Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
O2 jayjay
Tres Corvi INC. Mordus Angels
16
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:27:00 -
[151] - Quote
Nope its in the latest post. I got the Info i needed. See yall all later o/ |
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
815
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:30:00 -
[152] - Quote
*pinches the bridge of his nose*
its simple. ISBox is allowed. That's it. There is nothing that says its not, anywhere. If you have a problem with someone using it then go a head and send a petition, CCP will look into it and deal with it. No amount of arguing your insane point will matter. End of thread.
As the post from I gm in 2013 I posted said isbox is not endorced or condoned means its allowed. your argument is invalid and finished. So again, if you have an issue file a petition. In a room full of dumb blondes, EvE is the smart red head on the other side of the room.-á Lots of men like dumb blondes, and not everyone will like the smart red head, but she doesn;t need to change to be a dumb blonde.-á She is perfect how she is.-á Thats EvE vs other mmo's.-á You either like the red head, or you don't. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
7528
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:31:00 -
[153] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:Nope its in the latest post. I got the Info i needed. See yall all later o//
I hope that "See yall all later o/" is because you don't want to miss you appointment with a mental health professional. |
O2 jayjay
Tres Corvi INC. Mordus Angels
16
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:33:00 -
[154] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:O2 jayjay wrote:Nope its in the latest post. I got the Info i needed. See yall all later o// I hope that "See yall all later o/" is because you don't want to miss you appointment with a mental health professional.
LOL no it isnt. OP is updated and you can find all the information in it. Thank you for your hilarious comments and have a wonderful eve day. Now i got a movie to catch with a very fine lady. see you in space. |
Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
323
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:35:00 -
[155] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:O2 jayjay wrote:Nope its in the latest post. I got the Info i needed. See yall all later o// I hope that "See yall all later o/" is because you don't want to miss you appointment with a mental health professional. LOL no it isnt. OP is updated and you can find all the information in it. Thank you for your hilarious comments and have a wonderful eve day. Now i got a movie to catch with a very fine lady. see you in space.
PICs or it didn't happen. |
Dersen Lowery
Narwhals Ate My Duck. Narwhals Ate My Duck
1185
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:35:00 -
[156] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:Nope its in the latest post. I got the Info i needed. See yall all later o/
You found a discussion point at the top of your OP (the ISBoxed bomber fleet is a bit of a sore point, because simulcasting commands becomes an issue when you can get perfect alpha every time).
For the rest: are you actually going to counter-petition someone who you think multiboxed a gank of your friend's bot-controlled mining ship to get them banned? Good luck with that.
(ps: your friend would have been banned regardless--CCP doesn't rely on ganker reports to determine if someone's botting). Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
164
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:46:00 -
[157] - Quote
I guess it's just the viking roots of iceland showing, but CCP does not seem to consider a friendly 50 to 1 kill unfair.
Not to mention the distinction between "unfair" (situation that favors one party over the other when equality is expected) and "cheating" (breaking rules). |
Glathull
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
510
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:53:00 -
[158] - Quote
Huh. It throws an enormous amount of fail everywhere, gets completely owned by everyone, and then asks for the lock?
I have a counter-proposal: ISD, don't lock this thread. Sticky it. Because OP isn't the intellectual punching bag that we deserve, it's the one we have. Or however that goes. Turrents |
Sibyyl
Gallente Federation
5500
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:53:00 -
[159] - Quote
Thank you, OP The Muppets: P+¦pc++rn (thanks Ria!) "So.. youre saying you cant create content.... because other people are out... creating content?" --United Arab Emirates |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23790
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:54:00 -
[160] - Quote
I was mighty bored soGǪ here's to you OP, and why your premise is a fallacy:
First of, what does GÇ£denying the antecedentGÇ¥ mean? It's a formal fallacy that arises when you have a claim that follows the pattern:
If A, then B. Not A. Therefore not B.
By denying that the first premise (the antecedent) is true, you somehow conclude that the result (the consequent) is also untrue. This is an invalid conclusion because there are more ways for B to be true than just A GÇö A is simply one way for B to become true. This error often arises because of some confusion about the (valid) reversal of the first premise, called a modus tollens. A modus tollens follows a very similar form (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) and is valid because if B is not the case, then A GÇö which always leads to B GÇö simply cannot be true or B would also be true by very definition. Another common cause is to confuse GÇ£if GǪ thenGÇ¥ for GÇ£if and only if GǪ thenGÇ¥ (in other words, there are no other ways for B to be true than if A is true, and as a result, if A is false, the only thing that could make B true isn't, so B is false too).
