Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
788
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 20:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's a dirty tactic, but we all know it happens. Often in large fleets I've heard an FC tell the fleet to convo spam a certain character (usually the FC of the opposing fleet) causing their client to lag out severely or even crash. This works even if that character has their client set to auto-reject conversation requests, as the requests still get sent to their client.
The conversation requests of course cause the incoming traffic to saturate the target machine so much it can't respond to legitimate traffic. This is literally what is known as a denial-of-service attack.
Previous petition responses, however, indicate that this is not considered an exploit. How does that make any sense? I understand that our coalition and at times our alliance is guilty of doing the same, but that doesn't make it right. When I've been in fleets where the FC has said to convo spam a certain person I've never done it. The EULA specifically states:
http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.asp
Quote:You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System. "The System" here refers to the client system, which includes the server and all player clients connected to the server. Furthermore:
Quote:User Content that you cause to be communicated to the System may not... (iv) contain any viruses, Trojan horses, disabling code, worms, time bombs, "clear GIFs," cancelbots or other computer programming or routines that are intended to, or which in fact, damage, detrimentally interfere with, monitor, intercept or expropriate any data, information, packets or personal information. Conversation spamming clearly violates both of these terms of the EULA. The relevant sections are 6.A.1 and 10.C.iv
So the question is, shouldn't this be declared an exploit? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jim Era
4061
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 20:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
I don't understand why people have to be ****** just to win. Its about the experience, not the victory. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
681
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 20:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jim Era wrote:I don't understand why people have to be ****** just to win. Its about the experience, not the victory.
The victory is the experience.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
790
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 20:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jim Era wrote:I don't understand why people have to be ****** just to win. Its about the experience, not the victory. I agree. I'm not saying that my coalition/alliance is innocent of this either. I've been told in a few fleets to convo spam the FC of an opposing fleet. I don't do it though, because to me it's practically the definition of an exploit. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1272
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It's a dirty tactic, but we all know it happens. Often in large fleets I've heard an FC tell the fleet to convo spam a certain character (usually the FC of the opposing fleet) causing their client to lag out severely or even crash. This works even if that character has their client set to auto-reject conversation requests, as the requests still get sent to their client. The conversation requests of course cause the incoming traffic to saturate the target machine so much it can't respond to legitimate traffic. This is literally what is known as a denial-of-service attack. Previous petition responses, however, indicate that this is not considered an exploit. How does that make any sense? I understand that our coalition and at times our alliance is guilty of doing the same, but that doesn't make it right. When I've been in fleets where the FC has said to convo spam a certain person I've never done it. The EULA specifically states: http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/eula.aspQuote:You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System. "The System" here refers to the client system, which includes the server and all player clients connected to the server. Furthermore: Quote:User Content that you cause to be communicated to the System may not... (iv) contain any viruses, Trojan horses, disabling code, worms, time bombs, "clear GIFs," cancelbots or other computer programming or routines that are intended to, or which in fact, damage, detrimentally interfere with, monitor, intercept or expropriate any data, information, packets or personal information. Conversation spamming clearly violates both of these terms of the EULA. The relevant sections are 6.A.1 and 10.C.iv So the question is, shouldn't this be declared an exploit? Let me address this:
The EULA clearly says "You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System."
Sending somebody a convo is an action "you" perform. The system is designed to support a conversation request from "you." One request does not break the game. Likewise, each of your fleetmates also may convo anyone they choose, so long as they don't do so in a way that causes their single response to be re-propagated automatically or in some other way cause lag to the system, they have performed a legitimate function of the game. To whit, even the FC calling for everyone to do this is not an exploit, per se, because they haven't directly taken action that presents a disproportionate load. In fact, when the FC attempts to convo the target, their request is just as valid as any other request which has been sent.
So in short, the answer is "you" aren't doing anything "wrong." Only taken as a whole does the attack cause a strain on the system, which isn't any different than jumping your giant fleet into jita and enacting lag and ti-di. It's just a natural part of a lot of people playing a video game in a persistent environment.
My 2 isk. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
792
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
In that same vein a "ping" generated by any single computer in a botnet is not illegitimate network usage, but thousands of pings from thousands of computers can be harmful and the wrongful act is by the person who controls the botnet. Similarly, the FC who orders their fleet to all convo a specific person at once is analogous to the botnet operator, and he is the person who has committed a wrong because not only is he using the accounts of a large amount of people with the result of causing service disruption, the service disruption is his actual intent. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:In that same vein a "ping" generated by any single computer in a botnet is not illegitimate network usage, but thousands of pings from thousands of computers can be harmful and the wrongful act is by the person who controls the botnet. Similarly, the FC who orders their fleet to all convo a specific person at once is analogous to the botnet operator, and he is the person who has committed a wrong because not only is he using the accounts of a large amount of people with the result of causing service disruption, the service disruption is his actual intent. His pilots. They are not bots.
They are players.
They are in control.
The owners of botnet computers...they aren't. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
792
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:In that same vein a "ping" generated by any single computer in a botnet is not illegitimate network usage, but thousands of pings from thousands of computers can be harmful and the wrongful act is by the person who controls the botnet. Similarly, the FC who orders their fleet to all convo a specific person at once is analogous to the botnet operator, and he is the person who has committed a wrong because not only is he using the accounts of a large amount of people with the result of causing service disruption, the service disruption is his actual intent. His pilots. They are not bots. They are players. They are in control. The owners of botnet computers...they aren't. Does that really make a difference? If anything them being in control makes them in the wrong as well, since they're complicit in the act. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1521
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:In that same vein a "ping" generated by any single computer in a botnet is not illegitimate network usage, but thousands of pings from thousands of computers can be harmful and the wrongful act is by the person who controls the botnet. Similarly, the FC who orders their fleet to all convo a specific person at once is analogous to the botnet operator, and he is the person who has committed a wrong because not only is he using the accounts of a large amount of people with the result of causing service disruption, the service disruption is his actual intent. His pilots. They are not bots. They are players. They are in control. The owners of botnet computers...they aren't. I just wanted to congratulate them on losing a fleet ... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:In that same vein a "ping" generated by any single computer in a botnet is not illegitimate network usage, but thousands of pings from thousands of computers can be harmful and the wrongful act is by the person who controls the botnet. Similarly, the FC who orders their fleet to all convo a specific person at once is analogous to the botnet operator, and he is the person who has committed a wrong because not only is he using the accounts of a large amount of people with the result of causing service disruption, the service disruption is his actual intent. His pilots. They are not bots. They are players. They are in control. The owners of botnet computers...they aren't. Does that really make a difference? If anything them being in control makes them culpable as well, since they're complicit in the act. It makes all the difference.
Do you really believe that if your FC asks you to convo a specific pilot that you are suddenly and inexplicably not allowed to perform this normal game function? Just because somebody asked you to?
That isn't a very sound position, and it's no wonder CCP doesn't classify it an exploit:
Because it's not. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
|
Jim Era
4068
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ok, not an exploit. Just a maneuver used by bad players who are unable to compete appropriately.
Therefore, whoever uses this technique is automatically the loser because how can you be taken seriously?
lol
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
793
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:In that same vein a "ping" generated by any single computer in a botnet is not illegitimate network usage, but thousands of pings from thousands of computers can be harmful and the wrongful act is by the person who controls the botnet. Similarly, the FC who orders their fleet to all convo a specific person at once is analogous to the botnet operator, and he is the person who has committed a wrong because not only is he using the accounts of a large amount of people with the result of causing service disruption, the service disruption is his actual intent. His pilots. They are not bots. They are players. They are in control. The owners of botnet computers...they aren't. Does that really make a difference? If anything them being in control makes them culpable as well, since they're complicit in the act. It makes all the difference. Do you really believe that if your FC asks you to convo a specific pilot that you are suddenly and inexplicably not allowed to perform this normal game function? Just because somebody asked you to? That isn't a very sound position, and it's no wonder CCP doesn't classify it an exploit: Because it's not. I believe that if my action knowingly causes a service disruption for another player, then yes, I'm not allowed to do it, even if it is regularly a normal game function. It's a perfectly sound position.
Warping away from someone who is attacking you is also a normal game function, but whenever that someone was CONCORD this wasn't allowed. Eventually CCP just changed it so that this was impossible, but previously CCP specifically stated that warping away from CONCORD was an exploit. Regardless of the fact that the game allowed you to do it just fine. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1275
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:21:00 -
[13] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:In that same vein a "ping" generated by any single computer in a botnet is not illegitimate network usage, but thousands of pings from thousands of computers can be harmful and the wrongful act is by the person who controls the botnet. Similarly, the FC who orders their fleet to all convo a specific person at once is analogous to the botnet operator, and he is the person who has committed a wrong because not only is he using the accounts of a large amount of people with the result of causing service disruption, the service disruption is his actual intent. His pilots. They are not bots. They are players. They are in control. The owners of botnet computers...they aren't. Does that really make a difference? If anything them being in control makes them culpable as well, since they're complicit in the act. It makes all the difference. Do you really believe that if your FC asks you to convo a specific pilot that you are suddenly and inexplicably not allowed to perform this normal game function? Just because somebody asked you to? That isn't a very sound position, and it's no wonder CCP doesn't classify it an exploit: Because it's not. I believe that if my action knowingly causes a service disruption for another player, then yes, I'm not allowed to do it, even if it is regularly a normal game function. It's a perfectly sound position. So you believe you are aware of the number of requests actually being sent, their timing and time-frame, and the victim's client machine's tolerance for load?
Because I have no idea at any given time whether or not somebody is being convo'd. Any attempt, ever, could potentially break their game. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
793
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:So you believe you are aware of the number of requests actually being sent, their timing and time-frame, and the victim's client machine's tolerance for load? Yes, if the FC tells you to do it and there's no rule against it, a lot of people in the fleet are going to be doing it. Discussion in this thread is specific to that situation.
Darth Gustav wrote:Because I have no idea at any given time whether or not somebody is being convo'd. Any attempt, ever, could potentially break their game. Of course, but that's not within the scope of this thread. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Kalen Vox
Veyr The Veyr Collective
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
I cannot imagine why people are popping up even to defend this, which, in my opinion is clearly an exploit.
Jetting a single can is not an exploit. A whole fleet jetting hundreds of cans to cause grid loading lag is. This we know.
Starting a single convo is not an exploit. A whole fleet starting hundreds of convos to cause lag is.
Simple.
|
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1279
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:So you believe you are aware of the number of requests actually being sent, their timing and time-frame, and the victim's client machine's tolerance for load? Yes, if the FC tells you to do it and there's no rule against it, a lot of people in the fleet are going to be doing it. Discussion in this thread is specific to that situation. Darth Gustav wrote:Because I have no idea at any given time whether or not somebody is being convo'd. Any attempt, ever, could potentially break their game. Of course, but that's not within the scope of this thread. For CCP's purposes, it certainly is. That's my point.
How is CCP going to act on this if there is no evidence of the FC's order?
Without evidence of the order (which happens on TS) what are they left with?
A bunch of attempts to convo somebody in local with you.
That's the point. Without evidence against the FC, this thread's whole premise is borked.
And CCP seem sensible enough to know they will rarely if ever get actual usable evidence for this.
So it remains not an exploit. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Zeomebuch Nova
Metalworks
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
set maxConvoReq 10 |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
794
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:So you believe you are aware of the number of requests actually being sent, their timing and time-frame, and the victim's client machine's tolerance for load? Yes, if the FC tells you to do it and there's no rule against it, a lot of people in the fleet are going to be doing it. Discussion in this thread is specific to that situation. Darth Gustav wrote:Because I have no idea at any given time whether or not somebody is being convo'd. Any attempt, ever, could potentially break their game. Of course, but that's not within the scope of this thread. For CCP's purposes, it certainly is. That's my point. How is CCP going to act on this if there is no evidence of the FC's order? Without evidence of the order (which happens on TS) what are they left with? A bunch of attempts to convo somebody in local with you. That's the point. Without evidence against the FC, this thread's whole premise is borked. And CCP seem sensible enough to know they will rarely if ever get actual usable evidence for this. So it remains not an exploit. You'd have to be seriously naiive to think that a whole bunch of people who all happen to be in the same fleet convoing a single person all at the same time are doing so for legitimate purposes and not actually trying to cause that person to lag out. In any case the intent doesn't matter, just as putting a huge number of cans or drones on gate isn't necessarily intended to cause lag. Suppose the can/drone droppers really just want to make it so cloaking ships can't activate their cloaking device. They still have to drop a huge number of cans/drones to do so, which causes lag, which is considered an exploit. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
586
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:In that same vein a "ping" generated by any single computer in a botnet is not illegitimate network usage, but thousands of pings from thousands of computers can be harmful and the wrongful act is by the person who controls the botnet. Similarly, the FC who orders their fleet to all convo a specific person at once is analogous to the botnet operator, and he is the person who has committed a wrong because not only is he using the accounts of a large amount of people with the result of causing service disruption, the service disruption is his actual intent. His pilots. They are not bots. They are players. They are in control. The owners of botnet computers...they aren't. Does that really make a difference? If anything them being in control makes them culpable as well, since they're complicit in the act. It makes all the difference. Do you really believe that if your FC asks you to convo a specific pilot that you are suddenly and inexplicably not allowed to perform this normal game function? Just because somebody asked you to? That isn't a very sound position, and it's no wonder CCP doesn't classify it an exploit: Because it's not.
Get thousands of your friends to willingly DDOS a real website and see if your IP classifies it as a DDOS. You can ask them as they cut the hardwire and hand you your termination notice.
From: Tommas De'Wins To: Cipher Jones Dude :) I got massives Basi hahahahahahaha |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2506
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:39:00 -
[20] - Quote
When riding into battle on my space steed I set it to automatically reject all convos. If you don't remember to do that you're asking to be spammed.
Victory at any cost! "A genius throws a Molotov cocktail and soon realizes that he's going to die choking in a maze of smoke and flame. A hero drinks a Molotov cocktail and soon realizes that if he does a split in midair, he can hit twice as many zombies per kick. Drunk hero wins again, wusses." ~Cracked.com |
|
Ohanka
Aggressive Narcissists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
184
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:39:00 -
[21] - Quote
Its not an exploit because you can A) ignore all invites and B) Block people.
Furthermore, you sir are an intellectual lightweight. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
794
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:42:00 -
[22] - Quote
RTFT. I specifically said in the first post that auto rejecting the invites doesn't work, your client has to receive the invite to reject it anyway and so you're still lagged out.
I guess this makes you the intellectual lightweight. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Ohanka
Aggressive Narcissists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
184
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
I read your title and not your post. I did not consider it to be of the intellectual calibre required for a person of my intellectual superiority and genius to reply to.
Good day to you sir.
(I shall now read your OP) |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2506
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ohanka wrote:I read your title and not your post. I did not consider it to be of the intellectual calibre required for a person of my intellectual superiority and genius to reply to.
Good day to you sir.
(I shall now read your OP)
Can we be friends? "A genius throws a Molotov cocktail and soon realizes that he's going to die choking in a maze of smoke and flame. A hero drinks a Molotov cocktail and soon realizes that if he does a split in midair, he can hit twice as many zombies per kick. Drunk hero wins again, wusses." ~Cracked.com |
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
219
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Kalen Vox wrote:I cannot imagine why people are popping up even to defend this, which, in my opinion is clearly an exploit.
Jetting a single can is not an exploit. A whole fleet jetting hundreds of cans to cause grid loading lag is. This we know.
Starting a single convo is not an exploit. A whole fleet starting hundreds of convos to cause lag is.
Simple.
So dropping 1,000 ships onto a gate is........
Half of Deklein was won because of lag. Intentional or otherwise. |
Ohanka
Aggressive Narcissists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
186
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
Touval Lysander wrote:Kalen Vox wrote:I cannot imagine why people are popping up even to defend this, which, in my opinion is clearly an exploit.
Jetting a single can is not an exploit. A whole fleet jetting hundreds of cans to cause grid loading lag is. This we know.
Starting a single convo is not an exploit. A whole fleet starting hundreds of convos to cause lag is.
Simple.
So dropping 1,000 ships onto a gate is........ Half of Deklein was won because of lag. Intentional or otherwise.
t's clear that the Committee has agreed that your new policy is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle. |
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:59:00 -
[27] - Quote
Intentions are the exploit, not mechanics. |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Intrepid Crossing
138
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 22:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
just a different form of E-war??? :-P |
Ohanka
Aggressive Narcissists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
187
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 22:07:00 -
[29] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:Ohanka wrote:I read your title and not your post. I did not consider it to be of the intellectual calibre required for a person of my intellectual superiority and genius to reply to.
Good day to you sir.
(I shall now read your OP) Can we be friends?
Yes. Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear. |
Nostradamouse Riraille
Blackreach. Talocan United
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 22:12:00 -
[30] - Quote
Set CSPA charge to 1 mill.
Be FC, Laugh... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |