The Banned thread

[LordsServant]

You're going to have to explain this statement to me (and probably others). What are the two actions you speak of?

NP, thought I'd mentioned it here somewhere, but I'll explain it again.

----------

Input on Left, Action on Right:

Vanilla Player:

f1 OR click module --> activate module on eve client 1.
alt tab OR move mouse to other eve window --> swap focus to different eve window.
f1 OR click module --> active module on eve client 2.

Isboxing Round Robin:

f1 --> f1 on eve client 1.
f1 --> f1 on eve client 2.

Isboxing Simple VideoFX:

f1 OR click module --> activate module on eve client 1.
move mouse to other eve window OR hit ctrl+"some number" (in my setups case) --> swap focus to different eve window.
f1 OR click module --> activate module on eve client 2.

-------------------

You'll notice two of these are almost identical.

Can you tell me which of those is not like the others?

If you said Round Robin, you'd be correct.

Somewhere between:
"f1 --> f1 on eve client 1."
and
"f1 --> f1 on eve client 2."
there is a:
???? --> Swap Window Focus.

You argue it differently if you want, but you still end up with:
"f1 --> f1 on eve client 1."
"f1 --> swap window focus to eve client 2."
"??? --> f1 on eve client 2."

You can't explain to me how you're swapping window focus - that is an action that must be taken by a vanilla user, and using round robin completely circumvents it.

I'm not sure how Rollover works, since it's not the rollover I originally envisioned (manually spam f1, then move your mouse over various eve windows to hit f1 when your mouse moves over it), but if it does ANYTHING like round robin - then it is also breaking the 1 input, 1 output rule.

Anyone can argue these points til they're blue in the face, but the evidence sorta speaks for itself. I'm not banned, despite putting up a video myself, and with one of my accounts stolen a month or so ago, CCP went over my shit with a fine-toothed comb - they knew my accounts, how many I had, what they flew, what they did, etc etc - no bans or mention of isboxer(or "macro use" as they'd call it when done illegally).

------------

I also want to echo Mirai again with a "CCP will NEVER say 'isboxer feature xxy is perfectly ok,' since they cannot talk about specific stuff." If you want, just think of translating a different language.

Macro Use = any program interacting with the game. Isboxer is such a program. They're not gonna call you out for "isboxer use."

Hopefully that clears some stuff up.

[MiRai]

You can't explain to me how you're swapping window focus - that is an action that must be taken by a vanilla user, and using round robin completely circumvents it.

I would never consider changing window focus to be an in-game action since it's a function of the operating system, but if what you say is true, then...

Two Mapped Keys:
Pressing F1, from Slot 1, sends F1 to Slot 1
Pressing F2, from Slot 1, sends F1 to Slot 2

Those are two completely separate Mapped Keys not using round-robin, but they can both function just fine w/o having to change window focus, so... Where (or when) is the window focus change happening in my example?

[LordsServant]

I would never consider changing window focus to be an in-game action since it's a function of the operating system, but if what you say is true, then...

Two Mapped Keys:
Pressing F1, from Slot 1, sends F1 to Slot 1
Pressing F2, from Slot 1, sends F1 to Slot 2

Those are two completely separate Mapped Keys not using round-robin, but they can both function just fine w/o having to change window focus, so... Where (or when) is the window focus change happening in my example?

It's happening when you press f2. You instantly swap focus to slot 2 and send the f1 there. If you say "but I'm still focused on window 1" then it's even worse - you're swapping focus to window 2, activating a command, then swapping back to window 1 all in one go.

Even if you want to argue that it's not for arguments sake - vanilla players cannot do the same thing no matter what.

It's been well established for a very long time (see: Bacon back in 2007 or something, along with many others) that using a program that specifically gives you the ability to do something impossible to do as a player in the vanilla game is a big "NOAP."

Isboxer entirely aside, throwing commands out to various clients without having to swap windows/window focus is entirely against the EULA for that reason.

I'm happy to casually debate in a friendly manner, but the evidence speaks for itself - I'm not banned, despite CCP having an EXTREMELY close look at my actions and accounts, while everyone who we know for a FACT has been petitioned that uses round robin/rollover - has been banned.

Looks pretty cut and dry to me.

[MiRai]

Even if you want to argue that it's not for arguments sake - vanilla players cannot do the same thing no matter what.

Unless of course they're using multiple computers where multiple windows can stay in focus, and you can control both with the same keyboard by moving just your mouse between the computers.

It's been well established for a very long time (see: Bacon back in 2007 or something, along with many others) that using a program that specifically gives you the ability to do something impossible to do as a player in the vanilla game is a big "NOAP."

