You made me chuckle :D 3/10! A senior GM answering a EULA petition is wrong. And who are you anyway? :)

Someone who happened to read several recent replies by CCP explicitly stating that ISBoxer is not banned.

Respond and ask who takes precedence.

... instead of taking what appears to be the preferred route of "ignore them and hope they go away."

Someone who happened to read several recent replies by CCP explicitly stating that ISBoxer is not banned.

1 key stroke affect more then 1 client.

Our policy is that we do not make any guarantees about any tools being allowed and safe to use. We can't feasibly do that.

But client modification right now are anything that injects/touches the running EVE process. That is, reads or writes memory into it, injects and executes code. Basically anything that modifies the client to change the client or extract information that's not normally accessible. That includes bots of course.

...

What I am saying is that the particular player in question had absolutely no communication back from CCP whatsoever despite multiple requests to look into it and even pointing out the likely cause why he had been banned. The timing of sudden action on the case coming only after his CEO and others made loud noises on the forums on his behalf may have been coincidental, but doesn't look good, nor does the fact that he was wholly ignored.

I use this individual case in question only because I'm familiar with it. While you guys do not (rightly so) share details, the player in question was. But in the broader sense, I have a sneaking suspicion that other similar cases exist, and that they're just as often ignored. A real good step towards correcting this sort of problem would be, if a preliminary investigation shows that hey maybe they are innocent, to actually tell them that their case is being looked at, instead of taking what appears to be the preferred route of "ignore them and hope they go away." Unless, that is, the goal actually is to lose customers and generate some bad PR, in which case carry on!

- move L5 missions to low and nullsec

Couple of small tweaks...
...
- (change local completely)
- (change asteroid mining completely)

- finally revamp asteroid mining mechanics and UI completely to encourage active user participation

Just a thought but banning just the account for 30 days is not going to hurt a botter with multiple accounts.

Might I suggest a ban on the IP used also for 24 hrs to make the point clear that botting is not acceptable. This will do more then just effect their botted account but any other account coming from that IP.
Yes I understand that it might adversely effect players in the same household who are not botting but an IP block might help to put on the added per pressure that its not OK to bot.

Something in Jita local says (at least to me) anti-botting team isn't too efficient.

Another issue I want to quickly mention is your policy on ISBoxer. ISBoxer used to be "approved", but it's not anymore. This change in policy was announced by ninja-editing a 3 year old GM post. This is a terrible way to announce policy changes, because people don't read 3 year old GM posts every day to check if they've been ninja-edited. Please don't do this in future, make a new sticky somewhere telling people you've changed the policy.

Umm, no. CCP is banning for bots and hacks, not multiboxing. Their policy is pretty much the same as with other games. ISBoxer was never "officially allowed", it's just not prohibited.

Local change is minor...