Sloth: Eve's Cardinal Sin

Avatar
It should be noted that "Christian theology" - or rather theologies - do not agree on the definition of cardinal sins. Tradition based confessions like Catholicism and Reformed Churches do use them, where biblical based movements generally reject the idea of sin "degrees" or "scale".The beginning of the article should therefore be "In some Christian theologies" or simply "In Catholic theology".This great moment of insignificant debate was brought to you by me. You're welcome.Edit: the quality of this article satisfies me, and I do agree with the statement that all input should be human. Have my thumbs-up on that one, dear sir.
Avatar
Thank fuck I'm a Satanist. Group sex, killing goats and listening to rock music: job done.
Avatar
Amusingly enough, being a Satanist implies adhering to general Christian theology. I believe most people that revendicate following Satanistism actually worship themselves or their own desires.Good thing people of science and reason put order through that and gave actual responses to usual objections to christian ethics, such as Kant and his Universal Maxim.Reason, philosophy, science, theology: job done.
Avatar
Though "market export" is the classic and fully sanctioned method of collecting market data from the client, it's the poor-man's way of doing it. And as you describe it with a click macro, that would be outside EULA (IMO).All the current market aggregators use a direct cache scraping feed. When the market loads for any product, the scraper uploads the data as if you clicked "market export". Also, goonmetrics uses sanctioned IGB API hooks in their blessed implementation, hence their insistence on being "inside the rules".
Avatar
The more you guys try to publicly argue that "this and that is not botting", the more you guys will feel the wrath of CCP. Just sayin'.
Avatar
A few words I've written on this, from the technical side: http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2013...A full crest api, allowing you to yank data for any specific item, at any time you want, is a little too open for my liking. 'Perfect' market data is dangerous.
Avatar
You can't call the marketinfo function on items faster than once every 3 seconds, it produces an error. Thus, CCP deliberately allows market scanning at >=3s/item rates.Cache scraping as been approved of by CCP and has been around for years now. Even EveMon does it by default, sending the data to market sites.
Avatar
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Avatar
Very good quote of James that renders obvious every "christian oriented" esoterism and gnostic beliefs' core consequence. Either you believe or you don't, but if you do, it is necessary that you should be coherent in your beliefs. Satanism is in its own essence useless and irrational, for the unbeliever and believer alike.
Avatar
The problem is, GMs have said 'cache scraping is fine'. Sreegs says 'it's bad and I want to ban it'vOv
Avatar
Exactly. CCP have provided third-party devs with a function to display market information via a JavaScript call in the in-game browser; they've rate-restricted it; it seems a little odd to then claim that using this function in the manner it was designed somehow constitutes an EULA breach.
Avatar
Sregs is however, no longer a CCP employee. So the discussion is moot till his successors position is known.
Avatar
The first thing that CCP would need to do is to make the market UI better, the ability to see and set prices easily (think arrows beside the asking price) from the item screen should be a first and foremost task. Then, the ability to create custom in game trackers by sticking items into a racking window to allow for monitoring of multiple goods in one screen at a time, with an option to save those screens as configuration would be next. Lastly, a way in game to pay isk for a semi-up to date information on markets elsewhere (say 1000 isk - 10 000 isk per refresh per item depending on how up to date you want), from anywhere in a docked station in the world would be nice (sorry eve-central).Lastly, they would then encrypt and protect all these cache to put a stop to all these kind of stuff, since the difference between a market bot and something beneficial and needed like eve-central is hard to differentiate, and thus this would close loopholes of grey area programs.
Avatar
Having slightly delayed (five minutes?) market data available via API would be a decent solution. If someone wants to sit there clicking and checking prices non-stop, they could outdo a software solution based on it, but it would eliminate the need for third-party data sources.The bigger problem is that there is no meaningful cost (100 ISK is peanuts) to deter .01ing. It isn't fun, it isn't realistic, and it doesn't enhance the rest of the game. Perhaps a charge that is a percentage of the order value?
Avatar
Huh? When did this happen? I don't recall reading anything about this.
Avatar
Say what? Proof, sir!
Avatar
You're claiming that using a function that CCP explicitly included in the In Game Browser that they built in the manner which they intended it to be used* is in any way and exploit?Or is there some off-the-shelf browser code that includes EVE Market specific code hooks for javascript that I am unaware of?*or can you think of another use for a hook that allows website to open the IG market window to an item, other than opening the market window to an item?
Avatar
So you are arguing that macros that execute hundreds of tasks with one mouse click do not violate the EULA and that market information thus gained much faster than someone doing all the tasks manually (at least over the course of a few hours) does not facilitate the acquisition of items, currency, or objects at an accelerated rate compared to normal game play. I respectfully disagree.
Avatar
As a sandbox Eve should be open to innovation in whatever form. If there is a way to manipuate the market either the market needs to be fixed or when enough people figure out how to best the system margins decrease. e.g. arbitrage across regions.
Avatar
Kant's reasoning is valid in the way that he says reason (seen as universal, just as mathematics are universal from a reason-standpoint) suffices to determine whether the sum of consequences of an action is positive or negative. That, in an absolute way, cannot be objected. But, just as most people don't know much about mathematics (see the 0+0+0+0+0+0+1 = 0 thing on Facebook to be conviced of that) and confuse notions, to a point it seems to them that all that depends on "mysterious" things (on people basically), the same can be said about ethics and moral standards: most people get confused, and due to the lack of great philosophers in the last century, people are misguided into thinking morals are a relative matter.But what most people think, or what uninformed folk have a tendency to follow isn't relevant, only reason is, which is why it appears to me Kant's view on ethics is perfectly right: it is its application that is a lot more complex. You wouldn't do math without theorems of your predecessors, so why would you do that for ethics? Are you somehow more enlightened in ethics (which are a complex matter) than in math (which, at the level most people use them, are relatively simple)?
Avatar
No in game items, currency, or objects are acquired (accelerated rate or otherwise), so absolutely. The legal uses are limited to cycling through market details on items (modifying nothing) in order to fill the cache.It's also slower than a Human can do it. Since CCP has a (IIRC) 3s minimum time between accepting orders from the Javascript hooks. Why would CCP put a rate limit on something that was not intended to cycle through many items' market details?Again, this is a tool that CCP coded into the IGB being used in the only way CCP could have intended for it to be used. AKA Normal Gamplay.If CCP thought it was an exploit, they could simply disable the IGB hooks. They have not done so.
Avatar
I might have expressed my thoughts in an obscure way: it is obvious that Kant's philosophy integrates christian ethics perfectly, which is logical as Kant was a christian himself.It does not mean his expression of ethics isn't rationaly based, or biaised in any way, it might just simply mean christian ethics are "systematically" reasonable.So to respond to your proposition, I would say that rather than an atheistic view of christian ethics, Kant's system is a rational view of christian ethics.His moral system is deeply based on christian axioms that are fairly easily accepted by reason, such as the existence of a state of "good" and "bad", one being the normal state of all things and the other their broken state. Note that it is necessary to dissociate the notion of good and bad from their manifestations (is it good or bad to steal, ...), and Kant's system is specifically the one that defines what caracterises such manifestations.
Avatar
Funny pun, though you will note most scientists, prior to the 20th century, had the habit of not simply staying into "simple sciences" (physics, mathematics) and to elaborate a coherent thought system. The mistake contemporary science makes is that it obviously ignores what has made and lead science for almost 3000 years, which is that reason should not content itself with "lower" sciences, but also to higher and more complex systems, such as ethics as we are talking about here.If truly you are an intelligent being, capable of wielding equations and systems "like a boss", then reason imposes you to rethink the whole of what's been taught to you. And if you're simply giving up, like too many scientists do, and just say "bah it's all cultural and relative", not only are you completely blind to very blatant phenomenons, but also it is pretty weak and contrary to what reason compells you to do. Don't be that lazy arse :)
Avatar
I am not very versed in the different kinds of Satanism. Obviously, esoteric practices associated with the rejection of all religion systems is irrational, which is why I won't elaborate here.In a word: meh.
Avatar
ok here do we have a problem. why is only reason relevant? refering to ethics which refers itself to human interaction, reason starts to become problematic. the reason is that for good reasoning you need to know inputs and outputs and the processes which leads to a certain output. to have an easy example: we do have the input A, the process "when A then B" and the conclusion/output B, which is perfectly reasonable or logic.As we talk about ethics and therefore human interaction then we see that human beings arent trivial enough to observe all relevant implications to make good reasoning, because outputs vary drastically even when inputs stay the same.One have to admit. it does not apply to Kants ethic as he build an entire system which is in itself reasonable, which is why i like his philosophy. but then again; someone has to accept the entire system and is then able to reason about ethics. but the act of accepting is more or less irrational. one could accept another system which is in itself reasonable but has different conclusions. utilitarism for example. then we start all over again. something which is for one person good is for another person bad.and there is no reason that tells us what system is "the right one"its just preference...one could say the very first step of all rational thoughts is an irrational one.
Avatar
nothing to add here. good read again
Avatar
