Curse

Klimtog · May 28, 2010, 01:56 AM // 01:56

A man buys a car. He test drives his car by going 100 miles an hour down a road with a posted limit of 35. He gets arrested, his license gets revoked, and now he tells the police that if they forget it ever happened, he'll never do it again.

The police say "no".

The man then says he will go to his lawyer and attempt to sue the police for revoking his license.

The police still say "no".

The man then says if they don't return his license, he may attempt to physically harm himself at some point in the future due to emotional distress caused by losing his license.

The police, once again, say "no".

The man then says that the police are terrible, the country he is in is the worst country ever, and says he's going to move to a new country and drive his car there because it's a lot better.

I think this analogy fits a little more than some of the others being posted, but that's just me.

cormac ap dunn · May 28, 2010, 01:57 AM // 01:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha walkin dude

My neighbor and I each bought the new Delorean, a very technologically advanced vehicle. When I went to start my car, some text flashed on the center console and an icon appeared on the touchscreen that said you must press here to start the car. I pushed the icon so that I could drive my new car.
I went out on the highway to see what my new car was capable of. I opened the engine up and was flying down the road.
Apparently, I must have zipped past my neighbor, because he called the Delorean company to tell them about my driving and they came and took my car away. Apparently the icon that I had to press in order to start my car gave Delorean the right to come and take my car from me if I broke any traffic laws or used the vehicle in any manner, which they generally did not like.
On a related note, I have a co-worker who put a "Gas, Grass or Ass" bumper sticker on his Delorean. They came and took his car away for two weeks. According to Delorean, they have the right to do this, because he pushed the button in order to start the car.

lets say you lease these Deloreans (GW isn't what you buy sir) and you jeopardize the companies vehicle (possession belongs to the title holder for the car) with your decisions, guess what. due to lack of ownership, who gets end product? are you not responsible to maintain said vehicle to the standards set forth by the actual owner? guess its all where you sit on the food chain right?

Nerel · May 28, 2010, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha walkin dude

My neighbor and I each bought the new Delorean, a very technologically advanced vehicle. When I went to start my car, some text flashed on the center console and an icon appeared on the touchscreen that said you must press here to start the car. I pushed the icon so that I could drive my new car.
I went out on the highway to see what my new car was capable of. I opened the engine up and was flying down the road.
Apparently, I must have zipped past my neighbor, because he called the Delorean company to tell them about my driving and they came and took my car away. Apparently the icon that I had to press in order to start my car gave Delorean the right to come and take my car from me if I broke any traffic laws or used the vehicle in any manner, which they generally did not like.
On a related note, I have a co-worker who put a "Gas, Grass or Ass" bumper sticker on his Delorean. They came and took his car away for two weeks. According to Delorean, they have the right to do this, because he pushed the button in order to start the car.

Firstly, car analogy = you fails the internets.

Secondly, the Delorean was never a "very technologically advanced vehicle" it was a Lotus Esprit clone, with a new shell and a PVR rotary engine.

Thirdly, while I appreciate your attempt to make a EULA analogy of sorts, you have the right to read the games EULA before you make your in store purchase... that's right, you CAN ask to see a software package's EULA before you decide to purchase it. I could be mistaken but I also believe that the game's EULA was available on the GW website before the game was even available for sale.

PS: If you're talking about a Delorean fitted with a flux capacitor, then yes, a very advanced vehicle indeed.

sixdartbart · May 28, 2010, 02:00 AM // 02:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha walkin dude

My neighbor and I each bought the new Delorean, a very technologically advanced vehicle. When I went to start my car, some text flashed on the center console and an icon appeared on the touchscreen that said you must press here to start the car. I pushed the icon so that I could drive my new car.
I went out on the highway to see what my new car was capable of. I opened the engine up and was flying down the road.
Apparently, I must have zipped past my neighbor, because he called the Delorean company to tell them about my driving and they came and took my car away. Apparently the icon that I had to press in order to start my car gave Delorean the right to come and take my car from me if I broke any traffic laws or used the vehicle in any manner, which they generally did not like.
On a related note, I have a co-worker who put a "Gas, Grass or Ass" bumper sticker on his Delorean. They came and took his car away for two weeks. According to Delorean, they have the right to do this, because he pushed the button in order to start the car.

