He admits to writing a program to help him do speed up his market orders. CCP bans him for botting. He provides the source code to CCP. CCP says he was botting.

I'm not sure why we're discussing this?

-Liang

He admits to writing a program to help him do speed up his market orders. CCP bans him for botting. He provides the source code to CCP. CCP says he was botting.

I'm not sure why we're discussing this?

-Liang

Did you just outlaw:

1. using the cache files to get information
2. using javascript to alter the paste buffer
3. regular use of the IGB javascript functions

Cause it sure as hell sounds like it.

Doing any of these things aren't illegal according to the EULA, but i guess using your own tools to give ourselves an advantage in these kind of situations, is botting.

Yip sounds like it, since I'm pretty sure that's what John was doing, but nope must be botting ban.

You cant, therefore no one can.

Gotchya.

For the record, I dont have a dog in this fight. Banned or not....Wont change what or how I fly.

I'm going to go drink a bunch of beer now you can all go back to fighting.

And you and I (as well as Kelduum or anyone else) would still have a right and reasonable expectation to ask "is all 300b illegal, can some still be saved?" and not be shut out of the process entirely.




That's speculation and your personal opinion, and you seem a bit tilted. Show me the parts of the post that support this claim.



Again... I'm not asking for full disclosure. I just believe that amount of ISK deserves more than a one liner or canned response. The response that was provided in this thread was more than enough, and did not in any way disclose how he was botting, how they caught him etc.

Kelduum posted as much as he could and said that he wasn't receiving much information back. I don't think it's "entitlement" to ask simple questions in this matter. We are not "entitled" by having read CCP Sreegs responses in this thread. He replied to my statements saying that he said all this to Kelduum. Kelduum says in his original post that he didn't get that information.

In the end it seems that it's word against word. Did CCP Sreegs just say "we don't discuss this with 3rd parties"? Instead of taking the time to mention the few lines he said here? (Which doesn't give away any priveldged info) Or did Kelduum get the full story then go through all of this just to stir up drama?

I know who I believe... You make your choice.

@Dante Uisen

Pretty sure it will, you can modify orders with about 2-3 seconds between each, and if you automate it to the point where the IGB handles putting most of the workload into computing form, and just has you pasting info into fields and hitting ok + next.

Then it's entirely possible to get about 30 orders a minute.

@Dante Uisen

Pretty sure it will, you can modify orders with about 2-3 seconds between each, and if you automate it to the point where the IGB handles putting most of the workload into computing form, and just has you pasting info into fields and hitting ok + next.

Then it's entirely possible to get about 30 orders a minute.

@Dante Uisen

Pretty sure it will, you can modify orders with about 2-3 seconds between each, and if you automate it to the point where the IGB handles putting most of the workload into computing form, and just has you pasting info into fields and hitting ok + next.

Then it's entirely possible to get about 30 orders a minute.

(21:45:35) (@PeterPowers) and, tbh, we all know that cache reading is a greyzone at best
(21:45:41) (+Karbowiak) but it's allowed
(21:45:44) (~Entity) cache reading is perfectly legal
(21:45:46) (+Karbowiak) and they said so themselves
(21:45:52) (~Entity) or my library wouldn't be out there

Disagreement I don't mind.

Even if you have some way of writing directly to the cut/paste clipboard buffer, and all you need to do is edit the order and paste in the value, you would still not be able to do it with 2 second intervals. You need to manually find the order and open the window to modify the order, the process can probably be very optimized but not to the point where you can modify order in 2 seconds.

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 Pemoved 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.

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.

300b is a significant amount to the economy now? When did that happen?

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.

The person you responded to can't update a market order every 2 seconds for 20 minutes straight, I can't do it, neither can you... nobody can.

That he was using a bot to accomplish this is not in question.

Can orders be sorted? if they can,then can IGB data be sorted ? if all they can, is it still impossible modify orders in 2 seconds?

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.

There is no way you can get a average time of 2 sec on that operation pattern.