If it's so well established and such a big "NOAP" (as you put it), then how come it has only become a concern 8 years later? CCP had stated many, many times in those 8 years that ISBoxer was allowed, but if it was doing things that fell into a category as extreme as the "NOAP" category (I have to assume that because it's in quotes, capitalized, and spelled incorrectly that it must be an extreme category) then why did it take almost a decade for them to get around to actioning people for using it?

Isboxer entirely aside, throwing commands out to various clients without having to swap windows/window focus is entirely against the EULA for that reason.

You have nothing to back that statement up with. Please show me the excerpt from CCP's EULA which states what you claim, and I'll ask that you not twist some general statement into your own statement for your convenience. You are very adamant that you're correct, so we're going to need some hard evidence and not your interpretation of a general statement from within the EULA.

I'm happy to casually debate in a friendly manner, but the evidence speaks for itself

And what evidence is that? The only thing I see is you just spouting words and claiming they're facts because you believe them to be so. You've convinced yourself that you've figured it out even though you don't actually have anything beyond your own speculation and assumptions to back up anything that you claim in your last post.

It's a fact that CCP has not given you, or any of us, any information on what they're "logging," or even looking for, so for you to claim that you know otherwise is complete ignorance.

I'm not banned, despite CCP having an EXTREMELY close look at my actions and accounts, while everyone who we know for a FACT has been petitioned that uses round robin/rollover - has been banned.

That is untrue, as well.

Everything you've said so far, and every claim you seem to be making is based off of the incredibly small sample size which is this forum, and this forum alone, since not a single player up to this point has posted on the ISBoxer forum claiming to have been banned. So looking at the few threads from this forum, there must be less than 20 (maybe 30) people who have actively participated in these discussions... and this is your sample size for a game with a very large multiboxing playerbase?

If the evidence speaks for itself, then show it to us and let it speak because during this dark time, EVE multiboxers need factual evidence more than ever. What they don't need are your assumptions, or opinions, which you're trying to pass off as fact, and there is a very large difference between saying, "I have factual evidence," and, "This is what I believe." If you have facts that you can provide links to, then I ask that you present the information, for you cannot cite yourself and expect others to believe what you're saying -- This isn't religion, or politics, this is a multiboxing forum where we value actual facts.

[LordsServant]

Unless of course they're using multiple computers where multiple windows can stay in focus, and you can control both with the same keyboard by moving just your mouse between the computers.

Just like you can move your mouse between windows with a certain isboxer setup that's legal?

TY for proving my point.

If it's so well established and such a big "NOAP" (as you put it), then how come it has only become a concern 8 years later? CCP had stated many, many times in those 8 years that ISBoxer was allowed, but if it was doing things that fell into a category as extreme as the "NOAP" category (I have to assume that because it's in quotes, capitalized, and spelled incorrectly that it must be an extreme category) then why did it take almost a decade for them to get around to actioning people for using it?

CCP has banned all sorts of stuff in between, from macros, to the very thing I pointed out in my example - Bacon.

I don't know why CCP took as long as they did to ban these features of isboxer, but they have - as they should. Your point here has absolutely nothing to do with the relevant discussion.

You have nothing to back that statement up with. Please show me the excerpt from CCP's EULA which states what you claim, and I'll ask that you not twist some general statement into your own statement for your convenience. You are very adamant that you're correct, so we're going to need some hard evidence and not your interpretation of a general statement from within the EULA.

I pointed out Bacon specifically. You seem to have issues with reading things when posted. Claiming "nothing" when I specifically cite a source is a very bad way of going about a debate. Re-read above if you need to. Arguing that it took CCP a while to notice one particular thing while they banned all sorts of other stuff (again, lemme list the example of Bacon) does not constitute me not backing a statement up, nor does it have anything to do with the discussion at present.

Don't strawman (or w/e other :shenanigans: - I can't be bothered to debate over THAT) in this discussion please, it doesn't speak well of you.

And what evidence is that? The only thing I see is you just spouting words and claiming they're facts because you believe them to be so. You've convinced yourself that you've figured it out even though you don't actually have anything beyond your own speculation and assumptions to back up anything that you claim in your last post.

Read above, this isn't worth responding to beyond these words.

It's a fact that CCP has not given you, or any of us, any information on what they're "logging," or even looking for, so for you to claim that you know otherwise is complete ignorance.

Well, no. They gave us all the same thing - you're the one trying to argue that something which is clearly 2 actions is magically one. Re-read things again if you need to understand, or re-read what I've already posted if you'd like someone to lay it out to you.

That is untrue, as well.

Everything you've said so far, and every claim you seem to be making is based off of the incredibly small sample size which is this forum, and this forum alone, since not a single player up to this point has posted on the ISBoxer forum claiming to have been banned. So looking at the few threads from this forum, there must be less than 20 (maybe 30) people who have actively participated in these discussions... and this is your sample size for a game with a very large multiboxing playerbase?

