I'm not nitpicking at all.
While contract law isn't my specialty, I've learned enough about it to know that the terms of a contract cannot be interpreted too broadly or arbitrarily by either side for the contract to remain intact. So you are mistaken if you think that "what FC says goes".
The EULA is not unilateral - FunCom has to abide by the terms just as much as the customer.
So, if people object to 3rd party multi-boxing on the grounds that it violates the EULA, they make a good case here.
From what I recall years ago, FunCom exempted certain programs, such as clicksaver or chatbots from the EULA because of:
a) their great popularity and value to the game and,
b) the small risk of damage or abuse that they pose.
Now, I have no idea how broad (all types of these programs) or how narrow (only specifically named programs) these exemption were.
That knowledge would be
crucial for any further discussion. If anyone knows more about it, that would be a great help!
Generally speaking:
If the exemptions were very specific, the EULA remains intact and could be enforced against anything not specifically covered by the exemptions.
Alternatively, new exemptions could be made to include software not covered in the past.
If the exemptions were so broad that the EULA was voided or partially voided, then FC has no grounds to enforce anything at all.
This, of course, would open the door for a slew of new headaches.
Having watched FunCom fumble through the last decade, I'm afraid to ask anything further...