Cya Everquest

That is your subjective opinion.

This isn't my first rodeo.

I am careful to keep my comments within the levels of rhetoric and discourse allowed. My posts have been always proportionate to the severity of exchanges. I am careful not to personally attack individuals (even though name-calling and trolling has been utilized by you and your pro-cheat side against me).

If you want to start the censorship debate, I'm sure the discourse on 3rd party software will be locked down indefinitely. I support fair and equal application of forum rules. You want to know something nice? I have not reported anyone's post short of direct links to cheat software.

Also, please stop cross-posting. You are free to contact Accendo directly and he can decide if your argument is ploy for censorship or if I have violated any rules. You are not the moderator.

Where is the supposed prior documentation that it was allowed before Accendo's post?

Something that commonly comes up in these discussions is that certain programs should be certified as okay and others as prohibited. But in reality, that is not easy to do. The difficulty with certifying a version of the software is that it's not easy to tell which version is in use. It's not like EQ is going to do a byte-by-byte comparison of the program or do an in-memory analysis of the program. It's trivial to change the name of the prohibited program "AutomationBot" to the approved version of "ApprovedHelperBot". And hackers have lots of tools that can make it very difficult to really know which version is in use. EQ can only say that certain actions are okay and others are prohibited. They can't really say ProgramX is okay and ProgramY is not because programs can easily be changed to do anything the programmer wants them to do.

Multiple people have complained to you in various forums about non-constructive comments which is nothing more then trolling/harassing people. I'm in the middle of things as I see valid points on both sides of the fence and look forward to working with DPG to come to a happy median. Your however just wish to call everyone cheaters and tell them to get ban (paraphrasing obviously).

I have not reported any posts that have disagreed with me (other than 2 posts which linked cheat software).

You are not the moderator. You can contact Accendo directly and he can decide if this is a ploy for censorship or if I have violated any rules.

Do you really want to open a can of worms and start the tat-for-tat censorship debate? Because pro-cheaters outnumber anti-cheaters at the moment, and your compatriots would like the ability to keep posting. Shutting down the debate would benefit the anti-cheat side.

One would need a copy of the prior terms of service that talked only about "unattended gameplay" being against the rules.

"We do not allow the use of any third party programs that modify the game client or its memory data. Additionally, programs that automate movement or actions in the game are not allowed."

This verbiage was not explicitly called out prior.

I believe one of the publishers of the most used version of MQWhatever attempted to work with DPG to come up with a happy balance however my understanding is that DPG was not realistic with their demands.

Also - I'm done with this chargeback argument. It's pointless to talk about what I will or won't take up with my card company should it come to that.

I believe the devs are allowing the conversation go to see what people are thinking based on their current actions. If they desired to remove all people using third party software they could have done so in one fell swoop. Instead they seem to be using a more surgical approach to how they addressing it. An approach that will allow them to adjust or redirect course if needed based on feedback. Heck you even acknowledge that "pro-cheaters outnumber anti-cheaters". Perhaps you should think about this and understand that these people you seem to despise are a much larger percentage of the population then you might imagine. Then think about how the game may not survive with such a large loss of players.

Thanks for retracting your line of attack (censorship) and keeping the discussion going (within the parameters of proportionality and gamesmanship).

I did not retract anything, I posted the rules to keep you in check and reel you back into actually discussing the topic at hand rather then trolling and harassing everyone. The level of hypocrisy in you bolstering rules but breaking others yourself was astonishing.

I can accuse most people here of trolling and harassment. If we choose the nuclear option (attacking each other with censorship), it won't end well for your side (who have more to gain by continued discussion).

I have held my fire to let people vent. I can only refute arguments on their merits. I typically respond to people who reply to me or make a dishonest point.

Edit: The forums has an ignore feature. You can ignore my posts by clicking on my Profile Page and pressing Ignore.

I kinda have to agree with this view.

I posted a comment about the suspensions, which was just a comment about something that might have been interesting but then he dismissed it as "anecdotal information" and should be taken at "face value" and players "are just "running a defense on ignorance" by stating they had not seen a GM.

My post required no response and not the least an antagonist response. At all. It was just a comment. It would be nice if others, like me, could just comment without being condemned.

Since you may be talking about me. I will respond in kind.

It is a public forum for all EQ players with replies allowed. If people want to discuss in a friendly forum, the software's website has a forum/Discord. Individuals can also write private emails and letters to the powers that be.

This is my forum order of operation:

1. I tend to reply to individuals who reply to me.

2. I tend to target disinformation and misinformation.

3. I am careful to keep it within the structure of proportionality and gamesmanship.

4. I am careful not to personally attack individuals because I know I have a huge target on my back.

5. I do not report posts that disagree with me or advocate ad hoc (targeted, arbitrary) censorship. I used to want to censor or suppress opinions but I understand that the forums are for all players.

I agree 100% CatPaws, the forums should be an open place for people to discuss things without the threat of harassment/judgement.

Please stop.

If you want to start the nuclear war of censorship, no one wins. I can say Sarrona (and not me) started it.

I have not asked the forum moderators to shut down 3rd party software discussion which is suddenly allowed. I have not reported any posts that have disagreed with me except for 2 posts that explicitly linked cheat software. I have only advocated for fair and equal forum rules such as post limits that would be applied equally to all if that's a chosen route.

My post was directed to CatPaws as the message clearly states. Once again you feel the need to harass me, threaten to shut down the thread, and add nothing pertaining to the thread. I will quote you with something that might assist you.

Lead by example.

I checked using the wayback machine, for March 4th 2021. The TOS section on Cheating remains the same as it did on that day.

Accendo's post on MARCH 2ND 2022 (I guess you must've resubbed just before that?)
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/what-constitutes-as-cheating.281242/

Bots were listed in the TOS, which hasn't changed. Automation is botting.

My suggestion for post limits was also a test to see where the community stands on the discourse.

But you know what I have appreciated so far: we have been operating on Big Boy rules. The discourse could be much worse. I commend the posters who have been keeping it real: respecting each other's opinions, de-escalating when necessary, and restraint against calls for censorship.

I won't lecture or tell people what or how they can and cannot write (other than being peeved by cross-posting or recruitment for cheat software). This is where gamesmanship and proportionality between exchanges comes into play.