During the recent debacle over the actions of some Denial HC’s I came across some information about Denials internal tools, which along with a quote from the EULA provided by Kargool prompted me to write this thread. I bring this up for public discussion because it lacks direct precedent and thus I feel the community has to make up its mind as to what the stance on it should be. I would ask of each of you to refrain from abusive comments so that we might hold a civil debate on this subject. Thank you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EULA
8. You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the websites…to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, such as through server emulators and bots. … You may not access the Game or your Account through other software than standard browsers, wap phones and alike, nor may you use automated programs / bots / scripts to do so.
…
18.3. Bots
Bots are not permitted to be used to access the game. Bot use is defined as, but not limited to:
(a) Using browser plug-ins that would make it easier for you to play the game
(b) Accessing the pages with another program (for example to check if you are under attack) ¿ see section 8.
|
The sections quoted above deal with various forms of external measures which interact with the game and may be used to provide a unfair advantage within the game. As basis for determining which actions are in breach of the aforementioned sections of the rules we can extrapolate some basic principles which may help us evaluate cases:
a) The game may be accessed only through standard browsers or similar devices.
b) Any automation of any actions is prohibited.
c) The game content may not be used to create any devices through which the game can be played.
How is this then to be interpreted? Various interpretations are possible, but in the interest of brevity I will only deal with the extremes.
The lenient interpretation of the rules states that you shall use a standard browser to access the game, each action must be performed by the player himself, and you may not create external measure which either access the game for you or perform actions without your involvement. As such, this forbids the use of bots and various scripts which may serve to automate various actions as well as custom programs for viewing the content provided. This may be seen as the conventional interpretation.
The stringent interpretation prohibits the use of any form of external measures which may be used to access the content, automate the use of it in any way or otherwise to play the game. Again, this prohibits the use of bots and various scripts as well as tools which may be indirectly used to automate the gameplay.
Now whilst these may seem quite similar, the results are quite different. Taken to its extremes, it might be argued that the stringent interpretation would disallow the use of a battlecalc or a service such as sandmans, because they provide a external way of viewing the content as well as automate various functions of the game. Luckily this is not the case, as Planetarion provides the information these services make use of freely and with the implied consent of their use for said services. Furthermore in law tradition may be regarded as a precedent. As these services are not only enabled by the actions of Planetarion but are also well known and have not been found to be in breach of the rules in the past, it may be concluded that they are allowed.
As I said earlier, I have come across some information with regards to Denial and their use of tools which may be considered in breach of the EULA. The tool in question is a IRC-bot which allows the creation of direct links to perform various actions within the game. I would like to stress that I am not proposing that aforementioned actions are illegal, however it seems to me that the use of said automation is in breach of at least the stringent interpretation of the rules, as well as our basic principles as set forth earlier. As basis for this interpretation I provide:
a) The bot automates the performance of an action be reducing multiple tasks to a single clicking of a link, thus it is in breach of principle b under a stringent interpretation which includes indirect automation.
b) Said automation may be viewed as either a means by which to access the game which is beyond that of a standard browser, or indeed as a means of playing the game itself, in which case it is in breach of principles a and/or c.
c) The means by which the bot has been created utilizes game content which is not distributed with intent but as a side-effect of how the game is coded. This implies that the utilization of said content which enabled the creation of said bot is in violation of principle c, and that the bot itself is in breach of the EULA(note that this does not in and of itself render the use of said bot in breach of the rules).
d) The use of such a bot constitutes a unfair advantage within the game as it enables/simplifies various tasks which require either synchronization of events or execution of orders. The mere existence of such a bot implies that it is seen as a tool which provides a advantage in the game in terms of simplifying tasks, lowering the amount of effort required, preventing mishaps(misslaunches and such) and enabling a faster completion of tasks than is ordinarily possible.
I would like to finish off by stating that just as in law, each person is responsible for their actions. One can not argue ignorance of the rules, as they are made publicly available and each person is required to affirm them as a part of signing up for the game. Neither is the lack of precedence or an ignorance of the possible interpretations of the rules an argument, as rules are not simply written for present cases but for adaptation in judgment of all future cases as well. This is all.