|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 01:13:00 -
[1]
I've said this elsewhere but it bears repeating.
This thread is headed "BACON: Never be surprised again..".
Clearly even BACON's creators recognise the alteration to game mechanics created by their program. Moreover, they celebrate it.
Vigilance is the player's responsibility.
It should not be possible to hand over this responsibility to a third-party application.
Bandures > Tommy, you like a cowboy harry ) |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 12:42:00 -
[2]
This thread is packed with no-balls idiots trolling on alts!
Anyone who doesn't get this, was clueless to begin with.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA
Wake up CCP!
Bandures > Tommy, you like a cowboy harry ) |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 17:19:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Faife I love mobs. Everyone disses hydra while ignoring Razor, Goonswarm, and themselves for using Vent.
Comparing this program to Ventrilo or Teamspeak is such a huge and obvious strawman that there should be spankings administered to those that do it.
It is so sad that some people are so dense they don't see the difference, or insult us by expecting us to be this dense.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 18:20:00 -
[4]
Originally by: James Lyrus EVE voice exists within the game, and is functionality that all players have available. Why therefore use Ventrillo or Teamspeak, unless it provides some additional advantage that the in game version does not.
I assumed it was because the in-game voice comms are buggy and less stable (if the Eve client crashes, out-of-game comms remain active). Other than that, I have no idea why people may prefer out of game voice software.
Nonetheless, if you seriously feel that voice comms are violation of the EULA, you should present that point of view without delay.
Saying that one bad practice excuses another is obviously not the right approach, James. It is that attitude that makes BACON the thin end of a very destructive wedge.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 21:28:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas If you read the EULA carefully, the prohibiton is about modifying game files. Reading a file is not modyifying it.
BACON doesn't just read the data.
It sorts the data and alerts the user to specific portions of the data, in real time, according to pre-defined criteria.
It removes the need for ordinary player actions by automating them.
That is a violation of the EULA.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 00:58:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 22/04/2008 00:59:49
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
Originally by: Torik Tavitas If you read the EULA carefully, the prohibiton is about modifying game files. Reading a file is not modyifying it.
BACON doesn't just read the data.
It sorts the data and alerts the user to specific portions of the data, in real time, according to pre-defined criteria.
It removes the need for ordinary player actions by automating them.
That is a violation of the EULA.
Originally by: James Lyrus Reading data with a program is essentially the same regardless of the data and the program.
Reading a JPEG file, and decompressing it, to view it, and edit it in paint, is actually more processing than this logfile parser is doing.
How do you distinguish the two?
I don't need to distinguish between the two.
You are offering a hypothetical process for comparison against a material application.
It is the material application that is under discussion.
Originally by: James Lyrus It's also not eliminating any player action - it's just matching a log, and playing a beep. You still have to logoffski, warp to your safe, cloak, or whatever.
You are wrong
(For clarity I have highlighted where you have indicated the automation in your own reply, although you have also attempted to minimize it's significance).
By filtering the data provided in local and selecting only the data that is important to the user, BACON removes the need for players to scan the data and process that data for themselves. The original game mechanics designate this an active process; BACON automates it.
If it did not, it would be worthless and the creators would not be advertising it with the slogan, "Never be surprised again."
Originally by: James Lyrus But at the end of the day, the semantics don't matter - bottom line is 'exploit' is defined by CCP. Problem here, is it's pretty hard to tell the difference between 'exploit' and 'normal use' - it's not going to be obvious on the client, it's not going to be possible to tell remotely, since it doesn't change anything apart from act as a substitute for 'having local pinned on your backdrop'.
I have already disproved your final point here.
It is not a question of "semantics".
BACON automates player actions, altering game mechanics by removing the need for player participation. It is clearly a violation of the EULA.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:18:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds BACON automates player actions, altering game mechanics by removing the need for player participation. It is clearly a violation of the EULA.
Small problem with your interpretation; CCP doesn't agree at this time.
It is not necessary for CCP to agree.
BACON violates the terms of the EULA, with or without recognition from CCP.
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Could be they will decide it is LATER and make alterations to keep this type of app from running, but until then it is NOT a EULA violation since only CCP can declare it such.
You are wrong.
The terms of the EULA are quite clear and BACON violates them. Whether CCP will recognise or choose to overlook this fact is entirely beside the point.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
The terms of the EULA are quite clear and BACON violates them. Whether CCP will recognise or choose to overlook this fact is entirely beside the point.
Regardless, you can do jack **** if CCP doesn't side with your point of view, aside from quitting, and dealing with the huge number of "Can I haz it?" mails/posts/etc.
Obvious troll is barely worth responding to in all honesty.
I consider it worth my time pointing out precisely what is why BACON is bad for Eve. Hopefully, CCP will agree but perhaps they will not.
How I conduct myself, now or in the future, is none of your concern.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
It is not necessary for CCP to agree.
BACON violates the terms of the EULA, with or without recognition from CCP.
So, taking CCP to court to force them to enforce their EULA according to your opinion, are you?
Keep your childish trolling to yourself. It contributes nothing to this discussion.
