LM-17

[Tempyst]

Who would you trust to fix your car, a mechanic or a carpet salesman? Nuff said.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7...oundyoufo3.jpg

[W1z8it]

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7...oundyoufo3.jpg

ahahaha

[Rakan]

Who would you trust to fix your car, a mechanic or a carpet salesman? Nuff said.

Now would you believe your mechanic if he said its fine to rev to 9 grand and drop the clutch in first in an AWD car?

He is saying he offerd no proof that its 100% safe to use. No one would know if it is or isnt other than SE.

[W1z8it]

Now would you believe your mechanic if he said its fine to rev to 9 grand and drop the clutch in first in an AWD car?

That's something you already know is bad, so that is a bad analogy for my bad analogy lol

[Rakan]

No not at all. Just because someone who knows something about the field they are talking about says something is 100% safe, doesnt mean it is.

Edit: Also it would surprise you how many people dont understand that AWD cars do not like being launched. Well acctually they find it out after every moving part in their car explodes, but before that they dont.

[DancingEdge]

Next time you want to do that, you might want to check to make sure the original is intact. In your case it is still self-ownage because it isn't clear at all who made the mistake.


To address your question about it being possible for a GM to issue an on-command scanning, well you are right this is certainly a possibility. However the simple fact that W1z8it got jailed, presumably on some suspicion of botting, and no such command was issued to him and no packets sent out which were out of the ordinary is actually good evidence to suggest this is not the case. Also, if you read my original post you would have seen that the process scanning ability in fact existed and was used. It was removed for one of many possible reasons, none of which I will bother to list. The fact that the ability for them to do an on-call scan exists, but was not utilized is even stronger evidence that it is not done.

Furthermore, it is possible to discover if such a thing (still) exists -- we have the program (namely POL.exe) at our disposal. If you are adept enough at reading and reconstructing C from assembly, it is very possible to discover if this is the case. It is far from trivial and I doubt any human being playing FFXI has the patience or the drive to do this; however, it is in fact possible.

I don't explicitly disagree with some of your conclusions and assumptions...

Or with your bit about the quotes =P

But I don't like the presumption that he was jailed for botting, how would he intentionally get himself in jail if it was for botting? Two accounts? Call a GM on himself from the other account? Have a friend do it? Just seems a bit fishy, pun intended, that he's so cryptic about the circumstances and intentionally omitted in a rather overt fashion what the offense was.

So if he was jailed on suspicion of botting, and the GM took the call seriously, then I might be more inclined to agree. But here's the thing, usually fish bots are afk players, right? I mean, how quickly did he respond? What was his response to the GM when contacted? These are all things we do not know, and operating off a premise that might be incorrect to begin with.

I read your post about the process scanning existing previously, but that's a double edged sword, because it indicates that SE does indeed desire the ability to scan you, I can't disagree that the fact that they removed it might indicate that they don't scan, or wont scan, but this entire thing on my part is about erring in the side of caution.

As to it being possible to discover if it exists, I know, and agree. I also know and agree that no one is going to really bother to go through all that just to check. But this was the evidence I was asking him for, which he failed to provide. It was an impossible task and he was supposed to just say "Sure, it's possible" and move on with his sorry acne ridden basement dwelling life, writing fish bots and fapping to packets. But no, he has to make this about how much I know about programming, and you don't need to know jack or shit about programming to make some logical assumptions and have a healthy bit of caution about possibilities that might cause you harm.

[W1z8it]

No not at all. Just because someone who knows something about the field they are talking about says something is 100% safe, doesnt mean it is.

Edit: Also it would surprise you how many people dont understand that AWD cars do not like being launched. Well acctually they find it out after every moving part in their car explodes, but before that they dont.

True, but STF release their report every month, and I've never seen it contain information about anyone banned for using windower plugins that do not repeat a certain action, why is that do you think?

