tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post5997076332615363200..comments2023-10-25T07:19:08.019-05:00Comments on The Nosy Gamer: ISBoxer, Another Ninja Edit, And A CorrectionNoizyGamerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17315716516032999133noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-31750576093134578002015-02-28T14:01:51.392-06:002015-02-28T14:01:51.392-06:00"... the player can not accept the new provis..."... the player can not accept the new provisions and receive a refund for any unused subscription time."<br /><br />Yes, I did state that players have the right to NOT play the game.Larry Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-70321863023480929052015-02-27T18:48:35.275-06:002015-02-27T18:48:35.275-06:00Yep, which is why I'm not screaming for ISBoxe...Yep, which is why I'm not screaming for ISBoxer to be banned. Although I think you're wrong about it "just" being actioned against for input broadcasting. There were 3 sections of the EULA that are mentioned in the client modification section of the Third Party Policies page, not just one.NoizyGamerhttp://nosygamer.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-9872028898857732332015-02-27T03:00:37.115-06:002015-02-27T03:00:37.115-06:00Remember that ISBoxer has not been banned, and in ...Remember that ISBoxer has not been banned, and in fact it is used for window management by quite a few senior FCs at the very top level of the game since it lets them swap rapidly to that covops they keep forgetting to cloak after jumping through gates as well as having all their clients visible at once.<br /><br /><br />What is banned is just one use of ISBoxer: input broadcasting (which I *believe* is turned off now but perhaps there is a way to turn it back on again). I imagine it was the predominant use of the software but since there are legitimate uses they cannot just try to detect it and ban everyone who comes back positive.<br /><br /><br />By the way, from speaking to an ex-employee of CCP I gather that even detecting it is very difficult for them but that's a different matter.Endienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-41830726850564960552015-02-26T20:10:33.289-06:002015-02-26T20:10:33.289-06:00One is written by lawyers because it is the contra...One is written by lawyers because it is the contract under which we agree to before entering the game. The other is written by devs seeking feedback on features and ideas.Dirk MacGirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-20241257222715564402015-02-26T20:10:14.931-06:002015-02-26T20:10:14.931-06:00There doesn't appear to be any legitimate use ...There doesn't appear to be any legitimate use for ISBoxer and anyone who does use it definitely has an unfair advantage. The fact that they don't outright ban all of them is probably an <br />indicator that it's in widespread use and would likely be a significant <br />loss of accounts. What other reason could there be?lomoespecialenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-57699276421001883982015-02-26T18:10:07.961-06:002015-02-26T18:10:07.961-06:00Oh, the EULA does give players some protection. Fo...Oh, the EULA does give players some protection. For example, if CCP changes the EULA in a material way, then the player can not accept the new provisions and receive a refund for any unused subscription timw.NoizyGamerhttp://nosygamer.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-39232355265622465792015-02-26T17:56:25.660-06:002015-02-26T17:56:25.660-06:00Too many space lawyers is the real problem.
