the closest he ever got was probably to create custom in-game-browser pages to streamline his workflow, meaning he would log into an alt, and update around 30 orders a minute for 10-20 minutes at a time.

3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

A step in the right direction. Now if only they'd punish more people "playing" like this. While i applaud that something is done to people macroing all over the market, it is not really defendible why this guy has to go when The Wis (and others like him) and his macro army can stay.

Maybe my impression is incorrect here, but I was imagining his "in-game browser script" to not be very different from how EVE-Central calculates profitable trade items for haulers. The reason I say that is arbitrary is because if you stretch it, simply opening a notepad and writing down "buy x units of y" could be considered



Now if he was automating keypresses and clicks, then I guess we can all agree it was wrong. But simply using a third party script that doesn't interact with the client, aka doesn't play the game for him, that should be ok.

I bet you can, under the right circumstances (not Jita). Go to "my orders"

Double-click - 0.13 seconds
Roll mousewheel up/down once - 0.10 seconds
Press enter - 0.15 seconds
Move mouse to next order - 0.68 seconds

Use the remaining one second to account for UI delay and develop arthritis.

Good point...
The only defense to this is to say that at least, John didn't seem fully aware that he fell into this category, as he apparently voluntarily provided CCP with the source code and program descriptions of his programs.
Doesn't make it ok, though.
Too bad E-Uni couldn't have the ISK to do good with. Maybe next time.

It seems that john was a well known player rather than a corp-less disposable botting alt

Its possible that from the very start of this escapade the CCP Representative(s) handling this case have ultimately got it wrong

He wasnt botting CCP interpreted his actions as botting because they didnt understand what he was actually doing in theory 'attack what you dont understand' in this case

Disclaimer; I haven't read the whole thread, just the OP.

I have heard of similar things. I won't give too many details, but someone I played with had an alt... and that alt was Spaceship Barbie. Now, he made more money than Spaceship Barbie did with the scams anyway, but it goes to say that he dealt in a very very very very very large amount of ISK on a daily basis. CCP accused him of either ISK selling, or dealing with ISK sellers. Apparently they weren't very specific. Either way he was banned and his ISK was removed. He was banned for literally months whilst this person tried to prove their innocence. At the end of it, they unbanned him and said they were mistaken, but as far as I am aware they never returned his ISK. Now frankly, that is appalling.

I am, of course, hearing this all second hand, but it's not beyond any company to make horrible mistakes. I think there is actually an internal affairs apartment in CCP for regulating the GMs. When I told my friend about this, he had never heard of that. Perhaps if he can gone to them as soon as it got messy, it might have turned out differently.

Ok so, this all seems fairly normal to me, guy gets banned for updating 30 market orders a minute (yes 1 every 2 seconds, cmon), so CCP let him keep the isk.

What ban man? He donated the money after coming back from the suspension and then biomassed. The money was all the time there during the only suspension.

Then Adnski is making it up while he says that the money wasn't there when the 'ban' was applied. Not even CCP has argued that it didn't.

I've always wondered if what CCP does can be subject to a lawsuit (either by one person or as a class-action) and I believe this would definitely qualify, because CCP is essentially committing FRAUD by not allowing people to benefit from its service as they intended and their security team can, without any recourse, cause irreperable harm in both time and real life money lost by one or more players.

This needs to go to court, and CCP must be held accountable.

sorry e-uni alt, you're wrong - five goons had trillions in assets (rightfully) revoked last summer and it was a pretty big scandal

So pretty much any South Korean Statcraft player is doomed to face false charges and banning, then. Lovely.

Indeed.

At the very least, issues of this sort need some post-mortem transparency. 300Bn ISK is a lot to just wipe off the map - I'd like to see a DevBlog outlining the evidence and rational behind the decision for large-value actions like this. CCP wants trust from the player base - A little openness would go a long way.

so would a calculator with a 000 key be against the EULA here? technically its 3rd party software in 3rd party hardware utilising a pseudo-macro to input/manipulate data faster than one would with regular gameplay.

i dont even need to click the eve menu go to accessories and bring up the calculator in game, thats 3 less clicks anyone else whould have to do.

in that sense its an auto open macro infested i win button.

didnt realise the eve calculator had a 000 button, nice to know though.

i dont even need to click the eve menu go to accessories and bring up the calculator in game, thats 3 less clicks anyone else whould have to do.

The **** is wrong with all you people.

Yes, indeed. However, what I am getting from this discussion here and elsewhere, is that part of the trouble is that the specific criteria for what constitutes bottling is in at least some cases not entirely clear.

When there is a specific, clear description of what was allegedly done that seems not to be botting and then CCP makes the bald, unexplained, and unsubstantiated assertion that X was botting (pointing at the EULA is not a clear explanation), you create the appearance of arbitrariness. Thus, the 'who watches the watchers' sentiment.

I am sure that more transparency (i.e., a clear explanation of the principles rather than mechanics being exploited by the person who was banned) with respect to the substance of the decision would make not only for less nonsense as found in these threads, fewer allegations of CCP being responsible for the abdication of the Pope, and less uncertainty about just what can and cannot be done 'legally'.

dy

3.You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

... and i thought Sreegs had declared the time of mass bannings to be gone for good - in favor of his more systematic & steady approach.

Or do you mean to imply that CCP Sreegs might not be entirely truthful with us?

that's a shocking accusation to make.

Yes lets tell the botting community how CCP are catching them out...

Eve Uni and its leadership are showing their arse with this nonsense. Reading the thread fully on their website I am embarrassed for them as a whole over their responses.