It's easy for them to detect plugins that perform a certain action repeatedly like skill up plugins, and people do get banned for them, I've never seen anywhere they've banned for displaying information on a party members TP for example which is the most used windower plugin, the reason they have not said anything about banning for these types of plugins is because they are not detectable via the process management, only detectable if you're caught AFK leaving your skill up plugin/bot and a GM calls on you, think about it, and same for fishing bots.

And fyi I had fake tell argument with a friend that involved nasty language, (I knew this be a warning not a suspension), it worked and I just wanted to get to the jail area and do some scans of memory and packets, I did and that was it.

[Tempyst]

I don't explicitly disagree with some of your conclusions and assumptions...

Or with your bit about the quotes =P

But I don't like the presumption that he was jailed for botting, how would he intentionally get himself in jail if it was for botting? Two accounts? Call a GM on himself from the other account? Have a friend do it? Just seems a bit fishy, pun intended, that he's so cryptic about the circumstances and intentionally omitted in a rather overt fashion what the offense was.

So if he was jailed on suspicion of botting, and the GM took the call seriously, then I might be more inclined to agree. But here's the thing, usually fish bots are afk players, right? I mean, how quickly did he respond? What was his response to the GM when contacted? These are all things we do not know, and operating off a premise that might be incorrect to begin with.

I read your post about the process scanning existing previously, but that's a double edged sword, because it indicates that SE does indeed desire the ability to scan you, I can't disagree that the fact that they removed it might indicate that they don't scan, or wont scan, but this entire thing on my part is about erring in the side of caution.

As to it being possible to discover if it exists, I know, and agree. I also know and agree that no one is going to really bother to go through all that just to check. But this was the evidence I was asking him for, which he failed to provide. It was an impossible task and he was supposed to just say "Sure, it's possible" and move on with his sorry acne ridden basement dwelling life, writing fish bots and fapping to packets. But no, he has to make this about how much I know about programming, and you don't need to know jack or shit about programming to make some logical assumptions and have a healthy bit of caution about possibilities that might cause you harm.

do you always get this mad when people know things you don't

[Tubbers]

He's the only one who can answer the questions about his trip to Mordion Gaol, so I can't respond to you on that.

If you want to err on the side of caution don't use the Windower, simple as that. However in my opinion it's just not worth worrying about. It's a bit like the websites where you enter a password, and before it sends it to the site it gives you: "Warning: This information is about to be sent over an unencrypted connection, it could be compromised, do you want to proceed? [Yes] [No]". Do you sit there contemplating, and then hit no because of the possibility of being "caught"? No, you say okay, whatever, and nothing happens to you.

There is always a possibility of anything happening. Given what we know right now, I would say the chance is small enough that the benefits outweigh the risks. If a day or a week or a month or a year from now SE pulls out the banhammer and hits Windower users, I will have been wrong, and I can be added to a "Delicious quotes from the LM-17 thread about the windower" thread. That said I still honestly believe nobody will be perma banned for using the windower, at least not for the first offense, if it ever is indeed enforced.

[DancingEdge]

Mad? I'm just an asshole. There's a huge difference.


P.s. See whatshisface's response about what he got GM'd for.

And see my comments about the likelihood of being scanned for "Nasty tells" (Or any minor infraction)

[endX2]

if they ban for windower they lose the game, essentially.

True, NOT applying the rules on (windower) means SE breaking thier rules about THIRD PARTY!!?! by NOT BANing (windower) users!
even everyone knows windower is a Third party NO MATTER ITS A SIMPLE PROGRAM.

You know why ??!!

IMAGINE KIKCING 95% OF PLAYERS!!!

CUASE THEY CARES ABOUT MONEY NOT ABOUT RULES!!!

SO SE has been exploited the windower for years!!

DO NOT SAY ITS UP TO SE!!. CUASE BREAKING RULES IS A CRIME!! & SE DID IT.

So Not only us who are breaking the rules!
really I dont want to see anyone discuss this point cuase its end of story.!

[W1z8it]

Mad? I'm just an asshole. There's a huge difference.


P.s. See whatshisface's response about what he got GM'd for.

And see my comments about the likelihood of being scanned for "Nasty tells" (Or any minor infraction)

So it's also an assumption of yours that GMs have a miraculous "Scan" button they they use to check who is using plugins and bots? In that case I'll have you know I've had many friends GM called on them when they were botting, they were not AFK luckily and responded promptly, nothing came of it so this button doesn't exist.

You have some imagination that's for sure, but unfortunately you know nothing.

[Tubbers]

So Not only us who are breaking the rules!
really I dont want to see anyone discuss this point cuase its end of story.!

That was extremely painful to read, and no they aren't breaking the rules. The ToS states that SE has the right to do whatever it pleases with the accounts that break the ToS. It can choose to temp ban them, it can choose to perma ban them, or it can choose to do nothing.

[endX2]

I believe if we a have a lawyer we could win this issue easily like a piece of cake.

SE will repents about Handling Misconduct (Jan. 22).

[chazzyphizzle]

The patriotic colors over the awesomely exaggerated/caps locked headlines make me proud to be an American.

[DancingEdge]

So it's also an assumption of yours that GMs have a miraculous "Scan" button they they use to check who is using plugins and bots? In that case I'll have you know I've had many friends GM called on them when they were botting, they were not AFK luckily and responded promptly, nothing came of it so this button doesn't exist.

You have some imagination that's for sure, but unfortunately you know nothing.

It's an assumption that the possibility exists.


Also, you seem to have completely ignored my comments about the promptness of -your- reply had you been botting. This is relevant, because it kinda eases the suspicion of if you were botting or not, when you respond immediately. But please, offer me more anecdotes as proof... without any actual facts or proof that these things even happened.

[Rakan]

True, NOT applying the rules on (windower) means SE breaking thier rules about THIRD PARTY!!?! by NOT BANing (windower) users!
even everyone knows windower is a Third party NO MATTER ITS A SIMPLE PROGRAM.

You know why ??!!

IMAGINE KIKCING 95% OF PLAYERS!!!

CUASE THEY CARES ABOUT MONEY NOT ABOUT RULES!!!

SO SE has been exploited the windower for years!!

DO NOT SAY ITS UP TO SE!!. CUASE BREAKING RULES IS A CRIME!! & SE DID IT.

So Not only us who are breaking the rules!
really I dont want to see anyone discuss this point cuase its end of story.!

Change the blue text to green. That way when looking at your post instead of just thinking "Who the fuck cares", people could be thinking about christmas.

Which is if you didnt know, much more interesting.

Edit: Oh yeah, the banned accounts wouldnt be as big as you are thinking. Dont get me wrong, it would be huge and hurt FFXI quite a bit, however most JP play on PS2, and NAs have alot of PS2 players and a decent number of 360.

[W1z8it]

It's an assumption that the possibility exists.


Also, you seem to have completely ignored my comments about the promptness of -your- reply had you been botting. This is relevant, because it kinda eases the suspicion of if you were botting or not, when you respond immediately. But please, offer me more anecdotes as proof... without any actual facts or proof that these things even happened.

I was not botting when I was pulled to jail if that's what you mean.

I have offered several concepts of proof, such as STF report every month lacking any bannings for any plugin that does not repeat a specific action, or anyone for using windower, along with my experiences dealing with GMs while running plugins, packet, and memory scans, friends being called on by GMs while botting (not only friends, it's common knowledge botters use tell bots for detection of GMs when AFKing), yet all you can say is how you've made this fantastic logical assumtion, yet you fail to provide even a single sentence to backup your nonsense lol.

I have no need to prove anything, the proof is the fact no one has been banned for it, you need to prove it exists, it's more logical that this scan doesn't exist, so your assumption is illogical.

[arshesney]

It's an assumption that the possibility exists.

No, it doesn't. It is simply not possible for that function to exist.

[Rakan]

No, it doesn't. It is simply not possible for that function to exist.

Maybe not in current build. What is stopping SE from implimenting it? Oh yes, nothing.