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds You are wrong.
The terms of the EULA are quite clear and BACON violates them. Whether CCP will recognise or choose to overlook this fact is entirely beside the point.
CCP says it doesn't. When I read the EULA Bacon doesn't appear to violate it in my opinion either. So who is "wrong"?
Simply: CCP has the final say. At this time they have said it doesn't, hence it doesn't. Your opinion may differ, but you don't control the game and its rules.
If they SAY it does, fine with me; it is their game and their rules. In the meantime the screaming is highly entertaining
"My initial reaction is that there is nothing 'wrong' with this per say. As long as you are only reading the logserver logfiles not the raw log server output. As these files can be delayed in writing, or if you want an immediate write then it takes up more cpu and disk IO that is your call.
Please do not take this as CCP approval, but I will go ask the appropriate people and get you a definitive answer."
"There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate."
That doesn't sound like the rock hard approval you purport.
If anything, BACON is still under review. Hopefully, CCP will soon recognise that it is in violation of the EULA and has enormous potential to damage Eve, by application and by precedent. |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 02:09:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Segge Bolled This:
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds It is not necessary for CCP to agree.
BACON violates the terms of the EULA, with or without recognition from CCP.
and,
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
You are wrong.
The terms of the EULA are quite clear and BACON violates them. Whether CCP will recognise or choose to overlook this fact is entirely beside the point.
That. So, could this all mean ...
TAKE THAT, CCP?
Or ... not. I'd wager not.
I mean that CCP's response is beside the point when the point is one of valid logic as applied to the functionality of BACON when compared to the terms of the EULA.
CCP's ultimate decision concerning BACON is, of course, of paramount importance.
Originally by: Segge Bolled Especially since all it (BACON) "automates" (as far as I can see AND I use the term "automates" very loosely here) is having to physically look at local, instead it allows you to LISTEN.
Nonetheless, both visually scanning local and mentally processing that data are designated as active player processes by the original game mechanics.
BACON automates these actions by immediately providing the player with salient information, removing the need for player participation.
That violates the EULA by "changing the way in which the game is played".
You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played. (EULA 7.A.2.)
Originally by: Segge Bolled People have been looking in local IN REAL TIME and practically AUTOMATICALLY (when need be) since Local was introduced. Strangely enough, it hadn't induced a mass hysteria yet. Granted, I haven't read the last 15, 16 (or so?) pages too closely, as I didn't have my pond waders handy. Hopefully I'll get around to it before the lock, the thread clean, or it simply sinks to the bottom of the pond itself.
At the end of the day, it exchanges the stimulus which the user has to react to, if they choose. Nothing more I can see. Though, that is simply my interpretation and probably as wrong as everyone else furiously burning their daily calorie intake here.
I suggest you consider the usefulness of BACON in alerting the presence of war targets in a crowded system, where scanning and processing the data provided by the game would be a lengthy manual operation for the unskilled.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 02:18:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Where did I say CCP have rock solid approval? I DIDN'T. I said until CCP says so it is NOT against the EULA. I also said that at this time they have said it ISN'T.
"There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA..." is not the same thing as saying "BACON does not violate the EULA".
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby I have also said that they may well change that decision. Unlike others in this thread that are proclaiming it is regardless of what CCP says are is going to say. Reading comprehension ftl.
Quite so. You fail to comprehend the very clear manner in which BACON violates the EULA.
CCP have reserved the right to review whether it violates the EULA and I presume that they are still doing so, given the opposition to it from a large proportion of the player base.
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby If they declare it a violation, so be it. If they don't, so be it. Until there, it IS NOT. Regardless of what YOU believe.
You are still wrong. I will put that down to your own lack of comprehension and move on.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 11:26:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 22/04/2008 11:32:47
Originally by: Matrixcvd There is no question in breaks EULA its pretty clear. Now you can speculate why CCP has a passive nod so far to this till you are blue in the face, but it should be very clear to all of you that anything like this, is a significant step in the wrong direction.
You are absolutely correct. My own intention was to establish the EULA violation firmly first, before broadening attack to analyze the negative effects of BACON upon Eve.
But the EULA is not the central issue by any means.
Originally by: Matrixcvd Whether it breaks TOS/EULA is not the question, if people really feel this mod is furthers the true essence of what Eve has been about for the last 5 years (over 2 of which i have been here for) then its a sad day for this game and a sick turning away from what Eve has always been about. So get your audible beeps up, put your diapers on and get full dose of teeter toys.. cause this is just a disgrace
Indeed.
Here are some reasons BACON is bad for Eve:-
1. Allowing BACON sets a precedent for allowing third-party applications to alter practical aspects of game play. Alterations to game mechanics are the sole prerogative of CCP. Players should only be allowed to suggest changes, not implement them.
2. BACON automates active player processes. This diminishes player skill, redresses game play balances which rely upon that player skill, encourages lazy, unskilled or afk play.
3. BACON provides a software platform that can be easily developed to provide further automation. Extended versions of BACON are already likely to be active in Eve. Allowing this approach to modifying the game would make policing extensions of this platform impossible.