I like your conclusion, and I daresay Descartes would as well, as he founded all reason one one sole crazy thought: I think I am, cogito sum.However I object your reasoning according to which complexity in human interaction renders ethics unreachable. It is clear to me that reason makes all things one: take subatomic and quantum physics for instance. At first the results seemed abherrant and very difficult to understand. But complexity is never out of reason's grasp, only out of some men's (and in the case of ethics, most men's) grasp.However, a realistic view of ethics from a reasonable standpoint, as you point it out, is that it is extraordinarily complex. But where you decide that this complexity makes it impossible for reason to observe, quantify and generally determine, I decide that on the contrary, efforts should be doubled because of this complexity.The problem is that in most cultures today (especially the Western), these debates are left to a couple of (often misguided, I'm sorry but it's clearly what I see) authors, people of debate, politics, letters, and not men of reason and science. And it is this state of things that I'm rebelling against, because it has always been to men of reason and science to judge, determine and pursue philosophical knowledge as much as less complex matters.There's a blatant paradox there, because ideologies such as evolutionism and genetic determinism make us think we are as we are because of nature and simple chemical reactions, which must be observed (and I strongly disagree with those that add to the observation an ideological layer of "There's no God, see I can read these genes, how can there be a God" which is irrelevant in most cases), and have us conclude that human interactions are the simple fruit of brain neuro-chemical reactions, but then when it comes to giving a meaning to these thoughts and actually judging and observing them (and not only there origin), science and reason must stop.And this paradox is unbearable to me: if truly you are a man of reason, ideology or belief should never prevent you from observing and driving conclusions about what you are apt to observe. It's a very peculiar kind of modern obscurantism, and I hate obscurantism.Now, I do agree with you, morals are a very complex matter, and it is a very arduous task, but I don't recall Descartes, Kant, Pascal or any other great name of science renounce to one of their reasoning because "Mommy, it's too hard" ^^
Avatar
I hate clever people
Avatar
Be reassured, if they do follow Kant's ethic system, they are intelligent enough not to hate you back :) Moreover, clever people are responsible for nearly everything you use every day, including this computer and network system that allows you to express your hatred. Good Guy Clever Scientist.
Avatar
The big problem is that the EULA language misses the whole point of bots. Strictly speaking, mission bots and mining bots acquire items, currency, etc at a *slower* rate than would a human piloted ship. Their big advantage is stamina, not speed.Conversely, mapping a few commands to a G15 keyboard or mouse button does help you do that task faster, but most players would consider that to be OK.
Avatar
I dont like Descartes, mostly because of his tendency to solipsism.But the idea isnt that far away of mine. I believe that every human being is in an forever ongoing solitude with his own thoughts. and any idea that another person understands what I try to point out is again just a thought of mine. There is no sharing of information. Just the sole idea that someone might understand because he is doing something that gives me a feeling that he understands. I do like Kants epistemology. I guess i dont need to tell you his theory of cognition. Regarding the fact that its over 300 years old it is still quite adequat. Mostly because of his point of view according to the object world which he mentioned as thing in itself (I dont know how to translate "Ding an sich"). Thats all we know: Yeah actually there is an objective world but all we know about it is constructed in our mind and therefore highly subjective.According to an experiment on Monkey Eyes I red a while back ago. They made the conclusion that the idea of distance comes from the accommodation of the eye. If that is true it means our senses, better said our tools of empirism or observation are highly subjective too. in the case of accommodation it depense on muscles, eye lenses and other factors of eye anatomy. Its a no brainer that every human has a slighlty different anatomy and therefore every human observes differently.So I believe there is no representation of the world that we can observe, just an interpretation which is different from human to human. What does it say about the objective thruth? Well it does not exist or better said it exists out of a konsense we all build up. A konsense generated out of the sole feeling of someone understands what iam saying because he reacts in a manner that gives me the idea that he understands and the forever ongoing of doing so by all participants.Furthermore I do believe there are things out there that are simply not possible to observe. They are closed. And when we use certain tools to "open" and observe them then we observe something else than what we were intended to. I think our mind our better said the processes that are responsible for the production of what we call our mind is such a closed system. The only thing this form of observation would tell us is what we want to observe but not how it truly operates.What does it tell us about reasoning? Its a matter to what reasoning is relying to. As far as i know it is not able to rely to an objective truth so it has to be something else. As in my opinion if everything is konsense reasoning is a method for our communication that raises the chance to "make" someone understand. Thus said to make someone do something which gives me the feeling he understands.But if reasoning is just a tool to raise the chance of understanding then there might be other tools able to do the same stuff. But i have to admit reasoning is a very good way to make complex matters understandable, but there is no reason why we should act in the sake of reasoning. That said ethics dont necessarily need to be reasonable at all.You comments are highly interesting for me tbh. If i would not neglect the humans ability of rationality in this way I do, i would come to the exact same conclusion you presenting.