So, what does this mean in this case? Let's look at the GM statement again:
GÇ¥Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose.GÇ¥
The analytical breakdown of this would be: IF you are using [mutlibox software] AND you control multiple computers with it THEN we are OK with it. A Gêº B GçÆ C
The OP is fallaciously trying to turn this into the claim: IF you are using [mutlibox software] AND you do NOT control multiple computers with it THEN we are NOT OK with it. A Gêº -¼B GçÆ -¼C
This is an invalid (partial) denying of the antecedent. We are assuming, for no reason, that if we negate the B, the C will also be negated even though there is noting in the initial premise that actually supports this conclusion. The only valid negative conclusion we can draw (using the modus tollens rule) is: -¼C GçÆ -¼(A Gêº B)
GǪor, in actual words, if they are not ok with it, then you weren't using multiboxing software to control multiple computers.
Now, here's the fun part that the OP could have used to confuse matters: there are two ways to negate that right-hand side of the premise GÇö either A (you're using mutliboxing software) is false or B (you're controlling multiple computers) is false. So doesn't that mean he's right? No, because now we have a completely different premise and a completely different demand for making it true and the consequent can be true in a number of different ways that cannot be identified without additional information. We have to fist actually find a case where -¼C is true GÇö in other words, a case where they're not ok with it GÇö and see which one of A and B is false. From the premise alone, we can't tell which one it will be, just that it will be one of them (hint: it'll be because of the GÇ£not using multiboxing softwareGÇ¥ part).
So what are the cases in this modus tollens?
C: they're ok with it GåÆ we don't know anything about A or B GÇö a null case. -¼C: they're not ok with it GåÆ at least one of A and B is false. -á-á-á-á-á1. -¼A Gêº B: you were using not-multiboxing software when you controlled those multiple computers. A botting farm. -á-á-á-á-á2. A Gêº -¼B: you were using multiboxing software to control not-multiple computers. The OP's case. -á-á-á-á-á3. -¼A Gêº -¼B: you were using not-multiboxing software to control not-multiple computers. Yeah, even a single bot will get you slapped.
But here's the thing: all of these cases are hypothetical reasons why C would be false. If C is false one of the combinations of -¼A and -¼B must be the case, but again, we can't tell from C alone which one it is. As luck would have it, we have an explicit dev statement that lets us rule out one of the hypotheticals: a GM statement that tells us that using multiboxing software to control a single computer is ok (or, if you like, A Gêº -¼B GçÆ C). So case 2 cannot be an explanation for why we have -¼C. That leaves -¼A Gêº B and -¼A Gêº -¼B as the only possibilities.
What this tells us is that B (the use of multiple computers) is actually inconsequential to the state of C. Our initial premise could be simplified to GÇ£if you are using multiboxing software, we are ok with itGÇ¥ (A GçÆ C), and its modus tollens GÇ£if we aren't ok with it, you are not using multiboxing softwareGÇ¥ ( -¼C GçÆ -¼A). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
|
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
662
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:56:00 -
[161] - Quote
Tippia wrote:E-2C Hawkeye wrote:IS boxer is third party software used to manipulate the game. No getting around it other than CCP allows it. There's also no getting around the fact that there's nothing to suggest that they would disallow it. There is no rule against using third-party software to manipulate the game, after all (unless you only mean GÇ£manipulateGÇ¥ in the sense of GÇ£modifyGÇ¥, but there's a specific rule for that and it doesn't care one whit about third-party software anyway). Quote:Vote with your feet and or wallet if you donGÇÖt agree with their hypocrisy. Tbh, the only hypocrisy here is the OP's being upset over his friend being banned for legitimate reasons and wanting others to suffer the same fate without having broken any rules. vOv As always your interpretation is special...as in a short bus sorta way. I donGÇÖt disagree CCP allows it. It is their prerogative to do so.
To argue it is not breaking the Eula as written is just tippia being tippia.
|
RoAnnon
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
433
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:58:00 -
[162] - Quote
This whole thread comes across as another
Wabbit Season! Duck Season! Wabbit Season! Duck Season!
debate from Bugs Bunny.
The difference is the Game Warden has said it's Duck Season... So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23793
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:02:00 -
[163] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:As always your interpretation is special...as in a short bus sorta way. No, it is specialGǪ as in Gǣthe being correct wayGǥ. I know that this would be a very special and extraordinary case for you, but for the rest of us, it happens with some regularity.
Quote:To argue it is not breaking the Eula as written is just tippia being tippia. Yes, it is me being right, as usual. There is nothing in the rules that disallows multiboxing GÇö be it manual, mechanical, or software-assisted GÇö and there are a multitude of statements from CCP confirming this fairly obvious reading of those rules. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
Glathull
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
512
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:06:00 -
[164] - Quote
Tippia says: I don't always use propositional symbolic logic when I argue about stuff on the internet. But when I do, I use DeMorgan's theorem.
