POLNews - GM Policy (12th December)*Update* - continued from the other thread

[Tomasello]

You do have acess to this information without a parser. they're just .txt files, you can open them in wordpad.

I'd be very excited to see how this can be done on PS2. So I can break out the old pad and paper and start adding...

Please...

 

[craftaholic]

It's an excellent comparision but obviously none of you can grasp it.

You sit there in the casino and watch every card that's dealt and 6 decks later are you able to remember EXACTLY how many Jacks, Queens, Kings, Aces and number cards were dealt so you know how to bet? No, you can't without a system, not without card counting, not without CHEATING.

I hate to break this to you but that example of card counting in not cheating or illegal. There was a card counter who won a court case against casinos in Atlantic City, who did only that. Now everytime he shows up they just suffle the cards after every hand. Remember casinos hold the right to refuse service to anyone they want, for whatever reason they want. Just because they don't want a card counters in thier casinos doesn't mean it's cheating.

 

[Marajade]

I'd be very excited to see how this can be done on PS2. So I can break out the old pad and paper and start adding...

Please...

Plug your HD into your PC. They're archived exactly the same way.

Show me where i can hit the input select button on my PC. I'd love to be able to use the other functions of my PC just like the PS2 users can.

 

[Tomasello]

I hate to break this to you but that example of card counting in not cheating or illegal.

I never said parsing was illegal. No one can or is going to arrest you for it. It's still cheating. It's not illegal to cheat on your wife either and one's going to arrest you but it's still cheating.

 

[Uzor]

I'm sorry, since when the fuck do you comprehend anything i have to say. My definition of a cheat varies. One of the criteria is that someone must be disadvantaged. I'm not the one who went on record about any set number of criteria. You and the meager flock of fucktards who agree with you on this topic did by labeling it solely as a breach in ToS. Remember those grey areas i was yacking about wherein the moral/ethical dilemma of a cheat is a huge grey area where the sole opposition to a defining characteristic is the people involved in conversation? How soon we forget.

The only deffinition of cheating you mentioned was that it have to put someone at a dissadvantage. You sir, can't even comprehend what you, yourself, say.

And I still didn't mention that the only deffinition of cheating is that it habe to break a rule. All of your aguments so far has been made of fail.

SE has never named the parser as a cheat. Find a source or you're blowing smoke. The fact is it's a rule violation, nothing more. The ToS does not assign the designation of a 'cheat' to something. It simply states what breaks the rules. I could be so bold as to say that the ToS actually mentions nothing in the way of cheating but i'm sure that absolutely imperical statement would make your tiny head explode.

Ask them yourself. They'll tell you it's a cheat. That's all that matters, right? You said so yourself earlier.

11. Fail. You're still responding. Not only that you've been tapdancing for at least 7 pages now.

Yeah... I've been tapdancing for 7 pages... LOL

You still seem to be confused. I sighted a guide that used parsed information. I bet i can find plenty more on SE approved sites that go alot more in depth. But you probably didn't read that any better than any other response you've gotten. Meanwhile the guides you refer to are founded, for the most part, on datamining. Which is perfectly ok even though SE has gone on the record about that, right? No cheating there because the guide doesn't do the quest for you, it just tells you how to do it. Much like the parser doesn't gear you but tells you how it's doing. Oh snap....

Yeah, because one guide makes all of them use parsers, right? Retard. And all guides aren't based on datamining. I'll show you a few guides.

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=285
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=502
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=123
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=492
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=428
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=103
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=231
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=181

need I go on?

But if you read a guide about say .. being a war/mnk/rdm/drg/etc chances are if it's anywhere near accurate the information is either parsed first or second hand. You're samples are too narrow, which is why your argument does not work.

Are you shitting me?
So if I read a guide about say, RDM, and he say that keeping the PLD refreshed is more effective then never refreshing him, that need to be parsed?

Wow, I think oyu just took the price in "worst argument of the year". You don't need accurate information in order to od your job right. If you can't figure out what works best for the jobs anyway, then you need to quit that job.

If you're going about equipment, then that's not even a guide about the job. That's a comparison between gear, in which case we're in a whole other argument.

But you knew all this already, it's in the last 25 pages. Hey if you didn't i'd hardly call it my fault. Think before you speak to me next.

Think before you spew that bullshit out of your mouth. Go brush your teeth.

 

[Legomyeggo]

I never said parsing was illegal. No one can or is going to arrest you for it. It's still cheating. It's not illegal to cheat on your wife either and one's going to arrest you but it's still cheating.

Those are two different definitions of the word. One defines rule breaking and the other defines infidelity.

 

[RoM]

It's an excellent comparision but obviously none of you can understand it.

You sit there in the casino and watch every card that's dealt and 6 decks later are you able to remember EXACTLY how many Jacks, Queens, Kings, Aces and number cards were dealt so you know how to bet? Even though it flashed right before your very eyes? No, you can't without a system, not without card counting, not without CHEATING.

So touchy. K, let's leave out the system of points (assigned to each card) you have to keep track of for extended periods of time. Variations in how many people are at a table and how many decks are used in a sleeve. I could go on but it's obvious your argument is a fallicy to anyone who knows the game.

Now you play your character in ffxi for 3 hours exping away. Are you able to remember exactly who did how much damage and what your average per hour was in which gear? Even though it flashed right before your very eyes? No, you can't without a system, not without parsing it, not without CHEATING.

It's actually fairly easy to spot what works better realtime just braining it out, like i used to. However anyone with a web browser, like you, has access to information concerning what works best in a group for any given class via SE approved sites which carry player guides which inturn make parser information widely available. In short it's unneccessary.

"Random declarative victory statement placed here".

Not so much, eh?

P.S. I was talking about Blackjack. How can you count cards in Poker if you can't see them most of the time? Maybe you should learn how to play Poker first.

http://pokermag.com/managecategory.asp?C=60&n=279

Learning is fun.

I'd be very excited to see how this can be done on PS2. So I can break out the old pad and paper and start adding...

Please...

Why hello thar intarwebs. lol, you need directions to your browser or does mommy open it for you?

Hobble back when you've got a leg to stand on.

LOL uzor tried to use allakhazam as a basis for clean undatamined information. That's good shit. So sad all those NPCs for said quests and their chat logs were mined before the guide was written, most likely as soon as they were added in a patch to give players a starting point. Keep at it.

 

[RoM]

/Sigh, i wasen't going to bother but ... it's christmas and i'm still up. ><

The only deffinition of cheating you mentioned was that it have to put someone at a dissadvantage. You sir, can't even comprehend what you, yourself, say.

Actually this was hollered by more than a few of your crowd as well, like ole tom there. It is simply one of my criteria, i've been arguing the grey point of the ethical side of cheating since the thread previous to this that you didn't read.

And I still didn't mention that the only deffinition of cheating is that it habe to break a rule. All of your aguments so far has been made of fail.

My point is that Parser is against the ToS and can be considered a cheat program.

Page 3

No, because that creates another problem. You open a game data file which is not to be viewed other then in-game.

Page 9. Opening data files is against the ToS thus providing evidence of what i can only imagine would be cheating since that's the topic in response to skaw's network drive example.

And thus, you're still breaking the ToS by doing something that's not allowed.

Page 12. Response to flameass' excell example. You sure do rail on about the ToS when it doesn't have anything to do with cheating even thought that's the topic.

The difference is that the battle log isn't copy/pastable. The saved log IS, and that's the one parser reads in order to calculate everything yourself

Page 14 response to Garvin. Which has what to do with parsing? I can dig the ToS abuse there.

No, that wasn't my grounds for it being a cheat. That's his grounds that everything that's against the ToS is cheating.

There's an inaudible puckering noise hiddin in this line from page 21, i think i can faintly hear your head seperating from your ass.

I can't believe i dug through your garbage just to prove a point.

Ask them yourself. They'll tell you it's a cheat. That's all that matters, right? You said so yourself earlier.

Actually i called most of you ignorant fuckoffs sheep for only believing what the great and powerful ToS and EULA say when they're blanket statements. It's there for you to read as is the definition of 'blanket statement' which makes your entire argument a fallicy.

Yeah... I've been tapdancing for 7 pages... LOL

You're right by my count it's more accurately 22.

Yeah, because one guide makes all of them use parsers, right? Retard. And all guides aren't based on datamining. I'll show you a few guides.

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=285
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=502
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=123
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=492
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=428
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=103
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=231
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/quests.html?realm=&fquest=181

need I go on?

Last line of my last post. You're listing allakhazam as a site i should give credence to for not datamining. How naive. Oh yea and the maps on those, guess what? Datamined. Monument text for the footsteps quest? Datamined. Guslam's quest texts? Datamined. New BC mobs are added in patches which makes them, you guessed it. Datamined. So solly. You've got like 2 examples there on a site that adds content immediately following updates because they're datamining it. SE releases this handy thing, like most MMOs, called a patch note when they add things. It's not too hard to put 2 and 2 together when you've got your datamined information and the patch notes in hand especially if you play the game and have at least a child's grasp on the art of the inference. Real nice string of examples there, tex.

Are you shitting me?
So if I read a guide about say, RDM, and he say that keeping the PLD refreshed is more effective then never refreshing him, that need to be parsed?

Desire does not dictate relevance. Besides that just sounds stupid.

Wow, I think oyu just took the price in "worst argument of the year". You don't need accurate information in order to od your job right. If you can't figure out what works best for the jobs anyway, then you need to quit that job.

Is this one better? I know you've got such high standards for arguments considering you can't make one worth a damn. I know you'll be brutally honest. If not a little misguided.

If you're going about equipment, then that's not even a guide about the job. That's a comparison between gear, in which case we're in a whole other argument.

Yea because warriors should try out i don't know .. astrals .. just for kicks right? Chances are if you're reading a class guide it's a good idea to know what equipment to use. Like say..... hmmm .. this is a brainbuster .... weapon ratings? How do you suppose they come by those handy numbers?

The world may never know.

Consider yourself pwned for christmas.

From me to you, with love.

Think before you spew that bullshit out of your mouth. Go brush your teeth.

This again? Yea, whatever, your mom. Wow.

Who types with their mouth? ew.

People who feel attacked on the flameboard for whatever reason save personal game stuff should just go away. If you're not here for shits and giggles you're simply doing yourself a disservice.

 

[Makelith]

I'd be very excited to see how this can be done on PS2. So I can break out the old pad and paper and start adding...

Please...

Its called making a friend that plays on the PC. You might have one, i don't know you that well. But don't play that BS around here. Thats just retarded.

EDIT: Or just google that shit. Lord knows parsing has been around long enough to be done to death. As a fellow former PS2 player, i was happy everyday knowing i could just pull up my laptop and look up parsed information on how to make myself better. If you don't do that, its your own fault.

 

[Shaunessy]

Quote this...

BLAH BLAH BLAH 3RD PARTY BLAH BLAH BLAH HACKS BLAH BLAH I STILL RUN CAMPS ON PS2 AND 360 BLAH BLAH BLAH AND REPORT EVERY HACKER I SEE BECAUSE WE CAN TELL OUR OWN BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Just wish that I didn't get such shity drops on everything. That's what I get though for starting the game as a mage type though I guess.

 

[Uzor]

/
Page 3

Oh, you mean this part?

My point is that Parser is against the ToS and can be considered a cheat program.

can is the key word.

Page 9. Opening data files is against the ToS thus providing evidence of what i can only imagine would be cheating since that's the topic in response to skaw's network drive example.

I didn't say it was cheating. The "other problem" would be breaking the ToS, since the problem would be cheating. another problem would be something else then cheating, no?

Page 12. Response to flameass' excell example. You sure do rail on about the ToS when it doesn't have anything to do with cheating even thought that's the topic.

It has everything to do with the topic. You kept on using examples that's about breaking the ToS rather then cheating.

Page 14 response to Garvin. Which has what to do with parsing? I can dig the ToS abuse there.

It has everythinf to do with parsing. I've already countered htis argument though, so I won't bother. Stop crying like al ittle baby every time I beat your argument in to the mud.

There's an inaudible puckering noise hiddin in this line from page 21, i think i can faintly hear your head seperating from your ass.

I can't believe i dug through your garbage just to prove a point.

... yeah.

No, that wasn't my grounds for it being a cheat. That's his grounds that everything that's against the ToS is cheating.

Exactly what part in the quoted text by me makes you believe I said parsing is cheating due to it being against the ToS? You're still retarded as ever.

Actually i called most of you ignorant fuckoffs sheep for only believing what the great and powerful ToS and EULA say when they're blanket statements. It's there for you to read as is the definition of 'blanket statement' which makes your entire argument a fallicy.

Wow, you think you taught us anything? when you count ered by using the ToS as an argument, you even quoted the wrong parts. You didn't counter anything by bringing the ToS up, you only made yourself look stupid.

Last line of my last post. You're listing allakhazam as a site i should give credence to for not datamining. How naive. Oh yea and the maps on those, guess what? Datamined. Monument text for the footsteps quest? Datamined. Guslam's quest texts? Datamined. New BC mobs are added in patches which makes them, you guessed it. Datamined. So solly. You've got like 2 examples there on a site that adds content immediately following updates because they're datamining it. SE releases this handy thing, like most MMOs, called a patch note when they add things. It's not too hard to put 2 and 2 together when you've got your datamined information and the patch notes in hand especially if you play the game and have at least a child's grasp on the art of the inference. Real nice string of examples there, tex.

Wow, you still don't get it, do you chump? First off, the text isn't datamined. That's what the monument says. The AF quests texts aren't datamined. That's what the NPC says. You simply write down what the NPC says. That's apparently extremely hard to do, right?

Allakhazam is the page that's the slowest at updating their site. Some times when I search for things added 2 months ago, they don't even have it yet.

It's not too hard to add 2 and 2 together. For you, however, it is. Go back to grade school.

Yea because warriors should try out i don't know .. astrals .. just for kicks right? Chances are if you're reading a class guide it's a good idea to know what equipment to use. Like say..... hmmm .. this is a brainbuster .... weapon ratings? How do you suppose they come by those handy numbers?

If you honestly think someone who can afford astrals think that adding MP to a job that doesn't need it is smart, then do you honestly think he's even smart enough to read about job equipment online?

It is NOT hard to figure out that maybe focusing on melee stats rather then mage stats for a melee job is better. Weapon rating also isn't hard to figure out. As a matter of fact, weapon rating isn't even parsed NOR datamined.

The world may never know.

Consider yourself pwned for christmas.

From me to you, with love.

The world may never know

Consider yourself pwned for christmas

from me to you, with love.

yay, I smart, see I did there? I be smarting.

This again? Yea, whatever, your mom. Wow.

Who types with their mouth? ew.

People who feel attacked on the flameboard for whatever reason save personal game stuff should just go away. If you're not here for shits and giggles you're simply doing yourself a disservice.

I feel attacked? hahahaha. I'm having hellova fun time reading all of the so-called insults you're trying to do. What's even more fun is trying to think of insults for you. I could do this all day if it wasn't for your repeat of the same insults and reuse of recycled arguments that never worked in the first place.

 

[craftaholic]

I never said parsing was illegal. No one can or is going to arrest you for it. It's still cheating. It's not illegal to cheat on your wife either and one's going to arrest you but it's still cheating.

I was pointing out the hole in your analogy.

What I don't understand is why Uzor and you are so hell bent on telling us all the parser is a cheat. This game has much more important problems then people knowing how their gear preforms.

 

[Tomasello]

What I don't understand is why Uzor and you are so hell bent on telling us all the parser is a cheat. This game has much more important problems then people knowing how their gear preforms.

My problem is simply people who do things that are wrong (ie breaking rules) but then try to convince everyone else that there doing nothing wrong and take no personal accountability.


Do I care that people parse? Not Really

Would I play with people that parse? Sure why not most of my LS probably does.

If someone told me "hey equip this you'll do 5% more dmg" would I? Probably

Is it the worst thing to do? No its a very minor offense like using a windower.

Is it technically cheating? Yes but no more then jaywalking is technically a crime.


When I hear "its perfectly ok to parse" I cringe because its not ok. It's just ok for you cause you gain knowledge from it.

Some of you have already admitted it's a "cheat" but it wasn't a big deal and for them I say fine at least you own up to it.

For others who have convinced themselves its absolutely 100% ok to do I say this: Send a tell to a GM and tell them you've been parsing for 2 years and will continue to do so and see what they say... Put your money where your mouth is.

EDIT: P.S. Don't forget to tell them your also recording it with Fraps so you can post it on qcdn.org for everyone to see later!

 

[Makelith]

When I hear "its perfectly ok to parse" I cringe because its not ok. It's just ok for you cause you gain knowledge from it.

Some of you have already admitted it's a "cheat" but it wasn't a big deal and for them I say fine at least you own up to it.

Everyone knows its a "cheat". No one has said otherwise. But it is perfectly ok to parse. Get over it. Why even argue for a point that you don't believe in?

 

[Bajaratt]

My problem is simply people who do things that are wrong (ie breaking rules) but then try to convince everyone else that there doing nothing wrong and take no personal accountability.


Do I care that people parse? Not Really

Would I play with people that parse? Sure why not most of my LS probably does.

If someone told me "hey equip this you'll do 5% more dmg" would I? Probably

Is it the worst thing to do? No its a very minor offense like using a windower.

Is it technically cheating? Yes but no more then jaywalking is technically a crime.


When I hear "its perfectly ok to parse" I cringe because its not ok. It's just ok for you cause you gain knowledge from it.

Some of you have already admitted it's a "cheat" but it wasn't a big deal and for them I say fine at least you own up to it.

For others who have convinced themselves its absolutely 100% ok to do I say this: Send a tell to a GM and tell them you've been parsing for 2 years and will continue to do so and see what they say... Put your money where your mouth is.

EDIT: P.S. Don't forget to tell them your also Recording it so you can post it on qcdn.org for everyone to see later!

The problem is you calling it a cheat, no one has ever denied that it violates the terms of service and that it's a third party program; the whole crux of this argument is whether parsing is cheating or not. The people who call it cheating(all 3 of you) take the broadest definition of cheating just so it can fit under that umbrella and make you right. We know we're violating the ToS, just like everyone who uses a windower is violating the ToS; but that doesn't necessarily make it a cheat.

ToS violation, yes; third party program, yes; cheat, no.

 

[Tomasello]

Everyone knows its a "cheat". No one has said otherwise.

The problem is you calling it a cheat.

Not everyone is willing to accept it...

 

[RoM]

Oh, you mean this part?
can is the key word.

'Can' was not the operative word before or during the argument you made. it's also not something you've given any ground on since. 'Can' means there are other options than considering a cheat, which you will not allow for. 'Can' would be allowing for my grey area, which you refuse to do. You have been saying it is a cheat. You're whole point is that it is a cheat or you would've never moved this to the FB after not reading the original thread. But now, cornered by your own quotes you've started dancing again. *I* said it could (grey area) be but only if you're a dumbass. You're a dumbass, hence we had our problem.

The problem with this is it doesn't fit any definition of a cheat as has been shown multiple times. You fail to comprehend this even though it's been proven that the definition doesn't fit numerous times.

I didn't say it was cheating. The "other problem" would be breaking the ToS, since the problem would be cheating. another problem would be something else then cheating, no?

Ok so the topic's cheating and you just felt like going out in to left field about the ToS like 20 times, gotcha. You suck at this.

It has everything to do with the topic. You kept on using examples that's about breaking the ToS rather then cheating.

The topic is wether the parser is cheating, numbnuts. Get with the goddamn program. Your only defining point up until page 21 in the argument was breaches of the ToS which i showed. Fail a little more, your agony sustains me.

It has everythinf to do with parsing. I've already countered htis argument though, so I won't bother. Stop crying like al ittle baby every time I beat your argument in to the mud.

Actually if you'd go back and read what you wrote and what the response was in context instead of having me remind you what the fuck you were talking about it's quite plainly obvious you were out in left field about the ToS again. But whatever, if you can't be bothered to remember what you wrote let alone go back and read it that's not really my problem. It's in black and white for you and the world to read.

... yeah.

So it is easier to breath now. Good to know. Mayhaps the newly found oxygen supply will reach your brain at some point and you'll have something to say that isn't the text equivalent of diarhea on my screen.

Exactly what part in the quoted text by me makes you believe I said parsing is cheating due to it being against the ToS? You're still retarded as ever.

Seeing as how that was all you could site as grounds for argument for 20+ pages. I'd say the down syndrome has you, bud.

Wow, you think you taught us anything? when you count ered by using the ToS as an argument, you even quoted the wrong parts. You didn't counter anything by bringing the ToS up, you only made yourself look stupid.

Actually not only did i site the right parts i interpreted them to fit. Like you do with blanket statements. It's what they're for. I then went on to state that while that's not SE's position it could very well be, until they go on record there's no way of proving either argument which is why you lose this point. Again, go back and read.

Wow, you still don't get it, do you chump? First off, the text isn't datamined. That's what the monument says. The AF quests texts aren't datamined. That's what the NPC says. You simply write down what the NPC says. That's apparently extremely hard to do, right?

Actually i'm sorry but you're just simply wrong here. The text on the stones (specificly) was datamined. I know because i looked that quest up before it had user input (Read: NA release - Rise of Zilart release). It's called personal experience, get some. The text for the AF quest was, indeed, datamined. As was guslam's name. It was added immediately following the servers coming up for NA. No one wrote anything down (with relation to the guide) until they knew where to go and put 2 and 2 together about what to do. It's not as if someone ran around to every NPC in jeuno looking for the text which was datamined. The gensis of most of the quest information on allakhazam can be traced to datamining. There's always an example to throw the curve but the averages are against you.

As far as writting things down. It can't be done with the combat log, by your comments to this thread. Therefore it's just not done with quest info, right? I mean the comments you read go in to a log (just like the combat info/parser) and if those comments are posted on the web it's cheating those who otherwise can't go back and reference it (i.e. no browser/PC) because the former have an advantage.

Obviously you're unteachable. You remain ignorant by choice, which is the only way to achieve it. You have no retention so it's really not that unexpected. The facts are you just attempted to use the same argument on me that i used on you and still have no idea what a blanket statement is or how ToS agreements are applied. Again go back and read, there's educational content you missed out on that prove not only are you at base all but illiterate you're a complete fucking moron.

Allakhazam is the page that's the slowest at updating their site. Some times when I search for things added 2 months ago, they don't even have it yet.

So that makes the rest of what they have datamined ok. Right on.

It's not too hard to add 2 and 2 together. For you, however, it is. Go back to grade school.

So clever. I'm beginning to think without my material you've got nothing. I like how you omitted half my response to your rebuttal just to jaw about things you know nothing about only to close using my own insults because you don't have any of your own. You're clever and fresh. I'd almost envy you if it wasen't for the fact that well .. i'm me and my material is as original as blathering on a message board gets. Keep it up, someday you'll be on my level. :thumbsup:

If you honestly think someone who can afford astrals think that adding MP to a job that doesn't need it is smart, then do you honestly think he's even smart enough to read about job equipment online?

What percentage of MMO gamers new to a game do you think order gil/currency online before starting a character to give themselves a boost? It's probably a bigger number than most of us are willing to admit. That's neither here nor there. You're changing the parameters of your argument after the fact, it's a disturbing trend in your posts. As for being smart enough to read info online, you manage, anything's possible.

It is NOT hard to figure out that maybe focusing on melee stats rather then mage stats for a melee job is better. Weapon rating also isn't hard to figure out. As a matter of fact, weapon rating isn't even parsed NOR datamined.

Really? I could swear i've been saying this for pages now. You're right (mark your calender) you don't need the parser to keep track of your information but it helps. I never said they were parsed or datamined, please do quote that or GTFO with your dillusions. If you're not held to the standard of the implication then neither am i. Unless i said it it could've meant anything that might advantage me out of looking like a dumbass a couple pages from now, taking a page out of your book.. hope you don't mind, you've been stealing my jokes or pages now. Fair's fair.

yay, I smart, see I did there? I be smarting.

Not so much as every insult worth it's weight in salt you've had to spit out was originally mine. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery you must love me bunches. I am indeed flattered, when in doubt look to those who are better than you at what you attempt and copy. Thanks for the compliments.

I feel attacked? hahahaha. I'm having hellova fun time reading all of the so-called insults you're trying to do. What's even more fun is trying to think of insults for you. I could do this all day if it wasn't for your repeat of the same insults and reuse of recycled arguments that never worked in the first place.

The staggering ammount of typos, the broken quotes, the frothing and posturing. I've seen it before. You get half way in to my post and your heart rate is up, your ears are warm, your breathing picks up, your brain shuts off and your fingers go to work. You make yourself the prey and then just can't put it down. Everyone sees it. You're weak.

I was under the impression you (specificly) didn't have to think. Just quote blindly and hope for the best. That aside all you've managed to do is parrot me with a staggering lack of intellect for quite some time now on the insult page and resort to the 'your mom' bracket without my material. Consider it a favor from me to you, you've been schooled in the subject of the burn. I just wish you'dve taken notes, my material in your posts just doesn't do the caustic art of the burn any justice.

 

[RoM]

is

I ignored everything else in your post.

Much like you did to baja.

You guy's are stretching the definition to match your argument whereas the literal meaning doesn't apply. The end.

Btw, how bout that card counting example?

Fully grasping concepts before using them in an argument ftw.

Cheat -

1.To defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.

No defrauding or swindling.

2. To deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.

No deception or influence by fraud as no fraud exists.

3. To elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.[i/]

No deprivation of anything expected. Quite the opposite.

4. To practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.

No fraud. No deceit. No practice with relation to the former.

5. To violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.

The only definition you have that works. However the sentence form gives us what we need to put this down as did your card counting example. Fallicy. Irrelevant. As everyone but you, tom, has distances themselves from this (rather recently) i see no reason to give credit to it being a qualifier.

6. To take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.

Close but no cigar. Whether or not you use improper access doesn't matter in this argument as the information is standardly given to anyone inside of the game. There's no way to cheat on an open book test. It's not possible.

7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

You tried this. Completely wrong use. Neo called it.

8. A person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar

The parser is not a person. A parser user is but does not decieve, defraud, or practice dishonesty with relation to the parser. Even if they did the information is widely available via credible means.

9. A fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.

Covered this already. No such label can be applied.

10. Law. The fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.

No one else's property is obtained save *maybe* SE's since all data with relation to the game is their sole property. If this definition were applied my argument about guides would have a foundation. This is not, however, the definition that is applied because obviously SE does allow for guides.

11. An impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.

Cannot be applied.



There you have it in plain black and white or blue or whatever board stlye you use.

 

[Tomasello]

5. To violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.

The only definition you have that works.

The burden of proof my friend is not on me, it is on you. You have to prove somehow that breaking a rule in a game that's designed to give you an advantage is not cheating and you fail. I only have to fit one of the definitions of cheating to label a parser a cheat. Not all 11.

Your morphing of this so called "grey area" is clear evidence of you streching the truth to fit your beliefs. Mine is conveniantly listed under number 5 of your list.

I love how they even use my card playing example, coincidence I can assure you. Really gives me the warm and fuzzies.

Breaking rules and regulations = ToS (specifically dealing with 3rd party programs)

Card counting (a form of cheating at cards) = same as parsing.

Case closed.

 

[RoM]

The burden of proof my friend is not on me, it is on you. You have to prove somehow that breaking a rule in a game that's designed to give you an advantage is not cheating and you fail. I only have to fit one of the definitions of cheating to label a parser a cheat. Not all 11.

Your morphing of this so called "grey area" is clear evidence of you streching the truth to fit your beliefs. Mine is conveniantly list under number 5 of your list.

I love how they even use my card playing example, coincidence I can assure you. Really gives me the warm and fuzzies.

Breaking rules and regulations = ToS (specifically dealing with 3rd party programs)

Card counting (a form of cheating at cards) = same as parsing.

Case closed.

1/11 = 1.

Even math makes you wrong. Either it's cheating or it's not. Consideration with what someone considers cheating is a moral/ethical argument. Not a statement of fact. If hiding an ace up your sleeve is equal to knowing the value of a card right in front of your face then yes, you're right. That aside there is no burden of proof and if there is it's not on either of us, if you can figure out who it's on i'll be astounded.

—Synonyms 1. mislead, dupe, delude; gull, con; hoax, fool. Cheat, deceive, trick, victimize refer to the use of fraud or artifice deliberately to hoodwink or obtain an unfair advantage over someone.

Prove unfair advantage, i dare you. That you have a web browser is an unfair advantage over someone who does not. Does that designate cheating? If so guides are cheating, which as we already covered is an insane postulation.

Cheat implies conducting matters fraudulently, esp. for profit to oneself: to cheat at cards.

Cheating at cards is clear cut. If i were parsing a poker game i wouldn't post my results to the internet for the world to see. If i did it wouldn't be cheating because i'm not especially profitting for myself. As such even casino's do not define card counting as cheating it's simply not something they welcome in the house because it hurts their odds. The parser does not do this. No odds are changed. The house is in no danger, quite the contrary. You fail to grasp what card counting is. Simply because they rely on similair functions do not mean they have the same implications. Nor does it mean either is a cheat. Hiding a card up your sleeve is cheating, knowing what the value of any given card is not.

Deceive suggests deliberately misleading or deluding, to produce misunderstanding or to prevent someone from knowing the truth: to deceive one's parents.

By this definition your argument is cheating. SE is cheating. Because they prevent the player from having the most accurate information possible within the confines of the client.


To trick is to deceive by a stratagem, often of a petty, crafty, or dishonorable kind: to trick someone into signing a note.

Where's the trick? The stratagem? The pettiness? Who's crafty? How is it dishonorable?

To victimize is to make a victim of; the emotional connotation makes the cheating, deception, or trickery seem particularly dastardly: to victimize a blind man.

Who's the victim here? People who don't go looking for information with or without the parser to aid them?


8. swindler, trickster, sharper, dodger, charlatan, fraud, fake, phony, mountebank. 9. imposture, artifice, trick, hoax.

I don't see parser in here...

Parsing -

3. Computers. to analyze (a string of characters) in order to associate groups of characters with the syntactic units of the underlying grammar.

You do the same in your head every time you consider new gear or a new camp. You analyze the data you can in order to associate groups of characters (xp/hr, gear, mob stats, etc) with the syntactic units of the underlying grammers (Read: Can i? Should i? Is it worth it to?). In short you make sense of what's available. The difference between you and i is that i'm not willing to denounce one information source over another because i can recognize how duplicitous it is.

Parsing - verb form - analyze syntactically by assigning a constituent structure to your subject.

Making conclusions based on the data available, for the lamen.

If parsing is cheating so is logical conclusion based on static data.

The ends are the same, you just have a problem with the means. The means are entirely irrelevant in an MMO if everyone is presented with the same shot at the ends, which they are.

Everytime i post you guys lose the argument again. All 2 of you. If the community doesn't consider it cheating don't cram your ignorant ill-thought out moral bullshit on me or anyone else. Keep it to your self, no one's listening or even being slightly persuaded here.

This whole thing started because Hell couldn't let it go and needed to make comment and derail the thread into what it became.

The only reason it's here in the FB is because Uzor didn't read a damn bit of the previous thread and felt like he might measure up on the subject, which he didn't/doesn't on a continuous basis.

The only reason you're here is because you think you know how to make a point but consistently fail at doing so, after having been called on it enough times you went ape .. called me 'McFly' (just ... wow) made a piss poor example of card counting, claimed you can't count cards in poker to a card counter, and can't not help but think you're doing your point credit by continuing to fail in my presence.

I could almost go so far as to call you a fanboy but that would be in bad taste. I don't speak ill of the dead and i damn sure don't steal their material.

There's simply nothing left for either of you here. The calls were made pages ago. You lost the argument, your points lacked .. substance at the very least.

Pick your next fight with a little more caution.

The end.

Still waiting on you to pull your foot out of your mouth because you're speaking to a card counter. Meanwhile you've no idea in the slightest how it works or what it's applications are. Shit i provided you with a link, bone up big man. We can play some hold 'em .. well, i can .. you can lose miserably for not knowing how to do basic math.