There is nothing on the EULA that states that i am required to report a bot when i see one and there never will be because recognizing a BOT is by default done entirely by the use of circumstantial evidence. So you cannot punish me because i haven't reported someone who i can't prove with 100% certainty is a bot.

And since nobody is OBLIGED to report a bot, they can't punish anyone from strongly suggesting that someone else under his command doesnt do it either. Reporting a bot is your right? Well, so is speaking in local chat... and nobody does jackshit about alliance leaders who kick members for speaking in local chat.


AND BY THE WAY, that makes me as pissed as the next guy. Botting may be bad, but not reporting on a bot when you see one is worse. Let alone threatening those who want to.

I missed the part where it said "Don't report bots." Can you bold it for me?

In a sense, players ARE obligated to report botting. Just because there is no threat to players who spot a bot and not report it doesn't mean it's OK to not report bots.

Moving on from that, has there been any bot banned at all from no petition raised about it?

Has CCP banned bots from no leads what so ever? Think about it.

TL;DR OP selectively cannibalized what Endie said in his announcement to try and smear goons

"Blue-On-Blue Violence

One of our illustrious members (let's call him "Ibertizzle") keeps losing Tengus to Russians and French people. This is a sensitive - even a touchy - subject, so let me say that while he is, indeed, a keen ratter - a very keen ratter if we are honest - we have one rule in Goonswarm: we don't **** other goons. Oh and we don't play cop for CCP in their own game by reporting or petitioning goons, either: that's Darius Johnson's job. So two rules. And there's the one about how nobody mentions the Mittani's occasional chin tuft; and the localised No Digis or DBRBs rules. I could go on. Ok, on reflection we live in a hidebound and overly legislated nanny state. But we definitely don't **** goons. Now I know that "Ibertizzle" has probably just been insulting people constantly in local and challenging them to 1 v 7s at the sun. Which is fine: honour demanded that he repeatedly die for his offences.

But if it were the case that he had been ratting just a little too exuberantly for peoples' liking, or if he had offended them by consistently ignoring their conversation requests for a brief window of, say, seventeen or eighteen hours, for instance, then it would be goon-******* to report him or to kill him. This will land you and your corp in trouble as all we know is that someone shot blues. And by allowing one, well-justified blue-shooting case to go unpunished we basically open the portal to a hellish other-dimension of horror and chaos which ends with "hilariously" wrecked amok freighters on the VFK undock. Which sounds good but involves a lot of paperwork.

The correct approach is to speak to your CEO, who will submit form 240a together with the mandatory handling fee of 150 million ISK to the overworked diplomacy team, who will curse me loudly for putting that in there then go about finding a solution. Trust me: they have his number on speed-dial by now."

You just noticed I have "Goonswarm Federation" under my name?

You just noticed I have "Goonswarm Federation" under my name?

I dont bot, nor do I support it, but is it every ******* corp or alliance's job to police this game?

No. It's CCP's.

That's all I get from the statement in the OP.

Test alliance does the same thing, one time a old corp mate of mine found a botter and killed him... it turned out to be leetcheese, a military director of test at the time, someone also reported him... which resulted in the guy loosing about... idk 5-15 bil...

Regardless to say, test forced the corp to kick him...

So yeah, its common practice within that coalition that your not allowed to kill or report botters if they are blue

Yes, what is Fatal Ascention doing about Dec Co's bots? Ignoring them i bet.

Either they are responsible for bot reporting/management and must pay the penalty (as an alliance) if caught or they are not and must allow the individual do their thing without fear of retribution due to corp policy if they do.

Can't have it both ways.

Do I really need to link false dichotomy here? Really?

There's nothing in the EULA or TOS saying that you can't tell others not to report rulebreakers, or that you can't punish people who do.

Either they are responsible for bot reporting/management and must pay the penalty (as an alliance) if caught or they are not and must allow the individual do their thing without fear of retribution due to corp policy if they do.

Weren't you defending Goon botting a few days ago? I made the claim that it's logical to assume that MIttens finances his life style not from being a retired lawyer (he's like how old? 15?) but from his RMT empire. And the assumption follows, that since in the past year CCP has made arbitrary game design decisions that actively reduce their competition/increase Goons' RMT profits, that a few key devs are in the pocket of the Goons.

edit: and unless Sreegs is actively cheating for his old buddies, reporting botters is anonymous. And if Sreegs is actively cheating and you get banned for your anonymous report, the rest of EVE needs to know.

Alliances are not responsible for the actions of an individual.
You can't ban a 100 or 6000 person alliance because a Corporation in that alliance has a botter.

You can ban the botter.

Yes GSF leadership is once again showing there poor character, no surprise there.

But nobody can force you to do anything in this game.
IF your alliance has a no report policy you have 3 choices.
1. Leave the alliance (and report it to CCP)
2. Don't look for botters so you aren't put in that position. (you would surprised how many people turn a blind eye)
3. Do what the alliance leaders say.

If you want GSF banned as a whole it is not going to happen and they are not the only alliance with botters.
End of story.

Alliances are not responsible for the actions of an individual.

Correct.

Except Goons HAVE assumed responsibility by saying "Thou shalt only report to thy leadership". Since when did Goons (or anyone) start accepting responsibility for actions against EULA violations?

They are VERY quick to say it's CCP's problem ("we're not cops for CCP") but disallow CCP intervention as a policy.

Correct.

Except Goons HAVE assumed responsibility by saying "Thou shalt only report to thy leadership". Since when did Goons (or anyone) start accepting responsibility for actions against EULA violations?

They are VERY quick to say it's CCP's problem ("we're not cops for CCP") but disallow CCP intervention as a policy.