WOW thats a great story.

Aside from the tortured logic, you just had your "new car" taken away by a company that went out of bussiness 28 years ago and I hardly think that a company whos owner was attempting to keep afloat by smuggling cocaine would be making ethical rules on the proper use of their cars.

Just saying

ohhh
I'm pretty sure John has been dead for awhile so his repo days are over...

Ka Tet · May 28, 2010, 02:02 AM // 02:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamp08

My power-drill vs screwdriver Metaphor was better. XD
A noble effort however.

Allegories pwn metaphors and you know it.

Ka Tet · May 28, 2010, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klimtog

A man buys a car. He test drives his car by going 100 miles an hour down a road with a posted limit of 35. He gets arrested, his license gets revoked, and now he tells the police that if they forget it ever happened, he'll never do it again.

The police say "no".

The man then says he will go to his lawyer and attempt to sue the police for revoking his license.

The police still say "no".

The man then says if they don't return his license, he may attempt to physically harm himself at some point in the future due to emotional distress caused by losing his license.

The police, once again, say "no".

The man then says that the police are terrible, the country he is in is the worst country ever, and says he's going to move to a new country and drive his car there because it's a lot better.

I think this analogy fits a little more than some of the others being posted, but that's just me.

Inaccurate. That would be akin to pursuing legal action against gold retailers. The police are not involved, this is the company revoking the product they sold you.

sixdartbart · May 28, 2010, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klimtog

A man buys a car. He test drives his car by going 100 miles an hour down a road with a posted limit of 35. He gets arrested, his license gets revoked, and now he tells the police that if they forget it ever happened, he'll never do it again.

The police say "no".

The man then says he will go to his lawyer and attempt to sue the police for revoking his license.

The police still say "no".

The man then says if they don't return his license, he may attempt to physically harm himself at some point in the future due to emotional distress caused by losing his license.

The police, once again, say "no".

The man then says that the police are terrible, the country he is in is the worst country ever, and says he's going to move to a new country and drive his car there because it's a lot better.

I think this analogy fits a little more than some of the others being posted, but that's just me.

HAHAHA
This one is spot on!!!

and pretty damned funny too.

"NO"

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha walkin dude

Inaccurate. That would be akin to pursuing legal action against gold retailers. The police are not involved, this is the company revoking the product they sold you.

Wouldn't this be the police{agents of the state} revoking his state issued drivers license for breaking the rules agreed to upon being issued the license by the state?

Ka Tet · May 28, 2010, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerel

Firstly, car analogy = you fails the internets.

Secondly, the Delorean was never a "very technologically advanced vehicle" it was a Lotus Esprit clone, with a new shell and a PVR rotary engine.

Thirdly, while I appreciate your attempt to make a EULA analogy of sorts, you have the right to read the games EULA before you make your in store purchase... that's right, you CAN ask to see a software package's EULA before you decide to purchase it. I could be mistaken but I also believe that the game's EULA was available on the GW website before the game was even available for sale.

PS: If you're talking about a Delorean fitted with a flux capacitor, then yes, a very advanced vehicle indeed.

Firstly, confusing an allegory with an analogy = you fails english.

Secondly, I was trying to avoid referencing any company currently making cars. So this would indeed be the 2010 Doc Brown model. I assumed the touch screen reference would indicate it wasn't referring to the original models.

Thirdly, the car owner could have sat there and scrolled through the entire licensing agreement on the touch screen.

Ka Tet · May 28, 2010, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by cormac ap dunn

lets say you lease these Deloreans (GW isn't what you buy sir) and you jeopardize the companies vehicle (possession belongs to the title holder for the car) with your decisions, guess what. due to lack of ownership, who gets end product? are you not responsible to maintain said vehicle to the standards set forth by the actual owner? guess its all where you sit on the food chain right?

