For the GM tickets / EULA conversation start at 1:14:00
http://t.co/Tzs4NYanpu
Printable View
For the GM tickets / EULA conversation start at 1:14:00
http://t.co/Tzs4NYanpu
Comparing multiboxing in EVE to a physical ailment, lol. couldn't provide a worse answer.
I had hoped to hear some feed back from CCP when I posted the video of me running :(
Overall I had to stop listening to this mp3 due to a rapidly rising heart rate.....
The gist of that conversation as I understand it: legal says we can't be too specific; and malicious people will just take specific answers and try to rules-lawyer around them. Then there's GM Grimmi's comment: "As cases are investigated GMs look at the information that is available, one of the important considerations being the intent behind a player’s actions." And since you can't share ticket responses on the forums, there doesn't seem to be any further point to asking or discussing any of these questions in public.
If that's basically the brutal truth of the matter, then multiboxing EVE in any capacity with or without 3rd-party software just became a temporally subjective minefield.
Which makes zero fucking sense, since any legal team worth their salt can draft an answer that's sufficiently binding and opaque as to prevent the rules-lawyers from trying to work around it. Sounds to me like CCP's legal team is shit and doesn't know how to add sufficient detail. James 315 wrote a massive fucking article about EXACTLY WHY CCP NEEDS TO STOP BEING MURKY WITH THEIR LINES IN THE SAND. I hate what CODE's turned into (especially knowing it's origins), but I can still agree with him.
The TOS *is* pretty clear, if ISBoxer is banned due to 6A3, so is every other third party tool.
E: Talk to LordsServant. He has a promise in writing from one of the CSM who arranged a meeting with CCP, might've been Falcon.
It's not the same scenario. This is a bloody game, not fucking cancer. I am quite frankly disgusted that she even tried to bring it up and even tried to tie it into ISBoxer.
Don't be disingenuous :) It's combative, and that's certainly not going to help us.Quote:
Originally Posted by EaTCarbS
In general, I think everyone's getting a bit too worked up over the issue. To be fair, all of the questions you (It sounded like you, Shadowandlight) asked were accusative and presumptive. Even though that's valid, you're much less likely to get a good answer from someone when they start a conversation topic defensively. You have to separate what feels good from what's productive :) It's like being married.
Looking ahead, I'm going to make a few more videos. One will be an in-depth guide to my Isboxer settings and DxNothing layout directed at multiboxers. Once this is done, I'm going to do a very short video directed at a non-multiboxer describing exactly what each part of my setup does. I'll include stuff I don't use like the rollover region, but it'll be focused on VFX, DxNothing windows, and the mousewheel-down plus round-robin 'tools'.
Then, I'll publish the video and submit a ticket to CCP with a link to the video. I suggest, at that point, that everyone who multiboxes does the exact same thing with the exact same video. Then, we all get the answer we're looking for and we're all working from the exact same playbook.
I'm not sure how else I can talk with CCP Falcon about these issues. It's not his sole decision about the input duplication ban so u didn't feel it was fair to question him on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosg2
However he is in charge (As far as I can tell) of GM interactions and could push for a policy
change regarding sharing GM communication.
So we can't get them to provide clarification on any questions we have, we can't share any comments from GM support tickets, people are seemingly getting different answers regarding what is allowed... Its really a bit comical.
I really like both Falcon and Leelo. They are very dedicated to the community and are tasked with responding to hard questions and do willingly jump into the fire.
In this particular topic either they are forced to take this stance of no clarification and purposely gray areas or they don't see how ridiculous this is getting.
Slightly off beat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosg2
Looking forward to it.
What I meant to say is, your questions were poor. They sounded more like accusations. This puts them on the defensive and isn't constructive. I'm not trying to be a dick, but if the goal is to get answers, then you have to do everything you can to get those answers; putting the decision-makers on the defensive isn't getting us any closer to what we would consider clear resolution.
They made some good points; they want us to put in a petition and see if what we're doing is ok. The bottom line is, they're the decision makers and this is what they want; we can either get in line and conform or risk the consequences.
My proposal, then, is to produce one single video representing all of the 'tools' we as multiboxers use, and each of us can submit it to CCP on behalf of our accounts. If everyone submits the same video, we should all get the same answers (!) and then we all have the same implicit understanding of what is and isn't going to get you banned. From there we can build replicable ISBoxer functions safely.
/shrug
I don't think the questions were poor, but I couldn't ask better questions because my hands were tied from a pre-show conversation on what was and what wasn't allowed to be mentioned.
I would really enjoy send in dozens of petitions asking if the feature set you are building is allowed or not, however I have a feeling it might lead to dozens of different answers until the GMs realize what's happening.... but at minimum it will start clearing up their stance.