So are you saying that scraping the Market cache is not okay, or only okay until you decide it constitutes botting?

The only allegation that I can recall with any substance was that one. Whether the paranoid conspiracy theory community has had a separate trial process and decided other crazy batshit insane garbage was true I can't attest to as I don't subscribe to that mailing list and instead deal in the realm of fact.

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'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.

Let's also be honest. This would never happen to a goon, because there is a goon in charge of Team Security at CCP.

Answer the question. Are these above couple posts you making cache scraping a bannable offense from here on out, or are they not? This isn't that hard, and you talking in circles isn't getting any of us anywhere. As you so happily proclaimed in a previous post, decisions like this are up to you. So make the decision before you start banning innocent people.

Do you, CCP Screegs from here on out make things like:

http://dev.eve-central.com/contribtastic/start

a bannable offense? That's the only question myself, and several others are asking.

So are you saying that scraping the Market cache is not okay, or only okay until you decide it constitutes botting?

Induction is not a valid form of deduction. No matter the amount of times you do right, does not prevent the possibility of you doing wrong.

I don't believe in CCP misconduct in this case. I believe that this guy was a botter. That is not the issue. I was trying to point out that if your sec team had convinced this E-U guy (a third party) that there was sufficient proof of the botters deeds, this thread wouldn't be here. He was not technically even a third party since he was holding the isk. But no, there is this policy about discussing moderation in place. (which this thread is breaking already)

After a while, people will remember only the suspicion, not the particulars. In this thread someone already implied security incidents that happened long time ago, that people can't remember the particulars of. This is why I believe that policy is wrong. It will always make you look bad. And you can only alleviate the suspicions by breaking that very selfsame policy yourselves.

"The world is not based on reality, but the perception of reality" - sneakers, 1992

In my opinion cache scraping is illegal.

In my opinion cache scraping is illegal. You won't be banned for it today. I didn't see any questions asked what I saw was insults and accusations. Sorry if you have a different interpretation of polite social discourse.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.

It has always been said that modifying the client, either on the network, on the disk or in memory, is against the EULA.

I don't see where I insulted you (at least not using any terms you hadn't already used yourself), and I think I've been perfectly polite. My questions also seemed to be clearly stated in my quoted and unedited post. I didn't accuse you of anything either, unless I'm missing something. I merely asked that you make CCP policy abundantly clear, in the interest of protecting innocent players accounts from any wrongful bans. Surely you can see the reason in that.

Regardless, thank you for answering the question. It's all I really wanted.

Technically I think you can achieve this without modifying the client itself fwiw.

First time i've ever seen a Dev be so aggressive on an issue, Sreegs first reply supplied all information needed and answers to something everyone really doesn't need to know about. Now all I'm seeing is people baiting a Dev.

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

You can't do it without interacting with local files used by the client. In my perfect world those would be protected better. As I said you won't be banned for it today but that's why I take issue with it. We should be enabling this via the API instead.

You can't do it [screen scrape] without interacting with local files used by the client. In my perfect world those would be protected better. As I said you won't be banned for it today but that's why I take issue with it. We should be enabling this via the API instead.

I would not recommend anyone do this and I'd ask that you not tell our players what you consider to be legal. The EULA does a decent enough job of that and is contrary to your statement.

You can't do it without interacting with local files used by the client. In my perfect world those would be protected better. As I said you won't be banned for it today but that's why I take issue with it. We should be enabling this via the API instead.

I'd stick to the actual legal agreement you agreed to rather than outdated GM replies.

Cache scraping is read only. No modification.

Depends on what "scraping" really means. I understand it as "modifying" the cache. Why would you call it "scrapping" when you are reading it?

You can't do it without interacting with local files used by the client. In my perfect world those would be protected better. As I said you won't be banned for it today but that's why I take issue with it. We should be enabling this via the API instead.