I would think that leasing would be more akin to a subscription based service.

JoeGrogan · May 28, 2010, 02:23 AM // 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klimtog

The man then says he will go to his lawyer and attempt to sue the police for revoking his license.

Man gets to court and discovers his lawyer is running an interupt bot.

"Would the court be seate..."
"OBJECTION!"
"Silence in my cour..."
"OBJECTION! LEADING THE WITNESS!"
"Case disimissed, you're in contempt - PERMABAN FROM PRACTICING."

Nerel · May 28, 2010, 03:23 AM // 03:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha walkin dude

Firstly, confusing an allegory with an analogy = you fails english.

Secondly, I was trying to avoid referencing any company currently making cars. So this would indeed be the 2010 Doc Brown model. I assumed the touch screen reference would indicate it wasn't referring to the original models.

Thirdly, the car owner could have sat there and scrolled through the entire licensing agreement on the touch screen.

Oh gosh, I've been schooled...

analogy
allegory

Analogy: A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation...

A relationship of equivalence between two situations, especially when used as a basis for explanation... my God, you're right, you so didn't just do that.

Car = GW, Pushing the icon to start the car = clicking that you accept the EULA to start Guild Wars... no you're right, that's a figurative mode of representation where you are using symbolism to convey meaning other than a simple, literal message, indeed your post was comparable to the works of Tolkien in this regard.

And did you mean English or english? No matter, you fail it less, then get back to me.

Now, you failed to mention in your "epic allegoric tale" if the touch screen did or did not display the licensing agreement in the first place, you've merely added that snippet as an afterthought in a latter post. And how is this relevant, you've failed to dispute the fact that you CAN view the EULA before you even purchase the product...

So short of being side tracked by your fail, how is any of what you said even relevant to Guild Wars or it's licensing agreement?

It isn't.

How is any of that relevant to botting?

It isn't.

You had a point to make?

Probably not.

Well, nice talk.

Ka Tet · May 28, 2010, 03:39 AM // 03:39

I concede to your point about the analogy/allegory statement. Replying to too many posts at once = poor referencing of concepts.
However,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerel

How is any of that relevant to botting?

Really? Do you truly not understand or is that just a continuation of general smarminess?

Perkunas · May 28, 2010, 03:42 AM // 03:42

Question: What percentage of the banned were for PvE bots vs. PvP manipulation?

Nerel · May 28, 2010, 04:26 AM // 04:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha walkin dude

I concede to your point about the analogy/allegory statement. Replying to too many posts at once = poor referencing of concepts.
However,

Really? Do you truly not understand or is that just a continuation of general smarminess?

I honestly don't understand the point of your allegorical post/analogy.

If you were trying to suggest that someone who didn't read the EULA and latter got smacked down by a bot ban should somehow be viewed as a victim solely because they didn't read the rules regarding it's use... then yes, I got your point, and it's wrong.

Comparing an item to a service (a car to server access) is a bad start for so many reasons. Pretending that someone didn't deserve their punishment based solely on the fact that they're claiming ignorance of the rules is worse.

If you had some 'other' point to make, spit it out...

Sorry for being a twat about it.

EDIT: Oh, twat didn't get the GO RED ENGINE treatment...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perkunas

Question: What percentage of the banned were for PvE bots vs. PvP manipulation?

Damn good question... a PvE bot / PvP bot / Match manipulation breakdown would be pretty interesting.

JohnFahey · May 28, 2010, 05:45 AM // 05:45

I take back what i said about anet on this one. I can understand why they stayed low key about the issue until after they busted everyone. I think bots will still always be a issue but at least its out of the mainstream now hopefully. I wish there was some kind of list of shame we could all see, and know who was banned for this. My only complaint is they waited untill after double fame weekend to do this. My guild was on a nice streak and we lost to a dual bot team. it was really frustrating.

