You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.

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.

I don't understand why people have to be ****** just to win.
Its about the experience, not the victory.

I don't understand why people have to be ****** just to win.
Its about the experience, not the victory.

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

"The System" here refers to the client system, which includes the server and all player clients connected to the server.
Furthermore:

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?

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.

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.

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.


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.

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 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)

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.

Set CSPA charge to 1 mill.


Be FC, Laugh...

If this mechanic is fully proven to DDOS an opposing players client (I remember log-scrolling in DAoC being used to slow people down) then dear God why are people defending it?

Is the asshattery so bad in this game that anybody could defend it?


One more reason to eschew (finally, used that word) large fleets, the basement dwelling win-at-all-costs-because-my-life-sucks neckbeards' corporations, and their 0.0 space.

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!

The client still receives the request, blocking it just removes the GUI. So even with blocked your client could be affected.

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?

Nothing is appropriate in war, you do what you have to do to win.

Ah.

So everytime you crash or something bad happens suddenly, you need to immediately petition because someone(s) might have tried to convo spam you? Hm, sounds interesting.

... Often in large fleets I've heard an FC tell the fleet to convo spam a certain character ...

Omg, you guys started another thread? lol

Anyone else think it is funny that OP seems butthurt over the fact that he can just tick the auto reject invitations and it has eluded him so far? Please tell me you are using a Mac because then it would all make sense why you are crying about this.

I think it's even funnier you can't read.

I think it is even funnier that you are in RAZOR alliance and you make a whiny post.

/wrist much?

I can't do your reading for you, sorry. If you're trying to make yourself look smugly superior you're going to have to actually use more than two neurons and come up with an actual response.

Sarcasm nonwithstanding, what exactly are you doing in this thread?
You clearly misread my original post, so now you're just trying to distract from that fact in an attempt to keep yourself from looking foolish.

Are you really justifying a DDoS as a legitimate gameplay tactic? That's what this comes down to.

Yeah I know Goons do it a lot. We do it a lot. That doesn't make it right. It needs to stop.

I am not justifying anything. I am asking you why it is so difficult for you to tick that auto reject in the settings menu and you avoid the question by saying that I am intellectually inferior to you.

And whiny posts like yours attracts me like blood and guts in the water attracts sharks.

I didn't avoid the question. It was already answered before you ever posted here. In the very first post. Ticking the auto-reject does not prevent the client from receiving the request, it only removes the GUI and automatically rejects the request. There's still traffic generated which is what causes the lag.

Sounds like ECM to me.

If your internet is so bad that you get disconnected from mere requests (that still gets denied) to the client, you need to throw out that modem and come join us in the modern era of technology.

My 0.2 isk

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.

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.

Nothing is appropriate in war, you do what you have to do to win.

If you have to exploit to win, maybe you are on the wrong side of the war.

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 request 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.

Denial of service attacks are against the law is some countries, and well that's what this is.

It's probably too much work to fix this issue for CCP to acknowledge it as an exploit.

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)

I feel the need to reiterate that both sides have done this.

I think it's even funnier you can't read.

I feel the need to say that it doesn't matter who does or doesn't do it. It is still exploiting a mechanic for an unintended result.

I agree, but I was just responding to your quote.

So you're saying that Eve needs a Geneva Convention?

*Jovian Convention?

If you have to exploit to win, maybe you are on the wrong side of the war.

War isn't a pretty thing whether it's inside a game world or in real life. there are no real rules to it, you just do what you need to do to win. Ask any military force in the world about this.

I guess these restrictions are just one of those weird ideas we Europeans have about "civilization"...

This is kind of presumptuous, given that we're not exactly sure of the nature of the problem (client or network lag). I can't speak to any setups either, seeing as this has in fact never happened to me.

War isn't a pretty thing whether it's inside a game world or in real life. there are no real rules to it, you just do what you need to do to win. Ask any military force in the world about this.

If this mechanic is fully proven to DDOS an opposing players client (I remember log-scrolling in DAoC being used to slow people down) then dear God why are people defending it?

Is the asshattery so bad in this game that anybody could defend it?


One more reason to eschew (finally, used that word) large fleets, the basement dwelling win-at-all-costs-because-my-life-sucks neckbeards' corporations, and their 0.0 space.

How is that relevant?

I got that, but I don't think it weakens the arguments made against convobombing

Serious question for you James Amril-Kesh,

If you view convo spamming someone as being so bad, so against the law, so terrible. Why are you waiting till now to make this thread when your own main FC has been telling you guys to convo bomb Elo Knight for over a month now, maybe two. Why now bring it up? Why didn't you make this thread a long time ago?

Answer me that.

Also everyone else needs to please note that the battle where Razor lost 19 carriers iirc and a CSAA was in fact lost due to terrible placement of the carriers and the fact that they were only able to be cap stable for about two minutes before capping out, thus unable to rep. Anyone can go to the kill boards, plug in the fits they used on EFT and see in cold hard truth, they were terribly fit.

But yeah, answer the bolded questions James. We will all wait.

I don't really care about his motivation. He likely has bias but is offering some objective arguments. Marlona likely has equal bias but isn't providing or addressing any arguments.

thanks for the terrible off-topic implicit racism NPC forum posting alt

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

Why are you waiting till now to make this thread when your own main FC has been telling you guys to convo bomb Elo Knight for over a month now, maybe two. Why now bring it up? Why didn't you make this thread a long time ago?

Also everyone else needs to please note that the battle where Razor lost 19 carriers iirc and a CSAA was in fact lost due to terrible placement of the carriers and the fact that they were only able to be cap stable for about two minutes before capping out, thus unable to rep. Anyone can go to the kill boards, plug in the fits they used on EFT and see in cold hard truth, they were terribly fit.

Ignoring the fact the CFC have been using this tactic for a while now, ignoring the fact being convo bombed has not been proven to disconnect a players client,

ignoring the fact the reason their carriers were obliterated because they were not cap stable and ignoring the fact checking a simple box stops convo bombing dead in its tracks...

All I know is I find the motivation by the OP and his buddies for these threads to be driven solely because they made several mistakes that cost them to lose a carrier fleet several support fleets and a baby titan.

Trying to blame all that on convo bombing hoping their enemies are banned and all their ships and titan are replaced is asinine.

Actually, not so in real wars.

America, in any war they have fought since WWII, have refained from using maximum force even at the cost of losing a war, Vietnam for instance.

Hi there,

We've had some internal discussion about this and spoken to the GM team.

If you feel that people are trying to affect the performance or stability of your client, then you are always able to petition it and the GM team will investigate and deal with it appropriately.

Thread has been cleaned up now.

Thanks and fly safe.

OOC, if you experience lag and your client crashes in a fleet fight, does this indicate you should always suspect convo bombing and report it to the GM's?

Because the truth is it almost always happens during tidi, where there will be a lot of DC's and lag due to fleet fighting anyway.

I'm just wondering if there are any indications, if players have convo requests automatically set to be automatically blocked, that might clue a player in?

Maybe the block should be server-side?

If you're completely unimportant, chances are you weren't being convo bombed.

But if you were, say, FC, anchor, on-grid booster, logi anchor, or a triage carrier, the possibility is somewhat higher.

Blocking conversation requests server-side would also take care of this problem.

Hi,

Speaking as a player and in no way officially, I would say it's pretty obvious to know if you're convo -bombed because ... you know ... all the conversation requests that appear ?

Then again, it's not ever happened to me - I may just not be important enough

As I've said, if you suspect foul play then the GMs say it's ok to petition them!

Thanks and fly safe.

Hi Gustav,

Not intentionally; I don't have many people blocked anyway.

This is why it's best to take it to the GMs though - they can see the server logs and would know explicitly what has happened.

Again, speaking just as a player, here the rules are quite specific, with regards the Terms of use.

In particular point 16:
You may not do anything that interferes with the ability of other EVE Online subscribers to enjoy the game or web site in accordance with its rules. This includes, but is not limited to, making inappropriate use of any public channels within the game and/or intentionally creating excessive latency (lag) by dumping cargo containers, corpses or other items in the game world.

If you suspect blocked people are breaching that ruling, then again the GMs are the people who will know for sure.

So if everyone is blocked, how would you ever suspect such an attack?

Scenario:

You're in a fleet of capital ships, which comes upon an enemy fleet. You notice that whenever one of your capitals gets primaried, he disconnects from the game. You hear in TS/Mumble that they were convo spammed. Suddenly this happens to the next person who gets primaried, and the next. Everybody sets their client to auto-reject conversation requests, but the disconnects still happen.

That's one scenario where you could reasonably suspect such an attack.

Boat is gonna **** blood. lol

Edge cases. If it's an actionable item for GMs now, every single dc'd capsuleer is going to be peitioning this and I am shocked that everyone in this conversation doesn't intuitively know this.

If there were some clear indicator, then maybe it would make sense to have it be an actionable offense. But since the option is "leave yourself vulnerable" or "prevent yourself from being aware of it" the options are really lose/lose for players.

That means any reasonable scenario will be petitioned, whether it happened or not.

Okay? I'd rather he stop doing it too, but it's not as if he'd listen to me.


At the moment we're not faced with any better alternative, are we?
Unless you're maintaining that DoS attacks are legitimate gameplay.

DoS attacks inolve repetitive pings.

No, DoS attacks can take several forms. That's merely one form. They can also be done with single packets. There was a router exploit a while back whereby a specific string of text beginning with "DCC SEND" appearing anywhere in a TCP string on port 6667 (the port commonly used by IRC clients) would cause an input validation error, causing that person's router to crash.

And without a way to detect it, this is a can of worms.

Well you've mentioned the alternatives as being either leaving yourself vulnerable or having no way of knowing.

But if convo bombing worked on someone who was rejecting conversation requests automatically (which it would, since the traffic is still there), you're vulnerable no matter which you do. So there's really no point in auto-rejecting chat requests. So you'll know when you're being convo-bombed, the result is the same either way, except now you have more reason to believe you should petition.

And without a way to detect it, this is a can of worms.

Given that you're also a part of the CFC, I will assume that you're aware of the existence of spies.

FA defending exploits? Not surprised.

Actually if you read the thread you'd see that I think they need to deal with this server-side.

Then it goes away.

But no. You just do the ad-hominem thing.

Nice job.

You're probably missing my point. Spies won't be a source the GMs are going to refer to.

Like I said, not surprised one bit at all.

It could be proven to see if convo-bombing, even if rejecting is set, still creates traffic on the router.

Just follow the stream in Wireshark and look to see if packets flood in. I bet any corporation with a good plurality can do this.

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.

Hi Gustav,

Not intentionally; I don't have many people blocked anyway.

This is why it's best to take it to the GMs though - they can see the server logs and would know explicitly what has happened.

[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.

But hundreds do & spamming the convo does when performed multiple times by that single pilot.
0/10 bad trolling with bull crap justification
Any GM that used your justification should be fired

I don't see how it's an exploit. Game mechanic used as intended. We all just want to have a chat! It's a dirty tactic, yes. Still haven't seen anyone get banned for it and if anyone was to get banned, would you ban the FC or the entire fleet? But if they ban someone now, they have to ban them all. We're screwed.

That's mild seeing as this could potentially be considered illegal in several countries.

Someone's got a flair for hyperbole.

I'm sure something like this would be priority #1 for the FBI Cybercrime Task Force. Maybe Interpol would get involved to coordinate a multinational investigation.

Wow, somebody's completely unable to comprehend sarcasm.

Pretty sure there are no countries where this kind of crap would be even remotely considered a criminal matter, or a DoS under the letter of the law.

And you happen to be a legal expert?

You know what you're coming across as?

James Amril-Kesh: requested hundreds of times to convo-bomb, never petitions the people asking him to do so. Loses a carrier, makes a whiny threadnaught.

You sitting here claiming there's criminal acts being carried out is beyond stupid.

Since you're so serious, life and death about this issue, why don't you file a petition on your next FC who asks you to convo-bomb, and take a screenshot to show the rest of us just how seriously you take this issue?

You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.

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.

A better solution would be when you have your client set to auto reject convo's from people not in your address book they should be stopped at the server level so that they do not affect your client.

I cannot imagine why people are popping up even to defend this, which, in my opinion is clearly an exploit.

Deliberately causing a client to crash should be an exploit.

I'm relatively new to the game, but can't you just set the CSPA charge to 1 Billion ISK before you go on a roam (and back to 0 after)? This discourages spammers, and if they try to spam you, they'll notice that you just drained their whole wallet.

If the request is sent to the client even if auto-reject is on, then presumably it's also sent regardless of CSPA charge.

If that's not the case then this problem should be trivially easy to fix.