Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Segge Bolled
Caldari Dirty Sexy Pilots New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 23:50:00 -
[451]
I'm tempted to state "BACON is the best thing since HAM" but I can't help but suspect I'd be slandered into the next page, before people understood I was trying to be "punny".
The following statements probably represent the opinions of an individual and not necessarily those of their corporation or alliance - just in case you've forgotten to copy & paste the sign |
Nerf Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 00:02:00 -
[452]
Edited by: Nerf Caldari on 22/04/2008 00:04:44 i'm special
|
Greekil
Gallente Gemini Sun Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 00:05:00 -
[453]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa What? For the amount of protesting I'm doing I think it's pretty clear I am against this type of loophole through backdoors and software dumps/logs.
I'm not going to use it.
Just like you didn't use the goon portrait hack to help your corp analyze intel from local faster?
|
Ikki Phoenix
Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 00:07:00 -
[454]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix however to be honest,I don't see why all the complaints.
how can you not see what all the complaints are there? this isn't warp to 0, this is beyond allowing people to be lazy to the point of ridiculousness, its like condoning the logoffski, it basically allows someone as soon as they here *DING! FRIES ARE DONE* to log out run and do whatever. its utter crap
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix
CCP has said....
CCP has said alot of things, and the people at CCP have changed over the years so just cause some statements are made, if you go back to the last few monumental boners that have been uttered, the phrase "with a grain of salt" barely represents the tip of the iceberg on this one... if anything they should remove local in 0.0 and low sec, not add a diaper and handywipes
For people to log out when danger appears, that is each person's decision and cannot be blamed on any program,any single pilot and so forth
CCP may have changed their minds before,but that is their problem. As of now, they have said that this tool doesn't violate the EULA.As far as I am concerned that is good enough. If later CCP changes their mind, that is their problem and I am sure they will notify the owners and the users. But,what I am seeing here is basically a gang banging, people screaming for CCP to ban something which they said didn't break the EULA. That attitude is not fair to either the person that coded this tool,either to the users who like it. Bottom line is,if you or anyone else doesn't like it,don't use it. EveMag:Download Location 2 EveMag:Download Location 3 |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 00:58:00 -
[455]
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! |
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:06:00 -
[456]
Originally by: Greekil
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa What? For the amount of protesting I'm doing I think it's pretty clear I am against this type of loophole through backdoors and software dumps/logs.
I'm not going to use it.
Just like you didn't use the goon portrait hack to help your corp analyze intel from local faster?
Do you remember how when I found out it was against the EULA (CCP came forward and stated that client-side mods are not allowed) and that I stopped doing it?
Don't you dare come here and tell me that I am saying one thing and doing another. That was over a year ago, and the only reason you've posted in this thread is to talk crap about me.
|
darklegionca
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:09:00 -
[457]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
Originally by: Greekil
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa What? For the amount of protesting I'm doing I think it's pretty clear I am against this type of loophole through backdoors and software dumps/logs.
I'm not going to use it.
Just like you didn't use the goon portrait hack to help your corp analyze intel from local faster?
Do you remember how when I found out it was against the EULA (CCP came forward and stated that client-side mods are not allowed) and that I stopped doing it?
Don't you dare come here and tell me that I am saying one thing and doing another. That was over a year ago, and the only reason you've posted in this thread is to talk crap about me.
my god sig is that all you do is cry and whine get a life or just steal one like you did with my corp members ------------------------------------ darklegionca - One name. One legend. |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:09:00 -
[458]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
Do you remember how when I found out it was against the EULA (CCP came forward and stated that client-side mods are not allowed) and that I stopped doing it?
Yep, declared against the EULA because it did its work from INSIDE the game client. Which Bacon doesn't do.
Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:12:00 -
[459]
Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 22/04/2008 01:12:41
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.
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.
Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:14:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
Do you remember how when I found out it was against the EULA (CCP came forward and stated that client-side mods are not allowed) and that I stopped doing it?
Yep, declared against the EULA because it did its work from INSIDE the game client. Which Bacon doesn't do.
True, but it access game files directly from the client to interact with the user in real time. It walks the line, and because CCP has not yet come forward with a firm yes or no, this issue is boiling.
Also, people need to stop trolling individuals. It's immature and not called for. I came here to post about something I feel is realllllly walking the line in terms of game "legality" and I am posting about it. I have not once talked down to any of you or attempted to belittle you in any way. I do not single people out to point out their shortcomings or past deeds.
1) This is not a political campaign 2) I only have contempt for the software, not the people 3) Most of the people here are on my side so it would not be wise to criticize my feelings.
|
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:18:00 -
[461]
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! |
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:20:00 -
[462]
Although extremely lame, I'm grateful this tool exists. CCP can't *****foot around the removal of local anymore.
BAN LOCAL AND BAN ANYONE THAT DISAGREES _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/ |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:24:00 -
[463]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Although extremely lame, I'm grateful this tool exists. CCP can't *****foot around the removal of local anymore.
BAN LOCAL AND BAN ANYONE THAT DISAGREES
this tbqfh
Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route. |
Shaun Klaroh
Caldari Nova Mining Manufacturing and Research LTD
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:24:00 -
[464]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
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.
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. -----
Quote: "Are these people prisoners?" Arkhan asked.
"Not at all," Melak replied. "They're free to run and get shot any time they like."
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:29:00 -
[465]
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?
Quote:
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
Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:31:00 -
[466]
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! |
Trathen
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:32:00 -
[467]
This thread is too long Like the old A.D.D. jokes Let's go ride bikes now
|
easei
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:34:00 -
[468]
All this does is promote semi-AFK gaming. If your too lazy or can't be bothered to actully sit at the computer to play the game, why do you pay the monthly subscription fee?
Wait, I've got it. No really, Brilliant. CCP should offer 2 different subscriptions, one to players who play the game, and the other to players which AFK the game.
Can I get a Dev response regarding which is going to cost more? Thank you in advance.
This is a stupid tool. I sense you have no idea the trouble you've caused.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Umbra Synergy Final Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:41:00 -
[469]
how about where they made them take it down for 30 minutes and make some modifications so that it WOULD be acceptable? |
Segge Bolled
Caldari Dirty Sexy Pilots New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:41:00 -
[470]
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.
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. 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. |
|
Orion Eridanus
Dark Nova Crisis Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:42:00 -
[471]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
You show me where CCP has flat out stated that the program BACON with 100% certainty is not a violation of the EULA and/or TOS and I will stop posting.
This
I went looking through all the other BACON posts and did not see one Dev reply to it, and for all we know the OP is talking out his ass saying CCP approved it for the time being. One can only assume at this point that they are discussing the legality of it. |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:43:00 -
[472]
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. |
Dictum Factum
Gemini Sun Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:46:00 -
[473]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa I can't show you where CCP has flat out stated that the program BACON with 100% certainty is ... a violation of the EULA and/or TOS...
Fixed that for you. |
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Umbra Synergy Final Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:46:00 -
[474]
CCP please allow Bacon, if nothing more than the fact that it griefs a portion of the community in true EvE fashion |
Vlomini Drayk
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:47:00 -
[475]
ADAPT OR DIE - lolololol
No breaches of the ToS/EULA, I'm signing up for this one baby.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:47:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
"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.
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. 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.
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.
Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:49:00 -
[477]
Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 22/04/2008 01:49:14
Originally by: Dictum Factum
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa I can't show you where CCP has flat out stated that the program BACON with 100% certainty is ... a violation of the EULA and/or TOS...
Fixed that for you.
Really, get out of the thread. You have no reason to post here other than to attempt to troll me.
I don't know if you noticed, but there are quite a few people up in arms over this. None of you people (Gemini Sun) have added any constructive conversation to this thread so please get out -- unless you actually have something constructive to add to this discussion.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Umbra Synergy Final Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:51:00 -
[478]
Edited by: Tortun Nahme on 22/04/2008 01:51:37 Siig fails at gramma!
For instance, the term "attempts" is unacceptable, because said trolling was succesfull
aslo lol@irony
what have you "contributed" other than the usual whining?
Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to:
"Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:52:00 -
[479]
Originally by: Orion Eridanus
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
You show me where CCP has flat out stated that the program BACON with 100% certainty is not a violation of the EULA and/or TOS and I will stop posting.
This
I went looking through all the other BACON posts and did not see one Dev reply to it, and for all we know the OP is talking out his ass saying CCP approved it for the time being. One can only assume at this point that they are discussing the legality of it.
The OP linked a thread with 2 CCP posts saying that at this time they couldn't see any violation. These were made BEFORE release of the product; the originators specifically asked for a clarification.
Those posts ALSO said that they would consult higher up the chain for clarification. Since then the programmers have made alterations to the software (removal of tracking) to accommodate CCP's wishes.
CCP may well say that they have decided that the software indeed violates the useage of their systems, but until then permission HAS been given. CCP appears to be leaning towards "No Violation".
Even if they do rule it doesn't violate they can still encrypt the log server's files and kill the software without too much effort, closing a hole that could be used for more nefarious software. Personally I can see this happening.
Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Umbra Synergy Final Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:55:00 -
[480]
stop! \o/ your infallible logic will hurt their brains
Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to:
"Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |