It's not an either-or though. All you gain with nuance is arguments that you're doing it both ways. Yes you can argue you are running the character "from" another computer in a certain sense, but you're also, by definition, running it from your main computer. no matter what's going on elsewhere. At best you're arguing that it is only partially being run from the single computer. But of course that part is the part that counts, since the rule is about preventing boxes from replacing humans with any kind of decent performance. Unless you think the rule was created just to help sell computers. You would still be violating the letter of the law and, I'm sure you agree with me on this part, clearly violating the spirit of the law. Yes I wish they would just come out asap and respond to these, at least with an opinion like "that doesn't look kosher to me", or something, if they are afraid to make decisive statements without first getting the entire board of directors' opinions or whatever it takes to make rules over there.
There are about a thousand free remote desktop programs, several work on EQ because when you tab to the "remote" you can no longer control the first PC. You are quite literally playing one character at a time. This is what most if not all I've seen boxing are doing. They have also been used since day one of this server, like a million people said they would before it launched. You can't stop remotes, you can even hide the process.
Attention losers: 1. Get a job or be content with your disability or other form of free money which I and the rest of the community pays for. 2. Play one or two accounts well and enjoy the game. 3. Don't bother replying I won't read it.
The post you're referring to is one of those that you quickly read, think "meh," and proceed to give it all the consideration it merits, which is none.
I haven't replied to this thread because I was on vacation, but I'm back. Your argument is ill-witted and you know it. 1) These are common sense rules that are not up for interpretation. 2) You and everyone else knows very well what type of 3rd party software the rules are referencing related to boxing. Trying to argue that DBG would ban you for using Windows, a web browser, or say a word processor is the most ridiculous argument in the thread. At this point, I'm just going to ignore these fruitless statements because they serve no purpose other than to try an justify an arrogance for those that are currently breaking the rules.
How can you sit here argue tooth and nail that there is no room for interpretation and then when someone calls you out on your literal translation you try to claim "well common sense says that those 3rd party software programs don't apply". Its totally hypocritical.
If only the rules were enforced. DBG should make an example of these people with harsh punishments. I think an IP ban would be the best route as it would send a very serious message.
There is no room for interpretation, unless you're trying to circumvent the true-box code. (And, I'm going to say this for the last time.) If you are using screen sharing or any remote desktop application, then your intent is pretty clear. And, it doesn't matter if you are using remote software to access a machine across the room, at your moms house, or in a data center - using this TYPE of application is against the rules - period. Unless DBG steps in and says otherwise, then there is no argument here. And, I'm pretty confident that they would back me up. P.S. - No one called me out on anything, because the argument doesn't make any sense.
How are you so dense? You say there is no room for interpretation and say "3rd party software means ALL 3rd party software", yet when someone gives you examples of other 3rd party software, you say "Oh well, not those because that is ridiculous". That right there is room for your own interpretation.
How are you so ignorant? That's not what I said and my argument has been perfectly clear from Page 1.
The only thing we agree on is that unless DBG steps in to clarify, we will disagree on this topic. You will never, ever convince me that "common sense" says that using remote desktop to access a 2nd physical computer, which is literally no different than traditional boxing, is what they were trying to prevent by making these rules.
No, I really do not know. I have some inkling but do not know for sure whether remote desktop is allowed or not. I really don't have a dog in this fight. When I played on Phinny, I did not use remote desktop or anything else like it, but I don't really care either way if other people do. I would simply like DBG to answer questions that people have straightforwardly about things that can get them banned. A simple response to this thread saying "Remote Desktop play is not allowed on Phinny" is all it would take. Not everyone sees the rules in the same way that you do, or finds them as equally black and white as you do. And you're deluded if you think I do, and I am just pretending otherwise (or lying to advance an agenda you think I have.) Since you aren't in my head, I'd kindly ask you to refrain from telling me what I think or know.
Ok. You can off then. Through trying to have a serious conversation with you or help you see something from someone else's point of view. Clearly you only want to consider your own.
What point of view? All you're doing is playing ignorant. Have you been reading the thread at all? It's 5 friggin' pages long. You don't even play on Phinny anymore, so what do you care and why are you even here? If DBG chimes in and allows screen sharing applications will that bring you back?
The point of view that there is indeed a grey area surrounding this 4 word rule and your interpretation is not the only one there is.
The 'grey' area is being superficially created by cheaters looking for a loop hole. Don't worry, we will have an answer - I'm going to make a few calls and ask.
