| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 |
61. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
Tippia wrote: GǣFor nowGǥ has lasted for a decade and there's nothing to suggest that this will change any time soon. They're not threatening people to ban for it any more than they have in the past. And yet they felt it necessary to mentio...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 20:06:00
|
62. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
Tippia wrote: Scooter McCabe wrote: Because EVEmon as a 3rd party program uses cache scraping which would be bannable by CCP if this policy actually goes through. GǪand is rather explicitly allowed For now , and we've only gotten that o...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 19:49:00
|
63. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
Tippia wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Tippia wrote: you happen to notice that none of what you listed is in any way related to cache scraping? And what does cache scraping do that lets me do illegal things? No-one knows until someone figures ...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 19:26:00
|
64. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
Tippia wrote: you happen to notice that none of what you listed is in any way related to cache scraping? And what does cache scraping do that lets me do illegal things?
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 19:14:00
|
65. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
CCP Peligro wrote: Code injection bots place additional strain on our systems. They are detrimental to you, the legitimate players ability to enjoy EVE Online. That is why we have these rules in place. We'll further elaborate on this topic duri...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 18:48:00
|
66. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
Roime wrote: I think you missed the part of the EULA considering cache scraping, which hasn't changed with this announcement. It's always been bannable. From http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=734561&page=1#9: CCP Li...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 18:31:00
|
67. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
CCP Peligro wrote: Stillman is not in charge of the people with the ban button, he is CCPs Security Analyst. Our boss is GM Solomon, VP of Customer Relationship Management. The word comes from Team Security as well as CCPs Legal department. ...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 18:26:00
|
68. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
CCP Peligro wrote: In the meantime, CCP confirms that we will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 18:11:00
|
69. Sticky:Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
CCP Stillman wrote: Uppsy Daisy wrote: Half the player population are now breaking the EULA. Nice job CCP. This really is pathetic. How can you pop up and say half the player base are breaking the EULA and we will 'enforce at our discretion...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 17:38:00
|
70. Malcanis for CSM 8 (no troll this time) - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
CSM5 only did that by making nullsec go "hey, morons, step away from the keyboard and let us show you how it's done", though. :v:
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 12:42:00
|
71. Malcanis for CSM 8 (no troll this time) - in Jita Park Speakers Corner [original thread]
It's very, very easy to consider CSM7 as an ineffective CSM, simply because the only major thing I've seen the CSM7 being particularly involved in (not that I've been paying that much attention, but still) was the STV-gate.
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.18 12:22:00
|
72. Kill rights question - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Xercodo wrote: Karl Hobb wrote: Wacktopia wrote: What? You have to activate your own kill rights now?!?! I don't get killed enough to test this. :( Surely that's misinformation? No, that was part of the original design so that everythi...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.16 07:43:00
|
73. Kill rights question - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Anything which gives you a suspect rating yields a killright. That is completely wrong. Crap. I meant criminal, you (and everyone else who corrected me) are completely correct.
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.16 07:30:00
|
74. Kill rights question - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Velicitia wrote: Kill Right -> IIRC you only get this when you lose your ship (in hisec?) without shooting someone. Kill Mail -> if you didn't shoot him, no KM for you. Otherwise, look in your character sheet -> combat log -> kills...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.15 14:16:00
|
75. Add a warning: not a whine or complaint - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
This is like the mandatory "Warning: Coffee is hot" label on coffee cups, because otherwise they'll get sued whenever someone spills their coffee and gets burnt.
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.15 14:14:00
|
76. Lets face it: NOT VOTING IN CSM8 IS A VOTE FOR NULL SEC BLOCKS - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Katran Luftschreck wrote: Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. I suppose even mentioning the words "T20" and "Aurora" counts as "rumor mongering" too? Might want to send your people to edit that wikipedi...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.14 03:37:00
|
77. Lets face it: NOT VOTING IN CSM8 IS A VOTE FOR NULL SEC BLOCKS - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
El 1974 wrote: The last CSM had the most horrible ideas written down in some document they supported unanimously. Which ideas were these?
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.13 10:04:00
|
78. Lets face it: NOT VOTING IN CSM8 IS A VOTE FOR NULL SEC BLOCKS - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
DarthNefarius wrote: but I do feel like the system's rigged Remember when we told CCP that changing the system to a STV system wouldn't end well, or make it any harder to game? Yeah, about that...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.13 09:10:00
|
79. Lets face it: NOT VOTING IN CSM8 IS A VOTE FOR NULL SEC BLOCKS - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
The nullsec candidates thank you for your vote.
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.12 11:42:00
|
80. Lets face it: NOT VOTING IN CSM8 IS A VOTE FOR NULL SEC BLOCKS - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Frying Doom wrote: It is a well known fact that Null CSM candidates sacrifice virgins at every Summit. I postulate that we do not sacrifice ourselves, therefore this statement is at best only partially true. :colbert:
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.12 11:20:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |