Angrod Losshelin is the CEO of Oath of the Forsaken, a wormhole corporation in an alliance called WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation, corp ticker
Wormhole candidates always need to expand their electoral base, and Angrod is taking a unique tack. That's right, he is appealing to the ISBoxer community. In addition to his official announcement thread, he posted a thread on the Dual-Boxing.com forums:
"CSM rep for Multi-Boxers
"I know this is a horrible long shot. However, as I am considering running for CSM based on my alliance's pushing and nagging, I am feeling like we need alot better representation and PR with the rest of the eve community and devs themselves.
"My main platform will be wormholes as well as alternative game play styles, multiboxing included. I do not feel I can campaign strickly as a multiboxer, not enough votes, but it is a large focus since I am a multiboxer from various other gaming communities but relatively new to the eve multi boxing front.
"In regards to things I want to push for is:
- Greater respect for the multiboxing community.
- Better reception of legitimate CCP concerns about multiboxing.
- Easier ways to manage alts. (more income for ccp with more alts)
- Better static and defined rules in the TOS regarding multi-boxing.
- More recognition for multiboxing community concerns. (TOS, false reports, hate mail, etc.)
"If anyone is willing to help me with this campaign please let me know, I need alot of it. If anyone can get me incontact with CEO's of multi-boxing friendly corporations and alliances please also let me know.
"IGN: Angrod Losshelin - Host of Praise the Bob podcast and CEO of Oath of the Forsaken"
"Input duplication vs multiboxingIf Angrod were only engaged in scare-mongering and bad slippery slope arguments, I wouldn't bother writing a post this soon in the process. But what Angrod said in the podcast really grabbed my attention:
"Edit: a clarification for those trying to walk the line between multiboxing and input duplication. I realize ccp is banning input duplication, but I think that the other capabilities of isboxer and similar software, as soon as the mob gets worked up over it, will ensure that owning 2 accounts is 'unfair'. The main purpose of isboxer is input duplication, allowing you to control multiple accounts as if one person. Removing that feature is a huge blow and on the path to a complete removal of management of alts with any efficiency."
"You know, and I'm cop to it right now. I have botted games before. I've never botted EVE and I've never botted World of Warcraft, specifically, are the two I've never botted. But I enjoy botting. Games such as, you know, Everquest 2, I bot all the time there. So, you know, Sony, you can ban me if you find my accounts. Different games like RIFT; I've botted RIFT before. I find it almost more of a challenge once I've reached max level to bot and accomplish things automatically that it would take someone who's doing it by themselves a lot longer.Now, EVE Radio personality and occasional TMC contributor Dirk MacGirk, who appeared on the podcast to argue for why banning input broadcasting/multiplexing was a good idea, right before the above quote had just finished arguing that ISBoxer was not botting software. Why Angrod decided to make the comment about botting, I have no idea. Dirk, to his credit, tried to steer the conversation back toward the main issue: input replication. However, Angrod, possibly realizing he'd put his foot in his mouth, had a few more things to say about botting in EVE.
"And the major reason that I don't or haven't done that in EVE, is because, EVE is a game that botting isn't as effective as a lot of people would assume it is. Boxing is a lot more effective. And from a completely, you know, outside observer standpoint when looking at botting in EVE, the only thing that botting is really effective for is mining, efficiency-wise. You can have mission bots -- you can have all sorts of different bots that will be horribly less effective than players in EVE, mainly because of how the overview works. And, you know, a lot of kudos to CCP for hiding their memory values. It's ridiculously hard to find anything of value that a bot can actually use to react to something." (9:25-11:01)
"And, you know, botting in EVE isn't necessarily an efficiency thing, it's a time thing. I can accomplish all of this while I'm sitting at work, you know, I press play and it goes. Something like that. And I'm not saying anyone should ever condone botting in EVE. It's horrible, bad, and if you can figure out how to do it effectively you're basically, you basically had to purchase something from someone else. And I think that programmers who can figure it out how to do it in EVE and then sell their ideas, I think they're geniuses. But, you know, it's against the EULA, don't do it." (12:21-13:00)As I mentioned before, I believe this last paragraph was to cover up his indiscretion of revealing his true feelings about botting. He doesn't refrain from botting because he thinks botting is wrong. He doesn't bot because he makes more ISK multiboxing using ISBoxer. Then again, that is possibly true because he couldn't figure out how to bot himself. He did give CCP credit for making developing a bot difficult, which suggests he at least tried to develop his own bot. From my reading and listening of that section of the podcast, he doesn't bot due to lack of skill, not because he thinks botting is wrong. In fact, he admits to botting in other games, mentioning EQ2 and RIFT by name.
Let's recall, Angrod is a pretty non-repentant botter where EQ2 is concerned, challenging SOE to ban his account if they can find it. I guess Angrod doesn't know about all the SOE employees who play EVE. In fact, I know that SOE CEO John Smedley used to fly with EVE University, the CFC, and probably TEST. As of Fanfest in May, I heard that he still occasionally logged into his EVE account and was rumored to have considered attending the event. Oh, and I get the impression that Smedley and Hilmar get along pretty well. Good thing Angrod is living in a wormhole.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I played EQ2 for almost 3 1/2 years. During that time I leveled 9 crafting characters, one in each crafting class, to the then level cap of 80. To say that I don't like EQ2 botters is an understatement. One day I may even write a post about how botters and hackers in EQ2 fueled the fire that led to the anti-botting posts I'm semi-famous for in EVE. So to say I may have a bias against a proud EQ2 botter is a pretty good guess.
Setting my bias aside, once word of Angrod's botting history circulates among the ISBoxer community, I don't see how Angrod gets any significant support. Users of ISBoxer are trying to prove they wish to follow the rules. Backing a proud botter like Angrod seems counterproductive. Then again, maybe ISBoxer users really don't see anything wrong with botting after all. I don't think that's true of the vast majority of ISBoxer users, but I'm not infallible.
Needless to say, I am recommending that players do not cast any votes for Angrod Losshelin. I oppose botting and can't see how putting a botting supporter, even if he doesn't bot in EVE, on the CSM can do any good.