What Constitutes as Cheating

Great post Brett.

[deleted]

Why am I arguing with you here?
I can argue with you in person at the AEDC Bot Watchers HQ.

And for those in the cheap seats: "NO - the AEDC Bot Watchers don't hang around Bondi Beach all day chatting up French backpackers in thongs and G strings". (The backpackers in thongs, not the middle aged Space Sim enthusiasts, do I look like Borat?)
We do serious stuff. Like spreadsheets, and whatever that other database Python thingy is with all the blobby colours and system names scrolling across in real time like a stock market and about as hard to read. Dead serious.
What about backpackers in Wicked Weasel wear?😎
 
Could you point me to the part of the EULA which gives FD right to decide on a case-by-case basis which software is ok? Not sarcastic, just honestly curious, because I can't find it.
The EULA doesn't need to say "case-by-case" basis. FDev can choose to enforce any/none/all of the EULA contents with those that have agreed to it, as they see fit (within the bounds of the user's Consumer Rights of course). FDev have that "right" as bound by the EULA contract agreed to by the user; if the user doesn't want to abide by the rules within, the contract can be ended by FDev thus terminating their access to the game.

Seeing as HCS Voicepacks is an officially-licenced partner of FDev (for Elite Dangerous), and requires VoiceAttack to function, use of the latter isn't in breach of the ToS. Same goes for other officially-supported input mediums: HOTAS, head & eye tracking, custom panel switches, etc.
 
The EULA doesn't need to say "case-by-case" basis. FDev can choose to enforce any/none/all of the EULA contents with those that have agreed to it, as they see fit (within the bounds of the user's Consumer Rights of course). FDev have that "right" as bound by the EULA contract agreed to by the user; if the user doesn't want to abide by the rules within, the contract can be ended by FDev thus terminating their access to the game.

Seeing as HCS Voicepacks is an officially-licenced partner of FDev (for Elite Dangerous), and requires VoiceAttack to function, use of the latter isn't in breach of the ToS. Same goes for other officially-supported input mediums: HOTAS, head & eye tracking, custom panel switches, etc.
Oh but they can't one-sidedly decide to do it, because EULA is a legally binding document for all parties, it's a contract. They are bound by it just as much as I am.
 
We are discussing if the EULA permits FD to make case-by-case decisions of permitted use of automation software and not possible consequences of breaching it.
Please read carefully what I write. :)
He wasn't even quoting you. So, please read carefully what others write.
 
Oh but they can't one-sidedly decide to do it, because EULA is a legally binding document for all parties, it's a contract. They are bound by it just as much as I am.
They absolutely can, because that is the agreement the user agreed to - go read it. You'll find there is very little in there that gives the user any rights over FDev (to be effectively "bound to" as you say). Like most EULA's, it is vastly 1-sided in favour of the provider (FDev in this case).
 
They absolutely can, because that is the agreement the user agreed to - go read it. You'll find there is very little in there that gives the user any rights over FDev (to be effectively "bound to" as you say). Like most EULA's, it is vastly 1-sided in favour of the provider (FDev in this case).
For me EULA provides misleading information that could lead to legal problems, but since neither of us is a lawyer, we'll have to stop this discussion (until some lawyer chimes in) and agree that we disagree. :)
 
Where is that stated in the EULA?
No point in including it in the EULA, it's called shadow ban for a reason :)

Someone ending up there is still able to play the game, still able to blaze his trail, still able to meet others, still able to influence a BGS. He can play solo, grouped or open, all together with his fellow cheaters.
 
No point in including it in the EULA, it's called shadow ban for a reason :)

Someone ending up there is still able to play the game, still able to blaze his trail, still able to meet others, still able to influence a BGS. He can play solo, grouped or open, all together with his fellow cheaters.
The shadow-ban they referred to, is being able to play solo without affecting game progression, either power-play or story driven events or event faction influence or faction conflicts. I don't know to what length they will be blocked from multiplayer, though. Maybe open mode only. Private groups too? I wonder. They were not verbose when they spoke of shadow-ban.
 
That's not what the EULA is for, it simply states that you can have action taken against you for certain activities.

Not what action may be taken against you.
Why not? Is it another Elite topical thingy where things have to be so different from other MMOs because reasons?

If shadow ban exists and is a feature used to punish cheaters, why not put it front and center, in the EULA, in the FAQs?
 
Oh but they can't one-sidedly decide to do it, because EULA is a legally binding document for all parties, it's a contract. They are bound by it just as much as I am.
It gives them the right. It doesn't guarantee or binds them to enforcement. It just gives them a tool should they wish to act.
 
All of this is just one of the many reasons I play exclusively in Solo mode.

Don't have to worry about cheaters when you are the only one around.
 
All of this is just one of the many reasons I play exclusively in Solo mode.

Don't have to worry about cheaters when you are the only one around.
yes , solo mode the answer to everything , "Dont like ____? , Play in solo. Bad at the game? Play in solo. Good at the game? play in solo. Like hideing from problems instead of fixing them? play in SOLO!" im sorry but this way of thinking is alien to me 😕
 
Top Bottom