Clickboxer - new key broadcasting software

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136242#post 136242

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136238#post1362 38

There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software? I have also held other jobs while owning Lavish, do my other jobs count as being Lavish?

---

For the same reason that people will critize Microsoft for a action made by Bill Gates. For the same reason that people will critize Microsoft for an action made by me (as an employee of Microsoft). For this reason, I am required to sign a quite comprehensive contract on what I can, and cannot say (and do) inside and outside of Microsoft.

If Bill Gates were to be involved in some scandalous activity involving the computer industry, would people not also critize Microsoft (particularly because of his vast influence on the company)?

Like it or not you are a representative of your company. And like it or not, you have been responsible for your own soiled reputation, which in turn is soiling your company's (howevermuch you're trying to seperate the two for reasons of legalese). It's not a hard concept why you are receiving such a large amount of mistrust and criticism regardless of your product's merits (or lack thereof). You've earned it.

---

I never said I'm not a representative of my company, I said the product is not a Lavish Software product, and that is what we were discussing. I am not asking why some people don't trust me, as I explained I fully understand and expect it to continue, and I had the SAME conversations with people years ago, and the dual-boxing.com mods have told me that the SAME treatment is given to anyone "new" to these forums talking about their applications. I truly hope that you do not think you are telling me something new.

Then question if you're so honest.

Are you, your company, or any company or group that you affiliate with currently working on a new version of an extension or program for IS or any new version or replacement program for IS that has as at least one of it's features the ability to avoid warden detection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136251#pos t136251

Then question if you're so honest.

Are you, your company, or any company or group that you affiliate with currently working on a new version of an extension or program for IS or any new version or replacement program for IS that has as at least one of it's features the ability to avoid warden detection?

---

No. I am not working on anything that needs the ability to avoid Warden detection, and ISXWarden is being withheld on advice from my legal counsel (not because of any perceived issues with detection) -- why would I do that but work on something new that does the same thing, given that? That would defeat the purpose of withholding ISXWarden in the first place.

If you think I am working on something to that effect, or a company or group I'm affiliated with is, I'd love to hear what it is and who it is developing it. As it is I will assume this is an honest question and not an accusation that would involve some sort of evidence, but if I'm assuming wrong then by all means, love to hear it. But it is pretty accusingly stated.

It was an honest question and not an accusation. However, i asked if you were working on anything that will HAVE the ability, not that NEEDS it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136259#pos t136259

It was an honest question and not an accusation. However, i asked if you were working on anything that will HAVE the ability, not that NEEDS it.

---

The first word of my post was "No." and then I additionally implied the answer was no, in the form of the question that followed:

Quote:

---

ISXWarden is being withheld on advice from my legal counsel (not because of any perceived issues with detection) -- why would I do that but work on something new that does the same thing, given that? That would defeat the purpose of withholding ISXWarden in the first place.

---

If I had simply replied and said "No" would you believe it? Does the above help reinforce the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136246#post1362 46

I never said I'm not a representative of my company, I said the product is not a Lavish Software product, and that is what we were discussing.

---

Actually... this is what you asked in your post. (which I quoted in my response in case you missed it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136238#post1362 38

There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software?

---

And that, is what I answered.

If you didn't want a response, don't post the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136246#post1362 46

the dual-boxing.com mods have told me that the SAME treatment is given to anyone "new" to these forums talking about their applications.

---

I wouldn't say so. How many mods have you spoken with? Have you spoken with any product developers, such as Skarlot (Octopus) or Freddie (HKN)?

As a mod myself, I would say that while there are plenty outspoken fans of Keyclone, we don't typically see this muchproduct criticism on these boards. No, I would say this case is relatively unique. Neither Freddie nor Skarlot have any known cases of breaking the WoW ToU/Eula prior to, during, or after programming their respective products -- much less the repute that you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136271#post 136271

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136246#post1362 46

I never said I'm not a representative of my company, I said the product is not a Lavish Software product, and that is what we were discussing.

---

Actually... this is what you asked in your post. (which I quoted in my response in case you missed it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136238#post1362 38

There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software?

---

And that, is what I answered.

---

In the context of programs written, marketed and distributed by Lavish Software versus programs written, marketed and distributed separately of Lavish Software by Joe Thaler. Yes, we could go on about this all day, I apologize for not being more specific in those particular lines of my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136273#post1362 73

In the context of programs written, marketed and distributed by Lavish Software versus programs written, marketed and distributed separately of Lavish Software by Joe Thaler.

---

And I gave you an appropriate analogy. Bill Gates actions' reflect on Microsoft just as much as Joe Thaler's actions reflect on Lavish Soft.

In either case, the actions of the figurehead reflect on the company, and vice versa.

The specifics don't change my response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136274#post 136274

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136273#post1362 73

In the context of programs written, marketed and distributed by Lavish Software versus programs written, marketed and distributed separately of Lavish Software by Joe Thaler.

---

And I gave you an appropriate analogy. Bill Gates actions' reflect on Microsoft just as much as Joe Thaler's actions reflect on Lavish Soft.

In either case, the actions of the figurehead reflect on the company, and vice versa.

The specifics don't change my response.

---

Your analogy does not apply. If Bill Gates writes, markets and distributes "Billy Bob.exe" on billybobgates.com web site, it does not make it written, marketed, or distributed by Microsoft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136261#post1362 61

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136259#pos t136259

It was an honest question and not an accusation. However, i asked if you were working on anything that will HAVE the ability, not that NEEDS it.

---

The first word of my post was "No." and then I additionally implied the answer was no, in the form of the question that followed:

Quote:

---

ISXWarden is being withheld on advice from my legal counsel (not because of any perceived issues with detection) -- why would I do that but work on something new that does the same thing, given that? That would defeat the purpose of withholding ISXWarden in the first place.

---

If I had simply replied and said "No" would you believe it? Does the above help reinforce the point?

---

You said no, then qualified that answer, then asked a question. If you had simply said no i would be satisfied. But when i look at your response i see nothing except evasion. You're the one who hurts your own credibility. Your answers are slick and well prepared, try honest short and succint sometime. Even the next to last line of that post doesn't actually simply say no, it asks another question without actually saying anything. To answer your last question, YES, everything about that post tells me all i need to know about using your software.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136275#post1362 75

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136274#post 136274

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136273#post1362 73

In the context of programs written, marketed and distributed by Lavish Software versus programs written, marketed and distributed separately of Lavish Software by Joe Thaler.

---

And I gave you an appropriate analogy. Bill Gates actions' reflect on Microsoft just as much as Joe Thaler's actions reflect on Lavish Soft.

In either case, the actions of the figurehead reflect on the company, and vice versa.

The specifics don't change my response.

---

Your analogy does not apply. If Bill Gates writes, markets and distributes "Billy Bob.exe" on billybobgates.com web site, it does not make it written, marketed, or distributed by Microsoft.

---

I didn't say that. Please read my original response. Do you see any implication of legality in my response, or my previous original version?

LEGALLY, yes -- they are independent. But to the common consumer, anything with the name "Bill Gates" immediately implies a connection to Microsoft -- legally or not. To us (the consumers of your multiboxing product), the name "Innerspace" automatically gets associated with "Bot", regardless if it was Joe Thaler's legal action.

It's a reputation. It doesn't have to be legal. Reputations are very volatile creatures -- they're immeasurable, easy to ruin and hard to repair. And, I will repeat, you've been responsible for upkeeping your reputation and your company's reputation -- so you've earned the difficulty in proving to your consumers that you (and your company) are trustworthy.

People, consumers -- we're not as easy to sway because we're not as black and white as the law. We don't follow the absolute path. You can tell us something is "legal" or "illegal", but just because legality is involved doesn't make it "right", "wrong", or more notably "trustworthy". Humans, people, consumers -- we work on unmeasurable metrics that the law attempts -- but is not perfect at defining. Just because something is legal doesn't make it trustworthy. Just because something is legal doesn't prevent us from making human associations between company and employee/owner. Just because something is legal doesn't make it unbannable or safe to use.

I have highlighted the important word in my response for better clarity.

[quote='jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=1362 76#post136276]
You said no, then qualified that answer, then asked a question. If you had simply said no i would be satisfied. But when i look at your response i see nothing except evasion. You're the one who hurts your own credibility. Your answers are slick and well prepared, try honest short and succint sometime. Even the next to last line of that post doesn't actually simply say no, it asks another question without actually saying anything. To answer your last question, YES, everything about that post tells me all i need to know about using your software.[/quote]To be brutally honest, the reason I cannot answer "short and succinct" is because people take everything I say, and change the words, so I have to add disclaimer upon disclaimer upon disclaimer, to try to avoid situations like I am now in with Vyndree, who is arguing with me over semantics, and numerous other replies that quote (e.g.) a single line of my posts and make outrageous claims. I am trying to be as specific and detailed a possible when answering questions, so as to not leave anything out.

And, the questions are [url='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question']rhetorical[/url] , they are meant to make you think about why I would even consider circumventing Warden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136279#post1362 79

Vyndree, who is arguing with me over semantics

---

I'm not arguing over semantics. You say one thing, then claim you didn't say it. So I point out the obvious since you appear to have missed it, or forgotten what you had written a post earlier.

My argument has always been the same -- its yours that is jumping around without direction or purpose. In fact, you could read my first response and see the same argument as I am giving now. You and/or our software company has been involved (directly or indirectly) with ToU/Eula breaking, bannable software. This gives you, and your software company, a poor reputation. Your current software platform is 'gray area' -- that is, it is neither confirmed wrong or right but MAY (or may not) be bannable. Given those two precedents, I (as a personal opinion), believe you, and your software company to be untrustworthy when it comes to the consumer's account security.

Every post I've made in this thread has had the exact same content, outlined above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136277#post 136277

I didn't say that. Please read my original response.

LEGALLY, yes -- they are independent. But to the common consumer, anything with the name "Bill Gates" immediately implies a connection to Microsoft -- legally or not. To us (the consumers of your multiboxing product), the name "Innerspace" automatically gets associated with "Bot", regardless if it was Joe Thaler's legal action.

It's a reputation. It doesn't have to be legal. Reputations are very volatile creatures -- they're immeasurable, easy to ruin and hard to repair. And, I will repeat, you've been responsible for upkeeping your reputation and your company's reputation -- so you've earned the difficulty in proving to your consumers that you (and your company) are trustworthy.

I have highlighted the important word in my response for better clarity.

---

Alright, in that case, we don't need to keep on keeping on with this, because it has already been well established that I created Inner Space via Lavish Software, and that I separately created ISXWarden and that people have used the two together. The point I was making that you were quoting:

Quote:

---

Firstly, I was never heavily involved in Glider. In 2006 I made a deal with MDY to provide him with protection from Warden. That is not Lavish Software, that is me individually, there is a difference and Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection.

---

is that Lavish is not and was not "heavily involved in Glider". They were interested in technology that I created, and they paid me, not Lavish Software. Irregardless of whether it was Lavish or me individually, there was absolutely no "heavy involvement", period. If you want to perceive that as some sort of connection between my company and MDY go right ahead. But it is absolutely correct to say that Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection. Because the company does not. Just like Microsoft would not be producing nor marketing Billybob.exe in my example. Are we done with that yet, because we're way off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136283#post1 36283]
[quote='Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136279#po st136279]Vyndree, who is arguing with me over semantics[/quote]

I'm not arguing over semantics. You say one thing, then claim you didn't say it. So I point out the obvious since you appear to have missed it, or forgotten what you had written a post earlier.