Cheers. Turrents |
Marsha Mallow
1402
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:06:00 -
[165] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I was mighty bored soGǪ here's to you OP, and why your premise is a fallacy:
First of, what does GÇ£denying the antecedentGÇ¥ mean? Whilst that was a very informative and well written post, I'd really rather not see the inner workings of the logic-bot. It might start rubbing off on the rest of us, god help us if we can't just make things up to support our argument. It's much more fun when you just shout: Your argument is fallacious! Ad hominem! I am right! I accept your surrender! etc DON'T BE RIDICULOUS! |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5829
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:06:00 -
[166] - Quote
Oh look, a Gevlon pet crying on the forums because his friend got banned for botting & how his interpretation of the EULA should be the correct one. Shocking news. Coming up next on the Greedy Goblin: Something about multiboxing being against the rules & a graph proving otherwise. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |
Jeremy Kamira
18
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:10:00 -
[167] - Quote
As long as CCP is making money they don't care if somebody pays more money to them to multibox. Everything nowadays is about money. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23793
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:11:00 -
[168] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:This Clearly states that Multi Boxing is fine. So you can Multi box away in your incursions.
But this also states using it to gain an unfair advantage over player Example ganking ect is not acceptable. The good news is that multiboxing does not confer any kind of unfair advantage. In fact, in many cases, you are at a disadvantage when multiboxing compared to just having each ship individually controlled.
The fact that you have, say, a dozen ships all doing the exact same thing rather than a dozen ships doing what's best in each individual case means that a large portion of those ships will not do what's the most advantageous to them.
Marsha Mallow wrote:Whilst that was a very informative and well written post, I'd really rather not see the inner workings of the logic-bot. It might start rubbing off on the rest of us, god help us if we can't just make things up to support our argument. It's much more fun when you just shout: Your argument is fallacious! Ad hominem! I am right! I accept your surrender! etc Well, yes, but like I said, I was bored and had some time to waste. Most of the time, slapping people in the face with the names of their errors is just so much faster and more have moreGǪ interestingGǪ results. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:11:00 -
[169] - Quote
You may not use your own or any third-party software, 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.
ISboxer doesn't breach what's said above, it's not bottling in any way nor is it modify the Interface, it's just splicing the screen and moving part of the image around. it's modify the screen not the game. Just as if place paper over half of my screen or even take a screenshot and Photoshop it.
CCP said them self multiply times it's okey on previous forums post, you could even file a petition. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5829
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:13:00 -
[170] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:To argue it is not breaking the Eula as written is just tippia being tippia.
People keeps saying it breaks a certain part of the EULA, but it seems to show otherwise. :iiam: how some people think. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5831
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:16:00 -
[171] - Quote
Tippia wrote:O2 jayjay wrote:This Clearly states that Multi Boxing is fine. So you can Multi box away in your incursions.
But this also states using it to gain an unfair advantage over player Example ganking ect is not acceptable. The good news is that multiboxing does not confer any kind of unfair advantage. In fact, in many cases, you are at a disadvantage when multiboxing compared to just having each ship individually controlled.
Oh man, let me tell you about this time I was multiboxing with 10 Vindicators & some guys came along & ganked the Vindicator account I was using to broadcast. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com |
Glathull
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
513
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:18:00 -
[172] - Quote
I do wish that all EULAs were re-written in a more succinct way though. They should all say this: you are using our stuff. It's not your stuff. We will do whatever we want whenever we want, and we don't have to ask your opinion. If you don't like it, f*** off. We are not your bi***. If you do anything we don't like, we will f*** you up. No questions asked or answered. Turrents |
Mag's
the united
17718
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:54:00 -
[173] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:So you still need to be using Different computers! Nope.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
1982
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 21:05:00 -
[174] - Quote
*facepalm* |
Rykuss
In Praise Of Bacchus
105
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 21:32:00 -
[175] - Quote
As I understand it CCP won't endorse or condemn ISBoxer but so long as it doesn't set off their botting detection, resulting in a ban, you're fine. If it should ever result in that, you're screwed. If I'm interpreting that correctly, I guess that's fine and all but I thought EVE was supposed to be about interacting with others. At least that's typically the response from the community when someone comes along demanding their solo style of play should be catered to. If the argument for ISBoxer is that it makes multi-boxing easier, I would ask why multi-boxing should be made easier. I don't begrudge anyone their play-style, I gave up multi-boxing years ago because I found it tedious. Had this software been available back then, I might have tried it but with no official CCP endorsement on it, I doubt it. You, too, can be a Solid Gold dancer. |
samualvimes
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
222
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 21:56:00 -
[176] - Quote
Quote: Thank you for your hilarious comments and have a wonderful eve day. Now i got a movie to catch with a very fine lady. see you in space.
Translation: Damnit I lost, I'm also lonely. If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming. |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
409
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 22:46:00 -
[177] - Quote
Topic locked at OPs request. ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department @ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |