A programme to ensure we are all playing the same game.

[testuseraccount]

It is not.

Is it not conversely unreasonable to have your stance in allowing full and utter exploitation and ruinous habits running wild as well?

We both obviously both take gaming "seriously" as we seem to represent polar opposites, but which one preserves and which one destroys, huh?

[Kaivan]

Is it not conversely unreasonable to have your stance in allowing full and utter exploitation and ruinous habits running wild as well?

We don't allow "full and utter exploitation and ruinous habits" in so much as it is reasonable to control and within the right of the shard to manage. This is exactly why we have rules against using any unapproved 3rd party programs on UOSA. Beyond that limited control, no reasonable controls exist because of the fact that any such controls reach far beyond the confines of UOSA, and are thus no longer reasonable controls on what someone does on UOSA.

Edit: It would be unreasonable to allow players to run any program and do anything they wanted while on UOSA (i.e. hack accounts, run any bot program they wanted, exploit whatever bugs they wanted, afk gather, etc.); however, as I stated, we don't allow that.

[testuseraccount]

I am not going to get into an argument about the semantics of behaviour.

Razor is cheating, and so are any external programmes that provide a level of advantage other another player.

This rule has been applied to all games ever since the beginning of time. Games are simply steps and protocol, and none of the designs of UO had anything to do with razor or any other program of that nature.

"the right of the shard to manage", so if you clearly explain what your doing and provide someone with a choice in the matter, thats fine. How is it any different in essence from a virus scanner? Or punkbuster?

Its not collecting data to be used to exploit you as a person, or to use you for some nasty motive, its basically putting your computer into a sort of "console mode" which, if by comparison of other paid user agreements: What your saying is that if you buy an xbox you should be allowed to hack it, put what you want on it and not get banned from xbox live (you should be able to sue/take action against them for restricting you).

[Kaivan]

The developers of UO would disagree with you, considering the fact that they have a list of UOPro programs, which are 3rd party programs that are allowed to run along side the UO client. Beyond that, you've already gotten into the semantics of behavior by proposing a program that forbids anyone from using a program outside that of the client. This implicitly labels all behavior as cheating. Finally, despite the fact that I would agree that any unapproved 3rd party programs that only have the intent of interacting with the game are tantamount to cheating, we and every other gaming company on the planet recognize that this position has limits and would never attempt to restrict all access to all programs under the blanket of cheating. This is a preposterous line of thinking and cannot be defended.

[testuseraccount]

See my edit.

PS: we are in the T2A era, none of that stuff is accurate Like I said, this shard is dead; all its doing is freezing the game in place with a specific set of arrangements. It will never go anywhere except become more accurate as time goes on (in other words backwords).

[Kaivan]

"the right of the shard to manage", so if you clearly explain what your doing and provide someone with a choice in the matter, thats fine. How is it any different in essence from a virus scanner? Or punkbuster?

Punkbuster doesn't prevent you from running any program except the game that you're playing. It checks for a specific list of programs that directly interact with the program in question, and prevents any known and unapproved program from running in tandem with that program by closing the affected program. Labeling every single program as a cheat program is unreasonable, and no one would agree to such terms as a matter of practicality.

What your saying is that if you buy an xbox you should be allowed to hack it, put what you want on it and not get banned from xbox live (you should be able to sue/take action against them for restricting you).

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The hardware and operating system that you run on your computer is not sold to you by us or by the former OSI, and as such there isn't even an argument for jurisdiction over that.

The entire reason that consoles operate the way they do is by design (unlike a traditional computer), and even then, hacking the console to cause it to provide additional capabilities is not wrong, provided those additional capabilities do not allow you to interact with the multiplayer service in an unapproved manner. If such hacks do allow you do interact with the multiplayer service in an unapproved manner, then Microsoft is well within its justification to remove you from the service, exactly the same as we are.

You gain no ground by suggesting that your program places the computer into a "console mode", because you have no grounds for jurisdiction over someone else's hardware in the first place, and no reasonable person would give you that jurisdiction. You cannot shift the burden of your argument.

See my edit.

PS: we are in the T2A era, none of that stuff is accurate

Wrong.

[testuseraccount]

Good bit with the wayback machine btw.

So why arnt we using those programs instead?

I guess I am totally wrong and I retract my position for this shard and era.



OSI officially screwed themselves over by that move and its nothing but raping the game of life and the enjoyment that existed at its inception. It pretty much sums up their position with the game and its eventual downfall.

Oh I see why they did this now: It was just money, bleh; typical.

"These products were created, and are marketed and distributed by individual authors under license from Origin Systems, Inc. ORIGIN SYSTEMS HAS NOT TESTED THESE PRODUCTS IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER AND DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER THEY WORK IN ANY OR ALL REASONABLY FORESEEABLE SITUATIONS OR THAT THEY WILL NOT CAUSE DAMAGE IN SOME REASONABLY FORESEEABLE SITUATIONS"

Holy crap, it gets even worse!

"Origin Systems has not checked the source code for any of these programs. Origin Systems will not be held responsible for anything that should happen to your account or computer as a result of using these programs. Origin Systems does not support these programs. If you have problems with them, please contact the author of the program directly. Use at your own risk."

Man, license/usage agreements; funny stuff: Huh?

[Kaivan]

See my edits, good bit with the wayback machine btw.

So why arnt we using those programs instead?

I guess I am totally wrong and I retract my position!



OSI officially screwed themselves over by that move and its nothing but raping the game of life and the enjoyment that existed at its inception. It pretty much sums up their position with the game and its eventual downfall.

Among those programs that are available, the one that is commonly used is UOAM. The other programs such as UO Calculator and UO Magic Tool provide functionality that is redundant to UOAssist, which we cannot run here since we do not have the necessary source code to set it up to run on a RunUO server. The idea of creating a UOAssist style program that provides only the functionality found in the UOPro version of the program during T2A has been discussed in the past, however it has largely been dismissed based on the fact that Derrick doesn't want to restrict the methods of access to the server.

Why do you keep fighting with the polar opposite kaivan? I am presenting an idea you can mold and groove with, yet you keep holding your position. It *Doesn't* have to restrict all programs, really; does it? If you think about it. We could make specific lists with exe md5 hashes to check against, but I am simply providing the simplest form of the concept; any other forms will just take more work and is a pointless stance from my position: It isn't my place to find a middle ground, because it was my idea presented to the community and its up to you guys to turn it into something (if you like the idea of it). So, if you can; I would appreciate it if you could stop knee-jerking my presentation and provide some way of these two sides existing together if you really deep down want to preserve the shard.

The large answer to this question comes directly from Derrick:

It's an interesting idea, but I just think it punishes the innocent, while providing only a false sence of security, and a more complex set of scenarios for rule enforcement.

This largely makes any other discussion such as suggesting the limitation of some subset of all programs moot; however I will briefly address it: I haven't been expressing a polar opposite view of your suggestion, I'm merely disagreeing with your opinion. That does not necessarily mean that I have an exactly opposing opinion, nor does it necessitate that I come up with alternatives.

Example1 : We could in reality just make a light "Shard buster" system that is required to connect to the server. So they would simply check for 3rd party programs and deal with them appropriately.

This is a vastly different proposal than before, but it the answer to this falls directly under the purview of Derrick's statements on this in the past, which have been linked to previously in this thread by Light Shade

Example 2: We make a razor replacement program that provides *A VERY LIMITED* set of assist functions, maybe as simple as that one that just looped a key over and over. But something, anything to lower the height of badness at which things have gotten. I am personally against this idea, but I have tailored it to your thinking.

I addressed this earlier with the UOAssist style program comment.

[testuseraccount]

I am sorry kaivan, you cant just disagree without a desire to find middle ground, thats tantamount to using fighting words without being up for a fight if it were to befall you, its totally unproductive and reflective of pure emotional response with no reasoning.

Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is stupid.

Especially when its so concerted...

[Kaivan]

I am sorry kaivan, you cant just disagree without a desire to find middle ground, thats tantamount to using fighting words without being up for a fight if it were to befall you, its totally unproductive and reflective of pure emotional response with no reasoning.

I'm allowed, just as anyone is, to disagree and not provide an alternative. There is nothing that necessitates this.

[testuseraccount]

Then why bother?

A more efficent route would be to just not waste the energy and time of both of us.

My time as well, not just yours; and it makes me sad :_(

[Kaivan]

Then why bother?

A more efficent route would be to just not waste the energy and time of both of us.

My time as well, not just yours; and it makes me sad :_(

I bother to make the comment so that you can direct your energy elsewhere.

[testuseraccount]

What?

Talking to you is pointless; I've learned my lesson.

Nice of you to show how great of a guy and respectable of a member of this community you are....

[testuseraccount]

so, Alex21, Light shade; shall we pick up where we left off then?

Derrick has not said this could not make it in on principle; so do you think it can actually made to be practical at all?

Like I said, if someone from the community wants this made, I will make it.

I still believe it can, and will provide a proper and full experience of UOSA (despite apparently not being fully 3rd party accurate).

Thanks.

[Kaivan]

What?

Talking to you is pointless; I've learned my lesson.

Nice of you to show how great of a guy and respectable of a member of this community you are....

I've explained why a certain suggestion won't make it into the game so that you can focus your attention. not on that suggestion, but on something else. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on that.

As for your other statement, I find it ridiculous that you would suggest that someone who isn't willing to do your work for you is somehow a less respectable member of the community. That position is particularly ridiculous considering this specific scenario.