How did it fall flat? If the addon violated the eula why were there no bans? Addons are expressly allowed provided they follow the rules set forth.
Thank you very kindly for posting that. Are those the quotes from the source someone else linked to earlier?
Capitalism is at work.
Have any proof of that assumption?
Basically you are upset people multibox and blizz has said an official response to this many many times. Get over it, you aren’t really impacted majorly by it.
Completely, 100% not an argument.
You made no argument whatsoever for why it is irrelevant.
Blizzard using legalese that relies on a different meaning of the words than is commonly accepted is relevant. Unless you have something to dispute that statement, you lose this one.
1 Like
They are, Draconem. They are the meat of that link’s content.
1 Like
It didn’t… and they still axed it because they didn’t like what it was doing. So from that we can assume that if Blizzard didn’t like what is happening, they would do something.
Combine that basic logic with…
And you are left with what everyone has been telling you… but you refuse to accept.
3 Likes
Blizzard also wrote the following:
Cheating: Create, use, offer, promote, advertise, make available and/or distribute the following or assist therein:
- any code and/or software, not expressly authorized by Blizzard, that can be used in connection with the Platform and/or any component or feature thereof which changes and/or facilitates the gameplay or other functionality;
Which blizzard employee should you believe? The ones doing the interviews, or the lawyer writing the eula?
When those words are part of their own rules, yes.
In legal cases the intent behind wording trumps the dictionary definition of that wording.
This becomes further enshrined for any particular area of litigation by the importance of precedent, and is cemented by case law.
So it’s pointless to ague that you were driving on the right of the white line because there was a queue of Norwegians on your left. Your definition of the terms is irrelevant when intent, precedent and case law all agree on what “white line” actually means in that case.
It’s irrelevant because what other software does or doesn’t do has no bearing on what the EULA prohibits in this game.
So you might want to see this part and consider it again:
It does not say
Blizzard’s public commentary on the topic is Blizzard authorizing it.
The one who spoke most recently. The one who has the ability to actually ban people.
I’ll give you a hint. It isn’t the legal department.
Go read the Blizzard response to that link you posted. Here it is:
I’m afraid we cannot comment about any specific software, Svenla, we are simply unable to give you a blanket approval or tell you that you shouldn’t use it. It isn’t our program, we can’t fully know what it does.
Looks like Isboxer was not given “express authorization”, therefore it still falls under the cheating clause in the EULA.
1 Like
You see mutiboxing while they see $$$$$$$.
You sure seem to need it, since you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Software that bots/cheats/hacks is forbidden. Software that does not do that, and does not inject itself into the client or its files, is not forbidden. A program that takes a keystroke and distributes it to each active instance is still only triggering one action per keystroke per instance of the game active.
No, they’re not. Because there is a difference, and your little fancy robot story isn’t something that wouldn’t be caught, sorry.
No, you just spewed the same drivel you’ve been spewing since yesterday.
It doesn’t automate it. Still one keypress per active instance, still one person controlling each character.
Having a computer facilitates gameplay. Facilitation is not used the way you’re thinking it’s used here.
It doesn’t alter gameplay. One keypress, one action per instance of the game active.
It is permitted by the verbiage of the license agreement, since the license agreement only refers to software and actions which involve cheating/hacking/botting or injecting software into the client to manipulate the client, which is what facilitation is referring to in this case, facilitation of manipulating the game. Boxing does not do that.
Good, so we’re in agreement that your opinion has no bearing on the EULA.
No, you’ve convinced yourself to see things that aren’t there and draw false meanings from them.
No, Blizzard chose to elaborate on why multiboxing is permitted. No more or less.
Nope, it isn’t. Sorry.
Don’t stop there… you missed the important and good part.
"Overall, multiboxing software tends simply reproduce your keystroke across multiple World of Warcraft clients. In that case, there generally isn’t anything wrong with it. It isn’t a supported playstyle, but neither is it prohibited.
If the program provides any kind of automation, even if you do not use it, that could cause an issue. If anything I’d recommend talking to the multiboxing community to see what their take on it is."
Funny how you stopped reading and the quote just before the line that destroys your entire argument.
1 Like
Except the intent of the wording is not ambiguous. If you can spot the ambiguity, quote, and clarify the intent behind it, please do so. Thanks.
We know Blizzard’s intent because, as you have been shown multiple times, they have explicitly told us.
Your arguments hold no more water than those of the putative smart alec in court claiming a queue of Norwegians constitutes a white line.
3 Likes
I do see more mulitboxes farming Zin’athid than anything else as of late.
It doesn’t bug me so much but I do think in the new zones that Naz’oth is assaulting those herbs should be converted to Zin’athid to help with the shortage or over farming of that one zone.
1 Like
You believe that bots must inject themselves into the game client to be considered bots. I think you need to do some more research before trying to explain this stuff.
Can you cite the difference and reference the EULA? My fancy robot story? Caught?
Ditto.
Oh? How is it used? Can you enlighten everyone as to what you think the word facilitate means?
The ability to control multiple characters does alter gameplay, since this functionality is not built into the stock game client.
You have redefined the word “facilitate” to mean “memory injection”. I wonder how many people would agree with that. If that is true, then your definition allows a bot to run a second computer that reads the screen and issues keystrokes.
Correct. Nor does yours. Facilitation ~= memory injection.
Like seeing “injection” instead of “facilitates”?
Mental gymnastics.
Accidentally clicked delete on my reply. Re-writing from memory.
It’s relevant because, as you yourself said, Blizzard does not get to dictate what the words in the English language mean.
When Blizzard writes a EULA, or a GM gives clarification, and “per client” is implied, it’s is a problem when the common understanding of software, based on how the majority of it works (which is why other software is relevant), would lead the reader to not infer “per client”. Blizzard should have said “One key press = One action [per client (multiple clients are acceptable)]” and it would have cleared all of this right up. Doing so would have improved clarity and caused many of the arguments in this very thread to never be able to take place.
The funny part is that I actually agree with the argument you’re making in favor of multi-boxing existing. I don’t think it’s a problem at all. But since you’re not smart enough to realize I’m mostly on your side, you want to condescendingly tell me that my point is irrelevant when we disagree about nuance, even when you can’t even articulate why it would not be relevant.
I just think the clarity of Blizzard’s EULA and the words of its forum moderators were problematic because they imply things about how their software works which is not common to other software.
1 Like