If the evidence speaks for itself, then show it to us and let it speak because during this dark time, EVE multiboxers need factual evidence more than ever. What they don't need are your assumptions, or opinions, which you're trying to pass off as fact, and there is a very large difference between saying, "I have factual evidence," and, "This is what I believe." If you have facts that you can provide links to, then I ask that you present the information, for you cannot cite yourself and expect others to believe what you're saying -- This isn't religion, or politics, this is a multiboxing forum where we value actual facts.

I'm not sure if this is your first time "friendly" debating, but usually you actually provide your own evidence to back up statements, rather than trying for the "never mind me, you're wrong BECAUSE I SAY SO."

Your response had absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to back up your points, beyond validating my original point in your very first response. Let's not sensationalize things, and instead use (very simple) logic to reason here.

Provide me evidence that disproves any of what I said and/or my evidence, and then you may attempt to make a statement of this substance again. You can't claim that anything I've said is wrong while having absolutely zero evidence or backing logic to what you're saying.

[MiRai]

Just like you can move your mouse between windows with a certain isboxer setup that's legal?

TY for proving my point.

As it's been pointed out, the functionality is built into Windows, so any vanilla player can use this feature if they wish.

But other than that, it would seem you don't have any proof. Saying "see: Bacon back in 2007 or something, along with many others" is on par with saying "Google it," and from the sound of it ("or something" and "along with many others"), it would seem like you don't even know what I'm supposed to be Googling. When you make the original claim the burden of proof falls upon you, and it doesn't fall upon anyone else to disprove something which cannot be proved in the first place -- I don't understand how you don't understand this concept. How can there be a debate of anything (which is a complete waste of time anyway since no one here has the real information) when you haven't brought anything to the table except your own speculation? You say that swapping windows is interpreted by CCP as an action, and I say it isn't, so I'm asking you to prove it.

I never said you were wrong, but I said you have no proof and you still haven't provided any, so I'll make this easy...

Please provide proof of your claim(s), other than your own belief, that CCP is interpreting what you consider to be a window focus action as a second action being sent to a game client, and then actioning players based upon that.

[LordsServant]

As it's been pointed out, the functionality is built into Windows, so any vanilla player can use this feature if they wish.

Yes, any player can move their mouse. JUST. LIKE. IN. LEGAL (NOT illegal, LEGAL). ISBOXER. SETUPS. This has been established for the third time now in just the last few responses?

I'm really not one for insulting people, but how thick do you have to be to not get that moving your mouse to swap window focus is an action?

F1 --> Move Mouse --> F1.

Not F1 --> F1. This is a VERY simple concept.

You have now acknowledged my point for the second time.

But other than that, it would seem you don't have any proof. Saying "see: Bacon back in 2007 or something, along with many others" is on par with saying "Google it," and from the sound of it ("or something" and "along with many others"), it would seem like you don't even know what I'm supposed to be Googling. When you make the original claim the burden of proof falls upon you, and it doesn't fall upon anyone else to disprove something which cannot be proved in the first place -- I don't understand how you don't understand this concept. How can there be a debate of anything (which is a complete waste of time anyway since no one here has the real information) when you haven't brought anything to the table except your own speculation? You say that swapping windows is interpreted by CCP as an action, and I say it isn't, so I'm asking you to prove it.

http://bit.ly/1zOuGmh

http://bit.ly/1zOuQdh

http://bit.ly/1zOuyTL

http://bit.ly/1BKNrN8

http://bit.ly/1BKNE2O

http://bit.ly/1BKNHM5

http://bit.ly/1BKO6xX

Literally just woke up and I think of all of those off the top of my head. Click any one, and even if you have a noscript or w/e and that doesn't automatically open the link for you, any of the top 5 or simply reading the results should be quite simple to look through.

Also, if you're brave enough or if there's an FHC link on there, that might be rather enlightening as well. I was in the alliance(s) in question during several of the monkeysphere / python injection / broken api things, and also was in certain command channels where I directly witnessed russians talking about, and using some "binary thing" to gain entrance to POS forcefields. I don't think anyone was ever banned from that, and Raiden. (the alliance I was in) never used it ourselves; White Noise (our close RusRus allies) were the ones doing it.

I never said you were wrong, but I said you have no proof and you still haven't provided any, so I'll make this easy...

See above, now provide your own proof or stop wasting my/everyone's time with crazy conspiracy theories.

Please provide proof of your claim(s), other than your own belief, that CCP is interpreting what you consider to be a window focus action as a second action being sent to a game client, and then actioning players based upon that.

We've gone over (several times now) how swapping window focus is absolutely a thing. People have banned for breaking the 1 input 1 output rule several times.

Pretty damn simple - unless YOU can provide evidence otherwise. Go find some.