I have deleted some off-topic posts from this thread.

Anyway since this thread is now a thing, it would be really nice if we could get a clear statement from CCP about this & not some random CCP person saying yes/no. I would like to know in particular as when my new PC is done I'm planning on making 15 new accounts for suicide ganking & would hate to get banned for it. Of course that also means CCP loses a bunch of money, but they'll lose more in the longterm if I get banned, so get to it CCP.

This is not a new position on CCP's part. Macros and key broadcasts, like cache scraping, have been in the "grey area" of the EULA for some time now, meaning that while they're technically in violation of the EULA, CCP is not going after people who use them.

I came away from the last threadnought about this with the impression that the proper translation of this stance is, "we think this enables good gameplay and we want to fold it into the game, but we haven't figured out how yet, so carry on." But they won't actively support the use of those features, which is essentially what you're asking them to do, because the long-term goal is to get the client to the point where they can eliminate the "grey area" from the EULA.

This is not a new position on CCP's part. Macros and key broadcasts, like cache scraping, have been in the "grey area" of the EULA for some time now, meaning that while they're technically in violation of the EULA, CCP is not going after people who use them.

I came away from the last threadnought about this with the impression that the proper translation of this stance is, "we think this enables good gameplay and we want to fold it into the game, but we haven't figured out how yet, so carry on." But they won't actively support the use of those features, which is essentially what you're asking them to do, because the long-term goal is to get the client to the point where they can eliminate the "grey area" from the EULA.

I'm not asking for official support, I'm asking will this get me banned. A statement from CCP regarding it would be great before I decide to make another 15 accounts that may or may not get banned.

Can we just get a clear, public (ie a dev blog post) single statement on what is and isn't legal within ISBoxer to use, please?

I spy someone else that hasn't read the entire thread.

We know it's been an acceptable grey area in the past. We're not asking them to support the features. We're asking for an official clarification since Karidor & Phantom have now contradicted the previous "we don't like it but we allow it" stance - albeit only buried in a German thread.

I read the entire thread, and the translated text of the comments in the German forum. It says exactly what they said when they last talked about ISBoxer.

Nothing has changed.

Why is there a continual parade of people getting their panties all wadded up over ISBoxer? As others have said, a simple search on the intertubes will show CCP's position is "it's allowed unless we don't like your face then BLAMMO, bangun."

And really it's about that arbitrary. They have a policy, they get to choose to enforce it however they'd like, and that's the end of the story. There's no "supreme court" of EVE that's going to come into the forums, weigh your reasoned arguments, and present some ironclad final judgement that you can wave in the air as an absolute truth.

Even if some dev comes in here and says "Oh yeah, it's totally legit you go on with your bad self," you know how much good that forum post is going to do you after the banhammer has smashed you flat? About as much good as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card at Abu Ghraib.

I don't mean to come off as some CCP fangirl but really, this crap just keeps being dredged up. Everyone knows the basic idea behind the rule: Did the computer decide to press the key? Not allowed. Did the human decide to press the key? Allowed. You can take that to the bank, 'cause it's just as valid as any other statement that's ever been made or will be made about this bullshit.

at least one GM is clear:

[Tuesday 10 September 2013] [15:04:08] <[GM]XXX> the "why" didn't change. We still don't care if you activate all your modules with a single keypress. Activating all modules on 20 clients at the same time with a single press goes far beyond that, though.

[Wednesday 11 September 2013] [12:29:42] <[GM]XXX> and it's pretty similar to the AP0 hack thing. Just because we may not necessarily take immediate action doesn't mean we still tolerate it. And the current EULA imho pretty clearly forbids mirroring keystrokes (and would have done so for the past 1.5 years)

He is also misinformed in his opinion.

He is also misinformed in his opinion.

Unfortunately though, his tag says otherwise (of course an escalation can solve that though).

Fazit: ob eine EULA-Verletzung nun per Roboterarm, Dritt-Software, St+ñbchen oder was auch immer passiert ist nicht relevant f++r den EULA-Versto+ƒ selbst. Und wenn ein Klick auf mehrere Clients verteilt wird, f+ñllt diese Parallelisierung ebenfalls unter "Automatisierung", oder um die Formulierung der EULA zu verwenden:
Es bildet effektiv ein "Spielverhalten, welches im Vergleich zu normalem Spielverhalten einen beschleunigten Erwerb von Gegenst+ñnden, W+ñhrung, Objekten, Rang oder Status darstellt."

It states something in regards to rapid keystrokes. I would assume CCP can take a global average keystrokes per minute for their players and set an envelope of min/max for their player base.

So having a baseline on the max for keystrokes from your average player I'd assume CCP would consider anything that exceeds this as a behaviour of some kind of automated software.

So I guess if you are way above average when it comes to keystrokes then you might have to show that what is considered suspect behaviour is just how you normally play the game.

Since mining requires one keystroke every 45 minutes GÇö automation or not GÇö such a method would be supremely incapable of detecting anything of value.

True, bot mining just sitting in the belt would be hard to detect but I'm sure there are other means to detect such a thing.

I know when I do mine (rarely) I'm usually chatting with someone in corp/alliance/militia/etc. I'm usually doing something that would indicate seen from the server side that I am active at the keyboard and not just randomly typing something.

(As an aside, the TOS still does say they reserve the right to ban for any reason... GM opinions can still be relevant in that case furthering the need for clarity!)

Oh sure. But if they want to toss people out on the basis of the GÇ£because I say soGÇ¥ rule, they should do it while referring to the GÇ£because I say soGÇ¥ rule GÇö not some other, completely incorrect and irrelevant rule.

My point is mainly that arbitrarily enforcing non-existing or unknown policies that go against the long-established and well-known policies already in place smacks of incompetence and unprofessionalism. As it happens, few things will so thoroughly headshot every last shred of integrity and trust in, not just the enforcers of the rules, but in the rules themselves is incompetence and unprofessionalism in that enforcement.

Soon enough, players will just go GÇ£eff it, who cares what the rules are GÇö the GMs certainly don't GÇö so let's cheat our asses off.GÇ¥

the thing about broadcasting it that CCP has no say in the matter. they don't have to "allow it", it is already... the software doesn't modify, the memory region the client runs in, the software doesn't modify or read the eve cache. the software doesn't even know what is happening inside the window...

there's nothing to allow.

broadcasting enables control of multiple accounts, control that cant be taken away unless they change the eula to only allow one instance of the client to be running at any given time (something that thanks to copyright law can easily be enforced), or they allow only one log in per IP.

and as soon as you suggest that, you realize 80% of the player base will tell you to **** off.

oh and for clarification, we are not "players" we are "users" if you get shoot by 10 arty ruptures in a gate flown by 10 players, you got killed by 10 users. if they were all controlled by one player... you still got killed by 10 users.

the idea of having the client somehow measuring the amount of keystrokes, sharing such information between processes and do... something with it... breaks so many privacy laws worldwide that its not even funny.

and this is all before we even consider the question of , "what is it to you?" it doesn't affect you, at all, if some dude wants to fly 10, 20, or 500 ships. any complaint you might have about the power multiplication effect of "many ships" is a complaint about the eve game mechanics.

if you don't like blobs, don't engage them.

Anyway since this thread is now a thing, it would be really nice if we could get a clear statement from CCP about this & not some random CCP person saying yes/no. I would like to know in particular as when my new PC is done I'm planning on making 15 new accounts for suicide ganking & would hate to get banned for it. Of course that also means CCP loses a bunch of money, but they'll lose more in the longterm if I get banned, so get to it CCP.