EVE Search - Reporting from the front line of the Bot-War

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Reporting from the front line of the Bot-War

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 26 post(s)
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.05 09:48:00 - [1] Originally by: NinjaSpud Assuming the above poll is accurate...The battle front looks in favor of the macro ratters right now. However, it is early into 'the war'. Let's hope CCP's slow burn will catch up with the ratters. So far there is zero effect on ratting bots. If anything, ratbot activity has increased in the systems I'm watching. If they can't catch the ratbots in these systems (for example 6 jumps in 48 hours, continuous ratting 23/7) then ratting bot users have very little to fear. We'll see but CCP don't have unlimited time - or goodwill - from the playerbase.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:29:00 - [2] Originally by: NinjaSpud The other website, the one that chesty got that quote from, has HUNDREDS of users. I'm going as far to say that they are just as popular as the other two websites. From now on they are "Website C" and I will montior them That website is currently the subject of a Nominet case. I was bored The naughty boy decided to pretend to be a non-trading individual which allows you to opt out your personal details from a .uk domain. Once the whois was populated it was rapidly apparent that the details weren't right - Nominet is now dealing with the registrar rather than the registrant to properly identify him. Once that's done if he does prove to be a UK resident then Trading Standards can come enquire why the website doesn't comply with the Distance Selling Regulations, and Revenue & Customs can come ask him why he didn't declare any of the Paypal income. If he can't be indentified then the domain will be suspended and then cancelled. I reckon he's got an annual income of maybe ú20k from this website which would be a rather nice tax-free income mmmm? I know I could do with an extra 20k a year for sure Personal information removed. Zymurgist
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:42:00 - [3] As the whois registrant info has been removed then google publicdemands then utilise the Nominet whois facility. That will give you the COMMERCIAL not personal details that were in the previous post. Again I note that it is a legal requirement in England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that people who utilise .co.uk domains for trading purposes MUST give accurate and complete information. That information is publically available. Elsewhere sadly.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:12:00 - [4] Edited by: Othran on 05/04/2011 16:14:26 Edited by: Othran on 05/04/2011 16:13:31 Edited by: Othran on 05/04/2011 16:13:00 Originally by: Chesty McJubblies Othran, nice work. The Zymgthingy-deleted info was, of course, captured. o7 The thing is that its utterly trivial to do, so no big deal. If you EVER see a .co.uk domain (or indeed any other .uk domain) where something is being sold, whether its services or goods, then that website MUST display the name of the company/trader, the postal address of the company/trader and the telephone number. Its not optional, nor does it depend on being paid in pounds, ISK, turnips or whatever. If you sell anything then you must disclose who you are. Now the website side of things is dealt with by Trading Standards (who normally are too overloaded to do anything), but if there's no address on the website then odds-on the domain is registered to a "Non-trading individual who has opted their details out". Whois will show that up. The domain side of things is dealt with by Nominet, who are quite happy to deal with stuff like this. Simply put "Populate whois" in the subject, give a link in the body to the website and state its being used for commercial use. They WILL sort it out within 5 working days. Its the main reason why trading from a .co.uk domain is considered less "risky" than a .com when you're first setting up merchant accounts. You ARE traceable or at worst can be shutdown pretty fast, unlike .com which is whack-a-mole territory, mainly due to US registrars not checking anything other than a credit card. Edits for multiple typos
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:50:00 - [5] Originally by: Burnharder Originally by: Malcanis Excellent. Report him to the Inland Revenue - they're currently rather keen on getting every penny from tax dodgers. This is exactly the kind of action that hits the botting community at it's heart. Especially if said community is also earning undeclared income from RMT ISK... I have a friend at HMRC and accoring to him the IR are pretty clued up when it comes to paypal. I would very much doubt there's a need to report him. Paypal will given the IR their figures in any case, as part of their own audit. Anyone in the UK who uses Paypal and actually TRUSTS them might want to ask why they remain domiciled in Lichtenstein (IIRC) for European operations. Here's a hint, its not to do with taxes Personally I'd rather open an account with a random bank in some African dictatorship, you'd probably have more consumer rights Anyway Revenue & Customs are pretty useless at detecting anything unless someone points them at it. This is a pretty open goal though so we'll see. I suspect he'll just drop the domain and hope for the best. We'll see.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:27:00 - [6] Edited by: Othran on 05/04/2011 17:28:38 Originally by: NinjaSpud Reporting him will only hurt him if he hasn't been paying taxes right? What if he's been a good citizen and reported correctaly on his taxes as "personal income" or something like that? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, but will it do any good? He has incorrect personal info on the domain registration which ostensibly makes him out to be a "non-trading individual" at an address in a postcode where nobody with "Grant" has lived at for years according to the electoral roll. What do you reckon the odds are of him paying tax on the Roidripper bots?
