open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Open letter to CCP - c.a. CCP Sreegs about ban policies
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8

Author Topic

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2011.05.15 19:45:00 - [151]
 

Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 15/05/2011 19:47:08
Originally by: Peregrine
I don't give a crap one way or the other if the OP botted or didn't.

But I agree on 2 points.

1) and I will leave the legal beagle crap to mittens, but in every western country in the world you have the right to know what you did wrong. If I am using a bot and I know about it CCP would not be providing me any information by telling me that I was banned for using xyz bot etc. The name of the bot (if possible) should show up in the original pop up imo. So if in the OP's claim that Reverance could have been the bot he should know that. It is not good enough to get a fine and be only told that you broke the law.

2) there should be some sort of fast track appeal process that would allow minimal disruption to the PAYING customer in the unlikely event that an error occured etc.


1) Banning him and telling him it was for EULA/TOS violation and specifically macroing/botting should be enough. It is enough to allow the customer to make a reasoned response to the ban. There is no need to give any additional details. You get banned for the behavior, not because of the name of your botting program. Giving out any more details than the absolute minimum needed to respond to the ban only gives free intel to the makers of such programs, so they can get info on what CCP looks for when doing their bot scans. It will also give advance warning to others using the same program who haven't been caught yet.

2) That would be the petition system. I know it's not the batphone you were imagining in your mind, but every person in that system paid for their subscription just like you and it is already prioritized so important issues have higher priority.

Peregrine
Posted - 2011.05.15 20:53:00 - [152]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 15/05/2011 19:47:08
Originally by: Peregrine
I don't give a crap one way or the other if the OP botted or didn't.

But I agree on 2 points.

1) and I will leave the legal beagle crap to mittens, but in every western country in the world you have the right to know what you did wrong. If I am using a bot and I know about it CCP would not be providing me any information by telling me that I was banned for using xyz bot etc. The name of the bot (if possible) should show up in the original pop up imo. So if in the OP's claim that Reverance could have been the bot he should know that. It is not good enough to get a fine and be only told that you broke the law.

2) there should be some sort of fast track appeal process that would allow minimal disruption to the PAYING customer in the unlikely event that an error occured etc.


1) Banning him and telling him it was for EULA/TOS violation and specifically macroing/botting should be enough. It is enough to allow the customer to make a reasoned response to the ban. There is no need to give any additional details. You get banned for the behavior, not because of the name of your botting program. Giving out any more details than the absolute minimum needed to respond to the ban only gives free intel to the makers of such programs, so they can get info on what CCP looks for when doing their bot scans. It will also give advance warning to others using the same program who haven't been caught yet.

2) That would be the petition system. I know it's not the batphone you were imagining in your mind, but every person in that system paid for their subscription just like you and it is already prioritized so important issues have higher priority.


1) So the next time you get a ticket while driving (assuming you are old enough to drive) it would be sufficient for the CST to simply say that you violated the Highway Traffic Act and thats all you need to know? BS - if your speeding you should be told that you were speeding in that you were driving 65 in a 35 etc
Same with botting IMO You were botting in that you used program xyz ( assuming they know that.)

2) Not batphone required, I am suggesting that Banning Petitions be given a priority ahead of say I am a re*ard and flew my ship bad - please replace type petitions. Anything that inhibits a paying customer from getting use and enjoyment from the product they are paying for should be elevated quicker.

If you cannot get the gist of what I am saying - I am sorry I cannot dumb it down any further for you.

Captain Megadeath
Posted - 2011.05.15 20:56:00 - [153]
 

Horray, yet another stoopid real world -> eve world comparison...... Laughing

Peregrine
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:02:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 15/05/2011 19:47:08


1) Banning him and telling him it was for EULA/TOS violation and specifically macroing/botting should be enough. It is enough to allow the customer to make a reasoned response to the ban. There is no need to give any additional details. You get banned for the behavior, not because of the name of your botting program. Giving out any more details than the absolute minimum needed to respond to the ban only gives free intel to the makers of such programs, so they can get info on what CCP looks for when doing their bot scans. It will also give advance warning to others using the same program who haven't been caught yet.2) That would be the petition system. I know it's not the batphone you were imagining in your mind, but every person in that system paid for their subscription just like you and it is already prioritized so important issues have higher priority.


Further on this point: who gives a **** if it gives advance warning and they quit botting. The point is that they quit botting. Effective either way. For another Police analogy: I have pepper spray, The idea of it is to get the intended recipient to shut his eyes. If he shuts his eyes before the application of the spray, it would render the spray redundent and opens the possible arguement of excessive force. This much applauded inititive by CCP is not meant to be punative but is intended to be effective and if you can stop botters before a ban is necessary then that would qualify as effective.

Just like the habit of parking an empty cruiser in the parking lot of a store for the night. People slow down when they see the cruiser and that makes it just as effective as ticketing the speeder in reducing speeding.

Sorry for all the info at once.

Peregrine
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:05:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Captain Megadeath
Horray, yet another stoopid real world -> eve world comparison...... Laughing


You are dumb....

This is not a rl vs eve comparison, it is a RL vs RL comparison.

The Bans are rl in that they got banned in rl, ffs I hate it when the tree dwelling mouth breathers post.

Doctor Deals
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:06:00 - [156]
 

Red Tape FTW

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:07:00 - [157]
 

Originally by: Peregrine
So the next time you get a ticket while driving (assuming you are old enough to drive) it would be sufficient for the CST to simply say that you violated the Highway Traffic Act and thats all you need to know? BS - if your speeding you should be told that you were speeding in that you were driving 65 in a 35 etc


That comparison might have worked better 20 years ago. Demanding to know why you were pulled over these days is a good way to get tased, then jailed for obstruction of justice and/or resisting arrest. Maybe even assaulting an officer if there are no witnesses.

Peregrine
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:11:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Peregrine
So the next time you get a ticket while driving (assuming you are old enough to drive) it would be sufficient for the CST to simply say that you violated the Highway Traffic Act and thats all you need to know? BS - if your speeding you should be told that you were speeding in that you were driving 65 in a 35 etc


That comparison might have worked better 20 years ago. Demanding to know why you were pulled over these days is a good way to get tased, then jailed for obstruction of justice and/or resisting arrest. Maybe even assaulting an officer if there are no witnesses.


I am going out on a limb here and guessing that you have run afoul with the law and your big mouth demanding atitude got you beat.

The reality is that every police officer will tell you what you did wrong and why it is wrong. Most of the time you won't need to ask. If on the chance you do ask, try to do it politely and with respect, if you treatme with respect I will extend the courtesy.

Further the information is readily found on the ticket and/or in the summons.

Captain Megadeath
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:13:00 - [159]
 

I smell a yank piggy. oink oink oink.......

baltec1
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:19:00 - [160]
 

People who get banned for using a bot know they are breaking the rules so there is no need to tell them more than what is already said.

Super Failure
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:26:00 - [161]
 

Edited by: Super Failure on 15/05/2011 21:39:22
Originally by: Peregrine


1) So the next time you get a ticket while driving (assuming you are old enough to drive) it would be sufficient for the CST to simply say that you violated the Highway Traffic Act and thats all you need to know? BS - if your speeding you should be told that you were speeding in that you were driving 65 in a 35 etc
Same with botting IMO You were botting in that you used program xyz ( assuming they know that.)

2) Not batphone required, I am suggesting that Banning Petitions be given a priority ahead of say I am a re*ard and flew my ship bad - please replace type petitions. Anything that inhibits a paying customer from getting use and enjoyment from the product they are paying for should be elevated quicker.

If you cannot get the gist of what I am saying - I am sorry I cannot dumb it down any further for you.


1) Your RL analogy would only be applicable if CCP simply said, "you are banned for breaking the rules," but they already tell players which rule they broke. The names of the programs aren't relevant at all. Not only would keeping up to date on all of them create more overhead for CCP, it would help bot writers figure out how to avoid detection.
2) Why? Is there some reason to doubt how effective the system is at avoiding false positives? If not, then you're just suggesting that people getting caught cheating be given higher priority in the petition system than legit players. Additionally, if there's no reason to believe false positives are a serious problem, why bump the priority of a bunch of appeals? Just to turn them all down?

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:27:00 - [162]
 

Originally by: Peregrine
I am going out on a limb here and guessing that you have run afoul with the law and your big mouth demanding atitude got you beat.


Yeah, 'mess with the bull get the horns' eh? Gotta love that double digit IQ mentality.

I've actually never had any negative encounters with police myself, but you've got to be blind or deluding yourself to not see all the abuse of power and trigger happy tasings that are going on these days. Used to be isolated incidents, now it's like they're teaching it in the Academies.

Super Failure
Posted - 2011.05.15 21:36:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: Peregrine

Further on this point: who gives a **** if it gives advance warning and they quit botting. The point is that they quit botting. Effective either way. For another Police analogy: I have pepper spray, The idea of it is to get the intended recipient to shut his eyes. If he shuts his eyes before the application of the spray, it would render the spray redundent and opens the possible arguement of excessive force. This much applauded inititive by CCP is not meant to be punative but is intended to be effective and if you can stop botters before a ban is necessary then that would qualify as effective.

Just like the habit of parking an empty cruiser in the parking lot of a store for the night. People slow down when they see the cruiser and that makes it just as effective as ticketing the speeder in reducing speeding.

Sorry for all the info at once.

The chance to quit is the 14-day ban. The second chance to quit is the 30 day ban. In addition, anyone following this issue will have seen all the talk on these forums and the bot forums about bannings.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.16 01:37:00 - [164]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 01:54:49

DISCLAIMER : I have no idea how legitimate the OP's complaints really are, and even if it would be a troll, it brings up a somewhat justified fear for some classes of HONEST users.

_

Whining has been extreme against perceived bot/macro users, and while the fact CCP's initiative to crack down on them is admirable, one has to consider the possibility that in its early ramped up stages, the detection system will probably be prone to quite a few false positives.
How many is "quite a few" ? I don't know, could be dozens, could be hundreds or even thousands, or it could be just a handful. I sure would hate to be one of them, no matter how few... in fact, I would hate it much more if I was one of the very few false positives, because in THAT case, rehabilitation would be significantly more difficult.

No matter what else you might want to say, you can not possibly deny the fact that EVE is a game where some heavy-duty extra software (AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MACROS NOR BOTS) can really come in handy... and that comes mainly from the fact that in-game support for just about anything that can be called streamlined, ergonomic or comprehensive is lackluster.
There are a lot of bits and pieces of software that have danced at times very close to the line separating the big "allowed/denied" divide, and to make matters worse, ALLEGEDLY, that divide is not so clear cut as some of us would like it to be, either changing in time or changing based on the person that responds to the petition.

I don't know about you, but having a lot of people try out novel ways to improve on the little that EVE gives you by clever use of not specifically forbidden software has always been quite a sight to behold, and I would really, REALLY hate it if that would cease to be the case in the future for fear of semi-arbitrary bannings.
Also, "security through obscurity" seldom really works all that well, and is much more likely to backfire on legitimate, unsuspecting users.

I certainly would freaking hate to get banned for, say, simply using something similar to the former eve-metrics market price/history cache scrapper, and just because some of its code RESEMBLES something some bot/macro also does, if you know what I mean.
EDIT : just in case this was not clear, this last remark was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

_

The "funny" thing is that CCP doesn't even need to do _THAT_ much... basically, make a very public list of all the things that software IS ALLOWED // IS NOT ALLOWED to do with the EVE client (read from cache, display overlays on screen, use whatever data can still be gleaned from the logserver, etc).
Then, whenever somebody develops a tool that HE believes is in compliance with those rules, he can submit it for verification, and after thatthe tool gets put on an OFFICIAL "greenlight" list so people know THAT tool is "safe to use".
Sure, quite a bit of extra work, but depending on the false positive rate, could be worth it.

_

Or, to use one of the analogies some people are so fond of... I want to be able to read the laws of the land (as opposed to divine them from chicken entrails), and I want to know what I am charged with (in case, <deity_name_here> forbid, I get punished for something I allegedly did wrong) so I know how to handle the appeal.

Cutter Isaacson
Minmatar
Spycotics
Posted - 2011.05.16 02:11:00 - [165]
 

You lot could save yourselves a whole lot of whining you know. Just read the EULA. CCP can cut you off at any time, for whatever reason they see fit, and they don't HAVE to tell you diddly squat.

You ALL agreed to abide by the EULA when you signed up to play EVE, perhaps from now on you will all learn to read things before agreeing to them.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.16 02:22:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: Cutter Isaacson
You lot could save yourselves a whole lot of whining you know. Just read the EULA. CCP can cut you off at any time, for whatever reason they see fit, and they don't HAVE to tell you diddly squat.

You ALL agreed to abide by the EULA when you signed up to play EVE, perhaps from now on you will all learn to read things before agreeing to them.


It's just like the signs some stores have saying they "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Being willing to pay does not entitle you to anything.

Hannibal Ord
Minmatar
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2011.05.16 06:17:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Cutter Isaacson
You lot could save yourselves a whole lot of whining you know. Just read the EULA. CCP can cut you off at any time, for whatever reason they see fit, and they don't HAVE to tell you diddly squat.

You ALL agreed to abide by the EULA when you signed up to play EVE, perhaps from now on you will all learn to read things before agreeing to them.


It's just like the signs some stores have saying they "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Being willing to pay does not entitle you to anything.


Exactly.

Akita does make a nice point though, and as always pushes forward in a logical manner, but this is why I believe the detection system is linked somehow to behaviour as well as program detection.

Sade Onyx
Posted - 2011.05.16 09:15:00 - [168]
 

So to sum up;

- User banned
- CCP Lol @ petition emails
- CCP /ignore
- user buys new account to petition with
- CCP pats arse pocket
- CCP says "cheers"
- user appeals on forums
- CCP lol's
- Readers lol's
- Sade Onyx... lookin gooood Cool


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.05.16 09:28:00 - [169]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 01:54:49

DISCLAIMER : I have no idea how legitimate the OP's complaints really are, and even if it would be a troll, it brings up a somewhat justified fear for some classes of HONEST users.

_

Whining has been extreme against perceived bot/macro users, and while the fact CCP's initiative to crack down on them is admirable, one has to consider the possibility that in its early ramped up stages, the detection system will probably be prone to quite a few false positives.
How many is "quite a few" ? I don't know, could be dozens, could be hundreds or even thousands, or it could be just a handful. I sure would hate to be one of them, no matter how few... in fact, I would hate it much more if I was one of the very few false positives, because in THAT case, rehabilitation would be significantly more difficult.

No matter what else you might want to say, you can not possibly deny the fact that EVE is a game where some heavy-duty extra software (AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MACROS NOR BOTS) can really come in handy... and that comes mainly from the fact that in-game support for just about anything that can be called streamlined, ergonomic or comprehensive is lackluster.
There are a lot of bits and pieces of software that have danced at times very close to the line separating the big "allowed/denied" divide, and to make matters worse, ALLEGEDLY, that divide is not so clear cut as some of us would like it to be, either changing in time or changing based on the person that responds to the petition.

I don't know about you, but having a lot of people try out novel ways to improve on the little that EVE gives you by clever use of not specifically forbidden software has always been quite a sight to behold, and I would really, REALLY hate it if that would cease to be the case in the future for fear of semi-arbitrary bannings.
Also, "security through obscurity" seldom really works all that well, and is much more likely to backfire on legitimate, unsuspecting users.

I certainly would freaking hate to get banned for, say, simply using something similar to the former eve-metrics market price/history cache scrapper, and just because some of its code RESEMBLES something some bot/macro also does, if you know what I mean.
EDIT : just in case this was not clear, this last remark was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

_

The "funny" thing is that CCP doesn't even need to do _THAT_ much... basically, make a very public list of all the things that software IS ALLOWED // IS NOT ALLOWED to do with the EVE client (read from cache, display overlays on screen, use whatever data can still be gleaned from the logserver, etc).
Then, whenever somebody develops a tool that HE believes is in compliance with those rules, he can submit it for verification, and after thatthe tool gets put on an OFFICIAL "greenlight" list so people know THAT tool is "safe to use".
Sure, quite a bit of extra work, but depending on the false positive rate, could be worth it.

_

Or, to use one of the analogies some people are so fond of... I want to be able to read the laws of the land (as opposed to divine them from chicken entrails), and I want to know what I am charged with (in case, <deity_name_here> forbid, I get punished for something I allegedly did wrong) so I know how to handle the appeal.



A whitelist of 3rd party software does sound like a good idea, as long as it never becomes an exclusive whitelist (ie: running anything that isn't on the list = EULA breaking).

Perhaps this is something for the CSM to discuss with the API team?

salty Milk
Posted - 2011.05.16 09:51:00 - [170]
 

It would be funny if it was Sreegs' job to make posts like this on eve-o and other forums to offer the illusion that they are turning down money from macro users.

Wyke Mossari
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.16 09:58:00 - [171]
 


@Peregrine, Your naivete suggests you are very young or very ignorant.

This issue is in the realm of civil not criminal law.

1) In civil cases the test is the "balance of probability" or "preponderance of the evidence" and not "Reasonable doubt" which only applies in criminal law.

2) Commercial entities can withdraw commercial services to anybody for any reason and are under no obligation to provide any explanation. However CCP do provide one in Botting-Bans EULA violation.


Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.05.16 10:28:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T
*snip*

The "funny" thing is that CCP doesn't even need to do _THAT_ much... basically, make a very public list of all the things that software IS ALLOWED // IS NOT ALLOWED to do with the EVE client (read from cache, display overlays on screen, use whatever data can still be gleaned from the logserver, etc).
Then, whenever somebody develops a tool that HE believes is in compliance with those rules, he can submit it for verification, and after thatthe tool gets put on an OFFICIAL "greenlight" list so people know THAT tool is "safe to use".
Sure, quite a bit of extra work, but depending on the false positive rate, could be worth it.

_

Or, to use one of the analogies some people are so fond of... I want to be able to read the laws of the land (as opposed to divine them from chicken entrails), and I want to know what I am charged with (in case, <deity_name_here> forbid, I get punished for something I allegedly did wrong) so I know how to handle the appeal.


A whitelist of 3rd party software does sound like a good idea, as long as it never becomes an exclusive whitelist (ie: running anything that isn't on the list = EULA breaking).

Perhaps this is something for the CSM to discuss with the API team?

Wasn't there talk on the Fanfest 2011 Security video about software for isk/RLmoniez by 3rd parties and sanctioned by CCP for a fee of 99$/year?

Myfanwy Heimdal
Caldari
Posted - 2011.05.16 11:00:00 - [173]
 

Edited by: Myfanwy Heimdal on 16/05/2011 11:04:52
<<removed due to double posting thanks to a server burp >>

Myfanwy Heimdal
Caldari
Posted - 2011.05.16 11:04:00 - [174]
 

Saying that you demand to know the details of the crime is the right of the miscreant isn't always so. Yes, showing evidence that you did 65 in a 30 zone (add units of measurement to suit) is one thing but do we always need this in Real Life? No.

"You are being arrested for beating that man to death"
"With what sort of weapon am I accused of using?"
"A stick."
"Ah, but which type of stick? Hazel, oak, pine, beech, sycamore or what? "

It doesn't matter. CCP will have detected that someone has used a bot and the person has been banned. It's that simple.

If there is any doubt as to which bot or tool caused this to be flagged then it's simple. Don't run then before Eve starts and just do everything the proper way. And, I am still waiting to hear from anyone accused of botting why they thing that they ought to be allowed to do so.

Dirty Midden
Posted - 2011.05.16 11:11:00 - [175]
 

I can almost be bothered to read this whole thread, as it sounds like an interesting situation.

OP: If you do get banned, think of the life you'll get back. Sometimes I wish something to break my habit, like a complete perma-ban. Maybe I could get some **** done then.

blackcowk longpipe
Posted - 2011.05.16 11:26:00 - [176]
 

Macro mining tears ar the best tears i have had in awhile also low on fatLaughing

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.05.16 11:42:00 - [177]
 

Edited by: Mr Kidd on 16/05/2011 11:44:04
Originally by: Wyke Mossari

2) Commercial entities can withdraw commercial services to anybody for any reason and are under no obligation to provide any explanation. However CCP do provide one in Botting-Bans EULA violation.




Yes they do. But it does not explicitly ban macros does it?

Quote:
3. You may not use macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.


I've bolded the one sentence that addresses macros. Taken in it's totality it would seem macros are banned from use for ACCELERATED acquisition of wealth, etc when compared to ordinary game play. Did I miss something? Is there another EULA floating around that says "Macros are explicitly banned"?

Even CCP's EULA is as clear as mud and there are people here who don't believe that CCP shouldn't provide some means for a player to appeal their cases?

The petition system is good and fine except that, and I'm assuming here, that the banned player is given no criteria with which to prove innocence in the case of a false positive.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.16 11:52:00 - [178]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 11:53:47
Originally by: Myfanwy Heimdal
"You are being arrested for beating that man to death"
"With what sort of weapon am I accused of using?"
"A stick."
"Ah, but which type of stick? Hazel, oak, pine, beech, sycamore or what?"

More like...
"You are being arrested for beating a man to death"
"WHAT man ? And when was I supposed to have done that ?"
"Here's a photo. And it happened between 9 PM and midnight yesterday."
"I've never seen that man in my life, and I was at home sleeping after a long day of work, so unless I sleepwalked and got into a fight that way it's quite impssible for me to have done that."

Malak Alraheem
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.16 16:27:00 - [179]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 11:53:47
Originally by: Myfanwy Heimdal
"You are being arrested for beating that man to death"
"With what sort of weapon am I accused of using?"
"A stick."
"Ah, but which type of stick? Hazel, oak, pine, beech, sycamore or what?"

More like...
"You are being arrested for beating a man to death"
"WHAT man ? And when was I supposed to have done that ?"
"Here's a photo. And it happened between 9 PM and midnight yesterday."
"I've never seen that man in my life, and I was at home sleeping after a long day of work, so unless I sleepwalked and got into a fight that way it's quite impssible for me to have done that."


"That may be the case, but our evidence shows you at the scene of the crime, you are being charged and arrested with no option for bail. You'll have to wait for your turn in court."

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.16 16:47:00 - [180]
 

Yeah, but at least now you KNOW what exactly is you're being charged with, and can start preparing a defense for the trial date.
Contrast that to being already sentenced when the lawmen come to pick you up and being stuck in prison without the possibility of an appeal.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8

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