Still Number One · May 28, 2010, 07:33 AM // 07:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

welcome to internet forums. if one is not supposed to voice opinion here, it'd be a barren place. did kj's botting petition have no bearing whatsoever on their recent actions? have not the ursan/sf/etc qq have no bearing on them becoming nerfed? honestly, your whole post is irrelevant; if you truly feel the way you do, then why the hell are you even posting?

I'm not talking about opinions in general, I'm talking about opinions on rightful punishment. Yours and everyone elses opinions on what an appropriate punishment for botting is does not matter. Just like your opinion on a murder trial you aren't part of means absolutely nothing. The Jury decides if the defendant is guilty and the Judge hands out the sentence. If you don't belong to one of those two groups, your opinion means nothing.

Opinions on game discussion on the other hand actually do matter. A.net wants to make the game the best it can be, and to do that they need feedback. Discussing skill balances and giving feedback on what we think would be fun, fair, balanced, etc. helps make the game better and more enjoyable for most people. Our opinion matters because it is asked for.

Promoting awareness for a serious issue like botting is good because it helps the people in power gauge how serious the problem really is. Frankly KJ had no right to demand a response, but what the use of that word did was get people interested and the thread grew large enough for A.Net to see how big the problem really was. However we have no idea how large of an effect that thread actually had on the whole 3700 people getting banned. Maybe they were planning on doing something about it before hand, and maybe they weren't. Unless they publicly say so, we'll never know.

Forums serve their purpose. They allow players to share strategies about the game. They allow players to theory craft ideas on what they believe could improve the game. They aren't, however, for deciding whether or not a punishment for cheating is fair or not. When we play games, we must follow the companies rules. It isn't our place to question them, just follow them. If you don't follow them, then be ready to face the consequences and don't start crying about it when they come. Everyone knows the risks of cheating. You don't like the punishment for it, then don't do it.

Mireles · May 28, 2010, 07:47 AM // 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Number One

3700 people getting banned.

Why do people keep saying people?.... if each 10 botting accounts had 1 owner on average (which some would say is a gross underestimate) that is 370 individuals....consider real world money transactions.... bots aren't players

LowOiL · May 28, 2010, 07:55 AM // 07:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeGrogan

Man gets to court and discovers his lawyer is running an interupt bot.

"Would the court be seate..."
"OBJECTION!"
"Silence in my cour..."
"OBJECTION! LEADING THE WITNESS!"
"Case disimissed, you're in contempt - PERMABAN FROM PRACTICING."

Ok, major chuckle here.

Perhaps Anet can name a new bad guy "Major Chuckle" in remembrance of this thread. He could drop some type of scythe too.

Riot Narita · May 28, 2010, 08:38 AM // 08:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha walkin dude

My neighbor and I each bought the new Delorean, a very technologically advanced vehicle. When I went to start my car, some text flashed on the center console and an icon appeared on the touchscreen that said you must press here to start the car. I pushed the icon so that I could drive my new car.
I went out on the highway to see what my new car was capable of. I opened the engine up and was flying down the road.
Apparently, I must have zipped past my neighbor, because he called the Delorean company to tell them about my driving and they came and took my car away. Apparently the icon that I had to press in order to start my car gave Delorean the right to come and take my car from me if I broke any traffic laws or used the vehicle in any manner, which they generally did not like.

What a crock of sh*t.

In your country, are you allowed on the highway without taking driving lessons and/or a driving test? During which you are taught that there are laws restricting speed? And that such restrictions apply to all vehicles, DeLorean or not, no matter what messages, buttons or icons exist in your car?

If you're speeding, you KNOW you're breaking the law, and "I thought that button made me exempt from the law" is ludicrous as a defense.

If you wanted to "see what your new car was capable of", you'd take it to Germany, or go to a test track.

aspi · May 28, 2010, 08:50 AM // 08:50

Are there still people complaining they got banned and admit using bots. What part don't you understand. Try to compare it to real life situations and trying to explain doesn't change a thing. Buy another account and start over, or move on to another game. Which makes the most sense because you really don't want to do all that grinding again do you? Not without your bots.