4. BACON diminishes the reputation of CCP for being a games company that has zero tolerance for game play automation.
I am sure there are other negative effects of BACON and I hope others will supply them. CCP need to act by removing any chance of this kind of application altering the game they have created and they alone have the right to modify. |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:28:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 22/04/2008 15:33:51
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth First Bold: Your not modifying anything! Your not changing how the game is played either your changing how you react to the game not the playing of the game as it does not affect gameplay for anyone else the gameplay itself is not changing.
2nd Bold: Your NOT MODIFYING ANYTHING! 2nd part of that your not gaining beneficial actions you wouldn't otherwise have in the normal game play. i.e. local and standings
last bold: Your not creating any 3rd party apps for the game your creating them for the logs that the log server produces so it would be more closely related to apps for the logserver but thats not covered. Even then its for the logs and not any of CCPs software if ya have a problem with it ask them to remove the logserver. The last part of this bold is ******** because CCP has already stated in another post these are offcially not breaking any rules so encouraging others to use is is not any violation.
Please make the effort to read at least the last two or three pages of thread.
Your points have already been dealt with in full and you are completely wrong on every count.
Try here.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix I have said it before,it is my personal opinion that no one has a reason to complain because CCP approved that tool Also,I have said that each and every pilot has the right to choose how to play a game from the moment,that said pilot doesn't break any EULA or ToS.And CCP has said that BACON doesn't break the EULA or the ToS
You are not being truthful when you imply that CCP have given full and final approval to BACON.
Please refer to my earlier response.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:45:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth While GMs are not atop the ladder at CCP they are still qualified agents of CCP and therefor until otherwise stated their word is the word of CCP
Please read in full instead of forcing people to repeat themselves because of stubborn ignorance.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:49:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 22/04/2008 15:50:05
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix "There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate.
GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master"
The above is good enough, me says.
Is it so unclear to you that Grimmi has been careful to indicate that this tentative approval is subject to review? Moreover that the review of BACON is ongoing while the full implications of the software are investigated and realised?
Yes, it is fine to use at the moment, but if you think that means the application's future in Eve is certain, you should reconsider.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:51:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
Originally by: Kaimon ValDreth While GMs are not atop the ladder at CCP they are still qualified agents of CCP and therefor until otherwise stated their word is the word of CCP
Please read in full instead of forcing people to repeat themselves because of stubborn ignorance.
Right stubborn ignorance... A lead "GAME MASTER"says and I quote "There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate."
that is the word of CCP until "WE" = They = CCP as a company? Decide otherwise... whos being stubborn?
Please refer to my post above yours.
"BACON: Never be surprised again"
Vigilance is the player's responsibility!
Passing this responsibility to a third-party application is a clear violation of the EULA - Wake up CCP! |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:58:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 22/04/2008 16:04:02
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix What I am saying is that as long as CCP approves, no one should be any complaining.And I have said this before:
Nonsense! We have every right to complain about the use of a tool that is as destructive as BACON.
We do not decide policy, but we can and will complain about the use of tools that violate the EULA and are still under scrutiny.
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix If CCP changes their minds and decide to ban that tool,they will notify the creators of BACON and they will notify the community.And then,and only then,would such a tool be against the EULA,ToS or whatever else.
In the meantime, a large proportion of the community will continue to signpost why we feel CCP should take action to remove BACON and any similar tool from play.
Would you care to actually discuss the application now, or continue to hide behind CCP's tentative approval as complete validation of it?
Edit: highlighted changed text - I didn't intend to speak for the whole community.. |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 17:47:00 -
[19]
Originally by: GM Grimmi Greetings,
The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.
Regards,
GM Grimmi Lead Game Master
Thank you. You have taken the most appropriate and sensible approach to managing this issue, IMO. |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 01:49:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 23/04/2008 01:53:49
Originally by: RebelWithACause 4) BACON does not automate a thing. It presents information already available in a different way (audible vs visible). That's it.
If BACON doesn't automate a thing, why did you advertise it with the slogan "Never be surprised again"?
Could it be that BACON automates watching your own back?
Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry ) |
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 01:55:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 23/04/2008 01:51:02 Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 23/04/2008 01:50:30
Originally by: RebelWithACause 4) BACON does not automate a thing. It presents information already available in a different way (audible vs visible). That's it.
If BACON doesn't automate anything, why did you advertise it with the slogan "Never be surprised again"?
Could it be that BACON automates watching your own back?
It doesn't automate anything except giving you warning sounds. Like I have said before.BACON is the Eve version of a military radar and warning system
Well clearly, you're wrong and not so clever as your alliance claims.
Military radar and warning systems are automated systems.
So is BACON.
Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry ) |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 14:58:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas CPP does not allow 'cheats' in their game but tolerates 'exploits' it can't fix or which serve some purpose to CPP's 'grand design'. So in the end Bacon falls into the same category as the lofty scam or high sec ganking for profit.
High sec ganking is not an exploit.
Learn to play.
Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry ) |
|
|
|