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:42:00 - [7] Originally by: Ranger 1 Hmmm, good question. I would think that if he is leaving that kind of paper trail that it would open him up to various types of litigation due to making cash on someone elses intellectual property. I could be very wrong about that, but it would seem to make sense considering CCP's stance with 3rd party software developers for other apps that interact with their software. That being said, because of the nature of the product it is doubtful that he has filed this income properly. You guys are US - I can tell due to your fear of the IRS Revenue & Customs over here are institutionally incompetent. I have to re-iterate this - if you find a .uk address selling goods or services for any sort of remuneration (turnips, horse**, whatever) then the same rules apply. IF YOU USE A .UK DOMAIN TO SELL AND DON'T FULLY DISCLOSE YOUR DETAILS THEN YOU ARE IN BREACH OF THE DOMAIN CONTRACT AND ALSO IN BREACH OF THE LAW WITHIN THE UK & NI.**
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:30:00 - [8] Edited by: Othran on 06/04/2011 12:31:32 I can only assume the people going on about chargebacks and EULA not being valid have actually tried this stuff? Having had experience of merchant accounts I can assure you that chargebacks are rarer than rocking horse **** if you keep your records straight. The MERCHANT is the CC company customer, not you. The only major exception to this rule is the hotel industry where chargebacks on "guaranteed bookings" (ie no-shows) are common (this is the UK I'm talking about). Regarding the EULA - possibly the only problem CCP would ever have is that the server (means of business) is located in the UK, not Iceland. As such an argument could be made that the law of England & Wales should prevail rather than the law of Iceland. The UK being the way it is, such a challenge is unlikely to ever happen, which is a good thing really as Iceland is probably a damn sight cheaper to bring a case
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:19:00 - [9] Originally by: Darteis Elosia Edited by: Darteis Elosia on 07/04/2011 12:08:24 The fact that CCP has turned it up a notch against botters is great and the economy of eve will hopefully deflate quite a lot. Imagine how awesome fleet fights would be if a fleet would not be 90% battlehips but instead, some battleships, some more battlecruiser, alot of cruisers and a lot of frigates! That won't happen unless the time dilation proposal floated at Fanfest happens. People will still fly max alpha BSs in sov war because they're basically the cheapest (and probably best in most cases) option for the job - and there's so many people with max researched BPO/BPCs that they'll stay that way. There's so much "spare" ISK around that even if the cost of a BS went up 40%, it'd make little difference to most nullsec dwellers.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:34:00 - [10] Originally by: Darteis Elosia And with the recent changes in true sec rating and how sanctums work, the war coffers of major alliances will thin out when more wars occur. I generally don't bother with PVE, but in Provi last year people were making 300-500mill/day and still having time to go PvP. I think you're probably underestimating the amount of personal wealth there is out there. There's people I know that could lose ten T2-fitted BSs a day, every day for months and it still wouldn't worry them. My hope would be that any loss of revenue/minerals would hit supercap usage first, which has frankly got bloody silly (and compulsory). Anyway well off-topic....

Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.11 07:51:00 - [11] Nice to see I'm not annoying him at all NinjaSpud Also nice to see he's acknowledged his "other half" Nominet case still open, takes them a while but they'll get there. As will HMRC, not as if you can lose that lovely paper trail at Paypal mmm?
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.11 13:41:00 - [12] Originally by: Araknus Prime Edited by: Araknus Prime on 11/04/2011 12:17:58 *** Off topic warning *********** Originally by:** Othran Nominet case still open, takes them a while but they'll get there. As will HMRC, not as if you can lose that lovely paper trail at Paypal mmm? Unfortunately as Iceland has voted not to repay the debt to the UK tak payer caused by their terrible banking methods I wonder how concerned HMRC will be with someone who may be damaging a game owned by an Icelandic company :) News Article on vote not to repay (by the way that is tongue in cheek in case that is not obvious to some) I do have to ask myself if your have a vote to pay more tax or not who would ever vote yes to that? I want to have votes like that before they spend my taxes on stuff as well. Well done Iceland. Here's hoping Ireland is next and finds the balls to tell the (German Landesbanks in their case) banks to **** off too.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.11 17:15:00 - [13] Originally by: Malcanis HMRC dont care if you're selling belt-fed orphan processors to pet food companies owned by the descendants of Dr ***** so long as you're paying your taxes. Indeed but the default choice of currency (dollars rather than Euros) suggests he's probably not where he appears to be. If he's US/Canadian then maybe it'll catch up with him - Paypal have to retain 6 years data relating to payments made to a .uk registered client anyway. If they can't catch up with him he'll lose the .uk domain and the residents of the Dartford address will get a load of hassle from HMRC. In fact that address will end up pretty much credit blacklisted - rightly or wrongly I don't much care really - its trivial for me to push the buttons to set each process in train. It'll be a fair old time between stages but its just another chancer so ** him.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.11 17:35:00 - [14] Originally by: NinjaSpud Originally by: Othran I don't much care really - its trivial for me to push the buttons to set each process in train. I agree Othran, waste of time. I have a feeling we've "Pushed a few buttons" anyway I suspect a few more might get pushed once the owners of "Grant"'s alleged home get the knock on the door from Revenue & Customs... Still got to see who paid the registrars bills yet. We'll get there though as this is utterly trivial to do.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.14 09:53:00 - [15] Originally by: Malcanis So I read on a certain forum beginning with 'K' that the alliance leadership of a certain rouge-tinted overlordy kind has been permabanned for "sustained EULA violations"; 11 characters, including 2 with Titans. About fscking time as well! I do hope its true
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.14 14:15:00 - [16] It would appear dotlan has been having problems recording npc kills so the figures are somewhat skewed. Whether that relates to some of the routing problems of late or otherwise - don't know. Its worth clicking on your favourite ratbot system and look at the graph. For the ones I look at I don't really see much reduction in the npc kills when the graph is working. I hear plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth (second-hand) but I get the impression that there's basically a load of isk laundering going on now. NB - I don't mean RMT, I mean people trying to sanitise their prior bot income. Once that's done we'll see what happens. Its not rocket science and hopefully purging mining bots and RMT isn't all that's on the table....
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.15 15:26:00 - [17] Edited by: Othran on 15/04/2011 15:26:31 Originally by: NinjaSpud Othran, somehow you're getting more tears then I am. Wear this insult badge proudly, you've really ****ed them off. I suspect I know the reason for the latest wailing and gnashing of teeth, but for once I'm saying nothing for now about it. "The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind small" is all the hint I'm giving
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 07:33:00 - [18] Edited by: Othran on 19/04/2011 07:34:59 Little update on publicdemands : The whois is now correctly populated with the name and address of the person who paid the registrar's bills. That person is legally responsible for how the domain is operated in England & Wales. Want to go see who's behind the RoidRipper bots? Go to : http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/whois/ and put the publicdemands domain in. Time to see if Revenue & Customs know about Mr Mercer's little sideline - anyone want a bet that someone who lied about the domain registration to conceal his identity actually told R&C that he was trading within the 3 month period specified by law? tl;dr stage 1 and stage 2 completed (as promised). Stage 3 about to be initiated, hope he saved some pennies for the fines
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 12:39:00 - [19] Originally by: Ingvar Angst Last night a corp-mate was mining ice in Minmatar space (I think.. the ice that produces Hydrogen) and noticed that there were 31 others ships there mining. Looks like a ban expired perhaps and they're at it again? Yeah I've been hearing similar moans in Heimatar. I reckon people have switched to another mining bot when their ban expired as they KNOW RoidRipper gets them banned. I guess now we get to see : a) what the progress is on detection of other bots; b) whether the second ban works, for it doesn't appear the first one does. My personal opinion is that the current ban policy is too lenient and needs a bit of a tweak. If banned people have downloaded a different bot and are using it after the first ban expired then I think CCP should be looking at a permaban. Its not like they had the old bot still installed and got tempted to use it for a couple of days - anyone who has actively sought out ANOTHER piece of software to cheat with should NOT be given any more chances. We'll see
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 13:05:00 - [20] Originally by: Xtreem well they have good reason to carry on.. they know they have another ban before its a permaban! Its a valid point you make. I haven't really thought it through but maybe you're right, 3 strikes and you're out for botting is too much. Maybe something like : 1) First ban = 3 days for exploits/harassment/etc and 7 days for botting; 2) Second ban = 30 days for exploits/harassments/etc and permaban for botting; 3) Third ban = permanent ban for any offence. However like I say I haven't thought that through so you can probably poke a load of holes in it.

Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 14:01:00 - [21] Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/04/2011 13:29:17 Aditionally afaik CCP still doesnt remove assets on the account they ban for botting, let alone on the main account. Aditionally also I heard nothing about banning the mains instead of only banning the ones running the bots. So yeah there is not much reason for them to step if CCP allows botting Yeah I haven't really seen enough in the way of results from the "security team" to convince me to stick around. RoidRipper was a great success for them (and well done for it) but most of the players never go near ice fields or asteroid fields for the purposes of mining. So while it was well executed and got the low-hanging fruit (ie complacent idiots) its a very limited success. I'm sure they believe that they are making a difference but I suspect a lot of the "difference" they are making is to internal company culture. That's probably good for the long-term (think years, not months) but its not really good enough to deal with the current issues as perceived by a significant number of (real) players. Still hanging around in hope but not for much longer.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 14:17:00 - [22] Originally by: Solstice Project That doesn't make any sense. Black&Bottom-WideScreen was removed quite some time ago. Sounds to me like he copied a bit of code from somewhere else and its ancient
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 14:35:00 - [23] Originally by: Grakhan I find this thread hilarious. All of this anger at people who don't want to go through the boring mechanics of mining? Try reading next time as most of the people who posted aren't miners mmmm? I couldn't care less about mining bots as all they are doing is moving isk about. There is NO new isk creation from mining bots. Likewise "npc loot" drops. I couldn't care less if someone comes up with a bot to do that - oh wait they have in the drone regions as the loot is minerals and there aren't any bounties. I want to see an END to new isk being generated by npc bounties. Get rid of belt/plex/anomaly rat bounties now. Just do it. Then the only major sources of new isk are mission bounties and insurance. Its a lot easier to design missions that aren't bottable than the whole game. Leave the wormholes as they are - no local balances out the risk/reward. tl;dr deal with new ISK sources FIRST
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 14:53:00 - [24] Originally by: Furb Killer So what that there is no new ISK creation? If I use a hack that makes me able to teleport arround like a GM that also does not generate ISK, hell by preventing me from dying there is less insurance payout, so less isk source. Is it then okay if i do that? What do you think those enormous supercap fleets are produced by? For a very significant part by minerals from mining/drone region bots. They affect me, and I really dont care then if they are bought with ISK from bots or built with minerals from bots (or both). Then you go ahead and you add more incentives to run bots by making it pretty much impossible to earn your ISK in 0.0, briliant idea there sherlock... Are you really this clueless?
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 15:05:00 - [25] Originally by: Furb Killer Looks more like the one who is clueless is you, who is here defending the bots responsible for the ammoutn of supercaps ingame right now, all hacks that do not directly generate ISK, and who wants to remove pretty much all 0.0 income making it an empty wasteland only used by bots. Who the ** is defending bots you clueless piece of ? Me? Ahahahahaha that'll be right. ** off.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 15:21:00 - [26] Originally by: Ranger 1 Quote: I couldn't care less about mining bots as all they are doing is moving isk about. There is NO new isk creation from mining bots. While I do get the gist of what you are trying to say, I believe mining (bots) do indeed inject new isk into the economy. Roids are a regenerating, harvestable resource in the game (just like NPC rats). You don't buy the ore, you harvest it from nothing (in essence) and then sell it, refine and sell it, or build with it and sell the product... but there is no initial outlay of isk. It creates isk, again, just as NPC rats do with loot drops (although not to the same extent as there are no bounties obviously). You're wrong. Mining generates ore. Nothing else. The ore is worthless without someone willing to buy it - as is whatever you can make with it. The isk that someone pays for your ore ALREADY EXISTS in the game. Bounties are ISK. You don't need anyone to do anything. The ISK is created from npcs as ISK and if we're talking sov space then there's no reason at all that Concorde should be paying it. Bump the low-sec bounties if balance is required. There are two main problems here with botting : 1) Inflation* caused by out of control ISK sources; 2) Personal/alliance gain. I'm not going to go into all this again but if you think ore is "new" ISK then you don't understand the Eve economy. The #1 problem IMHO for now is 1) and yes 2) is a serious problem in the east but start clamping down on money supply then RMT is impacted too. Meh CCP will do what they will (or probably won't).... *don't tell me it doesn't exist when I have small faction stuff that has doubled in value over a year. Hell RF points are 50% up on what they were last year
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 15:34:00 - [27] Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/04/2011 15:32:33 Quote: don't tell me it doesn't exist when I have small* faction stuff that has doubled in value over a year. Hell RF points are 50% up on what they were last year And i got faction stuff that halved in worth. My CNR My kronos, Learn to READ.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 15:49:00 - [28] Originally by: Furb Killer Originally by: Othran Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/04/2011 15:32:33 Quote: don't tell me it doesn't exist when I have small* faction stuff that has doubled in value over a year. Hell RF points are 50% up on what they were last year And i got faction stuff that halved in worth. My CNR My kronos, Learn to READ. My god you are stupid... That CNR and kronos reduced in price doesnt mean my small faction stuff didnt decrease in price. Not to mention it is compeltely irrelevant since your argument was that ISK inflation was a clear problem, as shown by the price of a few of your faction items. But if ISK inflation was a clear problem it should be visible on all items, not just a few select ones. You're defending what? Remind me again? Its NOT removing bounties from belt rats in sov space yes? Which is pretty much what everyone in this thread who referenced a dotlan set of npc kills stats is talking about? I've made my mind up about you old lad (been wondering for about 10 days or so) - you're another talking shop trying to obfuscate the targets. Keep trying sunshine - people can contrast what you say and what I say easy enough. Make your own minds up people - nobody much cares one way or another anyway.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 16:07:00 - [29] All bots degrade the effort a (real) player puts in. The bots which generate new ISK degrade the effort of ALL real players. The bots which generate in-game resources degrade the effort of all real players in that area. You can also argue that RMT'rs would target new isk as it has been pretty much risk-free - provided you pay the rent.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.04.19 17:33:00 - [30] Originally by: Furb Killer Meanwhile your first sentence is impossible to understand I've noticed this you know - you seem to be quite capable of understanding people until a certain point is reached I'll let the masses decide - or not which is more probable

Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.05.05 18:46:00 - [31] Ninjaspud - like you I have been busy IRL. On the RR subject I received a case number from HMRC (UK tax people) so game on. HMRC are now targeting SME companies where the financial records aren't entirely accurate - or are suspected not to be so. It is in fact a blitz to get some revenue into the bankrupt coffers of UK plc. You would have thought they'd have done this before but the tax people in the UK are either incompetent or utterly corrupt - take your pick. Anyway the tl;dr is that Revenue & Customs have a blitz on to get revenue in fast and there's a case open against someone I can't name here. Should work well I feel
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.05.11 13:11:00 - [32] Originally by: Mikk36 Quote: PublicDemands For Sale www.publicdemands.co.uk domain is for sale, for anyone who wants to carry on the eve bot legacy. Othran, good work :) Thanks - the people are Nominet are REALLY helpful once you explain the situation It was just good timing really - I was bored, fed up with botters and had some spare time. If it happened now I probably wouldn't. Ratters are unaffected largely - far as I can tell. It was always likely to be the case. CCP probably have a detection method that works but its not accurate enough to stop support being overwhelmed. Back to working out whether a lintel being (in theory) 4% overloaded on a quoted 2100mm span means its just below max tolerance on 1800mm actual span when the manufacturer quotes the same spec for both. Bugger it, I'm going for beer
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.05.12 14:34:00 - [33] Originally by: Alicia Melchiottt In other words, you focused on each bot program separately. You figured out how each one worked, installed countermeasures, and moved on to the next program. I could be wrong but I think its far more likely that they're looking for a general profile rather than a specific bot program profile. Much the same as the "Use Advanced Heuristics" option does in AV programs - its looking for a pattern of behaviour which flags up potential unknown malware. The patterns of behaviour in mining bots are probably quite simplistic giving a very high probability of a successful match. Some mission bots (courier for example) will likewise display the same patterns. Ratbots are more complex - for example they "understand" blues and will warp to a POS/cloak when someone who isn't blue enters local. They will warp around belts, they can loot (most don't appear to unless its officer/faction spawn). In short they look a LOT more like a player than a minerbot does to software. I've seen enough to resub - gods only know why as I haven't done anything in months but I see enough of a change at CCP to give them a little trust again.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.05.12 15:01:00 - [34] Originally by: Malcanis I wish more people would remember this when they spout off the "Oh CCP will turn a blind eye to bots because they just want the subs" line. Obviously not all bots are supported by stolen credit cards, but clearly a significant number are. Also CCP potentially take a double hit if they accept a stolen CC. For the EU anyway you are not liable for transactions on the CC which you did not authorise. Visa/MC/whoever will do a merchant chargeback and for each one of those you get applied to your merchant account your risk factor goes up, and so do your merchant rates. Admittedly that's easy as pie to get around by using a proxy to take your payments but they're going to charge too and its all lost revenue.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.05.12 18:29:00 - [35] Originally by: Xtreem Anyway I am now sick of trusting people, so I am now asking for donations to setup a more secure website. NB - Xtreem is quoting someone else. This is so funny on so many levels. Epic
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.05.13 06:11:00 - [36] Originally by: w1z81t You took credit for something you did not do clearly because they are back online. Epic fail. Someone told me they were offline and said "well done". I thanked him. My intent was (still is) that the site owners REAL name and address became public knowledge (done) and that the UK tax people investigate him for tax evasion (happening). If he hadn't been a UK resident then I'd have got Nominet to suspend the domain but he was so best to leave the law to deal with him - and believe me they will, HMRC has a couple of schemes running to catch solo cowboys like this right now Now toddle off back to your rock and crawl under it.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.05.13 18:45:00 - [37] Mmmm lets not forget Claudio in all this. He's the man who's going to see to it that the wailing continues ;)
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.06.07 12:18:00 - [38] Originally by: John'eh What makes you think bot coders are smart enough to actually use polymorphic code? Money. There's a nice little article over at Krebs on adverts for "crypters" - who are guys that basically change the appearance of malware. Worth a read. CCP have Claudio who is there specifically to counter this sort of thing.
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.06.11 14:18:00 - [39] Originally by: Arnakoz to be fair, what you said is perfectly valid... only that it would take a massive investment of man-hours I'm not sure it would actually. You could quite easily filter out casual ratters by logging their wallets (bounties). Anyway it appears a better approach is being taken - well more direct anyway
Othran Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.06.15 13:22:00 - [40] Originally by: Memorya Edited by: Memorya on 15/06/2011 13:18:17 "IF" CCP bans every single RTM'er and boters, next day CCP closes down. You like it or not, thats how it goes and thats why they will never ever ban all bot's, becouse they need MONEY. Cool. You'll be gone then and that can only improve things

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.