The thing is, backing a corpmate, even if guilty, is something I could understand, but the pettiness of fighting and making unfounded accusations only driven by greed for dirty isk, is just too much for a corporation that makes a living off of portraying a benevolence to the greater Eve community.

No one should donate to Eve Uni until there is a leadership purge.

My concerns were (and at time of writing, some are) that:

1. This is a significant amount of ISK to remove from the economy, and as such could be dangerous to the based on where and how it happened - for example, the player in question could have GÇÿdumpedGÇÖ a large volume of stock of some item for very little.
2. That the whole balance was removed and this only appeared to happen a week after we brought it to CCPs attention, which suggested that it had been cleared and would have remained on the account of the person in question otherwise.
3. That no explanation other than GÇ£its a security matterGÇ¥ and GÇ£the ISK was obtained illegallyGÇ¥ was provided even though the ISK was removed from EVE University itself, where previous occurrences of similar events resulted in a mail from a GM explaining what had happened (bot/RMT/hacked account).
4. That as a number of corp members were aware of the donation, and due to the amount of ISK involved, to avoid any allegations I would need to make the results of the petitions (including an outline of those petitions) public, and without a response this could look bad on CCP.
5. That I received no response as to the above concerns and instead was told that, in no uncertain terms, that I would receive no further information and that I was free to escalate this or make it as public as I wanted.
6. The responses to my petitions stated that there was no escalation path available for security matters, which was backed up by various sources, and that all attempts to locate one and deal with this quietly resulted in the path looping back on itself.



In which case, I disagree with your statement that the concerns and questions were previously explained either via the petition system or in private, and as such I give you full permission to post all relevant material publicly in its entirety.

Whether or not GÇ£JohnGÇ¥ was using a macro/botting or any other illegal activity, the process of addressing the petition and the nature of the responses may have highlighted a flaw in CCPs procedures, which is simply bad customer relations.

The issue is that the manner in which CCP Security deals with these issues, the stated lack of reporting (such as the CSM has with EVE Central Bank) combined with the lack of an appeals process (Judge, Jury and Executioner) is a recipe for distrust.

They should have taken that money away if they had such evidence in the first place rather than allowing him to keep it at all to give it to someone else.

I don't think that's how it went down. It sounds like it was more like:

Eve Uni: "CCP, we think something is fishy about this 330b isk we got from a donation from someone in our corp who was suspended for market botting. Can you check it outto make sure its all legal?"

CCP: "Oh, uh, yeah, thanks for reminding us. We're going to take all that cuz it was illegal."

Eve Uni: "You're just figuring this out now? Why didn't you take it earlier?"

CCP: "Go away, you're not involved, we can't talk to you."

But not before it did significant damage. Actually, it brings up another odd thing. He was banned for "suspected botting". One would think that'd mean they are investigating and they are unsure. If they confirmed it, why was he unbanned at all? It would no longer have been "suspected botting". Or extend the ban if nothing else. It really makes them sound uncertain and that they are investigating. So what happens if someone is suspected and they clear them then something like this happens? Do some security members see the old ban on file and base it off that? Do they have attached notes to it with pointers to confirm that it was indeed the case so when their supervisor checks it over, they can confirm that it was the proper action and they weren't just rushing things to get it over with? I don't know... strikes me as a little odd is all, but business can be screwy like that.

Everyone keeps jumping on this EUNI CEO SUPPORTS BOTTING bandwagon, but no one can provide a single word of source backing it up.

And if, upon doing so, you come away with the impression that Kelduum supports botting, you have reading comprehension issues (or a significant personal bias against Kelduum).

he was a station trader, and a very good one at that, playing trade markets in EVE like a professional, using the common tools available, as well as custom built tools, but never automating anything to do with the EVE client himself - the closest he ever got was probably to create custom in-game-browser pages to streamline his workflow, meaning he would log into an alt, and update around 30 orders a minute for 10-20 minutes at a time.

I still would even if Kelduum is completely in the wrong in every way. Completely condemning someone for one thing you don't like is grade school behavior far as I'm concerned.

317B ISK Gone from Goonswarm: Who Watches the Watchmen?

tl;dr: Goonswarm member with spotless record gets temp banned for suspected botting. Is told to go away when he professes innocence and provides proof. Decides to just leave EVE and donates 300 billion ISK to Goonswarm. Goonswarm asks CCP if its all legit, CCP removes it. Goonswarm asks why even leave it with him if it was legit, and is concerned that CCPs security team have no oversight. Goonswarm is told to go away. CCP's security team have no oversight?

clearly the reaction would be "oh man this ban was clearly undeserved and Goonswarm should have kept the 327B"

Ummm no. Explaining that someone did *not* automate a process ("botting") is not supporting a botter.

There's a web program that lets you do things faster than they can be done? Sign me up.

It is, but at the same time you wouldn't cry about it like babies so it's kind of moot point :P

Sometimes I go to eve-central to see what the prices of an item are in regions other than the one my character is in. This allows me to obtain that information faster than I could without that website's help. Apparently I'm a botter.

If using programs, web-based or otherwise, to assist you in doing things in EVE faster than you could without them is considered "botting", then I think a majority of station traders in EVE need to be banned. Heck, even PvPers should be banned for using fitting-management programs. Without them, you'd have to test all your fits in game and that would take longer.

No, they are an endorsement of the described activities as not botting.

The isk was obtained iliegally, that is all the info we as players require. WAe have no business in knowing what activities the offender was up to.

So is SOMER blink a botting program? EVE Poker?

CCP Sreegs you've provided quite a bit of hilarity here trying to explain something simple to the tinfoil encrusted masses. If I ever get the chance I'll have to buy you a beer for it.