Avatar
That's a very fair argument you bring here. I must say I understand you point of view with a certain accuracy as I have contemplated the same conclusions several times when I considered, built and changed thought-systems that were available to me.And I must say that I like the quality of your comments as well, specifically because they reflect a point of view I understand, although it isn't mine.As your conclusive sentence depicts it, we are reaching different conclusions because we have decided to either elect or reject human reason as a potential observer of the world. Where you decide that impossibility to determine anything with absolute certainty without calling to solipsism invalidates reason as an absolute decider (backed-up by the fact that indeed, the form of any piece of information we get from the world is necessarily subjective), I make the opposite decision, and think it can be trusted to a certain extent, if it is based on sufficiently simple cases as starting points (in mathematics, the addition and substraction, ...) and as long as empirical results back up reason's choices.Above all in your argument, I am delighted by the fact that you clearly state that most of reason and knowledge is in fact inaccurate or incomplete at best, and completely subjective and wrong at worst. I clearly adhere to that idea that made the greatest scientists and thinkers put their pen down and contemplate this idea: "I know nothing".However, even if I accept that I don't have certainty about the world around me (for all I know it could stop in an instant), I can still empirically determine some "game rules", that might not be always valid but that can be trusted enough to be widely used on the practical plan.A good example is gravity. As you stated, it is impossible to know for sure about gravity. It could very well be my mind toying with me.However, as long as these empirical rules do not change, I can fairly well understand and accomodate with them. And I make the choice (which is an act of faith, truly) to trust that understanding I have of game rules as they stand and elaborate with it.Finally, it drives me to the conclusion I have already exposed before, I merely wanted to bring a tad more light on what, in fine, makes our point of views so different (although our reasonings are both valid), due to an act of faith, an axiom, that differs.As for ethics, I am afraid reason can still bring practical answers that will, statistically, work for most people. For instance, it is fairly easy to understand a child needs parents, or even that man needs society, and needs to be kept away from harm. It is on these empirical points (which cannot be, as you've demonstrated, "absolute truths" from an intellectual point of view) that ethics can be built.And I agree with you as for the "reasonability" of ethics: as far as I've seen, purely reason based ethics always underperformed when compared to "living" ethics: human capability of empathy brings a lot more motivation than reason on that point.I do appreciate this discussion. I wouldn't have expected that on the mittani but eh, it surprises me still ^^
Avatar
:)
Avatar
The ONLY problem I have with CCP and Team Security, is the mixed messages and the oddness that one form of input duplication that DOES allow increased acquisition of wealth IS permitted (running multiple instances of eve that all use the same command inputs from a single mouse and keyboard).This article is not about generating income, but is about obtaining information about the markets in the game. I see no issue with this, and in fact I think it should be open for all to access. No other market in the world behaves like the Eve market; where if you are in London you can't even see the figures on the market in New York. It's just plain stupid.
Avatar
I can't find it on his twitter now so maybe it's off but he had tweeted about looking for places in the USA because he had accepted or was considering accepting a job with SOE. Smedly has been pretty active on his personal twitter which added a certain authenticity to the idea. Time will tell I guess
Avatar
Have you bothered to explore any of the other features of goonmetrics? That market scrape is basically the step that allows us to use the actual tools for other things. It just assists us in providing baseline market scans. Then we do all the manual effort things checking the various market metrics available via that tool and making decisions on what to import. It DOES NOT automate any market transactions whatsoever. It allows us to drop EFT fits in, figure out what we need to import vs what is already there for a reasonable price. It allows us to figure out what needs seeding. It lets us check margins, market health, and demand. But in order to do that , we need baseline market data. CCP doesn't give us any other way to obtain that.
Avatar
when you get right down to it. that market scrape is just the foundation for the real features of goonmetrics which is players actually doing the effort on the market analytics.

