Well, we know one side of the medal now. I am sure CCP doesn't act like that out of nothing.

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.

Because it says using macros are wrong right? I never get why people like you get all upset because some one knows how to use macros... Its not like hes changing the code to the game or some thing or hacking some thing

That's just semantics, really. You are using 3rd party programs to do what would be impossible otherwise. If this guy was using some script to update 30 market orders per minute, he deserved what he got. I don't care about some boneheaded distinction between script, macros, bots or whatever, it's the deed that counts. The rest is just rules lawyering.

But dose it say in the rules of the game you can't do it though?

Yes it does, actually.

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.

That is the problem right there. He was using tools which allowed him to rapidly perform actions faster than he otherwise would have been able to on his own. This is covered in the EULA.

Yes it does, actually.

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.

That is the problem right there. He was using tools which allowed him to rapidly perform actions faster than he otherwise would have been able to on his own. This is covered in the EULA.

Because ISboxer is allowed.

...patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency...

He then proceeded to liquidate his assets, and talked to one of the E-UNI directors

Because ISboxer is allowed.

... It transpires that GÇ£JohnGÇ¥ had been temporarily banned from EVE as CCPs GÇÿTeam SecurityGÇÖ had identified his actions as GÇÿsuspectGÇÖ - 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. ...

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.

I'm very sure that you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.

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.

Frankly, a bot could not be faster than this guy.

If he created what was effectively his own UI, CCP is foolish to ban someone for improving on the pile of **** they've created. Games like WoW and TSW have allowed user created UI's, and benefited massively from their players efforts, to this day I don't understand why CCP wastes massive amounts of developer time making small UI tweaks their players could do for them.

The market UI is a prime example, I mean seriously, how many of you have actually gone through and updated a few hundred orders? It's a tedious pain in the ass, and for no good reason. CCP needs to either allow market bots (just like the real world), or fix the UI so there isn't such an incentive to use them. And I say that completely regardless of whether the case discussed in the OP involves botting or not.

I'm very sure that you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.

I'm very sure that you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.

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.

If anything the reverse needs to happen. There's nothing more annoying than a station trader, and making it easier will have a negative effect on the market.

Hey, we're going from what it says in the original Eve Uni forum post.

Now let's be honest, if that thread was about somebody in TEST or Goonswarm the community's reaction would have been "lol botter." Let's not pretend otherwise. The fact that this guy is in an ~honourable~ corp based in hisec seems to indicate, to some, that he plays within the rules, when for all we know he's been running a market bot the whole time and is just trying to start drama in response to being punished appropriately.

"But hurr they didn't remove the ISK until he sent it to E-UNI!"

The ISK wasn't there when he was banned - he liquidated his assets after the suspension period was over.



So yes, it's completely within reason that this guy is a botter and he's just being a babby about being handed the same punishment that everyone gets for botting, with an exception perhaps being that his gains from botting were not removed. Seriously, try updating 30 orders in a minute even with some fancy IGB page that says what price to set them to.

If he created what was effectively his own UI, CCP is foolish to ban someone for improving on the pile of **** they've created. Games like WoW and TSW have allowed user created UI's, and benefited massively from their players efforts, to this day I don't understand why CCP wastes massive amounts of developer time making small UI tweaks their players could do for them.

The market UI is a prime example, I mean seriously, how many of you have actually gone through and updated a few hundred orders? It's a tedious pain in the ass, and for no good reason. CCP needs to either allow market bots (just like the real world), or fix the UI so there isn't such an incentive to use them. And I say that completely regardless of whether the case discussed in the OP involves botting or not.

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.

my point is that you get a "slow down, you have to wait x seconds before you are allowed to modify another order" popup if you modify too many orders in a short timeframe.

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.

I'm not sure why we feel we should be able to escalate higher than the highest reasonable authority but the fact is that this team operates with significant oversight.

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

yes allow us to modify EVE UI's (basically client modification) and you have a free card to create exploitable UI's and whatnot.

I don't think escalation is the issue here, rather the fact that you don't explain your actions. Making any action seem suspicious.

Hey, CCP, if you need a higher level than your CEO, just escalate it to me.

It was allowing him to update 30 market order per minute for up to 20 minutes per day. No person can do that unassisted. His ban was justified as he was basically botting.

The fact is that we did insofar as we could being that we were dealing with a third party. This party wanted to be treated specially rather than like a normal customer and we simply do not operate that way.

:Edit: to state that escalation isn't the issue in a topic titled quite hilariously dramatically "Who watches the watchers" is a bit of a misstep IMO

3) The only authority higher than the Director of Security for these complaints is the Executive Producer and then the CEO. This is a higher level of escalation than the Customer Service arm and IA automatically looks at our work.

Frankly we're a bit disturbed by the allegations made here given that the person in question waited until they exhausted every resource possible prior to posting this then lamented the lack of an escalation path. Not getting the answer you like isn't a lack of an escalation path and never will be.

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

My issue is precisely your policy of not discussing moderation with other parties. You can claim that you are merely operating within that policy which is all nice and dandy and true, but I think that policy is wrong in the first place.

Ugh, I have spoken. I will now leave.

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

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

With this games interesting.......history, do you REALLY blame half the allegations made. I mean, all of them, not just in this thread.

There are a number of things wrong with the assertions being made in other forums, which is a topic I'm sure the author of these posts is familiar with because we discussed them prior to his rather selective reporting of the incident. Here's the facts as we need be concerned from an eve perspective:

1) John was botting. That is not even close to in dispute.
2) We committed an error in not removing the isk before it got to EVE-U. However we did rectify this problem and our logs show that it was discussed and approved prior to either them receiving the isk or petitioning. We apologized to EVE-U however the petition was escalated as high as it could be and the decision remained. We cannot typically share this information with them as it's really none of their business.
3) The only authority higher than the Director of Security for these complaints is the Executive Producer and then the CEO. This is a higher level of escalation than the Customer Service arm and IA automatically looks at our work. I'm not sure why we feel we should be able to escalate higher than the highest reasonable authority but the fact is that this team operates with significant oversight. We believe the issue here to be more that this particular CSM feels he isn't in the loop, something which is quite frankly the only proper way to do business in a unit that handles secrets.

Frankly we're a bit disturbed by the allegations made here given that the person in question waited until they exhausted every resource possible prior to posting this then lamented the lack of an escalation path. Not getting the answer you like isn't a lack of an escalation path and never will be.

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?

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?

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.

There are a number of things wrong with the assertions being made in other forums, which is a topic I'm sure the author of these posts is familiar with because we discussed them prior to his rather selective reporting of the incident. Here's the facts as we need be concerned from an eve perspective:

1) John was botting. That is not even close to in dispute.

Only in a creepy shadow world where nobody in our chain can be trusted. In this case none of us would be employable by anyone so while it might make for interesting eve news tinfoil fodder it really doesn't have much basis in reality.

CCP Sreegs already said they knew 100% that john was botting. I don't get why deciding to punish him would be an "arbitrary" decision.

CCP Sreegs already said they knew 100% that john was botting. I don't get why deciding to punish him would be an "arbitrary" decision.

I'm very sure that you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.

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

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 can use the in-game browser to display market data, which makes it a trivial task to write software that detects when you need to update you orders. All you need to do is use javascript to cycle trough the item you want to sell, this updates the local cache which you can parse to get the items sell prices. From there on all you need to do is verify the weather or not you have the lowest price.

You can list the correct price need to undercut by .1 isk, or maybe even manipulate the copy/paste buffer directly to contain the correct value. In the end all you need to do is find the correct order, edit and paste the value. It probably takes more then 2 sec for reach order, but you can do a lot of orders each minute.

This is a public know and legal way of managing market orders.

I meant ever, with everything, not just that one time 7 years ago.

