A private convo between CCP and Kelduum (who was involved directly) isn't the masses. This issue has now been brought to the masses because this very basic and simple information wasn't conveyed in the first place. It's unnecessary, pure and simple.

Tin foil hat says they probably took the isk for their own characters since they cant give themselves t2 bpo's any more.



Lack of oversight generally does lead to corruption, see also the quote




And while the above tin foil hat theory I've suggested may or may not be true, the fact that there seems to be no oversight, in a sandbox game like EVE, is highly alarming.

I'm also curious why E-Uni was treated like a 3rd party when they were indeed the ones who actually had the ISK taken and incurred the loss. I'll admit we don't have the full story, and yes the post by the CSM may indeed be slanted to his side. However the fact remains that he was treated very poorly for a player of the game.

Whats more alarming is that he would be treated the way he was while also being a member of the CSM and as an instigator in the game, helping bring content to thousands of EVE's newbs every year. While I don't think he deserves special treatment, most companies would recognize their "platnum members" and try to go above and beyond to make sure there are no misunderstandings with them.



Closing a petition while a player still has real concerns and/or questions represents terrible customer service. Beyond that, the time intervals between responding were absolutely horrendous. Does it really take so long for someone to hand out the same responses you said you gave everyone else. 8 days for an initial response? That is absolutely unacceptable. The resulting responses also took in the magnitude of days, often multiple. That is disgraceful in customer service. Especially one where there are paid subscriptions that could run out in that much time.



You took 1/4 of a plex time to simply respond the first time. In a game where you expect players to pay to play in some form or another, that is really very terrible.



I will admit that my interaction with customer service so far was beyond exemplary, however the main customer service team seems to operate completely independent of the security team, which seems to have missed the customer service memo on how to properly treat paying customers.

And unlike most games, with EVE, if you lose a paying customer, you are probably losing about 2-20 accounts. So pissing off even one can be an ever risky situation.

Many times a player just wants to know the corporation is listening to them, and isn't some blind mafia or corporate bureaucracy that thinks it is infallible. Telling a customer you will check your work, and look into it (and actually doing so) may take a bit more time, goes a VERY LONG way in customer service.

(This may have actually been done, however neither party mentioned that it was or that it was even a possibility, and is what the CSM member probably meant by oversight. When you escalate an issue, you usually expect a response that indicates that there are other people looking into the problem for you, to insure that no mistakes were made.)



The Eve rep posting here helps to remedy the situation to some extent, letting us know they do actually care. Though it could be that they're just worried about the bad press.

Beyond that, the responses from the GM I saw thusfar were significantly more curt and, at times, just plain rude. Certainly not the type of responses I would have expected from someone representing a company and trying to remedy a customer service issue.

I recognize that forums like this are an imperfect communication device, and its impossible for us to actually discern your real intent and tone of voice with each word you posted. However some of them came off as less than ideal.

I hope this issue is indeed resolved amicably with all parties, however it will probably always end up being a customer service incident that I truly hope the CEO and executive developer are aware of, since, as you mentioned, they are the only ones who can effect change on your department, and hopefully help them with customer service.

If "John" don't leave EVE, keep account alive one year or more or less after 14 days ban, but not really play, then give all isk to E-Uni, Will CCP confiscate again?

What scares me here is that it really looks like a player can 1) question a the legality of an action publicly, 2) get an official ccp response saying its ok, 3) do said action, and 4) get banhammered by CCP Screegs who doesn't give a **** what the rest of the company thinks, then laughed at and mocked when you question it.

That's a pretty crappy way to do business.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. John was using automation to modify his market orders, that was obvious from Kelduun's post linked from the OP. Automation of any form outside of what the client provides and what CCP explicitly allows (which as far as I know only includes the Logitech G15 keyboard) is against the EULA and grounds for action by CCP.

At least you have spreadsheets. With BCs manufacturing tool now broken and not looking like its going to be fixed I might have to see just how much spreadsheet voodoo I can remember from school

Just for the record, dear CCP Sreegs, I like what you have done and that you take your time to come onto the forum and talk to us. It is very kind of you and one does not get to see this often. So thank you for doing this!

While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.

I believe if CCP had a perfect track record, most pilots would not be here asking for proof of the botting allegations.
(As the methods I've read about being used by John were not in fact 'botting' by definition, but were using quick copy and pasting at its best.)

Transparency is paramount, the now removed ISK means nothing in light of possible recurring corruption, and selective oversight after the matter is brought in to question.

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

words

Why don't the 14 days ban appear with removal of ISK ?

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

Why don't the 14 days ban appear with removal of ISK ?

A private convo between CCP and Kelduum (who was involved directly) isn't the masses. This issue has now been brought to the masses because this very basic and simple information wasn't conveyed in the first place. It's unnecessary, pure and simple.

So, what I'm getting from this is :

Sreegs considers cache scraping "illegal" but it really isn't, according to the EULA because nothing is modified.

So, carry on because he would have to ban everyone who uses EVEMon, everyone who uses EVE-Central, etc.

Which is pretty absurd.

Tells me all I really need to know about CCP Security.

They do. It didn't apply in this case. This was explained in my first post.

our logs show that it was discussed and approved prior to either them receiving the isk or petitioning.

No, its a case of the dirty isk went away and people want it back so will try every way possible to get it back even if it means publicly trying to attack CCP into a corner.

I've never agreed with it. My stance of "Don't modify the client" hasn't changed since day one. That GMs for some reason have a different interpretation than I do is irrelevant.

Having worked in internal investigations for over a decade at very large companies I can inform you from experience that this statement is patently false in common practice. I've actually never even heard of this scenario, though I agree with its spirit.

So, what I'm getting from this is :

Sreegs considers cache scraping "illegal" but it really isn't, according to the EULA because nothing is modified.

So, carry on because he would have to ban everyone who uses EVEMon, everyone who uses EVE-Central, etc.

Which is pretty absurd.

Tells me all I really need to know about CCP Security.

I believe if CCP had a perfect track record, most pilots would not be here asking for proof of the botting allegations.
(As the methods I've read about being used by John were not in fact 'botting' by definition, but were using quick copy and pasting at its best.)

Transparency is paramount, the now removed ISK means nothing in light of possible recurring corruption, and selective oversight after the matter is brought in to question.

While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.

You are forgetting the tiny "300 billion ISK" transaction that landed Kelduum's lap. That kind of made him part of the "matter".