In Christian theology wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony are known as capital vices or cardinal sins. Catholics see these seven deadly sins as the origins of all other sin. In New Eden, the seven deadly sins are the origins of emergent gameplay and CCP has effectively incorporated five of the seven deadly sins (with lust and gluttony to appear in future expansions) to drive the player interactions that make Eve Online the preeminent sandbox in the MMO space today.

Sometimes players embrace these sins to such a degree that CCP steps in to protect their creation. The sin most likely to invoke the wrath of the Icelandic Inquisition is sloth. While in the canons of the Church of Hilmar greed is good, laziness in obtaining wealth by using bots and macros is not. Since the end of February 2012 these investigators, more commonly known as Team Security, have steadily battled those who see the EULA as just another challenge to overcome. Up until now the vision most players had of Team Security’s foes was of mission and mining bots mixed together with a leavening of ISK sellers, some of whom had infiltrated the leadership of a handful of alliances. But with the recent events and allegations coming out of Aldrat the inquisitors’ light now appears to shine upon New Eden’s financial sector.

The current controversy surrounds the use of cache scraping by the developers of applications and websites used by serious market traders and industrialists looking to maximize profits by purchasing the cheapest raw materials and components. The cache in question consists of log files that hold the same information found in the comma-delimited files players create by clicking on the “Export Data” button on the bottom of the market window. The only other way outside the cache to programmatically obtain the information is to use an object to mouse over the “Export Data” button to create a comma-delimited file. With the ability to read the cache a developer can write code to pull a character’s current outstanding orders from the Eve API, pull them into an array that displays in a web page, and then loop through the array, opening up the market for all the items for which a player has placed orders. In the process, the cache is populated with the market data for each item checked and thus available for other applications.

Is the looping code that utilizes the cache a macro? In a promotional video for Eve Mentat the developer demonstrates the Eve Mentat website looping through 67 items, opening up the market window 67 times. A player can perform the same actions fairly easily by putting all items of interest on the market quickbar. After the initial set up all that is required to create files containing the desired market information is two mouse clicks for each item, one to select the item and one to export the data. So in the example posted by Eve Mentat one click of a button executes the equivalent of 134 mouse clicks. 

However, the heretics in the financial community believe the EULA allows such automation. According to the rules CCP Sreegs upholds is this paragraph:

“You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.” [emphasis mine]

Eve Online EULA, Section 6 Paragraph 3a

To the developers for the financial community the paragraph clearly permits automation as long as the code executes slower than a human can perform the tasks. In the Eve Mentat promotional video the full execution of the loop is sped up because the actual execution time for each price check is set to three seconds. Apparently the developer community for market applications and websites don’t feel bound to just finding ways to loop through data. As one aspiring developer recently wrote, “though some small amount of click/macro automation is expected and sanctioned, it's pretty clear the rules are ‘inputs should come from humans’.” Click automation, such as programmatically performing mouse-clicks? I believe the vast majority of players believe that all inputs inside the game client, whether the actions involve entering a price or just clicking on a button or item, should come from humans and that the faithful would cry out in anger if they believed CCP sanctions any form of automation.

Does the development community recognize any limits other than the speed with which their code executes actions? Not if the capabilities of another well-known online resource are an accurate indication. Goonmetrics, a technical solution designed to aid players in stocking Goonswarm Federation’s null sec market hubs, explains on its “Market Scan” page some of the tool’s capabilities. The “Full Scan” option loops through a list of approximately 7,100 items, gathering market information for upload to a central database. Looping through the list takes 5 hours 55 minutes using a 3 second delay option or 9 hours 51 minutes using a 5 second delay. The “Custom Scan” option allows users to create a custom list and loop through the list until the next downtime. The site claims, “We conform to the EULA and don't do anything underhanded, but feel free to verify this on your own if you wish. The methods used are similar to those used by several other public tools.” But does that type of performance really conform to the EULA?  Listening to the arguments of the supporters of tools like Eve Mentat and Goonmetrics, the answer is yes. For them, human frailties such as stamina are not important. 

Orthodox thought, however, holds that the phrase “ordinary Game play” in Section 6 Paragraph 3a of the EULA also refers to the length of time players can reasonably play Eve and not just the speed that users can execute commands within the game client. One of the reasons that bots are so attractive to the slothful is the length of time they can operate. While bots are usually less capable than a player sitting behind the keyboard, they make up for their lack of skill with inhuman endurance. That quality, however, is a double-edged sword and many bot developers believe that the typical bot behavior flags accounts for special attention from Team Security. Bot developers now include features such as randomized undocking delays and recommend reduced usage times (running a bot 23/7 now invites ridicule) in order to look more like a non-AFK player.

As an adherent of traditional anti-bot/anti-macro dogma I subscribe to the idea that Section 6 Paragraph 3a of the EULA actually means that players will not use any automation to perform tasks within the Eve client, with the clause “at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play” merely a justification for why “third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes” are prohibited. In terms of the EULA I do not see the difference between a mission bot running in high sec that performs complex decision-making and executes hundreds of tasks and a simple macro that opens up the market window 200 times to store the information for 200 different items. The heretics pushing what they would consider a more enlightened interpretation of the EULA would contend that automation is acceptable as long as the automation is not as efficient as the same actions performed by a human. My main objection to this line of thought is that one could extend the argument and that the EULA allows both mission and mining bots as long as they are less efficient than a human and follow the rest of CCP’s commandments. I reject any type of logic that could lead to such an outcome.

The way to bridge any schism amongst the developers over cache scraping is to make market data available via a CREST API while at the same time changing the way information is cached for use by the market window and removing the functionality within the in-game browser that allows massive looping to open market windows. Such a solution ideally would result in little if any loss of current functionality and would hinder market bots that rely on the built-in functionality of the IGB. But in the end, except for input from the Council of Stellar Management, the laity can only wait for signals to emerge from Reykjavik.

[name_1]
Horribly scarred by the use of mods in WoW I now scour the MMO landscape looking for games where I do not have to view automation. I found such a sanctuary in Eve Online's low security space.