There's alot of them that crop up, mainly in the "Tinfoil hat community" which is unfairly treated btw...

I think this situation really cuts to the core of actual misconduct. In this case we're actually being asked to treat EVE-U differently, which would by nature be misconduct. Our actions in this regard show exactly the opposite.

Except for the whole fact that John was botting. I personally don't care how well respected in the community someone is, if they get caught breaking the rules they should be punished in the same way as anyone else would.

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

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

the actual misconduct as far as I can tell was not removing John's isk while he was banned (which also allowed E UNI to get their hopes up) - being warned by the ban that his botting had become unfeasible he could have easily RMTed all his ISK before you managed to confiscate it.

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.

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.

I think this situation really cuts to the core of actual misconduct. In this case we're actually being asked to treat EVE-U differently, which would by nature be misconduct. Our actions in this regard show exactly the opposite.

This has been discussed before on the official forums, where dev/gm posts said this method was not against the rules as the player edits the market order.

This has been discussed before on the official forums, where dev/gm posts said this method was not against the rules as the player edits the market order.

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.

I'm pretty sure we define botting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps we would have more confidence in your opinions if you hadn't shown complete cluelessness regarding your own policies (and the common practices of the market community) before.

(edit: nope, I don't buy your "just checking to see how these things are communicated" comeback, it was extremely weak.)

This was already covered earlier. CCP Sreegs explained why the isk wasn't taken straight away.

Now let's be honest, if that thread was about somebody in TEST or Goonswarm the community's reaction would have been "lol botter." Let's not pretend otherwise. The fact that this guy is in an ~honourable~ corp based in hisec seems to indicate, to some, that he plays within the rules, when for all we know he's been running a market bot the whole time and is just trying to start drama in response to being punished appropriately.

"But hurr they didn't remove the ISK until he sent it to E-UNI!"

The ISK wasn't there when he was banned - he liquidated his assets after the suspension period was over.
.

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

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.

Suspension is commonly mistaken for the word Ban. I think it's an American thing.

Suspension is commonly mistaken for the word Ban. I think it's an American thing.

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.

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.

I'm not sure how asking for where we've made a statement I disagree with (and I'm the only one that matters in this instance) is "cluelessness" but suffice it to say that I would highly recommend you not engage in such activity. You can choose to ignore that and make a self righteous post defending yourself after we take action if you like.

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.

Typing a price is also unnecessary, as simply rolling the mousewheel changes the price by 0.01 ISK. I'm sure you knew that though. =P

You can use the in-game browser to display market data, which makes it a trivial task to write software that detects when you need to update you orders. All you need to do is use javascript to cycle trough the item you want to sell, this updates the local cache which you can parse to get the items sell prices. From there on all you need to do is verify the weather or not you have the lowest price.

You can list the correct price need to undercut by .1 isk, or maybe even manipulate the copy/paste buffer directly to contain the correct value. In the end all you need to do is find the correct order, edit and paste the value. It probably takes more then 2 sec for reach order, but you can do a lot of orders each minute.

This is a public know and legal way of managing market orders.

I'm not sure how asking for where we've made a statement I disagree with (and I'm the only one that matters in this instance) is "cluelessness" but suffice it to say that I would highly recommend you not engage in such activity. You can choose to ignore that and make a self righteous post defending yourself after we take action if you like.

then by all means give up a link to it.

11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect, collate and upload market data.
As long as the IGB-specific procedure to open the market window for a specific item (and thus having the client creating cache data for that item) exists, you can use it. Keep in mind, though, that changes to this may happen and this procedure may stop working at any time. Also, reading and evaluating the clients cache data with third party tools is permitted, however modifying cache files used by the client is not and falls under modification of client files.

Speaking of self righteous...

Are we to interpret this as official policy change on the issue of cache scraping? 9 months ago, you were fine with it, have things changed since then? If so, I guess enjoy gloating over wrongly banned market accounts.

Now let's be honest, if that thread was about somebody in TEST or Goonswarm the community's reaction would have been "lol botter." Let's not pretend otherwise.

