people should stop talking about things the don't understand.

you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.

I find it ironic that a New Order member who hates botters is trying to justify the actions of a botter.

you don't see a potential conflict of interest in IA being part of a team it is tasked to investigate?

Thank you for responding substantively instead of closing the thread. I'm sure everyone here wants to see the right thing done. In this situation it's your word against the players. Is there anyway the playerbase can be given assurance that the process is not arbitrary besides simply asking us to have faith in CCP?

You leave out the step where you look up the price you want to enter and type it into the field before pressing ENTER.

This alone takes more than 2 seconds.

I always make sure I get the digits right or else I might enter a ridiculous amount and make a massive loss. This guy must have been using some tool to be entering the right price this fast.

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

Newsflash: it just got illegal.

You can biatch about it all day long or you can do what others do and respect CCP Sreegs' opinion.

It is quite easy. Which side are you on? CCP's side or on the botters'?

Think before you post your answer. Think twice.

He said we won't get banned today. Your panic and paranoia has eaten your whole brain, hasn't it?

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

You all seem to just be inclined to argue. John pushed the envelope. He put himself in an unwise position and took a hit for it. It happens. It sets precedent. The EULA can't cover every single botting scenario. [EDIT] At least i wouldn't want to be the one to write it...

(edit: on topic - I think the cache reader discussion is important but would be better off in a separate thread, maybe I'll create one on MD later.)

stuff