My argument has always been the same -- its yours that is jumping around without direction or purpose. In fact, you could read my first response and see the same argument as I am giving now. You and/or our software company has been involved (directly or indirectly) with ToU/Eula breaking, bannable software. This gives you, and your software company, a poor reputation. Your current software platform is 'gray area' -- that is, it is neither confirmed wrong or right but MAY (or may not) be bannable. Given those two precedents, I (as a personal opinion), believe you, and your software company to be untrustworthy when it comes to the consumer's account security.

Every post I've made in this thread has had the exact same content, outlined above.[/quote]....
[quote] I just reread this...

[quote]
http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/.....con/quoteS.png [url='http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=135812#post135812

Quoted from "Lax"[/url]

Firstly, I was never heavily involved in Glider. In 2006 I made a deal with MDY to provide him with protection from Warden. That is not Lavish Software, that is me individually, there is a difference and Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection.

---

So, in essence you're saying that
a) You own and are involved with a software company thus named Lavish Software.
b) You (but not Lavish Software) made a deal with MDY (which produces SOLELY Glider) to provide him with protection from Warden.
Note: "Protection" from warden, or otherwise tampering with warden, is against the ToU/Eula.
c) Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection.

Question:
Are you the sole owner of Lavish Software?

If so, doesn't that mean that "You" and "Lavish Software" are therefore equivalent in terms of everything but responsibility?

i.e. Is the only REAL differentiation between "you" and "lavish software" useful in order to protect the right hand from what the left hand is doing? [/quote]How is this NOT about semantics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136286#post1362 86

How is this NOT about semantics?

---

Clarification. From your responses, it wasn't clear whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with my standpoint, as many of your statements were largely circular.

So I simply laid out the facts I got from your ambiguous paragraph, and asked if that was indeed the point you were making.


As for whether or not you were involved with Glider -- I think my point is still the same. To the consumer, I would consider the owner of a company to be the representative of the company. You consider the legal seperation between your actions and your companies to be the defining factor. Thus my further information on why I believe that to be an incorrect assumption because the issue is with reputation -- not legality.

In any case, you inferred that "involvement" meant legal involvement. I intended no such inference.

However, as you say "you don't care" to change my opinion (or others who question your reliability) -- and I feel that is a critical error if that is your business model. Upkeep of yours, and your company's reputation and a emphasis on consumer trust should be an important goal for any company. But, in the end, that's your choice.


In any case, if you feel my point has been adequately made and don't care to change my opinion, I have no need to post anymore. Just don't follow up respond with any more questions and I won't need to answer. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136291#post 136291

Clarification. From your responses, it wasn't clear whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with my standpoint, as many of your statements were largely circular.

So I simply laid out the facts I got from your ambiguous paragraph, and asked if that was indeed the point you were making.


As for whether or not you were involved with Glider -- I think my point is still the same. To the consumer, I would consider the owner of a company to be the representative of the company. You consider the legal seperation between your actions and your companies to be the defining factor. Thus my further information on why I believe that to be an incorrect assumption because the issue is with reputation -- not legality.

In any case, you inferred that "involvement" meant legal involvement. I intended no such inference.

However, as you say "you don't care" to change my opinion (or others who question your reliability) -- and I feel that is a critical error if that is your business model. Upkeep of yours, and your company's reputation and a emphasis on consumer trust should be an important goal for any company. But, in the end, that's your choice.

---

Okay, except that there is no way for me to change my reputation by posting on dual-boxing.com, that is something that is earned over time. Therefore, my posts are intending to educate, not magically change your opinion of whether you would want to trust my company's software. I have already mentioned that I believe that perception will be changing over the next few months. If that is somehow circular and ambiguous let me know.

I inferred that "heavy" as in "heavily involved" meant "significant", as in my company had some significant involvement with MDY. In response, I detailed the extent of my involvement, and explained that there is no "heavy" involvement. You on the other hand are making it about whether it is about Lavish or myself, due to those 2 lines of my post, and whether that would tarnish Lavish's reputation. I made no claim that it had no effect on Lavish's reputation, but yes I did specify that it is an important distinction. Yes, I was implying in that statement a legal distinction, not a reputational distinction.

We've already established that you don't like my reputation, and I have already established that I cannot change your opinion. It would take someone else entirely to do that, and there is nothing that I can say here right now that will change your mind, so why should I focus on changing your mind (in other words, I don't care to sit here and try to change your opinion, or any other individual's opinion, as paraphrased)? Reputation has nothing to do with getting banned, which is what the majority of the replies on this thread have been about. Getting banned is supposed to be about the Terms of Service.

What I am intending to do, what you are calling a critical flaw, is fixing the misinformation. If people are making posts that are untrue, then it does me a disservice, but you are free to have your own opinion on my reputation, and I suspect that the people who do not see it the same as you are the people who will end up trying it first. Eventually, your perception of my company may change due to the people around you that choose to use the software, and what their opinion is. After all, your opinion is very likely to already be based on exactly that. The people around you and what their opinion is.

Are you following me now, or is this circular? Do we need to keep going on about reputation or are we going to get back on point? I have been trying to keep this discussion NOT about reputation, because that comes over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyndree',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136291#post1 36291]In any case, if you feel my point has been adequately made and don't care to change my opinion, I have no need to post anymore. Just don't follow up respond with any more questions and I won't need to answer. ;)[/quote]

[quote='Lax

Are you following me now, or is this circular? Do we need to keep going on about reputation or are we going to get back on point? I have been trying to keep this discussion NOT about reputation, because that comes over time.

---

Do you need to continue asking questions? Or are you willing to let me rest my voice because repeating myself is starting to make me feel hoarse. And yes, I feel that way even though I've had to type it all.

If you feel that the legal differentiation should absolve the reputation issue: that's fine. I don't. We can agree to disagree. As long as you don't misinterpret or misrepresent my words, there is no need for me to continue repeating myself.

i love cats, and my cat loves inner space.

https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/259073/Picture%20023.jpg

I really dont see the point. Lets assume he made 100 illegal botting programs... I really dont see where that has anything at all to do with wheather or not his current product violates the TOS. Either the current product does or it does not. If it does then it should not be used if it does not then it can be used.

Lax is going to go where the money goes and for sure MORE PEOPLE will pay him for a product that is legel and helps them win, then a product that is illegal and helps them win.

I'm defending his postion and I don't have any ax to grind one way or the other, right now I use and recommend Keyclone. If Lax comes up with a superior product that is legal Ill use that, if he dosn't then I stay with Keyclone. Fairly simple.

Ok, hello everyone, I've never posted here before but there are a lot of bits of idiocy in this thread that are greatly annoying me and need corrected.
An introduction: I'm stealthy from lavishsoft IRC. I've used InnerSpace for roughly a year and a half, part of that for botting and part not. While the botting part of that does bring a great stigma against IS, it seems pretty much everyone here is overlooking the legitimate uses, much like being unable to see the forest for the trees. For a while now I've been making use of the Ventrilo extension and the IRC extension to enable me to chat in-game through an IS GUI window, and use the VentriloHUD script. Both of these are perfectly legitimate uses (Also see: my unbanned, hand-leveled 67 bloodelf paladin that has been run inside IS since about 63, using ISXIRC and the ventrilo bit) that have nothing to do with gameplay automation.
From Suvega:

Quote:

---

You cannot live inside the WoW process space, it is both AGAINST The ToS, and has been defended for a million dollar lawsuit for the case of WoW Glider.

INNERSPACE IS NOT LEGAL. YOUR PLATFORM IS NOT LEGAL. WOWGLIDER USED THIS PLATFORM AS WELL.

---

I'm sorry, but you've made it fairly obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Living in the memory space, and reading and having access to WoW's memory, is directly against the ToS.
For fucks sake, some mod, LOCK THIS FUCKING THREAD. Thx.

---

Can you guess how many Windows processes (ex. Windows Defender) "have access to WoW's memory"? Guess that makes them illegal. Think before you speak.
Up next, from Xzin:

Quote:

---

What I would love would be to be able to have a sort of auxiliary HUD on a mini 8" or 10" monitor that could for example, track things like Vent servers, who is online, your average damage this session, total kills this session, honor gained this session, your latest arena results, etc. Pop up messages when things you need happen. A sort of sidekick feature that would automatically set itself up and automatically display at a glance data. Stuff that is important enough to know but not critical enough to go on the main UI. It would also be great if this information was aggregated across WoW's. This may or may not require an outside interface to allow the WoW sessions to talk together. I know the Bliz API is very limited about writing data although in theory, one could simply have an outside application aggregate/poll the data across a network and compile it in real time into a HUD display.

---

First off, nice too meet you. I've heard a lot of stories about A-Dzin and Xzin.
A lot of the things you're mentioning are not only possible but pretty simple. The ventrilo display is easily done. Some of that crosses into the grey area. Blizzard would have to determine if reading memory to determine things such as current honor, etc. for another display would violate their Terms of Service, until then it will be in the grey area.

More from Suvega:

Quote:

---

Do eet, until then, keep your shady ass wares away from this forum.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, not trying to vilanify Lax, I just don't want people hawking very shady things on this forum.

We get enough "ZOMG BOTS" as it is, before we start using software which was the, ehem, "platform" for which several bots built themselves on...

---

Not trying to demonize Lax, eh? Sure made me think otherwise.

Zanthor:

Quote:

---

Then why aren't you in every thread about AutoHotKey screaming the same way? This certainly seems to be a very hot spot for you, but it really makes you seem unreasonable.

---

Glad I wasn't the only one to notice this.

Vyndree:

Quote:

---

8) Multiboxers, as a community, are often misassociated with botters. Multiboxers, in general, would prefer that this no longer happens.

... you see where I'm going here?

---

Yes, and the solution is simple: Don't automate, thanks.

Quote:

---

POINT A: Innerspace has the capability of being a platform for bots.

---

Also see: Any programming language capable of manipulating memory, such as C/C++/C# (the languages most multibox programs were most likely written in).

Quote:

---

POINT C: Fussing with WoW as it resides in memory is gray area

---

Not really. Reading WoW's memory is a grey area, ask on the Customer Service forums before you do something risky.
Part two coming soon

And we're back to suvega, unable to pay attention to details (or just unlearned):

Quote:

---

Btw, for people getting banned for innerspace (Who claim they wern't using botting software): Check this thread: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...sid=1&pageNo=1

---

You're missing something here, let me explain: Loading ISXWoW (which is reads/writes a lot of WoW's memory and has been determined to be against the ToS, and depends on ISXWarden) will get you banned. Those people still had ISXWoW loaded, otherwise Warden wouldn't have picked up on something. It was an honest mistake on their parts, but Blizzard is chosing to not give them the benefit of the doubt because they can't prove they WEREN'T botting, only that they had the dll that makes it possible on InnerSpace loaded.
TL;DR They got banned for ISXWoW, not InnerSpace. ISXWoW will get you banned.

Back to Vyndree:

Quote:

---

This is the bit that I'm not so sure about. I could've sworn I saw posts of people who claimed they were banned for IS without the use of botting scripts when playing WoW.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Untrue.

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...geNo=1&sid=1#8

---

Fair enough.

Ellay, the friendly admin:

Quote:

---

Alright I spoke with Lax, unlocking the thread. Please be civil hereafter, he's open to answer any questions/issues regarding the software.
Less meany sauce! :love:

---

Agreed, gotta hate when people jump on the hatewagon. That's why I'm posting.

Suribusi:

Quote:

---

I don't want to jump on anyones intelligence here, so don't take this that way. But the fact that you believe some random poster on the wow forums...is...interesting. In the CS forums, there is always more than meets the eye to what people "claim" they were doing, or "not" doing. I think you know this already, and might just be choosing things that support your thoughts and ignoring others. Maybe I'm wrong. :)

---

Quite right, "welcome to the internet".

Wilbur, another mod:

Quote:

---

I'm lost for words with this thread. Several esteemed members of this community have pretty much reduced themselves to salvating morons. You guys really need to do some proper research before you even *THINK* about posting in this thread again, after all, that is what we are all about.

---

Yeah, I know what you mean.

RobinGBrown:

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter how much you keep repeating this or bleating on about the fine distinction between a platform and the bot that uses the platform because it's not relevant to the issue.

You are not trustworthy.

---

Your opinion is kindly noted and disregarded until you can somehow back it with reason.

Quote:

---

The first two questions should answer the legality issue of InnerSpace quite firmly - because if IS attempts to conceal itself or read memory then it is definitely not safe to use.

---

Please don't make me group you in with suvega, we don't really want that, do we?

Quote:

---

1. Does the InnerSpace 'platform' attempt to conceal itself from WoW in any way?

2. Is the Innerspace 'platform' capable of reading or scanning memory/data of WoW in any way?

3. Do people have to pay for Innerspace or Clickboxer?

---

You'll have to be able to set aside your pretty blatant bias if you want answers.

Quote:

---

Ditto, we've all seen your opinion too, and a lot more than 3 times too, it would be nice if you stopped repeating the same thing as well.

---

Unfortunately, Lax's opinions are backed by fact and logic - more than can be said about yours, from what you have shown us.

Suribusi @ Vyndree:

Quote:

---

Apparently not everyone, because all of your questions were answered already in this section of the forums. Maybe of 4th time will help. 8|

-S

---

We know that, but as I said, she'll have to be able to jump off the hate train at its next stop before she notices.
Up next, part three of my massive wall of text.

From Aethon, a new quotee!:

Quote:

---

As for Lax's software, I DO support it. I also support Keyclone. I encourage people to try different products and see what they like best. If anyone here is in doubt as to the validity of a particular product, ask on the Blizzard forums, I'm sure sooner or later a Blue will respond. If that Blue's answer isn't good enough for you, email their support, tell them you think product X is ok to use and want them to look if it violates anything. As stated many times on the forums, 1 press, 1 action = ok.

---

Thank you for demonstrating use of logic and reason, from what I've seen in this thread, it's uncommon around these parts.

Quote:

---

And a GM on the forums is not what I would call Blizzard endorsing a product. True, they may work for Blizzard, but it's not the same as a press release stating 'company Q fully backs and supports product Y' they simply say it's 'OK to use at the moment.'

---

Agreed.

From Sam Deathwalker:

Quote:

---

WinEQ2 is a Lax Product (which you PAY for) and is 100percent LEGAL in EQ.

From what I see in this thread IS, by itself, appears to be also legal.

1. It is not hidden from Warden

2. No one who has used it has been banned.

Again I just repeat that it sounds to me the argument made against it would be the exact same argument that because you CAN use the G15 programing software as a platform to violate the TOS then you should not buy any product from Logitech, an argument which I find sophistical to say the least.

---

Hot damn, two posts in a row from people capable of thinking! Who'da thunk it? ^^

And again from suvega:

Quote:

---

LOL I love the analogy, because Blizzard is discriminating against whom? People who use a certain peice of software that they find to be shady?
Stop talking out of your ass Sam, you just make yourself look worse then you already do (which is a pretty hard feat imo)

---

And the pot calls the kettle black. Your opinion is again noted and disregarded, as it isn't worth anything until you come up with something constructive.

Quote:

---

c) Claiming that arguments are coming off as "sad and for once its not sam", and that they are "irrational" but have no counterpoints to the arguements is quite ironic imo ;)

---

Again, your opinion is worthless, but thanks for being ironic!

Ah boy, another one.
Jrichard:

Quote:

---

"Blizzard banned several of us a few years ago for vanilla InnerSpace, just to reverse the bans and give us free time. Some of us have never trusted Blizzard since." as it implies that he doesn't bot.

---

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the implication?

Quote:

---

From lax you see a ton of double talk, which is quite pretty to read, and very little actual answering. Eqjoe seems to be running interference. Then we have the forum moderator who drops into these threads every now and again to insult anyone who speaks up against lax. That's a pretty little setup.

---

I see no double talk, post quotes.
Again, cite EQJoe's "interference".
It's somewhat sad that you're casting such a negative light on InnerSpace, yet calling out a mod for "insulting anyone who speaks up against lax". Quote this mod for me, would you?

Quote:

---

As a platform, does IS allow access to WoW memory space, or read or write to any WoW memory space? I'm not asking if Windows can do it, or if the CPU can do it, I'm asking if IS does it or exposes calls/hooks/fucntions to allow scripts to do it.

---

WoW doesn't need to allow acces to WoW memory space. Windows already does. There is an extension, ISXGenHack, that has functionality similar to TSearch from what I understand and also allows easy changing of memory. However, this isn't part of the innerspace platform.
I believe InnerSpace does have some sort of capability for modifying memory, but i'm not sure what it is. I simply don't know. It's pretty irrelevant regardless.

Back to Vyndree:

Quote:

---

i.e. Is the only REAL differentiation between "you" and "lavish software" useful in order to protect the right hand from what the left hand is doing?

---

Even if it isn't, will your strong opinion of bias change?

Sorry, big quote.

Quote:

---

Quoted from "Lax"
I never said I'm not a representative of my company, I said the product is not a Lavish Software product, and that is what we were discussing.



Actually... this is what you asked in your post. (which I quoted in my response in case you missed it)

Quoted from "Lax"
There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software?

---

I'm sorry, I believe you missed an important word there "why". He's asking why a personal act is automatically assumed to be an act of his business, not if it is.

Back to jrichard:

Quote:

---

Your answers are slick and well prepared, try honest short and succint sometime.

---

Wow, the bias in this post is well evident.

Quote:

---

You said no, then qualified that answer, then asked a question. If you had simply said no i would be satisfied. But when i look at your response i see nothing except evasion. You're the one who hurts your own credibility. Your answers are slick and well prepared, try honest short and succint sometime. Even the next to last line of that post doesn't actually simply say no, it asks another question without actually saying anything. To answer your last question, YES, everything about that post tells me all i need to know about using your software.

---

I'm sorry if this is just a shortcoming of your community, but generally people try to back up their statements and/or claims to give them substance. You know, so that there's a reason to believe it? Ex. coming up with PROOF when some wise person claimed the earth was not flat nor the center of the universe?
I didn't perceive any evasion there, just a reply.
If by "slick and well prepared", you mean "prepared with use of thought and logic", then yes, his answers are slick and well prepared. You people are capable of thinking OUTSIDE the box here, right?

And we have a pissing contest about semantics at the tail of the thread.

Ok, I think we're up to date :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136305#p ost136305

I really dont see the point. Lets assume he made 100 illegal botting programs... I really dont see where that has anything at all to do with wheather or not his current product violates the TOS. Either the current product does or it does not. If it does then it should not be used if it does not then it can be used.

---

If Microsoft made 100 programs that could put you in jail, and 1 program that didn't -- would you buy a product from Microsoft and support them even though they make 100 programs you're uncomfortable with?

It's the decision of the buyer -- for sure -- but to me I would prefer (especially since there are other readily-available options out there) to buy one from the company who makes NO programs that could get me in trouble.

Then let's hear about why isxwarden was distributed from ismods.com, a domain which carries this whois information:

Registrant:
Lavish Software

PO Box 90012
Wyoming, Michigan 49519
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ISMODS.COM
Created on: 09-Dec-04
Expires on: 09-Dec-08
Last Updated on: 06-Nov-06

Administrative Contact:
Thaler, Joe lax@lavishsoft.com
Lavish Software
PO Box 90012
Wyoming, Michigan 49519
United States
0000000000

Technical Contact:
Thaler, Joe lax@lavishsoft.com
Lavish Software
PO Box 90012
Wyoming, Michigan 49519
United States
0000000000

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.SHELLPOWER.NET
NS2.SHELLPOWER.NET

Sam DeathWalker:

Quote:

---

I really dont see the point. Lets assume he made 100 illegal botting programs... I really dont see where that has anything at all to do with wheather or not his current product violates the TOS. Either the current product does or it does not. If it does then it should not be used if it does not then it can be used.

Lax is going to go where the money goes and for sure MORE PEOPLE will pay him for a product that is legel and helps them win, then a product that is illegal and helps them win.

I'm defending his postion and I don't have any ax to grind one way or the other, right now I use and recommend Keyclone. If Lax comes up with a superior product that is legal Ill use that, if he dosn't then I stay with Keyclone. Fairly simple.

---

I agree, but in the words of a particular mod, these are our opinions, biased or unbiased.
I can't blame him for wanting a paycheck either. I'm also glad he helps people out so much - were it not for the IS community I probably wouldn't have started learning C# and decided to go to college for programming/networking.

Jrichard again:

Quote:

---

Then let's here about why isxwarden was distributed from ismods.com, a domain which carries this whois information:

---

I'd say the domain name should be fairly obvious. Let me highlight the interesting part:
ismods. I'll assume you don't know what a mod is, so let me include a definition:
n.

1. The act of modifying or the condition of being modified.
2. A result of modifying.
3. A small alteration, adjustment, or limitation.
4. Biology. Any of the changes in an organism caused by environment or activity and not genetically transmissable to offspring.
5. Linguistics.
   1. A change undergone by a word that is borrowed from another language.
   2. A phonological change undergone by a word or morpheme when it is used in a construction, as the change of will to 'll in they'll

Which is to say, not stock/vanilla IS stuff.

Edit: A lot of games provide some degree of support for modifications, ex. The Elder Scrolls series. Why shouldn't InnerSpace support customization/extensibility?

and over and over we've heard how lavish software has nothing to do with isxwarden, yet that's who register the domain.
The isxwow site lists their irc channel to be irc.lavishsoft.com

wow, yeah i see what you mean, lavishsoft has nothing to do with botting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136310#pos t136310

Then let's hear about why isxwarden was distributed from ismods.com, a domain which carries this whois information:

Registrant:
Lavish Software

PO Box 90012
Wyoming, Michigan 49519
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ISMODS.COM
Created on: 09-Dec-04
Expires on: 09-Dec-08
Last Updated on: 06-Nov-06

Administrative Contact:
Thaler, Joe lax@lavishsoft.com
Lavish Software
PO Box 90012
Wyoming, Michigan 49519
United States
0000000000

Technical Contact:
Thaler, Joe lax@lavishsoft.com
Lavish Software
PO Box 90012
Wyoming, Michigan 49519
United States
0000000000

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.SHELLPOWER.NET
NS2.SHELLPOWER.NET

---

As I explained to Blizzard's attorney at my deposition: The intent is that ismods.com could be run by anyone, it is a site to host Inner Space community content that is not from Lavish Software. The fact that I host it has little to do with the Lavish Software site, and whether Lavish Software markets or produces it. Again, as I have explained, nowhere will you find ISXWarden marketed on the Lavish Software web site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136314#pos t136314

and over and over we've heard how lavish software has nothing to do with isxwarden, yet that's who register the domain.
The isxwow site lists their irc channel to be irc.lavishsoft.com

wow, yeah i see what you mean, lavishsoft has nothing to do with botting.

---

irc.lavishsoft.com is an IRC server, it also has #macroquest, but MacroQuest is not a Lavish product. Having a channel on irc.lavishsoft.com does not imply an endorsement by Lavish. If you wanted to go on irc.lavishsoft.com and create your own channel, you could too! You're up in arms about literally nothing.

Jrichard:

Quote:

---

and over and over we've heard how lavish software has nothing to do with isxwarden, yet that's who register the domain.
The isxwow site lists their irc channel to be irc.lavishsoft.com

wow, yeah i see what you mean, lavishsoft has nothing to do with botting.

---

Uhm.... Yeah, Lax owns a site that hosts all sorts of "mods" (see: the IRC and Vent extensions I frequently ues) for innerspace.
ISXWarden is an extension. It is hosted on a site of possible IS extensions. Where is the problem here?

I'm sure through google you can find the site that hosts ISXWoW, which is what makes "InnerSpace WoW botting" possible. I'm sure you're capable of realizing that Lax *doesn't* own that domain.
In case you're too lazy:
http://whois.domaintools.com/isxwow.net:

Quote:

---

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Domain Name: ISXWOW.NET
Created on: 29-Nov-06
Expires on: 30-Nov-08
Last Updated on: 05-Nov-07

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration http://source.domaintools.com/email....5D=transparent
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration http://source.domaintools.com/email....5D=transparent
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order:
NS15.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS16.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

---

If I recall right, Crowley, one of the ISXWoW devs, is the site admin and is in no way related to Lax.
ISXWoW lists their channel for support to be one of the channels on the LavishNet IRC serve. So?

Neither lazy nor stupid, show me the actual domain info unhidden by a host.

funny, there's a poster giving programming advice on the isxwow forums named stealthy

and isxwow was hosted by ismods.com until crowley moved to the new domain

and in the wikki for isxwow.net we find none other than eqjoe and wilbur listed as contributors.

nice happy family you all have coming over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136306#p ost136306

Quoted Multiboxers, as a community, are often misassociated with botters. Multiboxers, in general, would prefer that this no longer happens.

... you see where I'm going here?

Yes, and the solution is simple: Don't automate, thanks.

---

We don't. People who use LavishSoft (along with "3rd party" scripts and along with things like ISXWarden) do. We would rather not be associated with these sorts of people. Granted, Lavishsoft is a "platform", but it's a "platform" well known by the general populace for botters. Therefore, by reputation, we'd be associated with them.

Your solution is noted. We don't automate. Thanks for the astute observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136306#p ost136306

POINT A: Innerspace has the capability of being a platform for bots.

Also see: Any programming language capable of manipulating memory, such as C/C++/C# (the languages most multibox programs were most likely written in).


Quoted POINT C: Fussing with WoW as it resides in memory is gray area

Not really. Reading WoW's memory is a grey area, ask on the Customer Service forums before you do something risky.

---

Can scripts written for the LavishSoft platform read WoW's memory? Yes.
Therefore, scripts written for the LavishSoft platform are gray area.

Does ClickBoxer? From what I understand from it's "click"-feature -- Yes.
Therefore, since ClickBoxer reads memory -- it is gray area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136307#p ost136307

she'll have to be able to jump off the hate train at its next stop before she notices.

---

I can read, for your information. You're an awfully friendly individual for having first shown up here -- you seem to know my entire inner workings from such a simple thread. I'm touched.

Quote:

---

Back to Vyndree:

Quote:

---

i.e. Is the only REAL differentiation between "you" and "lavish software" useful in order to protect the right hand from what the left hand is doing?

---

Even if it isn't, will your strong opinion of bias change?

---

Are you saying the logic behind my bias is flawed? Because a bias, based on facts, wouldn't be considered a bias -- would it?

Can you refute the facts that are the direct cause of my opinion? Or do you think that insulting every member who disagrees with your opinion will be logic enough?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

c) Claiming that arguments are coming off as "sad and for once its not sam", and that they are "irrational" but have no counterpoints to the arguements is quite ironic imo ;)

---

Again, your opinion is worthless, but thanks for being ironic!

---

I wouldn't comment about people's opinions being worthless. I haven't seen much worthiness in your posts as of yet.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As a platform, does IS allow access to WoW memory space, or read or write to any WoW memory space? I'm not asking if Windows can do it, or if the CPU can do it, I'm asking if IS does it or exposes calls/hooks/fucntions to allow scripts to do it.

---

WoW doesn't need to allow acces to WoW memory space. Windows already does. There is an extension, ISXGenHack, that has functionality similar to TSearch from what I understand and also allows easy changing of memory. However, this isn't part of the innerspace platform.
I believe InnerSpace does have some sort of capability for modifying memory, but i'm not sure what it is. I simply don't know. It's pretty irrelevant regardless.

---

You're carrying an awful lot of talk in here for something you "simply do not know".

Windows can change memory -- but an operating system is REQUIRED to play the game. The LavishSoft platform is not required, and while the capability of wrongdoing is not bannable (look at G15's and AHK), they are also not known to have caused mistaken bans in the past either. I don't like AHK, and I think I've made that clear -- and I don't like LavishSoft's platform either. Why? They knowingly allow the use of bots on their systems. They knowingly allow (and in the case of ISXWarden, distribute) ToU/Eula-breaking products that they know, if caught, will get their customers banned. They do not have the good of the customer in mind.

Windows? C++? They are but pawns in the hands of the user.

You're not asking people to use "just a platform". You're asking them to use a developer-written script FOR the LavishSoft platform, that -- like any other LavishSoft script (like ISXWarden, ISXWoW) -- has the capability of doing actions that are not in-line with the WoW ToU/Eula. The developer has admitted that ClickBoxer utilizes some of the memory-reading features of the LavishSoft platform to provide additional featuresets. You yourself have admitted that you don't know how deep these memory-related features go, and memory-reading features are "gray area".




For one so quick to patronize, mock, and insult a community you are so new to -- you have done a great job of leading by example. At the very least, all of my arguments are backed up with facts, not mockery and heavy-handed namecalling.

While I would love to close this thread -- Ellay has been benevolent enough to leave it open for others to have a COURTEOUS discussion. If you insist on slinging insults on your first day in the community against MULTIPLE members and mods, action will be taken. If you're honestly invested in HELPING Lax promote his product, I'd cut with the attitude and personal attacks and start with some facts that actually bring value to the conversation. Consider this your "welcome to the dual-boxing forums" first warning.

Quote:

---

Are you saying the logic behind my bias is flawed? Because a bias, based on facts, wouldn't be considered a bias -- would it?

Can you refute the facts that are the direct cause of my opinion? Or do you think that insulting every member who disagrees with your opinion will be logic enough?

---

No, I cannot refute the facts. As a coder, I have a very different view of things than you do - you make mountains of molehills. The logic used to arrive at the bias is flawed.

Quote:

---

Your solution is noted. We don't automate. Thanks for the astute observation.

---

Great! You have nothing to worry about. Shocker, that.

Quote:

---

Can scripts written for the LavishSoft platform read WoW's memory? Yes.
Therefore, scripts written for the LavishSoft platform are gray area.

Does ClickBoxer? From what I understand from it's "click"-feature -- Yes.
Therefore, since ClickBoxer reads memory -- it is gray area.

---

So "can" any other multibox application if it so wishes.

Quote:

---

I can read, for your information. You're an awfully friendly individual for having first shown up here -- you seem to know my entire inner workings from such a simple thread. I'm touched.

---

Sarcasm noted; idiocy annoys me.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't comment about people's opinions being worthless. I haven't seen much worthiness in your posts as of yet.

---

Congrats.

AFK, warcraft 3 game.

Armchair lawyers FTL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136328#p ost136328

The logic used to arrive at the bias is flawed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136328#p ost136328

No, I cannot refute the facts.

---

So the data is correct, the logic is flawed, and you show no proof of the latter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136328#p ost136328

idiocy annoys me.

---

I'm sorry. It must be hard to live with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136328#p ost136328

So "can" any other multibox application if it so wishes.

---

Except that they don't wish to.

ClickBoxer does wish to. Why? To figure out where to click buttons on a UI.

That is the KEY difference. Keyclone doesn't care to read WoW's memory -- why? Because it's just acting like an input device. One-way. Human keypress to client. Most of the other multibox solutions as well -- hardware setups, multibox, synergy, octopus, clonekeys....


All software products should be just emulators of hardware solutions. Hardware doesn't read WoW's memory and make reactions based on what it finds (i.e. clicking in the center of a UI button). A human person behind the keys should always be the one making the active decisions -- and while reading memory for the purpose of clicking on a button SEEMS harmless -- it's not up to us to decide what is right and what is wrong. It's up to Blizzard. And, as for how it stands now, it's leaning on the side of "wrong".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136328#p ost136328

Congrats.

---

For what? Pointing out the obvious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'stealthy45',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136308#p ost136308

Quoted
As a platform, does IS allow access to WoW memory space, or read or write to any WoW memory space? I'm not asking if Windows can do it, or if the CPU can do it, I'm asking if IS does it or exposes calls/hooks/fucntions to allow scripts to do it.

WoW doesn't need to allow acces to WoW memory space. Windows already does. There is an extension, ISXGenHack, that has functionality similar to TSearch from what I understand and also allows easy changing of memory. However, this isn't part of the innerspace platform.
I believe InnerSpace does have some sort of capability for modifying memory, but i'm not sure what it is. I simply don't know. It's pretty irrelevant regardless.

---

Please be so kind as to attribute me in your quotes so I know that you are attacking me personally.

- Souca -

as i cannot comment directly on the OP (that wouldn't be right), i can address the response of the mods and members of the community

we all (really) love multi-boxing and have put many hours (days/weeks) of time into supporting the community, its members, and have done what we can to insure companies like Blizzard and Sony are happy with our hobby by pointing out the distinct differences between multi-boxing and botting. to this end, i believe we have been very successful in nurturing the ember that was multi-boxing into a valid play style accepted by these major corporations. it has not been easy as we have suffered many attacks, some personal and some a bit more. through it all, the community has held together, behaved maturally / admirably (well... except for skuggo... j/k :D ). this is why i am proud to call myself a member.

after all that, to have someone that is associated with one of the biggest legal thorns in Blizzard's side is obviously counter intuitive to our goals.

all reactions are going to be understandably defensive.

[spoiler]since theses forums do not discuss any websites or software that is against the EULA/TOS or bannable, the path ahead should be clear.
[/spoiler]
just my 2cp worth.

Rob

I should of left it locked when I did, this topic got out of control.