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.

There is an API for it. EVEMon and EVEAsset use it and you can view your market orders, as well as contracts, transactions, journals and assets with it.

There is an API for it. EVEMon and EVEAsset use it and you can view your market orders, as well as contracts, transactions, journals and assets with it.

Sreegs you have won this one by a knockout.

Go do something else for a few hours and let us players deal with the dicks in this thread...

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're talking about something that is quite different from merely collecting market data for eve central, fyi

CCP Sreegs, not the hero we want, but the hero we need.

This.
Tesco tinfoil (infected with horse meat) is selling out like nothing I've ever seen before.

Now all I'm seeing is people baiting a Dev.

Only in a creepy shadow world where nobody in our chain can be trusted. In this case none of us would be employable by anyone so while it might make for interesting eve news tinfoil fodder it really doesn't have much basis in reality.

In reality I'm the one who watches the watchers.

it's a standing expression - just like "web scraping" (which doesn't modify any websites either)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_scraping

he just told a few thousand unsuspecting evemon users that they are in violation of the EULA.

what do you expect to happen?

Well, it does modify web servers as it can create unwanted load and should not be taken as granted. Do it too much and it can turn into an unintentional DoS attack.

Nothing because he never said that?

Nothing because he never said that?

Evemon has a cache scraper built into it now.

he just told a few thousand unsuspecting evemon users that they are in violation of the EULA.

what do you expect to happen?

EVEMon does not touch local files from what I know. EVEMon uses the EVE API. There is a thread on the forums for it and CCP has not locked it. So I understand that this tool is officially allowed and it has been for a long time now.

EVEMon does not touch local files from what I know. EVEMon uses the EVE API. There is a thread on the forums for it and CCP has not locked it. So I understand that this tool is officially allowed and it has been for a long time now.

EVEMon does not touch local files from what I know. EVEMon uses the EVE API. There is a thread on the forums for it and CCP has not locked it. So I understand that this tool is officially allowed and it has been for a long time now.

http://i.imgur.com/ulHNYPw.jpg

this box is ticked by default.

now please stop spreading disinfiormation

If you're still reading this Sreegs, thank you for coming in here and defending yourself rather than ignoring the thread.

It's little things like this that make me love CCP.

I know I'm drunk (yay vacation time), but is anyone else finding this thread hilarious? Also is bourbon a bad thing at 7:29 in the morning?

EVEMon reads your orders from the EVE API and uploads it to EVE Central. It does not touch local files from what I know.

Still nothing is modified, once the DoS is done then the website will still be there exactly the same as before the DoS.

The point is not about what you think it does, but about what the owner of the web site thinks. So you can insist on just reading the site, but this alone can get you into trouble and should not be taken lightly as I already said can turn into a DoS attack.

You're wrong.

Stop trolling please. And if you aren't trolling, then it's time to stop posting because you have no idea what you're talking about.

That is the problem right there. He was using tools which allowed him to rapidly perform actions faster than he otherwise would have been able to on his own. This is covered in the EULA.

Can you be more specific please?

EVEMon reads your orders from the EVE API and uploads it to EVE Central. It does not touch local files from what I know.

Can you be more specific please?

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

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.

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

By default EVEMon (as of release 1.7) will parse the market cache files generated by your EVEClient and (optionally) upload them to places like eve-central. This functionality is enabled by default.

EVEMon does not touch local files from what I know. EVEMon uses the EVE API. There is a thread on the forums for it and CCP has not locked it. So I understand that this tool is officially allowed and it has been for a long time now.

In my opinion cache scraping is illegal. You won't be banned for it today..

I have NEVER found a player with less clue about how EvE works on many threads and yet he keeps to diligently dig himself into a deeper and deeper hole.

Please, seriously stop posting and start learning.

That's kind of problematic isn't it, as we have no idea whether your opinion is held by CCP at large, whether you will continue to hold the same view, or if any successor you have will hold the same view.