Originally by: CCP Lingorm
I will find out for you.

My initial reaction is that there is nothing 'wrong' with this per say. As long as you are only reading the logserver logfiles not the raw log server output. As these files can be delayed in writing, or if you want an immediate write then it takes up more cpu and disk IO that is your call.

Please do not take this as CCP approval, but I will go ask the appropriate people and get you a definitive answer.
Originally by: GM Grimmi
There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate.
Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master
Statements saying it is not in red.

Mean while, most of this thread is just the continued ramblings of people voicing what they think they read into these statements.

I suppose that actions speak louder than words, therefore the fact that this thread is still open and still has links to the application in question, while also containing an acknowledgement from a Lead GM, constitutes explisite consent from CCP that we are allowed to use this application until further notice, no matter what moral objections players might have to it.

I would have much rather CCP had made a more direct statement to the effect: you can use this type of application, but expect us to nerf it soon.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:55:00 - [684]
 

just wow ...

I have to thank Gunfleet to take this to public. I suspected things like these existed (I am planning to create something similar for market analysis), however some CCP responses make me very uneasy.

It seems CCP is growing a record of scandals with preferential treatment of certain groups of players and security by obscurity politics.

Now the logserver is there to help debuging the client. This means it should not contain (and does not need to contain) any client side data other than function calls, their return codes, data referencing/dereferencing and such.

Also if the machonet cache thingy is true, it's the same problem. You are caching transitional data vital to the game play. It's like swapping out a password into a plain unencrypted password file for everybody to read.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:58:00 - [685]
 

Originally by: Torik Tavitas
No. The strongest reaction they can give is to forbid its use. 'Frowning' upon it is meaningless.

Calling people cheaters for doing something that CCP stated is not in violation of the EULA is bending the truth.




What is the point of 'forbidding' us from using this software if there is no way they can enforce the ban? Frowning upon this is the strongest reaction they can feasably give and still retain a modicum of respect from the community as the cheaters will still use the software, forbidden or not.


Ikki Phoenix
Gallente
United Imperial Fleet
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:59:00 - [686]
 

Originally by: Ki Anna
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Just because they can't punish does not mean that they can't disallow. If CPP thinks BACON is against the 'spirit of the game' then they should disallow it 'in the spirit of the game'. Then people using it would be cheaters for real rather then just falsely accused by ignorant people.
Exactly.

So far what CCP has said on the matter can be heard to mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.
Originally by: CCP Lingorm
I will find out for you.

My initial reaction is that there is nothing 'wrong' with this per say. As long as you are only reading the logserver logfiles not the raw log server output. As these files can be delayed in writing, or if you want an immediate write then it takes up more cpu and disk IO that is your call.

Please do not take this as CCP approval, but I will go ask the appropriate people and get you a definitive answer.
Originally by: GM Grimmi
There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate.
Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master
Statements saying it is fine in green.
Originally by: CCP Lingorm
I will find out for you.

My initial reaction is that there is nothing 'wrong' with this per say. As long as you are only reading the logserver logfiles not the raw log server output. As these files can be delayed in writing, or if you want an immediate write then it takes up more cpu and disk IO that is your call.

Please do not take this as CCP approval, but I will go ask the appropriate people and get you a definitive answer.
Originally by: GM Grimmi
There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate.
Originally by: GM Grimmi
Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master
Statements saying it is not in red.

Mean while, most of this thread is just the continued ramblings of people voicing what they think they read into these statements.

I suppose that actions speak louder than words, therefore the fact that this thread is still open and still has links to the application in question, while also containing an acknowledgement from a Lead GM, constitutes explisite consent from CCP that we are allowed to use this application until further notice, no matter what moral objections players might have to it.

I would have much rather CCP had made a more direct statement to the effect: you can use this type of application, but expect us to nerf it soon.


Which is exactly what I have been trying to say.Until further notice from CCP, the tool is legal and there is no point in complaining about a legal tool.

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2008.04.22 20:02:00 - [687]
 

Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 22/04/2008 20:03:59
Originally by: Ki Anna


I would have much rather CCP had made a more direct statement to the effect: you can use this type of application, but expect us to nerf it soon.


It seems pretty clear to me. I really wouldn't expect anything clearer than Grimmi's post until/unless they come up with a mechanical solution for enforcing any new rules.

They could do it just on principle, and hoping to keep the programs from proliferating. But I think it would do as much harm as good to say "We better not catch you using this!" when it's currently undetectable and unenforcable. All that means is people who respect CCP's opinion on it will be at a disadvantage to people who don't.

edit: Looks like we may be saying close to the same thing, actually.

Ki Anna
Ki Tech Industries
Posted - 2008.04.22 20:03:00 - [688]
 

Edited by: Ki Anna on 22/04/2008 20:05:50
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Now the logserver is there to help debuging the client. This means it should not contain (and does not need to contain) any client side data other than function calls, their return codes, data referencing/dereferencing and such.
Problems is, that is the exact sort of information these tools are designed to process. The machonet cache contains similar sorts of data but for the purpose of boosting performance instead of debugging.

If CCP wanted to bar these types of tools, they need only establish it as their policy that the uses of LogServer data for anything other than debugging is an exploit. They could then ramp up the tools needed to enforce that policy. Those violating would be delt with accordingly.

CCP just needs to get out of the habit of making wishy-washy statements: form a policy and state it boldly.

First step is deciding what the policy is. Second is advertising the policy. Third is enforcement.

The fact that they don't have the tools now to enforce the policy doesn't mean that they cannot set the policy and use what limited tools they do have. Then when they have better tools they will also have better enforcement.

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2008.04.22 20:06:00 - [689]
 

Ki Anna, for someone who accuses others of lacking reading comprehension, you need to be educated yourself on the differences between 'explicit' and 'implicit'. The only thing CCP did was imply you won't be banned for using it while they investigate. They did not explicitly state you can use it, especially given how they 'frown upon' its use.

Given CCP's history with similar matters, the only reason they don't declare it an exploit and ban everyone who uses it is because they have no way of telling who uses it and enforcing the rules. They would rather let you cheat while they find solutions than prove themselves flaccid and powerless.

Nonetheless, you cheaters have lost. Go cry about it. :3

Ikki Phoenix
Gallente
United Imperial Fleet
Posted - 2008.04.22 20:09:00 - [690]
 

Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Ki Anna, for someone who accuses others of lacking reading comprehension, you need to be educated yourself on the differences between 'explicit' and 'implicit'. The only thing CCP did was imply you won't be banned for using it while they investigate. They did not explicitly state you can use it, especially given how they 'frown upon' its use.

Given CCP's history with similar matters, the only reason they don't declare it an exploit and ban everyone who uses it is because they have no way of telling who uses it and enforcing the rules. They would rather let you cheat while they find solutions than prove themselves flaccid and powerless.

Nonetheless, you cheaters have lost. Go cry about it. :3


Again,I wouldn't call this cheating because as of now it doesn't break the EULA or the ToS.If and when CCP makes a clear decision that this and other tools are not legal and inform the community,then that it is cheating.


Pages: first : previous : ... 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 ... : last (34)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only