CCP h...Too many space lawyers is the real problem.<br /><br />CCP has *always* stated that anything that gives you an "unfair advantage" in the game is a violation of the terms of service. And, the interpretation of what comprises an "unfair advantage" has *always* been up to CCP to decide. This includes use of bots, macros, in-game exploits, insider information, etc. They may choose to let certain things slide, then later decide to disallow it - they may even choose to make certain penalties retroactive to past activities. <br /><br />The simple fact is that EVE Online is the property of CCP, and they are <br />the sole dictatorship of the New Eden universe. They are not required <br />to be fair, impartial, or even consistent in their management of the <br />game.<br /><br />Players only have the right to play the game, or not play the game. That is all. And, even that right is subject to CCP's sole discretion - they don't really need a "legal" reason to ban a player or seize his/her ingame assets (which belong to CCP anyways).Larry Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-49005870451669639922015-02-26T16:32:11.664-06:002015-02-26T16:32:11.664-06:00Interesting response. One person’s ‘irritating wa...Interesting response. One person’s ‘irritating waffling’ is another’s ‘painstaking negotiation’.<br /><br />Maybe EULA’s aren’t susceptible to discussion in the same manner as other parts of game play. Fozzy and Rise, masters of the Features & Ideas discussion, seem quite comfortable with tossing a ‘We’re considering doing X, thoughts?’ and then engaging those that wish to partake in often spirited discussion. From what I’ve seen, EULA changes are not treated similarly. Rather a decision from on high is delivered, appropriate texts are sighted and that’s pretty much it. EULA stuff tends to feel like courts rendering verdict. Features & Ideas stuff tends to feel like raucous legislature in action.<br /><br />Leaves me wondering if the different flavors have a nature of the beast origin or rather a nature of the participants’ origin.DireNecessitynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-805204243211634222015-02-26T13:37:10.874-06:002015-02-26T13:37:10.874-06:00Inb4 we start hearing about advantages from having...Inb4 we start hearing about advantages from having two monitors is an advantage that CCP needs to curb. Or whatever other set of failed arguments that proliferate to support why ISBoxer should or should not be allowed in any or all of its forms. <br />As Noizy showed so perfectly, this course correction on the part of CCP was not a change in anything other than their enforcement. Their words were always clear and had they simply held to those words on a uniform basis in the past, the issue wouldn't be with us today. We'd be talking about ISBoxers the same way we talk about RMT and Botters: just another thing that was always disallowed by CCP in the playing of their game. <br />As with so many things in this game and the RW, some issues go overlooked, intentionally and unintentionally, so long as they do not grow to the level of being noticeable. However, once they breach that level of relevance, it isn't a matter of anyone changing their mind. The EULA, the law of how we are allowed to access and play this game, was always there. The fact you may have been allowed to get away with edge play for longer than you did, changes nothing.<br />But please, please, please... I encourage those who continue to try and fight for a complete reversal of CCP's stance on this issue, or in pushing the boundaries of the spirit of the EULA. Because what it's doing is keeping the issue alive, which will more than likely lead to further tightening of the belt. The more the Hyperboxer crowd pushes, the more opportunity to crush it down even harder. So good luck with that. In the end you will bring about your own self-fulfilling prophecy.Dirk MacGirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-35605659849927618172015-02-26T13:05:36.519-06:002015-02-26T13:05:36.519-06:00Yeah... but it does make sense if you look at if f...Yeah... but it does make sense if you look at if form a we know and accept we are a niche game, so we can't afford to piss off a bunch of players with heavy handed, "We pwn it, FU if you dunt like it." attitudes... This is one place where I feel it is obvious CCP actually cares... about the game and the playerbase... (not that we deserve it most of the time).<br /><br />The 'parsing language and threading needles' as you put it to to try and allow the players a 'real sandbox experience' while at the same time maintain a 'for profit property' in a healthy, manageable and profitable state.<br /><br /><br />Looked at that way, it makes sense. Keep in mind this is also not new in the human condition... how many 'laws' are on the books that are not enforced? How many corporate rules are in place simply so the company can use them JIC they are needed... but not 'policed' the rest of the time... and EVE Online is not a state or a nation... it is, in truth, just a game after all.TurAmarthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-942059813481083566.post-23421065795028025772015-02-26T12:22:17.557-06:002015-02-26T12:22:17.557-06:00You know... ALL of this is completely covered und...You know... ALL of this is completely covered under one simple sentence...<br /><br /><i>"CCP may amend this EULA from time to time by posting an amended version at https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/eve-eula/. If you accept this EULA, the then-current version of this EULA shall apply each time you access the System or play EVE."</i><br /><br />Or in simpler terms, <i>"CCP may amend this EULA."</i> period.<br /><br />and... <i>"If you accept this EULA, the then-current version of this EULA shall apply </i>each time<i> you access the System or play EVE."</i><br /><br />Any an all changes, no matter the effects or arguments pro pr con by ANYONE, to the EULA are fully within their rights to make... They own the game, it is a for profit product, these are not 'laws' or 'rights' these are the solely arbitrary rules which CCP alone has total control over. Period.<br /><br /><br />Each and everyone of us AGREES to abide by the EULA and ToS, no matter WHAT THEY SAY, each time we login through the client to their server cluster... each and every time. Period.TurAmarthnoreply@blogger.com